BS: On Same-Sex Marriages

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Joy Bringer
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 04:35 AM

I think overall this thread has proven beyond any doubt that the majority of posts show there isn't a widespread support of perv marriage.

It certainly was a good thread and some honest opinions were expressed. I think it's probably best to wrap it up as really all it is achieving is talking about the depravity and filth concerned with this subject and giving those wishing to befriend such people a platform.

I would close it now Joe. I thank you for permitting the freedom of speech and allowing right thinking people such as myself to express our abhorrence at this ghastly sickening practise.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 04:18 AM

Sure, anytime!

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 04:17 AM

Nawwww..He just has a monkey fetish!

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Joy Bringer
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 04:17 AM

Thank you Guest from Sanity.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 04:13 AM

"If you want to go back a way (say several million years), we have two monkeys sitting and watching a third. "Look," says one monkey to the other, "there goes that Oohoo again, walking around on his back legs! That's just perverted! If everybody did that, it would spell the end of Life as We Know It!!"

Don Firth

Don...I'm afraid you have stumbled upon the truth...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 04:03 AM

Who????Me????

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 03:56 AM

Good mornin' guest...as erudite as ever I see.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 03:35 AM

Hey Ake..I think we cross posted..Salutations!

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 03:31 AM

Hi Joe...I notice the "hate speech " thread has been closed.
I would appeal to you, not to do the same to this one.

There has been a lot of good discussion here and closing the thread would mean all that wisdom (and a little stupidity) being lost.
I would like to think this will stay on the file for new members to read and perhaps add to.

The only thing I would disagree with you about is that the argument is simply between conservative Christians and the homosexual lobby.
I have written throughout this thread as an atheist and perhaps one of the most politically radical on this forum.

Now I may have strange views (to some) on religion and politics but I like to think that I am a democrat on a personal level and to treat the views of those who have a belief as worthless, is simply wrong.

I like to hear both sides of any argument......I many argue strongly against one side, but I would never want them to be silenced..Ake

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 03:30 AM

By the way, I will give you the letters"EI" to answer you question, lansing. Just so you know, that the answer is already there...and of course, its a definition...taken right out of post graduate therapy studies.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 03:24 AM

First of all,in addressing the issue of 'bigotry' BoJ is stating her religious beliefs, and her distaste for homosexuality. That is her belief, and supported by her sources. She has a right to those beliefs, and to express them. Saying she is a bigot, and deriding her for it, relentlessly and ruthlessly, putting her on the defensive, makes it hard for her to function, expressing any thoughts, without being labeled, misquoted, taunted, jeered at, and forced into a position, that originally wasn't even her original intention. This kind of mob ganging up, is in itself bigotry..as I said earlier, "It is the weak who accuse others of their own motives" Whether you agree with her or not, I admire someone who can withstand all the taunting, just for standing by her beliefs. I know I take flak, just for quoting a definition, taken right out of psych 101.(sometimes 202, and post graduate studies, as well...and its just a definition!!!). The more mean spirited disrespect given to her, or anyone else, to whom one might disagree, certainly adds to her argument!. It does not show or convince anyone that homosexuals are as hip and tolerant, as they wish to be perceived. Then there is another issue, that none of anyone out there can prove one way or another.....the only one who could answer this one, wouldn't be here to share the answer....what if she is right?..I guess we won't know till we die, and return to where from we came. By that time, maybe we can convince our Maker, that He needs to recognize 'our' rights!..But until then, let's be civil to one another...and listen fully to the whole matter, before showing ourselves as narrow minded, and therefore stupid.....

As to the question to me from lansing, and Little Hawk, I was so tempted to answer it, when I came on, as requested, but I'm holding back, just a little longer, because of the mood in here, but I assure you it is so self evident, it would make your jaw drop. Also, Little Hawk was in a dialogue with Ebbie, that I thought it should run its course first....Hey...Love to all

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Joy Bringer
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 01:39 AM

Mick, Why do I read your post like it's the results of a psychological assessment ? why did you make threats in your posts last Sunday that you had the power to block or remove my posts ?

Am I missing something here ? Are you the resident hired muscle or doorman ?

The reason I ask is I understand you hold strong Irish republican aspirations.(I must enlighten you as to my own family background, great uncle died in Dublin in May, buried in Arbour Hill Cemetery Dublin).I imagine you will understand this. I have visited the plot here several times, great country, great city.

Anyway back to my point, a lot of people I spoke in Ireland told me of experiences they had at the hands of their so called oppressors. And strangely enough it sounds a lot like your angle on me. They were threatened a lot that if they said something "big brother" didn't like they would have them to deal with. They also remarked on being constantly evaluated psychologically. Their oppressors liked to speak on their behalf.

Sorry Mick, your post last night and last Sunday read to me as that.

I don't have a hang up regarding two men having sex, I find it totally disgusting and two men holding hands in the street is putting this depraved behaviour into my face. Let them perv all they want behind their own walls, just don't push something I find sickening into my life and tell me I must accept it.

Much in the same way Mick, Irish prisoners refused prison reforms in 1976, leading onto a protest and then 5 years later to another stage.

Mick people in this world hold principles. I happen to find a unity of two men in marriage sick. Several members here have tried to bully me into accepting their view. The like of Little Hawk speaks with reason, I don't even read the posts of the likes of Emma and that fool Lox, I just breeze over them, but it's your posts that interest me. I look forward to an Irish thread up here someone. I imagine we will exchange or remind eachother of a few comments.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Big Mick
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 11:25 PM

I will do that, Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 11:18 PM

Mick:

Tell your old friends I salute them for their compassion AND their toughness.


A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 10:39 PM

Sounds like a good approach, Joe.

But as for some third world countries, I have a friend (actually, one of my wife's cousins) who traveled extensively in the Far East, and he said that there were a couple of countries (I believe he said that Indonesia was one of them, but I can't be sure) where the government, concerned about the population explosion in the area, had a campaign going trying to encourage a percentage of the population to become homosexual.

But since homosexuality is not something that, no matter how "socially conscious" one is, one can simply "volunteer" for, they weren't getting that many takers.

(Hmm. Seems I posted that same thing way above some time back; it's getting to where I can just cut-and-paste from my own posts!)

". . . if you don't let these folks expose themselves for the bigots that they are, and if you don't let folks see the fallacies in their arguments, then you are acting out of fear that good people of honorable intent won't make the right decision." Exactly so, Mike!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Big Mick
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 09:47 PM

I said it before, and I will say it again. If one is going to discuss controversial subjects, there will be plenty of things for everyone to dislike. We are not going to delete messages or close the thread because something is posted that you don't want to hear. That is the nature of discussion. You are not going to be successful by making the dubious argument that by BoJ saying that homosexuality is disgusting (in his/her opinion) that he is personally attacking someone you care about. That is a stretch and to demand deletion shows a lack of intellectual depth.

I showed this thread to one of my oldest, best friends. He is a gay man who has lived monogamously with his partner for almost 30 years. I asked both of them, if they were me in the role of Forum Moderator, would they close the thread or delete the posts. They were both adamant that I not do that. My buddy said that if you don't let these folks expose themselves for the bigots that they are, and if you don't let folks see the fallacies in their arguments, then you are acting out of fear that good people of honorable intent won't make the right decision. Both of these men thought that those that would ban them were far more dangerous than the persons expressing the anti homosexual bias.

For what it is worth,

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 09:29 PM

Well, yes, I have received the usual number of self-righteous messages demanding that I close this thread, castigating me and Mudcat for allowing such horrible things to be posted.

And no, I have no intention of closing this thread, although I will try to keep the personal attacks under control and I ask participants to stick to the issue, not the personalies.

This is a very controversial subject. If it is to be discussed at all fairly, there will be opinions expressed that one side or the other will not want to hear. I tend to agree with the liberal side of the argument, but it is important to understand that a large part of the world does not agree with the liberal ideology on this issue and considers homosexuality to be an abomination and homosexual marriage to be even worse. Most third-world countries have no understanding of homosexuality at all, and very little tolerance for it. I live in a very wealthy, Republican county in California, and opinions here about homosexuality are about as tolerant as those of my friend from Rwanda (who is a very gentle and tolerant person who just can't understand homosexuality).

I ask the question again - how can I get my conservative friends to accept homosexual marriage, so they don't vote it into oblivion in November? I don't think I'm going to be able to do it by beating them on the head with a stick. If I want them to be tolerant, then I'm going to have to listen to them with tolerance and understanding, and then convince them with logic and compassion.

And if they vote the wrong way, THEN beat them on the head with a stick.....

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 09:24 PM

Might as well.

Just about anything that anyone has to say on this subject has already been said at least a half-dozen times already and it seems to be going around in circles, establishing that some people believe what they believe because that's what they believe, and no matter how many times you grab them by the ears and point them at reality, I doesn't seem to change anything.

As far as trying to stop people from indulging in "vices" that you disapprove of, anybody remember anything about Prohibition?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Sorcha
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 08:48 PM

So, you gonna close this one too?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 08:15 PM

Well, if you walk around upright AND naked, it does tend to expose things.

Myself, I'd feel downright vulnerable.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 08:10 PM

If you want to go back a way (say several million years), we have two monkeys sitting and watching a third. "Look," says one monkey to the other, "there goes that Oohoo again, walking around on his back legs! That's just perverted! If everybody did that, it would spell the end of Life as We Know It!!"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 08:01 PM

"If we allow this to continue, it will be the end of civilization!?"

This is my feeling re the Pussycat Dolls.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 07:54 PM

This is a test. See if you can make a list in answer to the following question:

How many things have there been since the beginning of time about which someone has said, "If we allow this to continue, it will be the end of civilization!?"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 07:09 PM

"Why would you want to put an onion under your arms? And, if you did, why would it be uncivil (aside from making it awkward to shake hands on short notice)."

Bit like going for a pee behind a tree ...

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 07:07 PM

Which is why society stinks!

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: TheSnail
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 07:05 PM

GUEST,Joy Bringer

It has an effect on the fabric of society.

The fabric of society is woven from armpit hair.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: freda underhill
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 06:49 PM

heh heh...

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 06:46 PM

bee sting? ...

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 06:44 PM

Why would you want to put an onion under your arms? And, if you did, why would it be uncivil (aside from making it awkward to shake hands on short notice).


A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 06:41 PM

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 06:41 PM

freda underarm ...

sounds like an uncivil onion.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: freda underhill
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 06:37 PM

What about armpit hair?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 06:24 PM

I actually think he's gay.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Big Mick
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 06:22 PM

OK....OK.... exactly how many angels can dance on the head of a pin????

This isn't all that hard, folks. Amos has been trying to get you all to see it. Our resident troll would like you all to find the joy in the argument, as it brings gratification to stir the stuff that comes out of the backside of gays and straights alike.

To "get it" one needs to understand the concept of differentiation. A marriage is not a marriage is not a marriage, you see. Marriage in the church is one thing, and the rules are set by the church. They have that right, in a free society, to set the rules that govern who may be in their club and what the rules are. They also have the right to campaign among their members and advocate among the general populace for their views on any number of topics. It is natural that they would advocate for their view of what public morality would be. But they have no ability outside their own organization to mandate anything.

Same thing applies to those that don't belong to any "organized" religion. They have the same right to try and change things as they see fit. But they don't have the organizational base that the churches, interest groups, etc., have available.

Finally, only the State has the ability to legally sanction marriage. The State does not sanctify anything. They simply sanction the union as legally binding. One must be able to differentiate between the church's sanctifying a marriage according to the precepts of their theology, and the States sanctioning the union between two consenting adults. One is subject to the rules of the organization and is spiritual in nature, and the other is sanctioning the legal union according to the laws of the community.

When one examines it thus, they understand that a pluralistic, progressive, inclusive, and diverse society leaves room for all of its members who play by the rules to enjoy the fruits of society.

I just don't get why BoJ, or any other person, has a problem with extending basic civil liberties to all folks who live in a committed and loving relationship. Where is the peril to him/her and their own marriages, in letting folks live a stable life, pass their estates on, have visiting rights in the hospital, and all the other things that go with committed relationships? I have read everything that BoJ has said, and defended the right to say them, yet I cannot help but point out that the only aspect of homosexuality that this person is hung up on is the sexual portion of it. I believe that says something about repression of feelings and bigotry. How would BoJ feel if his/her own relationship was reduced the the scant few minutes of sweaty passion that healthy folks all enjoy? One's sex life does not, or at least should not, define the whole of a relationship.

In short..... I think you need a hobby or something, pal. You are far too hung up on the sex aspect. Have you ever considered playing music?

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Lox
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 05:59 PM

From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 05:45 PM

Sorry folks - that was me.

Logged in now :-)

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 05:50 PM

I defend the rights of those I disagree with in order to protect my own rights to differ from others.

this is NOT the first time I have defended those who act other than I would wish- but within the common law that we as a society have established. To deny them the rights that MARRIED(religous) people have is fine- in a RELIGIOUS setting. BUT the government has the responsibility to treat all of it's citizens with equality- Else I could round up those who practice ritual cannibalism ( ie, all practicing Christians) and insist that they comply with MY view of proper behaviour.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 05:46 PM

And Africans, don't forget them!!!

Dear god, the hopes for a civilization we can be proud of look so pale sometimes, when compared to these inbred vicious viewpoints.

Ake, I am sorry--I missed Greg's remark, but I am also sure it does not apply to all gays.

It is between the gays and their churches to promote or reject church-based change, and I don't care whether they do or don't or try or not.

The only grounds for tolerance in such matters is civil, IMHO--let the churches see their own light. That's why we have a separation of the two in our constitution.

If I were a member of some established church, which I am not, other than the world itself, I would probably vote for tolerance as well, especially if it were a Christian church who believed that God made man in his own image and offered love to all his children, etc., etc.

A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 05:41 PM

Just as a point, Ake, as I have mentioned above, there are a fair number of churches that are members of the mainline Christian denominations (Episcopal, Lutheran, Congregational, Methodist, others), who will perform religious marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples. And they will do so whether the local or national law recognizes these marriages as civil unions or not. These same-sex couples are then married in the eyes of the church.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Joy Bringer
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 05:41 PM

And why would you wish to alter the law to help perv's ?

I don't think bending over back ways to help this type is being responsible Beardedbruce.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 05:41 PM

Now look, folks, we are all entitled to have our own opinions in a free society...

Except for really dangerous types like Bearded Bruce! ;-) But at least he has the courage of his convictions. Note this defiant statement he made:

"Some, not capable of the manliness needed to grow a respectable one (beard) have tried to inflict barbaric ritual mutilation upon the rest of use, but they are WRONG!"

So...THAT's how you see it, is it, Bruce? I thought so. Very well then, sir. So be it. When the battle lines are drawn I expect to see you standing in the foremost ranks of the barbarous bearded hordes, weapon in hand. And you shall see me standing ready amongst the noble and disciplined lines of the Praetorian legions, our gilded eagles and steel armour shining in the sun, our swords and shields ready for the fray, our cleanshaven faces declaring the manhood and purity of the enlightened world for all to see. Then we shall see where manliness lies!

Fortes fortuna adiuvat - Fortune favors the brave. (Terence)

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 05:40 PM

When God tendered the contract for his biological anti gay weapon he must have gone with the same company who make "smart" bombs for the US military.

He managed to get a few gays with it, but sadly had to live with collateral damage due to "friendly" fire.

Pity about all those heterosexuals - male and female - in the third world - and in the developed world for that matter who suffer from aids eh?.

In fact it has been such an inaccurate weapon that Gays number a significant minority among AIDs sufferers.

No hold on - it's there to kill off gays and foreigners!

Well I'm glad I've cleared that one up.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 05:36 PM

As an ordained minister, I would perform a marriage ceremony for any couple (once I met them and knew they were serious. It is the LEGAL (government) marriage certificate that is required , not the RELIGIOUS one. THAT is what is wanted- to be considered EQUAL in the eyes of the law, and not a special case ( with the exceptions that NOT being MARRIED(government) would inflict.

How about we just get rid of marriage in all the laws, and REQUIRE all those with Religious marriages to get a Government Civil Union certification to get any of the rights that presently being married give one? ( legal custody, responsibility, right to visit in the hospital, etc)? Without the Government certificate, they can be "married " all they want, but NOT get what they wish to deny to homosexuals.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Joy Bringer
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 05:36 PM

Yes Don, there you have it. Are you saying my answers are unreasonable ?

Don there are a lot more on this site who hold views similar to mine than you think.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 05:29 PM

Amos...You read the thread.

Further up Greg F said that a civil ceremony was NOT acceptable to homosexuals as it would signal a difference to the heteroexual community....that is the crux of the argument

Stop wriggling.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 05:29 PM

Hey BoJ--it gets even worse!!!

"**www.NewScientist.com - NEWSFLASH***

A gene variant has been identified that appears to be associated with female-to-male transsexuality ö the feeling some women have that they belong to the opposite sex.

While such complex behaviour is likely the result of multiple genes, environmental and cultural factors, the researchers say the discovery suggests that transsexuality does have a genetic component.

Read more here:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14424-transsexuality-gene-boosts-male-hormones.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news1_head_dn14424"

A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 05:24 PM

Okay, "Joy Bringer," fine and dandy. I figured that those were the ideas you harbor and I just wanted to hear you say it.

There you have it, folks.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 05:23 PM

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 05:23 PM

Moustachioed ... you forgot moustachioed ...

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 05:18 PM

BoJ, you are a piece of work. As regards my earlier question about the real difference between yourself and a gap-tooth rednecked bigot, what say you?



A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 05:12 PM

"dirty semen seems to be doing natures work"

... erm ... hmmm ... interesting point!

(?????)