BS: On Same-Sex Marriages

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 25 Jul 08 - 03:33 PM

The real problem, of course, is the government's muddling of religious ceremonies and civil rights. ALL civil unions should be dealt with by governmental agencies--priests or rabbis or anybody wlse notwithstanding. Marriages, whether within some organized religion or not, should not convey ANY legal rights--just whatever spiritual ones that may be involved.

Won't happen, of course, but it's really the only thing that makes sense.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Jul 08 - 05:30 PM

Oh, I understand just fine, Ake. But if that's what you really maintain, I seriously doubt that you do.

I would want my son (who is in a perfectly happy heterosexual relationship, by the way) to lead a happy and fulfilling life, whatever he conceives that to be, even if I didn't necessarily agree with some of his choices.

But choice is not the issue. There is substantial scientific evidence that there is a biological connection (the size of a particular lobe on the hypothalamus) with gender orientation, and it is not a matter of choice. Many biologists consider gender orientation to be as inborn as eye color.

Objecting to your children seeking happiness in life by striving to fulfill their own natures is hardly an expression of parental love.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Jul 08 - 05:51 PM

Don Firth, that is something that often occurs to me. Many, many homosexual people have reported that as early as before the age of 10 they already knew they 'were not like their peers'. It makes no sense whatever to believe that people would choose a lifestyle that exposed them to ridicule, persecution and violence.

When the day comes- and it will - that everyone has no choice but to acknowledge that fact, there will be some red faces. Or there should be.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Jul 08 - 06:15 PM

Exactly so, Ebbie!

In a post way up above, I quoted a gay acquaintance of mine, and I think it merits repeating until it finally sinks in to those who just don't seem to get it:

"From my very early teens, I had girl friends but I felt no physical attraction to girls and women. I did feel physical attraction toward some men. It was not a matter of choice. I did not decide to be gay. After all, considering the prejudice that gays face, not to mention the times one is called 'fag' and 'queer,' and is sometimes actually physically assaulted—who in his right mind would choose to be 'gay'? I had no choice in the matter!"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Jul 08 - 02:51 AM

That figure you are referrencing is less that 2%..Now everybody(100%) is claiming to be part of that 2%....go figure...

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Jul 08 - 03:46 AM

I agree fully with Dick G.
But as our resident "hetrosexual/homosexual activist" says "that is not enough" Church marriage must be redefined!

In other words, religious people must alter their definition of traditional marriage to comply with the homosexual agenda of "normalisation".

Ebbie, Don Firth and Amos, stink of red herrings.
This discussion is not about why people become homosexuals, or if they are born homosexuals....that is another argument.
This discussion was about the rights of one minority, set against the rights of another.....and in my opinion you are all very bad losers...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jul 08 - 04:02 AM

The question is not and has never been whether any church should change, Ake.

What a church allows or does not, within limits, is their own business.

Where has anyone said churches should change??

And you are mistasken about the issue if you think that civil rights for one group lessens those rights for another. What kind of a "right" is it to say "What we shall enjoy under law, you shall be forbidden"?


And, finally, why do you say anyone is losing in this matter, other than those who are denied civil status in their relationships?


A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Jul 08 - 04:11 AM

Do you never sleep Amos!!:0)

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Emma B
Date: 26 Jul 08 - 05:58 AM

I watched an interesting TV programme last night about the development of classical music in post war Britain

One of the greatest contributions was from the personal and creative relationship between Benjamin Britten and Peter Pears which lasted until Britten's death in 1976

Maybe there was no human issue from the 'marriage' but what a great deal of happiness and pleasure the creations of this enforced clandestine relationship gave to the world of music.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 26 Jul 08 - 08:01 AM

Emmma what they gave to the world was 'love'

Yes ... love (what a wonderful thing, that cannot be denied) ... love between 2 men, 2 women, or between a man and a women

We need more love in this world and the hell to what religions say, governments say or the bigoted populace will say.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Jul 08 - 12:54 PM

Love, sex, and relationships, are not the same thing

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jul 08 - 03:30 PM

How enlightening, GfS!! Stunning insight. Explain some more!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Jul 08 - 04:24 PM

Ake, I've asked this several times on this thread, and neither you, nor any of your cadre have even attempted to answer it, obviously because you don't have an answer. So I will ask it again, because it is at the very core of the matter.

My wife Barbara and I have been married for over thirty years. Over these years, we have been acquainted with four same-sex couples, three gay and one lesbian, who have been married in mainstream churches that are willing to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. These same-sex couples include two prominent attorneys, a free-lance writer, a couple of medical technicians, and a state legislator. One is the current president of his local church council, and it, too, is a mainstream church.

How does the fact that they have been married in religious ceremonies have any affect whatsoever on Barbara's and my marriage?

We see no effect at all. Society at large sees no effect at all.

The only people whom it seems to affect are a small minority of people, such as yourself. Why? It really is none of your business. So--why?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: TIA
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 12:20 AM

So that I may properly counsel my own children, could ake and GfS please tell me the story of how and when (i.e. at what age?) they chose to be heterosexual. I would really appreciate the details of their thought processes(es) that led them to their lifestyle choice. In particular, since I am not a professional counselor, I would like to know what is the "proper" thought process for a 12 year old, so that s/he can arrive at a proper and moral lifestyle choice.

Thanks very much.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 02:24 AM

Sure TIA, It wasn't a choice, it is a biological fact, which I accepted as the way it is. We all come equipped with the physical, mental, and emotional tools, of which ever gender we are born with. Being as those things are located in the same body, you can't lead with one and leave one of the other behind. What is so complicated about that??
(I'm sure someone will tell me, and expect everyone to take it seriously)

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Joy Bringer
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 02:37 AM

One word sums to same sex marriages or relationships, REPULSIVE.

If people want to carry out same sex relationships, do it with the blinds closed away from all of us.

Why is it every television soap or quiz show has to push a Gay man into your face ?

Elton John said to the audience of one of his concerts in Brazil a few years ago, "Don't applaud, just send your son's to my dressing room" this sickening remark got a huge applause. If for example Rod Stewart said that about young girls, the press would have ended his career.

Why do these people have to fly their crap in are faces ?
Well nature seems to sort these things out in it's own way.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: harpmolly
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 02:42 AM

Keep bringin' the joy, honey. That's it. A bit more of that sort of attitude, and we can all retire to our bombproof bunkers for the night.

Anyone here ever read "The Handmaid's Tale"?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 02:45 AM

Joy, You are dialed in! The damage the pop media has done is immense..
and who is the target audience?? Young teens in their formative years. It cripples them, and unless a miracle happens, it cripple their children as well. Here, let me post a piece of music(I'm sure some won't like it..Amos might like it, if he's out there..) just for you.. a woman singing to her man, a beautiful song...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ym8pZhOPDI

..enjoy...warmest regards!

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: harpmolly
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 02:47 AM

P.S. LOL...Guest from Sanity, you may not realize that you just made TIA's point. Damn right it's not a choice.

I'm boggled that this thread is still going, almost a year on. Just keep insisting that the gay agenda is deliberately oppressing the whole world by wanting to get married, ake. By the way, your tinfoil hat is getting a little bent out of shape.

Sorry, I know I'm ceding some high moral ground by being unnecessarily snarky. It's been a long week, and this is one brick wall I've banged my head against a little too often now.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 02:52 AM

Hey, as I said before, if homosexuals want a 'union' its up to them..but 'marriage' its not!

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 02:55 AM

I didn't know that it was ASSUMED that what I posted was argumentative..
That's in your brain..not mine.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Barry Finn
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 03:36 AM

Some one mentioned as part of their arugment above that the instution of marrage between a man & a woman has been around for 1000's of yrs & some one else uses the scriptures as a bck up. Homosexuality has been around before the scriptures & recorded religion, poor basis for a debate when it's found in the wild among various species of animals as well as in the human race from time immemorial.

"What a church allows or does not, within limits, is their own business"

No it is not just their business when they use their power to weild their doctrine in the states in which thy reside. It is then the business of everyone.

State & church should be "by law" seperate but talk about the affirs of the bedroom, both should stay completely out of the bedroom, especially when it's becomes a boardroom & they're both in it together deceiding on the affairs of others.

They both can be a cruel & unforgiving mistress but together they can be a scourge upon the human race. As we've bloody well seen through out history.

Think witches for one, then there are the Inquisitions & there are always the later day & present day Crusades. Church & State never did & never will make for good bedfellows, they have to many fucked up beliefs & doctrines & way to many that work from the wrong side of the bed & are far & away buried under way to many covers.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Joy Bringer
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 04:06 AM

Ah nature thins them out!

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 04:52 AM

Just like it thins out the poor African population, presumably?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 05:53 AM

Molly...The reason this thread is still going is that the the pro homosexual marriage brigade are still wriggling!

Not as strenuously I'll grant you, just a last despairing flap.
I seem to have several supporters from Sanity these days!

How is your arse by the way...are the screws still holding out?
I've just received some nice stainless steel ones for my work, which are guaranteed proof against internal corrosion I could send them on?..:0)....xx Ake

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 07:09 AM

One word sums up homophobic bigots: REPULSIVE.

If people want to make rabid, filthy little judgements on the way other people live, do it with the blinds closed away from all of us.

Why do these people have to fly their crap in our faces?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Joy Bringer
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 07:45 AM

The views of sad boring little people account for nothing. Nature will sort the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Joy Bringer
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 07:59 AM

If any of you care to read your bible you will find,

Leviticus 18:22

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination".

Corinthians 6:9-10

"Do not be deceived; neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Open your eyes to the evil in the world today, animals do not carry out such behaviour.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Emma B
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 08:09 AM

Try some other reading too like
'Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity'
by Bruce Bagemih

'On every continent, animals of the same sex seek each other out and have probably been doing so for millions of years.
They court each other, using intricate and beautiful dances that are the result of eons of evolution.'

Males caress and kiss each other, showing tenderness and affection toward one another rather than just hostility and agression.....'

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 08:19 AM

What Em said.

Happily, JoyBringer, I don't allow my world view to be twisted by religious fundies of ANY persuasion. The major evil i see in the world is being pedalled by the likes of you. Wake up to the fact that there is no jusitce being meted out by your god. Otherwise innocent children wouldn't be dying of the very same disease which you seem to think is an act of judgement against homosexuals.

And if it were, what is breast cancer? A judgement against women? Prostate cancer, a judgement against men? Cickle cell, a judgement against blacks? Tey Sachs, a judgement against Jews?


Your god must be pissed off at a lot of people...

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Joy Bringer
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 08:21 AM

Thanks Emma, that explains the behaviour of most of the "so called" male television presenters and singers in the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Emma B
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 08:36 AM

joy Bringer - in the scriptures you quote

'And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.'

It is easy to take any quote from dubious translations of documents from another time and social structure to prove almost any point you wish.

For example -

    "And upon whatsoever any of them, when they are dead, does fall, it shall be unclean; whether it be any vessel of wood, or raiment [clothes], or skin, or sack [storage container], whatsoever vessel it be, wherein any work is done, it must be put into water, and it shall be unclean until the even; so it shall be cleansed. And every earthen vessel, whereunto any of them falls, whatsoever is in it shall be unclean; and you shall break it. Of all meat which may be eaten, that on which such water comes shall be unclean: and all drink that may be drunk in every such vessel shall be unclean. And every thing whereupon any part of their carcass falls shall be unclean; whether it be oven, or ranges for pots, they shall be broken down: for they are unclean, and shall be unclean unto you."
Leviticus 11:32–35

I presume you also practice these dietary laws too?

as....'It is abundantly clear that any "clean" food that comes in contact with a grill, an oven, a pot, a utensil, or a stove that has ever had an "unclean" carcass on it, the so-called "clean" animal has become as tameh (as "unclean") as if it was pork or shrimp or snake! This is the very law of Leviticus and it is without dispute'!

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Joy Bringer
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 11:11 AM

Well done Emma, see you got the NHS thread closed. Really hadn't you down as one of the inner circle here. Well I am pleased for your acceptance, it took a while.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 11:51 AM

Ironic again. That the people who don't believe in the Bible, nor understand it, are quoting it....... thinking it justifies their actions....Scratches my head..

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Emma B
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 12:23 PM

I do not 'justify' MY actions with anything from the bible or any other religious doctrines but don't assume, in your usual patronizing way, that I haven't studied it or understood the meaning of some of its more arcane ordinances.

I choose to believe, like many other non-fundamentalist brought up in the Christian faith, in the evidence of evolution for example.

F. Belton Joyner Jr., a retired pastor and author, notes that no one can "take their Bible straight" because any reading of the Bible goes through our all-too-human filters.
That's why you can pretty much prove anything you want by quoting Bible verses picked out to conform to your point.'

It has been said that
'Oftentimes the Bible verses someone quotes tells you more about the person quoting the Bible than about the Bible verses themselves.'

so I conclude with Matthew 22:34-40

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 01:36 PM

Two points:

I have yet to find a fundamentalist who understands the Bible in any overall sense, which is one of the reasons they feel free to cherry-pick verses out of context and recombine them in an effort to support their narrow prejudices.

Those who are the most vociferous in their condemnation of homosexuality often have issues with their own sexuality that they haven't the courage to face.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanitty
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 01:56 PM

yes, there is another quote...really a good one too.."Now the end of the commandment is love out of a pure heart, and faith unfeigned, from which some having swerved, have turned aside, desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what the say, nor what they affirm"

also, you keep saying I am 'patronizing' you, being as you use that term,, You handily incorporate an underlying hostility toward men. I assure you, I have no hostility towards men or women at all. Actually have written extensively on men post WW II, have been rather ignorant of the needs, and inner needs of women, and how the 'woman's movement' was a backlash, to that ignorance. But alas, the pendulum swings, which of course it always does, and now there is a backlash to woman's ignorance of men. During the 70's 80's and 90's, there was quite a wave of impressing upon men, the need to understand women and the way they think, and how to communicate to them in a way they both understood, and felt, as if they were being heard. I think most everyone in here can attest to that. You can see it in every aspect of media, music, films during that time. However, during that same time, there was absolutely no counterpart to that, where women learned about men..Now the backlash to that is certainly upon us. I think you'd be utterly surprised where I actually stood, in regard to linking broken marriages back together, by opening those lines of communication between the two, and making it fun and enjoyable for the both of them. For what its worth, men are reluctant, to allow a third party, to counsel them, because of their preconception, of what their going to hear, coupled with having someone come into their marriage, and confidences, that may just 'over rule' him. Once we get started, they love it. Women on the other hand, are the ones who usually come to initiate the counseling...but once they start, have a harder time saying "I'm sorry", for virtually, any wrong ever done, by them. Just a fact. Both have their ways of approaching their respective issues.    OOOOOOOOOHHH, by the way, there really IS a difference in men and women, in they way they both perceive and understand. Being homosexual does NOT bridge that, as well.
I truly wish, that you and some others, could possibly even consider, that when I'm posting, that there is much, and considerable compassion
and empathy, that i have. Have a great day...I'm going fishing.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 02:06 PM

To bring things back to the subject.

1. Civil marriage is a legal act. The city, county or state has no concern about the beliefs behind the act or who officiates within certain broad definitions. Judge, priest, rabbi, guru, minister, parson, rector, or what-have you. The legal act is to provide a civic status. Many poeple have two ceremonies, one to satisfy the civil requirements, with a judge or a courthouse clerk presiding, and anopther fancier one to satisfy the family requirements for a show, or the religious requirements for formal or ritualistic steps. The two facts of marriage, civil and legal versus religious, are ENTIRELY separate functions.

2. Civil marriage is marriage in the eyes of the law. Religious marriage is marriage in the eyes of some church or other religious group.

3. The issue of same-sex marriage has nothing to do with your or anyone else's weird little religious obsessions, mantras, dogma, scripture, voodoo ceremonies or anything else related to the highly various world-views of the several religions. It has only to do with legal status in the eyes of the law, which provides legal rights of representation, property, inheritance, and other items purely of legal concern, a civic matter.

4. No-one gives a damn if your church will or will not bless a same-sex couple, as that is entirely beside the point. If it will not, let them go elsewhere. If it will, blessings on them in return. But it totally beside the point. The issue is LEGAL, not spiritual.

5. Your spiritual convictions about right and wrong and Bibles or sacred scrolls or mystic chapbooks or any other paraphernalia of incantation have no bearing on the question, and should be left out of the discussion, but probably will not be because ye of little mind just can't help conflating things in a mush of over-association that by rights should be kept clearly distinct.

A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Emma B
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 02:13 PM

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Emma B
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 02:19 PM

ooops!

Sorry was overcome with laughing that I 'handily incorporate an underlying hostility toward men.'

Get real - I just resent being continually told I don't understand / comprehend etc etc etc anything you say that I happen to disagree with GfS

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 02:39 PM

Guest from Sanity/Joybringer seem to be coming from a remarkably similar dogmatic position.

Just saying.

Praise be and all that.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 03:02 PM

"have written extensively on men post WW II, have been rather ignorant of the needs, and inner needs of women, and how the 'woman's movement' was a backlash, to that ignorance. But alas, the pendulum swings, which of course it always does, and now there is a backlash to woman's ignorance of men. During the 70's 80's and 90's, there was quite a wave of impressing upon men, the need to understand women and the way they think, and how to communicate to them in a way they both understood, and felt, as if they were being heard. I think most everyone in here can attest to that. You can see it in every aspect of media, music, films during that time. However, during that same time, there was absolutely no counterpart to that, where women learned about men..Now the backlash to that is certainly upon us."

Correct. We are now in a society which has spent several decades thoroughly exploring women's rights, needs, and concerns...as was a good thing to do...but in the meantime men have been psychologically cast adrift. And that has caused damage of its own in society, so, yes, the backlash to the big pendulum swing is upon us.

A similar backlash is occurring in regards to various issues of race.

When, in the effort to redress old grievances a society becomes so self-consciously aggressive over them that it creates new grievances...well, then you have some serious disillusionment setting in, as those who have been cast as martyrs or saints turn out not to always be so saintly as the public image would demand. No, they turn out to be as imperfect as the rest of us. They are not always the martyr. They are not always the saint. They may be the perpetrator, not the victim....yet the officially sanctioned script still wants to cast them as the eternal victim of "prejudice".

This may not jibe with the reality at all, and when it doesn't, you get a backlash.

*****

As for same-sex marriages... (shrug) I don't care one way or the other about that. It doesn't interest me who other people decide to marry.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Joy Bringer
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 03:24 PM

"Those who are the most vociferous in their condemnation of homosexuality often have issues with their own sexuality that they haven't the courage to face"

That old cry is worn out Don.

I used to hear it from the ladies at work if I remarked on some guy in the office who had a charm to care piles. I have always had a healthy interest in adult women. The thought of a man applying tissue damage to an annal passage of another man is repulsive. What is even worse is when you have to listen to them promote their filth on television or net. I don't come on here to tell you I jockeyed my girlfriend last night and this morning and go into detail. I came across a programme on Channel four last week were two fruit flies were detailing their bedroom games. I turned it off. Sickening.

---

I have been contacted by a number of folks asking me, in my role as Forum Moderator, to do something about the homophobic posts by Joy Bringer. I have looked at these posts carefully, and I don't see anything that would constitute a reason for deletion or blocking. While I do not share this person's views, in fact I find them ugly, s/he is simply expressing an opinion in a thread about a controversial subject. It is not our role to screen posts for content, but rather to screen them for personal attacks, or in some cases, for hijacking of a thread. We might also delete if they are simply going for sensationalism with no content, or just attempting to be vulgar. None of those apply here. And one simply cannot have a thread about a subject of controversy and expect all posts to be what we like to hear. All the best, Big Mick

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 04:25 PM

This thread has really gone off the rails since I've been away!

We're not supposed to be talking about whether homosexuality is moral or not. Homosexuality is a fact of life...for whatever reason and nobody wants to go back to the days not so long ago, when these people were persecuted and imprisoned.
In fact, an old joiner whom I worked with many years ago remembered men being shot for what he called "Oscar Wilding" during his time in the Army.

No. this discussion is about rights and the Pro homosexual marriage section keep trying to drag it back to "Homosexuality ...Right or wrong?"

Another worrying thing is the way people who against homosexual marriage are being portrayed as either "Christian fundamentalists" or bigots....do you not know that supression of free speech is a crime against reason!

The folks round where I live are no sort of fundamentalists most are grandparents and not even very devout, but most of them love their wives and see a church marriage as a constant thread running through their lives.   I know most of these families intimately and can say truthfully that not one of them would be in favour of the marriage ceremony being re-defined to accomodate the homosexual agenda.
Neither are they bigots, as we have a homosexual couple living among us and they are well excepted in everything, except in the definition of marriage.
Please try to keep to the subject....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 04:39 PM

"That old cry is worn out, Don."

'Fraid not. It's based on both sound psychology and a lot of observation. Both your obsession with the subject and your level of "disgust" tends to lend weight to the idea. Take a good look in the mirror!

And—just a point to further dash your hopes, O Bringer of Joy:   I don't believe that nature will thin out those with same-sex orientation, because humans have been on this planet for many hundreds of thousands—if not several millions—of years, and as long as the gene(s) that affect that particular area of the hypothalamus are in the gene pool, there will be people born with same-sex orientation. Sorry, O Bringer of Joy, but no joy for you! Nature is not going to solve your problem for you.

###

The four same-sex couples I mention above all live in Washington State.

Washington State does have a law on the books that limits marriage to one man and one woman, but this is not in the State Constitution, and on April 21, 2007 Washington Governor Christine Gregoire signed a bill that gives same-sex couples some of the legal rights of marriage in Washington State. That law offered very few benefits, but in March 2008, the Washington State Legislature passed a measure to expand the law to include more than 170 of the rights that are granted to heterosexual married couples.

In addition to granting rights to same-sex couples, Washington's law allows opposite sex couples who are over age 62 to enter into a domestic partnership so they will not lose their pensions and Social Security benefits.

As to the law limiting marriage to one man and one woman, this is in that same body of laws that prohibits business from being conducted on the Sabbath and levies a fine for shooting rabbits from a cable car on the Queen Anne Counterbalance.

The main opposition to changing these antiquated laws come from a number of churches. But there is no unanimity among them. A substantial number of churches, both in this area and nationwide, have joined the "Reconciled in Christ" movement and have signed the following statement:

"As a community of God striving to be inclusive and open to diversity, we welcome all people to join us as we struggle to better understand the mysteries of God's teaching and purposes for us. Although our world can seem to be a place of alienation and brokenness, Christ calls us to reconciliation and wholeness. We are challenged by Christ to care for, to love, to understand, and to listen to each other, regardless of our race, age, gender, marital status, physical and mental abilities, sexual/affectional orientation, national origin or economic status. We celebrate the special gifts that each has to bring."

And they were local "Reconciled in Christ" churches (a couple of different denominations) that married the couples I have mentioned—whether civil law recognizes the marriages or not. So "The Church" is not monolithic. Not all churches are in agreement on this issue, not matter what some of our Bible verse quoters seem to think.

But—Amos is absolutely right about this. This may be of religious interest to some, but religious belief should not be allowed to dictate legislation, and what certain religions may or may not believe should have no bearing whatsoever on matters of civil rights.

And this is a civil rights issue.

Marriage, in actual fact, existed long before such unions were given "the benefit of clergy."

As to the matter of procreation, some same-sex couples do want children. There are a couple of ways of accomplishing this. Perhaps the easiest method is adoption. Twice now, the two attorneys I mentioned above have made trips to China and adopted infants from a Chinese orphanage, and are raising them. These kids are going to have a much better life with Steve ("Daddy") and Dave ("Papa") as their parents. Granted, it's not a conventional family life, but it's far better for them than no family life at all. And Steve and Dave have the resources to see that these kids get good educations and have everything they need. There are a lot of kids in the world who are not so lucky.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 04:40 PM

Ake:

You are 180 degrees out on your last post, amigo. I was making exactly the same point you just made!!! The issue is not moral (or religious) judgement, simply civil rights.

In fact by birnging the church's marriage ceremony into it, you are sliding back into the religious aspect. But you raise an interesting point.

There are plenty of secular (non-religious) marriage ceremonies, lean, simple and direct routines used by JoPs or courthouse staff whop have no collar or religious title. They are civil ceremonies.

The marriage ceremony used by civil officers is religion-neutral, by necessity.

Why should extending it to include same-sex couples offend any member of one or another denomination or sect? Where is the harm, offense, or infringement? I hear you say (up thread) that this would infringe on others' rights, but you have not answered my repeated questions as to whom and how such hurt would occur.

But denying those civil standings to individuals because of their sexual orientation DOES infringe on equal rights under the law.


A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 05:22 PM

Amos...My stance throughout has been from the viewpoint of traditional Christians.

I think if homosexuals want civil unions they should have them, but as has been said many times, that does not satisfy the homosexual activists, who want re-definition.
It's all about "normalising" homosexuality but as I stated right at the begining, that will never happen while the vast majority of the worlds population perceives the act as disgusting.

And by the way, all this talk about homosexual animals is laughable.
My family have kept livestock of all kinds (hens geese sheep cattle) for nearly one hundred years, and although defiant behaviour does occur, it is extremely rare and can always be explained by stress of one sort or other

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 05:40 PM

CLICKY #1, CLICKY #2, and CLICKY #3.

And there's a whole lot more where those came from. But I can't sit here making links all day. Other things to do. Like play a little music.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 05:46 PM

I, too, have received a number of complaints about this thread and others today. I really don't want to take any action. It seems so contrary to the principle of free discussion. Please keep it civil, people. If somebody taunts you, do your best to ignore it.

I think I know what the opinion of the vast majority of Mudcatters is on this issue, and I agree with it. However, there is a tendency to consider all who oppose gay marriage to be "homophobic" and evil. If the polls are right, almost helpf the people in my "liberal" state of California oppose gay marriage, for a variety of reasons. I can't believe all those people are evil homophobes, even though they dare to disagree with me.

So, be civil.

-Joe Offer, Forum Moderator-


By the way, I agree with the closure of the "overweight" thread. It was mean-spirited from the start, hardly the way for a newcomer to bring joy to our forum.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 05:53 PM

600!