BS: On Same-Sex Marriages

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 04:07 PM

I have straight mates who neither act straight nor flaunt their sexuality publically,how i wish they were all like that because they are ridiculously offensive and annoying.And why do television people think that we would be entertained by them,do they think straight = funny? To all straights,shut up,fit in and keep your sex life to yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 04:08 PM

Do you mean my last post was irrational Don?

Because I thought I had laid out an example of a minority's "rights" subverting a majority's "rights"

The homosexuals want their lifestyle accepted by Christianity or Islam, regardless of the firmly held beliefs of the followers of these religions.

It should not matter to homosexuals whether they are "married" in church or not, other than to push for more acceptance by mainstream society

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 04:16 PM

"I see little difference between denying rights to a gay person, man or woman, and denying rights to someone because their eyes are pale blue, or their hair is red, or their skin is dark brown, or their eyes are differently shaped."

The difference is, granting those "rights" to homosexuals denies or affects the rights of the Christians or Moslems.

And if you cannot see that difference you should not be having this discussion...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 04:26 PM

The homosexuals want their lifestyle accepted by Christianity or Islam, regardless of the firmly held beliefs of the followers of these religions.


You are mistaken, Ake. They want civil rights to marry, regardless of what churches say or do not say.

The big difference is that civil rights -- and granting them to others -- is a concomitant of citizenship.

Being a Xian or Muslim or Jane or Jew is entirely voluntary. In this country, as well as in the UK, no matter which of these sects or groups you belong to, you are obliged to respect the core set of civic freedoms of others. The firmly held beliefs of Christians, for example, are respected as long as they do not leak into the commons in such a way as infringing on the more basic civic rights of others.

We lived through all this in the Sixties; the Klan had religious beliefs about the superiority of races, for example. We fought through it in the 40's where religious justification was used to promote eugenics and racial extremism.

It doesn't work and it should be clearly and deliberately eradicated as a flawed cognitive process; it is not a belief, it's a neurosis.

A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 04:27 PM

"The difference is, granting those "rights" to homosexuals denies or affects the rights of the Christians or Moslems.

And if you cannot see that difference you should not be having this discussion..."Ake

Well, I, for one, don't see that "granting those rights to homosexuals denies or affects the rights of the Christians or Moslems."

In what way? I'm serious.

And don't you be tellin' me that I should not be having this discussion. Ha, I say. Who are YOU?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 04:48 PM

I'm the idiot who set you right about the UK withdrawal from Basra :0)

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 04:58 PM

But how does the granting of those rights to homosexuals deny or affect the rights of the Christians or Moslems?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 05:22 PM

Sorry KB but I just can't be arsed. (if you'll pardon the expression)

Sometimes life's a bitch and you've just got to work things out for yourself....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 05:33 PM

I take it you don't have a valid answer.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 05:37 PM

"The homosexuals want their lifestyle accepted by Christianity or Islam, regardless of the firmly held beliefs of the followers of these religions."

Not so.

Most gays that I'm acquainted with (about 8% to 10% of the people I know, which, according to Alfred Kinsey, is the general demographic of the whole human race) don't give a billy hoot whether their lifestyle is accepted by certain Christian churches or not. I specify "certain Christian churches" because some Christian churches accept anyone who wishes to participate in the spiritual life of the church regardless of their sexual orientation--or practice. EXAMPLE, just nine blocks south of where I live. And HERE is where they spell it out specifically. And there are quite a number of other Christian churches all over the country that are signatories to that same "Affirmation of Welcome."

Was your post "irrational," Ake? Well, it was most certainly inaccurate.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 05:39 PM

Boy, now I'm getting confused... ;-)

How does someone else's marriage choice affect my rights? The only thing that can directly affect my rights is a law restricting my behaviour, seems to me. If I were restricted by law from marrying the person of my choice, then that would be an attack on my rights.

What do I care who the other guy (or gal) decides to marry? Like I said before, that's his or her cross to bear. If people want to marry, they obviously have an important emotional connection don't they? What does that have to do with my rights?

If they wanted to alter the rules of a church I was in, of course, then I would be concerned. As I'm not in any church, I'm not facing that particular issue. If I were, then I would face the issue within that church, but not outside it. Yes...I can understand that congregations are having trouble dealing with the issue when it comes to things like gay marriage within the congregation....gays entering the ministry...etc.

Okay, fine, so it's a problem for them. I guess they'll work it out whichever way they collectively decide to as time goes by. Fine with me. It's not really my business, is it?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 06:15 PM

In the church I linked to in my post just above, they discussed the matter long and hard before they decided to become a signatory of the "Reconciled in Christ" Affirmation of Welcome. When the congregation took the vote, the votes in favor were an overwhelming majority, something like 95%.

I think about four or five people left the church and joined other churches. But once the word was out that Central had signed the affirmation, there was a sudden influx of new members. Maybe twenty-five or thirty people right off. And it's continued to grow since.

And no, not all of them were gay. Some were, but most of the new members were young married couples, many with young children. They wanted to join a church, and had been looking for a one that was liberal, open-minded, and focused on the positive aspects of religion, such as being socially active in the community (free lunch programs, helping the homeless find affordable housing, and such), and being mutually supportive. They had tried many churches, but wanted nothing to do with the exclusivity, negativity, and easy condemnation of others that so many of them seem to be bogged down in.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 06:24 PM

"But how does the granting of those rights to homosexuals deny or affect the rights of the Christians or Moslems?"

oh, that's easy...it interferes with their right to self-righteous condemnation of inferior beliefs. ...(not a trivial thing)

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 06:24 PM

These kind of disputes over doctrine have been troubling churches ever since there were churches. Read the history of Christendom and be glad that we are just arguing verbally about stuff like that now. In the past people went out and fought religious wars over differences in doctrine, burnt thousands at the stake, killed hundreds of thousands in battle, gouged out people's eyes, and generally committed mayhem on one another. The only "rights" that concerned them were their own...mainly their right to dictate to others how and what to believe.

We've clearly made some progress in the last 2,000 years.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 06:27 PM

Ah, yes, Little Hawk.

But there are some folks out there who long for the Good Old Days. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 08:36 PM

Nobody seems to have mentioned this, but civil unions do not convey the same rights as marriages do. Married couples (of whatever gender or species)can get a break on pension claims, hospital visitation privileges, insurance, and taxes.
    The Federal government doesn't recognize civil unions, regardless of state laws.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 08:49 PM

Ake, I wish you could be arsed to answer that question. Knowing you, I should think that you have an answer but when you dismiss it like that, it makes me wonder.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 09:35 PM

Eeeeeh. I do like a good laugh. This thread has some belters.

I could not care less what people get up to in private. Public is a bit different and it does annoy me, just a little, when I see overtly sexual behaviour being accepted from the gay community while it is frowned upon when from the other camp (pun intended). Manchester council, in the same year that they approved the gay pride parade, including some floats featuring almost naked people simulating sexual acts (yes - before you ask I was there), also decided to oppose the license for a lap dancing club. Now, to be honest, I am not fond of either but the mindset that prohibits one while approving the other is a bit beyond me.

I suppose I will get tarred with the homophobe brush now. I couldn't realy give a fig about that either. I know I am not. This thread however is not about sexual behaviour, much as some people like to turn to that topic at the drop of a hat, it is about marriage. I really don't see the point of this particularly outdated institution for either hetro or homosexual couples. I married young. Am still married to the same person. Even if we did not have that bit of paper we would still be together. Why don't we campaign against all marriages instead of for gay marriage?

Last point - Remember the Leviticus thing? I looked up the link...

Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable

Surely that should read 'that is impossible'? Or do they just mean you should not lie with a man and then moan that the ceiling needs decorating? Or that you should not tell a bloke you were working late at the office whereas it is OK to say that to the mrs? These OT prophets are just like modern politicians aren't they - Meaningless bollocks.

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: katlaughing
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 09:53 PM

Well, for one thing the Gay Pride parade probably wasn't planned for 365 days out of the year and presumably the lap dance club would've been open year round, correct? Not saying they were wrong or right, just that it is not a very balanced comparison, imo.

And, yes, the OT profits(sic!) were a bit OTT!

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 09:55 PM

Heh! I like your post, Dave. I agree that the in-your-face aggressiveness of certain individuals in the gay community with stuff like the Gay Pride parades we see has become downright obnoxious. It's a case of the pendulum swinging too far the other way...and that seems to inevitably happen with any persecuted groups who gain the courage to face that persecution and also the general public support to face it effectively...

...they soon get carried away with themselves. They become one-issue people. They become pests. (I mean...a few of them do. The ones who can't think of themselves apart from their particular beef with society. It's the permanent 'hero/martyr/am I not persecuted and must you all not be partially to blame for it?' syndrome. It gets bloody tiresome, no matter who's doing it.)

Yeah, I've seen that happen with just about every embattled minority I can name. The old holier-than-thou dynamic starts to take hold and it becomes a royal pain after awhile. It's an emotional blackmail tactic, and it's one of the most powerful forces driving the unholy engine of what has come to be called "political correctness". It reeks of hypocrisy and self-serving.

As to the phrase "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman", well, that was simply put in the polite vernacular of the time. It was a bit of a euphemism, perhaps, but its meaning was clear: To "lie with" someone meant "to have sexual relations with them". It did not mean sleeping beside them on the same mattress. It did not mean telling an untruth. It meant having sex with them. Period. It meant that and only that. But you knew that, didn't you? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 10:12 PM

Ahhhh - But was it in the polite vernacular of the time. LH? I would agree entirely if we were talking Victorian England or whatever date you would care to mention in Biblebelt land but was it 3 or 4 thousand years ago? How do we know the author was not having a bit of a laugh?

Kat - never thought of the time differences. You are quite right. The club DID keep the 'naughty bits' away from the eyes of the children though whereas the parade did not! And you know - I never even though of the profits/prophets angle. But the two do seem interchangeable nowadays though don't they...;-)

Dave

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 10:27 PM

Well, Dave, it's been translated over a period of some millennia from Hebrew...to ancient Greek...to Latin....to English....to multiple other languages...

How do we even know what the heck was originally said by the person who wrote it? Maybe he was being polite, maybe he wasn't. ;-) Hard to say, really. I think we would need a time machine to get to the bottom of this one (no pun intended!).

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: katlaughing
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 12:03 AM

Another presumably: no one was forced to take their children to either the parade or the club, right?*bg*

I have had a blast at gay pride marches. It was a chance to be "out there" for so many of our friends and family who, instead of uptight and repressed as they had to be in day-to-day life, had a blast just letting it all hang out, no pun intended. And, for the record, I have never seen full nudity at the ones I've been in. I think it is easy for folks to forget just how closeted lesbigays have had to be over the years. So some of them may go overboard, so what? No one is going to make you attend. Does anyone complain about the scantily clad marchers during Mardi Gras, women throwing their panties and all? Anyone ever complain about hetero couples practically mating on a grassy knoll in a park? It's this country, being SO puritanical in its views about our bodies and sex that really upsets me.

Yea, that's about the way I see it re' the prophets/profits of today, Dave. And, I don't mean just the religious ones...there's Profits of Fear, that's a BIGGIE right now!

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: harpmolly
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 12:05 AM

Says it all, really. ;)

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 01:02 AM

Thanks, Molly!

Right on the money! That's going to keep me snickering for quite a while!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 09:13 AM

Does anyone complain about the scantily clad marchers during Mardi Gras, women throwing their panties and all? Anyone ever complain about hetero couples practically mating on a grassy knoll in a park? I'd rather imagine they must, or how come it's possible to write "this country, being SO puritanical".

Not that you'd need to be puritanical to complain about stuff like that, any more than about those who bellow into mobile (cell) phones on public transport, or about other instances of bad manners and disregard for other people.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 10:24 AM

There's a lot of stuff to complain about in this world... ;-) I want to take just a moment to complain about the young people who gabble on at the table beside me and use the word "like" 35 times a minute...."I'm, like, you know, like bla bla...she's, like, bla bla... and, like, I'm, like..."

I've become a crabby old person who can't stand contemporary youth culture! How ironic...!!! ;-D (I remember the 60s)

But think...just think...how much incredibly cooler I could have been...if...

If I was Black! I'd have "rythm".

If I was Jewish! I'd understand what suffering means.

If I was Native! I'd have intrinsic nobility and understand what suffering means.

If I was female! I wouldn't be so stupid, so unutterably oafish and dense. And my appreciation of sexuality and of emotional matters would be so much more perceptive and multi-leveled...

If I was gay! I'd be so much more broadminded and far wittier, but in a really subtle way...and my sense of style would be just devastating.

(sigh) I have sooooo missed the boat in this lifetime. I am boring, dull, mainstream middle class oatmeal white male, and I probably bear partial moral responsibility for all kinds of historical injustices that happened long before I was born! (sob!)

WHY, WHY couldn't I have been someone "special"??????????

Someone ought to write a funny folk song about it.

(As usual, I think both sides of the issue at hand deserve to be made fun of now and then for taking themselves so damn seriously, and figuring the world revolves around their specific concerns....)

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 10:43 AM

For instance, if I could've only been someone like this guy...

Now, THIS is someone on the inside track...you can tell instantly...

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: katlaughing
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 10:43 AM

Ya mean like THIS,LH?

McGrath, I suppose there are those who complain about the mardi gras parades, but they don't get rabid about, that I know of, and don't try to ban the whole thing. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 10:47 AM

He tells it like it is...and he KNOWS oppression when he sees it!

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 10:56 AM

Yeah, kind of like that, Kat. ;-) I think that's a Valley Girl from the 80s, right? She still uses the word "says" instead of replacing it with "he's, like" or "she's, like". The thing with devolution is that it can always find a way of going one notch further down as time goes by.

I must mention, however, to be fair, that the inarticulate style of dialogue adopted by numerous "freaks" in the late 60s through early 70s was equally moronic. Let's be evenhanded about this, eh? ;-) A perusal of some of the hippie comic books of the time will provide some insight into the sillier aspects of the youth culture of that era.

I was desperately in love at that time with a girl who used the word "like" a lot when she didn't need to. If I was back there now, knowing what I know now, I'm afraid I would probably find her quite annoying. She was crazy about Dylan and so was I. That helped.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 11:05 AM

We know all about them bastard people. Them bastard people with their budgets and their fancy circular ways of saying fuck you in thirty-eight syllables. They'll cut your throat soon as look at you, them bastard people, and they'll tell you its for your own good, because what you can do? We oughta send them back to Russia. That's what. Trouble is, it is really hard to track down bastard people. They camouflage themselves. You can think you're talking to a nice sensitive human, and all of a sudden you find your looking into them cold calculating eyes and you realize your up against one of them bastard people. It is never a nice surprise, either.


A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 11:14 AM

Damn right. Specially when you need a mere paltry $100,000 grant to put some real art in front of their ignorant faces. Bastard people! They're everywhere.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: katlaughing
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 10:48 PM

Remember when Max used to name the Rat Bastard of the Week on Mudcat Radio? Man, I miss that!

So...puir ol' Ditzee Lee is so 80's, huh? Wait til she hears that!

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 12:16 PM

Didn't he give that up after CH took it 35 weeks in a row? ;-)



Dizti Lee is, like, soooooo 80's...I'm, like, give me a break?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Greg B
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 01:27 PM

Nobody has said it yet, so I will:

There is a homophobic cycle which is intrinsically evil, and the whole
opposition to same-sex unions is an inherent part of that cycle. Even
those who don't admit it.

It goes something like this:

1) Child learns in schoolyard that anyone who is 'different' is the
   subject of ridicule.
2) Child learns about homosexuals, and the terms 'queer' and 'fag'
   enter his vocabulary of derisive terms. (I personally remember
   being habitually called 'faaaaag' by a socially prominent girl
   in my 6th-grade class who took a dislike to me. I think it was
   right then that I became a (heterosexual) gay-rights activist.)
3) Child eventually (perhaps) has the moral formation to get rid
   of many of their prejudices. However, many of those same religious
   institutions which abhor racism, prejudice against those with
   disabilities, and even some measure of gender equality still
   teach that homosexuals are morally defective. Having fewer
   choices now of 'different' people to vent their hostility,
   child becomes even more hostile towards homosexuals. Expressions
   like "that's so gay" come out of the mouths of young people who
   would never think of using the n-word.
4) Hostility breeds contempt, contempt breeds ignorance, and ignorance
   breeds all sorts of myths about homosexuality and homosexuals.
   That they're apt to be child molesters. That they recruit. That
   somehow their lifestyles diminish or threaten those of
   heterosexuals.
5) Myths get turned into rationalizations for why homosexuality IS
   immoral and should be suppressed. Human beings being what they
   are, they do a very good job of rationalizing their own fears.
   And it gets sung from the pulpit and across the dinner table,
   and heads on back to school.
6) And so it goes on from generation to generation.

Every so often, someone makes the leap that it's okay to kick the
crap out of some 'queer' on the street either because he came on
to a buddy or maybe just because he is what he is.

And make NO mistake, the 'moral authority' of certain religions who
describe view homosexuals as essentially less valuable persons, or
who declare them to be morally flawed, or who oppose them having
the same civil rights as any other members of society is part
and parcel of this evil cycle of bigotry, prejudice as well as
emotional and physical violence.

The priest or minister or imam who stands up and claims the moral
high ground on this is no different than the schoolyard bully who
beats up the kid who wears glasses or dresses different. Indeed
he's worse, because not only should he know better he's gone out
of his way to find ways to shore up his claims of superiority. He
is a conscious and willing link in the chain of hatred which has
at the end the consequences to homosexuals which run the gamut
from marginalization to mayhem and murder.

And if you think that the self-righteous types who talk about the
'sanctity' of 'one man one woman' marriage aren't willing
participants in this cycle of evil, think again. These aren't
'innocent' beliefs of the freedom of religion.

They're hatred, as surely as racism is. They're just wrapped up in
prettier packages.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 01:30 PM

All true. Anyone seen as "different" gets ridiculed and bullied. It's herd behaviour, and it's driven by fear.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 03:57 PM

And if you think that the self-righteous types who talk about the
'sanctity' of 'one man one woman' marriage aren't willing
participants in this cycle of evil, think again. These aren't
'innocent' beliefs of the freedom of religion.

They're hatred, as surely as racism is. They're just wrapped up in
prettier packages.

Hawk....Surely this is the strident attitude which you rightly condemned several posts ago

It's not so long ago that homosexuality was illegal. Nobody that I know wants to return to those days or to see homosexuals bullied or persecuted, but the post above is typical of many homosexual's opinions. THEY have the hatred and wish to use emotional blackmail on those who adhere to conventional sex and marriage.

As I said earlier they have become in large measure a pressure group, bent on coercing society into accepting a lifestyle which a large majority find abhorrent . The push for marriage rights is just one example. The use of the word "gay" to disguise what their lifestyle really means is another.

We have come a long way indeed if hetrosexuals in conventional marriages should feel ashamed of their way of life and beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Wesley S
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 04:22 PM

Excuse Akenaton - Do you KNOW any homosexuals? Have you ever talked to them? Where do you get your info that they hate straights?

No one is asking hetrosexuals in conventional marriages to feel ashamed of their way of life and beliefs. So why should gays feel that way?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 04:29 PM

Wesley.    READ.....Absorb.....Then ask questions.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Wesley S
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 04:39 PM

So when you don't have an answer to someone's question you just dismiss them? That's pretty lame.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 04:42 PM

It's not the first time.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 04:43 PM

"THEY have the hatred and wish to use emotional blackmail on those who adhere to conventional sex and marriage."

No, Ake. As a group, most gays don't hate anyone or wish to use any kind of emotional blackmail. They just want to have the same civil rights as anyone else, and to have the bigots leave them the hell alone.

If you find their lifestyle "abhorrent," that's your problem, not theirs. And you have no right to try to force your brand of morality on anyone else.

As I have mentioned above, my wife and I know at least two same-sex couples, and at least one of these couples are fairly good friends of ours. What they do in their own apartment has no affect on anyone else, and if it endangers Barbara's and my marriage in any way, someone is going to have to explain just how.

Denying rights on this basis is just plain bigotry, pure and simple. It's no different from racial bigotry.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 04:56 PM

I'm usually a bit bothered by people who overdo it at either end of an issue, Akenaton. Sometimes I'm even bothered by myself in this respect. ;-) Let's face it, the BS in this world is never confined to only one side of any given issue.

And on the other hand, we probably all have some pretty good reasons for whatever it is that we tend to get upset about too.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 04:59 PM

Don..I think we are at cross purposes and I understand what you are saying.

My post was in response to Greg's which I thought "over the top" and an example of the reaction syndrome which Hawk and Dave had been discussing earlier.

I have no intenion of replying to Wesley and KB in words of one syllable, to a question which a couple of minutes reading will answer. (Anyway, it takes up far too much room on the old hard drive :0))

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 05:07 PM

Hawk you're just too GOOD to be true!!:0)
Sainthood beckons, unfortunately we've already got a ST GEORGE....but as he's English maybe we could arrange a swap...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 05:17 PM

I have read the entire post ake, I am well aware that you do not like the idea of equal rights for same sex couples. You have not shown how granting those rights infringes on your rights in any way. I am not the only one on this thread who feels this way as "a couple of minutes reading" will show. I do not appreciate your condescending attitude.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Wesley S
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 05:27 PM

I have read his posts too. I still don't have the answers to my questions. So I'll repeat. Do you KNOW any homosexuals? Have you ever talked to them? Where do you get your info that they hate straights?

And I would prefer answers to attitudes.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 05:30 PM

Apologies to Wes and KB....I didn't mean to sound dismissive or condescending, but thought my meaning was clear from my prevoius post.

I wish people would stop trying to personalise this discussion, it proves nothing. My personal opinions have no bearing on the points I make.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: harpmolly
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 05:34 PM

OK, I tried really hard not to jump in here (other than letting Roy Zimmerman say it for me ;)) but here it is:

akenaton: "As I said earlier they have become in large measure a pressure group, bent on coercing society into accepting a lifestyle which a large majority find abhorrent . The push for marriage rights is just one example...We have come a long way indeed if hetrosexuals in conventional marriages should feel ashamed of their way of life and beliefs."

I don't understand the logic here at all. Homosexuals aren't trying to coerce anyone to change THEIR way of life in any way, shape, or form (unless you count asking society at large to treat gays with the same respect, compassion and empathy you would give anyone else). They are asking to be given the SAME rights as the rest of the population. No one outside of the legislative body is being asked to put themselves out or exert themselves one jot. They can keep on having dinner with the family, watching the game, going to church, loving their neighbor as themselves, etc. They can keep on enjoying the privileges that marriage allows them under the law. There is NO action required on the part of Joe and Jane Sixpack whatsoever.

The biggest flaw in your logic is this: why do you put forth the idea that hetero couples are being "coerced" into being "ashamed" of themselves and their way of life? Homosexuals are asking to SHARE that way of life, not criticize it. With all due respect, ake, your assertion makes utterly no sense.

As for "coercing society into accepting a lifestyle which a large majority find abhorrent", I find the actions, words and "beliefs" of a great deal of the most fundamentalist religious practitioners abhorrent, especially when they preach hatred and bigotry. But I am forced to accept them and allow their way of life to impact that of myself and my friends. They are given a special privilege by way of their highly unscientific "faith" that my homosexual friends are denied on the basis of their body chemistry. How is that fair? (To forestall your inevitable reply: no, I may not be in the majority on this, but our Constitution--or what's left of it--guarantees me equal rights and equal protections under the law.)

By the way, I certainly don't mean to offend the faithful among us. I don't condemn spiritual or religious beliefs; I just don't believe they should be used as a crowbar to jimmy the lock on rational discourse.

Ugh, baaaad metaphor. It's a sign of my overcaffeination that I can't think of anything wittier. ;)

Molly