BS: On Same-Sex Marriages

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 04:34 PM

Cellular division?

Does that pertain to mobile phones?

Textual intercourse perhaps?

Are they homotextual?

So gays can have babies after all!

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 04:34 PM

IF they're not sexually mature, there is hardly anything to get off in the first place. Moot and null.

Those angelem, now, they're somp'n else. Nothing sexier in the world than an angel overflowing with love, I reckon...



A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 04:38 PM

". . . cellular division."

Now, that's where I draw the line!!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 04:43 PM

you and your shameless line drawing - disgusting!

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 04:44 PM

Now...just a minute here! I happen to know that there are men in this town, plenty of 'em...who are nowhere near being sexually mature, yet they have been engaging busily in sex for years (if not for decades). There are some women like that here as well. Many have even had children. Whatcha gonna do about THAT, huh? Well?

BB - I have no problem with Stonewall Jackson, Lincoln, Moses, and all those guys having beards. Beards were okay back then because they were in fashion. We MUST not violate present day fashion mores, you see! That way lies madness! Now if we were living in the 1860s, I'd be all in favor of beards, yes I would, and I would try to grow one, wretched as it is! If that failed I would purchase a false beard and wear it. But we are not living in the 1850s. Our present western culture heroes (such as George W. Bush and Maxwell Smart and Captain Picard) sport NO facial hair. Obama has no facial hair. Elmer Fudd has no facial hair. That should tell you something.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 04:56 PM

But those who engage in cellular division are little better than pond scum!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 05:04 PM

Pond scum wants to be respected too, you know!

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 05:04 PM

... grooaaannnnnn ...

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Joy Bringer
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 05:06 PM

Don. You require answers to the following questions.
   
"In what way does the marriage of Paul and Philip have any effect whatsoever on Barbara's and my marriage?"

Don it doesn't have any effect on your marriage. It has an effect on the fabric of society. If you wish to turn away and say, "I'm alright Jack sod off and leave every waif and stray to do what they want unchallenged" that is fine, just don't moan when your kids or grand kids lose all respect for everything you and your parents before you held dear.

Don, we watch as drugs become acceptable in society, which is wrong.We see a younger generation with no work ethic. I grew up in a family environment were my father worked hard for every penny he had. No laying in bed until 12noon and leech off the social services which has also become acceptable as a profession these days. My mother cared for four children, we wanted for nothing. She taught music and worked in the evenings when my father returned home. We went to church every Sunday and we lived a clean life.

The denim jacket brigade came of age and took seats in government, it was the beginning of the end.

Your second question, "If gays spread disease as you say they do, would it not be better to encourage them to form committed, monogamous relationships?"

Don, If you think condoning a unity of two perv's will stop or slow down the spread of Aids that is your view and your entitled to it.

Sorry but nothing or no reason could ever see me condone two adult males having sex. This is vile perverted evil act. I have two Tom cats and they won't even do it. I am sorry if you don't share me views, but I will not change my opinion. I so wish it would go away, dirty semen seems to be doing natures work.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 05:06 PM

LH - don't encourage him ...

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 05:09 PM

"Beards were okay back then because they were in fashion. We MUST not violate present day fashion mores, you see! That way lies madness!"

If you think that, I want to hear you singing along with Hannah Montana....


Beards are ALWAYS in fashion.

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

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 05:09 PM

"I have two Tom cats and they won't even do it"


I see ...


"The denim jacket brigade came of age and took seats in government, it was the beginning of the end."


Don't forget the leather trousers and little peaked caps.

Not to mention the moustaches - and there I was worrying about beards!

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!

(?????)

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 - 05:23 PM

Moustachioed ... you forgot moustachioed ...

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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: GUEST,lox
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 06:24 PM

I actually think he's gay.

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 - 06:41 PM

freda underarm ...

sounds like an uncivil onion.

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: 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 - 06:46 PM

bee sting? ...

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: 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: GUEST,lox
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 07:07 PM

Which is why society stinks!

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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: Sorcha
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 08:48 PM

So, you gonna close this one too?

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Big Mick
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 11:25 PM

I will do that, Amos.