 sj |
||
|
||
BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
|
|
|
Subject: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 31 Aug 07 - 12:51 AM Iowa judge approves gay weddings (BBC News) Same-sex couples are banned from marrying in 49 of the 50 US states A county judge has struck down a ban on same-sex marriages in the US state of Iowa as unconstitutional. Judge Robert Hanson ruled that a law allowing marriage only between men and women violated the rights of due process and equal protection. Polk County Attorney John Sarcone said he would appeal against the ruling. Only the state of Massachusetts allows gay marriages. Nine others - including New Jersey, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Vermont - offer civil unions. Civil unions do not give gay couples the same legal rights as heterosexual marriages. 'Significant step' The Iowa decision came after six gay couples sued Polk County in 2005 after it refused to give them marriage licences. Judge Hanson ruled that the state's 1998 Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as solely between a man and a woman, violated the couples' constitutional rights. He ordered county officials to issue licenses for the six couples as he made the ruling. One of the couples' lawyers, Dennis Johnson, said the decision was: "A significant step forward in recognising the constitutional rights of all Iowans." "And it's an amazing day for same-sex couples and their families all across Iowa," he said. As soon as the decision was announced, Polk County attorney John Sarcone moved to prevent any same-sex couples from marrying until the appeal was decided. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: TRUBRIT Date: 31 Aug 07 - 01:07 AM It's a shame that Atty Sarcone has nothing else to do to fill his time..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,PMB Date: 31 Aug 07 - 03:59 AM People who love each other are to be recognised as living together! Civilisation will collapse! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Leadfingers Date: 31 Aug 07 - 06:47 AM Doing a Ceilidh at a Civil Union or Gay Wedding , has a totally different conception of 'Now swing the Other way' ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: kendall Date: 31 Aug 07 - 07:32 AM What are the homophobes afraid of? No one told me who I could or couldn't marry, so where do they get that right? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: John MacKenzie Date: 31 Aug 07 - 08:22 AM It's often a religious tenet Kendall, and not just homophobia. G |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Bee Date: 31 Aug 07 - 08:36 AM Giok, the religious who hold to that tenet do not have to marry anyone of the same sex, nor do their pastors/priests/ministers have to perform the ceremonies. There are hundreds of religious tenets which do not make it into the civil laws because they are only important to those who practice that religion. Do we rail against the legal eating of pork? Do Orthodox Jews try to pass laws against pigs? It is homophobia, which means fear. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: John MacKenzie Date: 31 Aug 07 - 08:57 AM I'm aware of what it means, I'm just pointing out that homophobia is not the sole reason for objections, and I thought that Kendall's post was therefore misleading, and possibly denigrating of those who oppose it for religious reasons. Just trying to be fair in other words. Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Rapparee Date: 31 Aug 07 - 09:26 AM My own opinion, which is worth what it costs you: Permit a legal civil union, with all of the attendant tax and other benefits, for anyone who wants it. Define "marriage" as a religious ceremony that can be blessed by a Church or not, as the Church sees fit. "Render unto Caesar" and all that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 31 Aug 07 - 10:25 AM Rapaire has just written the post I'd been going to write. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Bee Date: 31 Aug 07 - 10:35 AM Same sex marriage is legal in Canada. No church is required to perform marriage ceremonies for anybody, gay or straight, and before (and still) anyone even thought of same sex marriage, churches of various sorts refused to perform marriage ceremonies for all kinds of people, the divorced, different religions, non-members, etc. That has not changed. The religious are not inconvenienced except in the case of their own particular sect/church/minister deciding to go against their personal wishes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 31 Aug 07 - 10:36 AM "Being stupid as a member of Congress is hardly a reason to be ridden on a rail from Washington. But Republican presidential campaigners are urging Mr. Craig to resign fast as a swift boat. One senator offered the ultimate rebuff between political pros by returning Mr. Craig's campaign donation. Underlying the hurry to disown the senator, of course, is the party's brutal agenda of trumpeting the gay-marriage issue. To the extent Senator Craig, a stalwart in the family values caucus, might morph into a blatant hypocrite before the voters' eyes, he reflects on the party's record in demonizing homosexuality. The rush to cast him out betrays the party's intolerance, which is on display for the public in all of its ugliness. But it also betrays their political uneasiness as the next election approaches." Me, I like the policy of tolerance. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Wesley S Date: 31 Aug 07 - 10:42 AM A favorite cartoon shows a man at a party saying: "This whole issue of gay marrage makes a mockery of all three of my marrages". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: katlaughing Date: 31 Aug 07 - 11:26 AM The religious tenet against is homophobia, period. Amos, thanks for posting that about Iowa. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: John MacKenzie Date: 31 Aug 07 - 11:36 AM If you can produce the person who wrote the religious prohibition of these practices in the Bible, and explain his motives for writing it I might be persuaded that you are right Kat. There are however people who follow the teachings of the Bible blindly and who are not amenable to persuasion that it/they may be wrong, for them it's devotion and not homophobia. Sorry to split hairs on this one, but I feel that the emotive language used on this subject often bears no relation to correct English. Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Bill D Date: 31 Aug 07 - 11:42 AM 25¢ says the Iowa judge will be overturned.....I'd love to lose that bet. A man & a woman can go get a civil marriage with no church officials in sight.... My proposal is that any couple who wishes to be 'married' should have a number of types of 'contracts' available, or even submit their own for approval, and therafter be bound by what they sign....and NO requirement as to M/F, M/M, F/F...ot other possibilities. IF they are same sex and want a religious ceremony and find a religious group who will allow it...fine... Let it be between themselves and their God. I am rather tired of folks pointing and complaining that someone else's ceremony 'makes a mockery' or their own. POOH! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: katlaughing Date: 31 Aug 07 - 11:49 AM Fair enough, Giok. I should have stated that as my opinion. I guess that would mean your posting was emotive, for me, at least. Me, too, Bill! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: kendall Date: 31 Aug 07 - 11:51 AM People marry for love of another person. Period. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: kendall Date: 31 Aug 07 - 11:56 AM Giok, why do you think the religious people believe only in concave and convex? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 31 Aug 07 - 12:11 PM A person's religious convictions belong in his home, in his church, or under whatever tree he likes to dance around naked beneath. They don't belong in my home, my friends homes, or in the chambers of government. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: folk1e Date: 31 Aug 07 - 12:59 PM IF it were purely religious in reasoning there would be not only opposition to same sex marriages, but to streight marriages performed by differing denominations / religions! I havn't noticed this happening! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 31 Aug 07 - 02:32 PM Stay Apparently Ends Practice Of Issuing Licesnes A Des Moines minister married two Iowa men on Friday in the state's first legal same-sex marriage, but the window for those who rushed out for licenses quickly closed when the judge who allowed it stayed his own order. Sean Fritz, 24, and Tim McQuillen, 21, were married Friday morning by Rev. Mark Stringer of Unitarian Church in a service in the front yard of his home. Fritz and McQuillan are the first same-sex couple to be married after a Polk County judge's ruling that Iowa's gay marriage ban violated the state's constitution. "This is it. We're married. I love you," Fritz told McQuillan. Stringer is a reverend at the First Unitarian Church of Des Moines. The minister, who didn't know the couple before Friday, concluded the ceremony by saying, "This is a legal document and you are married." Judge Issues Stay The window for same-sex couples to get marriage licenses was only open for about four hours Friday morning. The Polk County judge who had ruled Thursday that the state could not bar same-sex couples from marriage just because of their gender placed a hold on his own order pending a state Supreme Court review. Polk County Attorney John Sarcone had said his office would appeal the case to the Iowa Supreme Court. The Associated Press reported that the county recorder said she was ordered to stop issuing licenses to same-sex couples. Julie Haggerty said she was instructed by the county attorney's office after Judge Robert Hanson verbally issued a stay of his ruling striking down same-sex marriages. Judge Robert Hanson said the stay was officially filed early Friday afternoon. Haggerty said about 20 marriage applications from gay couples were accepted before she was told to stop. Couples Line Up At least four same-sex couples were lined up outside the Polk County Recorder's Office at the courthouse when the office opened at 7:30 a.m. Friday. The county recorder said 11 out of the first 12 marriage licenses issued Friday morning were to same-sex couples. The law requires a waiting period of three business days. But the male couple who married said the waiting period can be ignored if they pay an extra $5 and get a judge's signature approving an expedited process. The couple said they got an approval signature Friday morning from District Court Judge Scott Rosenberg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: KB in Iowa Date: 31 Aug 07 - 02:49 PM "Haggerty said about 20 marriage applications from gay couples were accepted before she was told to stop." So I wonder, will those 20 couples be allowed to get married with the licenses they have received? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Bill D Date: 31 Aug 07 - 02:53 PM "The Polk County judge who had ruled Thursday that the state could not bar same-sex couples from marriage just because of their gender placed a hold on his own order pending a state Supreme Court review." Yep...I don't think I'm gonna lose my quarter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: bobad Date: 31 Aug 07 - 03:03 PM I have nothing against same sex marriage, everyone should have the same right to be miserable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Don Firth Date: 31 Aug 07 - 03:26 PM I believe that early on, the religious prohibitions had to do with "go forth and multiply," the command to increase the tribe. Any "waste of seed" (any activity, solo or with a partner, that did not have the potential of producing offspring) was considered a sin against the "go forth and multiply" prescription. And the idea that God destroyed Sodom because they were practicing "sodomy" there is just somebody's half-assed (!?) idea. There is nothing in the Bible that specifies that! I know at least two couples who are "out of the closet." Both couples are solid citizens. One of the guys is a member of a writers' group Barbara and I belong to, and he's an excellent writer. When we have social gatherings, he and is partner often come. A fellow in the other couple is politically active (not limiting himself to "gay" issues) and has recently been elected to the state legislature. Politically, he and I are in very close agreement on a lot of things. I see no reason why these two couples (and a few other such relationships, both male and female, that I am acquainted with) should not have the full benefits that any committed couples have. The "defense of marriage" issue? Someone is going to have to do some tall explaining and come up with much better reasons than I have heard yet to convince me that letting these folks have the same rights and privileges that heterosexual couples have, in any way, effects Barbara's and my marriage. I agree with Rapaire. And, although it is perhaps more famous for its social activism in general, there is a church near where we live that will marry committed same-sex couples, whether the law recognized the marriage or not. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 31 Aug 07 - 04:20 PM On this point, the law is a piece of ass.... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Mike Miller Date: 31 Aug 07 - 05:00 PM The issue of marital rights and obligations requires a look at the history of the institution. It is not as religion based as one would imagine. There are. or were, cultural and moral reasons for their establishment. In an era of more defined gender roles, they protected women from desertion and children, from abandonment. The societies, of the time, were of one religion, so religious bias was the same as societal bias. Times, admittedly, have changed. Women are as likely to be providers as be provided for. (I, for instance, am covered by Helen's medical plan from work). Our society is so mottled as to forbid a state sponsered religion, even if the pious wanted one. There isn't a single religion, in this country, that could command a majority and Christians are as fragmented as Moslems. But, and this is a big but, all those feuding Roman Catholics, Protestants, Moslims and a whole lot of others agree about recognising gay marriage. They're agin' it. And they are being told that they must change their beliefs and they are fighting for their truths and who can blame them? Of course, there is a simple answer. Get the government out of the marriage business. Let all "marriages" be civil contracts, specifying terms and duties. Let the religions have their Marriage Ceremonies and let them excercise their rituals and, if those rituals preclude same sex unions, so be it. Let the government be concerned with governing and, either grant gay partners equal legal entitlement or deny marital entitlement, altogether. That means tax breaks, inheritence rights and tacit power of attorney. Of course, the churches would bitch about it but it would place the responsibility for maintaing religious discipline back where it belongs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Riginslinger Date: 31 Aug 07 - 05:08 PM Legalized polygamy is right around the corner. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: katlaughing Date: 31 Aug 07 - 05:26 PM Mike Miller, well said, though I suppose Riginslinger has a point.:-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Bill D Date: 31 Aug 07 - 05:30 PM I'm not even against polygamy in principle...or polyandry, or other complex forms. But the rules for it would need to be VERY careful, and there would need to be notarized, witnessed agreements by all parties stating that they are aware and cognizant of all the terms. No more 'pressure' setups by obscure sects with underage girls being the focus... Yes, I could write up the rules, but nawwww...I won't bother, because I think it's HIGHLY unlikely to ever be legal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 31 Aug 07 - 05:37 PM They are NOT being told they must change their beliefs in any way. They are being told they do not have the right to impose them on others who do not subscribe to them. I'll call "Amen" to that any day. If I believe girls who display cleavage in public are agents of Satan, which as anyone who knows e will attest I do not, I can work hard to find and associate with only women willing to live under that belief. But neither I nor any governmental agency has any right to say to those who believe otherwise "This is a satanic act and therefore illegal." Conversely, no member of the Temple of the Golden Globes has any right to force anyone to display their cleavage. IT is a purely volulntary, if divine, transaction. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Riginslinger Date: 31 Aug 07 - 06:01 PM "I'm not even against polygamy in principle..." You're right, I suppose, if it wasn't taking advantage of underage girls, and everything was documented as you say. But why, then, wouldn't it become legal? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Mike Miller Date: 31 Aug 07 - 06:05 PM I always wanted to be a high ranking official in the Temple of the Golden Globes but I am told that it is just a titular position. About the gay marriage thing, all we have to do is stop calling civil unions, "marriages" or have the churches/synagogues/mosques/storefronts/etc. call their "marriages" something like "holy unions". Oh, Hell, let them call their stuff "marriage" if they want. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: dick greenhaus Date: 31 Aug 07 - 06:13 PM Mike Miller- All any government deals with are civil unions. The confusion lies in calling it "marriage". The state sholdn't give a damn about religious connotations--it should insure that all citizens be entitled to the same legal rights. These include such things as hospital visitation rights, tax status, inheritance rights, pension rights etc. FRankly, if legal polygamy is just around the corner, I would have a great deal of trouble working myself up to giving a damn. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Bill D Date: 31 Aug 07 - 06:17 PM "But why, then, wouldn't it become legal?" Because of all the (rightfully) negative publicity it has received over the years, and the general attitude that "if it is THAT attractive, it must be immoral". The history of the LDS church and other groups who have tried it has pretty well colored the concept in the eyes of the public. Also, other cultures which DO approve it are not very popular these days. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Riginslinger Date: 31 Aug 07 - 07:21 PM Yes, I suppose you're right. Those weird church groups have really been negative, but the way I recall it, they were taking girls in their early teens and placing them with 40 something year old men. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: kendall Date: 31 Aug 07 - 07:40 PM I have a friend who is a rabid believer in traditional marriage. I have tried to nail her down to explain why she gives a damn what other people do, how does it cause her any trouble, but I never get an answer. In my opinion, it is simply being a control freak, but of course neither she nor any other homophobe I have ever met will admit that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: dick greenhaus Date: 31 Aug 07 - 08:20 PM I find it difficult to get too worked up about the sanctity of traditional marriage, when about half of the traditional marriages wind up in divorce. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Joe_F Date: 31 Aug 07 - 09:35 PM If I were a Supreme Court justice (God forbid), I would say government doesn't belong in the marriage business at all, and most especially it doesn't belong in the sanctity-of-marriage business. Let the various religions & nonreligions define marriage as they please. If any number of people of whatever sexes want a legally enforceable cohabitation contract, let them write it & sign it -- by & with the advice & consent of their churches, if they want. The tax code has no legitimate interest in marital status except insofar as it includes dependence, which can be defined in purely economic terms. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Mike Miller Date: 31 Aug 07 - 11:21 PM I thank Mr. Greenhaus for translating my thoughts into Mudcat. As the good Mr. G knows, I am a firm believer in traditional marriage, the traditional marriage vows and the sanctity of the institution. I have carried these beliefs through all my marriages as, you can be sure, have all my wives. Mike |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Art Thieme Date: 01 Sep 07 - 12:10 AM Whether you are an atheist or sincerely religious, to me, simply stated, it's about inclusion rather than exclusion. Oh, the master guards the sheepfold bin And he wants to know, "Is my sheep brung in?" And he's callin', callin' -- callin' softly, softly callin' For them all to come a-gatherin' in! Love, Art |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: katlaughing Date: 01 Sep 07 - 12:51 AM Ah, Artdarlin'...too true. Dick, you said it so well, too. I could do with a couple of more fellahs around the house for all of the "Honey-Do's" that need doing! Polyandry I hear you callin'! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Riginslinger Date: 01 Sep 07 - 09:01 AM How did this "One Man/One Woman" thing ever get started in the first place? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Mike Miller Date: 01 Sep 07 - 10:06 AM I don't know how the one man/one women rule started but I know how it got into Christianity. The earliest converts were Roman women and, in the first couple centuries of Christianity, the church had the gender breakdown of a bridge club. Sure, the men were in charge but they had to address the needs of the flock. Women, probably because of maternity, are less likely to want multiple mates. It is every man's fantacy that women are as constantly horny as men but, alas, it ain't so. This gender generalization seems to hold true, even, among gay men and women. There may be female equivilants to tea rooms, glory holes and the baths but I haven't heard of them. Mike |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 01 Sep 07 - 10:33 AM Monogamous life-long marriage is believed to be a good team-building exercise, and a survival trait. I don't off hand see any particular advantage it has over a well-balanced polyamory arrangement, but it is possible that jealousy and self-interest make the politics of such an arrangement unstable. If that is true as a general thing, it would have lower survival value in the reproductive cycle for the species, I suppose. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: John MacKenzie Date: 01 Sep 07 - 11:44 AM Is this the Polly Amory you had in mind Amos? Come to think of it, that LuLu VonLightswitch looks a lot like you. Giok ¦¬] |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Desdemona Date: 01 Sep 07 - 12:02 PM I live in Massachusetts, and the night before same-sex marriage became "officially" legal in 2004, my morris team was one of several that went down to the State House for some celebratory hankie-waving, bell-ringing action...one of those times I felt proud of my home state. And you know what? In 3.5 years, the Earth has STILL not opened up and swallowed the Commonwealth whole...go figure! ~D |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Justa Picker Date: 01 Sep 07 - 12:20 PM I think there is way way way too much hoopla being made about same sex marriages and same sex legislation. I believe governments should shift the focus more towards helping ANYONE who's been in a long term relationship - and instead be enacting SOME sex legislation. :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Bill D Date: 01 Sep 07 - 01:08 PM A number of years ago, (like in those weird 60s, man!), there was a book, Proposition 31, examining the idea of plural marriage, by Robert Rimmer (who had written several other books examining our moral/sexual proclivities...notably, The Harrad Experiment.) Now, it seems that Propostion 31 is available online. It is a fascinating read which explores almost all the issues that confront both individuals AND society if such practices are attempted openly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Mike Miller Date: 01 Sep 07 - 07:55 PM Of course, when we speak of plural marriage, we are, historically, referring to one man/one harem. It is every man's fantacy, to have a bevy of buxom beauties bedded before breakfast. (Excuse me. I have been attacked by a swarm of B's). I am reminded of the end of an Ogden Nash poem. Dear, I don't mind being married to you But I wish I could marry a carpenter, too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Cruz Date: 02 Sep 07 - 12:22 AM I disagree with the masses here on this issue. Gay marriage should never be legal. My reasons are not important because they will not change one mind nor would I try. There are some stances in life regarding human behavior that cannot be explained fully as "right" or "wrong" on a broad scale. I will have to live with whatever decision voters decide in our democracy, but I will always vote against measures allowing for gay marriage. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 02 Sep 07 - 12:52 AM Wal, Cruz, I would be interested in your rationale for the decision to vote against any such measure. What is it you think would happen? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,The Caretaker Date: 02 Sep 07 - 11:08 AM I agree totally with Guest, Cruz. The masses HERE are in the minority in the real world. Gay marriage is not moral and does not benefit society, only those who do not want to fit into it. It is where tolerance has gone too far and become endorsement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Riginslinger Date: 02 Sep 07 - 11:54 AM On the other hand, there could only be a tiny fraction of the population who would be interested in engaging in it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Bill D Date: 02 Sep 07 - 12:36 PM ah-HA! Here is "The Caretaker" with some of his agenda from that OTHER thread exposed! I will say clearly...I endorse people being able to live openly and freely with whomever they wish, under whatever sacraments they prefer, as long as their choices do not affect my own. ...and I cannot imagine how 'gay' marriage would affect me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,The Caretaker Date: 02 Sep 07 - 01:10 PM Of course you wouldn't Bill D. Of course, if it's against the law, I would not endorse it. But I guess there are always outcasts of society who don't like the laws and have to complain about them. But isn't it hard for you to be tolerant of people who don't agree at all with a gay lifestyle. You didn't attack Cruz, who I merely agreed with. If you want to endorse a gay lifestyle, it's your right. Gay marriage is against the law in most states. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Bee Date: 02 Sep 07 - 01:41 PM But gay marriage is perfectly legal in Canada, and our society has only benefitted from the tolerance we have for same sex couples, who may now settle (and they do) in contented families, having said their vows before the world instead of in secret. The only plausible reason for insisting on denying marriage to same sex couples is a fierce desire to force one's personal religious views on those who do not believe in the same religious views. Should the Muslims who form a substantial part of our population force me to wear the hijab? And why would a non member come to a music board to flaunt his intolerant value system? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Bill D Date: 02 Sep 07 - 02:00 PM "Gay marriage is against the law in most states." well, yes...and those laws are pushed by conservatives seeking to make 'illegal' anything they don't personally like. Not a fair way to treat fellow citizens who have done nothing wrong, it seems to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Don Firth Date: 02 Sep 07 - 03:21 PM And, "Caretaker," what, exactly is "immoral" about a same sex relationship, legal and sanctified or not? Early on it was frowned on because there was an injunction to "go forth an multiply" to increase the size of the tribe. Later, Paul, of New Testament fame, inveighed against it without giving any rational reasons. And, in fact, there are some well-known theologians who contend that the "thorn" in Paul's flesh that he complained of but never explained might have been that he was aware of having homosexual urges and knowing it was against Jewish law, overcompensated. His occasional homophobic outburst is consistent with the behavior of the closet gay who has nailed the closet door shut even against himself. Now, what's your objection really all about? Don Firth P. S. And, in the light of the First Amendment, what justifies bringing religiously dictated "morality" into discussions of the passing or not passing of what amounts to a civil rights law?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Georgiansilver Date: 02 Sep 07 - 04:18 PM To my mind, the whole idea of marriage is to be with a partner, to procreate and maintain the species. Procreation is part of the natural order in nature, so I see no point in two people of the same gender becoming attached in marriage. If they want to be together then they have a choice, and accepted as they generally are, there is no need for them to hide their relationship. The 'wanting to get married legally' thing is not a necessity and if a same gender couple want to have some legal rights then can they not draw up legal documents to cover their relationship without involving 'marriage vows'?....... I believe this whole thing is not about someones rights as such but a snowballing crusade which started somewhere/sometime by some same gender couple who came out and wanted more. Always ready to be corrected of course....Mike |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Mike Miller Date: 02 Sep 07 - 04:39 PM Of course, what gay couples want is social acceptance. That, they will not receive until the predominant religions of the society alter their stand and good luck with that. Legal rights, to which every citizen is entitled, and cultural rights should not be confused. The governing body should get the hell out of the "holy" matrimony business and, simply, enforce its laws and civil contracts. The government should, no more, tell a citizen who he may live with than they should tell a church what they may believe. Legalizing gay marriage is an affront to religion and forbidding gay union is an affront to the citzenry. Gay couples will have to gain social acceptance on their own. The best their government can do is stay out of their bedrooms and personal decisions. All marriages are civil contracts. Try getting a legal divorse from your pastor. It is time to recognise the difference between legality and piety. Mike |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: TheSnail Date: 02 Sep 07 - 05:05 PM Georgiansilver To my mind, the whole idea of marriage is to be with a partner, to procreate and maintain the species. Speaking as an old batchelor, perhaps I'm not qualified to speak. On the other hand, I may bring a certain objectivity to the question. I know several heterosexual couples who have made the decision not to have children (possibly to the point of surgery). They have, nevertheless, made the commitment of marriage. I have heard of mixed gender (for want of a better term) couples who, for reasons of physical diasabilty are unable to consumate their relationship but have still chosen marriage. Why should gay couples be denied the same right? Marriage is about more than sex and procreation (or so I'm told.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Cruz Date: 02 Sep 07 - 05:09 PM The Mike's have it. Thanks for those explanations. I had a full page response but it was getting too personal so I did not submit it. One of the main reasons I wanted to reply was out of my respect for Amos' asking me a question and his deserving a reply. You guys answered very well for me and others. Thanks also, The Caretaker. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Cruz Date: 02 Sep 07 - 05:22 PM Snail, Bachelor or not, very good comments; you are just as qualified as any other compassionate human with comments regarding these matters. Many of us have been through numerous relationships, break-ups, divorces, annulments, etc. and as I look back the ol' Hank could all teach us a lesson (one that you learned?): I love to cuddle near you and listen to you sigh, But git that marryin' outta your head I'll be a bachelor till I die. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Alice Date: 02 Sep 07 - 05:37 PM It is my understanding that recognizing a married partnership gives the partners legal rights regarding health care, inheritance, community property, and other such legal matters. I think it is those issues that are at the core of the desire for legal same sex marriage. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,The Caretaker Date: 02 Sep 07 - 05:48 PM And what's next? You want to marry your dog and feel that you have a right to? Give me a break. I'm real glad that I don't live in Canada and have to have that madness shoved down my throat. The concept of marriage has been the same for thousands of years. 1 man 1 woman Please realize that there are plenty of people, you can call them conservatives if you feel that you have to, who are just real sick of the same old, same old special interest groups whining about society. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: dick greenhaus Date: 02 Sep 07 - 05:51 PM Seems to me that conservatives are a special interest group. It's just that there's a lot of 'em. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: TheSnail Date: 02 Sep 07 - 05:59 PM Cruz I love to cuddle near you and listen to you sigh, Well, gee thanks Cruz but I think we ought to get to know each other a bit better first. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Bill D Date: 02 Sep 07 - 06:09 PM "You want to marry your dog and feel that you have a right to? " Only if the dog can pass the blood test and sign the forms. Just read Alice's post...there are reasons aside from just wanting to cohabit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: folk1e Date: 02 Sep 07 - 06:09 PM If it is legal in Canada and a (same sex) "married" couple move down into America ......... is the marriage not recognized? What about the pluralistic marriages undertaken in similar circumstances? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Alice Date: 02 Sep 07 - 06:11 PM Actually, our current concept of marriage as it is in America is a very new concept, not old at all. Women were property. It was not an equal partnership, and it was often more than one woman for each man and a man could sell or transfer his wife to someone else. The advancement of human rights is an ongoing struggle. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: dwditty Date: 02 Sep 07 - 06:34 PM Same sex marriage will be a non-issue in a few years - my prediction. Going slightly off-topic, make all marriages leagal - but make the marriage license renewable every few years ;) - save the pain of divorce. dw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,mg Date: 02 Sep 07 - 06:35 PM I am all for gay marriages...I think the ceremony itself should be civil and/or up to the church in question..but nothing will stop people from forming their own churches and performing ceremonies.. I think strongly that people should not have children unless they are married (except through adoption, and even then should defer usually to married couples), but I do not think it is the only, or even probably the major reason to be married. I think the main reason, at least now, when there are fewer economic reasons than in the past, is to get a guarantee from someone you don't want to get away. That you love so much that you couldn't imagine anyone else and they are likewise. And if you don't have that, breakable as it is, you have pretty near nothing as far as I can tell. It is like buying a house instead of renting. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: pdq Date: 02 Sep 07 - 06:52 PM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: pdq Date: 02 Sep 07 - 06:59 PM folk1e asks: "What about the pluralistic marriages undertaken in similar circumstances?" Well, I live in Nevada which has a very substantial population of Mormans, and they are not allowed multiple partners. It has been against church policy for a long time, and it is against the law. There are a number of men serving prison time right now who simply married more than once. If we use Bill D's standard that it does not affect the lives of others, then clearly these people should not be in any trouble. If gay unions become recognised by the government as equal to heterosexual ones, polygamy must also be recognized as equal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 02 Sep 07 - 07:00 PM From: Mike Miller - PM Date: 02 Sep 07 - 04:39 PM "Of course, what gay couples want is social acceptance" Regardless of "Gay Marriage", homosexuals will never gain social acceptance while the vast majority of the population perceive the homosexual act as disgusting...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: TheSnail Date: 02 Sep 07 - 07:17 PM akenaton Regardless of "Gay Marriage", homosexuals will never gain social acceptance while the vast majority of the population perceive the homosexual act as disgusting...Ake "perceive"? Nobody is forcing you to watch. When you are with a heterosexual couple, do you spend all of your time thinking about them having sex? If you knew what some of them got up to in private, you might find it pretty disgusting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Bill D Date: 02 Sep 07 - 07:23 PM "If we use Bill D's standard that it does not affect the lives of others, then clearly these people should not be in any trouble." Just to be clear..I am not advocating breaking the law...I favor REVISING the laws, but carefully. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: pdq Date: 02 Sep 07 - 07:27 PM To be even more clear, do you favor the legalization of polygamy and gay marriage? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Ebbie Date: 02 Sep 07 - 07:41 PM Speaking of Mormons, there was a television documentary recently that did an in depth study of ritualized multiple attachments amongst Mormons. I didn't see the very beginning so I'm not sure whether this was an offshoot or if it could be considered mainstream Mormonism. The approach was respectful and the couples (*g*) responded freely. According to them, they got around the legalities by having only one 'wife'; the others were 'sister wives'. It was interesting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Mike Miller Date: 02 Sep 07 - 07:49 PM I will be very clear, pdq. I favor the right of every citizen to engage in any relationship he likes, so long as it involves consenting adults. That means that, if two or more people choose to make a contractually binding agreement, more power to them. Laws against polygamy are as intrusive and oppressive as laws forbidding same sex or interracial unions. I am, of course, rather libertarian in my views. I do not need my government protecting me from myself, just to satisfy a popular set of standards. By the same token, I have no wish to have my values become Official or the norm. Those gays who wish to change their respective church's stands on homosexuality should not be doing so, through the courts or the congress. They can, always, write out their grievences and nail them to a church door. They will have my best wishes and tacit support. Mike |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: pdq Date: 02 Sep 07 - 08:10 PM Mike Miller...your opinions tend to be as solid and reasoned as anyone on Mudcat. As to "libertarian" philosophy, it is much more honest and consistant than "liberal" and "conservative", at least the way those terms are presently used.. That does not constitute an endorsement of Ron Paul's Libertarian Party. I think Ron Paul is a gasbag. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Don Firth Date: 02 Sep 07 - 08:53 PM According to the two same-sex couples that I mentioned in one of my above posts, what Alice said in her post of 2 Sep 07, 05:37 p.m. above is exactly the issue. And as to "And what's next? You want to marry your dog and feel that you have a right to? Give me a break." That's just bloody stupid!! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Riginslinger Date: 02 Sep 07 - 09:25 PM "I favor the right of every citizen to engage in any relationship he likes, so long as it involves consenting adults." I think that's the problem. These Mormon off-shoots, like that guy who was arrested in Nevada recently, marry girls who might be as young as 14 years. Then the girl has a baby, and from that point forward, she's stuck. The guy they arrested had a huge number of wives, I think it was like 30 or something, and each one had a number of children, and all of the wives and children were on welfare. The guy was making a fortune. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,The Caretaker Date: 02 Sep 07 - 09:44 PM It's not "bloody stupid" Don Firth. There are people who obviously engage in sex with animals, leave money to them, maybe even love them more than humans. What you might find disgusting about that, the majority of the population feels the same way about gay relationships, or as you would put it, "bloody stupid." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Don Firth Date: 02 Sep 07 - 10:52 PM Yeah, Caretaker, I'm sure that's a issue that needs to be dealt with. Maybe we need a constitutional amendment about shepherds who might get overly fond of their sheep. Or . . . I imagine that having sex with your pet gerbil could be pretty tough on the gerbil. Of course you could always wrap it in duct tape so it won't explode when you— Yup! A major social problem all right! I'll have my senators get right on it! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Alba Date: 02 Sep 07 - 10:56 PM What do you take care of exactly Guest: Caretaker? Just wondering *smile* Jude |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Barry Finn Date: 02 Sep 07 - 11:28 PM Riginslinger, I think the discussion was about consenting adults not 14 yr olds, by the way I don't think you have to worry about same sex couples, triples or foursomes having children & making a fortune ripping off our welfare system in the process. It would be a good case to follow in the courts though. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Bill D Date: 03 Sep 07 - 12:02 AM yes, pdq, I do favor those things being legal.....gay marriage immediately, and multiple marriages 'someday', after very careful analysis and rule making, so that we avoid all the scheming and misuse of the law by guys just looking to build harems for $$$$ and lots of free sex. I do not have any idea how it might be worked out, and I doubt that it will be....I just believe that it should, in theory, be legal. No, I don't think you need worry very soon. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Little Hawk Date: 03 Sep 07 - 12:54 AM I haven't tried same-sex marriage yet...nor have I had the chance to witness anyone else trying it up close and personal...so I hardly feel qualified to offer a critique of it. ;-) It doesn't strike me as a world-threatening concept. I don't worry about it. I doubt very much that I would ever worry about it even slightly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 03 Sep 07 - 03:06 AM Snail...I find your post 7:17pm, offensive and unreasonable. Why do you personalise my remarks? It is surely beyond dispute that the majority of people worldwide find the practice of homosexuality disgusting and what we are talking about here is not friendship, but a sexual relationship within marriage. Homosexuality will never become socially acceptable while this "perception" prevails. "Gay marriage" is simply a device to promote acceptance as Mike Miller has noted I am very fond of sex (hetrosexual) and there are no variations between consenting adults that I would find disgusting...(surprising perhaps)...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: John MacKenzie Date: 03 Sep 07 - 03:59 AM perception noun 1 psychol the process whereby information about one's environment, received by the senses, is organized and interpreted so that it becomes meaningful. 2 one's powers of observation; discernment; insight. 3 one's view or interpretation of something. 4 bot response to a stimulus, eg chemical or caused by light. perceptional adj. ETYMOLOGY: 17c: from Latin percipere to perceive. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: TheSnail Date: 03 Sep 07 - 06:06 AM akenaton Why should what consenting adults do in private concern anybody else? "Percetion" (by any of Giok's definitions) implies that you judge people by what you believe them to get up to in their bedrooms. I find that fairly disgusting. I am very fond of sex (hetrosexual) and there are no variations between consenting adults that I would find disgusting... I have heard it said that precisely the practice you find disgusting between homosexuals is not unknown between heterosexuals. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 03 Sep 07 - 06:53 AM You're being very silly Snail. I'm of course talking about public perception, and whether you like it or not that perception is a fact of life. A large majority of people find any sexual activity between homosexuals disgusting. The sexual activity you refer to, if between a man and a woman, would probably be perceived as unusual, but certainly not disgusting. Please stop trying to personalise the discussion, as further dialogue would be difficult in thgese circumstances...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: TheSnail Date: 03 Sep 07 - 07:15 AM akenaton You're being very silly Snail. Opposing bigotry and prejudice is silly? You have promoted the point that "the vast majority of the population perceive the homosexual act as disgusting". I made the assumption that you shared that view. If I am mistaken I apologise but I remain a little puzzled as to what you intend by putting it forward. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Bee Date: 03 Sep 07 - 08:20 AM "And what's next? You want to marry your dog and feel that you have a right to? Give me a break. I'm real glad that I don't live in Canada and have to have that madness shoved down my throat." -guest "Caretaker" Well, this gave me a morning chuckle. Really, Caretaker. If I ask another human to marry me, he or she will say yes or no. If I ask a dog, he or she may say 'woof!', not translateable as consent: get it? Ah, the madness here in Canada! I'd like to address akenaton's contention regarding revulsion. I believe that response is not as universal as you seem to think. Most of us don't spend time visualising our neighbours having sex. People are perhaps repelled by being urged to think about something they wouldn't like doing themselves. But here, in conservative rural communities, same sex couples settle into local life as seamlessly as straight couples. Their neighbours invite them to all the usual events and parties. They quickly become, not homosexuals who do that thing, but Greg the carpenter and Louie, Mike and Robert with the herb farm, Linda the hairdresser and Hannah the dental hygeinist up the clinic, eh. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Ron Davies Date: 03 Sep 07 - 08:37 AM Just keep this issue out of the 2008 campaign. Whatever Mudcatters may think, same-sex marriage is still a classic political loser outside Mudcat--and a great way to bring your opponents to the polls. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: PMB Date: 03 Sep 07 - 09:59 AM "bot response to a stimulus", Giok? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Mike Miller Date: 03 Sep 07 - 10:02 AM Ake and other antifags (I just made the word up) will have to accept the uncomfortable truth that freedom means freedom for everyone. The same society that allows us to, openly, express unpopular opinions allows others to do things that annoy us. Ergo, in a democracy, bigotry flourishes, intolerance is espoused and they are as protected by law as our own saner and truer biases. As ake appears to be a sexual experimenter, he should be glad that he lives in a society that doesn't intrude into his erotic decisions, positions or choice of partners. I don't know, for certain, whether homosexuality is inbred or optional (although I find it unlikely that someone would choose a life of exclusion and oppression), but, in any case, it is just one of those things that the aker is going to have to put up with, like ants at a picnic or Republican candidates. Mike |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 03 Sep 07 - 10:39 AM By Christ you're all very good at twisting an argument! My contention was that the main purpose of "Same sex marriages " was to make homosexuality more acceptable in mainstream society. I also said that homosexuality will never be acceptable to the mainstream while they perceive sex between two men as disgusting. My personal opinions have no bearing on that. MM and others asume that I am anti-homosexual, whatever the fuck that means....They are quite wrong, but I don't think society at large should be pushed in a direction they don't want to go, by a small but powerful pressure group...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Alba Date: 03 Sep 07 - 10:43 AM Tis a tangled web they weave Ake. So obvious tae me that Folks obviously don't know you at all. That's Politics for you eh. Let's twist again like we did last Summer and the before that Summer and the Summer before that and the Summer...(you get ma drift) Good to see You, Your wee Tunnock's Caramel Wafer, Jude :>) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: TheSnail Date: 03 Sep 07 - 11:47 AM akenaton I don't think society at large should be pushed in a direction they don't want to go, by a small but powerful pressure group So are you saying that by forbidding gay marriage "society at large" can carry on pretending that that "disgusting act" doesn't really happen (it does, you know) and that that is sufficient reason to deny the civil rights of a small and, actually, rather powerless minority? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Bill D Date: 03 Sep 07 - 12:10 PM "I don't think society at large should be pushed in a direction they don't want to go, by a small but powerful pressure group...Ake" Why would allowing one reltively small group to have freedom as they see it be construed as pushing society at large anywhere? Nothing is changed by same-sex couples have a legal piece of paper...and thus, peace of mind. ....well, unless you mean certain heterosexuals peace of mind! Is that the issue?: having anti-gay folk walking around in frustration just KNOWING that 'those people' have equal status? Sorry...but it seems to me that "society at large" needs to just turn its metaphorical head and look at something else. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Little Hawk Date: 03 Sep 07 - 01:34 PM I find anal intercourse disgusting regardless of who the participants are (male/male or male/female), but so what? My solution to that is simple: I don't do it. I don't give a toot if someone else makes the decision to do it, as long as I don't have to watch them while they're doing it, and I don't give a toot who they decide to marry either. That's their cross to bear, not mine. ;-D I simply don't care. It's not my business who they marry or what acts they mutually consent to between themselves in the privacy of their own home. I don't even care if someone marries their dog...a silly example given earlier in this thread...as long as the dog is agreeable to it. I think that fools should be allowed their foolishness. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Cruz Date: 03 Sep 07 - 02:26 PM Well, LH finally kept people from "beating aroung the bush" (no pun intended) He *done* said it out loud. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 03 Sep 07 - 04:47 PM I more or less agree with Bill and Hawk, in that I don't really give a flying fuck (don't ask) about what the homosexual agenda is. But there are sincere people out there who do care.....committed Christians, people who believe in the "sanctity" of marriage, in short, traditionalists just like folkies. You want rights?.... well think about it and make sure its "rights for everyone" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Mike Miller Date: 03 Sep 07 - 05:14 PM It is, as akenaton, says. There are sincere persons and groups who are offended by homosexuality and who, rightfully, see marriage as a religious ceremony. That's what comes from giving the clergy the authority to legalize a contract. In our society, which is, constantly, walking the tightrope between majority rule and individual rights, we compromise by giving the religions the power to marry but we don't give them the exclusive franchise. Also, we don't give them the power to break the contract. Personally, I can't see what is wrong with civil unions. Gays, like oppressed minorities before them, deserve the same legal rights as anyone else. But, for goodness sake, let the religions keep their magic words. Even after civil unions are recognised, those churches who wouldn't marry gays, then, they sure wouldn't marry them now. I agree with the akester about protecting rights of both sides. The disgust on the left makes the disdain on the right seem downright neighborly. There is, also, an arrogance and self rightiousness that assumes that everyone interested in folk music must be a Democrat. That said, ake and his band of rightious christians will have to put up with things changing. They can pretend that it's 1947 and they hold season tickets to Ebbet's Field. Mike |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 03 Sep 07 - 05:25 PM It's a lot easier to detect consent when both parties are human, though. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Little Hawk Date: 03 Sep 07 - 05:28 PM All traditionalists are disturbed by things that they see as violating their traditions. That's been happening ever since human society came into being. For instance, I'm disturbed by the ethos, the overall sound, and the attitude of most rap music. I find it offensive and annoying. That doesn't mean I want a law passed against it, though. I don't want to take it away from the people who like it. I'd just rather not hear it myself, that's all, so I avoid it as best I can. Ditto for sexual practices (between consenting adults) that don't appeal to me. I avoid them. It's impossible to arrange any legal system so that everyone will be happy about everything. Besides, some people quite honestly don't want to be happy...they'd rather be mad as hell about something. It feels a lot realer to them living that way than it would being content with their lives. Why do I say that? Well, I've seen plenty of evidence for it, believe me. I've even fallen into that trap myself on numerous occasions... For a person who doesn't want to be happy, finding something other people do to get really, really upset about is the icing on the cake that makes their day. And if they are into controlling others bigtime, then they will agitate for a law to be passed which will restrict others in some way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 03 Sep 07 - 05:33 PM Bloody hell Mike ,I'm not even a Christian...I'm an atheist!! You make too many personal assumptions, but you're very entertaining. The problem is that homosexuality and how we view it has become a political issue, when in fact it is an issue of morality. Ihis leads to left wing anarchist revolutionaries like me, being lumped in with..... stock car racing, country music playing,Jesus worshipin' American conservatives...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 03 Sep 07 - 05:50 PM Can't agree Hawk. These people can't just turn the other way. Acceptance of homosexuality by the Church strikes at their core beliefs....its not like rap music...its about how they live their lives, how they bring up their children, who will be by their side when they "pass over". They have not the option of holding they're noses, as the mudcat "lefties" will do when they scamper off to vote for Hillary...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Bill D Date: 03 Sep 07 - 06:27 PM "make sure its "rights for everyone" And just what do we say to those who think that having their rights means being able to impose their views on others? We **ALL** understand that certain groups are not ever going to agree that same-sex marriage ...or same-sex anything... is ok. No one is doubting that some will be "offended" if same-sex marriages are allowed. Some are still 'offended' that skirts are worn above the knee, or that 'inferior races' are allowed to vote. It is NOT that we need to find some way to keep these folks from BEING offended....we need to instill, in some way, a concept of what is none of their business, and there needs to be clear laws protecting certain aspects of life which are none of other's business. ....and yes, at the same time, we need same sex couples to TRY to avoid the most provocative behavior. I have NO doubt that a lot of tension could be reduced if each side made some effort to co-exist with respect for the other side. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: katlaughing Date: 03 Sep 07 - 06:38 PM This bumper sticker says it all for me: My sexual preference is often. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 03 Sep 07 - 06:40 PM And just what do we say to those who think that having their rights means being able to impose their views on others? We say "That's not the way it works in America, pal. Go somewhere else where doing that is all the rage. Russia or Iran, maybe?" A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Cruz Date: 03 Sep 07 - 06:41 PM This is a bit simplistic but: I like the separation of church and state; and the separation of marriage as a valid man and woman institution. I want to keep The Girl Scouts separate from the Boy Scouts: the Brownies separate from the Cub Scouts, Campfire Girls separate from the hot-as-fire boys; Bluebird Girls from… And to the point: the forever and always separation of gay civil unions from the term marriage. And I am one of those mean old atheists. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Don Firth Date: 03 Sep 07 - 07:38 PM "Acceptance of homosexuality by the Church strikes at their core beliefs." WHAT!?? Core beliefs? Since when? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Little Hawk Date: 03 Sep 07 - 08:20 PM Well, it depends who you're talking about when it comes to core beliefs, doesn't it? Akenaton, I can understand people within a given church/religion/congregation getting upset about this issue if it is being brought into their own religious community....for sure! Then it is their business. And I can understand them debating it or opposing it. For them it is a vital issue which has to do with their beliefs. It just isn't for me, since I don't belong to such a community. You said something which caught my notice. You said, "The problem is that homosexuality and how we view it has become a political issue, when in fact it is an issue of morality." Is it an issue of morality? I'm not convinced it is. I think it's primarily an issue of social custom, not morality...but here's another angle: I've studied Taoism a good deal, and I have a tremendous respect for the Taoist philosophy which was prevalent in ancient China in its golden age. It's a very non-judgemental and harmonious philosophy (unlike rule-bound Confucianism, which is its antithesis). Taoism favors individuality, free thinking, and nonaggression. It favors finding the harmonious path and having as few restrictive rules in life as possible. In a community of practicing Taoists you wouldn't really need any rules, because their way of living, if it truly was Taoist, would be harmless and would not threaten others in any way. In any case, here's how the Taoists viewed sexuality. They did not see sex as a moral issue at all. They saw it as a health issue, sex being a healthy natural act that all animals and humans engage in for obvious reasons (emotional, social, recreational, and procreational). They felt that to suppress one's sexuality was unnatural and therefore unhealthy. They felt on the other hand that to overemphasize and overdo sexuality was also unhealthy, injurious to the body, and indicative of an emotional problem of some kind. The harmonious path would be the middle path between extremes. Taoists had no rules against lesbian sexuality ("Rubbing Mirrors" in their vernacular) or male homosexuality ("Dragon Yang"), but they did have a health cautionary where the latter was involved. Their opinion, based on observation of the practice, was that the bringing together of two passive sexual forces ("Rubbing Mirrors") was in no way injurious to the health of the women involved, but that the bringing together of two aggressive sexual forces ("Dragon Yang") was to some extent injurious to the health of the men involved. So, although there were certainly no rules against it in Taoism, men were cautioned that practicing too much Dragon Yang could over time cause damage to their physical health. It was a minor caution, not a restriction, and as I say, they did NOT regard it as a moral issue. No one would be seen in a condemnatory way for having practiced Dragon Yang. Taoists felt that males were more subject to energy damage from overuse or misuse of their sexuality than women were, so they had a number of cautionary suggestions about how to deal with that. Going by my own (albeit limited) observations of people and sexuality in this life, I think they were onto something real there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Justa Picker Date: 03 Sep 07 - 08:45 PM All right I'll admit it. I support same sex legislation ... ... provided both chicks are hot. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Little Hawk Date: 03 Sep 07 - 08:47 PM Yeah, yeah..... See? The Taoists were right. Rubbing Mirrors is better for the health. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Don Firth Date: 03 Sep 07 - 09:33 PM If, by "Church," you mean the Christian church, then (and this covers all denominations) the core beliefs are found in the four Gospels, and are enunciated by a fellow named Jesus. Granted, a lot of presumably Christian churches don't pay much attention to what Jesus said. In fact, many of them say and do a lot of things that Jesus would—and did—disapprove of. And I don't recall that Jesus said one single word about homosexuality, or anything that could be construed to be about homosexuality. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Little Hawk Date: 03 Sep 07 - 09:45 PM That's right, Don. ;-) The negative stuff about homosexuality comes from some other passages in the Bible, not from Jesus. Actually, there are several different sets of core beliefs, as one finds when talking to different Christians. Some come from Jesus, some come from Paul, some come from other apostles' writings, some come from the Old Testament, and still others come from various councils of bishops held in Constantinople or Rome at a much later date or even from various preachers in the 1800s and 1900s. The Rapture, as a matter of fact, is a concept that seems to have arisen in the 1800s as far as I know, and it is a core belief of some Christians. There are enough different core beliefs out there to float the Titanic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Mike Miller Date: 03 Sep 07 - 11:05 PM Yeah Hawk, the various sects, denominations, divisions within divisions and god knows what else that make up the entity of American Christianity are, frequently at odds. They may not agree on much but, in the area of gay marriage, they toe the party line. And, it's not just the Christian Churches that oppose gay marriage on moral or religious grounds. Islam and orthodox Jewery make strange bedfellows but they are as one on the subject of bedfellows. I kind of sympathize with them. I get the same feeling when I see that singer/songwriters want to be called folksingers (because there are more folk venues than poetry venues) but I'll just have to live with it. Someday traditional music will be in vogue again and I'll know the songs already. Mike |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 03 Sep 07 - 11:29 PM Personally, I don't care what various sects think about the beliefs or non-beliefs of other sects, including homosects. AFAIAC it is none of their god-blessed beeswax. But I will say that if I were founding a religion to save people's souls, I don't think I would consider it wise policy t make it intolerant. Especially about things with only the vaguest connection thereto. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Ebbie Date: 03 Sep 07 - 11:31 PM I work - part time - for an Episcopal church, and I think that would be called a Christian church. In the course of my work I read a good deal about their beliefs and their practices. And guess what? They are not even up tight about homosexuality. From what I gather, their concern is that each individual face themselves honestly and fearlessly. I think they consider being 'in the closet' as seriously hurtful to the human spirit. That said, I also am aware that the greater body of Episcopalians is undergoing a tremendous upheaval right now for a couple of reasons: For one, their current national leader is a woman, secondly they recently ordained an actively gay priest. It appears that some will or perhaps already have break away. Aren't human beings wonderful? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Don Firth Date: 03 Sep 07 - 11:54 PM Little Hawk (and others), can a church that does not take its core beliefs from the teachings of Jesus really, legitimately, call itseld a "Christian" church? I know there are a lot who do, but I think that's a valid question that requires an answer--with support. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Georgiansilver Date: 04 Sep 07 - 03:24 AM If you return to the Old Testament you will find that homosexuality was considered a sin and even after Jesus ministry it is again mentioned as a sin in the New Testament. When Jesus came his words portrayed the fact that He had come to fulfil the law...not to change it...that is His Fathers law from time immemorial not the laws of Israel and the known world. As far as the Bible is concerned, homosexuality is a sin. As far as Jesus words apply....He gave a commandment...."This is my commandment...that you love one another as I have loved you" and as Christians we are ordered to love everyone...yes everyone...but abhor the sin in the world. We have to show love, understanding, mercy, grace etc to Homosexuals but cannot accept the sin. Sadly the homosexuals cannot accept this...they want acceptance of the sin also which from true Christians they can never have. Best wishes, Mike. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: PMB Date: 04 Sep 07 - 04:22 AM I don't think Jesus said anything about homosexuality (St. Paul did IIRC, but he wasn't the same bloke), though he did ask us to love each other*... hey, why don't the Bible literalists give everything they have to the poor? Why don't they turn the other cheek? Why forego the blessings of being meek? Why do they risk judgement by judging? Why does literalism only seem to apply to condemnation of others? Motes and beams and barley grows... I doubt if homosexuals want ACCEPTANCE by censorious Christians. They just want persecution to stop. That politician's "crime" is not homosexuality- it is hypocrisy. (* Yes, I know, you can go through a whole scholarship that explains why by "love" he meant "not love". Funny how the arguments are always there when you want to keep a prejudice.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: TheSnail Date: 04 Sep 07 - 04:41 AM Georgiansilver As far as the Bible is concerned, homosexuality is a sin. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: John MacKenzie Date: 04 Sep 07 - 05:20 AM Will the time soon be right for incest to be recognised as legal, or necromancy, bestiality, etc etc. Single issue politics seems to be the way the world is going now. I think it's time I came out of the closet. I AM SCOTTISH, AND A MEMBER OF THE SCOTTISH NATIONALIST PARTY. There, I feel better now I've got that off my chest. Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: PMB Date: 04 Sep 07 - 05:44 AM Necromancy is legal, Giok. I think you are thinking of necrophilia (not implying "thinking of" as meaning "considering indulging in"). Apart from finding it distasteful, I can't see who is being harmed anyway. Incest? As long as (1) no child is involved, either as one of the parties or conceived as a result, and (2) full consent is involved, which is difficult to demonstrate when power relationships come in, I can't see the harm done. Perfectly normal in some societies, see ancient Egypt, also see Eric Gill. Not for me. Bestiality? Can't see how a non- human can give meaningful consent, and I don't fancy the sheep round here, many of thm are Jacob's anyway. On the other hand, if we abuse animals so far as to kill them and eat them, why the hangup about sex? I think informed consent is the key phrase. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: TheSnail Date: 04 Sep 07 - 05:53 AM PMB I think you are thinking of necrophilia (not implying "thinking of" as meaning "considering indulging in"). Apart from finding it distasteful, I can't see who is being harmed anyway. I think consent might be a problem unless they said something specific in their will. On the other hand, most marriage vows say "Till death us do part". You can sleep with whoever you like once your dead. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: John MacKenzie Date: 04 Sep 07 - 06:05 AM Yup necrophilia I meant of course, mind you not too sure about necromancy either ¦¬] I live in a village where they hold the biggest lamb sales in Europe, if you come visit when the sales are on, I could help you pick out a pretty one. Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Wolfgang Date: 04 Sep 07 - 06:30 AM I don't recall that Jesus said... anything that could be construed to be about homosexuality. (Don Firth) Don, you should know better than that. History has shown that the Bible has been used to support so many sometimes contradictory ideas and acts that one should never underestimated human fantasy. Georgiansilver has shown you how the con side can be read in the NT, here's how the pro side has been read in(to) the NT (found on a pro gay site construed as a Jesus statement endorsing male homosexual acts): There is NOTHING from without a man, that entering into him can defile him Jesus on marriage: Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: PMB Date: 04 Sep 07 - 07:40 AM Jesus on marriage: Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife That's allowing a man to live with his wife. It is apparently mandatory, as is uxorilocality. Living with either or both of the man's parents is also specifically forbidden by this part of the New Testament. It doesn't appear to forbid, or even say anything about, women who aren't his wife, or other men, even bodhran players. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate. That would appear to make it compulsory for divorce court judges to be female, or if male to be satisfied that they had not been joined together by God, but by some other authority. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Big Phil Date: 04 Sep 07 - 08:22 AM 1 man, and 1 woman the species continues. 1 man and 1 man or 1 woman and 1 woman the species ends - its fact, so man/woman is correct, all other is wrong by my principles. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: TheSnail Date: 04 Sep 07 - 08:39 AM Big Phil The suggestion is that that gay marriage be optional for those who want it, not compulsory for everybody. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: PMB Date: 04 Sep 07 - 09:00 AM Phil, you're allowed to average that over the whole population. Here's another scenario. Man grows potatoes. Species continues. Man doesn't grow potatoes, species starves to death. It's natural to grow potatoes, but I'd suggest it's not immoral to be a computer programmer, indeed I'm tolerant of computer programming between consenting adults in private. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Little Hawk Date: 04 Sep 07 - 09:09 AM Don, you asked, "Little Hawk (and others), can a church that does not take its core beliefs from the teachings of Jesus really, legitimately, call itself a "Christian" church?" That's a question worth asking. But anyone can call themselves anything they choose to, can't they? If they choose to... But here's another question. Was Jesus a Christian? I don't think so. As far as I know, he was a Jew, endeavouring to reform the teachings in the Jewish church of his time. Furthermore, I think he was giving a Universalist teaching that transcended all organized religions. In this respect I think he went far beyond being "Christian" or Jewish, but that's just my private opinion. I think that all truly great prophets (such as Jesus, Buddha, and Krishna, for example) go way beyond the limitations of belonging to any single identifiable faith. It's their followers who come after them who insist upon faith labels and exclusivity. Their followers take a message of universality and turn it into a message of exclusivity! Thus does the jealous human ego in people undo the works of the greatest spiritual teachers and turn them into a competitive struggle for superemacy between different official religions. They divide people instead of uniting them. And that's sad! I wrote a song once called "Jesus Was Not a Christian". It's praiseworthy of Jesus, and quite critical of various aspects of the religion(s) founded in his name. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Mike Miller Date: 04 Sep 07 - 09:21 AM I could not have made the point about divisions within Christianity better than Don Firth's lecture on "true" Christianity. Is it possible that he is not heard that every Christian sect believes it's version of doctrine is the only true adherence to the word of Jesus. It is this arrogance that the Roman Catholic Church has displayed in dismissing everyone who isn't them. And they are not the holiest of thou. My bridge partner, a "Jew for Jesus", has informed me that there are very few "real" Christian churches and he is privelaged to belong to one. He is quite certain on this point. If marriage is a holy union (and centuries of history so define it), the USA, founded on the pribciple of separation of church and state, should not be in the business of endorsing a religious ceremony. We should be leaving marriage to the church and granting legal contract status to all consenting adults who apply. It is not for our government to make moral doctrine. That is the job of religion or, in cases like mine, the individual citizen. I have managed to survive without the benefit of religion and, if I am to be judged one day, as my bridge partner has warned me, I shall face it like Robert Henley, "...my head is bloody but unbowed". The best we can do, Don, is to be kind to one another and that lesson precedes the teaching of the Christ. Mike |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,sinky Date: 04 Sep 07 - 09:55 AM I have gay mates who neither act gay or 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 gay = funny? To all gays,shut up,fit in and keep your sex life to yourself,get married and stop acting like annoying exhibitionists or i will organise a heterosexual march through London. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: John MacKenzie Date: 04 Sep 07 - 10:02 AM Hee hee |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,sinky Date: 04 Sep 07 - 10:12 AM The way things are going it wouldnt surprise me if it became compulsary for us all to marry the same sex. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Sep 07 - 10:29 AM Obviously Jesus wasn't a Christian, by definition, given that, whatever else they might be, Christians have to be in soem way followers of Jesus. I don't think I've ever heard anyone suggest that he could be described in that way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Neil Date: 04 Sep 07 - 11:41 AM In regards to Ron Davies posting about keeping this out of the 2008 campaign as it brings the opposition to the polls, I'm afraid Ihave to agree. The problem is that it is the political right wing that usually brings this issue to the campaign. Witness what happened in Ohio in 2004. A constitutional ammendment that would forbid any future laws legalizing same sex marriage was put on the ballot in the November election that year, even though there had never been any serious attempt to legalize same sex marriage in Ohio. It had been a non-issue until the Republicans cynically put this on the ballot in order to bring more conservatives to the polls. It worked exactly as intended. Bush won Ohio by 1% of the vote and won the country by winning Ohio. If Ohio had gone to Kerry he would be our president. The ammendment also passed, so we now have a situation where we are telling future generations what to believe (as if they couldn't vote to overturn this ammendment in a hundred years if they wished). How absurd. But the real damage was in giving this moronic cowboy and his Machiavellian administration four more years to ruin this and other nations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 04 Sep 07 - 02:43 PM Hawk..I've been away. Homosexuality is a moral issue to devout Christians,or Moslems. Maybe not to you or I. As far as people's rights are concerned, there are many many more Devout Christians and Moslems in this world than homosexuals. Therefore, should this minority (homo sexuals) have the right to subvert the core beliefs of the religious? And do we just not care because we think they're a bunch of nutters? Wouldn't that be a little hypocritical in a gathering of "liberal democrats" like us?...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Ebbie Date: 04 Sep 07 - 02:58 PM Ake, in what way are "devout Christians and Moslems" affected by the public granting the same rights to a minority as they themselves enjoy? Here in Juneau, Alaska, I know several couples who can't get the benefits married people gain automatically. In this countryt is not at all uncommon for this situation to develop: One half of a couple takes ill or is injured and is in the hospital at death's door, so to speak. The surviving half cannot make any decisions in the care of the ill person. And if the ill person's family - who may have always resisted/resented/fought the sexual orientation of their relative - shows up at the hospital, they can leave orders at the desk that the surviving half of the couple cannot visit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Don Firth Date: 04 Sep 07 - 03:10 PM Does the majority have the right to deny rights to a minority? Especially if that minority does nothing that really affects the majority except offend the sensibilities of some of them? That strikes me as a very bad precedent to set. "It's their followers who come after them who insist upon faith labels and exclusivity. Their followers take a message of universality and turn it into a message of exclusivity!" Exactly my point. I'm not naïve. I'm fully aware that suggesting that Christian churches should follow the teachings of Jesus is tilting at windmills. I know a great deal about the beginnings of the Christian church, and this includes the fact that within less than a century and a half after Jesus' crucifixion, there were some eighty-two "bishops," all claiming to be "spiritual descendants" of the original twelve apostles—and rather than following the "love one another" injunction, because of strenuous disagreements on minor points of doctrine, they hated each other's guts and were "excommunicating" each other right, left, and center. Their excommunications didn't carry much weight because this was before the founding of the Catholic Church. There was no one central body. That took place when the emperor, Constantine, became a Christian (more for political than religious reasons), said "Dogma is what I say it is!" and gave religion the force of secular law. He also set up the conference at Nicea, out of which grew the Nicene Creed, to essentially bring an end to the bickering bishops and unite the Church under one head. And where was Jesus in all this? You might well ask. . . . By the way: In my opinion, the matter of the validity of religious views of homosexuality falls into the same category as the validity of Creationism and its insistence that the universe came into existence no earlier that 4004 B.C.—the disagreement between Biblical literalists and modern science. There is considerable scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a matter of choice at all. One comes wired that way. While discussing this with a gay acquaintance of mine some years ago, he said, "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!" 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. Nor do I see that what the fellow who comes to our writers' group and his partner do in the privacy of their own apartment a half-dozen blocks from here has any effect whatsoever on Barbara's and my marriage. Lots of churches regard homosexuality as a sin. In days gone by, Christian churches believed being Jewish—or anything but Christian—was a sin (some still do). Some Muslims believe being anything but a devout Muslim is a sin. Pick a human activity. Or pick a belief! Somebody somewhere is going to believe it's a sin. Can anyone give me a rational reason why it's anybody's business? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Riginslinger Date: 04 Sep 07 - 03:56 PM "Can anyone give me a rational reason why it's anybody's business?" Attacking homosexuality increases donations to churches. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 04 Sep 07 - 03:56 PM Don: In response to your last question, no. should this minority (homo sexuals) have the right to subvert the core beliefs of the religious? There is no core belief in Xianity about sexuality. There are a number of passing comments here and there (selling unfaithful wives or stoning them to death, for example) which have long since been outgrown. Most of these are in the Olld Testament before God's New Deal. A CORE belief would be something like "Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone.". Or "Turn the other cheek." (Not to be humorous.) The entire confusion between secular agreements and the rights of religion comes about because the fundamentals that make all men alike aren't granted primacy in the rulemaking. Everyone needs to live, eat, be free and pursue happiness. The FIRST contract of a society is how you are going to respect the individual (or not) in fundamental ways. Adding arbitrary moral contracts, such as are enjoyed by subgroups, cults and other clumps of people who decide to think left-handed thoughts only on Wednesday, or whatever. If a religious believer cannot consent to honor the common contract that joins all people in basic mutual respect, then he should buzz off and be an authoritarian busybody somewhere else. If he believes that God only speaks through the decapitated neck-holes of white teenage girls, he is STILL a criminal if he starts developing a supply of same, and will hang as surely for it. A |
|
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 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: KB in Iowa Date: 07 Sep 07 - 05:35 PM I would still like an answer to the question I asked (which, BTW, was originally posted by Ebbie). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Wesley S Date: 07 Sep 07 - 05:36 PM OK - I have to ask - How can your personal opinions NOT have a bearing on the points you're trying to make? This is a subjective discussion. It's nothing BUT opinion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: harpmolly Date: 07 Sep 07 - 06:03 PM KB...I think our questions are the same. Yours was just more succinct than mine. ;) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Greg B Date: 07 Sep 07 - 06:13 PM "I wish people would stop trying to personalise this discussion, it proves nothing. My personal opinions have no bearing on the points I make." But hatred IS, by its nature very personal, Ake. I stand by my position--- those who preach that homosexuality is inherently immoral and then connect that position with opposition to same-sex marriage are knowing participants in the cycle of hatred which raises up generation after generation of homophobes, a few of them violent, all of them perfectly willing to insert their prejudices between those whom they hate and fear and equal protection under the law. Remove that link in the chain, and you break the chain. Furthermore, I don't see any other link which CAN be successfully removed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 07 Sep 07 - 06:43 PM About one year ago there was another thread discussing homosexual foster parents . I set out in detail,my reasons for thinking that this should not have been allowed. I talked quite a lot about my personal experience on that thread, and I think we ended up with a fairly good and illumination discussion. On this thread, as I am not a Christian or a member of any other religion I have tried to be objective in everything I have written. I have no brief for the fundamentalists or even lay church members, but most of these people hold very strong views on homosexuality, views which they see as perfectly valid. These views are further reinforced when the relious see that a large majority of the general public see homosexuality as something shameful The religious and secular who believe in marriage as an institution would ask , why should that institution be weakened by forcing it to accept those whom the vast majority of the public regard as perverts? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Bill D Date: 07 Sep 07 - 07:03 PM There has been, so far as I can see, no clear explanation of how "that institution (would) be weakened by" any granting of marriage rights to all! They may SAY that, but it is subjective rhetoric....all it does is express an attitude. If "weakened" is to be used in this context, they would have to show that their marriage was somehow less valid/meaningful/real/...etc. All such prohibition CAN mean is "I don't like it!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 07 Sep 07 - 07:22 PM But hatred IS, by its nature very personal Not necessarily. In many cases in fact it's the reverse - you get people who hate whole groups of people and act on that hatred, but who make exceptions for members of those groups they know personally. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: TheSnail Date: 07 Sep 07 - 07:59 PM So let me get this right, akenaton. You are saying that because the majority of the population are prejudiced against homosexuals, gay marriage should not be allowed? Isn't it better to oppose prejudice rather than use it as the basis for legislation? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 07 Sep 07 - 08:01 PM There is a certain, if not well-defined, set of facts about any other member of one's civilization (whether you define it as national, hemispherical, or global, and the things in that set are bounded by the notion of tolerance. They are the things that, by being a member of the set, you honor in others without judgement, or at least without criticism in word or action. They are the facets of another's life you agree by contract of sharing the circle are none of your business. You don't dictate shirt color, sock pattern, time of breakfast, philosophical beliefs, religion, or how often another person writes their mother, because, to put it in the vernacular, these things are none of your damned business. The more liberally inclined in this forum, and in this country generally, believe this set of things we tolerate includes the private election of sexual practices and partners. There simply is no objective reason why this part of a human's life should NOT be included in the band of human toleration, and this being the case the urge to instead make this question one of public scrutiny is an extension of a provincial or biased or prejudicial or intolerant mind-set. That's the whole and entire question here, in my opinion. We're not talking about marrying outside one's species. We're talking about union between humans. The parallels with the old bitter clichés from the Fifties about "I even have friends that are "xxx", but I wouldn't want my sister to marry one..." and "there goes the neighborhood" are a little too close for comfort. Of course this is not bigotry in the racial sense, I understand that. It's not racial hatred -- that would be very unenlightened. What it is, though, is bigotry in the sexual sense, and sexual hatred, raising its equally ugly head. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 07 Sep 07 - 08:22 PM In a sense much of this is about whether the established dictionary definition of marriage needs to be modified, so as to cover both partnerships between members of opposite sexes and partnerships between members of the same sex, or whether a different expression - such as civil partnership - should be used. Generally speaking changes in dictionary definitions follow a change in the way people use the word, and I think there is a lot to be said for that being done in this case too. If the modified meaning catches on, stick it in the next edition of the dictionary. I see that though in England same civil sex partnerships are not formally referred to as marriages - but that on one case where a women entered into a civil partnership and it turned out she was still legally married (to a man), she was charged with bigamy. Which in a way rather implies equivalent status for the two types of partnership, whatever they may be called. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: harpmolly Date: 07 Sep 07 - 10:27 PM "Most of these people hold very strong views on homosexuality, views which they see as perfectly valid...These views are further reinforced when [fundamentalists or lay church members] see that a large majority of the general public see homosexuality as something shameful." - Akenaton Again, why does the fact that they are in a religious group give them the right to dictate to the rest of us? There are a lot of various religions in this country, and yet those of us who do not belong to any of them are free to go about happily eating pork, wearing what clothing we like, working on the Sabbath, etc. I simply don't recognize the validity of the "it offends religious people" argument. That's not a basis for legislation. I agree with McGrath that the "definition of marriage" is what seems to be at stake here. And I truly fail to see how the commitment of two people who care about each other and want to spend their lives together, share benefits, be allowed to visit each other's hospital beds in an emergency, etc. can possibly threaten these rights for anyone else. If gay people are seen by a LARGE MAJORITY of the population as "perverts", plain and simple (an assertion I'd like to see backed up by some cited statistics), one would think their desire to marry and make a lasting, monogamous commitment/contribution to society would be looked on as a step in the right direction. I would also be interested to know whether you feel there is an alternate solution for the gay community. Are you saying they should recognize themselves to be "perverts" and decide to be celibate, give up any chance at love, because their behavior--indeed, their very existence--might offend someone? I promise you I'm not asking this to be belligerent or confrontational...I'd honestly like to know. With respect, Molly |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: harpmolly Date: 07 Sep 07 - 10:51 PM P.S. On rereading much of the thread, I realize I'm probably barking up the wrong tree in terms of actually addressing akenaton's arguments (but I'm still happy to have said what I did). Your main point seems to be the idea that the gay marriage movement is a nefarious plot, put forward by the homosexual lobby to force acceptance down people's throats. I honestly don't think this is the main reason for it. True, there are a lot of very demonstrative people out there, and I don't blame them--when a community feels that they are being treated unfairly, it's only natural to protest. However, the gay people I know, in general, are smart and cynical enough (after decades of being treated like second-class citizens) to realize that enacting same-sex marriage legislation is not going to cause the Moral Majority to come down from the pulpit and welcome them with open arms. Frankly, the idea here is that same-sex couples should have THE SAME RIGHTS as everybody else, REGARDLESS of whether the majority approves of their behavior. As I said, they want access to the LEGAL privileges and benefits married couples enjoy (which, as has been pointed out, civil unions do not. The gay community is close-knit and contains its own internal support system, along with a large portion of the population who DO welcome them with open arms. I think they would just as soon tell those who don't approve of them to mind their own damn business (and possibly to stop beating the shit out of them periodically). No one has time to waste trying to force emotional/psychological acceptance from anyone else. Molly |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 08 Sep 07 - 03:20 AM Thanks for that reasoned post Molly and I agree with quite a bit of it. However, I notice even you, use the "none of our damn business" argument occasionally. Well it's not only the religious who believe in the institution of marriage, in fact a huge majority all over the world hold this view and they may feel that the sexual orientation of those allowed into that institution is very much their business. I repeat, none of the points I raise on this thread are necessarily my personal opinions....Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 08 Sep 07 - 06:37 PM I'm not clear what legal rights and privileges are excluded in civil unions and included in marriages. I suppose this might vary from country to country - but then that can apply in the case of marriages as well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Riginslinger Date: 08 Sep 07 - 11:53 PM I guess I thought marriages and civil unions were pretty much the same thing. If marriages are to be performed by a church, and the church objects to same sex marriage, wouldn't that be the business of the church? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: dick greenhaus Date: 09 Sep 07 - 08:18 PM Riginslinger- If marriages and civil unions were pretty much the same thing, this argument would be pretty trivial. They're not, and it isn't. Unfortunately a state-granted civil union doesn't convey several of the federally-granted and private industry-granted privileges that marriage does. In New Jersey, interestingly enough, two homosexuals can establish a civil union--two heteros CAN'T, unless both are over 65 years of age. You figure. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Riginslinger Date: 09 Sep 07 - 10:52 PM dick - No, I didn't know any of that. I thought a civil-union was a marriage without the wedding cake, preacher, somebody giving the bride away, and all the hoopla. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:22 AM That's what I meant by "I suppose this might vary from country to country". I'd have thought it might be a better strategy to get rid of anomalies like that directly in those places where they apply. My understanding is that in the UK marriages and civil unions are pretty much the same thing, so that the argument is pretty trivial. The controversy here seems to be about the fact that heterosexual couples who don't wish to go through a marriage ceremony cannot opt for the civil partnership one. (I have some difficulty in understanding why they should,given that they are effectively equivalent.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Greg B Date: 10 Sep 07 - 08:22 AM "On this thread, as I am not a Christian or a member of any other religion I have tried to be objective in everything I have written." This rather reminds me of the arguments that I once heard for keeping black folks from renting one's house at the Jersey shore. "Well, I have nothing against colored people per se, but the fact is that if I rent to them it will bring down the property values." A variation on that theme "Well I have nothing against colored people per se, but if I rent to coloreds my neighbors will be very upset and I try to be a good neighbor, to go along and get along." In the above two cases the bigot tries to make the problem about property values or about neighborliness--- just practical matters, you know? When the fact is, that it's really all about bigotry--- and you're kidding yourself if you prefix your support of bigotry with the old "I have nothing against..." or "Some of my best friends are..." If you refuse to rent to people of color you DO have something against them, and you are doing something against them. Likewise, if you call that friendship, then you've got a funny definition. The same is true of the form of bigotry which we call 'homophobia.' You can't simultaneously deny homosexuals equal rights under the law and claim that you're neither a homophobe nor a practicing bigot. Regardless of what nice bits of 'double think' you might try and wrap your denial in. Denial of civil rights is an act of aggression, as much so as is waiting outside a gay bar with a group of thugs, and blood in one's eyes. Don't think so? Society does! That's why we regularly bring gay-bashers (and lynch mobs, and cops who beat up black men for the crime of 'driving while black') for a crime of civil rights violations. Civil rights is neither more nor less than equal protection under the law--- whether that is the right to not be beaten for accidents of one's birth or the right to have one's committed love relationships recognized by society as a whole. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Bee Date: 10 Sep 07 - 08:26 AM I would like to challenge Akenaton's assumption that homosexuals are "bent on coercing society into accepting a lifestyle which a large majority find abhorrent". That does not appear to be true in either part - the 'coercing' or the 'majority finds abhorrent'. I've just done some searching and found this: http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:X_OaHUbl-dMJ:www.legermarketing.com/documents/SPCLM/010716ENG.pdf+attitudes+toward+homosexu, among others. The conclusions here are that, overall, about 75% of the total Canadian population thinks that homosexuals are just like anybody else and should have the same rights as anybody else, including rights to marriage and adoption. Younger and working people are more likely to believe this. Older non-working males are least likely to think this way, along with people whose mother tongue is neither French nor English. This is Canada; I think Akenaton is an American? However, can the reality be that different in the US? Ake, you say you yourself are not anti-homosexual, but the Canadian stats suggest you may be living or working in an area which is not representative of 'the majority' at all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: artbrooks Date: 10 Sep 07 - 09:36 AM As Dick said, in the US, participation in a civil union (however that might be defined) does not bring with it full Federal government benefits. For example, the spouse (defined for the purpose of this as a member of a marriage, and Federal law defines "marriage" as an exclusively heterosexual relationship) of a Federal employee is covered by his or her health insurance, while a (civil union) partner is not. A spouse is entitled to a share of a living retiree's Social Security benefits, and to a survivor's benefit when the retiree is deceased, while a partner is not. I think (but I'm not certain) that a partner can receive a survivor's annuity under the Federal Civil Service retirement system, but it would be under what is called the "insurable interest" section of the law and would cost significantly more than a spousal annuity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 10 Sep 07 - 11:00 AM Personally, I don't think the Feds have any business dictating with whom one may partner in marriage, and should make their civil benefits uniformly available to civil unions. Marriage as a sacrament, which is a different thing altogether, is purely the business of various churches and similar institutions and should have no part in government's concerns. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: frogprince Date: 10 Sep 07 - 01:36 PM I'm realizing that, as a U.S. Citizen, I seem to have missed some basic legal definitions. We know at least two young couples who have been married in civil ceremonies, which just means married by a judge instead of by clergy. How would a couple go about entering a legal "civil union"? Do you know of any hetero couples doing so? If so, why would they go with that status instead of marriage? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Don Firth Date: 10 Sep 07 - 02:25 PM Good question, frogprince. Some years ago, I was a witness at the marriage of two friends. Neither she nor he were church-goers, and they opted to be married by a judge. Civil union. No religious ceremony. Yet—this was regarded by all as a full marriage, with all the customary rights and privileges prescribed by law, and it was also regarded as such by their employers in matters of health insurance. Why, then, are same-sex couples united in a civil union—or a religious ceremony—denied these same rights and privileges? When Barbara and I were married, we went through the usual procedure of getting a license (required by law), signed the marriage certificate before the ceremony, and were then married in a church by a minister. Not by a judge. Yet, we, too, have the same full rights and privileges of a married couple. As far as church weddings of same-sex couples are concerned, although most conservative or fundamentalist Christian churches are strenuously opposed, not all Christian churches are. There is one church in my neighborhood that has married at least two same-sex couples that I know of, and perhaps more. And there are a couple of other fairly liberal churches nearby who are also signatories to the "Reconciled in Christ – Affirmation of Welcome" that I linked to in an above post. The government should stay out of the matter and grant full civil rights to everyone. The Constitution does not permit this kind of interference in the private lives of citizens, and any attempt to amend the Constitution to include such interference would be inconsistent with the rest of the Constitution. If a same-sex couple wants to have a church wedding, there are churches that will do it. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: John MacKenzie Date: 10 Sep 07 - 02:32 PM I heard a new acronym today SSLP, same sex life partner. I thought to myself is there then a case for an OSLP? Then I stopped to wonder 'Life Partner', oh yes, we all think that when we get married. So what happens when a same sex marriage breaks up, do they go through the same rigmarole as heterosexual couples? Do they fight for custody of the sex toys? [I know I did!] Ponderingly yours Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Bill D Date: 10 Sep 07 - 02:33 PM There are (at least) 3 different situations being described here. 1)A classic church marriage, with 'marriage license' procured from a civil office, but ceremony performed by clergy. 2)A marriage with the same license, but ceremony done by a judge or other certified 'civil' official. No difference at all in the eyes of the laws & courts...all rights of inheritance and power of attorney in case of illness and freedom from having to testify against 'spouse'...etc....as well as all obligations of a 'spouse' about debts and property. 3) Various 'civil unions' recognizing shared property rights and 'sometimes' allowing power of attorney...etc...but NOT full 'spousal' rights needed for adoption of children, inheritance of property...etc....in other words, not full marriage rights as in #2. because #3 has a number of variations, depending on the state, it is hard to say how many 3a, 3b, 3c...etc. there are. Obviously, most same-sex couples, many of whom are totally monogamous and dedicated to each other, wish to have the same **rights** as in #2, and many wish to have it like #1, as they are church members. There are those who wish to limit these rights because they assume that same sex couples should not be 'recognized by the church' or be free to raise children, or...or...or...celebrate Mother's Day...or whatever. The reasons they give for denying these rights almost always boil down to "I don't like it." (and as far as raising children--I see many, many hetero couples who should not be allowed to raise kids!) I personally know of two women who are raising a boy who was conceived thru artifical insemination and carried by one of his 'moms'...They are kind, intelligent, professional women and the boy is a happy, bright 3 year old. These are happy, productive people!....and you would not be welcome to butt in & tell them they in violation of God's Laws or doing anything evil or 'un-natural'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 10 Sep 07 - 03:07 PM Bee ...I suppose its like any other survey and depends on how the questions are loaded. The "liberal" climate in many Western countries (political correctness) would have a big bearing on any survey. However if you broaden things out a bit.....the world contains many different religions and cultures and most would condemn homosexuality by a huge majority. I know we in the West think we are so "liberal" and so right, but massive drug use and addiction, pornography in all its sleazy forms, exploitation of children for money, are just afew of the things which give the lie to that idea....Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Greg B Date: 10 Sep 07 - 03:19 PM So you put same-sex marriage in the same bucket as "massive drug use and addiction, pornography in all its sleazy forms, exploitation of children for money?" Personally, I'd put it in the same category of "freedom of religion," "freedom of speech," "freedom of association," "separation of church and state." While we're loathing the West so much--- do you really believe that drug addiction is a Western phenomenon? And who is to say that "pornography in all its sleazy forms" isn't an expression of free speech and thought? (Well, at least in SOME of its sleazy forms.) That it isn't, in fact, an indication that at least some of society has put aside prudishness? And, as far as I can tell, "exploitation of children for money" seems to be most dominant in the Third World, where they labor in sweat shops to produce cheap goods for the West, while enjoying none of the fruits of their labors. The difference, to me, is not whether "most...condemn homosexuality by a huge majority" but rather whether that "huge majority" recognizes the limits of its power to act upon that moral judgment, or to impose it upon a minority. The Islamist, for example, feels perfectly free to impose 'Islamic law' as the law under which all in his particular geographic area will live. So, unfortunately, does the Fundamentalist Christian in many cases. Both have a problem with the line between where their own lives end, and where the lives of others begin. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: John MacKenzie Date: 10 Sep 07 - 03:40 PM I just love the way huge leaps of association are made in order to push some people's personal agenda. No this is not aimed at anybody in particular, mainly because quite a few people do it! giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Don Firth Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:04 PM The idea that the "liberal West" is more "permissive" than the rest of the world when it comes to drug use, pornography, and all that just doesn't wash. When it comes to child prostitution and pornography, take a good look at Thailand, where child prostitution is a tourist attraction. Drug use is rampant in many parts of the world—sometimes as part of religious ceremonies. And as far as obscenity is concerned, I don't think there are few things much more obscene that publicly beheading someone because they were caught in—or suspected of—a bit of sexual hanky-panky. But some of this country's allies and trade partners practice this sort of thing. No, when it comes to "sleaze" and "permissiveness," to say that this is the province on the Western countries (Europe and North America) is sheer nonsense. And when you consider that roughly ten percent of the human population is homosexual (Alfred Kinsey's figures, corroborated by Masters and Johnson)—and that this is not a matter of choice, as some erroneously believe—discriminating against same-sex couples is no different from denying someone's civil rights simply because that person is left-handed. To say that homosexuality is "unnatural" is also erroneous. It has been observed in a number of animal species. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:05 PM Here's the UK government site on what are called Civil Partnerships here. There does appear to be a bit of variance on what this kind of thing implies in different legal systems, which is a bit confusing. Of the course the same thing applies to "marriages". A (heterosexual) marriage that is perfectly legal in one country may not be recognised as such in another. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:21 PM Grab and Don....I think you know very well the point I was making to Bee. But you can't let Bee answer in your haste to jump in and twist the argument. I don't expect I'll say much more on this thread, certainly wont rise to Greg's bait....a man so committed to "gay rights" that he felt obliged to declare himself a "hetrosexual" gay rights activist....need I say more? Don you continue to churn out the unreasoning cliches...this forum should be a meeting of minds...try to be objective for once. And Bee i'm not an American...I'm a Scottish Nationalist, and Jock's wan as well....in fact we're a right pair o' Nationalists. I think we should get merried :0)........Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:29 PM OSLPs used to be listed on the population census as POSSLQ (persons of opposite sex sharing living quarters). Thus the venerable love song, Rose are red, Violets are blue. Won't you be My POSSLQ? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:35 PM "Partner" - now that really is an ambiguous term. Even "Sleeping Partner". I think "spouse" is a word that deserves to be brought back into use. And it's got the advantage that it could be used by gay couple in "civil partnerships" just as well just as well as people in (mixed) marriages. And there'd be no need for any legal shenanigans in using it, and no legal ground for anyone to challenge it so far as I can see. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Don Firth Date: 10 Sep 07 - 05:02 PM "Don you continue to churn out the unreasoning cliches...this forum should be a meeting of minds...try to be objective for once." I am being objective, Ake. I'm presenting established facts. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean I'm not being objective. And "unreasoning cliches?" I don't think so. A substantial amount of reasoning went into what I've posted, and facts are not "clichés," even if you don't like them. Are you able to point out, specifically, where I'm not being objective? And just which of the things I've posted are "unreasoning clichés?" I'm just curious. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Bill D Date: 10 Sep 07 - 05:16 PM I read thru 'most' of that UK 'civil partnership' explanation. It tells where to go, what you must do, who can present,...all sorts of things...but I can't find diddly-squat about exactly what RIGHTS the civil partners have - or don't have. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 10 Sep 07 - 05:21 PM Don I'm not being dismissive, so please don't be offended. I've been out roughcasting since 7 this morning and its now10:30. I just can't be bothered getting bogged down in that sort of discussion. But things like "homosexual animals" and "10% of the human race is homosexual".......do you think my heid buttons up the back? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 Sep 07 - 05:39 PM This link has rather more about that stuff, Bill D. (From the government Women and Equality Unit.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Don Firth Date: 10 Sep 07 - 05:49 PM Ake, Alfred Kinsey's 1950s statistical study of the sexual behavior of the human male and human female turned up information that many people found upsetting. For example, that at some time during their marriage, approximately 50% of married people, both male and female, had engaged at least once in extramarital sexual relations. AND—it turned up that somewhere between 8% and 14% engaged regularly in homosexual relations, about 10% exclusively. Many people attacked Kinsey, not because they could find fault with his research and his figures, but because they didn't want to hear it! His figures were later corroborated by other researchers, including Masters and Johnson. As far as homosexual behavior in animals is concerned, look up the behavior of bonobo chimpanzees in particular. Similar behavior has also been witnessed among some birds and a number of mammal species. Not all members of any given species participate, but an observed percentage do. CHECK YOUR FACTS. I find the eating habits of some members of my species a bit disgusting—not to mention the political behavior of lots of people—but I would certainly not deny them their civil rights because of it. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:03 PM Don as you probably know .....I distrust such "facts" Don't try to beat me up with them....In fact just go to the back of the class with Teribus...you can compare books...and things...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Bill D Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:08 PM Thanks, Kevin... I see they are trying.... "Civil partners will have equal treatment in a wide range of legal matters with married couples, including: Tax, including inheritance tax; Employment benefits; Most state and occupational pension benefits; Income related benefits, tax credits and child support; Duty to provide reasonable maintenance for your civil partner and any children of the family; Ability to apply for parental responsibility for your civil partner's child; Inheritance of a tenancy agreement; Recognition under intestacy rules; Access to fatal accidents compensation; Protection from domestic violence; and Recognition for immigration and nationality purposes" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:11 PM Never read Kinsey, but I take it his research was done exclusively in America? If so that research would suggest that there is a possibility that 10% of the people he spoke to could be homosexual. It is a huge leap, to extrapolate from that, that 10% of the world's population is homosexual......facts my arse!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Don Firth Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:12 PM Cheap shot, Ake! Do a little research before you try to relegate people to the back of the class. Check for yourself. Or are you afraid of what you'll find if you do? I'll let other people judge whether what I have posted is factual or not. The cited facts are out there for anyone to look at, including you. Duty calls, so I'm outta here for now, but I'll be back later. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 Sep 07 - 07:06 PM But it is true enough that any assumption that statistics gathered from one part of the world apply universally is open to question. Imagine doing that on physical attributes like height or weight or skin colour. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST, Ebbie Date: 10 Sep 07 - 07:53 PM Same sex sexual relationships among a number of animal species is well documented. And not just American animals, Ake. :) You might want to check it out before your saw cuts through the limb. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 10 Sep 07 - 08:53 PM I expect those nations with similar cultural tensions -- France, England, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Greenland, maybe Portugal, Greece, Italy, Yugoslavia/Serbo-Croatia, and Turkey, for example, would prove to have similar per centages, with minor variance. Your implication that the U.S. might have a strongly skewed figure one way or the other, compared to other regions, is interesting, implying that it is cultural permission that drives the statistic. I don't buy it. I do think that in highly repressive societies (such as the one some folks would like us to live in) you would find out about a lot fewer instances. But that's neither here nor there, as the actress told the bishop. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: TheSnail Date: 10 Sep 07 - 09:01 PM akenaton I'm a Scottish Nationalist Hmmmm, I wonder if this could have any bearing on the issue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: harpmolly Date: 10 Sep 07 - 10:20 PM Ake, it strikes me that for someone who doesn't trust/like "such facts", you don't bother to back up your claim that "a huge majority" of the world's population is virulently against homosexuality. I haven't seen you cite any statistics at all, and yet you're trying to use the power of nebulous and unverified numbers as a respectable argument. The Kinsey studies, on the other hand, are well-documented and well-researched, and have been verified by independent sources (as Don pointed out). And of course, statistics aside, it's also true that societies evolve and change over time. I mean, a few hundred years ago the thought of black people or women voting (gasp! the horror!) was a much more universally contested issue than gay marriage is today. And yet, the thought of denying women or black people the vote today is unthinkable to most of us (with apologies to any Miami-Dade voting officials who may read this, of course *wickedgrin*). The point is, giving the vote to women and black people didn't automatically cause universal acceptance; as I pointed out earlier, that's hardly the goal. People deserve the same rights, whether Joe Sixpack (not to mention Pat Robertson) approves or disapproves. I don't for a single moment believe any of this will change your mind, of course. We can put forth a reasoned argument, and you can dismiss the "facts" and then turn around and accuse the lot of us of irrationality until we are both blue in the face. But as they say, it's better to light a candle than curse the darkness, eh? Cheers, Molly |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 11 Sep 07 - 03:17 AM Hi Snail...Sorry mate I'm afraid you're wrong again. That drawer of your's must be gettin' pretty full of second prizes! Mr Souter is of course an evangelical Christian and this is what forms his opinions...Not Scottish Nationalism. As an atheist I don't share Mr Souter's religious beliefs. However, I think if Don were to appear on the streets of Glasgow and tell the lads that one in ten of them were homosexual, he might have to get his runnin' shoes on....Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 11 Sep 07 - 03:35 AM Molly...For a start they're not "facts" at all they are statistics and everyone knows what they say about statistics. As I tried to point out above, societies do evolve...but not always for the better. The comparison of the homosexual issue with womens sufferage or civil rights for black "people" is spurious in the extreme. No one in their right mind wants to deprive homosexuals of the right to vote or go about their personal lives. Homosexuality is there and as I stated right at the start of this thread, persecution or bullying are completely unacceptable. For the purposes of this discussion, it's about how the homosexual lifestyle affects the rights of others. You may say "its none of their business". If you do you have not been reading the posts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: harpmolly Date: 11 Sep 07 - 04:00 AM But you see, no one has given me a satisfactory explanation of how "the homosexual lifestyle affects the rights of others". Plain and simple...it doesn't. No one else's rights are being infringed. And I assure you I have been reading the posts. ;) Round and round we go... Cheers, M P.S. "However, I think if Don were to appear on the streets of Glasgow and tell the lads that one in ten of them were homosexual, he might have to get his runnin' shoes on..." OK, I admit it, that did give me a giggle. You could have a point there. Of course, I think it would depend on which streets...;) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: TheSnail Date: 11 Sep 07 - 06:36 AM akenaton Mr Souter is of course an evangelical Christian and this is what forms his opinions...Not Scottish Nationalism. I was more concerned with how Mr Souter formed the opinions of the SNP than the other way round. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: John MacKenzie Date: 11 Sep 07 - 06:53 AM Gosh, you do know absolutely nothing about the SNP don't you my little gastropod? G. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: TheSnail Date: 11 Sep 07 - 07:14 AM Very little except that they seem to be happy to take the homophobic Mr Souter's cash. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: John MacKenzie Date: 11 Sep 07 - 07:41 AM Homophobia isn't against the law, nor is a deeply held religious belief. By what right do people ride rough shod over other people's sincerely held beliefs screaming ME ME ME! As with all single issue politics, it's all motivated by selfish self interest. If there is such a thing as Homosexual rights, then there must be heterosexual rights, and religious rights, or even the right to disapprove of motherhood and apple pie. So think of other people having rights before you claim precedence for your point of view to the exclusion of all others. Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: TheSnail Date: 11 Sep 07 - 08:00 AM Er, Right. Well, if you'll excuse me, things to see, people to do. Byeee. Slam. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 11 Sep 07 - 04:53 PM Well that snailed him jock....:0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: harpmolly Date: 11 Sep 07 - 10:38 PM Now wait just a moment, John... "By what right do people ride rough shod over other people's sincerely held beliefs screaming ME ME ME!" (?). Are you speaking of the gay rights movement riding roughshod over the beliefs of religious and/or homophobics? So let's analyze this: Gay people are expected to accept less than full civil equality because their body chemistry/biological makeup causes them to love in a way that runs contrary to others' "deeply held religious beliefs"? I have to respectfully point out again that religion, however deeply held, is not dictated by physiognomy but by tradition, history, and familial indoctrination. A person's religious beliefs may govern their OWN actions and the way they live their lives, but at least in the US (I can't speak for Scotland) the idea is that each citizen is accorded rights regardless of their belief or lack thereof. So (and I feel like I'm stating this question for the umpteenth time), what gives those with deeply held beliefs the privilege of riding roughshod over the civil rights of gay people? And yet again, whether one believes in God, Allah, Buddha, the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal, or no higher power at all, how can the marriage of two people who love each other--gay, straight, bi, whatever--possibly weaken or affect his/her own? Good Lord, pretty soon I'm going to be turning to Bill Clinton for a straight answer to that question, because nobody else will give me one. *rolling eyes* The whole "Gay marriage tramples on the beliefs of the religious" argument makes me furious, I'll admit, because the assumption is that the equality (not to mention happiness and well-being) of gay people is somehow subordinate to the faithful's/homophobic's right to treat them like second-class citizens. Golden Rule, my ass. Molly |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Ebbie Date: 11 Sep 07 - 11:20 PM Giok, you say: "If there is such a thing as Homosexual rights, then there must be heterosexual rights, and religious rights, or even the right to disapprove of motherhood and apple pie." But don't you see, don't you agree, that there are many, many rights that heterosexuals and religios take as a matter of course? All that homosexuals are demanding is the same rights. I suppose it's inevitable that applehood and mother pie are disapproved of somewhere. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Greg B Date: 12 Sep 07 - 12:05 AM Ake speweth: "certainly wont rise to Greg's bait...." Won't, or can't? Your only virtue as a bigot, Ake, is that you don't attempt to appeal to the Deity in order to support your bigotry. Nor, it seems, even to logic. You are, rather, a humanist bigot, attempting to support your bigotry by claiming that the 'majority' are bigots like yourself. "a man so committed to "gay rights" that he felt obliged to decare himself a "hetrosexual" gay rights activist....need I say more?" I simply am attempting to forestall your picturing me in a lavender boa, Ake. However, I'd also assert that I'm with the (your sacred word) 'majority' of those who are in favor of equal rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and trans-gendered people, who are themselves 'none of the above.' Contrary to the image of the drag queen prancing down the street in the Gay Pride parade. "But things like "homosexual animals" and "10% of the human race is homosexual".......do you think my heid buttons up the back?" Perhaps not, but I begin to suspect that you might be wearing knickers 'neath your kilt. "you can compare books...and things" Queer-baiting are we now? How trite. I smell a rat. "However, I think if Don were to appear on the streets of Glasgow and tell the lads that one in ten of them were homosexual, he might have to get his runnin' shoes on" Usually there is something which underlies such violent reactions--- like the truth. We know well that all too often the most virulent objections to homosexuality are put forward by those who're later found either sending signals 'neath the doors of the gents or chasing after young legislative assistants of the same gender. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Don Firth Date: 12 Sep 07 - 01:26 AM Nobody in his right mind would walk up to a group of "lads" in any city, town, or hamlet and say "Ten percent of you are homosexual," unless he had a death wish*. And in any group of ten lads, there may be nobody there who is gay. But in the next group of ten—who knows? The fact (omigod!! There's that word again!!) is that in any sufficiently large gathering of people, somewhere around ten percent (give or take a percentage point) will be homosexual. This is true in Paris, London, Athens, Seattle, Los Angeles, Beijing, Capetown, Alice Springs. . . . . . . and, yeah verily, in Glasgow. Don Firth *I tend to believe that the reaction one would probably get in this theoretical confrontation stems from the rather tenuous grasp a lot of very macho-seeming men actually have on their masculinity. And that's not theoretical. It's sound psychology. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 12 Sep 07 - 02:29 AM Will you tell them ...or shall I? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 12 Sep 07 - 02:55 AM Molly and Ebbie I am still trying to keep this discussion impersonal.....against extreme provocation from Greg and Don :0). You both say in slightly different literary styles that..."All that homosexuals are demanding is the same rights". Most people who believe in the sanctity of conventional marriage to support a conventional family structure would disagree. They would contend that the homosexuals already have exactly the same rights at present and want separate rights to take their lifestyle into account. Many would also contend that the homosexual lifestyle can never sit easily beside a strong family structure and should always remain separate. These separate right will of course impact on the existing rights of the majority......Its simple common sense. Oh and just a word for those who get excited about what I wear under my kilt....Only two on Mudcat are privvy to that information and they won't be tellin'...when you're on to a good thing, you keep it to yourself.....Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: John MacKenzie Date: 12 Sep 07 - 04:42 AM You see what happens when you try to point things out in a civilised manner, people start brandishing words like bigot around. How objective is that? G |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 12 Sep 07 - 05:32 AM The fact...is that in any sufficiently large gathering of people, somewhere around ten percent (give or take a percentage point) will be homosexual. I don't think the research has been done widely enough that justifies the term "fact". Maybe the figure is lower, maybe it is higher. Extrapolating from the limited local research that has been done is really a matter of speculation. In any case talk about percentages is surely pretty irrelevant, either way. If the actual figure was one per cent or twenty per cent, what difference would that make to the rights or wrongs of it all? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: PMB Date: 12 Sep 07 - 05:33 AM Many would also contend that the homosexual lifestyle can never sit easily beside a strong family structure and should always remain separate. These separate right will of course impact on the existing rights of the majority......Its simple common sense. Do they have the right to that contention? "It always has been this way" isn't the same as "it always should be this way", otherwise as others have pointed out, the white majority would contend that it's their right to own black slaves. Others wouuld contend that "it's only natural" for women to be subject to their husbands (and do- many of them on the religious right). Slaveowners did contend that abolition would impact on "the existing rights of the majority", and a million inhabitants of North America died in the ruckus that followed. I would contend furtthermore that there's no such thing as "the homosexual lifestyle", and that the phrase merely indicates an inability to see people as individuals rather than tokens. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: TheSnail Date: 12 Sep 07 - 06:15 AM Just for the record, despite what Giok and akenaton might lead you to believe, the Scottish National Party are, in their own words, - a democratic left-of-centre political party committed to Scottish Independence. It aims to create a just, caring and enterprising society by releasing Scotland's full potential as an independent nation in the mainstream of modern Europe. They have, with a few exceptions, an excellent voting record on gay rights. I'll slip away again before Giok subjects me to more of his "civilised manner". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Bee Date: 12 Sep 07 - 07:26 AM "Most people who believe in the sanctity of conventional marriage to support a conventional family structure would disagree. They would contend that the homosexuals already have exactly the same rights at present and want separate rights to take their lifestyle into account. Many would also contend that the homosexual lifestyle can never sit easily beside a strong family structure and should always remain separate. These separate right will of course impact on the existing rights of the majority......Its simple common sense." - Akenaton How is the right to marry, for example, a 'seperate right'? Please don't tell me 'well, they have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex', as that is a silly contention, as well as a reminder of the often sad consequences in the past when homosexuals often did marry, in order to appease convention, or to try to overcome their own natures, leading to miserable relationships plagued by sexual disfunction, adulterous behaviours, and marriage breakdown. What exactly do you think 'the homosexual lifestyle' is? If you are going by the crowd of young men who descend on the gay bars every weekend, some squealing delicately and others flexing their manly biceps, well, that is equivalent to stating that a bar full of drunk and roaring young football fans is 'the heterosexual lifestyle'. There's a lot more to life than where you go and what you do to entertain yourself when you are young. The real 'homosexual lifestyle' is pretty much like everyone else's: get up, go to work, come home, make dinner, make the kids do homework if you have kids, do housework, walk the dog, on weekends do the yardwork, maintain your property, etc. You say: "These separate right will of course impact on the existing rights of the majority......Its simple common sense" but I cannot see how this would be true. What is the impact? How does a same sex marriage in any way affect anyone else's marriage? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: artbrooks Date: 12 Sep 07 - 08:06 AM Most people who believe in the sanctity of conventional marriage ...would contend that the homosexuals already have exactly the same rights at present and want separate rights to take their lifestyle into account. As I pointed out earlier, under US Federal law there are distinct financial benefits associated with being legally "married", and this (marriage) is a distinction reserved (also under Federal law) to heterosexual couples. A heterosexual couple married under what is know as "the common law", which is permitted in a minority of states, can also receive these benefits but must jump through a number of hoops to prove that they are "holding themselves out as a couple" rather than just being shacked up together. A married couple must simply provide a copy of the marriage license as proof. {For those in the discussion who may not follow the distinction, "Federal" means applying to the United States government's laws and regulations and not to those of the states. State law applies only within that particular state and doesn't overrule Federal laws as they refer to Federal benefits. If a couple is married in a state (eg, Massachusetts) or country (eg, Canada) where such is legal, they are still not eligible for Federal benefits.} So then, the right that homosexual couples are seeking is the same right that married heterosexual couples currently have: the right to receive benefits to which couples are ordinarily entitled. BTW, did I see a professed atheist use the term "the sanctity of conventional marriage"? That would be sanctity as in sacred? Sacred to whom/Whom? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Greg B Date: 12 Sep 07 - 09:56 AM In my experience, there are more civilized, civil, and sanctimonious bigots around than there are swastika'd skin-heads. It's the ones who cloak their bigotry in various appeals to the high moral ground or to science or statistics who are the most insidious and dangerous, because they manage to gather the weight of law and/or the voting populace behind them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Wolfgang Date: 12 Sep 07 - 10:56 AM Demographics of sexual orientation In general, surveys quoted by anti-gay activists tend to show figures nearer 1%, while surveys quoted by gay activists tend to show figures nearer 10% The mean across modern surveys is a bit lower than half of the 10% quoted by Don Firth. That's a fairly good Wikipedia article telling about the difficulties and pitfalls of such type of research. It is interesting to note that even in the same country surveys just one or two decades apart can lead to very different results. There are data from many more countries than just the USA and the variance of results between countries is comparable to the variance within countries. That makes the generalisation to other countries not yet studied a fairly safe one. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: frogprince Date: 12 Sep 07 - 11:31 AM One thing you must realize; if a male is raised by lesbians, there is a real danger that he will grow up to be sexually aroused by women! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: PMB Date: 12 Sep 07 - 11:40 AM Does that mean my mother and father were lesbians? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Ebbie Date: 12 Sep 07 - 12:45 PM "ou both say in slightly different literary styles that..."All that homosexuals are demanding is the same rights". "ost people who believe in the sanctity of conventional marriage to support a conventional family structure would disagree. They would contend that the homosexuals already have exactly the same rights at present and want separate rights to take their lifestyle into account. "any would also contend that the homosexual lifestyle can never sit easily beside a strong family structure and should always remain separate. "hese separate right will of course impact on the existing rights of the majority......Its simple common sense." Ake "Common sense", it is NOT. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: MMario Date: 12 Sep 07 - 12:49 PM the homosexual lifestyle can never sit easily beside a strong family structure and should always remain separate oh - like having a heterosexual couple w/ children automatically means a strong family structure? bollucks! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 12 Sep 07 - 01:26 PM I would pose the question whether there is a handy comparison between divorce rates in hetero couples with children versus "divorce" rates between similarly committed same-sex couples. By and large the homesexual people I have met in life tend to be kinder, more thoughtful, and more civilized than the heterosexual ones. Given that sexuality is a private individual right and the practice of it no-one else's business, I fail to see what possible impact honoring same-sex allegiances in marriage could possibly have on heterosexual couples, unless one or the other of said couples were suppressed homosexuals who finally got rid of their suppression. Freedom under the law is really intolerable sometimes, huh? A A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Ebbie Date: 12 Sep 07 - 01:45 PM "...what possible impact honoring same-sex allegiances in marriage could possibly have on heterosexual couples..." That is the central thought, Amos, that I have NEVER heard any protester define or defend, only assert. I suspect that it is because they don't have a sensible answer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Wolfgang Date: 12 Sep 07 - 01:48 PM Same-sex couples' "divorce rates? Extremely different for male-male (very high compared to female-male) and female-female (low, probably even lower than female-male). Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: MMario Date: 12 Sep 07 - 02:00 PM ?? wonder what would happen to the rates when kids factor in. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Ebbie Date: 12 Sep 07 - 02:45 PM Knowing you, Wolfgang, I have no doubt but that you have studies that support your stats. Would you cite them, please? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Wolfgang Date: 12 Sep 07 - 02:49 PM D. Symons, The evolution of human sexuality, has a good review of such data. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 12 Sep 07 - 03:17 PM Wolfgang..I take it that no studies have been done in Muslim countries. Surely if they were taken into the equation the overall results would be quite different? In his original post, Don was referingto the percentage of homosexual to Hetrosexual worldwide....Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 12 Sep 07 - 03:28 PM If it's mainly down to biology you'd expect that the proportions involved would be pretty consistent in different places and times. On thee other hand,if it's mainly cultural you wouldn't necessarily. But then it all gets skewed up by other factors, notably predominant social attitudes and the legal situation. If people identified as gay are liable to be persecuted that could be expected to make them a tiny bit reluctant to come out as such in response to surveys. But the actual figures aren't what matters - either low figures or high figures could equally be used as a basis for either acceptance or persecution. Or for anything in between, for that matter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 12 Sep 07 - 03:34 PM The baseline is probably biological, but the numbers in evidence will certainly be being squirreled by cultural suppression or cultural exaggeration. In the post-Victorian US, mostly suppression; in Attic Greece, perhaps cultural exaggeration. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 12 Sep 07 - 03:35 PM PDM For the purposes of this discussion, "The homosexual lifestyle" would mean two or more men in a sexual relationship. It's obvious that no family structure can be built from this type of relationship. Lesbians on the other hand are quite capable of producing children by IVF. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 12 Sep 07 - 03:36 PM And gay men are perfectly capable of building families by adoption, thus relieving the over-production practiced in some parts of the world. What's the point? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 12 Sep 07 - 03:39 PM McGrath and Amos....Exactly right, as I said further up the page. "Everyone knows what they say about statistics" I just wish Don and his posse would stop presenting them as fact. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 12 Sep 07 - 03:41 PM Ah "Gay" foster parents........Thats a completely different can of worms. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: MMario Date: 12 Sep 07 - 03:42 PM It's obvious that no family structure can be built from this type of relationship So you presume that only functionaly fertile couples can be married? Any couple incapable of producing children between the two of them is an invalid marriage? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: MMario Date: 12 Sep 07 - 03:44 PM It doesn't necessarily have to be adoption - there are quite a few gay men who have biological children. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Bee Date: 12 Sep 07 - 03:58 PM Akenaten, you still have not explained why you think same sex marriage would have a negative impact on heterosexual marriage. Many gay men have biological children, either a result of early experiment and/or denial of their orientation, or as a deliberate act of planned parenting with a woman friend, or through adoption. Since you don't like studies, then anecdotally, I have known, long term, half a dozen homosexual male couples with children. They were perfectly happy normal kids, the parenting was excellent. None of the older boys showed any sign of being homosexual themselves at puberty - they were very interested in girls. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Don Firth (computer back in the shop again!) Date: 12 Sep 07 - 04:24 PM Wolfgang, I quoted from the Kinsey Reports, so it is not my contention. I recall seeing in his books a chart of percentages of sexual orientation, and on the chart was a diagonal line, running from 7% to 14%, and the text that went with the graphs indicated that the figures indicated roughly—roughly—10%, give or take a couple of percentage points. Some researchers contest his findings, others. I neither support it nor challenge his findings, I merely quoted them. Do with them what you will. The more recent figures quoted in the Wikipedia article are probably more accurate. 4% to 5% is quite probably about right. But—that does not alter the civil rights issue. If only one-tenth of one percent of the human population engages in homosexual activity with other consenting adults of similar orientation, and a particular same-sex couple wishes to be regarded as married in the same way as heterosexual couples—or if twenty percent wish to do so—it's still one helluva stretch to try to claim that allowing them the same rights and privileges as heterosexual married couples in any way "endangers the sanctity of marriage." The only thing it "endangers" is the sense of propriety of people who are overly concerned with what other people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. Don Firth P. S. It appears to me that those who seem to be most opposed to allowing same-sex couples to marry for "moral" or "endangering the sanctity of marriage" or for economic reasons (insurance coverage, inheritance rights, etc.) are pretty much the same people who object so strenuously to the idea that one out of ten people might be gay. For those who are trying to whittle down the figures, let me point out that if anyone is concerned about some kind of economic impact that same-sex married couples might have, the smaller the percentage, the less the impact. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Wolfgang Date: 12 Sep 07 - 05:04 PM Yes, Don, you quoted and I have never said anything else. people who are overly concerned with what other people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. Not necessarily true. One could not care at all about that and defend the right of people to do whatever* they want with consenting adults but disagree about homosexual marriage (the position of the German highest court BTW). Rapaire (many many posts ago, right at the start of the thread) has said what I personally think is the best solution. *no, surely not whatever, if you recall the German cannibal case who did with the other guy only what that guy wanted too. But that is an extreme case in which I cannot see anyone here defending the "right" of two consenting adults to do whatever they wanted for their sexual arousal. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: artbrooks Date: 12 Sep 07 - 05:13 PM "The homosexual lifestyle" would mean two or more men in a sexual relationship. "Homosexual" suddenly means men only? When did that happen? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 12 Sep 07 - 05:19 PM Your all clutching at straws. The example I cited was of two or more men in a sexual relationship. I believe multi -person sexual relationships are much more common among "homos" than "hetros" Without stooping to "facts and figures",I would think the chances of any of these men having a biological child is less than a snowball's chance in hell. Nice to see Don beating a retreat over his percentages, the rest of you should follow his example. Just open your eyes, try to be objective, don't be abusive tae Scotty ....Its easy peasy...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 12 Sep 07 - 05:29 PM Don, I don't object to the idea that one in ten might be homosexual. I just object to you presenting this idea as incontrovertible fact. You attempted to scupper my argument early on, by quoting this as fact several times. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: KB in Iowa Date: 12 Sep 07 - 05:34 PM And still I wonder - 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: Amos Date: 12 Sep 07 - 07:09 PM 1. Most homosexual males are perfectly capable of fathering a child. 2. Granting the full legal rights of marriage to same-sex couples of either gender is a simple act of humanity and equitable honor among human beings. As far as I can see it has no impact whatsoever on any right or practice outside the immediate individuals who would enjoy the right. I don't see anyone grasping at straws. Au contraire. Those who are protesting against reactionary thinking are coming from a strong fundamental bulwark of common respect for human beings without regard to their private decisions. This is a decent and compassionate thing to do. It is also a L:OT smarter than promulgating false divisions and promoting discord among humans over petty issues. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Don Firth Date: 12 Sep 07 - 08:36 PM Ake, you're just being silly. Let me point out to you that I am not "beating a retreat" as you so quaintly put it. Those were the figures that I had heard early on (in the 1950s) and which most people accepted for some decades. Further research has been done, and Wolfgang provided a link to some information on that research, which I have just read. When I am presented with new information that is more recent and more authoritative than what I previously heard, I am capable of revising what I hold to be the case. Are you? And it's interesting that you consider citing facts and figures as "stooping." By the way, 5% still scuppers your argument. All of this still leaves unanswered the question of how same-sex marriage affects the sanctity of the institution of marriage. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Ebbie Date: 12 Sep 07 - 10:05 PM I'm getting irritated by your repeated misspelling of a simple prefix, Ake. It is "And still I wonder - 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: harpmolly Date: 12 Sep 07 - 10:05 PM "I believe multi -person sexual relationships are much more common among "homos" than "hetros"" --akenaton ROFLMAO!!!!! Oh, *surely* you can't be serious... How many all-male harems have you encountered in the annals of world history (or modern history, for that matter)? If we're grasping at straws, ake, you're holding on by the tips of your fingernails. *grin* At this point, I don't think anyone here has serious hopes of changing your mind (or Caretaker's or anyone else's on this thread, for that matter). What I'm hoping for, at this point, is that when some random person finds this thread in the future, they will read down the posts and see for themselves who displays a deeper grasp of rational discourse...to say nothing of simple human compassion. You can choose to take that as personally as you wish. You'll note that I'm not using inflammatory language or name-calling; I'm just being straight with you. Your claim that you aren't arguing your "personal opinion" is patently ludicrous. No one plays devil's advocate with this level of feverish tenacity. Don, I salute you with this quote from William Blake: " I found myself sitting on a pleasant bank beside a river by moonlight, hearing a harper who sung to the harp; & his theme was: 'The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water, & breeds reptiles of the mind.'" (Sure, I could've abbreviated it, but...it mentions a harp! ;)) Molly |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Ebbie Date: 12 Sep 07 - 10:21 PM Well, I messed that up royally. Obviously, I meant to say that the word is 'hetero', not 'hetro'. Reminds me of when Doug R kept referring to 'terrierists', instead of 'terrorists'. To his credit, when he became aware of it he corrected himself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Bee Date: 12 Sep 07 - 11:32 PM I know a couple of 'terrierists' - those damn little dogs git into everything! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: katlaughing Date: 12 Sep 07 - 11:35 PM So, Ake, does this mean you've never been anybody's "creme puff?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Sep 07 - 06:45 AM Glancing over the last few posts it occurred to me there's a viable word there waiting for a definition - "retrosexual". As for 'terrierists', I've met a few of those. Vicious little brutes try to bite your ankles. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: TheSnail Date: 13 Sep 07 - 07:38 AM You're thinking of metrosexual. Scottish metrosexuals shave their knees. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Sep 07 - 07:40 AM No I'm not, snail. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: PMB Date: 13 Sep 07 - 07:45 AM Retrosexuals do it back-to-back, that's really safe sex. Haeterasexuals are clients of high- class lady companions. Santa is of course a ho-ho-homosexual. And Dracula is probably a haemosexual. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Mr Happy Date: 13 Sep 07 - 08:13 AM ..............& those homophones!!.........all sound the flippin' same!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 13 Sep 07 - 08:53 AM And some of my friends in Hell's Angels are V8 hemisexuals. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Wolfgang Date: 13 Sep 07 - 09:07 AM multi -person sexual relationships are much more common among "homos" than "hetros" The data: True for male homosexuals, wrong for female homosexuals. One better should always consider these two groups as separate. Averaging data here makes no sense. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Emma B Date: 13 Sep 07 - 09:20 AM Available on Listen again in the series of programmes "The Sex Lives of Us" - "Gay Times(part 1 of 2)" broadcast on BBC Radio 4 at 11.30am this morning Marking the 50th anniversary of the Wolfenden Report an interesting and thought-provoking look at the media's portrayal of homosexuality over the last 50 years with contributions from Paul Gambaccini and Maureen Duffy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Emma B Date: 13 Sep 07 - 04:57 PM According to the statistics quoted on this series of programmes looking at sexual behaviour in the UK, if you compare the number of multi - person sexual relationships between young homosexual males and heterosexual males of the same age with no family the numbers even up considerably! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: dick greenhaus Date: 13 Sep 07 - 08:14 PM "And still I wonder - how does the granting of those rights to homosexuals deny or affect the rights of the Christians or Moslems?" Well, the only way I can think of is financial; if same-sex couple could enjoy all the same legal benefits that married folk do, they might get a bit of money that they can't at present. Which money would have to come out of the common pool, conceivably resulting is a minuscule increase in the tax rate. WHich seems, IMO, like a pretty chickenshit reason for this sort of discrimination. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 13 Sep 07 - 11:58 PM Molly... you are quite wrong to suggest that I am incapable of holding an objective discussion. Giok posted something further up the thread which sums up the positions taken here....."By what right do people ride rough shod over other people's sincerely held beliefs screaming ME ME ME!" Now I'm not religious, I don't care a toss what homo's or hetro's(sorry Ebbie) do in private, and personally, I see pleny of things which could be improved about conventional marriage, but I do care about hypocrisy....and that is what is being projected by the majority of posters "how does the granting of those rights to homosexuals deny or affect the rights of the Christians or Moslems?" You say to me. "Don't you KNOW any homosexuals...well of course I do. Two or three, but I know literally hundreds of people who are in conventional marriages, who went through a marriage ceremony and believe marriage means the joining of a man and woman. To many people in my neck of the woods, their wedding day has been, or will be, the most important of their lives. They spend money on the big day, everything has to be perfect, the wedding album has pride of place in the home, the wedding picture will sit beside the pictures of children and grand children. Most of these people see homosexuality as a perversion, and to have the institution of marriage thrown open to homosexuals diminshes its status. While this view of homosexuality prevails, the rights of the majority are being subverted by "homosexual marriage" Are the rights of these people not being affected by having a beloved institution altered in a way which most find offensive? What will be the next change? Multi-person marriage? Anything goes? Is there nothing you would not condone in your battle against the bigots.........Or is it as Giok says...."one issue politics." And by the way Molly, I have a packet of screws here that you can use to fix your arse back on after reading Wolfgang's post. I can let you have 8's or 12's...depending on the size of the job...:0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: artbrooks Date: 14 Sep 07 - 12:19 AM Not that long ago, when I was a teenager, that particular rant would have/could have gone like this: You say to me. "Don't you KNOW anyone in a mixed marriage...well of course I do. Two or three, but I know literally hundreds of people who are married to people of their own race, who went through a marriage ceremony and believe marriage means the joining of a man and woman, but that race mixing is just wrong. To many people in my neck of the woods, their wedding day has been, or will be, the most important of their lives. They spend money on the big day, everything has to be perfect, the wedding album has pride of place in the home, the wedding picture will sit beside the pictures of children and grand children. Most of these people see mixed marriage as a perversion, and to have to recognize the marriage of a black man to a white woman just diminishes the status of their own marriage. Hopefully, times will continue to change. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 14 Sep 07 - 12:29 AM How the fuck could anyone see mixed marriage as a perversion? Its still the traditional male/ female relationship, regardless of colour. Talk sense! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 14 Sep 07 - 12:43 AM To try to equate the homosexual marriage issue, with black civil rights is an insult to all who took part in the Civil Rights Campaign. The people who organised the "Anti mixed marriage brigade" were more interested in political power than morality. As seen in South Africa. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Ebbie Date: 14 Sep 07 - 12:45 AM Ake, you tell him to talk sense- but I assure you that not too long ago, at least in the USA (I'm sure that Scotland, in its apparent liberalism, condoned/allowed/endorsed mixed marriages long before. *g*) mixed marriages and relationships were most definitely considered a perversion and an abomination. In fact, it wasn't long ago at all the last miscegenation prohibition was taken off the books. Dick, more money would be paid out- but more would be coming in, too. Ake, "in your neck of the woods", I suppose you rarely have divorces, multiple serial marriages, mistresses and broken homes? Frankly, I had thought that in your neck of the woods you were much less puritanical than we are in the USA. And more frankly still, at the moment I am quite proud of my country. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: PMB Date: 14 Sep 07 - 04:07 AM To try to equate the homosexual marriage issue, with black civil rights is an insult to all who took part in the Civil Rights Campaign. You just don't get it, do you? Discrimination is the point. You're entitled to see YOUR marriage in any way you like. But trying to impose YOUR values on someone else's relationship- that's what you are doing, you are saying that homosexuals don't love their partners in the same way that you love yours- is no different from devaluing those people for being black, Jewish, low- born, or any of the thousands of reasons the mean- minded have used to justify their bullying. To support discrimination is an insult to the Civil Rights campaign. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: TheSnail Date: 14 Sep 07 - 05:27 AM akenaton Giok posted something further up the thread which sums up the positions taken here....."By what right do people ride rough shod over other people's sincerely held beliefs screaming ME ME ME!" I don't know akenaton, you tell me. Why do you do it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Wolfgang Date: 14 Sep 07 - 11:24 AM The German situation is that there is marriage and a life partnership law regulating homosexual partnerships. Of course, homosexuals have gone to all courts to be allowed the access to marriage and our highest court (interpreting the constitution) ruled that it is unconstitutional to allow homosexual marriage. The marriage between man and woman has to be different from other kinds of partnership. Equal rights are not involved the court did rule, for everyone has the right to marry a heterosexual partner. Equal rights are only involved if exactly the same thing is not granted to a part of the population. It is not my opinion, but the court's argumentation is fairly close to Akenaton's. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Greg B Date: 14 Sep 07 - 11:28 AM Most of these people see homosexuality as a perversion, and to have the institution of marriage thrown open to homosexuals diminshes its status. While this view of homosexuality prevails, the rights of the majority are being subverted by "homosexual marriage" Are the rights of these people not being affected by having a beloved institution altered in a way which most find offensive? Most members of the all-white country clubs that predominated until very recently thought that the membership being thrown open to people of color and Jews diminished its status. Have their "rights" been diminished by the (sometimes legally compelled) inclusion of otherwise-qualified people of color? Absolutely NOT. Being comfortable at the expense of denying others equal opportunities in the world on the basis of the race, gender, or sexual orientation is NOT a human right. To position it as such is, once again, the refuge of self-justifying bigotry, a vile and evil corruption of the notion of 'freedom of association.' The racists' (and homophobes) problem is their own racism or homophobia, not the race or sexual orientation of those whom they encounter in this world. It is up to them to sort it out; not to rid their little world of "those people" who make them uncomfortable. There are human and civil rights which the "majority" doesn't get to over-rule. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: harpmolly Date: 14 Sep 07 - 12:22 PM So you're telling me, Ake, that a couple who spends $100,000 (or, pardon me, £50,000 ;)) on their wedding day would throw a tantrum, smash the cake, and declare the whole thing worthless if the reception hall next door hosted a gay wedding at the same time? Give me a break. Greg said it brilliantly: "Being comfortable at the expense of denying others equal opportunities in the world on the basis of the race, gender, or sexual orientation is NOT a human right. " The civil rights analogy is apt ("Apt!!!" as Lisa Simpson would shout). Frankly, if there were black people who were offended by the comparison, I would be sad for them--that they couldn't feel empathy and compassion for another group of people being discriminated against because of their biological makeup and others' irrational prejudice. As to the screws, if I needed them, you'd probably need to go up a size again. *grin* Unfortunately, my considerable derriere is still firmly affixed to my body. You'll have to try harder next time. "I believe multi -person sexual relationships are much more common among "homos" than "hetros"" --akenaton "The data: True for male homosexuals, wrong for female homosexuals. One better should always consider these two groups as separate. Averaging data here makes no sense." --Wolfgang Wolfgang's answer doesn't negate mine. Cultures across the world have engaged in multi-person sexual intercourse (my, is it getting hot in here?) The ancient Greeks may have had their share of gay orgies, but there are thousands upon thousands of harem girls down the ages that would contest your claim. If you'd care to re-word your statement more specifically, we might have the basis for discussion. And again, some data to back it up (on Wolfgang's part too) might help, but I know the chances of getting you to quote any sort of statistics is less likely than the chance of Britney Spears taking up the hammered dulcimer. ;) "Oops, I did it again..." *tinkle tinkle* "I played with your heart..." *deedledeedle*..."got lost in the game..." *flimflamflimmaflamma* hmmm...I like it! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: harpmolly Date: 14 Sep 07 - 12:28 PM And I can't resist quoting from the Roy Zimmerman video I posted earlier... "It's nobody's business who you love...it's interesting, but it's nobody's business. No, it's nobody's business who you love, where you love, what equipment you might use...well, actually, the equipment issomebody's business..." ;) And also to quote the great (and newly discovered by me) Michael Franti: "It's not about who you love, but do you love." (possibly slightly misquoted, as it's from memory.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Bee Date: 14 Sep 07 - 12:45 PM Akenaten, apparently your anecdotal evidence is more evidential than anyone else's. What you believe to be the norm where you live is not necessarily the norm elsewhere. I repeat, even in rural areas in my part of Canada, it is a rare person indeed who cares whether gay couples get married or not, and they certainly don't think it impacts or lessens the value of their own straight marriage. I would think that ease of divorce would be a far more significant devaluing of ye old until death do you part vows. Your description of the Sacred Photo Display memorialising the Expensive Wedding does not move me to feel differently. What a ridiculous bit of reasoning! As if someone would throw out the wedding album because a gay couple also got married! I suppose my own wedding, costing less than a thousand dollars, including church, clothes and food, and my 'wedding album', consisting mainly of photos of 150 or so well lubricated friends dancing to the fiddle in a friend's field dotted with tents, devalues their expensive wedding as well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: KB in Iowa Date: 14 Sep 07 - 01:34 PM I guess mine would, too. We got married in the park under an old oak tree. Had a pot-luck dinner afterward. The flowers were lilacs from the bush in our yard (we had co-habitated prior to taking the vows, I suppose that would de-value those expensive weddings as well). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Ebbie Date: 14 Sep 07 - 02:20 PM I am shocked. Shocked, I tell you. I can't convey how dishonored I feel my own wedding to be. I got married in a church as all decent people do, and to a man, no less. My marriage, that ended 43 years ago. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 14 Sep 07 - 02:23 PM Right Come on the lot of you ....if you're hard enough..:0). How many of you would support the idea of multi- person marriage? As Wolfgang has confirmed multi person relationships are common among homosexuals. If a man had two or three sexual partners and wanted to marry them all, would refusal to allow it be an infringment of his rights? Those with the capacity to reason, will soon find themselves in a minefield Pease feel free to discuss amonst yourselves. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: MMario Date: 14 Sep 07 - 02:32 PM That's a different issue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Sep 07 - 02:41 PM Well, multi-person marriages are common enough in many countries. In the case of the UK, when people in such marriages come here, the marriages aren't recognised. Or rather only the first one would be. (It happens quite often, especially in relation to Pakistan.) This just brings up the truth that "marriage" can mean a lot of rather different things in different parts of the world. Just because it's called a marriage in one place, and is legally recognised, that's no guarantee at all that that'll be true elsewhere. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 14 Sep 07 - 02:43 PM Ake: 1. We're talking about monogamy, not polygamy/polyandry. 2. The mainstream argument in FAVOR of monogamy is that it provides a stable relationship which is more nurturing to young. I would suspect that it more enriching, when successful, in other ways also. 3. I have not seen any evidence and wonder if you have that indicates in any way that these advantages manifest differently when the monogoamous couple are opposite versus the same gender. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Ebbie Date: 14 Sep 07 - 03:07 PM Monogamous relationships may well be more stable and thus more nurturing to the young. I wouldn't say that's always true, however, because, especially in times gone by and still so in some cultures and communities (I'm thinking specifically of the Amish), stability and nurturance to a large extent emanate from the extended family. There's many a youngster whose primary influence and safest harbor was a grandparent. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Greg B Date: 14 Sep 07 - 03:11 PM I guess my anecdotal evidence is as good as any. I know of a polyamorous 'marriage' which includes a child (who post-dates the relationship) which seems to work just fine for the people involved. FWIW, it's one man, two women. However, it's not a asymmetcal bigamous relationship in the sense of just a man with two wives, if you catch my drift ;-) One of the women is an old friend and colleague, and yes I do 'support' them in their committed relationship. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: MMario Date: 14 Sep 07 - 03:23 PM in times gone by and still so in some cultures and communities . . .stability and nurturance to a large extent emanate from the extended family. There's many a youngster whose primary influence and safest harbor was a grandparent. I think a lot of the modern "ills" of society (in the "western" world at least ) can be laid at the feet of the nuclear family when contrasted to the extended family. The nuclear family has only truly existed for a few generations - because prior to that the **NORM** was extended family. Most families had relatives living with them or very near them or (if wealthy) had staff that assisted in the raising of the children. If they did not, it was far more acceptable prior to WWII for neighbors and friends to help with child-rearing, discipline, etc. Godparents in many cases did a great deal of nurture. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 14 Sep 07 - 03:58 PM Some words of wisdom from Wolfgang and the German High Court. Apparently my opinion and theirs are as one. But it will make no difference to the PC heros of Mudcat, we will all be classed as bigots....probably Nazi bigots....so original the Mudcat lynch mob. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 14 Sep 07 - 04:09 PM In answer to all who cry "Oh but thats different". What we are talking about is marriage, not how it is viewed in other countries, but how it is defined in UK/USA. In some areas the definition of marriage has been changed to accomodate homosexuals. In theory there is nothing to stop that definition being changed to allow group marriages or any other weird set up that some minority demands. Before long the institution of marriage would become meaningless. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Sep 07 - 04:33 PM What we are talking about is marriage, not how it is viewed in other countries, but how it is defined in UK/USA. Not necessarily. Those are just two countries among many. Any changes to how either of them might legally define marriage would only apply inside the borders of the country involved. I there was an attempt to get the European Court of Human Rights to rule that polygamous marriages that were recognised in Pakistan should be recognised in the UK, but I don't think got anywhere. I imagine the same would apply in the case of same-sex couples from Belgium or the Netherlands - but I would think they'd be recognised as being in civil partnerships, which seems to be a distinction without a difference. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: MMario Date: 14 Sep 07 - 04:43 PM In theory there is nothing preventing the definition of marriage from being changed *NOW*. From what I've seen - most objections to gay marraige are primarily religiously based. the *legal* Basis of marriage and rights of spouses has nothing to do with religion but rather that little piece of paper issued by the state. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Wesley S Date: 14 Sep 07 - 04:55 PM "But it will make no difference to the PC heros of Mudcat, we will all be classed as bigots....probably Nazi bigots....so original the Mudcat lynch mob." Ake - In my dictionary the word bigot is defined as : "A person who is utterly intolerent of any creed, belief or race that is not his own." In my mind - when it comes to homosexuals - you fit that description. Do you disagree? In what way am I wrong? For what it's worth I see nothing "Nazi" about your posts.Just bigoted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: harpmolly Date: 14 Sep 07 - 05:40 PM From: akenaton Date: 03 Sep 07 - 03:06 AM It is surely beyond dispute that the majority of people worldwide find the practice of homosexuality disgusting. From: akenaton Date: 04 Sep 07 - 02:43 PM As far as people's rights are concerned, there are many many more Devout Christians and Moslems in this world than homosexuals. Therefore, should this minority (homo sexuals) have the right to subvert the core beliefs of the religious? From: akenaton Date: 14 Sep 07 - 04:09 PM What we are talking about is marriage, not how it is viewed in other countries, but how it is defined in UK/USA. *** Interesting how your perception of the subject matter changes when you're losing an argument. ;) And while we're deconstructing your logic on tyranny of the majority: "From: akenaton Date: 13 Sep 07 - 11:58 PM While this view of homosexuality prevails, the rights of the majority are being subverted by "homosexual marriage" Are the rights of these people not being affected by having a beloved institution altered in a way which most find offensive??" Well, I find it pretty damned offensive that gay marriage is illegal when it's perfectly legal to drive to Vegas, get drunk off your ass and marry a total stranger (of the opposite sex, of course) in about five minutes--or when two heterosexual people who have never met can legally get engaged on a reality TV show. And to return to your point about the Sacredness of the Big White Wedding: I've always felt that our obsession with the Perfect Disney Wedding is a bit unhealthy. It's all about the money and the show...the dress that costs more than my college loans or the downpayment on a house, the flowers, the caterers. I went to a wedding in Albuquerque that had the symphony orchestra, opera and Charlton Heston giving the reading at the mass. This wedding had cost at least a hundred grand, and shortly before, the couple realized they didn't want to get married, but the family said, "You WILL get married, because this juggernaut is rolling forward and what YOU want is no longer important." They separated immediately afterward. As PT Barnum or whoever might say, "The Show Must Go On!!!". I can't possibly see how this obscene sham of a wedding could be more sacred than the small yet heartfelt marriage of two men or women who have been together for fifteen years and want to be sure that when one of them dies, the other one is at his bedside holding his hand. But then again, Akenaton, I probably don't belong to this nebulous and undefined "majority" you keep falling back on to support your arguments. Guess nobody gives a flying fuck what I think. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: harpmolly Date: 14 Sep 07 - 05:45 PM P.S. That second-to-last paragraph should end "his or her hand." Sorry to any lesbians in the vicinity. *big grin* P.P.S. The Nazi crack was a low blow, Ake. You've got quite enough garden-variety bigotry going without us needing to resort to that sort of nonsense. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 14 Sep 07 - 06:00 PM It is not a question of what is PC, Ake. It is a question of what is just. It is not just to divide society and award certain legal rights to one section, and not the other, based solely on a single trait relating to a private matter. It violates the basic right to privacy, for one thing. It violates the fundamental principle of equal treatment under law. The fact that you don't like these people being entitled to the legal priveleges of marriage is no more a barrier than the fact that many Mississippians disliked the Civil Rights Act. It was a matter of justice. As to indvidual churches being willing or not willing to grant the sacrament of marriage -- a religious and cultural, not legal, state -- that is up to them. The State should have no say in such a bias, however. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Sep 07 - 08:50 PM Different games have different names on the sports field. Why is it seen as unacceptable for different human partnerships to have different names? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: artbrooks Date: 14 Sep 07 - 08:57 PM IMHO, it is perfectly acceptable (if unnecessary) provided that each kind of partnership brings its members the same rights. Denying a specific right to the members of a "civil union" that is allowed to the members of a "marriage" is just plain wrong, yet that is the reality in many legal jurisdictions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Ebbie Date: 14 Sep 07 - 09:22 PM Please explain this phenomenon to me: Why is it that a person must *ALWAYS* get nasty? Ake, this has nothing to do with political correctness- do you truly mean that you don't see that? As Amos said, it has to do with justice. How do *YOU* define justice? Should I argue that a marriage down the street is detrimental to my marriage? Does a pair of teenagers who are expecting a child and are forced into a marriage that neither wants or is ready for negatively affect your marriage? In my opinion a better case as to marriage being a sham could be made in their case than with two same-sex adult people who love each other. Why aren't you burning up the streets protesting the teens' wedding? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Bee Date: 14 Sep 07 - 09:45 PM There is nothing of 'political correctness' in the way I feel about my friends and my neighbours who happen to be in committed relationships, gay or straight. These are real, hardworking, family loving, kind people you are talking about, not some names scrawled on a toilet wall. To make such a statement is just a way of sneering at people who disagree with you, akenaten. You obviously are ignorant of the way civilization operates outside your own narrow venue. If yours are an example of the prevailing views of the average Scot (which I suspect they are not), then I'm beginning to understand why my ancestor left a successful business and hauled himself and his seven sons and two daughters (most of them working adults themselves) out of Scotland to scrabble a farm out of the stony earth of Cape Breton. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 15 Sep 07 - 09:57 AM Thanks Bee...I'm glad your father produced something of worth from the stony ground of Cape Breton. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 15 Sep 07 - 10:21 AM Ebbie...If you think me *NASTY* then you must have lived a very sheltered life. I can think of quite a few (some on this thread) who are much nastier than me. I have tried to be objective since the start, only biting back when I could do so with a bit of humour....My patience is wearing thin. I have never expressed my personal opinion about homosexual marriage, but have throughout this thread been subject to varying degrees of personal abuse. You all lack objectivity, with the exception of Wolfgang and your continual repetition of the "We just want the same" mantra ,in the face of my explanation as to why you want to shift the goalposts, leads me to the conclusion that you dont really have an argument at all....only a burning belief about an issue that you dont seem to understand. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 15 Sep 07 - 10:28 AM Art... The majority would probably agree that a civil union with the same legal rights would possibly be a way out, but I doubt if it would be acceptable to the homosexual lobby. As Maike Miller said way back. What they really want is public acceptance. Apologies for being a bit grumpy further up....Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 15 Sep 07 - 10:29 AM McGrath ...Is you arse no' gettin' sore wi' sitting on that fence?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 15 Sep 07 - 10:38 AM Molly ...Good job there's a glimmer of humour left in you...or I would have to make you "top of the *NASTY*pops".... Amos ... "The fact that you don't like these people being entitled to the legal priveleges of marriage is no more a barrier than the fact that many Mississippians disliked the Civil Rights Act. It was a matter of justice" I'm disappointed in you Amos, I have never given my personal opinion on homosexual marriage |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 15 Sep 07 - 11:20 AM Well, Ake, I confess I extrapolated from your statements, but -- well, honestly now -- are you telling me I guessed wrong? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Bill D Date: 15 Sep 07 - 11:43 AM "In theory there is nothing to stop that definition being changed to allow group marriages or any other weird set up that some minority demands...... Before long the institution of marriage would become meaningless." Why, no- not 'meaninless' at all...just a more complex and inclusive meaning! Why should marriage be allowed to mean only "what WE get to do in our narrow little concept of joining loving people in a legal union"? If you want to invent terms to designate the differences between M/F marriage, M/M marriage, F/F marriage, just so you can write about it, be my guest...but if it's a legal, binding, state sanctioned ceremony with all rights enjoyed by M/Fs, a few quaint, whispered words will probably be tolerated...just as they are now about the NON-legal relationships. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Sep 07 - 12:31 PM Fence siutting? The majority would probably agree that a civil union with the same legal rights would possibly be a way out, And that would include me. Association Football and Rugby Football have a lot in common, but the moves and the rules are different, and the players tend to be different too. So the games have different names, which avoids confusion and bad feeling. That seems a relevant analogy to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: harpmolly Date: 15 Sep 07 - 01:59 PM Ake: If you truly have spent all this time and energy arguing a point that IS NOT your personal opinion, I can only say that you must be a very conflicted and sad person. As I said in an earlier post, I don't buy it--"devil's advocate" arguments only go so far. If you feel you've been abused, then maybe you SHOULD bring out your personal opinion. Maybe we'd respect it more than that of someone who claims to be arguing just for argument's sake. Your patience isn't the only thing wearing thin. Whenever you don't have a reasoned rebuttal, you fall back on the old 'I'm rubber, you're glue" tactic of telling us all that we lack objectivity. And telling us why we want to shift the goalposts? You sure as hell don't speak for me or have the faintest idea what is in my head or my heart...despite my repeated attempts to reasonably enlighten you. I'd despair for the future of Scotland, but luckily, Ewan Macgregor balances you out (and then some!) so I feel reassured. ;) Molly |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 15 Sep 07 - 02:45 PM Amos my friend, you guessed wrong. I have no wish to see homosexuals or any other group deprived of their rights. What some people don't like, is to see the institution of marriage redefined to accomodate the homosexual lifestyle. The people who believe in conventional marriage, {defined for thousands of years as the joining of one man and one woman} would feel that redefinition was a knee jerk reaction to political correctness and modern minority morality. This redefinition would alter marriage forever and negate their right to a traditional marriage. Art has suggested a civil union like the situation Wolfgang has mentioned is in place in Germany. This civil union could have all the legal requirments without the need to redefine traditional marriage...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Emma B Date: 15 Sep 07 - 02:59 PM I wouldn't despair too much about Scotland harpmolly. CRFR and the Scottish Centre for Social Research studied attitudes to changing families based on a specially commissioned module of the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey 2004 that canvassed public views and knowledge on a range of family matters including knowledge of the law about, and attitudes to wider kin relationships. It also provided a baseline of evidence for the Family Law (Scotland) Bill 2005 now completing its Committee stage in the Scottish Parliament. It found that "There is increasing acceptance of homosexual sexual relations, which are thought to be rarely wrong or not wrong at all by 42% of respondents, a higher proportion than the 37% who thought so in 2000. Similarly, 39% of respondents thought that gay or lesbian couples should be able to marry if they wish." I suspect that 3 years later the figures might be even more accepting! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 15 Sep 07 - 03:01 PM But Molly that is the point!! For the purposes of this discussion my personal opinion matters not a jot. I repeat , I am not "anti homosexual" How can any reasonable person be "anti homosexual"? Does that mean they should all be exterminated? I am not religious, and marriage does not mean a great deal to me. I believe people can live together just as happily without being married at all. I can be totally objective, unlike those here with a persecution complex...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: harpmolly Date: 15 Sep 07 - 03:19 PM Ake, you keep ignoring the main point we are trying to make: that "living together" is not the issue, but being privy to the legal benefits that marriage accords is. And while the "homosexual lobby" might not be totally satisfied with civil unions that provide the EXACT SAME legal benefits as "marriage", it's a damned good start. No one that I know is arguing that churches should be forced to change their sacraments. If they want to be exclusive and look down from on high at those they disapprove of, as you point out, that is their right. But it is NOT their right to deny anyone their legal rights because of something they choose selectively to enforce (again, we hardly legally enforce every single prohibition in Leviticus, or else we'd all be living very differently). And as for your claim that "ONE man and ONE woman" has been the sacred definition of marriage for thousands of years, good Lord, man! Apparently the words "harem" and "concubine" are hitherto undreamed of in your philosophy. Sheesh. Have some historical perspective, for Frith's sake. No, my dear, I would never claim that you want homosexuals to be exterminated. But I don't see you advocating a solution that would allow them to live with the same dignity, respect and equality under the law that they deserve, either. And no amount of kvetching on anyone's part will convince me that any faction large or small, be they Christian, Muslim or Scientologist, has the right to deny full legal marital privileges to gay people because that would "water down their sacred institution". It's being watered down just fine as it is, ta very much. Molly P.S. At some point, I would be very interested to hear your personal opinion on this matter. Feel free to PM me if you don't want to lay it open to public consumption. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 15 Sep 07 - 03:40 PM Molly that post was utter pish. You have simply repeated the same claptrap in a more rambling manner. Harem? concubine?...I refer to Christian or civil marriage. And even in ancient Arab culture the Harem was the preserve of the wealthy...perhaps a Sultan. The rule for the common people was one man ,one woman |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Emma B Date: 15 Sep 07 - 04:56 PM many and varied are the forms of "marriage" throughout the world. Polyandry "is generally found in areas where difficult physical environments or high populations impose extreme pressures on agricultural systems. It works to limit population growth and to ensure the coherence of agricultural estates. Some theorists suggest that this institutions more often occurs in societies in which women hold relatively high social status" and Polygny "Demographic theory suggests that polygyny may occur because of a surplus of women that results from a high incidence of male warfare. However, polygyny occurs in many situations of relatively balanced gender ratios or even, as in the case of the Yanomamo, where males outnumber females. Accordingly, some men accumulate two or more wives only at the expense of others who never marry, or, much more usually, marry at a later age than women do." I don't think there are any "rules" for mankind - just whatever "suits" one society at one time |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: harpmolly Date: 15 Sep 07 - 05:02 PM Ake...I don't accept "Christian" marriage as a valid basis for civil legislation, as we do have separation of church and state (at least in the US). And as a self-proclaimed atheist, I'm surprised that you do. At any rate, if you're going to toss around terms like "thousands of years", you have to allow for more cultural input than just "Christian or civil" marriage. You brought Muslims into this by claiming that their beliefs are being compromised, so you can't go back now and say we're speaking of Christian values only. And as I pointed out earlier, you've been quick to claim that a majority of people *worldwide* find homosexuality disgusting. At some point you're going to have to nail yourself down to one position if you want your arguments taken seriously. I didn't know it was possible for me to ramble MORE. I'll have to try harder. ;) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Emma B Date: 15 Sep 07 - 05:10 PM Marriage systems ......... "different cultures have developed a fascinating diversity of regulations and customs concerning prohibitions and preferences for marriage partners as well as expectations between spouses and in-laws. Prominent variations, such as arranged marriages, polygamy, and same-sexed unions provide a rich ethnographic record for speculating about why societies differ. They also challenge our tolerance of different moral conventions at the most basic level" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: artbrooks Date: 15 Sep 07 - 05:33 PM Please note that I have not suggested that a civil union is the solution. I was responding to a question from McGrath, in which he asked why is it seen as unacceptable for different human partnerships to have different names? I answered that it would be perfectly acceptable [but unnecessary] provided that each kind of partnership brings its members the same rights. The latter part is the key: a civil union must give the participants all of the rights that they might derive from a legal marriage performed (as is common in the US) by a Justice of the Peace. If someone wants to be sprinkled, blessed, or whatever by the clergyperson of their choice, that is an entirely separate matter. It follows then that if a civil union is identical to a marriage, no purpose would really be served by having separate names, other than to mollify the feelings of people who think a certain segment of the population is not entitled to use one word or the other. The issue is the rights each partner to the association has, not whether you say "John is married to Ralph" or "John is Ralph's partner". And who is harmed if one says that "Mary is John's partner" rather than "Mary is married to John"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Emma B Date: 15 Sep 07 - 05:44 PM Christian attitudes to same sex marriage "In the Church of England, many Anglican clergy already bless same-sex couples on an unofficial basis but there is no authorised ceremony in England." Quakers have been welcoming same-sex unions for almost two decades. "In 1987, British Quakers agreed that local groups could celebrate same-sex commitments through special acts of worship. The Quakers were the first member of Churches Together in Britain and Ireland to sanction the official blessing of same-sex relationships." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Sep 07 - 07:50 PM So the most straightforward thing would be to give the partners in a civil union the same legal rights as in a civil marriage, and leave aside the business of officially using the same term for it. I'd have thought that would take a lot of the heat off the issue. To the best of my understanding that is the situation with what are called "civil partnerships" in the UK, and in a number of other countries. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 15 Sep 07 - 08:51 PM I think we need to define some terms here. The rights to certain protections, insurance, reciprocal ownership and joint ownership within a state are VICIL blessings. There should be NO difference in them based on the gender or lack thereof in the participants., The notion of sacrament, blessedness, Spiritual Truth, Virtue According to God's Code, Divine intent, The Sanctity of Virginity, as RELIGIOUS attributes. Religious marriage should comprise whatever the church says it shall include. The practice of having a best man, giving away the bride, throwing rice or in some groups, corn, negotiating a bride price by a number of cattle, betrothing a daughter to someone chosen solely by the father, are CULTURAL QUIRKS and should be evolved according to the best insights and persuasion of which those partaking in the culture are capable. The only part of any of this that can be mandated under law is the civil part. The rest is none of anyone's business except the people and organizations immediately participating. Civil marriage should be the same for any two persons seeking union blessed by the state. If, culturally, we get to the point where polyamory is m,ore widely accepted, then for any two or more consenting persons of age. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: harpmolly Date: 15 Sep 07 - 09:58 PM Well said, as usual, Amos. ;) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 15 Sep 07 - 10:12 PM Thanks kinely. And in Rapaire's case, any one or more person. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Riginslinger Date: 16 Sep 07 - 01:06 AM Amos - Yes, I think you've nailed it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 16 Sep 07 - 05:05 AM We all have opinions. Those are Amos's opinions. There are many millions throughout the world who would not agree. Are they to be allowed to debate their rights? (Or shall it be the world according to Amos) McGrath seems as usual to have all the common sense....and I can understand the words ...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 16 Sep 07 - 05:25 AM McGrath says..... "So the most straightforward thing would be to give the partners in a civil union the same legal rights as in a civil marriage. To the best of my understanding that is the situation with what are called "civil partnerships" in the UK, and in a number of other countries. Now that should be a reasonable solution and deprive no one of their rights, but is totally unacceptable to homosexuals, who see that solution as maintaining a *difference*, while refusing to accept that many millions see *their* lifestyle as very different from their own and the traditioal definition of what marriage should mean...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: TheSnail Date: 16 Sep 07 - 06:30 AM akenaton There are many millions throughout the world who would not agree. Are they to be allowed to debate their rights? Of course they are but, curiously, none of them have chosen to do so on this thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: artbrooks Date: 16 Sep 07 - 07:23 AM Now that should be a reasonable solution and deprive no one of their rights, but is totally unacceptable to homosexuals. Please provide a link to a policy statement by a major homosexual organization in the UK or US which makes that assertion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: goatfell Date: 16 Sep 07 - 09:48 AM As a Christian I'm supposed to be against such tihngs, however if men and wmen want to do such things as same sex marriages then good on them and I hope that they all have a happy life together. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: goatfell Date: 16 Sep 07 - 09:49 AM And anyone who doesn't like this, then where is their Christain love for their fellow man/woman |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 16 Sep 07 - 09:58 AM Ake: Which of the three categories of issues do you think is just an opinion? Do you think the civil regulations and recordations of marriages are religious rituals? Or that the customs from different cultural legacies are civil or religious? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 16 Sep 07 - 11:23 AM Well for a start Amos your opinion of me was quite wrong, in that you thought I wanted to deprive peopole of their rights. No one can have the "right" to do anything, without regard to the effect that right has on others. I could give numerous examples but I'm sure you grasp my meaning. "Civil marriage should be the same for any two persons seeking union blessed by the state." Your opinion. The vast majority of people who care about the institution of marriage would say, the definition of MARRIAGE is the union of man and woman. To redefine MARRIAGE as Man/Man, Man/cow, Man/Man/neither of the above, affects the rights of those people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 16 Sep 07 - 11:53 AM Ake: You are referring not to a civil definition, but to a cultural or religious bias. That's the whole point. And no, it does not effect the rights of heterosexual marriages. In what way specifically fdo you think it does? Are their vows any the less true because others take them? Who said anything about cows, anyway? They make lousy housemates, I believe. Hard to toilet train. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: artbrooks Date: 16 Sep 07 - 11:56 AM Is that not rather like saying that, if I have a beer in the privacy of my home (or in my local pub), I am affecting the rights of those who think that drinking alcohol should be banned? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Sep 07 - 12:16 PM Or perhaps like saying that if everything with any alcohol in it had to be called "beer", that would make drinking much more confusing than it already is. Especially if you fancied a cider. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 16 Sep 07 - 12:17 PM Well thats about the most ridiculous comparison in a tread chok full of ridiculous comparisons.............You havin' a joke Art? Amos I am refering to civil definition. I have many friends who were married in Registrars office and would be very unhappy with a definition other than man/woman. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: artbrooks Date: 16 Sep 07 - 12:36 PM A joke? Not at all. You seem to be saying that, if one set of people exercises a right, than that can adversely affect the value of another set of people's rights to do something similar. I have a right to drink a beer (or quaff a cider) and someone else has a right to their opinion of that action, but not the right to tell me I can't. Exactly parallel to that is the right of a homosexual couple to get married and the right of somebody else to their opinion of that action. However, the marriage of a homosexual couple has no effect whatsoever on the validity of a heterosexual couple's marriage or on any rights that marriage gives the participants. One person's rights should end where another's begins. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Bee Date: 16 Sep 07 - 01:00 PM Akenaten: I apologise for snapping at you so severely in my last post. In my defense, your arguments cut close: I have dear lifelong friends who are the target of what I see (as in, it is my opinion) as your homophobic nonsense (as in 'having no sense'): it is hurtful to me to see their families compared with 'marrying dogs, cows', etc. You still have not provided an actual reason why their marriages in any way harm or devalue the marriage of a man and woman, other than that the man and woman might not like the idea, or have religious objections. I didn't like the idea that a friend of mine planned to marry a known abusive alcoholic, but her marriage in no way 'devalued' mine. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Sep 07 - 01:06 PM This is surely an argument about language, not about freedoms. Changing language can be important, sometimes essential - but in this particular context it seems pretty irrelevant. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: artbrooks Date: 16 Sep 07 - 01:25 PM McGrath, I think that depends on where you are. In the UK, if it is correct (as I gather) that civil unions and marriages have the same legal rights, then you are entirely correct. In the US, where "marriage" has a legal meaning restricted to unions of a woman and a man, and numerous legal entitlements are directly tied to membership in a marriage, then it is very much a freedom and rights issue. What is the old saying - "two nations divided by a single language"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 16 Sep 07 - 01:26 PM Bee.. you are amazing. First you apologise, then you insult me. Do you not see the word homophobe as an insult? No matter I am finished here, without intentionally insulting anyone I hope |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 16 Sep 07 - 01:31 PM McGrath ...I don't agree, to people committed to conventional marriage, the language is very important. And even more important to the homosexual lobby. Sorry I'm supposed to be finished here.....I'll get my coat. Thanks to all for the argy-bargy....Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Don Firth Date: 16 Sep 07 - 01:48 PM In December, Barbara and I will have been happily married for thirty years. In our wide circle of friends and acquaintances, we know four same-sex couples, three of which are composed of men and one of women. Two of these couples are just living together, but have been for over ten years. Two others have been married in church ceremonies. Even though this has been asked in one form or another all through this thread, no one, including Ake, has been able to provide an answer to it: How do these same-sex couples, particularly those who are married, affect—in any way whatsoever--Barbara's and my marriage? Well. . . ? I didn't think so! Case closed! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Greg B Date: 16 Sep 07 - 02:34 PM Spake Ake: The people who believe in conventional marriage, {defined for thousands of years as the joining of one man and one woman} would feel that redefinition was a knee jerk reaction to political correctness and modern minority morality. This redefinition would alter marriage forever and negate their right to a traditional marriage. Have a care about that 'thousands of years' argument. For 'thousands of years' the 'majority' you so revere would punish by various means lawful and unlawful, those who were religious non-conformists. They, too, spoke of their 'right' to live and raise their children in a Papist state, or an Anglican country, or a Protestant one, or an Islamic one, or a Mormon one, a Jewish one, etc. The presence of non-conformists, or infidels, or Protestants, you see, or the legitimization of the faith of same, you see, reduced the legitimacy of their own faith. Which, of course, is the 'one true' religion. And somehow, along the way, 'those people' became just a little less human in the the eyes of the powerful and all-sacred majority. Or a lot. A little or a lot less deserving of the same rights to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' Ake, you have yet, in your broken-record rhetoric, shown one single way in which the marriages of 'traditional marriage' proponents are reduced in value by those of homosexuals. Not one. Your argument seems to be the 'because they say so' tautology. On the other hand, very good arguments can be made for the converse...that marriage has a variety of definitions. To Catholics, for example, it is immutable between living partners. To Protestants, not so much so. Muslims and Jews have entirely different rules. Different sovereign states, too, differ on what makes a marriage. This has been the case 'for thousands of years.' I have yet to hear a Catholic seriously claim that Catholic marriages are diminished by Protestants' allowance for divorce and re-marriage, except perhaps in the most abstract of moral theologies. Nor have I ever heard a Catholic argue, with a straight face, that Protestants who have divorced and remarried while their spouse was still living ought not be accorded civil recognition of the union as a marriage. This is even though, in the strictest sense and for religious purposes, the Church of Rome doesn't recognize the second marriage as being valid. The whole argument about 'thousands of years' and the 'rights of the majority' and 'the diminishing of traditional marriage' is a subterfuge--- it is, purely and simply the refuge of those who are looking for a ways to marginalize a group who practice what Ake likes to call 'the homosexual lifestyle.' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 16 Sep 07 - 02:40 PM I think Ake would reply that, if you don't feel it does, it does not. But he asserts that some people believe the map and the territory are inextricably bound together, and for them, entering into a state of marriage MEANS they are heterosexual and not of the same gender. Here are a few civil definitions: the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce) two people who are married to each other; "his second marriage was happier than the first"; "a married couple without love" the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony; "their marriage was conducted in the chapel" a close and intimate union; "the marriage of music and dance"; "a marriage of ideas" wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn Marriage is a relationship and bond, most commonly between a man and a woman, that plays a key role in the definition of many families. Precise definitions vary historically and between and within cultures, but it has been an important concept as a socially sanctioned bond in a sexual relationship. ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage The state or condition of a community consisting of a master, a mistress and two slaves, making in all, two. www.answers.com/topic/the-devil-s-dictionary There are others which include the notion of sanctity of union between man and woman. But this is outside the bounds of the civil registration of marriage or any bounds the civil authority could put on it, unless they want to legally discriminate against people on the basis of their sex. At present, such discrimination is generally illegal. The church, however, can grant its title of marriage according to whatever torsion it cares to apply to the meaning. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 16 Sep 07 - 03:19 PM My final words, just for Don. You were obviously married in a time when homosexuality was still illegal, probably homosexual marriage was unthinkable to you and your wife. You accepted the concept of traditional marriage and feel secure in that. Today the people who believe in traditional marriage see that redefinition could lead to nighmare conclusions (group marriage ect ect) They see the institution of marriage changed beyond recognition,needlessly...There is no security for these people or their children. Case well and truly open and will remain so...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Metchosin Date: 16 Sep 07 - 03:21 PM Thank you Amos, my little bastards have just claimed legitimacy.LOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Sep 07 - 03:22 PM "...numerous legal entitlements are directly tied to membership in a marriage". I understand thta - but it just strikes me that it would make more sense to tackle the issue at that point, in the same way as has happened in the UK, so that these same legal entitlements would apply to civil unions between people of the same sex, rather than trying to achieve the same result through changing the definition of marriage in a way that is clearly generating additional opposition. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Ebbie Date: 16 Sep 07 - 03:29 PM I keep getting two impressions of your 'impersonal' stance, Ake. Number One: That male/male union bothers you far more than the idea of female/female. And yet the emotions are the same. Number Two: For an atheist you seem perilously close to relying on what may (or may not) be religion's views. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: TheSnail Date: 16 Sep 07 - 03:31 PM akenaton could lead to nighmare conclusions (group marriage ect ect) Actually it's "etc." (abreviation for et cetera) not "ect". How do you expect to be taken seriously if you can't even get that right? (Sounds more like a wet dream than a nightmare.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Stringsinger Date: 16 Sep 07 - 03:33 PM A marriage between two committed people whether gay or straight makes absolute sense. Anyone opposed to this for whatever reason is a bigot. A committed relationship should not be denegrated in any way. Frank Hamilton |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Sep 07 - 03:58 PM Baseball and cricket both make as much sense as each other. But we don't feel it necessary to call them by the same name. Look at the way that any mention of "football" here always gets someone in a tiz, because the same name is attached to different games. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Little Hawk Date: 16 Sep 07 - 04:09 PM Well, heck, Ebbie, I find male/male union quite a bit less appealing than male/female union...and I bet if the truth were told, that is true of most of us here. Haven't most of us chosen male/female unions? That speaks for itself. As for female/female union...I find that reasonably in the middle ground, appeal-wise. In other words, I find it more appealing than male/male union, perhaps because I am male myself...perhaps because of things I've learned from Taoism regarding the use of sexual energy as pertains to good health. So what????????? What difference does it make what I find appealing and what I do not? Should I be afraid to say so? Seems to me that all I keep hearing on this thread is a lot of people just bending over backwards to PROVE to the whole world that they are NOT prejudiced, by God! This is dangerous to the spine after awhile, and it impresses no one. At least it doesn't impress me. I call it "PC Whiplash Syndrome". I bet that at least 95% of the present population finds male/female union much more appealing than male/male union. So what???? 95% of our population finds eating raw meat less appealing than eating cooked meat too...but that doesn't mean much. In Japan it is considered quite normal to eat raw meat. Matter of fact, I like sushi. Again...so what? People may be allowed their preferences. It doesn't threaten me in the least if some males want to marry each other...that doesn't mean I need to find it "appealing" or that I'm some kind of bad, bigoted person if I say that I don't find it appealing. It doesn't mean I should cheerlead for them either and persecute anyone who doesn't...just to prove how goddamn liberal I am... (And I am liberal. Better believe it.) To not personally find something appealing does not equate to denigrating it or attacking it. It simply indicates one's own tastes and preferences, that's all. We all have tastes and preferences. To be made afraid to even express them because it is not presently PC to do so does not help matters one bit. It's evidence of bigotry masquerading as liberalism. I agree 100% with Strinsinger's last statement: "A committed relationship should not be denigrated in any way." Correct. It should not. Nor should a religious choice! That doesn't mean I will necessarily find every form of committed relationship or every form of religious choice "appealing". I won't. And if someone can't handle that? Tough. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Don Firth Date: 16 Sep 07 - 04:12 PM "You were obviously married in a time when homosexuality was still illegal, probably homosexual marriage was unthinkable to you and your wife. You accepted the concept of traditional marriage and feel secure in that." No, Ake, you're totally wrong. First of all, prior to our marriage, we did know one same-sex couple. One of the men had been a school chum of Barbara's, and discovered his sexual orientation when he entered his teens. He and his partner had been living together in a home they owned for over thirty years when he passed away. Cancer of the spine. He was an authority on both British history and the American Civil War, and he earned his living as a writer and a tutor. His partner was a college professor. Theater arts. They were good friends of ours, and of many other people—including married couples. They were accepted as a "couple" in their neighborhood and in the community at large—and in their church (Episcopalian). The only thing that set them apart was that they were the same gender and they were not legally married (not allowed). Other than that, they were as solid citizens as you will ever find anywhere. They were accepted as "partners." Had the law allowed them to marry, they would have been accepted as a married couple. Second, homosexuality may be illegal—or may have been illegal—in the British Isles thirty years ago, but here in the United States, it was not. Perhaps in a few small, rural areas in the South, but not in any state, or major city that I am aware of. Third, we had heard a little bit about gays wanting to get married like heterosexual couples. We felt, and with a few--very few—exceptions, most of our friends and acquaintances figured, "Why not?" The main exception was a couple who lived in the same apartment building where we live, and they were very hard-charging fundamentalist Christians. And they were mystified that we, whom they perceived as a church-going couple, were not disturbed by the idea. [So I have some experience with the very same arguments you are presenting] To us, and to many other heterosexual married couples, it was (and is) not "unthinkable" at all. And as far as "traditional marriage" is concerned, when we married, I was 46 and Barbara was 40, and we both had careers. We decided that we would not have children. And there are many other heterosexual couples who, for various reasons, make the same decision. So—if one of the primary purposes of "traditional marriage" is procreation, how do you square that? And as far as the "security" of traditional marriage is concerned, we were fully aware that marriage is not always a smooth and clear road, and that about half the marriages in this country end in divorce. But we did it anyway. No, Ake, your arguments just don't wash. And although in recent posts, you seem to be trying to back away from the idea that you have any kind of personal involvement with the issue, that doesn't wash either. No one spends as much time and energy arguing an issue, as you have in this thread, without having some very strong personal feelings on the matter. Why? Perhaps a bit of self-examination might be in order. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Don Firth Date: 16 Sep 07 - 04:41 PM Yea, verily, Little Hawk. The preferences of any one group of people should not take any kind of legal precedence over the preferences of any other. That would be a very poor principle to set. Sexual relations with another male does not appeal to me, and never has. Likewise, I've heard of steak and kidney pie as being a fairly staple British dish. I don't care to try it. I did try kidneys once, and I simply could not go them. It was not the idea, it was the smell and the flavor. And escargot. They may be absolutely delicious. People have told me that they are. But I find the idea of eating snails very off-putting. I don't eat uncooked meat partly because I'm not fond of the flavor and partly because of the possibility of E. coli contamination. I play chess, but I don't play bridge. Someone tried to teach me once, but I found that it bores the crap out of me. I don't watch "reality" television shows, and I never got into "Seinfeld" or "Friends." I do watch "Live from Lincoln Center" a lot. And I watch "The Red Green Show," which appears on my local PBS station. I like swimming and fencing, but I've never been enthusiastic about the usual run of sports, like football, basketball, baseball, and hockey. However—I do not care to have my preferences and aversions take on the force of law. It would make for a very dull world. And I fail to see why some other feel they have the right to legally enforce their preferences and aversions. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Ebbie Date: 16 Sep 07 - 04:56 PM Little Hawk, you use "appealing" as if you were quoting someone. I get the feeling you think you are quoting me. Now, I may have used 'appealing' up the road - I'm not going to go check - but in my last post to Ake I did not. If you would like to quote me, I said to Ake, "... male/male union bothers you far more than the idea of female/female. And yet the emotions are the same." And yes. I do believe that male/male union bothers him more because he himself is male. Which, to me, means that his stated objections to homosexual relationships have little or nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of those relationships, only to do with his own distaste. Which reaction, I think, is fair. But I would further point out that few of us spend any time visualizing others' marital activities or indeed have any inclination to do so. I have lesbian and gay friends- I wouldn't think of asking them any questions. I accept that we all figured out what we wanted to do. Ake may feel differently about it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 16 Sep 07 - 05:56 PM Hawk has more understanding than all of you put together. You hate objective discussion because you all want the chance to fall back to the mob mentality of personal abuse. Even tho' I have stated many times in this thread that I am not anti- homosexual, you all try to infer that I am. This thread has nothing to do with how many homosexual friends I have or you have. It is about the effect of homosexual marriage on the rights of everyone, and I have tried to argue from the point of view of those who believe in the institution of marriage as traditionally defined. These people are not devils, or evil, or bigotted, or any of the other words you "liberals" like to trow around. they are Joe and Jane public....whether you like it or not. I'm sorry my stance has deprived you of a "kill the bigot fest", but as Little Hawk says.....if you don't like it TOUGH! Oh and Frank...I've spent my life fighting bigotry as a Communist Party member and as an anti war campaigner. I have never denigrated any committed relationship, just don't lump me in with the lynch mob you fucker! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Bee Date: 16 Sep 07 - 05:59 PM Well put, Ebbie. I don't find imagining most people's sexual habits 'appealing', regardless of their genders. So I don't. This leaves me free to enjoy the company of countless nice people who are physically unappealing to me. Ake, I'm sorry you found my words insulting, but if your arguments do not denote a kind of homophobia, I am at a loss to describe them at all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 16 Sep 07 - 06:18 PM Don't apologise Bee. You are at a loss to describe my arguments because you simply don't understand them or me. Try reading Little Hawk's post, even you might gain some enlightenment, but I doubt it. If this fails, just get back in the cage with the rest. But be careful, before long they usually start to devour themselves.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: TheSnail Date: 16 Sep 07 - 06:31 PM akenaton It is about the effect of homosexual marriage on the rights of everyone, and I have tried to argue from the point of view of those who believe in the institution of marriage as traditionally defined. I have tried to respond in a frivolous way in my last few posts because this thread is so stupid, but there comes a point... You have produced absolutely no evidence, even anecdotal, that the "vast majority" think the way you claim they do. Many of the people arguing against you are happily married heterosexual Christians. Several others have produced anecdotal evidence that people in general are accepting of gay relationships. You are on your own. Stop trying to disguise your own bigotry as defending the rights of the silent majority. Consider the possibilty that you might be wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 16 Sep 07 - 07:50 PM The thread stands. People can read it and make up their own minds. Thank you for your assistance ...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: TheSnail Date: 16 Sep 07 - 07:54 PM For the first, and probably only, time, I agree. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Peace Date: 16 Sep 07 - 07:55 PM Worth looking at, IMO. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 16 Sep 07 - 08:02 PM Thanks Bruce...Very interesting...Kinda puts things in perspective! Hope all's well Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Peace Date: 16 Sep 07 - 08:32 PM Same with you, buddy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Ebbie Date: 16 Sep 07 - 09:19 PM Interesting graphic, Peace. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Bill D Date: 16 Sep 07 - 09:57 PM wow...legal in Spain, serious penalty across in Morocco. It's Spain that surprises me. And Guatemala? interesting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: harpmolly Date: 17 Sep 07 - 12:48 AM "This thread has nothing to do with how many homosexual friends I have or you have. It is about the effect of homosexual marriage on the rights of everyone, and I have tried to argue from the point of view of those who believe in the institution of marriage as traditionally defined." Why on earth would you spend the better part of two weeks vehemently arguing a point of view that you claim is not your own? "they are Joe and Jane public...whether you like it or not." Hmmm...so who am I, and who are the rest of the people on this thread, and who are the other millions of people who DON'T believe that gay people should be denied the right of civil marriage? Joe and Jane Nobody-Cares-About-Your-Opinion-Now-Shut-Up? For someone who claims to be "objective", I don't see you trying to argue the other side. I don't see you trying to appreciate the point of view of those who believe that "traditional" marriage is what you make it, and that compassion and empathy are just as important as the right of "Joe and Jane Sixpack" to define what marriage should be. And you still haven't ever managed to convince us how Joe and Jane are being disenfranchised... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Greg B Date: 17 Sep 07 - 12:49 PM Even tho' I have stated many times in this thread that I am not anti- homosexual, you all try to infer that I am. I am not inferring anything. I state it as a fact, made clear by your own continued arguments against equal protection of matrimonial law for homosexuals. You can't say "I have nothing against black people" and then try to keep them from moving into your neighborhood (or support your neighbors' right to do same). If you do, you're either deluding yourself or everyone else; perhaps both. One of the best way of being anti-somebody is to deny them their civil rights. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 17 Sep 07 - 01:20 PM There's a distinction between, on the one hand, saying that same-sex couples who have entered into a registered civil partnership should have equal rights as heterosexual married couples and, on the other hand, insisting that the term marriage should be extended to cover both types of relationships. In many other countries no problems have arisen in guaranteeing equal rights without extending the definition of marriage. So far as I can see this is the position which akenaton is in favour of. I can't se where any denial of civil rights is involved in this. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: KB in Iowa Date: 17 Sep 07 - 01:38 PM So ake, if you are not against same sex marriages, have we not all been just wasting our time? If you are not against same sex marriages please say so. You are the only one who has been arguing that side of the question. We could put all this to rest. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,mac Date: 17 Sep 07 - 02:30 PM get this shirt lifting thread off this forum,for gods sake.Nobody gives a toss |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 17 Sep 07 - 03:02 PM I am quite sure that those who believe in conventional marriage would be happy to go along with what Mcgrath has suggested. This situation is already in place in many countries. Ihave said all this earlier, obviously you have not been reading my posts. I did add that the "homosexual activists" probably would not accept civil union, as they would see that as having to settle for less than they want. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Greg B Date: 17 Sep 07 - 03:03 PM McGrath, what you seem to be advancing is the idea of 'separate but equal.' As was fairly well established during the effort to desegregate American society, there really is no such thing. Separate, by legal mandate, is inherently unequal. By limiting same-sex couples to 'civil unions' you limit their ability to call themselves 'married' in all sorts of documents (such as deeds). For example, when taking out a deed on a property it will read "Joseph Smith, a single man and Michael Smith a single man" rather than "Joseph and Michael Smith, a married couple." They are not being treated equally in civil society, because they cannot use the term which best describes their relationship--- "married." And that, sir, is absolutely a denial of a very important civil right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 17 Sep 07 - 03:15 PM Those who believe in conventional marriage would probably go along with what McGrath has suggested. This situation is already in place in many countries....see Peace's map. I have written about this futher up the thread KB, you have obviously not been reading my posts. Homosexual fundamentalists like Greg woul certainly not accept it, for the reasons he has given. Its as we said right at the beginning, all about acceptance, it has to be the word, nothing else will do. IT HAS TO BE A REDEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.....case closed Don!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: KB in Iowa Date: 17 Sep 07 - 03:34 PM I have been reading your posts ake. You make strong statements and then later say that you are not stating your personal opinions. I would like to hear it straight up just once without qualification. So I say again, if you are not against same sex marriages please say so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Greg B Date: 17 Sep 07 - 03:46 PM Homosexual fundamentalists like Greg woul certainly not accept it, for the reasons he has given. Excuse me? I am neither a homosexual, nor a fundamentalist. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Peace Date: 17 Sep 07 - 04:01 PM Does anyone have statistics on the success rate of heterosexual marriages as opposed to homosexual marriages? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 17 Sep 07 - 04:01 PM Sorry Greg I didn't mean to infer that you were a homosexual, you did make that clear earlier. (hetrosexual) homosexual activist??...The correct term can be quite important I believe. KB...I give my personal opinions when I wish to..... I may just be a homosexual who believes in fairness and rights for all...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: KB in Iowa Date: 17 Sep 07 - 04:03 PM Well, that's it for me. Not wasting any more time here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 17 Sep 07 - 04:08 PM "Joseph Smith, a single man and Michael Smith a single man." That would be a daft way of putting it, because they aren't "single men" - they have entered formally into what in the UK would be called "a civil partnership". Something of the form "Joseph and Michael Smith, civil partners" would be a far more appropriate way of expressing that in this context. It's not really analogous to the racial/racist use of "separate but equal", because that was about pretending there was a difference where there was no relevant difference whatsoever. If it were a question of asserting a difference between gay men and straight men, or lesbian women and straight women, in order to justify treating them differently as individuals, the analogy would indeed be fair - however that's not what is implied. The point is it can be reasonably argued that there are differences between the relationships which can justify using different names. That's what I meant by the analogy of baseball and cricket or beer and cider. It could well be that the popular definition of the word "marriage" might change over time, to include both kinds of relationships. That would be the time to change the dictionaries. In the meantime the task of bringing the USA into line with other countries where civil partnerships and marriages have equal legal status should not be delayed by treating the issue of the name as crucial, and it does soudn as if this could well happen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 17 Sep 07 - 04:13 PM "...because they aren't 'single men'" - as demonstrated by the fact that if either of them were to attempt to get married (to some woman) until and unless the civil partnership had been dissolved, they would be committing a serious offence, and any such "marriage" would be null and void. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 17 Sep 07 - 04:19 PM Bruce...Wolfgang gave some statistics further up this thread. Male/male divorce rates, very high compared to female/male. female/ female roughly the same as female /male. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Peace Date: 17 Sep 07 - 04:20 PM '"Joseph and Michael Smith, civil partners" ' Except when they're yelling at each other. That is when they are not civil partners. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 17 Sep 07 - 04:25 PM Well, that also happens where people have gone through civil marriages. And also religious ceremonies... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 17 Sep 07 - 04:26 PM And also of course in Civil Wars. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Don Firth Date: 17 Sep 07 - 04:52 PM When I fill out the income tax form (hopefully) before April 15th every year, there are a couple of boxes I have to check. One says "Single," one says "Married, filing jointly," one says "Married, filing separately," and one says "Head of household." When both members of a married couple have income, they get the best tax break by checking "Married, filing jointly." The form does not give the option "Civil Partners, filing jointly." If civil law defines "marriage" as a union between man and woman only, then same sex couples in a civil union do not qualify for the tax breaks that heterosexual couples get. If a committed same-sex couple tried to take advantage of this tax break, they might find themselves liable for a charge of tax fraud. Thisi is discrimination. I am retired, my wife is still working. I qualify for Medicare, but as we all know, Medicare is pretty piss-poor coverage. My wife has health insurance as one of the benefits of her job, and she includes me under her insurance as her spouse—her marriage partner. There is no option for "civil partners." Once again, discrimination against same-sex couples. This, and many other things, discriminate against same-sex couples, even in "civil unions," by denying them the rights and benefits that marriage would allow them. These things are not a matter of someone's preferences or distastes. They are objective, concrete matters of discrimination against a specific minority. Don Firth P. S. By the way, there is also the matter of the population explosion. Same-sex couples do not add to the problem. There are a few places in the world, specifically parts of Indonesia, where homosexuality is encouraged in hopes of keeping the birth-rate down. But since heterosexuality and homosexuality are not matters of choice, there is little chance that these governments' efforts will accomplish their desired purpose. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Emma B Date: 17 Sep 07 - 05:07 PM lets get the "facts" right at least...... In Sweden where civil partnerships have been established long enough for the kind of research about "divorce" it was found that homosexual unions between men were 1.48 times more like to break up than heterosexual marriages without children. It was higher amongst female/female unions |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Emma B Date: 17 Sep 07 - 05:10 PM ooops! 1.49! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Emma B Date: 17 Sep 07 - 05:18 PM As far as I'm aware it's too early to produce any statistics on divorce rates for those countries that allow same sex marriage. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 17 Sep 07 - 05:47 PM Sounds as if your forms in the States ought to be modified, and your laws as well if necessary, to give that option - "Civil Partners, filing jointly." As has been done in many other countries. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Greg B Date: 17 Sep 07 - 05:57 PM Modifying the forms does no good. The Federal Government doesn't recognize 'civil partners' as anything but two single people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 17 Sep 07 - 06:38 PM There's your problem then. Whether you tackle it by changing the definition of marriage or by changing the discrimination against civil partnerships is surely a secondary matter. I'd suspect that there would be less resistance to the latter way of approaching it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: dick greenhaus Date: 17 Sep 07 - 06:38 PM Emma B. - :In Sweden where civil partnerships have been established long enough for the kind of research about "divorce" it was found that homosexual unions between men were 1.48 times more like to break up than heterosexual marriages without children. It was higher amongst female/female unions. " Or maybe 1.49 So what? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Emma B Date: 17 Sep 07 - 06:44 PM sorry Dick - just trying to introduce some objective information into the discussion! I get a bit fed up of "opinions" introduced as bold statements of fact! "Bruce...Wolfgang gave some statistics further up this thread. Male/male divorce rates, very high compared to female/male. female/ female roughly the same as female /male." - From: akenaton Date: 17 Sep 07 - 04:19 PM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 18 Sep 07 - 02:04 AM I have always found Wolfgang to give his statistics honestly, whether they support his opinion or not....Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Emma B Date: 18 Sep 07 - 05:42 AM "Same-sex couples' "divorce rates? Extremely different for male-male (very high compared to female-male) and female-female (low, probably even lower than female-male)." Wolfgang I would be interested in seeing the source of these statistics as they appear to disagree substantially from the survey carried out in Sweden 1995 and 2002 by the Institute For Marriage And Public Policy. Of course this survey is only looking at legal breakdown of civil partnerships, the first country to grant same-sex marriage was The Netherlands in 2001, Belgium followed in 2003 and Canada Spain and South Africa in 2005 so it is a little premature for statistics of contrasting divorce rates to be available. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 18 Sep 07 - 12:29 PM AND...These statistics are for male/ female unions without children. If male/ female unions with children were taken into the equation the difference would be much higher. This of course has nothing to do with the point we have been discussing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Wesley S Date: 18 Sep 07 - 01:15 PM Akenaton - I know what motivates you now. You're a troll - pure and simple. You're full of opinions that may or may not be yours and may or may not be how you feel about the subject that we may or may not be discussing. And your true feelings about all of this may or may not have been expressed earlier in the thread if we would just bother to read it. Or not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Emma B Date: 18 Sep 07 - 01:32 PM Actually I'm glad that the question about "divorce" rates was asked as it seems that there is (at least in the UK) a significant legal difference between Civil Partnerships and heterosexual marriage. The grounds for dissolution of a civil partnership are that the partnership has broken down for good (i.e. irretreivable breakdown) by - Unreasonable behaviour or Two years seperation, and the consent of the other partner or Five years seperation or Desertion Unlike heterosexual marriage this does NOT include adultery as a ground for dissolution of the partnership. Like many on this thread I had understood that there was little real "discrimination" between the two forms of partnership in the UK now I'm not so sure........ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 18 Sep 07 - 06:30 PM I think that a court would probably be open to the suggestion that adultery would count as "unreasonable behaviour" - though the question might arise as to whether "adultery" was a legally correct word for it, being a word that is traditionally associated with the term "marriage" I don't think I've ever heard it used in that context. Would I be correct in assuming that people who favour the word "marriage" being extended to include single sex relationships would see "adultery" as needing the same extension? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Dave the Gnome Date: 18 Sep 07 - 06:31 PM Surely there are NO same-sex divorce rates for those countries that don't allow it. So the rates for those countries are nil whereas in those that do recognise such partnerships it is much higher. Therefore not allowing same sex marriage reduces the divorce rate, which everyone agrees is a good thing. Amazing what statistics do... :D |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: TheSnail Date: 18 Sep 07 - 08:23 PM McGrath of Harlow Would I be correct in assuming that people who favour the word "marriage" being extended to include single sex relationships would see "adultery" as needing the same extension? Well we can't have that. The vast majority see adultery as the union of a man and a woman. We have come a long way indeed if hetrosexuals in conventional adulterous relationships should feel ashamed of their way of life and beliefs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 18 Sep 07 - 08:24 PM That would depend on whether the divorce rate is based on proportion of marriages that end in a divorce, which I think would be the more likely way, or on proportion of the population that go through a divorce, which would match Dave's point. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Wolfgang Date: 19 Sep 07 - 10:37 AM I had tried to write "divorce rates" (which in the local context of my post could have made sense) but the second " got lost. So I am guilty of being a source of misunderstanding. "Number of different sex partners" is the correct expression. The source is again D. Symons, Evolution of human sexuality, who quotes many different studies. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 20 Sep 07 - 03:54 AM Ah promiscuity......wondered why it had gone so quiet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Emma B Date: 20 Sep 07 - 04:18 AM Following your previous contention akenaton that "I believe multi -person sexual relationships are much more common among "homos" than "hetros" 12 Sep 07 - 05:19 PM I posted the following day that the recent study of sexuality and sexual behaviour in the UK and run as a series of programmes on the BBC found that this was not actually so. "if you compare the number of multi - person sexual relationships between young homosexual males and heterosexual males of the same age with no family the numbers even up considerably!" This shouldn't really be so suprising as in many Western societies boys are encouraged to persue sexual fulfilment while girls are tradionally taught to seek momogomous fidelity although this pattern is beginning to break down. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: JohnInKansas Date: 20 Sep 07 - 05:38 AM Having been absent during the entire duration of this thread, I'll repeat essentially what has been said before elsewhere: At the formation of the US, and adoption and ratification of the original US Constitution, there were several "states" that were founded essentially as theocracies. The seeking for "religious freedom" as commonly perceived now is largely a myth. What was sought was only freedom from one theocracy in order to establish a slightly different one. (The differences were largely a matter of who gets to have political power?) The constitutions of several existing entities - later states - included a variety of provisions considered intolerable now by most people. In a couple of pre-Constitutional states, for example, "jews and chinese" were prohibited from owning property, the state could tax the people for the construction of churches "of the right religion," school teachers were constitutionally required to be "members of THE church," etc. Restrictions on blacks were sparse since a.) there weren't many of them, or b.) they weren't considered people. As a consequence of the existing of dictatorial theocracies in some potential states, the delegates of several others were sent back to the second Constitutional Convention with "ratification conditional on the addition of" the IMPORTANT (IMO) part of the First Amendment: CONGRESS SHALL PASS NO LAW REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ANY RELIGION. Because of this provision, the pastors who counselled me prior to my participation in the SACRAMENT OF MARRIAGE in what was then my church emphatically asserted that the state has no power to require that I "get a license" in order to enter into any SACRAMENT of ANY church. I see no reason why that should be different now, although some bigots continue to attempt to place civil restrictions on some "actions and behaviours" commonly associated with the rites of their specific religions. I was advised that I should get the license as a means of having "legal civil recognition" of the partnership that we intended, and to avoid ambiguity of our "married" status with respect to civil law. The two pastors with whom we consulted, of two nominally separate "religions," both agreed that they could perform the rites and sacraments for our "Sacred Marriage" regardless of whether or not we obtained the civil license for our separate civil marriage. Any "church" that believes that a license is necessary for any sacrament (not in conflict with civil law) isn't much of a church. Any one who enters into a "Sacred Marriage" without a license, thereby ignoring the rather substantial civil benefits to be had, probably isn't too bright. For those whose belief dictates it, engaging in a "marriage" not blessed according to the belief of their faith is "sinful," and the MARRIAGE SACRAMENT according to the rites and ceremonies of their faith is needed. Since the "marriage license" has NO AUTHORITY with respect to one's beliefs, there is no clearly valid reason why any pair of citizens should be prohibited from forming the civil partnership represented by the "marriage license" if they choose to follow the conditions in CIVIL LAW of that "marriage." A marriage license DOES NOT require the couple to have sex, and it should be no concern of the state whether they do or do not. It DOES NOT REQUIRE the couple to have children, and it should be no concern of the state whether they do or do not. It does not, in fact, even require that they be "of good moral character" (despite numerous attempts to define such a condition) but only that they are persons capable of entering into and observing the civil requirements of a simple form of formal legal contract. The license DOES REQUIRE in most places, that they hold property jointly and equally (joint property rules vary), that either can speak for the other (an automatic power of attorney in many cases), and that they each, and both together, are responsible for their actions with respect to property. Although for the most part any debt contracted by one automatically becomes their joint obligation, even this provision of most civil marriage statutes is so loosely enforced that most real property sellers are advised to "get both signatures" on any contract. (Most states have provisions that allow "real property" to be registered in the name of one or the other separately, if done deliberately, although the divorce settlement may obscure or ignore even this separation.) Some may consider it a "defect" that for purposes of marriage - and divorce - children are considered "property" of the marriage, but there has been little progress in finding another legal (civil) status for them. The abandonment - or abuse - of children arguably places a substantial burden on the rest of the community, and much of "domestic relations" law in the US is devoted to assuring the physical management and disposition of said property, in much the same manner as the requirement that any other property (or debt) abandoned by one is the responsibility of the other(?). The "act" legitimized by a marriage license is not significantly different than the formation of any other form of legal partnership. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY RELIGION, or with whether any sacraments, moral imperatives, rites, and/or services are observed. I would much prefer that it remain that way. Those who think that limiting the participation in this civil act "cheapens" their SACRED MARRIAGE don't have much to be proud of in their own faith, and need to look to what their own faith holds to be the rights and obligations of those observing its sacraments. There is no reason that this civil status - of two persons acting as one for matters in CIVIL LAW - should be denied because of race, religion, sex or sexual preference, disability, age, or any other reason unrelated to the ability of the two partners to make the agreement willingly and knowingly. The only way to keep the law OUT OF MY RELIGION is to keep it separate, and to avoid giving it ANY jurisdiction over what I hold Sacred, including keeping it OUT OF any decision about whom I may love or with whom I may associate. The argument that "only a few" are affected is vacuous. ("How many people are homosexual" has no bearing, if at least two are, and I believe I know at least two.) ANY MARRIAGE licensed by the State is ENTIRELY A MATTER OF CIVIL LAW, whether called a marriage, a civil union, or by some other name. There's nothin' "holy" about it, and quibbling over what it's called just means more chances for dumb legislators to make competing, conflicting, stupid laws. Most of the arguments in this thread are whether calling something an automobile means it has to be a Buick, opposed by those who want always to be a Mercedes. Licensed marriage - in civil law - does not mean the same thing as the sacrament of marriage in one's religion, if one has any faith worth honoring. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Wolfgang Date: 20 Sep 07 - 06:42 AM Two interesting court cases with some relevance to this thread commented upon in this article This article also reports the POV of the Lesbian couple in one of the two cases. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 20 Sep 07 - 08:32 AM Regardless of how you may wriggle or twist, Greg has let the cat out of the bag.....This issue is about the word...MARRIAGE. You don't really care about rights, they can be and should be granted by civil union and should be exactly the same. No, its all about redefining the meaning of marriage to suit the agenda. Right from the start I've said that from the point of view of people who believe in the traditional institution of marriage, redefinition is an infringment of their rights. Other points like promiscuity,the break-up of marriages or civil unions, or religious issues have absolutely nothing to do with redefinition.......Its all about the word. Just keep repeating that phrase and like Bee, you might gain enlightenment........ But I doubt it ...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: artbrooks Date: 20 Sep 07 - 08:37 AM IMHO, the most salient part of the article Wolfgang linked is this: The couple said the reaction exposed the belief in parts of society, including the gay and lesbian community, that minority groups should be grateful for equal rights. "If gratitude is a condition of these rights, then they are not full and genuinely equal," the women wrote. This is happening in Australia, but this perspedtive is almost certainly universal (and it should be). John, what you are saying is entirely true. What I find interesting is the reversal that is currently occurring in the US; without getting wrapped around the axle on terminology, there are churches which are recognizing homosexual unions while the government, in almost all jurisdictions, is not. It also remains true that such will not be recognized as real [whatever you want to call them] until significant changes are made in the law at the Federal level. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: TheSnail Date: 20 Sep 07 - 09:31 AM akenaton Right from the start I've said that from the point of view of people who believe in the traditional institution of marriage, redefinition is an infringment of their rights. Other points like promiscuity,the break-up of marriages or civil unions, or religious issues have absolutely nothing to do with redefinition.......Its all about the word. What akenaton actually said at the start - Regardless of "Gay Marriage", homosexuals will never gain social acceptance while the vast majority of the population perceive the homosexual act as disgusting...Ake A few other things he said along the way - The problem is that homosexuality and how we view it has become a political issue, when in fact it is an issue of morality. But there are sincere people out there who do care.....committed Christians, people who believe in the "sanctity" of marriage, in short, traditionalists just like folkies. The homosexuals want their lifestyle accepted by Christianity or Islam, regardless of the firmly held beliefs of the followers of these religions. Homosexuality is a moral issue to devout Christians,or Moslems. Maybe not to you or I. As far as people's rights are concerned, there are many many more Devout Christians and Moslems in this world than homosexuals. Therefore, should this minority (homo sexuals) have the right to subvert the core beliefs of the religious? Nice to see that he can be flexible in his arguments. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: dick greenhaus Date: 20 Sep 07 - 09:53 AM I find it extremely difficult to give a damn about the tender feelings of either the homosexual extremists or the conservative ones. All citizens should have equal rights, legal and financial. The organized religions can worry about sacraments. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 20 Sep 07 - 11:03 AM The mayor of San Diego today announced he is reversing his position on the subject of same sex marriage, because he has decided to lead from his heart, and henceforth oppose the state ban. He said something to the effect that he cannot act to deny happiness to people, such as his own daughter, a lesbian. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: katlaughing Date: 20 Sep 07 - 11:13 AM That's great, Amos! JohninKS....BRAVO!! Thanks for that; have sent it to several gay and lesbian friends. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Don Firth Date: 20 Sep 07 - 01:59 PM John in Kansas. Excellent! Thank you for posting that. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Neil D Date: 20 Sep 07 - 03:52 PM JohnInKansas you have said it best. This should be the last word on this subject: in this thread, in this country and in civilized society anywhere. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: JohnInKansas Date: 20 Sep 07 - 05:06 PM Although the situation may be somewhat different in Australia, from the standpoint of US Civil (Domestic Relations) law, neither of the two cases cited (20 Sep 07 - 06:42 AM) have anything to do with the sex of the parties. In the first case, a "biological father" who was not legally married to the mother is attempting to assert "parenthood," despite the acceptance of parenthood by the preferred (married?) partner of the mother. Cases of this kind are not particularly rare1, and this case certainly wouldn't have been noted by the media except for purposes of promulgating notoriety over the "gayness" of the parties. The attempt to assert "four parents" has no standing in any US civil law that I've heard of, regardless of the sex of any of the parties. A simple compromise, although unlikely to be deemed acceptable by the parties, would be to name the "other couple" as "god-parents" and give them some (limited?) power of attorney to participate in the rearing of the children - but even that has nothing much to do with sex or sexual preference. In the second case, two "parents" asked for one child and got two. That happens quite commonly in cases of artificial insemination, and this is certainly not the first case in which the parents have attempted to hold the doctor liable. Again, the sexual preferences of the parents have NOTHING TO DO with whether the case has any merit, and the case would almost certainly have passed unnoted by the media if not for the sensationalist opportunism evident. Multiple prior cases in the US, mostly with more conventional couples, would suggest that their chances of winning anything from the doctor will be written up in a judgement containing references to "snowballs" and "hell." Maybe the couple in the second case would like to offer their "extra" child for adoption by the guys in the first?????? (OK - sarcasm should be limited, and apology given.) 1 A spin-off result of "genome projects" in which people submit their own DNA for purposes of tracing ancestry has been the observation that a startling number of people (>>10%? according to several reports) cannot be the biological offspring of the father who raised them - regardless of how "conventional" their family background. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Wolfgang Date: 21 Sep 07 - 02:47 PM In a study by researchers in Liverpool, performed in men and women wanting proof of paternity from testing as well as studies based on genetic health screening, it was found that rates of cases where a man was not the biological father of his child was on average one in 25, ranging from 1% in some studies to as much as 30%.2 that the alleged father is not the biological father of the child. copied from here 4% on average gives a better estimate than the often quoted maximum values. If one reads any number (advertisment or elsewhere) with the words "up to" preceeding the number, one should be very careful. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Bill D Date: 21 Sep 07 - 03:11 PM In my opinion...from reading different posts and watching behavior for many years, 'most' of the opposition to same sex marriage boils down to "If I am able to call what I have 'marriage', while you cannot call your 'relationship' the same, it gives my situation a higher status and keeps a cloud over what YOU do." Yes...exceptions noted, and I can't personally cite statistics from any surveys....I doubt that it would be possible to get totally honest answers to a survey about basic motivation in the issue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: JohnInKansas Date: 21 Sep 07 - 04:30 PM Wolfgang's citation for "paternity tests" in which there is a dispute - or potential one - about paternity is a good one. The numbers (>>10%) that I gave come from a vastly different "population," though. I haven't seen specific numbers. For people innocently attempting to show links to ancestors via DNA testing, higher percentages have been reported - but only in "generic" terms. The numbers reported for these tests quite probably include broken links within a few generations back, as well as simple father/child "errors," and I haven't seen anyone publishing reviewable analyses of the results. The results would, of course, report an "error" of this kind for nearly all adopted children, many of whom may never have been told about the adoption(?). It is all largely hearsay, so I'd suggest caution in quoting any specific percentages as confirmed "facts." Any "errors" found in this genealogical testing certainly may say as much about the (lack of) reliability of genealogical records (and especially about "family histories") as about the behaviour of "wayward wives." John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: artbrooks Date: 21 Sep 07 - 04:49 PM "...oh, your papa's not your papa but your papa don't know..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Bee Date: 21 Sep 07 - 07:57 PM Where I grew up, and it was likely common behaviour elsewhere as well, teenage pregnancy was often handled thusly: the mother of the teen announced she herself was pregnant. Several months later the teen goes to 'visit relatives on the mainland'. Couple months later, the teen's mother 'has the baby'. The child was registered as the biological child of its grandparents. That could mess up the DNA testing considerable, and I imagine it does. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 21 Sep 07 - 08:49 PM Wow, what a clever gimmick!! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: frogprince Date: 21 Sep 07 - 08:56 PM I saw a TV documentary a few months back about a mother who was put through hell. She had a paternity test done, and the authorities proceeded to rake her over the coals; the test determined that her husband was the father, but she could not be the mother. After a prolonged nightmare, someone involved stumbled on a similar case, and it led to further testing and the actual answer. The mother is a chimera. In medical terms, that means that different dna can be found in different tissues of her body. I have a suspicion that this has been looked for so little that it may turn out to not be all that rare. It's another way that the paternity test results could get skewed some. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Ron Davies Date: 16 May 08 - 07:35 AM The best bit of good luck McCain has had in quite a while--the California Supreme Court has overturned a ban on marriage of homosexuals. Oh, brother. I'm fully aware of the enthusiasm quite a few Mudcatters have for this idea. It's the timing I'm addressing--from a political viewpoint. Does anybody recall how helpful this issue was to GWB in 2004? All of a sudden McCain's chances have dramatically improved. Either Obama goes along with the idea of marriage for homosexuals--guaranteed to get the same Neanderthals flocking to the polls to oppose it--and him--as Kerry had in 2004. Or he doesn't go along with it--and risks alienating those voters who support it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Ron Davies Date: 16 May 08 - 07:41 AM Obviously, the issue has always around for a while. Problem is it is now front and center--big news. So it will be back in the consciousness of many voters. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Ron Davies Date: 16 May 08 - 07:42 AM See my post of 3 Sept 2007 8:37 AM. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Ron Davies Date: 16 May 08 - 08:38 AM At least it seems McCain is on record as opposing a federal ban on homosexual marriage. That should lessen his ability to ride this one. It appears he will couch it in terms of an out-of-control judiciary (read: liberal judiciary). We'll see how that plays. Problem is: the issue gives cover to voters who want to be against Obama for "acceptable reasons": "I'm only against him since he doesn't believe marriage should be only between a man and a woman". And of course we'll also see if the economy trumps this whole topic this time. It may. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: KB in Iowa Date: 16 May 08 - 09:57 AM I have to agree that the timing is bad politically for the dems. Nobody is likely to change their opinions but it may bring some folks to the polls who would otherwise have sat it out and I expect that most such folks would be voting for the repubs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: katlaughing Date: 16 May 08 - 10:54 AM I don't see that it is that earth-shattering. From what I've read all of the candidates have pretty much the same stance...the "safe" middle-of-the-road, "I'm not in favour of a same-sex marriage law, but do support civil unions" crap. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 16 May 08 - 10:56 AM What I don't get, really, is why this is a government issue at all. The government is concerned with citizens, not freely formed relationships and not religion; and trying to legislate how they may or may not lead their private lives, and what relationships they may or may not make, is actually contrary to the government's own interest, at any level. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: KB in Iowa Date: 16 May 08 - 11:32 AM But this is just the sort of thing that energizes the anti crowd to get out and vote. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 16 May 08 - 11:45 AM The key issue is whether government should be involved in the freedom to create relationships between individuals. The answer is, they should not, which is the essence behind the California court's finding. The right to decide the terms of human relationships is one of those left by the Constitution to the citizenry, and should be added to the Bill of Rights. There are civil consequences to marriage, and they should be uniformly applied to any couple meeting other requirements, such as a blood test, without regard to sexual orientation, which is just none of the state's business. The fact that some folks just cannot stop thinking about others' sexuality is not a good justification for making a religion out of being a busybody, or a government, either. There was some chat upthread as to whether it is or is not a wide-spread perception that homosexuality is "disgusting". All I can say is, to feel thaty amount of revulsion toward something, you sure have to put a lot of attention on it, first. WHich does not constitute minding your own business. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: KB in Iowa Date: 16 May 08 - 11:49 AM I agree with you Amos. If you would check back in this thread for my posts (not suggesting you should, wouldn't be worth the effort) that is what you would find. But I also think this development is bad timing politically for the dems. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: katlaughing Date: 16 May 08 - 12:47 PM There's an interesting op/ed piece HERE, but I found the comments even more interesting, esp. the one which pointed out that people are so concerned about who gets married and whether it is okay in whatever church but NONE of them talk about the divorce rate, who should be allowed to divorce, AND about religion/churches having a hand in it, i.e. nobody goes to church to "get divorced." If they truly cared about marriages, etc. they would address the divorce rate, no? I just don't see this as bad timing for the Dems. They are on an upswing, we are beginning to see a return to some kind of balance and the Dems will not be stopped this year. The ultra-wrong are not going to come out in droves...they are demoralised, unhappy with the candidate, and small in numbers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: KB in Iowa Date: 16 May 08 - 01:04 PM I hope you are right kat but 6 months is an eternity in politics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 11 Jul 08 - 05:22 PM Good to see the"Appeal Judges" agree with me. "The ruling said that Islington council "placed a greater value on the rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual community than it placed on the rights of Ms Ladele as one holding an orthodox Christian belief". At last a victory for common sense! Granting "rights" to one section of society DOES impact on other sections. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Jul 08 - 05:56 PM I'd assume that one basis for the judge's decision would have been that requiring her to officiate at these ceremonies would constitute a change to her terms of conditions of service. She'd been engaged to do one job, and that wasn't that job. A bit like expecting someone who'd been employed as a vegetarian cook in a vegetarian restaurant to start cooking meat when a new management took over. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 11 Jul 08 - 05:57 PM This was a victory for individual rights; so was the earlier decision. Both sides are perfectly correct. There is no reason for Ms Ladele to have to do something she abhors for religious reasons, than there is to deny lesbians the right to wed, served by someone less fussy about human life. Making a bi-polar, Manichean contest out of it is just dull. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Bee Date: 11 Jul 08 - 06:27 PM As long as there are registrars available who aren't so fussy, it shouldn't be a problem. These allowances for religious distaste for perfectly legal activities become a problem when no other service is available. There is the example of Christian pharmacists in the US, who won't prescribe morning after pills, and sometimes not even birth control pills (though none seem to have a problem with Viagra). People who live in urban areas don't see a problem, but it becomes a problem when the only drugstore in two hundred km. will not serve the needs of women. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Joe_F Date: 11 Jul 08 - 08:57 PM I used to know a couple who were married in a very traditional sense, including heterosexuality & even monogamy, only, being atheists & anarchists, they declined to involve either church or state in the matter. After she first applied for a job using her husband's last name, she got a form letter from the Social Security Administration inquiring about the discrepancy. She wrote on the back, "I find it convenient to use the last name of the man I am living with" and returned it. Social Security sent her a new card. This shows that it is possible for one government agency to mind its own business. Let the rest of them go & do likewise! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 12 Jul 08 - 04:06 AM Looks like the tide has turned. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,c.g. Date: 12 Jul 08 - 07:58 AM Two people in a loving and stable relationship want that relationship to have legal status. Other people want to prevent this becuse their religious beliefs say this is wrong. One of the reasons given is that 'marriage is about procreation'. This means that infertile people have no right to get married. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Paul Burke Date: 13 Jul 08 - 06:32 AM Suffering for your beliefs is one thing. Making other people suffer for your beliefs is quite another. It would have been noble of this woman to give up the job if she can not in conscience carry it out all the duties involved. Would people have had sympathy had she refused to marry Jews or conduct mixed- race marriages? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 13 Jul 08 - 12:30 PM Why on earth would anyone refuse to conduct mixed race marriages??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 13 Jul 08 - 12:33 PM and Jewish marriages would surely be conducted by a rabbi. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 13 Jul 08 - 01:09 PM Ake: Don't be disingenuous. There are many people who would assert-=--and have asserted--that mixed race marriages are an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. There have been states where mixed race marriages were deemed criminal. Same-sex marriages suffer from a similar cast of disappropbation by those who believe that affinities should be dictated. It comes down to whether marriage is a postulated state by the participants, and recognized as a social status by law -- or a social status defined and decreed by law, accepted by the participants. While churches may have a role in what marriages they will recognize for their own neurotic religious reasons, the law, IMHO, has no business prescribing; it should merely support. The idea, of course, of a government whose role was support of people is a bit alien. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Backwoodsman Date: 13 Jul 08 - 03:26 PM You've all missed the point. The lady's complaint that brought about the tribunal was NOT that she was required to carry out same-sex 'marriages', it was that, having expressed her unwillingness on the grounds of her sincerely-held religious beliefs, she was then subjected to a lengthy period of relentless abuse, including threats of dismissal and personal insults, both by her colleagues and her superiors. She didn't go to the tribunal because she'd been asked to carry out same-sex 'marriages', she went because those at Islington Borough Council who support same-sex marriage were not willing to afford her the same tolerance and respect for her religious beliefs that they expected her to show for other peoples' sexuality. Some strange, illogical people holding the reins of power in Islington, seemingly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 13 Jul 08 - 04:53 PM Hi Amos...I wasn't being disingenuous, I honestly had not heard of any opposition to mixed race marriages from within the christian community. Seems a totally different situation. The traditional definition of marriage is man/woman, as far as I was aware race was not mentioned. I was aware that mixed race marriages were frowned upon in some of the Southern states of America .....but surely that was politically inspired?....Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Emma B Date: 13 Jul 08 - 05:18 PM Ake see the lovingday site 'It is only 40 years since mixed race/ interracial marriages were finally legalized in every state in the United States. In 1967, the law banning mixed race marriages was finally overturned in a landmark case between the state of Virginia and Mr and Mrs Loving (yes, their real names), a white American man and an Afro-American lady. Some states, including New York, never had legal restrictions on mixed race marriages, while other states only introduced the law at the beginning of the 20th century. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it wasn't until 2000 that the law against mixed marriages was finally taken off the books in the southern state of Alabama, although it was never legally enforced after 1967.' Rulings against mixed marriages were even upheld by perverting the religious teachings of Christianity: "Almighty God created the races, white, black, yellow, Malay, and red and placed them on separate continents, and but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend the races to mix." - Judge Bazile, Caroline County, VA, 1965. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 13 Jul 08 - 05:52 PM Thank you for that infomation Emma, but I still feel that these restrictions must have been a form of political gerrymandering, as the Protestant/Catholic conflict was used in 19th and 20th century UK: rather than sincerely held religious belief...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Emma B Date: 13 Jul 08 - 06:04 PM The Attitudes of the Churches - Historical Development of Positions on Mixed Marriage 'The practical personal and social difficulties experienced by those participating in such marriages in Northern Ireland are not the primary concern of those who legislate, interpret doctrine or scripture and administer procedures relating to marriage and the family within particular churches. Those engaged in regulating marriage within the churches are concerned with theological issues, and may regard as secondary - and be distanced from - the realities of everyday life in a mixed marriage. It is, however, the historical theological divergences of the churches which have in large part created the basis of the practical difficulties associated with mixed marriage. Practice in relation to marriage cannot be separated from wider issues of ecclesiastical doctrine which set the requirements each church puts on its own members and the ways in which that church relates to members of other churches. As Heron (1975) points out the fundamental theological problem associated with mixed marriage is that separate churches exist at all. In Northern Ireland the overall attitude of the Catholic and Protestant churches to one another has been negative, even antagonistic, and this has carried over into their views of mixed marriage. The unity expressed by two marriage partners from within one church, and the common allegiance to that church's immediate and wider community which supports the coherence and purpose of both church and family. are in theological terms replaced by instability and incoherence when one partner feels allegiance to another church. Within this essentially hostile environment each church has developed its attitude to mixed marriage unilaterally. The general standpoints of both Protestant and Catholic churches have historically been to discourage interchurch marriage, to seek to retain the allegiance of their own members where such marriages do occur, and to focus on ensuring the upbringing of any children within their church. The Catholic church has perhaps been the most active both in legislating and in enforcing legislation with regard to mixed marriage. Less formal structures have existed within the Protestant churches, although the historical response of some Protestant denominations has been equally triumphalist and separatist' copyright 'Mixed Marriages in Northern Ireland' by Valerie Morgan, Marie Smyth, Gillian Robinson and Grace Fraser Published by the University of Ulster, Coleraine 1996 ISBN 1 85923 042 3 Paperback 61pp £4.00 Never underestimate the 'authority' of organized religious doctrine |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 13 Jul 08 - 06:21 PM Thanks again Emma, but it appears from what you havequoted, that both church's discouraged "mixed marriage" principly as a means of retaining their followers, making their actions political rather than theological? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Emma B Date: 13 Jul 08 - 06:27 PM I'll accept 'political' with a small p ake but thought you were using it in combination with gerrymandering as it was practiced in the six counties in combination with a first past the post voting system and redefined constituency boundaries. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 13 Jul 08 - 06:48 PM It was racism, Ake. A blind hatred of something too different from oneself to tolerate. Intolerance toward other human beings, their races, their genders, their preference sin private affairs, is the root of much human misery. It is, itself, a sort of festering disease of the spirit, IMHO. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 14 Jul 08 - 02:40 AM I'm not going to spend much time with this one, other than to give a brief account on marriage. Basically, when a man and woman, make public announcement that they shall be joined together in marriage, it had the attached understanding, and formalized by both church and state, that these two were joined, together, for the bearing of offspring, and everybody else was to have hands off. It came down that, certain disciplines, were employed, because the family was held sacred, and the bond, for that reason was recognized, and respected. All living things on this planet have two things in common: The will to survive, and reproduce...anything that gets in the way of that, and hinders surviving, and/or reproducing is actually a form of death. Marriage, between a man and woman, was,and is recognized, institution of that. (though there are people who marry, and having children is not part of their particular program) Though the mores,and values have changed, the institution of marriage was for the above said purpose. If people want to have the same rights as marriage, they should also recognize that those rights were institutionalized, for the REASON of marriage(as said above). Now if people want to 'enjoy' all the same privileges of marriage, but their reason is to accommodate their lifestyle, of choice, then perhaps they would, should or could, try calling it something else, as to, differentiate, what their lifestyle is, which is other than what the already established, institution is about. Do they have a right?? Legally, they can do what they want. Morally? Well, that is dictated by the morals, of acceptability, within the society, which also incorporates the spiritual aspect of religion, as being a part of society. For those who want recognition in the religious community for their lifestyle, and call the church narrow minded, and stupid, that is pretty arrogant, yourself. After all, when someone in a church whips out their Bible, and shows you, that 'it says right here....etc..'I doubt the same scripture doesn't include the phrase 'except for you'. That is their belief, and no, they don't have to change it, to accommodate you! You think their silly....they think you're silly. Get over it! Now, let's take it a step further....Two guys move into a place together, and they are not sexually active with each other, nor with anyone of the same sex, ok?..Do they have the right to claim 'same sex marriage' so to collect the benefits, that claiming that, would afford them??? If another 'designation of status' is made to accommodate homosexuals, then that is the designation for that situation..marriage is not that situation. Perhaps they'll come up with something else...ok? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 14 Jul 08 - 03:36 AM Well said guest, and if your thoughts could be put into practice the problem would disappear. Unfortunately, to a large section of homosexuals, the word is what matters, not equal rights under the law. Nothing will satisfy them but the re-definition of marriage to suit their agenda. As I said on another thread, we all have some sort of agenda, but cannot expect our newly aquired rights to "trump" the traditional rights of others, no matter how vociferous we become "The ruling said that Islington council "placed a greater value on the rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual community than it placed on the rights of Ms Ladele as one holding an orthodox Christian belief". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Ruth Archer Date: 14 Jul 08 - 05:25 AM "As long as there are registrars available who aren't so fussy, it shouldn't be a problem. These allowances for religious distaste for perfectly legal activities become a problem when no other service is available." I disagree. As a civil servant, you can't pick and choose which bits of your job you want to do. You have certain duties, and it is your job to uphold them. Civil partnersghip is NOT a religious ceremony, and issues of religion should be utterly irrelevant. I don't like the idea of my taxes facilitating institutionalised prejudice. Civil partnership is now a fact of life in the UK. If there are registrars who feel they cannot perform the ceremony, maybe they should have thought about other career options in the many months leading up to the legalisation of civil partnership. I believe most councils offer re-deployment schemes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Emma B Date: 14 Jul 08 - 07:56 AM 'The Civil Partnership Act (CPA) came into force on 5th December 2005. It enables same-sex couples to register their partnerships. It creates a new legal relationship - that of a civil partnership - but it is NOT a marriage. During the genesis of CPA 2004, some commentators suggested that, far from alleviating discrimination against the gay and lesbian community, it would solidify and legitimize discrimination. The complaint was that the law does not place civil partnerships on an equal footing with heterosexual marriage and that creating civil partnerships reinforces and perpetuates discrimination.' Source: New Law Journal I agree with Ruth's sentiments; I was personally married in a civil ceremony because I am not a believer in any Christian religion and religion didn't, and shouldn't, play any part in a civil union IMO |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: frogprince Date: 14 Jul 08 - 08:36 AM This is the wording of the "Defense of Marriage" amendment to the Michigan State Constitution: To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose. It isn't aimed at seeing that same-sex unions aren't called marriage; it is aimed at denying any legal recognition whatever to same-sex couples. The proponents of the act said it would not deny dependent benefits to same-sex partners. I said it would. The resultant court cases I know of so far are aimed at preventing taxpayer supported institutions from paying partner benefits; I fully expect someone to push for criminalisation of the payment of partner benefits by private employers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 14 Jul 08 - 10:20 AM It seems the dark cancer of intolerance of difernetness is deeper running than I wouild have thought. While it is nice to say that marriage exists for the purpose of procreation, the sad truth is it ALSO exists for political purposes, monetary gain, protection of weakenesses, access to property, and other reasons. IF you are focusing purely on the individual's postulated couplehood, then the shape of their underpinnings really doesn't have a lot to do with it. Nor should it have any bearing in law, as such. THe issues that DO have bearing in law reasonably include the legal status of couplehood in terms of social contracts such as insurance, inheritance, and the other benefits of joint life. But none of these issues attached to the notion of marriage have much if anything to do with reproduction. Well, except for "dependents" exceptions in tax codes. As for the sanctity of reproduction, I would submit that is a belief whose expiration date has comne, considering it has driven us over the 6 billion mark. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,c.g. Date: 14 Jul 08 - 10:23 AM OK, Guest from Sanity, if I, being over 60 and infertile, wish to marry in order to ''enjoy' all the same privileges of marriage, but [my] reason is to accommodate [my] lifestyle', but being by reason of my age and cancer-induced infertility incapable of reproduction, then according to your reasoning, I should not be allowed to marry. No love, no companionship, no mutual support, if I can't have children I can't marry. Funny idea of Sanity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Emma B Date: 14 Jul 08 - 01:04 PM In reply to the question of procreation and marriage I have attended emotionally moving and loving ceremonies where older people have been married in church with the 'tactful' removal of those lines from the 'standard' ceremony . I would like to pose a question to some folks here however about the refusal to contract a civil union on the grounds of 'religious belief 'by a civil servant. Some churches still regard the 'divine standard' for marriage as lifelong commitment to one's spouse, and nothing else; even though divorce was permitted in some cases under the Old Testament economy Assuming that one spouse abandons the other is the 'innocent party' to be denied the opportunity for remarriage and the possibility of family life in the eyes of their God and even the state? If their church refuses to marry them (as may indeed occur) is it acceptable that a registrar should also discriminate against their civil union for 'religious' reasons? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 14 Jul 08 - 02:19 PM Perhaps you missed this the first time, of skimming it, and not comprehending it. "Marriage, between a man and woman, was,and is recognized, institution of that. (though there are people who marry, and having children is not part of their particular program) Though the mores,and values have changed, the institution of marriage was for the above said purpose. If people want to have the same rights as marriage, they should also recognize that those rights were institutionalized, for the REASON of marriage(as said above). Now if people want to 'enjoy' all the same privileges of marriage, but their reason is to accommodate their lifestyle, of choice, then perhaps they would, should or could, try calling it something else, as to, differentiate, what their lifestyle is, which is other than what the already established, institution is about." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Emma B Date: 14 Jul 08 - 02:41 PM ' the institution of marriage was for the above said purpose' 'Perhaps you missed this the first time, of skimming it, and not comprehending it.' - no I didn't and I resent your (usual) patronizing condescension. 'In fact, there is surprisingly little discussion in the Hebrew or New Testament scriptures about what a marriage actually is. A search for the words 'marriage', 'marry' or 'wife' in the Bible yield numerous verses. Yet virtually none of these discusses exactly what a marriage is There are cases where the emphasis is on making sure the Israelites do not marry foreigners such as in Nehemiah 13:27 "Shall we then listen to you and do all this great evil and act treacherously against our God by marrying foreign women? There are also instances where a marriage is seen as a way of forming alliances as in 2 Chronicles 18:1 Leviticus 18:18 instructs men that "you shall not take a woman as a rival to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive." In the vast majority of cases where it is discussed in the Hebrew scriptures marriage is presented as a rather one-sided transaction. Daughters are usually seen as objects 'given' in marriage by their fathers. Genesis 34:21 states "let us take their daughters in marriage, and let us give them our daughters". ' 'Though the mores,and values have changed....' yes they have ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: dick greenhaus Date: 14 Jul 08 - 02:44 PM Since, in about half the cases, marriage is merely a prerequisite for divorce, I fail to see what the fuss is about. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 14 Jul 08 - 02:51 PM Emma, I have an appointment right now, but when I return, I'll give you some of the scriptures you omitted, The ones Christians usually come up with. But, it is very clear, that in Judeo-Christian beliefs, that homosexuality is a no-no, based on the text in their scripture. I didn't make it up..its plainly there. Will post it for you when I return. P.S. I also mentioned that I really didn't want to spend much time on this subject, but for you....I will, just for clarification purposes. Ok? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Ruth Archer Date: 14 Jul 08 - 02:59 PM Can I ask whether scripture is really relevant to this debate? As I pointed out earlier: 1. a civil partnership is NOT a religious ceremony 2. The person in question was not a religious celebrant, she was a civil servant employed to carry out, among other things, civil partnerships. 3. Whether you personally agree with homosexual civil partnership is completely irrelevant - it is enshrined in British law. This person was employed to do a job of work. If someone's religion prevents them from doing their job, they should be doing a different job. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 14 Jul 08 - 03:16 PM Ruth, Being as I am not a citizen of the U.K, I find it inappropiate for me, to comment in the ins and outs of the hiring practices of British or U.K. law. ..Respectfully, Gfs |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Emma B Date: 14 Jul 08 - 04:23 PM Thank you Ruth I feared that GfS had not 'comprehended' my previous post. Please spare me any further 'clarification' GfS - I'm out of this thread |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Donuel Date: 14 Jul 08 - 04:29 PM DNA Chimera criminals would make a nice touch to some murder mysteries. As for same old sex marriages, if there is something new please pass it on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 14 Jul 08 - 09:50 PM Being as the scripture issue, is behind us(which I was merely answering a question, and I wasn't the one who originally brought it up), I'd like to clarify and point out, that there is a difference in an 'opinion' , based on an emotional response, a position, based on 'political correctness', and a definition, based on the meaning of terms or words. The post I gave was a definition. Based on just the definition, 'same sex marriage' doesn't make sense. A re-defining of terms would, as I posted, would better serve the matter. If one were to say the sky is 'blue', should we change that attribute and truth, because the other colors of the spectrum in the rainbow 'feel' discriminated against? if there is any doubt about it...the sky is blue, rain is wet, the sun appears to be yellow from here, rainbows are multi-colored, and marriage is marriage(a man and a woman). If homosexuals, wish another sort of union, with different attributes, then call it whatever it is..but marriage it is not! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: dick greenhaus Date: 14 Jul 08 - 09:59 PM GfromS- What the hell has scripture to do with civil rights? If "civil union" conveyed the same legal rights and privileges as "marriage", the discussion would be a quibble over words. It doesn't and it isn't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 15 Jul 08 - 12:04 AM Dick, The question of scriptures was posed to me, from another post. If you would have read earlier my post, that she was referring to, you'd see that I was very objective about the two, and the distinction of legal, as part, and those who have religious issues, as part, of society,with it. Please try not to misquote me, then champion what you thought I said. She is the one who posted several scriptures, that were also out of context, of which, I sorta let go by. It wasn't the issue, of topic, that I was dealing with, or even talking about. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 22 Jul 08 - 02:02 PM The attitudes and opinions of a bunch of pre-historic agrarian Palestinians, Israelites, Canaanites, and Moabites, etc., has about as much bearing on these issues as the opinion of WIle E. Coyote. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,number 6 Date: 22 Jul 08 - 02:16 PM Rosie O'Donnel's gay cruise ship docked in town (Saint John, N.B.) last week ... about a dozen couples took the opportunity of our Canadian liberal (civilized) laws to wed here. The city even presented a commerative plaque to the newly weds. Here's a CBC article on it .... kudos to Saint John !! biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 23 Jul 08 - 04:48 AM "Rosie O'Donnel's Gay Cruise Ship".....Now that's a phrase that conjures up both hilarity, and how far we have declined, as a civilization. The "H.M.S. Rolling Rollicking Roger"...When I think of it, I couldn't blast it loud enough..."Get Real!!!!....Get Real, Seriously!!!!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: katlaughing Date: 23 Jul 08 - 10:07 AM I truly feel for the couples you supposedly counsel. biLL, thanks for that! Kudos to St. John, indeed!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 23 Jul 08 - 11:04 AM I agree Guest....kinda puts me in mind of the last days of Rome! Or is it the lunatics taking over the asylum? Problem is, the whole subject has become so politically charged. "You can't be a real leftie unless you agree with homosexual marriage"......Its absolute madness, ones political ideology and views on sexual matters should never be mixed. You just keep doin' your stuff, you have helped to resuscitate the dormant brains of Mudcat....good on you!....Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: katlaughing Date: 23 Jul 08 - 11:47 AM ...ones political ideology and views on sexual matters should never be mixed. Ake, if only the Republicans(US) believed that! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Emma B Date: 23 Jul 08 - 11:50 AM Ones personal views on 'sexual matters' should not be imposed on others who don't share your viewpoint either ....or at least that's what my professional counselling course taught! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 23 Jul 08 - 04:15 PM ...And what do you base yours on???...Feelings????????? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST Date: 23 Jul 08 - 05:16 PM I hear what you say Kat, but the "Liberal Left", who are in the main a bunch of hypocrits, push minority agendas for all they are worth, without regard for the opinions of others. This is very well illustrated by many of the posts here. Some of the most vicious statments have been made by so called "Liberals" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 23 Jul 08 - 05:19 PM Sorry that was my post. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Murray MacLeod Date: 23 Jul 08 - 05:42 PM A marriage license DOES NOT require the couple to have sex, and it should be no concern of the state whether they do or do not actually, John, it is a concern of the State, or at least the branch of the State represented by the Department of Immigration. I can still remember the sense of shock and disbelief I felt when asked by an immigration officer at my final interview "So, has the marriage been consummated ?" My initial reaction was to ask him if he wanted a tally, but I contented myself with a simple "Yes " ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 23 Jul 08 - 08:10 PM AKe: I am seriously missing something here. In what way is anything "imposed" on you if Rick and Robert want to swear life-long togetherness and make a civil condition out of it? Are you required to attend? Watch the festivities? IS your mind so out of control that the thought makes you imagine things you find disgusting against your will? How does it add the slightest jot to your burden to grant tolerance to individual choices in private matters? And if you think sexual preference is not a private matter, why are you prying into it when it should be a private matter? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: fumblefingers Date: 23 Jul 08 - 11:43 PM Marriage, as an arrangement between a man and a woman, has been around for thousands of years and is practiced globally. To redefine it just because homosexuals demand it is not a good enough reason for most folks in the world. If; however, the homosexual lobby can convince the entire world to redefine marriage to include homosexual relationships and redefine buggery as normal, then I'll accept it too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: katlaughing Date: 24 Jul 08 - 12:42 AM I am a liberal. SO, I guess I can say Fuck Off and be typical...but what's the use. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,number 6 Date: 24 Jul 08 - 01:04 AM 2 males can kill each other in the heat of war and that is acceptable ... 2 males fall in love and marry ... and that is not? biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 24 Jul 08 - 03:28 AM We've all started to repeat ourselves, so I suppose we will never agree on this subject. I think this has been an excellent discussion, and hope reason, not any particular opinion, has been the winner......Thanks all... Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 24 Jul 08 - 08:02 AM Akenaton: Politically charged??...Who me?????(laughing me arse off). I was thinkin' the political stuff is coming from the same ones who let the political people do their thinkin' for them!!!..Mine(and yours) are just common horse sense...(none of that with the politicos!!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Emma B Date: 24 Jul 08 - 01:20 PM I love this comment quoted by katlaughing on another thread :) 'There is just as much horse sense as ever, but the horses have most of it' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 24 Jul 08 - 01:29 PM Can't make a distinction between biology and doctrine? You guys need to get out more if you really think of your somewhat blinkered narrow field of view as "common sense". We're not talking about the biology of honmosexuality, but of civil rights and what they should comprise. Marriage is not a biological state. To the degree it is sometimes a natural state, it needs no regulation. To the degree it is regulated, it is an artifact of civic agreement, part of a code of rights, priveleges and protocols. Denying those rights to some members based on apredilection for heterosecuality makes no logical sense, but reflects only the bias of those who have no understanding of the other half. As a reward for your narrow-mindedness, I wish for you that your children, like Cheney's daughter, come to you to announce they are gay. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 24 Jul 08 - 03:22 PM "As a reward for your narrow-mindedness, I wish for you that your children, like Cheney's daughter, come to you to announce they are gay." Well Amos, you make that sound as if it would be some sort of punishment......perhaps you are not as unbiased as you try to portray. If any of my boys came and told me that they were homosexual, I know for a fact that I would love them no less. I'm sorry I had to respond to your remark Amos, I had you down for a bigger man than that. Your remark had absolutely nothing to do with the issue we have been discussing....It was cheap and nasty. However I still think you're a decent guy underneath....Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 24 Jul 08 - 03:42 PM Ake: Well, suppose one did, and you, rightfully and manfully, loved him none the less. Would the civic benefits of a life-long commitment to a partner then seem to you wrong for him to receive from the community? I mean simply the usual legal benefits--insurance and mutual representation and so on -- that are the civic implications of the married state. Why would that seem wrong? Pardon me if I seemed a little angry; these people who yell into tunnels about the world being tunnel-shaped sometimes get on my nerves. I did not mean it as a punishment, but as an invitation to imagine a different point of view. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 24 Jul 08 - 04:14 PM It's OK Amos. Iknow very well what you were trying to do and it was quite unworthy of you. I may be uneducated, but I am not unintelligent. Whether or not my son was homosexual, would have no bearing on my views regarding the issues discussed here. Attempts have been made from the start of this thread, to turn the discussion into a personal slanging match. I have tried to avoid this throughout and keep the discussion objective. As I said earlier, it has been a good discussion, many views aired in a (mainly) reasonable manner. Thank you for starting the thread and as you started it, I feel it's only fair that you should have the "last word" ............Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Don Firth Date: 24 Jul 08 - 06:50 PM "Whether or not my son was homosexual, would have no bearing on my views regarding the issues discussed here." "If any of my boys came and told me that they were homosexual, I know for a fact that I would love them no less." ?? Sorry, Ake, this is not an attempt to take a shot at you personally. But as a father myself, I'm just trying to reconcile these two comments. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 25 Jul 08 - 03:00 AM Maybe you just don't know what love means Don. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 25 Jul 08 - 09:23 AM Whooof!! Seems to me plain as pie that you would not stand for the basic civil right of loving partnership to be denied. So I think the point has some bearing. Society is not a reproductive machine in its first purpose. Life, liberty and the pursuit ofhappiness are closer to our formaticve goals. Why is, then, one branch of happiness to be blessed, and another which has no less good to impart, and brings no more and often less harm, to be denied? Seems awful lopsided to me. One may dislike the fact that some members of our species are geared to same-sex relations instead of hetero relations, but that is a fact to be faced, not a wish to be unwished. It's a given. Why discriminate against it? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 25 Jul 08 - 01:43 PM ...Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are closer to our formative goals. ....Well I guess homosexuality brings forth a lot of life, eh, Amos??? Neither, does it come from happiness. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 25 Jul 08 - 02:39 PM Your opinions about where it comes from are your own, GFS, not anything binding or even empirical, as far as I can see. ANd your sarcasm about the defining boundaries of the social contract would do better if you replaced them with some of your actual, and often scinitllating, intelligence. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 25 Jul 08 - 03:05 PM Huh??? |
|
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! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Don Firth Date: 27 Jul 08 - 06:03 PM Damn!! Missed it by that ----->|<----- much!! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 27 Jul 08 - 06:08 PM Thanks for that Joe..."You're a man after my own heart"...as we say in Scotland :0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Joy Bringer Date: 27 Jul 08 - 06:46 PM Thank you Joe for being the voice of reason. It is amazing the number of adults than seem to run to you like children who are not getting their own way. I simply will not accept that two men or two women should be considered a couple and have the same rights as a normal married couple. They should neither be in charge of children or able to adopt. They are sick and spread disease in many cases. There that is my opinion and I stand by it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: TheSnail Date: 27 Jul 08 - 07:06 PM GUEST,Joy Bringer They are sick and spread disease in many cases. Clearly not homophobic in the slightest. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Emma B Date: 27 Jul 08 - 07:12 PM 'They are sick and spread disease in many cases.' 's/he is simply expressing an opinion in a thread about a controversial subject.' ? Would you allow this for an attack on race or creed? Whatever Joy Bringer - what a misnomer! - may think I have never requested any of their posts to be deleted - I do so now! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Don Firth Date: 27 Jul 08 - 07:26 PM It seems to matter a great deal to you, "Joy Bringer." I'm just curious to know why you care so much. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Joe Offer Date: 27 Jul 08 - 11:15 PM Like it or not, "Joy Bringer" has expressed the positions people hold against gay marriage. The California Supreme Court has ruled in favor of gay marriage and thousands of marriages have been performed - but they all will be annulled if an election initiative passes this fall, adding to the state constitution the declaration that marriage is between a man and a woman. Nearly half of the California electorate supports such a constitutional amendment, that would bar gay marriage for a long, long time. If you were a Californian supporting gay marriage, what would you do to change the minds and hearts of the voters who oppose it - call them homophobic? I have a friend who was married to a woman, and he had hundreds of male sex partners that he picked up in restrooms or on the street. Hardly what would call a healthy lifestyle. Now he's divorced from his wife and in a stable relationship with a man. If he were to get married to that man, that would be even more stable - and certainly healthier than having hundreds of lovers - no?? I can't say I'm thrilled by the thought of homosexual sex, but it's a fact of life and it doesn't seem that anybody is going to stop it. That being the case, it would seem to me to be far better for society, for homosexual relationships to be stable and faithful, rather than the unbelievable promiscuity that my friend engaged in. If my friend were to get married, would I feel comfortable attending his wedding? I'm not sure yet. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Big Mick Date: 27 Jul 08 - 11:50 PM ....and I stand by my decision. You may not like Joy Bringer's position, but s/he is entitled to it. There is nothing in the posts that constitutes anything other than this person's position. All the best, Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Little Hawk Date: 28 Jul 08 - 01:03 AM Right with you there, Big Mick and Joe Offer. Here's my take on anal intercourse, for what it's worth. I consider it an unnatural act, because that orifice is there to expell toxic waste materials from the body, not to have a penis stuck up it repeatedly. Therefore, I consider anal intercourse when practiced on either a male OR a female recipient to be an unnatural act and probably an unhealthy act for one or both participants. Frequent repetition of the act is liable to damage the sigmoid colon and the musculature around that area, since they were not intended to be subjected to that sort of treatment. I am surprised, frankly, that anyone finds the idea of anal intercourse appealing (and I do have male friends who apparently do find it appealing...so they tell me...with various female partners). Well, I don't see any reason to condemn them for doing that...because it's their business, not mine, but I do personally find it rather disgusting and I think it's probably unhealthy as well...particularly for the passive partner in the act. Since anal intercourse is apparently part of the average male homosexual lifestyle (or so I assume)...well, I think they are risking some longterm health problems by that practice. I don't regard that as a moral issue. I regard it strictly as a health issue. As a health issue, I think it's an unwise practice. But I also believe it's up to people to decide their own health practices for themselves. So while I personally find the practice of anal intercourse disgusting, I see no reason to persecute or condemn other people for willfully engaging in it. Their health conduct is their own business, not mine. And the marriage thing? Well, I don't give a toot whether gay people get married or not. If they do, fine with me. If they do it in a ceremony, fine with me. If a church sanctifies it, fine with me. It's simply not my business. My business is who I get married to. I am not the potential victim of another person's marriage, only of my own. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Joy Bringer Date: 28 Jul 08 - 03:40 AM It is so pleasing to see the views of righteous men eventually coming through on this sickening thread. Clearly the moderators will not be swayed by a few excitable older women in their attempt to be seen as modern trendies. This is a serious subject and people are allowed to express their opinion. This is what we are dealing with here, these people use that silly word "homophobia" in such a way as a warning that Christians who say gay sex is wrong, should face legal judgement. Well tough, I make so secret that I find the thought of two men cuddling up in bed and then entering eachother enough to make me want to vomit. It is sick, unnatural and disgraceful. The media are pushing them down our throats, male tv presenters in pink suits on most nights, two men kissing on television long before the 9.pm watershed. They are filthy, it is against all our Christian teaching and no one will make me accept them as normal. Gay rights activists are calling for racial hatred law to be extended to cover "homophobic incidents". That is sly, that is to give them legitimate cover. There is a big difference in it. Unnaturals should not receive special privileges. In a democratic society people must be free to express their beliefs without fear of censure. This homophobic chant being used by the few running to Joe is used by those with an axe to grind against Christians to silence us. There has already been negative comments here from "the few" for expressing our sincerely-held religious beliefs." If such people were listened to here,what would this world be coming to. It is more likely to be them creating incitement of Christian hatred. It pleases me to see decent members now weighting in on this debate. Criticism of practising homosexuality, homosexual acts and their lifestyles will always come from the lips of honest Christian men. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Paul Burke Date: 28 Jul 08 - 04:13 AM They are filthy, it is against all our Christian teaching and no one will make me accept them as normal. Gay rights activists are calling for racial hatred law to be extended to cover "homophobic incidents". That is sly, that is to give them legitimate cover. There is a big difference in it. Unnaturals should not receive special privileges. This kind of stuff shows why 2000 years of Christianity has brought us nothing but war, torture, persecution, hatred and division. Your beliefs aren't a solution to anything, but part of the problem. This isn't an attack on Christians: merely pointing out that your religious belief is irrelevant to your social beliefs, as for any Christian opinion that says "X is the way to do it", I can find another that says "Don't do X, do Y." And as you've said elsewhere, you hate fat people too. Is there ANYONE you don't hate? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Ruth Archer Date: 28 Jul 08 - 04:35 AM "It is so pleasing to see the views of righteous men eventually coming through on this sickening thread." You've misinterpreted what both Little Hawk and Joe Offer have said. They have not supported your position, merely your right to express it. Joe has said he supports gay marriage if it encourages monogamy; Little Hawk that, no matter how he personally may feel about gay sex, he doesn't consider it his business what other people do in bed - or, in fact, who they marry. "If such people were listened to here,what would this world be coming to. It is more likely to be them creating incitement of Christian hatred." Similarly, I am happy for people of whatever religious persuasion to hold their own beliefs; what I object to is this beliefs being used to dictate the way that other people live their lives. "a few excitable older women in their attempt to be seen as modern trendies." You have no idea how old I am - bet I'm younger than you. I have had close gay friends since my early teens. I don't need to be perceived as anything. I have strongly-held beliefs, just as you do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Joy Bringer Date: 28 Jul 08 - 04:41 AM Support for gay marriage seems somewhat thin here, Ruth read out of it whatever you wish, the guys above also seem to find it sick. I repeat, attempting to be enlightened and in touch with today's younger generation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: harpmolly Date: 28 Jul 08 - 04:46 AM I believe my very first post to this thread was linking to a Roy Zimmerman video. I've got another one to link to, which demonstrates the other side of Joy B's contention that "criticism of practising homosexuality, homosexual acts and their lifestyles will always come from the lips of honest Christian men". Ted Haggard is Completely Heterosexual (Well, ok, to be fair, you did say "honest" Christian men...) Oh, and incidentally, a quote from the song: "What does Leviticus have to say, Yeah what does it say About being gay? To lie with man is an abomination, Like cursing your parents, trimming your beard, planting wheat and barley in the same furrow, eating pork, wearing polyester and masturbation... And what did Jesus have to say, Yeah, what did he say about being gay? Well...nothin'." Of course, you can go on and on about how Christians object to homosexuality all you want, but you're still ignoring the main point that Christian doctrine has no legislative authority in the United States, and if you want to ban civil marriages for gays, you're gonna have to come up with another argument. Why am I always posting to this thread at 2am? I mean, really. P.S. ake...given that I never needed the screws in the first place, they're holding up fine. Holding up my bookcase, that is. ;) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: harpmolly Date: 28 Jul 08 - 04:51 AM I should actually have linked to his later song "Larry Craig is Completely Heterosexual", which updated the song and reflected on the long list of supposedly rabid anti-homosexual politicians who have used their position to deny rights to gay people, all of whom were clandestinely engaging in the very acts they deplored. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: harpmolly Date: 28 Jul 08 - 05:06 AM Last PS and then I really must get to sleep. One: Grammar schmammer. My last sentence should have read "supposedly rabid anti-homosexual politicians, all of whom were clandestinely engaging in the very acts they publicly deplored, even as they used their position to deny equal rights to gay people." Clarification is important, eh, Molly? Two: As I know I've said before, I don't want my comments interpreted as a blanket condemnation of Christianity or any religion, because I'm NOT anti-religious. Hypocrisy, on the other hand, I'll condemn until I'm blue in the face. Using dogma as an excuse to treat people as second-class citizens? Yup. I also would like to express my respect for Little Hawk and Joe Offer. They don't have to like gay sex, or find it to their taste, in order to believe that gay people are entitled to the same rights as the rest of us. Thanks for expressing a rational and even-handed position, as usual, guys. People like you are why I've hung around the Mudcat for about nine years now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 28 Jul 08 - 06:33 AM Holy smokes!... Had a quiet day at the lake, with a client(pro bono), then dinner, and off to the studio...Take a break, check out good ol' Mudcat Forum, and see all of this!!..Wow! First of all, like to thank Joe and Mick for coming in. Being as this is a Forum, that doesn't particularly set the national agenda, it IS a place to be able to speak..would be even hotter, if some of the 'listeners' would actually listen, and consider another point of view, rather than jumping off the handle, and assaulting opposing posts, and posters, peppering them with accusations, based soley on their emotional re-action. I can't be convinced, nor take seriously, any FACTS can back up, the basis for those replies, whether I was the target of them or not. Perhaps, it was the FACTS that were the target, and anyone presenting FACTS was branded as being 'flamebait' 'troll' 'homophobic' 'woman hater' 'Christian looney' etc etc. ..Because fantasy, has become such an intregal part of sex, I can see why such reactors seem so threatened. They 'feel' their personal fantasy is being attacked, and they are going to lose their little toy!..their refuge from reality. So, they lash out in protest, just like a child who has their toy taken away, when s/he doesn't want to...because they have to go to bed, or clean up their room. But take heart, 'It is always the weak, who accuse others, of their own motives' It's interesting, sitting here from my point of view, that in counseling, whether me or not, that there is a 'tip off' when a patient/client is having problems with certain issues, that there is a 'clue' that psychologists notice during the sessions, that signals him to pursue a line of diagnosis...and it was certainly evident here. (Love to tell you, but it would blow some of your fragile minds, at this point). Ask me later. Little Hawk, read your posts. Once again you seem to understand clearly, the issues. Intelligence is the ability to process information...the more crap you don't allow in your filters, the more information you can allow in to process! I have a lot more to expound on, in the post you replied to, but again, ask me later..its full of goodies. Akenaton, ..You got so much 'woman' in you, that, well..its downright sexy!..(smirking). Joy, Took a lot of guts to jump into an anti-Christian issue, and hold forth. Have a little tidbit for you..Remember I posted a link to a song?? Hope you watched it...There is an elderly couple up here, who I met, who, when I was out of cell phone range, answered their door to me, a stranger, use their land line..On the porch they had their names, which I noticed as Scots/Irish. Being as they were really nice, and warm folks, though apprehensive a little at first, they overcame it, and welcomed me in. Anyway, I had a DVD, and CD of that group...and played her that song, in her CD player...I noticed her eyes swell with tears, and she became actively sobbing, then crying, and said(verbatim) "What are you doing to me?? Look at me..You have no idea what this song is to me, having been married to Ed, for 62 years.. and this says it all..I love him so very much" Perhaps, it was a mixture of jealousy that some people vented at you(?) Anyway, Peace, Going to go back to the studio but before I go...... "True wisdom starts, when you find someone wiser than you, and listening to that person, the way you want people to listen to you!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Joy Bringer Date: 28 Jul 08 - 06:45 AM Great post Guest from Sanity, yes I watched the video and enjoyed it. I was glad to see the guys weight in with comments that made sense. The silly comments of those females really aren't worth mentioning, I don't even read them now, and by the lack of replies, I doubt anyone else reads them either ! It simply comes down to that sad old thing of older women attempting to remain hip with a younger generation. They want to show their kids and their friends they are switched on and tuned in. Ipod grannies I call them ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,number 6 Date: 28 Jul 08 - 07:50 AM 'Same-Sex Marriages' Marriage isn't about sex ... it's about love and commitment. Then again ... when religion and politiks come into play it's about control, paranoia and scapegoats. I wish there was more love and commitment in this world ... free from the restraints of religion, and politiks. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Bill D Date: 28 Jul 08 - 11:32 AM Funny.."JoyBringer" condemns homosexual orientation.. ...which everyday has more & more scientific evidence to support it being a natural occurence determined by genetics.... ...using religion & the Christian bible, ....which is entirely a matter of belief & opinion and subject to interpretation and 'cherry-picking' of select passages. It shows how easy it is for this strange tribe we call 'human' to ignore reason and Gerrymander the data in order to 'support' what we believe based on emotion and culture. I have been acquainted with many homosexual people in my 50 years as an adult, and most of them have been decent, compassionate people... about the same % as NON-homosexual people I have known. I do know that NONE of them ever advocated the homosexual lifestyle to me, or condemned MY way of life, as "JoyBringer" is doing against them. There's a fine line between expressing an opinion under the rule of 'free-speech', and attempting thru 'hate speech' to curtail freedoms of others. Allowing gay marriage would not affect the lives of the non-gay one whit....except in their prejudiced little minds. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Paul Burke Date: 28 Jul 08 - 11:37 AM "Free speech" is easy. JB has the right to say what he/she likes about gays or overweight people or whatever. And we are equally free to express our opinion of JB. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 28 Jul 08 - 11:50 AM While I can only sympathize with all the dread that gets mustered up here about the thought of men fucking each other, I would like to add that this, too, is not the issue. Because who one fucks, and how they fuck them, is a private, not a public issue. It is tragic when the obsessive repression of the Victorian and Puritan legacies gets so heavily dramatized that a counter-movement of pornography and dramatized sluttery has to occur to balance things out. But again, the issue is not about how much people hate the thought (or internet pictures) of homosexual acts. You do not have to think about how people do or do not fuck, whatsoever. Why wouldl you want to, anyway? But as a citizen, you DO have to think about the nature of civic rights under the law, and seek to make them equitable and fair, or you do a disservice to the rule of law. I would remind you that "making people behave correctly" is not one of the basic freedoms outlined in our Declaration of Independence, nor in our Constitution. IF you define marriage as between two people who love each other, you are being fair to any two people who believe they want to create amarriage. If you insist on defining it by gender or sexual practice, you are sliding down the slope of moral busybodiness or theocratic fascism. Not good directions to steer. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Big Mick Date: 28 Jul 08 - 12:45 PM Great post, as always, Amos. I don't now, nor have I ever understood how allowing folks the same civil rights I have is threatening to me. Nor do I understand how people who praise "God's plan" and "God's will" can't wrap their minds around the fact that "God" created all life, including homosexuals, so they are part of that plan and will as well. I don't "get" homosexual attraction because I'm not homosexual. But what I do get is friendship and decency, and I can tell you that I have any number of gay and lesbian friends who are as honest, decent, and authentic as any friends that I have. They are wonderful members of the community, honestly and devotedly committed to one another, have all the same problems and hopes that I do, and are simply trying to live a prosperous, happy and fulfilled life. One of the tenets from the Christian book that is probably the most important to me is "Love one another as I have loved you". I am not smart enough to figure out why The Greatest One would have made gay folks, and then condemned them for the way they were made. I guess they will all have to deal with that when they meet. But as for me, I will love my neighbor, enjoy their friendship and company, and fight just as hard for their civil rights as I would hope they would fight for mine. I remember when a pretty well known musician friend married her longtime companion and I was trying to figure out what the best thing I could say to her was. I told her that I wished her all the happiness that I have with my wife. All the best, Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Bill D Date: 28 Jul 08 - 12:58 PM Well, Mick, it is obvious that some folks don't agree that God created gays....(ummm..neither do I...but, my metaphysics differs)... The point is, most homosexuals can't remember EVER being any other way. They did not 'choose' that life and even those who try cannot alter their basic orientation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 28 Jul 08 - 01:07 PM I think anyone who deeply understands the body of Christian tradition sees a major turning point in the beginning of the new testament; the fires of punishment, the jealousy and the dissent among tribes being replaced by God's gracious manifestation as Man, and a new set of directives. It is convenient to forget this change when you are seeking to promulgate differences and dislike. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Richard Bridge Date: 28 Jul 08 - 02:57 PM I have ploughed through almost all of this thread. Why is it that the most repulsive and bigoted views are expressed by the allegedly most religious? And why does Ake not see that he accepts bigotry as justified merely because a lot of people suffer from it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Little Hawk Date: 28 Jul 08 - 03:31 PM Big Mick - "I remember when a pretty well known musician friend married her longtime companion and I was trying to figure out what the best thing I could say to her was. I told her that I wished her all the happiness that I have with my wife." I bet I know who you mean, Mick. If it's who I think...she's a great, great songwriter and she wrote the most wonderful love song to her partner. I got to hear it at this year's Mariposa Festival. That's obviously a case of a deep and abiding love. ******** When one is a youngster growing up it is natural to be a bit scared of the possibility of being "come on to" by an older male. Why? Well, because men are the aggressive parties in sexuality, physically speaking. So if you are smaller and weaker then you are naturally afraid that a bigger and stronger older male might use physical force on you against your will. You're afraid of being raped. This is the reason that both women and younger males fear a possible sexual assault by a male. People don't fear sexual assault by a female...for obvious physical reasons. She doesn't have the equipment to make an invasive sexual assault. Oh, she could harass you some, all right, if she decided to, but that's more just an annoyance than it is a genuine sexual assault...except in the rarest of cases. So there is always going to be some fear in society regarding aggressive sexual behaviour by males, correct? And that is one reason that people, specially youngsters, fear male homosexuality. That fear gets translated into a general level of hostile reaction against the very idea of male homosexuality....whereas there is far less of such a reaction against female homosexuality, because people don't fear it nearly as much. They may be prejudiced against it, but they don't physically fear it. None of that should be brought to bear on the majority of gay males, because the majority of them do not go around assaulting people...specially when they live in a society where they are allowed to freely have relationships of their own choice with other gay males. It's when things are totally suppressed and denied in a society that things get way out of hand...as was the case, for instance, in the long and tortured history of the Catholic Church. Official celibacy and denial resulted in a lot of sexual abuse behind closed doors. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Don Firth Date: 28 Jul 08 - 04:00 PM Question for "Joy Bringer:" Given that, no matter how disgusting or sickening you find homosexual relationships, neither you nor all the churches in the world are going to be successful in stamping it out—it has always been here and it will always be here; And given that you say homosexual activity "spreads disease: Would it not be better to encourage homosexuals to form committed monogamous relationships? How say you? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Bill D Date: 28 Jul 08 - 04:29 PM to add to Don's reasonable question...*smile* I once saw in a restroom stall at my university a nasty message about "hateing gays" and advocating all sorts of mean treatment. Under it was an answer in a different handwriting: "Oh, you should be happy we have gays...some of those guys are pretty good-looking! Think of the reduced competition for girls for you & me!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Little Hawk Date: 28 Jul 08 - 04:52 PM Well, the young guy in university who hates gays is afraid of them (whether he knows it or not). Mind you, he's also probably afraid of anyone who is much different from him. It's an instinctive reaction in people who are not very analytical thinkers by nature. They fear the unknown and the unusual. When a stupid person is afraid, he tends to resort to violence...the old "fight or flight" syndrome. If he's also afraid of what his peers will think of him if he doesn't openly act out his aggression, then he is ever more prone to violence. This is what leads young men to haze, harass, and beat up anyone whom they regard as outside the acceptable norm of their own peer group...and it has been the bane of "outsiders" of all types since time immemorial. It was certainly the bane of my existence when I was in school, though I was not gay. I was just unconventional in a lot of other ways. I did not subscribe to the mainstream values. As such, I got more than my share of harassment from the stupidly conventional guys around me. They were out looking for targets of opportunity anyway. Gays are a spectacular target of opportunity for young male hell-raisers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 28 Jul 08 - 06:00 PM "Violence is the last resort for the unresourceful " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Little Hawk Date: 28 Jul 08 - 06:07 PM Yeah. ;-) You see quite a bit of that in USA foreign policy lately too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 28 Jul 08 - 06:30 PM Well, as we say, "Everything that you see in the physical, is a manifestation of something going on in the spiritual"....Yo-ho!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,lox Date: 28 Jul 08 - 06:43 PM Sorry to come across as so apparently dismissive, but my honest reaction to this thread both before and after reading it is the same. I see marriage as a token of commitment. It is in my view a way for prospective parents to show respect, via a solemn ceremony, for the importance of ensuring that their future children are not left alone and disadvantaged in life. The priest says: "so you fancy each other eh? well it's time to face up to what you're getting yourself into, and if you're not ready, it's time to back out. If you are ready then make your vows and stick by each other through thick and thin cos children deserve the best." Contraception has made it possible to have sex before marriage responsibly. The modern world has turned marriage into a token of romantic attachment. And gay people have a right to enjoy that indulgence as much as straight people do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Little Hawk Date: 28 Jul 08 - 06:48 PM Most definitely, marriage is a token of commitment. That's why at some level it scares the hell out of most people on the day they finally take the plunge and have the marriage ceremony...if they ever do. I should think that would apply about equally to both gays and straights. Romantic attachment? Well, you don't need marriage for that, you just need a strong sense of connection to another person. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,lox Date: 28 Jul 08 - 06:52 PM "you just need a strong sense of connection to another person" or a strong attraction ... Which is now the basis of most marriages - until they disagree on where to put the TV ... ... and then they give up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Don Firth Date: 28 Jul 08 - 08:05 PM Not everybody. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 28 Jul 08 - 08:31 PM From the annuls people I have known: Had the experience of knowing a single father, who won custody of his two children, one boy and one girl, in 1974. At that time, only 2% of men had custody of their children, due to the laws, and the inclination of the courts to award custody of young children, to the mothers. This man, studied the law, to represent his own case, sued the mother for divorce and won,,in California nonetheless! He then proceeded to raise his two children, alone, with not much support from his own family, because at that time there was a stigma associated with divorce..and who knew what to even say to this 'oddball' man raising his two kids, alone. During this time, he re-assured his kids that they should always love their mother, and forgive her, that she made a terrible mistake. She had left the family when the two children were ages 20 months old(the daughter) and the son was 71/2 months old...and still nursing!!! When the daughter was a young teenager, the father arranged to have her meet with the mother, whom she had not seen in years. It was diagnosed, after the mother left,that she had a major case of post partum depression, though through the years that followed, the mother did not make any attempt to re-connect with her two children, and she had re-married, and gave birth to two more. During the visit, on a walk on the beach, in Santa Barbara, the daughter asked the mother a question that had been an unsettled part of her life, in all her childhood years. Children more often than not have feelings of guilt, when their parents break up..and grow up thinking that somehow it is their fault, and the fact that they love BOTH their parents, and that love is ineffectual to draw them back together (a tragic way to grow up). the conversation was this(once again, verbatim): "Mom?...Do you think you and Dad will ever get back together again?" "Oh Jessica, I just can't" "Why??...Why mom??..I really need to know' "Well, I just don't have those kinds of feeling for him." "Feelings?..What feelings?" "You know,..Feelings like one has when they ..umm..do that" To which, Jessica stopped walking, in the sand, looked her mother right in the eyes, and with a look as in disbelief, and the tone of voice as if reminding an errant child of something the child 'should have known'..."M-o-o-m!..Love isn't a FEELING!..LOVE IS A FACT, WITH THAT FACT COMES A COMMITMENT. ONCE YOU HAVE THAT COMMITMENT, TH-E-E-E-N YOU GET A FEELING!!!" ....over twenty years ago....never forgot the wisdom of those words! P.S. The mother never came home. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Ebbie Date: 28 Jul 08 - 08:32 PM "You do not have to think about how people do or do not fuck, whatsoever. Why wouldl you want to, anyway? "But as a citizen, you DO have to think about the nature of civic rights under the law, and seek to make them equitable and fair, or you do a disservice to the rule of law. I would remind you that "making people behave correctly" is not one of the basic freedoms outlined in our Declaration of Independence, nor in our Constitution." Amos Perfectly said. If you want to run for office, Amos, I'll vote for you! Someone said "Support for gay marriage seems somewhat thin here," Has it occurred to that person that perhaps the main reason why support for civil rights for all people is "thin" on this thread is because of that person's attitude? Talk about disgusting. "When one is a youngster growing up it is natural to be a bit scared of the possibility of being "come on to" by an older male. Why? Well, because men are the aggressive parties in sexuality, physically speaking. So if you are smaller and weaker then you are naturally afraid that a bigger and stronger older male might use physical force on you against your will. You're afraid of being raped. This is the reason that both women and younger males fear a possible sexual assault by a male." Little Hawk I'm sure you are right, LH, as far as you go. However, I suspect that another reason why males - young or not - fear contact with gay mals is that they are afraid they would have a physical response and fear that that would mean that they too must be gay. Before the slapping upside my head begins, let me share a further thought here: In my opinion, perhaps the most potent aphrodisiac is becoming aware that someone else is sexually aroused. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 28 Jul 08 - 08:51 PM Ebbie, respectfully, young males are not worried about older males 'coming on' to them. That is your projection...Men don't relate to things in that manner. There is an equation that is well known in the psychological community...matter of fact it has been accurately Quoted through the years..."Lust is to a man, as fear is to a woman'. A young male isn't regarding that...he's usually thinking about a 'pretty girl', or a cute infatuation he is having, to have the time or space to give 'fearing men', a second..or even a first thought, at all. I think just about every man in here can attest to that! Girls, are coming from a place of insecurities, fears of acceptance, performance, and acceptability...on top of being apprehensive of possible dangers. Note: This was answered as straight ahead, with no bias or 'value judgment' as possible |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Don Firth Date: 28 Jul 08 - 08:52 PM Well, it's been some time now since I posted my question to "Joy Bringer," (above, 28 Jul 08 - 04:00 p.m.) and he/she/it appears to have chosen to ignore it. He/she/it is spending his/her/its time over on the "Responding to Hate Speech" thread, giving the folks there some juicy examples of hate speech for them to either respond or not respond to. Don Firth P. S. Unfortunately, hate speech doesn't always stop with speech. In today's news. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Ebbie Date: 28 Jul 08 - 08:52 PM lol You, sir, are ignorant. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 28 Jul 08 - 09:00 PM ...Oh, unless of course the male child's mind is being filled with his mother's fears..in which case, he needs to be around his father... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Don Firth Date: 28 Jul 08 - 09:17 PM GfS. . . . What!?? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 28 Jul 08 - 09:21 PM NEWS FLASH: Young men aren't thinking of growing up to be mothers! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Don Firth Date: 28 Jul 08 - 09:40 PM I repeat my post just above. . . . Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Little Hawk Date: 28 Jul 08 - 11:30 PM Ebbie - "I suspect that another reason why males - young or not - fear contact with gay mals is that they are afraid they would have a physical response and fear that that would mean that they too must be gay." In some cases that may indeed be so, Ebbie. I couldn't say in how many cases. No idea, really. I certainly never had any such fears myself, but I guess some males do. I think, however, that what mainly scares most young males about homosexuality is simply that it's outside of the boundaries of how they are consciously trying to "define" themselves. They're trying to build a young adult identity at that point, trying to leave childhood behind, and working hard to fit into their new identity, and it's a somewhat fragile identity. They're trying to become comfortable in their own skins and figure out how to deal with girls, courtship, etc. They naturally feel threatened by anything that leads off in other directions from the identity they are imagining for themselves. That's why they're also scared to dress differently from their peers, talk differently from their peers, or do anything else that's different from their peers. That's why they insult anyone who does something different by calling him "gay". They don't really mean he's homosexual, usually, they just mean that he's not doing it "the usual way", whatever "the usual way" is. Young men are extreme conformists within their own age group, and they feel deeply threatened by those who don't conform. Gays don't conform to the mainstream sexual values. I don't think there's much more to it than that. Now, you also said: "Before the slapping upside my head begins, let me share a further thought here: In my opinion, perhaps the most potent aphrodisiac is becoming aware that someone else is sexually aroused." Seriously???? Well, if I can speak for myself here...realizing that someone else is sexually aroused toward me only seems to work for me if I am already attracted to that person or if I would normally find them quite sexually attractive regardless. I don't find men attractive in that way, period...and it would definitely creep me out if I realized that a man was sexually attracted to me. I wouldn't mind if he was emotionally fond of me and said so...I wouldn't even mind if he had a romantic interest in me and just calmly told me about it (as one friend did once over a cup of coffee...and I'd had no idea he was gay until that moment). No big deal. But if I felt a sudden wave of physical lust emanating from another man toward me (and one does feel stuff like that)...it would definitely creep me out. I don't get turned on when I'm creeped out. And guess what? I've felt waves of lust like that from women too...and if they were women I was not necessarily attracted to (of which there are plenty), then I did not find it to be an aphrodisiac at all...I found it to be something that made me feel uncomfortable, made me want to step back and put some distance between me and her. Sex is not a "casual" matter to me. It's a serious matter of real intimacy. Do you know how many people I want to get that intimate with? Very few. Maybe I'm shy. Or maybe I'm just a lot choosier than some. ;-) I've always believed in love. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 28 Jul 08 - 11:43 PM None of which speaks to the question that has been repeatedly avoided: why should two people have civil rights denied two other equally legal individuals because, solely, of their sexual orientation? Why should that single attribute make them a separate, lower class of citizen? I honestly don't get the reasoning. Why should their civil rights be put aside because people who don't know them decide they dislike them? That strikes me as really, really dumb. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Little Hawk Date: 28 Jul 08 - 11:47 PM "why should two people have civil rights denied to other equally legal individuals because, solely, of their sexual orientation? Why should that single attribute make them a separate, lower class of citizen?" No reason I can think of, Amos. I was simply discussing some other stuff I'm interested in, and replying to Ebbie. "Why should their civil rights be put aside because people who don't know them decide they dislike them? That strikes me as really, really dumb." Yessir. It is really dumb. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,lansing Date: 29 Jul 08 - 12:25 AM i am following this thread with very curious interest. i noticed something in the tone of little hawk's rather tender reply to ebbie. in an earlier post, gfs mentioned a 'tip off' thing. gfs, when you come back on and read this, could you please elaborate on that. i'm wondering if i think i see it too, but not sure. i promise not to argue or jump on you. i think you are far more learned in this issue than you're getting credit for. thank you |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Little Hawk Date: 29 Jul 08 - 12:43 AM Geez. ;-) Now you've got me curious too, Lansing. I thought I was being quite straightforward and not mysterious at all. A "tip-off" about what? What I meant in some of my earlier post(s) about society fearing male sexual aggression was simply this: Men are physically capable of raping people and some men sometimes do rape people, and everybody knows it. Therefore if there is any fear out there about sexual predation (and there is) that fear is generally concerned with what men may do, not with what women may do. Therefore I think that part of the fear out there of homosexual males is linked to that general fear that people have of male sexual predation, period. I don't see a lot of comparable fear out there about lesbians, and I think that's why. Women are not seen as potential sexual aggressors in a phsyical sense...men are. Now, do I think that most young boys spend much time being worried about being assaulted by an older man? Hell, no. :-) I doubt that it ever even crosses their minds. It never crossed mine when I was a youngster. I was thinking about girls, not worrying about older men. In fact, I think the only boys who ever worry about it at all are those to whom it has already happened. I have had no such unpleasant experience myself, but I do know a man of over 50 who got raped by an adult male, a complete stranger, when he was just a child, and it has really very badly messed up his entire life right to this day. No joke. That's just one person's experience, though. I don't mean to make some sort of political statement or point in recounting it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Richard Bridge Date: 29 Jul 08 - 03:34 AM Maybe "Guest from Sanity" could change his/her handle to "Holiday from Sanity"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Barry Finn Date: 29 Jul 08 - 03:35 AM To the subject of fear in children of gay men or of men or of anybody because of their sexual affiliation. My daughter & son never should any of these types of fears that being discussed but then our backyard was boarded by a gay couple (men) who (one still lives here) over the past 20 yrs has been one of our best neighbors & the kids have know about their sexuality from the start. They have been close neighbors & have taken an active role in the kds lives as any long time neighbor would & could. They have also know that their Aunt is gay & has lived with the same woman since my wife & I met. So their realitionship is as old as our & we've been married 21 yrs. Our kids 2 Aunts have also raised a daughter whose getting married (to a man) next month. My Neice is a joy to both my wife, me & our kids. I've watched her grow into one of the best young adults I know, I'm so proud of her. She loves both the women who rasied her, she's very happy with herself & life & she brings that joy & happiness to whose ever around her & I'm so proud of my 2 sister-in-laws & the job they did raising her. They are/were better parents to their child than most "God Fearing" parents I've ever met. That's probably another reason why my kids grew up with out any of this "fear" I'm reading about here. I's also a fear that as a male I've never encountered (oreven heard about) as a youngster but in my neighborhood people were open about everyone's news & laundry. It was a poor area & we had all typs, bank robbers, junkies, hard workers, some church goes others came from hell but there was no fear. I feared no one except my on peers & we fought like cats & dogs. I can't remember any kid being hurt, black, white or Latino, by an adult. We did have the Cathloic Church & later in life I found out that some of my childhood friends were approched but nothing came of it, as I said it was a tough neighborhood & those approched had no problem iding what was happening & telling the priests to "fuck off" or they'd be getting a call from some of the fathers. So maybe exposure to the real side of life from an eary start & an exceptance of these facts IN life help in more ways than are credited. Now from one who I consider a righteous man. Me. I don't care how anyone performs their sex 2 men, 2 women or one of each on each other. I don't care what they use on each other, if it works for them "God Bless 'em". There are to many people in this world that aren't blessed with enjoying their own bodies & to many that can't enjoy the bodies of others. So if they find some ways that work for them, weither you or I like it or not, they should do just as they please (they are consenting adults after all), I shouldn't care cause I shouldn't be watching & neither should you! It shouldn't matter if you find it disgusting or not, it shouldn't matter if your Rabbi or Deacon likes to do it that way or if it disgustes them,mit should only matter if you'd like to try it & then that's no one's business either. If the laws in Calif. stay on the books I'll be very happy cause I'll be planning to be at my sisters-in-laws wedding, they just said that they'll be getting married if it does. Just think of it they've been together over 20 yrs & have raised a great child into adulthood (she'll be thrilled). They'll be able to feel as if they are equals in all eyes, to my wife & I. "As a married couple". Damn, as humans they deserve that, it's only civil that they do. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Jack Blandiver Date: 29 Jul 08 - 04:54 AM I make so secret that I find the thought of two men cuddling up in bed and then entering eachother enough to make me want to vomit. It is sick, unnatural and disgraceful. It might be argued that all human sexuality is unnatural by default, given that reproduction is merely the random by-product of sexual intercourse and rarely, if ever, the actual objective of the act itself, which is more to do with the passionate impulses by which the genital mechanisms are at their most effective, and indeed, persuasive. They say the clitoris is the only organ of the human body designed solely for pleasure. Well, pleasure is but part of the persuasion, by which means we are coerced into an act which may, or may not, result in procreation. Having established the causal link between sexual intercourse and pregnancy, the next thing we did was think about contraception, which takes its place as an essential aspect of most hetero-sexual behaviour despite it being entirely unnatural thus confirming the simple fact that human beings have sexual intercourse for reasons other than procreation. Procreation is an occult biological process over which, once instigated, we have no actual control other than termination. It follows, therefore, that the only thing that makes sexual intercourse somehow natural is the procreative aspect which, given the amount of times people fuck without issue, is a barely negligible aspect of human sexuality, the actual naturalness of which is the capacity for orgasm in a heightened state of arousal consequential on the presence of another person similarly, and mutually, aroused. The fact that this can and does happen in same-sex relationships is a fair indication of it's persuasive potency & the limitless enrichments by which we might experience same. Another indication is the location of the male G-spot, which is hardly positioned with respect to any sort of procreative procedure. If Christians really do believe that we were created in the image of God, then God put that pleasure spot up our asses for a reason - because he's got one too? If we go with evolution, then we must realise that biological naturalness is only given meaning by the cultural & cognitive unnaturalness that is all human culture. Biologically we are animals; cognitively however we are something else entirely, thus might we consider the alternatives and reep the rewards. As for homosexuality in animals, here's what Wiki has to say: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Little Hawk Date: 29 Jul 08 - 09:52 AM "It might be argued that all human sexuality is unnatural by default" Ha! Well, I swan. ;-) Give over, man. It might also be argued that the moon is made of petrified yogurt and that musk oxen are the byproduct of a pre-Cambrian union between Madagaskar wombats and Fiji Islanders...but there are some arguments not really worth the time or effort spent in elucidating them with a few hundred artfully chosen words. (grin) Geez. But I gotta get you onside writing campaign speeches for the APP (American Primate Party), because you have a real gift for the gab. Yessir. I think you might be able to reduce even Amos to stupefied silence with that last post. Now, I have no objection to males privately seeking out one another's G-spots by shoving various appendages up their respective asses...why would I object to it if I don't have to do it myself or watch it being done? I find it disgusting in principle, yes...but I don't object to it. I find lots of things disgusting...watching NASCAR...getting drunk and disorderly on Budweiser...singing dreadful karaoke songs in a loud and off-key voice...wearing T-shirts that say "I Love EZ-Rock!"...Gangsta Rap music...graceless teenage girls with dayglo orange and green hair who wear jeans about 4 inches too low on their hips and stand around vacantly saying things like "I'm like...whatever..." The list goes on and on. We are all disgusted by a variety of things, right? My solution to these various things I find disgusting is not to participate in them myself. Simple, right? ;-) ********* "Biologically we are animals; cognitively however we are something else entirely, thus might we consider the alternatives and reep the rewards." I agree entirely with that. Human beings are fascinating creatures. They will do absolutely anything they can think of or imagine. This makes them both brilliant and extremely foolish, depending on what they choose to do with their fertile imaginations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Little Hawk Date: 29 Jul 08 - 10:05 AM Another thought occurs to me. Pleasure is dandy, but it can't match love. I think that people's ceaseless search for the superficial rewards of transitory pleasures tends to lead them somewhat astray and they often lose themselves in the process. They forget why they're here. The search for pleasure doesn't satisfy their much deeper needs which have to do with the experience of love, not mere pleasure. People will die on behalf of a great love. They won't die to attain another dandy orgasm. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Joy Bringer Date: 29 Jul 08 - 10:06 AM The point is Little Hawk there is nothing private about it. It is pushed down our throats at every given opportunity that we must accept them. Let these people carry out their perversions behind closed doors and leave us alone. No the media is riddled with these pervs and the music industry too. They have Gay Pride rallies over here, I prefer to call them Sick Perv rallies. People going about their daily life are subjected to grown men rubbing up against eachother on floats and dressing and acting as females with false eyelashes and pink knickers. That is sick, that is perverted, that is public. Nothing private about any of it. I could never accept it as normal behaviour. I once watched the antics of a singer called Freddie Mercury and a television presenter called Kenny Everett on a tv chat show some years back. It was public perversion and it was televised. Thankfully it's not a problem now ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Little Hawk Date: 29 Jul 08 - 10:30 AM Yeah, I understand exactly what bothers you about that, Joy Bringer...but here's the thing. Why do you give it your attention? See, I have no interest in the Gay Pride Parade...so I just ignore it. It doesn't bother me because I don't focus on it. I do something else instead. You have to consider just how much of your valuable time and attention you are going to give to the things you don't like...and there will always be plenty of things you don't like in this world. I detest commercial advertising. I mean I really absolutely HATE it. With a vengeance. Accordingly, I simply stopped watching all commercial TV back around 1985, and I only watch it now if I have a VERY specific and important reason to...and that's hardly ever. I don't listen to commercial radio for the same reason. I don't NEED to. I can get all the good music I want by simply playing CDs...and then I'm in control of what music I'm listening to, and I don't have to hear any advertising in between the songs. I can see videos I like by renting them. I can avoid the damn advertising they have now in the Cineplex by simply walking into the theatre 10 minutes after the official start time of the movie...by which time the noisy advertising is over and the real movie is about to begin. Now...I could spend my time getting furious about all the commercial advertising and ruining my own mood over it...or I could just as easily avoid most of it. I have chosen the latter course. No one has to go and watch the Gay Pride Parade. No one has to sit and listen to a TV or radio show that is going on and on about how great the gay lifestyle is. No one has to read an article about it. No one has to sit and watch Freddie Mercury or any other such personality if they don't want to. I mean...hell...there are plenty of other things one can choose to focus on, right? You follow me? This is the problem with having a chip on one's shoulder. The chip is like a live creature, a monkey on your back that keeps grabbing you by the ear and yelling, "Look! Look at this awful thing over here that you hate! I want you to focus on this awful thing, by God, and I want you to get REALLY upset about it, and then I want something DONE about it, and I am going to make your life and other people's lives hell until something IS done about it!!!!!!!!" That's not wise. It just messes up your day. It makes enemies too. Now the overly pushy gay rights advocates whom you are reacting to have such a chip on their shoulders, in my opinion. And you've got the mirror image of that chip on your shoulder as well. That's what I see happening...action-reaction-counter-reaction, back and forth.....the one constantly feeding the other. The monkeys are in cahoots. They need each other. If someone was to just decide to dump that monkey off his shoulder, then the angry waters would calm right down. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Joy Bringer Date: 29 Jul 08 - 10:47 AM You have spoken with more reason Little hawk than all the other members heaped together. I agree they should be ignored (the parade pasted my home, traffic stopped, street condoned off). I grew up in a time of moral correctness. Yes there were sick minded people around then, but they slipped around the backs of public toilets and local parks in the hours of darkness. Now the council has to almost provide them with shag buildings in public parks. We once had closet male pervs in our society, the closet doors were flung open and they were let out and the smokers of society now seem to occupy the closet ! Really if you want to sit down with your family and watch television why do we need to see pervs kissing and groping at 7.00pm in the evening ? There is a soap set in the Yorkshire Dales here and a couple of shirttail lifters prance about it promoting the illness. I no longer watch the programme, what I am saying is, why should people like me have to chance my way of life because some tv producer who is ill thinks I should be subjected to what his warped mind thinks is normal. Nature cleans up the problem, the medical profession and government suppress the real figures. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 29 Jul 08 - 10:51 AM Well, the like or dislike of popular promotion of sexualitty is an individual thing--I too dislike it, whether it is hetero or homo-based, although I will say the gays do it with more style by far than the heteros. But generally, I agree, JB, that public dramatization of sex is off-putting and boring. But the issue of the civic rights of individuals to marry whom they please has absolutely nothing to do with this. People keep bringing up their provate abhorrences and disgusts and stomach churns about male homosexuality in particular. Apparently lesbianism does not quite offend people at the deep gut level quite as much as its male coutnerpart. But who gives a flake of moondust? Your appetite for or antipathy toward genders, sexual practices, or breakfast cereal has NOTHING to do with the topic of this thread. You who are continuously bent out of shape about sexuality need to get above the fray long enough to notice that the question is much simpler. The legal and civil rights of individuals to marry the individual of their choice should be equal to all citizens under the law. Yes? or No? Your revulsions or appetitites are your private business and have no relationship to this critical core question. YEt time and again, this thread gets parlayed into a hatred-of-homos-thread or some such. Why is the central question so readily being avoided? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Little Hawk Date: 29 Jul 08 - 10:59 AM Hmmm. Well, I think we've pretty well covered all the bases here by now, Amos. At this point people are just talking about whatever they still want to talk about. I ignored this thread for a long time. I may go back to ignoring it again, I guess. We'll see. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,lox Date: 29 Jul 08 - 11:06 AM I must commend the descriptive detail of the perversity by which your imagination is so fixated. It is really quite vivid and highly developed. This reminds me of an issue of the Sun newspaper I opened a few years back which featured a scathing article about paedophiles, right next to which was a large photo of charlotte church wearing a skimpy bikini (then 15), taken by paparazzi as she holidayed in some exotic location. Britain loves to titillate itself with scandal and taboo and finds release by frothing at the mouth. I can't say that images of men kissing men particularly keep me awake at night. And you certainly won't find me picketing the house of a paediatrician due to my ignorance of the English language. Froth froth ... uh ... uh ... it's disgusting ... oh yeah ... perverse ... ... that's it baby ... let me go into more detail ... ... I'm writing a letter ... ... whew ... think I'll have a cigarette now ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Joy Bringer Date: 29 Jul 08 - 11:06 AM Fine, Do I agree with same - sex marriages ? No I do not. I think the word marriage for pervs is wrong in the first place. Call it a Filth Duo and myself more people could accept it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Ebbie Date: 29 Jul 08 - 11:16 AM Why do I keep being reminded of "a naughty, nasty boy"? (Those not in America might not get this allusion.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Jack Blandiver Date: 29 Jul 08 - 11:32 AM I think it was Sun Ra who said that the greatest evil known to humanity is righteousness. Righteousness is about that point when ones subjective convictions become so fucked up that they interfere with ones ability to tolerate the subjective convictions of others, or else appreciate their right to experience life as they see fit without being told that what they're doing isn't normal. Normal is an observable consensus of behaviour, not a benchmark for all behaviour; abnormality in these terms is only a matter of widening the remit for normality, which has absolutely no objective value whatsoever. If we are disgusted by anything, such as the things in Little Hawk's list, then that tells us more about ourselves than it does any of the things we're disgusted with. In short we have no right be disgusted with anything or anyone short of those whose acts are criminal and inhumane. Homosexuality isn't criminal; neither is it inhumane. That we see more of it in the media is simply because it is a part of life & of culture as a whole, and if people can't openly celebrate their individual uniqueness with pride, then it's a poor world in which we live. Our solution to things we find disgusting is to get over ourselves; to accept and respect, to get a life and live it without troubling over what others may or may not be getting up to. The problem of disgust is with the disgusted, because without the disgusted nothing would be disgusting. Absolutely anything has the capacity to be disgusting, but only to those who are suitably fucked up, such as the righteous, and the religious, who in their quest for the moral certainty and the life hereafter are missing out on the chances of their life in the here & now. You are, after all, a long time dead. Love is fair enough, if a little ephemeral, a little abstract, a little too conceptual, whereas mere pleasure is a physical corporeal aspect of life. Love might heighten ones appreciation of pleasure; but alcohol and heroin can do much the same thing, and might be cheaper in the long run and less upsetting than when the love of your life runs off with someone else. If one can find a partner with whom one wishes to be faithful in mutual perpetuity, then fair enough - if not, then I very much doubt celibacy is much of an option. Of course this applies equally to homosexual as well as heterosexual relationships, so is perhaps a little off topic. Normal, like natural, isn't necessarily A Good Thing; cancer is natural, dog shit & hernias likewise; idiosyncrasy isn't normal by definition, neither is genius. Rules are defined by their exceptions; and being exceptional is not being normal, and yet humanity continues to crave consensus and normalcy, everyone running headlong for the lowest possible common denominator simply to fit in. Like the slogan you see on t-shirts: you laugh at me because I'm different, I laugh at you because you're all the same. Maybe we are all sub-normal; maybe it's only the exceptional ones who are truly normal, living life to the full whilst the rest of us look on from our respective puddles, begrudging them the potential we have failed to realise by simply being normal. Is it any surprise to find many people of genius are also homosexual? I think, perhaps not. The only thing that matters here is humanity; being alive, being proud of our uniqueness, being what we are, doing what we do, and striving to live in such a way that facilitates others to do that too, whatever their orifice of choice might be, or whether or not they like having sex with other men or other women. This should not be open to debate; no one should be allowed to express opinions on what other people are, or what other people do; no one is entitled to be disgusted with anyone else, for therein lies the truly disgusting, born as it is from our capacity to believe that what is right for us is right for everyone, which is clearly, and self-evidently, and most certainly not the case. Sedayne |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 29 Jul 08 - 11:42 AM Sedayne speaketh with great wisdom. BoJ, your heart, it seems, is quite curdled with your disgust and hatred and inflamed with fire against perverts and filth. But it might do you some good to examine why it is your heart keeps bringing up these things to resist so mightily. You interject these fiery labels -- filth and perversity serem to be your favorites -- into a question of civil rights. Despite the evidence that affinity for the same sex is a biological, not a psychosomatic syndrome, you feel it is sufficient grounds to deny the equal civil rights under the law tot hose afflicted with it. Is there any important way inwhich you are different, on this issue, from a tobacco-spitting gumless inflamed, racist Klan-supporting red-necked bigot? The similarities are quite striking: you both spew undifferentiated hatred toward a group that is different in minor biological details from your own. You both base a great deal of rancour and venom on unreason and fear, and justify your hatred with invective rather than particular facts of the matter. And you both seem to feel justified in passing righteous condemnation down onto the heads of your fellow humans. You both act with great disgust in the face of God's own creation and the natural variety of life displayed before you, as though you were particularly at odds with both God and nature. What is it that drives you to these extremes? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,lox Date: 29 Jul 08 - 11:43 AM The closet door is jammed ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Joy Bringer Date: 29 Jul 08 - 12:09 PM As responsible adults and parents we have been given a very precious task to show our children the correct course to take in life. That is a privileged role. What kind of parent would I be if I allowed my child to watch a television programme in which some animal gave another man a beef injection ? There is enough warped people in the world to protect your children from without permitting them space in your living room. Take the music industry, it seems no one seems to care that Amy Winehouse and Pete Doherty are killing themselves with drugs. Why not jail them to protect them from themselves ? I know this is a thread drift, but it is another example of evil ruining young lives and society promoting it through acceptance, a man adding an extension to another man's spine is probably the most disgusting act I can imagine. Men's annal's are not for pleasure. Same sex relationships are twisted, evil and wrong. Rattle away eachother in private, stop promoting it to children. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,lox Date: 29 Jul 08 - 12:17 PM "a television programme in which some animal gave another man a beef injection" Another man? There there - I'm sure there's plenty more beef injections in the ... er ... sea ... (?!?) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: TheSnail Date: 29 Jul 08 - 12:32 PM GUEST,Joy Bringer a man adding an extension to another man's spine is probably the most disgusting act I can imagine. Oh, go on. I'm sure you could do better if you tried. You certsinly seem to put a lot of time into thinking about things that disgust you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: curmudgeon Date: 29 Jul 08 - 12:32 PM Why does this "person" remind me so much of Martin Gibson? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 29 Jul 08 - 12:49 PM Q: Should same-sex pairs of people have the same civil rights under the law as other people? A: Same-sex is perverted/ Q: Should same-sex pairs of people have the same civil rights under the law as other people A: It's unnaturall!! Why should I allow my childrent os ee dirty pictures? Q: Should same-sex pairs of people have the same civil rights under the law as other people? A: The very idea of make homosexual is disgusting and despicable and twisted and hateful; and evil and wicked and the spawn of Satan and also quite bad. Q: Should same-sex pairs of people have the same civil rights under the law as other people? A: I don't think there should be such a thing as homosexuality. Especially among MEN!!! Yuck!!! Ick!!! Q: Should same-sex pairs of people have the same civil rights under the law as other people? A: Why should the church bless such a thing when it is against God and forbidden in the Bible???? Q: Should same-sex pairs of people have the same civil rights under the law as other people? A: Same sex coupling is the most horrible thing I can imagine, I think about it allt he time it is so disgusting. Icky poo!!! Q: Should same-sex pairs of people have the same civil rights under the law as other people? A: You are a pinko fag-loving commie bastard hippy. Q: Should same-sex pairs of people have the same civil rights under the law as other people? ...Let me know if anyone feels they have an answer to the question as asked.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Jack Blandiver Date: 29 Jul 08 - 12:53 PM Men's annal's are not for pleasure. Nothing could be further from the truth, hence the male G-spot being located where it is. See http://allwomenstalk.com/finding-the-male-g-spot/ for further info. This is God's Holy Work, creating Man in his Own Image, anal G-spot and all, thus allowing for the potential & desirability of anal penetration by virtue of a) proximity and b) the potential for mutually climatic pleasure. Talking of which, there's a choice piece of graphic anal sex & orgasm in the Song of Songs, Chapter 5, Verse 4. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,lox Date: 29 Jul 08 - 12:55 PM Or even ... Q: Should same-sex pairs of people have the same civil rights under the law as other people? A: I'm too repressed to be gay and happy so why should anyone else be allowed to. Thank you for bringing the joy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Don Firth Date: 29 Jul 08 - 02:13 PM Well, having read the latest posts, I see that this thread is in good hands. Sedayne, Little Hawk, and Amos have spoken a great deal of reason, as have a few others. Joy Bringer, Like Little Hawk, I get highly irritated by television commercials. This is why I regard the "Mute" button on my television's remote control one of the truly great inventions of Mankind. I use the "Mute" button, and avoid the aggravation. Perhaps you need a "Mute" button on a number of the aspects of Life. You seem obsessed with the anatomical details of anal intercourse and apparently take a fierce pleasure in describing them in some detail, then telling us how "sickening" and "disgusting" you find them. But a perusal of a book entitled The Joy of Gay Sex will reveal that your imagined repertoire of what gays get up to is grossly limited. The annual Gay Pride Parade passes a few blocks from where I live. I watched it once, and for the most part, it was just a parade. I found a few features somewhat bizarre, such as "Dykes on Bikes" with their fleet of rumbling Harleys (but it was mainly their manner of dress—or lack thereof: creatively designed leathers), and a fair number of cross-dressers who had a most imaginative sense of fashion. But I got the idea, and once was enough. I was not "disgusted" by the parade. If anything, I was amused by much of it. But—I was also aware that this was an attempt by the gay community in this area to call attention to the civil rights issue. And when the Mayor and the Police Chief—neither of whom are gay—participated in the parade, this went a long way toward adding pressure on legislators to grant those civil rights. I am happily married—to a marvelous woman—and I have no interest whatsoever in any kind of sexual relationship with another male. I don't find it the idea "disgusting" or "sickening." I do find the idea distasteful, but not for "sanitary" or "health" reasons. It is simply that I am not interested. Joy Bringer, you have not answered two questions I have asked you repeatedly, so I will ask them yet again: In what way does the marriage of Paul and Philip have any effect whatsoever on Barbara's and my marriage?I would like answers to these questions, if you, indeed, have answers. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Wesley S Date: 29 Jul 08 - 02:41 PM Good grief Don - why should we care if he has an answer or not? As Jefferson Airplane said once in a song "It doesn't mean shit to a tree". Eventually he will have to join the 21st Century. Until then his opinion matters not in the "Great Scheme of Things" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: beardedbruce Date: 29 Jul 08 - 03:03 PM As a conservative, let me state that IF the government is using the term "Marriage" for *GOVERNMENT* use, such as tax status, there cannot be ANY use of the religious-defined limited meaning attached- ALL versions of marriage, including multiple husbands or wives ( or do Moslims NOT count as married, if they have more than one spouse?), gay, or whatever. The problem is that, once the GOVERNEMENT has used the term, it should NOT be limited to any one religious group's definition ( A violation of the Bill of Rights). IF there is a problem with this, use a different term for your religiously limited/defined marriage ("union of two church members of opposite sexes but appropriate ages who intend to remain together for life") I do not see how ANY allowed form of marriage can be considered a threat to any other. If I like vanilla ice cream, and you like chocolate, how does my getting vanilla endanger your getting chocolate? And if someone else likes strawberry, so what? THEY HAVE THAT RIGHT. I think the ritual cannibalism of Christianity is far more discusting than the acts between any two ( or more) individuals, but that does NOT give me the right to prevent anyone else from having that religion. Nor from getting the government tax breaks that religious donations get, nor the taxx exemption that religious property gets ( examples of government use of religion in the tax laws: They MUST apply to all religions, not just the ones that one agrees with.) Just MY opinion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Neil D Date: 29 Jul 08 - 03:03 PM We have gay relatives on both sides of our family including my wife's nephew whom we both love dearly. I remember several years ago when his own Grandfather "relented" and said that he and his friend could come to the family's annual Christmas Eve party, but they would have to use plastic utensils. And no, he wasn't making a bad joke either. I could see quite well the pain this caused a fine young man. Now I would never ask a moderator to close ANY thread including this one, but for the record, I do consider most of Joy Bringer's remarks to be a personal attack...on my family! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Don Firth Date: 29 Jul 08 - 03:06 PM I know, Wesley, I know. But I'm just pointing up, not just to other folks on the thread, but to "Joy Bringer" as well, the fact that there are no reasonable answers to these questions. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: beardedbruce Date: 29 Jul 08 - 03:19 PM oops: IF there is a problem with this, use a different term for your religiously limited/defined marriage ("union of two church members of opposite sexes but appropriate ages who intend to remain together for life and who are allowed physical interaction, prohibited to those not certified in this state by the proper authorities, with the allowable outcome of possible reproduction") |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 29 Jul 08 - 03:22 PM My God!! The minute you children are left alone for one minute you start to twist the discussion. No body said that homosexuals should be deprived of their civil rights for fuck sake. They can and should be able to go through a civil ceremony whenever they wish, providing it is lawful in that state or country. The discussion, for the fuckin' hundredth time, was about the re-definition of marriage and the effect of that re-definition on committed religious people. You're all a bunch of cheats!...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: beardedbruce Date: 29 Jul 08 - 03:25 PM "the effect of that re-definition on committed religious people." WHAT effect? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: beardedbruce Date: 29 Jul 08 - 03:30 PM There has been NO attempt to change the religiously limited/defined marriage ("union of two church members of opposite sexes but appropriate ages who intend to remain together for life and who are allowed physical interaction, prohibited to those not certified in this state by the proper authorities, with the allowable outcome of possible reproduction") ONLY the term as used by the government- (union of any two individuals who for tax purposes and rights of access and responsibility are considered to have a "civil union" , including by default those with religious marriages BUT also including those who have contracted by whatever menas to be in such a union) So tell me how the MARRIAGE(Government) definition has ANY effect on the people who have entered into the MARRIAGE(Religious) state? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Little Hawk Date: 29 Jul 08 - 03:33 PM Aw hell....this thread is too much fun. ;-) I can't stay away. Ahem! Isane Beard? Have you considered getting help for your beard problem? If a beard becomes seriously mentally unhinged, it's not the end, you know. There is psychotherapy out there for beards which have lost their bearings, become dangerous, and devolved into wild, unmanageable hairballs that are a menace to society. I urge you to consult a professional beard therapist at once. A few years of highly priced analysis will probably get you back on an even keel. If that fails, however, there's still...the RAZOR! I tried growing a beard once. It came in all patchy. Dreadful! Then it started voicing opinions that I and many others found unacceptable. Soon it was endorsing public nudity and hamster-baiting! Well, I resorted to the final measure. I shaved the damn thing off. It's never troubled me since, though it keeps trying to creep back insidiously every night, but I always catch that sneaky little attempt and nip it in the bud in the morning. In the meantime....tune in for the next installment of "My attitude toward gays in society is much better, more enlightened, and far more wholesome than yours is or ever will be!", the most popular dramatic series on Mudcat prime time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: beardedbruce Date: 29 Jul 08 - 03:38 PM LH, YOU may choose to take a knife to your secondary sexual charateristics, but some of us would not. YOU are advocating a course of action that is not thought well of. 8-{E |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 29 Jul 08 - 03:40 PM Ake: The point has been repeated ten times in this thread that it is NOT about the redefinition of any religious ceremony, church mandate, sacred script, ritual, or special dance steps. It is about the legal, civil definition of marriage. The word, as you have plainly noticed, has two distinct meanings as BB has pointed out. Read the darn thread. You're waving your arms about a paper tiger. NOONE CARES ABOUT THE SANCTIONS OF ANY CHURCH IN THIS MATTER PRO OR CON. This is purely the legal right to be considered a legal spouse. Got it? That's what the _state_ calls "marriage". In this sense it is a purely secular label of a civic state to which two people are entitled by legal and business conventions. What one or another temple, clique, congregation, enclave, church, cathedral or prayer circle calls it is nobody's concern but theirs. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 29 Jul 08 - 03:42 PM He-he-he well said BB and LH....:0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Little Hawk Date: 29 Jul 08 - 03:46 PM Is that so, BB??? Well! I figured from your name that you were one of those barbaric bearded types who swaggers around like a latter day Viking marauder, intimidating decent cleanshaven people with your bristling mass of unsanitary facial foliage. Fie, sir! Fie! ;-) Does Superman have a beard? No! Did the Lone Ranger have a beard? No! Does Batman have a beard? No! Did Dudley Doright have facial hair? No! But what about Snidely Whiplash and Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein? Hmmmm? I rest my case. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: beardedbruce Date: 29 Jul 08 - 03:53 PM And what about Moses. Grant, Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and the Smith Brothers? Superman, being what he is, CANNOT grow a beard ( 1. how would he ever cut it?- What would be strong enough? 2. Given discussions of Superman's sexual maturity, the eviodence is that he seems to still be pre-pubescent) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 29 Jul 08 - 04:03 PM Great Stuff!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Don Firth Date: 29 Jul 08 - 04:05 PM . . . Chongo Chimp. . . ? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: beardedbruce Date: 29 Jul 08 - 04:09 PM Didn't know he had a beard, but he certainly does not shave. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,lox Date: 29 Jul 08 - 04:19 PM Nothing disgusts me more than filthy unashamed beard growth. Can't you just stay indoors and grow a furtive beard and enjoy it in the privacy of your own home? And what's wrong with shaving it off when you come out (ahem) ... Don't you realise that growing a beard undermines shaving for the rest of us healthy moral folk? I mean deliberately allowing ones hair follicles to manufacture cells and sprout forth like cherubim and seraphim at a roman orgy ... pant ... pant ... Excuse me ... back in 5 ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: beardedbruce Date: 29 Jul 08 - 04:22 PM "like cherubim and seraphim at a roman orgy " What Are Cherubim and Seraphim? Cherubim and seraphim are winged creatures that appear in Scripture and make their most memorable appearances in the visions of Ezekiel (1:4-28, 10:3-22), Isaiah (6:2-6), and John (Rev 4:7). Although not specifically called angels, cherubim and seraphim are revealed as living creatures or heavenly beings whose primary purpose is to worship God at His throne. Hardly to be seen at orgies... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,lox Date: 29 Jul 08 - 04:24 PM precisely ... hence the scandal! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: beardedbruce Date: 29 Jul 08 - 04:25 PM When would they find the time? It's not like they get Sundays off, you know... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,lox Date: 29 Jul 08 - 04:26 PM At least they didn't grow beards though! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,lox Date: 29 Jul 08 - 04:27 PM I heard they can get anything off ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 29 Jul 08 - 04:29 PM "President George W. Bush says, "In our free society, people have the right to choose how they live their lives." So why are our government and the Religious Right: censoring Comedy Central, the internet, HBO, and your public library? giving taxpayers' money directly to religious institutions? legislating "good moral values"? eliminating strip clubs, swing clubs, and adult bookstores across the country? limiting your access to contraception? brainwashing your kids that God hates premarital sex, and that it ruins lives? ..." Book review for "America's War on Sex" can be found here. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: beardedbruce Date: 29 Jul 08 - 04:30 PM They were NOT sexually mature- I guess they reproduce by cellular division. But those of us WITH secondary sexual characteristics object to being told to cut them off for the pleasure of some perverted few that appear to dislike them. |
|
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. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Joy Bringer Date: 30 Jul 08 - 01:39 AM Mick, Why do I read your post like it's the results of a psychological assessment ? why did you make threats in your posts last Sunday that you had the power to block or remove my posts ? Am I missing something here ? Are you the resident hired muscle or doorman ? The reason I ask is I understand you hold strong Irish republican aspirations.(I must enlighten you as to my own family background, great uncle died in Dublin in May, buried in Arbour Hill Cemetery Dublin).I imagine you will understand this. I have visited the plot here several times, great country, great city. Anyway back to my point, a lot of people I spoke in Ireland told me of experiences they had at the hands of their so called oppressors. And strangely enough it sounds a lot like your angle on me. They were threatened a lot that if they said something "big brother" didn't like they would have them to deal with. They also remarked on being constantly evaluated psychologically. Their oppressors liked to speak on their behalf. Sorry Mick, your post last night and last Sunday read to me as that. I don't have a hang up regarding two men having sex, I find it totally disgusting and two men holding hands in the street is putting this depraved behaviour into my face. Let them perv all they want behind their own walls, just don't push something I find sickening into my life and tell me I must accept it. Much in the same way Mick, Irish prisoners refused prison reforms in 1976, leading onto a protest and then 5 years later to another stage. Mick people in this world hold principles. I happen to find a unity of two men in marriage sick. Several members here have tried to bully me into accepting their view. The like of Little Hawk speaks with reason, I don't even read the posts of the likes of Emma and that fool Lox, I just breeze over them, but it's your posts that interest me. I look forward to an Irish thread up here someone. I imagine we will exchange or remind eachother of a few comments. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 30 Jul 08 - 03:24 AM First of all,in addressing the issue of 'bigotry' BoJ is stating her religious beliefs, and her distaste for homosexuality. That is her belief, and supported by her sources. She has a right to those beliefs, and to express them. Saying she is a bigot, and deriding her for it, relentlessly and ruthlessly, putting her on the defensive, makes it hard for her to function, expressing any thoughts, without being labeled, misquoted, taunted, jeered at, and forced into a position, that originally wasn't even her original intention. This kind of mob ganging up, is in itself bigotry..as I said earlier, "It is the weak who accuse others of their own motives" Whether you agree with her or not, I admire someone who can withstand all the taunting, just for standing by her beliefs. I know I take flak, just for quoting a definition, taken right out of psych 101.(sometimes 202, and post graduate studies, as well...and its just a definition!!!). The more mean spirited disrespect given to her, or anyone else, to whom one might disagree, certainly adds to her argument!. It does not show or convince anyone that homosexuals are as hip and tolerant, as they wish to be perceived. Then there is another issue, that none of anyone out there can prove one way or another.....the only one who could answer this one, wouldn't be here to share the answer....what if she is right?..I guess we won't know till we die, and return to where from we came. By that time, maybe we can convince our Maker, that He needs to recognize 'our' rights!..But until then, let's be civil to one another...and listen fully to the whole matter, before showing ourselves as narrow minded, and therefore stupid..... As to the question to me from lansing, and Little Hawk, I was so tempted to answer it, when I came on, as requested, but I'm holding back, just a little longer, because of the mood in here, but I assure you it is so self evident, it would make your jaw drop. Also, Little Hawk was in a dialogue with Ebbie, that I thought it should run its course first....Hey...Love to all |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 30 Jul 08 - 03:30 AM By the way, I will give you the letters"EI" to answer you question, lansing. Just so you know, that the answer is already there...and of course, its a definition...taken right out of post graduate therapy studies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 30 Jul 08 - 03:31 AM Hi Joe...I notice the "hate speech " thread has been closed. I would appeal to you, not to do the same to this one. There has been a lot of good discussion here and closing the thread would mean all that wisdom (and a little stupidity) being lost. I would like to think this will stay on the file for new members to read and perhaps add to. The only thing I would disagree with you about is that the argument is simply between conservative Christians and the homosexual lobby. I have written throughout this thread as an atheist and perhaps one of the most politically radical on this forum. Now I may have strange views (to some) on religion and politics but I like to think that I am a democrat on a personal level and to treat the views of those who have a belief as worthless, is simply wrong. I like to hear both sides of any argument......I many argue strongly against one side, but I would never want them to be silenced..Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 30 Jul 08 - 03:35 AM Hey Ake..I think we cross posted..Salutations! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 30 Jul 08 - 03:56 AM Good mornin' guest...as erudite as ever I see. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 30 Jul 08 - 04:03 AM Who????Me???? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 30 Jul 08 - 04:13 AM "If you want to go back a way (say several million years), we have two monkeys sitting and watching a third. "Look," says one monkey to the other, "there goes that Oohoo again, walking around on his back legs! That's just perverted! If everybody did that, it would spell the end of Life as We Know It!!" Don Firth Don...I'm afraid you have stumbled upon the truth...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Joy Bringer Date: 30 Jul 08 - 04:17 AM Thank you Guest from Sanity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 30 Jul 08 - 04:17 AM Nawwww..He just has a monkey fetish! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 30 Jul 08 - 04:18 AM Sure, anytime! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Joy Bringer Date: 30 Jul 08 - 04:35 AM I think overall this thread has proven beyond any doubt that the majority of posts show there isn't a widespread support of perv marriage. It certainly was a good thread and some honest opinions were expressed. I think it's probably best to wrap it up as really all it is achieving is talking about the depravity and filth concerned with this subject and giving those wishing to befriend such people a platform. I would close it now Joe. I thank you for permitting the freedom of speech and allowing right thinking people such as myself to express our abhorrence at this ghastly sickening practise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 30 Jul 08 - 04:50 AM Joy, Not yet....I'm waiting to answer some questions...Besides there is no need to silence anyone yet(though some I'd like to)..let everyone finish, as you'd want to finish..let all be revealed...it can't hurt you |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Joy Bringer Date: 30 Jul 08 - 04:51 AM Fine, whatever you say. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: freda underhill Date: 30 Jul 08 - 05:03 AM Re the monkey comments, homosexual, as well as bisexual behavior is widespread in the animal kingdom. A 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior, not necessarily sex, has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them. The bonobo (an ape), which has a matriarchal society (unusual amongst apes), is a fully bisexual species -- both males and females engage in heterosexual and homosexual behavior, being noted for lesbianism in particular. About 60% of all sexual activity in this species is between two or more females. While the homosexual bonding system in bonobos represent the highest frequency of homosexuality known in any species, homosexuality has been reported for all great apes, including humans, as well as a number of other primate species. (wikipedia, citing multiple sources) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 30 Jul 08 - 05:08 AM GoS: What I have found unacceptable in BoJ's post is not her position, but the perfervid hatred she brings to bear in expressing it. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Joy Bringer Date: 30 Jul 08 - 05:11 AM Says a lot that report doesn't it. Can you direct me to the results of a survey of native British animals involved in such behaviour ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 30 Jul 08 - 05:24 AM Freda ...My comment was not about the sexual orientation of monkeys, but that the monkey cited by Don had started to develope human characteristics. So the connotation......Oh why the fuck am I explaining this Cheers Freda ...hope you're OK....Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Jack Blandiver Date: 30 Jul 08 - 07:13 AM I'd just like to clarify something I said earlier (29 Jul 08 - 04:54 AM ). Human sexual behaviour stopped being natural once we figured out the causal link between sexual intercourse and pregnancy; after this time we became conscious of its possible consequences and started looking into contraception. Once contraception enters the equation then sexual intercourse becomes entirely unnatural; we become conscious of its function, which we then remove so that it becomes purely recreational, something we do to exploit the animal pleasure potential of our bodies, which we always did anyway, just we learnt that procreation was now something we could control. This wasn't the only thing we learnt to control, alas, as with the discovery of the cause of pregnancy so the concept of Fatherhood enters the equation. Motherhood is a given; never any doubt who the mother is, but the only way you can assert paternity with any sort of certainty is by effectively enslaving women. This comes down to us today in any number of sexual double standards, but the one most pertinent one to this thread is the acceptability of female homosexuality and the abhorrence of male. Getting off on watching lesbians is one of the great clichés of heterosexual male fantasising. I wonder, do women fantasise similarly over male homosexuals? The internet is full of images of Sapphic Sexual behaviour - much of it entirely bogus but the celebrated Abby Winters site, where ordinary Australian girls openly snog, dance, make love, masturbate, and disport themselves for the video camera, is an example of something at least approaching reality; likewise the various films of Sapphic kissing on YouTube presently. All of which seems perfectly acceptable, and of a broad appeal to both men and women, but mostly men one would imagine. Maybe equivalent sites featuring male homosexual behaviour do exist, but the objectification of female subjective beauty is a perceptive chain in the cultural bondage of women, and a very significant link in that chain is the openly voice revulsion of homosexual behaviour in men even from otherwise reasonable human beings. This revulsion is far from instinctive, neither is natural, rather this revulsion is a perversion of the wider condition of homo-eroticism that permeates all human culture. We were not conceived as male, rather as female; hence male nipples, and that tell-tale line we men have along our wrinkled retainers which marks the closure of our vaginal orifice, as our masculinity kicks in effecting our gender as an evolutionary afterthought, thus rendering us merely servile to procreative cause. All of which is very much of nature, whereas everything else we are is resolutely against it, and certainly diverse enough in its myriad manifestations to make us realise that even that which is entirely natural by no means constitutes a God-given normalcy. God is something men came up with to justify their dominion over both nature and women, and yet patriarchy persists, as does God, even to those who think of God as She, which seems fair enough, given the versatility of the human genital apparatus which is designed purely for pleasure with procreation, as I say, being merely a random by-product. So nothing normal, nothing natural, nothing to get hung up over either, even though cultural homophobia persists as a twisted sickness which, I think, reveals it's true face in protesting, perhaps, a little too much. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: freda underhill Date: 30 Jul 08 - 07:26 AM no probs, ake, my post was resp to Don's light hearted monkey joke :-) it's a 'touchy' subject, and no judgement was intended. back to the old Shakespearean view (nothing is good or bad, it's just thinking makes it so) or the Biblical view (evil in the eye of the beholder). but that Bible is a big doc, isn't it? I have two gay friends who married legally in Norway. They are both smart, lovable and ethical people. They did a second ceremony last year for their friends in Oz, and asked me to conduct the ceremony. It was a happy, moving, and joyous celebration for friends and family. but the judicial view .. in Australia we have made steps to recognise long term committed homosexual relationships, and it's a good thing. I hope we walk the whole path! freda |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,sanity bringer Date: 30 Jul 08 - 08:08 AM Joe was right but now it seems to be a form of mutual masterbation! Wake up guys the trolls are taking over! Today a thread - tomorrow the site. Don't close this thread down - give the guests (is there more than one do you think?) the chance to show themselves for what they really are devoid of any kind of compassion, charity and rational arguement; just name callers and hate mongers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,joy of sanity Date: 30 Jul 08 - 09:52 AM I agree with you sanity bringer that some of these manipulative guests look suspiciously like the same denizen of the far side of sanity. I also agree totally with Joe's description of their solitary pursuits. Yes, looks like we have the same sad w****r at work! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: beardedbruce Date: 30 Jul 08 - 11:39 AM "I like to hear both sides of any argument......I many argue strongly against one side, but I would never want them to be silenced.." Hear, hear! Ake, we have always disagreed, but in this I am right with you. 8-{E |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 30 Jul 08 - 11:42 AM ""I think overall this thread has proven beyond any doubt that the majority of posts show there isn't a widespread support of perv marriage."" ""I think it's probably best to wrap it up as really all it is achieving is talking about the depravity and filth concerned with this subject and giving those wishing to befriend such people a platform."" ""I would close it now Joe. I thank you for permitting the freedom of speech and allowing right thinking people such as myself to express our abhorrence at this ghastly sickening practise."" I've been staying out of this thread, and watching the development of the argument, and I was impressed with the fact that Joe, in his long established role as the voice of tolerance refused to close it, when asked by those who disagreed with JoyBringer's attitude to Homosexuals in general, and homosexual marriage in particular. Then I read the points above, posted by JoyBringer. Now, I may not be the smartest debater on the block, but I learned long since that the best way to establish a reputation for bigotry is to use the most pejorative language you can find, when making a point. So to consistently refer to PERVS, DISGUSTING PRACTICES, UNNATURAL ACTS, etc. simply weakens your case. To then request that the topic be closed, purely to prevent the further discussion, by your opponents, of this "DEPRAVITY and FILTH", is another nail in the coffin of your argument. You would deny other posters the right to express opinion, which has just been guaranteed for you by the forum moderator. You then thank the forum moderator for permitting "RIGHT THINKING PEOPLE" such as yourself to ride roughshod over the rights of others to hold a different opinion. I have news for you!! THAT is not what Joe did. He refused to prevent YOU from expressing YOUR point of view, and I'm pretty certain that he has NO intention of preventing others here doing the same. I have NO opinion on the subject of homosexuality, or homosexual marriage. I do not consider what other people do to be any business of mine, since it does ME no harm. However, based on the above post by you, it is my considered opinion that you, Joybringer, have established beyond a shadow of doubt that, regardless of the rights or wrongs of your position, you are bigotted, and that is a shame, because it detracts from the power and effectiveness of what, more reasonably expressed, might have been a very cogent and potent argument. Merely my opinion of course, and I'm reasonably sure that you will shrug it off. No skin off my nose. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 30 Jul 08 - 11:44 AM God is something men came up with to justify their dominion over both nature and women, and yet patriarchy persists... Bigger muscles. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Respite from Sanity Date: 30 Jul 08 - 11:46 AM If you take even a casual glance at posting histories -- who responds to who, who praises who (and how quickly), who appears only in threads already inhabited by who else, etc. -- it is quite obvious that there is a deeply disturbed gang of one at play here. Sad really. And it is a shame that a long-time, honest and registered member like EmmaB should be driven off by this crap (and continue to get abuse after leaving). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Joy Bringer Date: 30 Jul 08 - 11:51 AM Glad to see you found your voice Don. Well we clearly sing from two different hymen books. I chose my words to best describe the good or evil of any subject. This particular vile subject was described as such, DEPRIVED FILTH. You are correct on two points in your post above. 1, you're right your viewpoint is meaningless to me. 2,Yes, I shrugged it off quite easily. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: TIA Date: 30 Jul 08 - 11:54 AM "Well we clearly sing from two different hymen books." Wow, is that a slip? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 30 Jul 08 - 11:58 AM Not to mention in combination with "Deprived filth" from the same post. Ach, Sigmund, I tink vee haff found clues!! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Ruth Archer Date: 30 Jul 08 - 12:05 PM "And it is a shame that a long-time, honest and registered member like EmmaB should be driven off by this crap (and continue to get abuse after leaving)." Indeed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Jack Blandiver Date: 30 Jul 08 - 12:06 PM because it detracts from the power and effectiveness of what, more reasonably expressed, might have been a very cogent and potent argument. I wonder, Don - could there ever be a reasoned argument against homosexuality? By its very nature such an argument would be as impotently without reason as all such arguments are. There can, in NO case, be ANY justification for homophobia other than acknowledging that along with the other seemingly inherent evils of our society - racism, paedophilia etc. - it exists as a mindless epidemic however so justified by its proponents. People are persecuted and murdered for their sexuality, thus is Pride not just the reserve of homosexuals, but the concern of every single one of us. In short - homophobia is not a matter of opinion or persuasion, no more than paedophilia a matter of opinion or persuasion; like paedophilia, homophobia is a sickness, and as such it is very much our business. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 30 Jul 08 - 12:29 PM Now you see, Beard, I believe that I need to show the same respect for the opinions of others, that I ask from them in return. I see no wrong in homosexuality, because it is not a lifestyle choice. It is, in fact, natural to those with that particular orientation, and, since it is not a matter of choice, there is no logic or value in argument about possible corruption of children. My take on it is that homosexuals are born. They cannot be MADE. Ergo they should not be subjected to discrimination, hatred, or abuse. THAT is my opinion, and I must accept that it is not shared by considerable numbers of good people, who have a totally different view. I will NOT show the same disrespect, and bias as those who advocate said discrimination and hatred. I would point out to those who object on religious grounds that they are flying in the face of THEIR God, who made, and continues to make "gay" human beings. Have they, I wonder, ever stopped to consider whether they are being tested to see just how they "love their neighbour", and what will be the result at their day of judgement? You see Beard, I can even tolerate homophobes, much as I disagree with their attitude. People have been murdered for all sorts of reasons, and morality is a very changeable thing, being totally different in different cultures and times. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,lox Date: 30 Jul 08 - 01:06 PM I know some people who are disgusted by spiders. I know some who are disgusted by the sight of blood. Some are disgusted by the smell of cheese, the flavour of meat, the idea of eating pork. Claustrophobes feel revulsion for enclosed spaces, Agoraphobes feel sick when exposed to wide open spaces. Should we ban all these things to make them feel better? No - that's clearly nonsense. Homophobes are revolted by homosexuals. Your phobia (disorder) is your problem. In your case it comes across consistently as pretty much all consuming. It is likely that the roots are in your own sexual insecurity. Being singled out a fool in the total absence of any other response, intelligent or otherwise confirms to me that I'm poking a raw nerve. I've got a knack for nailing people. Sorry. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Joy Bringer Date: 30 Jul 08 - 01:17 PM You are entitled to your views Don. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,lox Date: 30 Jul 08 - 01:22 PM effective arguments ... scroll down |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Joe Offer Date: 30 Jul 08 - 02:43 PM If you give a rational statement about why you disagree with homosexual marriage, that's one thing. When you talk of it as "perv marriage" and "DEPRIVED FILTH," then you lapse into the wicked realm of bigotry. So, Joy Bringer," is there something rational you have to say, stripped of all the hateful terms? Rational arguments are welcome, but you have seriously stepped beyond the bounds of rational discussion. Oh, and I think the word you wanted was "depraved." -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Ruth Archer Date: 30 Jul 08 - 02:59 PM Joe, with the greatest of respect - that's exactly what several of us have been trying to say. :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Big Mick Date: 30 Jul 08 - 03:08 PM Yep, I concur. That line that shouldn't be crossed is drawing very near. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Little Hawk Date: 30 Jul 08 - 03:10 PM Yeah. Just wait till Chongo shows up here with some well chosen words of wisdom... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Don Firth Date: 30 Jul 08 - 03:18 PM When it comes to the causes of human misery in the world, there are few things that can compare with that caused by bigotry. Have they, I wonder, ever stopped to consider whether they are being tested to see just how they "love their neighbour", and what will be the result at their day of judgment?Point well made, Don T. "Joy Bringer," I gather from some of the things you have said that you regard yourself as a Christian. I suggest that you take out your Bible, turn to the Book of Matthew, Chapter 7, verses 1 through 5, and read it. Then read it again. And keep reading it until you understand what Jesus is saying. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Greg B Date: 30 Jul 08 - 03:39 PM Joe, I don't think you'll ever convince your conservative friends to vote against the 'one man one woman' proposition because their reasons are irrational. Specifically: 1) God told them it was supposed to be this way 2) The Church told them that God told them (1) 3) They've somehow made the leap that same-sex marriages somehow dilute or render meaningless their marriage. This is something they refuse to justify with any form of logical syllogism, because there is none and they know it 4) Their positions are based on bigotry, and bigotry defies the application of logic in order to survive The fact that the celibate (but disproportionately, compared to the rest of society, homosexual) Catholic bishops have made at least the first three if not all four arguments means that you are to a large extent, shouting down a barrel. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,lox Date: 30 Jul 08 - 03:39 PM I feel sorry for him/her for his/her obvious internal struggle. It started out as an attempt to wind a few people up but it has turned into an embarrassing exposition of his/her own psyche. Lets hope it ends up as a positive learning experience. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Little Hawk Date: 30 Jul 08 - 03:48 PM A worthy point, Don. However, I think that the misery caused in this world by aggressive multi-national military industrial forces of one sort or another leaves the misery caused by bigotry totally in the dust. The pursuit of money and empire is the primary engine which creates human misery on a really vast scale. Not that that has anything to do with this discussion.....but I couldn't help mentioning it in passing. One of the most vital teachings in all the great faiths is this one: "Thou shalt not judge (others)." And another is: "Do not inflict upon others that which you would not want inflicted upon yourself." (attack, condemnation, abuse, violence, robbery, slander, bullying, etc...) We know that one as "The Golden Rule". It's in all the great faiths, but it's an aspect people tend to quickly and conveniently forget in the heat of fear or passion. Another teaching of Jesus is to turn the other cheek (meaning, I think, to return good feeling and intention for hostile feeling and intention). Most people find that almost impossible to do because of two things: Their fear and their pride. Fear and pride produce quick and aggressive reactions in people. The authoritative people of Jesus' day seem to have gotten so upset over those kindly teachings he gave that some of them decided to kill him. That doesn't surprise me. ;-) He was undercutting some of their most cherished and jealously guarded emotional crap. It must have just put them in a killing fury, I would think. And that is why in another place in the Bible people are warned not to "cast their pearls before swine"...lest they turn and rend you. All of those teachings can be well borne in mind whenever anyone is posting on an internet forum. It behooves the poster to be as gentle as a dove and as wise as a serpent...or to pay the nasty consequences. It is not so? ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 30 Jul 08 - 04:03 PM Well, you've all got what you've been searching for at last. A "kill the bigot fest" Bet it makes you feel a lot better! You the "intelligensia" should be ashamed of yourselves, thought you could toast "Ole Ake" over the flames for a while didn't you? Well you've found an easier target(maybe he wanted you to find him?) so pitch in with all you've got and may you sleep easy in your beds. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 30 Jul 08 - 04:18 PM LH.....It is so master! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Little Hawk Date: 30 Jul 08 - 04:22 PM That's sort of my point, Akenaton. It plays both ways in this discussion. There are always certain forms of bigotry (or mere opinion) that will draw immediate censure in any peer group...because it has become acceptable to attack those specific forms of bigotry (while practicing others that aren't recognized as such)...and attacking them in the most righteous a voluable way will draw the effusive support of your peers. Soon a delighted mob has gathered to stone the vile infidel! ;-) That happened a lot back in Jesus' day too...and the mob had him crucified. He was advising that it was okay to work on the Sabbath...if you were healing someone or doing something constructive like that. (horrors!) He was advising forgiveness of sinners. (Unforgivable!!!) He was advising nonviolence. (Kill him!!!!) Yes, it's always very comforting to be part of a ravening and judgemental mob confronted by a non-officially-scanctioned viewpoint, isn't it? I've always distrusted mobs, regardless of which side of a debate they are on. I figure that there is usually a certain lack of both goodwill and a desire for genuine communication in a situation like that...no real desire to understand where someone else is coming from, just a desire to crucify them and thereby publicly prove one's own righteous credentials in the process. And as I say, you might well find that happening on BOTH sides of a heated debate, mightn't you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Ruth Archer Date: 30 Jul 08 - 04:55 PM Ake, I still believe that one can have a rational debate on this topic - indeed, one was going on for a long time before JoyBringer turned up, and I'd participated in it. Personally, I do not object to anyone expressing their point of view on a contentious subject, and have learned a lot from lively debates on Mudcat, sometimes as a participant and sometimes as an observer. But there was vile, hateful language being used by Joybringer which doesn't have a place, IMHO, in a civilised discussion. He was doing it to be deliberately provocative, I know, but that doesn't excuse the fact that NO HUMAN BEING should be spoken about in the terms he was using. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Joy Bringer Date: 30 Jul 08 - 05:00 PM If any of you care to take the time to go through a number of previous threads concerning Ireland, or to be precise,Irish politics. You will find one guy that stands firm in his very dim view of the British. It isn't a nice view, he doesn't like Margaret Thatcher, the British army or British government policy in Northern Ireland and he actually pulls no punches in the posts he writes. Well I am English, I voted for Margaret Thatcher, family in the British army and I suppose I could of took offence at what he wrote but I didn't, he is entitled to his view. Possibly someone could have thought he crossed the line a lot more than once. Tell me this Mick, Who polices the comments you write on such threads ? Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Big Mick Date: 30 Jul 08 - 03:08 PM Yep, I concur. That line that shouldn't be crossed is drawing very near. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Joy Bringer Date: 30 Jul 08 - 05:04 PM Ahh, Ruth will come back into the debate if we all agree to agree with her. Yes this sounds really nice. Let's restart the debate Ruth. And as adults not fall out, not go running to moderators and fight our own corner. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Don Firth Date: 30 Jul 08 - 05:05 PM Little Hawk, what you say is indeed true. But bigotry is only one manifestation of that pernicious form of hubris that some folks take as axiomatic—that they are better than someone/anyone/everyone else—thereby justifying (rationalizing) their robbing or cheating others ("I deserve this more than they do!"), or condemning others because their beliefs or lifestyles are different ("He's going to Hell!" or "He's a pervert!"). I'm sure you can add to the list of the many ways this can manifest itself, including, of course, collective action when such people form coalitions. They then rob and cheat whole societies or the rest of the world, as you say, "by aggressive multi-national military industrial forces of one sort or another . . . The pursuit of money and empire is the primary engine which creates human misery on a really vast scale." But this springs from that kind of hubris. As does bigotry (which generally contains fear as one of its components), which is inextricably linked with all of the above. Recent history, Nazi Germany. That nightmare was institutionalized bigotry, reaching its peak of horror in death factories built to get rid of "undesirables" such as Jews, the disabled and "defective," homosexuals. . . . One thing that never fails to astound me whenever I read Matthew 7:1-5 and Matthew 25:35-40, is that, 2,000 years later, an amazingly large number of people who call themselves "Christians" still don't get it! But—some (whether they regard themselves as Christian or not) do. Don Firth P. S. And Ake, no one is saying "kill the bigot!" Not even "silence the bigot." Merely point the bigot out for what he or she is and let others make up their own minds. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Ruth Archer Date: 30 Jul 08 - 05:07 PM People who use the language and tactics you do are not worth arguing with. Anyone that full of bitterness and hate towards fellow human beings has issues which are not going to be resolved in an internet discussion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Joy Bringer Date: 30 Jul 08 - 05:16 PM Ruth, you give an understanding to a subject I deplore. I give you my abhorrence and you dismiss me. We will never agree. So to make you feel better you restore to the issue of a name for me, bigot, troll or whatever. I am not resorting to giving you a title, all I will say is in a debate no one will change my opinion. It's not a case of I will change your way of thinking, I know I won't. Hold your opinion Ruth and allow me mine. Regards. So Mick, as an Englishman was that post alright ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Sorcha Date: 30 Jul 08 - 05:18 PM I don't believe this. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,lox Date: 30 Jul 08 - 05:26 PM ooh ... somebody with an oooold chip on their shoulder ... Mick has never stated that the British or indeed the English are disgusting for being British/English. He has never argued that British/English people should hide their Nationality behind closed doors as to flaunt their Nationality is an offence to all right thinking people. He has never discriminated against English people. He is not an Anglophobe. You Joy Bringer are a deeply troubled person. Even if this is just shit stirring it is symptomatic of a deep problem as to waste so much time stiring shit in one place is a bit obsessive. Back to your fantasies of Gay people "shoving it down your throat" ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Sorcha Date: 30 Jul 08 - 05:29 PM Rest assured that SOMEONE KNOWS who this is. May not be telling, but SOMEONE KNOWS. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,lox Date: 30 Jul 08 - 05:30 PM Yuck ... those English ... ... flaunting their morris dancing ... ... with their queen and constantly changing guards ... ... why do I have to be offended by their very existence ... ... why can't they all crawl away into a hole and drink ther tea in a suitably shameful fashion ... ROFL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,lox Date: 30 Jul 08 - 05:32 PM I have an image of a hollywood villain in mind. "Damn that fool lox" ha ha |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Joy Bringer Date: 30 Jul 08 - 05:34 PM I have to say Little Hawk, you have been the voice of reason thoughtout this thread. Read through some of your other comments on other threads, excellent. So hard to find common sense interlaced with logical and reason. I respect you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Lox Date: 30 Jul 08 - 05:46 PM Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Little Hawk - PM Date: 03 Sep 07 - 12:54 AM I haven't tried same-sex marriage yet...nor have I had the chance to witness anyone else trying it up close and personal...so I hardly feel qualified to offer a critique of it. ;-) It doesn't strike me as a world-threatening concept. I don't worry about it. I doubt very much that I would ever worry about it even slightly. I agree - common sense indeed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Don Firth Date: 30 Jul 08 - 06:29 PM Agreed! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Barry Finn Date: 30 Jul 08 - 07:42 PM You voted for Maggie T & you seem to accept lesbian relationships as not being disgusting but gay male relaotionships as unexceptable, you find anal sex for the male species sickening but have no objections for hetrosexual anal intercourse, you are truely an anomaly which although you seem to think that you are joined with other likewise thinkers here on this thread, as an anomaly you are not normal & you stand alone. You are a curse to woman kind, to the human species & to the animal kingdom, if you are a member of any religious organization you are a bane to it's beliefs, if there are any diseases that's worst than AIDS it's ignorance which you are a carrier of & do far worst damage by the spread of your own vile & filth. I find you to be sub human much in the same way you find male relationships disgusting, I find you to be an evil far greater than those that sicken you. You are a breeder of fear & contempt & may you live & let live belifs fall flat on your own feet & family, you are of no further use to the living since there's no room for goodwill in your heart, you are damaged good, goodbye, farewell & rest in peace, finally. I hope that you at least like music, though for the sake of us here I hope it's not folk Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Sorcha Date: 30 Jul 08 - 07:50 PM OK, that's it.
-Joe Offer- |
