BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: mauvepink
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 03:43 PM

Most of us got there in the end Jon. I have learned several things which, whilst maybe not changing my mind ultimately, have certainly made me think and look at things from a different angle. I do try and stand in other's shoes sometimes... even walk a mile in some of them. Some I would not step into for all the tea in China!

I watched Starman this afternoon. There is a line in that Starman (Jeff Bridges) says: "Shall I tell you what I find beautiful about you? You are at your very best when things are worst.". He is talking of us as a species. In another favourite of mine, Contact, the Alien says to Jodie Foster "You are a remarkable species. Capable of such terrible nightmares and such wonderful dreams"

These things and more are true :-)

See you in another thread I dare say!

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 03:43 PM

By the way,
"Show me one, big mouth, that concludes, that homosexuality is solely genetic...and not behavioral"

There are innumerable personal stories, for decades, of people who led unhappy lives TRYING to be what YOU consider 'normal', and denying feelings that they remember from their earliest times about who they were attracted to.
For many years, almost no one could tell them why they could NOT overcome this...then gradually, DNA and hormonal studies began to show the anomalies which helped clarify things.

It is also the case that the situation is not 'either/or'. As might be suspected, if the science is accurate, DNA and hormones, etc. also mean many people are BI-sexual in various degrees, and have 'some' choices in exactly how they express it and manage their lives. In the meantime, there are STILL cases of Gays & Lesbians marrying to provide themselves with convenient 'cover' in order to hold jobs where people who think like YOU might cause them grief!

(yeah, I saw the lame insult on MY name)

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 03:33 PM

MP, I'd agree that this thread has probably gone as far as it can and is probably past the point of polite discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: artbrooks
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 03:30 PM

Your emotional state is just fine, mp - the same cannot be said about others herein. Illegitimi non carborundum.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: mauvepink
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 03:24 PM

Just to let everyone know...

I have made a request for this thread to be shut down. I am not sure if I have that privelige as I started the thread but, if it is shut down it was me who asked for it and not the elves being censorial.

I actually think it has likely run its course and may quickly now fall into a battle. I have no wish to be associated with that happening. People get hurt. The thred will go but the topic will carry on popping up.

This is in no way a means to stop GfS posting a quote. I know he cannot do it as I have not clearly stated anything to do with my sexuality. He will not be able to deliver on it. I suspect the apology may not happen either but I'm not bothered in honesty. I have done my best to keep the thread on topic and to be reasonable with all my postings and replies even when some of us have disagreed. That is reasonable debate in my mind.

I never understand why these threads have to go into personal space though when the person being attacked is not being personal. It happens far too often sadly and my back is not broad enough to take it all at times. I've had a life of these types and there are times now, gladly, I can walk away...

Thanks to all the other postees

For the record. Akenaton and I have consistently disagreed and he has said quite a few things to me that have been borderline name calling. Some could have been seen as insults too. However, he has mostly always apologised when it has been pointed out and he has never ever got into personal name calling or attacks on those close to me. We are chalk and cheese he and I, I suspect, but to date he has not got down and dirty with personal comments. I acknowledge that in the name of fairness from where I am with it.

Best wishes everyone

I really must go and get my emotional state sorted out now. I've been told I have problems so it must be true. Anyone know a good book on Freud? Heaven forbid! lol

;-)

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 03:23 PM

So.. if scientists are so honest as to ONLY assert that they have evidence 'suggesting' various genetic causes for homosexuality, this means that YOU may conclude that **"Homosexuality is nothing more than BEHAVIORAL!"**?

You weren't one of those cigarette company executives who tried for years to hold the line at "No one has proven absolutely that cigarettes cause cancer!", were you?

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: mauvepink
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 03:01 PM

GfS... can you show me the post.. or anyone here, where I said I was lesbian? It is something you have totally assumed based on some of the things I have said which likely show a feminist slant. Here's some news for you. Not all feminists are lesbians. Although I am feminist on some things my sexuality is not a problem to me whatsoever. By your name calling and abuse once more I suspect that it is far more a problem to you. I'm not bothered personally. I am who and what I am but I certainly do not need to justify that you you or anyone. Nor do I need to wear the label on my sleeve. Apply what label you want: it will never make you right. Whatever your assumption on my personal dilemma, as you so wrongly comment, Be a man. Stand up and be counted and admit your mistake or show me where I put I was lesbian? Go on... quote it from my posts as you are so certain.

And please do not think you have been so smart as to get me to admit anything here. I'm not bothered as to being out or not. The reason I will not deny it is that I am not ashamed of it nor should I be. To deny it would be to let down others on this forum who are gay and just getting on with their lives. If you think that by launching an attack on my sexuality and my thoughts about my mum does you honour I am here to tell you that you are VERY wrong. You have shown how dishonourable you are by hitting at a place you think would hurt me. It's not hurt me. It has saddened me that a pseron on this forum would stopp so low with their tactics just to try and score points.

Taking it one step further further, whether I am lesbian, born that way or made that way, you have still failed to tell us all why it is wrong to afford people from differing backgrounds the same rights as the majority?

I will not engage with you about your faux psychological knowledge as regards my thoughts about my Mum. You have no idea whatsoever. How could you? If I were to use your psychological kind of assessment on you... but then that would make me as bad as you.

I have no need to make personal attacks on people who are taking part in reasoned discussion. I do not need to decent into personal insults and attacks on their parents either.

Have all the points you want. You have so earned them today. BUT my point and this thread is still valid. Has it got you anywhere launching a personal attack?

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Smedley
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 02:58 PM

I have kept out of this thread for the reason that, sadly, any discussion about homosexuality in here almost always gets invaded by Akenaton (with his hobby horse about HIV) and GfS (who is deeply committed to an obsessive cod-Freudian belief that homosexuality is 'immature'). They, between them, make all these threads eventually untenable and they are now doing so again.

As one of the few Mudcat posters who is (if you'll pardon the pun) straightforwardly open about being gay, this saddens me, but does not surprise me. Respect is due to all of those (especially mauvepink)attempting to have a civilised debate about the issues until the Batman and Robin (shame the outfits don't fit so well) of Mudcat homophobia came steaming in with their hang-ups flailing about.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 02:46 PM

Bilge D: "Blanket assertions that "Homosexuality is nothing more than BEHAVIORAL!" while ignoring the scientific studies..."

Show me one, big mouth, that concludes, that homosexuality is solely genetic...and not behavioral. Frotho tried, but the only one that came close, done by a homosexual researcher, concluded with no conclusion, other than, .."it MAY SUGGEST...(blah blah blah)"

I'm not interested in mere suggestions, on which to base 'scientific fact', nor your twisted interpretation of what 'civil rights' are based on!

..Nor did I 'insult' mauvepink....I honored her by telling her the truth. How the truth is perceived is not my responsibility!!

Go back to sleep!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 02:37 PM

the chosen nom de plume "Guest from Sanity" is beginning to look more & more inappropriate.

Blanket assertions that "Homosexuality is nothing more than BEHAVIORAL!" while ignoring the scientific studies that show otherwise, down to direct insults of mauvepink...while making fun of 'civil rights'... just make me wonder about basic orientation.


*shrug*... "sanity" must be a suburb of Waco, Texas..(for this iteration, pronounced "whacko")

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 02:30 PM

Bullshit! You've stated on here that you are a lesbian. being that is your stated situation, rather than blame it on 'genetics', you might try looking at behavioral patterns, which harbor resentment toward your mother, and hating to confront that which you fear!!

Your response was very indicative of your dilemma, that instead of dealing with, you launder out to all the willing non-thinkers who blindly buy into your rationalizations!

I guess the truth, just about 'made your day'...though, you have posted some intelligent posts, it still doesn't address your emotional problems!

Even so,
Regards,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: mauvepink
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 01:03 PM

Stupid to whom?

And you do not have a clue about my life, my likes and loathings, how I came to get here or what has influenced me. Petty name calling and insults to me also does not change the thread, it's topic or the basic tenets of decency to others. Shout, call and bully away if that is what gets you off and makes you feel better but please try not to assume you know anything at all about your target this time.



mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 12:55 PM

Mauvepink; "It matters not a jot really, for the purpose of this thread, whether homosexuality is genetic or not....."

...and yet the whole stupid argument hinges of 'civil rights' because idiots claim they are born with it, therefore are entitled to the guarantees to protect it!!!...and to marry, as if it was a normal, life sustaining place to be!!
MP, you've very adequately stated the far left's position on complete disregard for how misinterpretations of 'rights' are misused to further immature behaviors!...and I'm sorry, that you, yourself never developed past the stage where you could get it on with the opposite sex, without fear and loathing...to grow up!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: mauvepink
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 12:48 PM

By the by it is also interesting that the picture of the fall, as painted by Michelangelo in the link you give, shows the people with navels (but they were not born), the women are quite masculinised, and none have pubic or armpit hair. Lots of pictures of Adam and Eve have them with navels.

The rather subtle point I am trying to make is that people's interpretation of the bible is very open to very different ideas and opinions and that intelligence is not always a pre-cursor of accuracy even when the words have been set out for millenia

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: mauvepink
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 12:30 PM

"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.[Gen. 3:16]"

Stop right there! Since the fall men have found it hard to rule themselves and for many women a man who cannot rule himself will never rule them.

This whole domain game and blame trip on women at least let's men off. They have a get out clause. What did we women do to deserve that? lol

However, back on track, interesting piece I enjoyed reading even if my embryonic gills were producing steam when reading some of it.

best wishes

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: mauvepink
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 10:20 AM

Jon... thanks... will lok at it later. Just now Starman has come on with Jeff Bridges so I am going to lose myself in a rather lovely sci-fi film for a while that always makes me cry. Catch op later :)

What's not to be reasonable about? You have never treated me with any derision here and always with respect

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 10:13 AM

OH and MP, believe me that I have been through many "if God is perfect how did he create evil, why do bad things happen. etc. etc. rounds in my own thoughts". I don't find it easy at all and don't have all the answers.

My own background possibly makes it harder. I was very scientifically oriented at school but dropped out of A Levels in physics, chemistry and maths as I was bored with school. I also was a sworn atheist who hated religion. On a personal level much has convinced me that Christ is for real but many of the non believers arguments I read are places I've been in a "past life" and still can get involved in my own thinking/reasoning.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 10:05 AM

Thanks agian MP for a reasonable reply it is appreciated amongst all this noise.

IF God created everything and all is at his behest then homosexuality is also his invention.

I think the answer is that God did not create everything exactly as it is now. I suppose you might be interested in this Wikipedia article just to have a quick browse through.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: mauvepink
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 09:35 AM

I wondered what was happening with yours posts Jon. I see they have come through now...

Even scientists who work in this field are baffled by some of the gender/sexuality differences that are apparent in humans (and other animals for that matter). I am not sticking with this side of the thread though as it has no bearing in reality to the subject matter. What I will say is that lots of evidence has been found that foetues are subjects to various hormonal cocktails that can influence outcomes to individuals on seceral fronts. It's all been written up before on previous threads and I have no real wish to revist it again here.

Which brings me to your second question nicely...

I think I just answered before you posted it in my last posting before this. That I realise many people have a 'threshold' in their belief system that they simply cannot pass, no matter what they instinctively feel sometimes, as that would cause them to have a great conflict. Their default setting is in their faith and their belief. They have to go with that and I understand how that happens. I am not judging them on that as I clearly stated. I do not know how that feels so can make no comment really that would not be judgemental.

However, from where I do stand on this and my own belief system, "God's fairness and rationality", should it exist, would invoke me to apply a rational thought myself. IF God created everything and all is at his behest then homosexuality is also his invention. For him to judge someone for having something he invented would not be being quite fair would it? I say this in no mocking way. Believe me, I've been inside and outside myself with sucj thoughts and questions for many a year as I struggle to hold some kind of faith. THis is why I always seem to quote Jesus rather than God (yes, I know they are supposed to be the same). I find the two facintaing. God seems so vengful at the world he created. Almost like he is not very pleased at his creation but takes it out on them. The omnipotent being who, knowing full well how flawed humans would be, turned hi back and was missing when they sinned in the garden... the fall. I wonder what he was doing at the time? So that really messes with my head as I have been told he knows all things. I struggle with God... but no so in son. In Jesus I seing something fresh, new, compassionate, caring and forgiving. I truly believe that Jesus would not judge gay people and he would be ahppy to go change water into wine at their ceremony too.

So, you see, I am not without feeling or faith. I just don't have enough of the latter to take everything as gospel and obviously this can be conflicting too. What cause me no conflict is my own belief that if God the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost does exists they will know my every thought and rationale on this. I will be judged by them in the end... or not. In the meantime I can only do what I feel is right and fair here

I hide behind no religion, no politic and no agenda other than one of fairness. You have to do what you have to do. Me too.

hope this helps

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 09:12 AM

Ah that went through.

Keeping it short this time. MP you've raised the questions again. Don't you think that there being genetically identical twins with differing sexual orientation if pretty strong evidence that it is not determined purely by genetics?

Onto the next bit.

Can you explain to me why I should put what I believe to be God's fairness and rationality beneath your judgement as to what is fair and rational?

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 09:09 AM

Can;pt work out what's up with this thread at the moment.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: mauvepink
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 08:55 AM

Thanks for the link Jack :-)

Made for very interesting reading and some of the links within the article.

I have discussed the topic with some Muslim people that I know. AS with most Christians I know, most are not actually against two same sex people getting together. A great many think they should be allowed to marry. The conflict occurs for them in their faith and what they are told are it's teachngs. I think it's a hard call for them to make often and I certainly do not judge them for sometimes having to 'tow the party line' as their religion means so much to them. I have no idea what I would do if I were in thier shoes. The fact though that they have given it thought and in basis have no hardness in their hearts to allowing gay couples to marry heralds good for the future I feel.

Many people's instincts on this are actually positive until it comes to having to break with some other belief system they may have. Hard choices have to be made and I think because it is not something that directly affects them they stay with their belief system. No malice is meant in not making a stand. In their hearts they only wish well for their fellow humans. If they were totally free they would likely not bother at all that gay people marry.

The other side of the coin too though is that people with disagreement can often come to terms with the change when they get to be more fully aware of the issues and are educated by their faith to allow things to happen.

This is a far cry from even just a few years ago. Times are changing for sure. Not maybe as fast as they should but changing nonetheless. I hope some things never go back to how they were because, as a species, we need to look to the present and the future together. Doing it holding hands with someone we love, if that be our wish, seems not a great deal to ask

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: mauvepink
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 08:36 AM

Desperately trying to get back to the topic and not make this into another of those go around in circles with statistics threads where everyone starts calling each other really nasty names.

It matters not a jot really, for the purpose of this thread, whether homosexuality is genetic or not. If it is not genetic - and just because the actually gene or group of genes has not been found yet does not mean it is not genetic - the same applies, by logic, to hetrosexuality. No gnese have been found for that yet either. I happen to believe that there will be more than behavioural traits found that shows homosexuality to be genetic. You say there is no evidence and yet there is tons of it. There have been lots of studies.... but then we go back toi what has already been said so I'll stop on that

Behavioural or genetic or a mixture... makes no odds. No-one can come up with a fair and rational argument as to why gay people should not be able to marry that is not set around one or the other's ignorance, bigotry, religious beliefs and readings, etc (or any combination of these things).

Denying the rights of a legal minority - whether on gender, sexuality, race, religion, age, disablity etc - will always be wrong and discriminatory. It's not political in my case. It's about fairness for all. I have stated that so many times, There is no good reason to discriminate against gay people. It's that simple without any other proofs being needed.

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Jack Campin
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 06:35 AM

Muslim angle on this - the nikah

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 01:53 AM

It is utterly astounding how, with NO FACTS to back up ANY claims that homosexuality is genetic, but rather only conjecture, and theories of 'may suggest' that some of the quasi-wannabe- political 'activists', adhere so stalwartly(read: stubbornly) to unproven nonsense!!!!!!! Homosexuality is nothing more than BEHAVIORAL!..and the nitwits try to co-opt every 'cause' of some whiny group to champion...regardless of the irrationality of their politically based 'logic'!

You might consider leaving room, for the chance, that your talking points are generated from false ASSUMPTIONS, rather from fact! We've been around this tree before, and every time, you have come up dry!..but like most psychotics, and sociopaths, you don't seem to learn a damn thing! No proof = No premise, other than 'wishful thinking'!...
and your propaganda, is designed to coerce people in WHAT to think, rather than HOW to think!....but then, isn't that the basis for most all politically based positions??!!??

Let's be rational, here...try basing SOMETHING of your 'OPINION' on FACT....which, of course, if you had ANY, you'd be able to produce!
But, you have NONE!..got that??..NONE!!!

...not that that matters to the knuckleheads!

GfS

P.S. Greetings, Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 09:35 PM

Or perhaps if true, that it was something that crept into the church before being removed again. It does not seem to tie in with the letters of Paul at the start of the church.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Jack Campin
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 09:04 PM

Caligula made his horse Consul. It was the Celtic kings of Britain who had sex with horses (in public, as part of the coronation ceremony).

One point of Boswell's work (both in that book and in "Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality") is to show that present-day Chritian intolerance of homosexuality is a historical aberration. Most of the history of the Church has a far more creditable record of tolerance than the present era.

Islam can show a similar mixed record, ranging from complete tolerance to complete intolerance. So can animism. One of the few belief systems never to have developed much tolerance to homosexuality anywhere was institutional atheism.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: artbrooks
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 08:20 PM

There is NO relationship between HIV/AIDS and gender/sexual preference. It is transmitted by the exchange of infected bodily fluid, which might be semen, urine, blood or spit. An individual using proper precautions will neither transmit the infection nor be infected by someone else.

The recent increase in HIV/AIDS infections among gay white American males is entirely the result of their failure to use these precautions. This may be out of sheer stupidity or because of the mistaken belief that improvements in medical treatments make the precautions no longer necessary. This is a reversal of a long trend of decreasing numbers of new infections among this group, and may well be temporary.

In other parts of the world, different population groups represent a much larger share of HIV/AIDS cases. For example, in Thailand most cases are among female prostitutes. In Sub-Saharan Africa, the rate is pretty evenly divided between males and females.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 06:07 PM

Jack......Caligula married his horse!.....so what?

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 06:05 PM

"How Accurate is the HIV Antibody Test




Q. How accurate are the HIV antibody ELISA and the HIV antibody Western blot?

A. When used together, the results from this two-part testing are greater than 99% accurate. The HIV antibody ELISA is a screening test and the HIV antibody Western blot is a confirmatory test. Results from an HIV antibody ELISA test should never be used alone to report a positive final result.



Q. Do the HIV antibody ELISA and HIV antibody Western blot test for HIV-1 and HIV-2?

A. There are two types of HIV (HIV-1 and HIV-2). Both HIV-1 and HIV-2 have been identified in the United States. The number of known HIV-2 infected persons in the U.S. is less than 100. The estimated number of people in the U.S. infected with HIV-1 is between 650,000 and 900,000.

Some HIV antibody ELISA and HIV antibody Western blot assays detect antibody to both HIV-1 and HIV-2. These are referred to as HIV-1/HIV-2 "combination" tests. Some HIV antibody ELISA and HIV antibody Western blot assays detect antibody primarily to HIV-1 and secondarily to HIV-2. Others detect antibody primarily to HIV-2 and secondarily to HIV-1.



Q. How accurate are HIV antibody tests in detecting the various subtypes of HIV-1?

A. HIV-1 is divided into two groups of subtypes. These two groups are referred to as Group M (major) and Group O (outlier). HIV-1 subtypes of Group M vary, depending on their genetic structure. (3) These include subtypes A through I. In the United States, the predominate HIV-1 subtype is B.

Most antibody tests for detecting HIV-1 were developed with the B subtype of the virus. As the genetic composition of a particular virus diverges from the B subtype, the likelihood that the test will be accurate decreases. Most tests, however, do appear to be able to detect antibody to most strains.



Q. What can cause a false-positive result in an HIV antibody ELISA test?

A. There are many reasons for a false-positive ELISA result. Some of the more common reasons for a false positive are:

Contamination: In a laboratory, samples may be placed in the wrong testing well; wells containing negative samples may be contaminated from adjacent positive wells; plate washers may malfunction. In addition, treated blood and blood abnormalities have been implicated in false positive reactions.
False positive reactions have been reported in 19% of people with hemophilia, 13% of alcoholic patients with hepatitis, and 4% of hemodialysis patients.
Pregnancy. If this is not her first pregnancy, a woman may react positively when she is, in fact, negative.
History of injection drug use.
Cross-reactivity with other retroviruses.


Q. What is the expected false-positive rate for an HIV antibody ELISA?

A. The false-positive rate is 1 to 5 per 100,000 assays."

Stats from CDC

Hardly likely to make much difference to the homosexual/hiv figures!

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Jack Campin
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 05:58 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boswell

I picked up his book The Marriage of Likeness: Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe a few weeks ago, haven't done much more than flip through it since. He has what looks like conclusive evidence that the mediaeval Catholic Church (both Roman and Eastern) routinely celebrated same-sex unions and had liturgies specifically for that purpose.

If anybody wants to use them, he has orders of service translated from the original Latin and Greek in the appendices. There are a LOT of them to choose from. The sheer volume of evidence he assembles is astonishing.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 05:50 PM

Ake, the CDC's statistics are not that incontrovertible.

"As a result of an increase in false positive rates with rapid oral HIV testing in 2005, New York City's Department of Health and Mental Hygiene added the option of testing finger-stick whole blood after any reactive result, before using a Western Blot test to confirm the positive result. Following a further increase of false positives in NYC DOHMH STD Clinics during the end of 2007 and beginning of 2008, their clinics opted to forgo further oral screenings, and instead reinstituted testing using finger-stick whole blood.

"Despite the NYC DOHMH discontinuing oral screening due to the false positives, the CDC still continues to support the use of noninvasive oral fluid specimens due to their popularity in health clinics and convenience of use."

Source:

Burke D, Brundage J, Redfield R, Damato J, Schable C, Putman P, Visintine R, Kim H (1988). "Measurement of the false positive rate in a screening program for human immunodeficiency virus infections".
--The New England Journal of Medicine, issue 319.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 02:54 PM

Male homosexuals and intravenus drug abusers are the two groups most "at risk"

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)1 represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV and are the only risk group in which new HIV infections have been increasing steadily since the early 1990s. In 2006, MSM accounted for more than half (53%) of all new HIV infections in the United States, and MSM with a history of injection drug use (MSM-IDU) accounted for an additional 4% of new infections. At the end of 2006, more than half (53%) of all people living with HIV in the United States were MSM or MSM-IDU. Since the beginning of the US epidemic, MSM have consistently represented the largest percentage of persons diagnosed with AIDS and persons with an AIDS diagnosis who have died.

A recent CDC study found that in 2008 one in five (19%) MSM in 21 major US cities were infected with HIV, and nearly half (44%) were unaware of their infection. In this study, 28% of black MSM were HIV-infected, compared to 18% of Hispanic/Latino MSM and 16% of white MSM. Other racial/ethnic groups of MSM also have high numbers of HIV infections, including American Indian/Alaska Native MSM (20%) and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander MSM (18%).

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 08:02 PM

It seems we might differ about exactly who would be compelled to be tested and traced.... and just how that might be accomplished. You might have a difficult time getting any cooperation for what *I* suggest if you begin deciding who is at risk and creating some way to corral them for compulsory stuff.....

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 08:01 PM

"Don Firth.....Your last post is a pack of lies."

No, YOU lie, sir. Again.

The evidence is out there. All anyone has to do is read your many posts on many threads. And they don't have to look too far, because you repeat the same stuff over and over again like a mantra.

How long did you have to wade through statistics before you found one that you could interpret as favoring your position? Scandinavia is not the entire world, nor do gays there represent gays all over the world. Yet, that's the major prop of your claim that gays don't want gay marriage, and that it's all the work of "liberal fascists."

By the way, any competent person with a grasp of political science can instantly recognize "liberal fascist" as an oxymoron.

And you haven't specifically said that the AIDs virus is "spontaneously generated" by homosexual activity, but you have implied it time and time again, and completely blew off any information about the actual transfer of the AIDs virus from primates to humans in Africa, probably through the illegal "bushmeat" trade. You implied that the virus started among homosexual American males. The virus HAD to come from somewhere, and you implied that that is where it started, not by infection from outside sources, but among gays themselves. How else but by spontaneous generation, then? Again, all one has to do is read your posts.

By the way, you're very fond of the word "compulsory," aren't you? Compulsory testing and contact tracing.

And considering the rest of your attitudes, it sounds like "Next stop, Buchenwald!"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 07:48 PM

What would *I* do? Easy... I would educate about safe sex....for everyone. I would encourage research into medical cures and treatments. I would counsel anyone who has the slightest notion that they might carry any disease to not only be treated, but to be interviewed for a database of vectors to allow tracking of those at risk.....and.... I would also strive thru education to remove the stigma of BEING gay, in order to orient more gays into more wholesome, positive behaviors and relationships.
I probably could expand on this given more time and energy.

All that implies that I would NOT deprive them of their rights and privileges in such things as marriage & civil unions while the world drags its feet towards sane attitudes.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 06:53 PM

Don Firth.....Your last post is a pack of lies.

I have never suggested that 43% of homosexuals have aids.
Male homosexuals make up 43% of those tested positive for hiv in study.
The latest estimates are that one in five carry the virus, but the figure rises steadily
Male homosexuals are the only demographic in which infection rates are rising (including injecting drug users).

I have never said aids is "spontaniously created" by homosexuals.
Nobody knows why homosexuals are so suseptible to hiv/aids...but it is time we made an effort to find out.
Anal sex and promiscuity being the most likely means of transmission.
Both common traits in homosexual practice (CDCfigures)

Regarding homosexual marriage take up, the opinions advanced were based on a huge study in Scandanavia, an area which has had homosexual marriage and homosexual civil union for many years.

There is a large amount of data in the study and I linked to it in another thread.....I will try to find it and repost the link.

Bill..on this thread a few posts ago I asked YOU and your ilk what you intended to do about the homosexual hiv figures and got no response....I have set out many times what I would recommend and my views have been hinted at in the last CDCfact sheet.

If infection rates among male homosexuals continue to rise in such an alarming manner we will have no alternative but to instigate compulsory testing and contact tracing amonst "at risk groups"

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 06:35 PM

in fairness ,whatever the genetics or other factors ,those who did,nt choose to be gay[eg-failed straight relationships turning to homosexual alternative]honestly believe they cannot be otherwise.
i believe penny is correct in observing that christians also have and struggle with homosexual feelings.however not all such practise homosexual behaviour.
i reckon i,m wired to be an adulterer but by Gods grace i,m faithful to my wife.not that i want to make a straight correlation as i have not had to walk in the shoes of those with homosexual feelings.

bill-i may have missed it but did you ref studies that opposed the study akenaton quoted extensively from?

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 05:55 PM

Fwiw, the Wikipedia article "Biology And Sexual Orientation" opens:

No simple, single cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, but research suggests that it is by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences, with biological factors involving a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment.

It mentions studies on identical twins and notes:

Twin studies have received a number of criticisms including self-selection bias where homosexuals with gay siblings are more likely to volunteer for studies. Nonetheless, it is possible to conclude that, given the difference in sexuality in so many sets of identical twins (who are genetically identical), sexual orientation cannot be purely caused by genetics

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 04:11 PM

CDC.."incontrovertible" . But those are **statistics**, which by themselves prove nothing.

"Homosexuality is not genetic, has never proved to be genetic. Variances in brain function occur mainly through learned behaviour."

You are sadly mistaken on both counts. The scientific studies are there, and as I mentioned before, it is time for YOU to go read them, as I have read...and commented on the ones YOU tout! Do you require brass bands and bound copies hand-delivered to your door?

For months now, you have waved your arms and shouted **STATISTICS**, and several times I and others have tried to get you to commit to a plan or offer a suggestion about what to do about ANY statistics.... good or bad...and how **YOU** would deal with the situation.... apart from hinting broadly that 'they' should be denied freedoms which others enjoy. Care to answer any of those?

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,999
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 03:51 PM

Sorry. That should read JohnP.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,999
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 03:46 PM

`Where do you stand on all this?` from JohnB.

I have stated my position on various and many other threads with essentially the same topic. You want to know--go look. You are an argument looking for a place to happen. I just don`t feel like helping you.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 03:43 PM

I've checked some of the "incontrovertible" statistics that Ake keeps quoting, parrot-like. What is interesting is how he cobbles the data.

Let me give you an example. One bit of data from the CDC states that of those who have contracted HIV/AIDs, 43% of them are gay men. Ake interprets that as "43% of gay men have contracted HIV/AIDs."

That's a bit like saying "100% of men have prostate cancer" when the statistic actually says that "of those who have prostate cancer, 100% are men."

Well—yeah!

Ake also pushes the idea that the AIDs virus is actually CREATED by male homosexual activity, and tends to downplay the fact that it is transmitted from an infected person to one who is uninfected. Not created spontaneously by the activity.

Bloody nonsense! This is the medieval myth of "spontaneous creation." The idea that vermin are created by unclean circumstances, for example, mice are created by garbage, not just drawn to it. This cockamamie idea persisted for centuries, until Louis Pasteur conducted a series of rigorous experiments in the 1850s that more than amply demonstrated that this idea was nonsense.

Join the 21st century, Ake!

####

The arguments that Ake puts forth about what gays want or don't want sound very much like the kind of arguments forth during the 1960s civil rights movement by those who were still fighting the Civil War about how African-Americans didn't really want civil rights, and the whole civil rights movement was being pushed by the "liberal fascist agenda."

Don't waste your time and energy arguing with a bigot.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Jim Knowledge
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 03:39 PM

I `ad one of those blokes from the RSPCA in my cab the other day. I could tell by the whiff of "BONIO" on `is clothes. `e looked like `e`d just swallowed a wasp, which I suppose for a geezer like `im, that would be well out of order.
`e said, "Jim, quick as you like, could you get me to St. Adolfs Church in Soho please? I`m going to a wedding".
I said, "Sure thing Noah but, going to a wedding, eh? Why the long face? It`s a time of joy and celebration ennit?"
`e said, "We`re not going up there to celebrate anything Jim. We`re going there to protest. That Sandy from the poncy barbers in Kensington `as gone the `ole `og and is marrying `is dog!!"

Whaddam I Like??

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Penny S.
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 03:36 PM

ake interestingly denies any inherited component to being gay. In heritance is now shown to involve mare than the chromosomes. There is research which shows that younger sons in families of males are more likely to be gay than their older siblings, or younger sons in families with older females.

Unless the older brothers are up to something affecting their brother's brain, the difference is likely to be due to epigentetic factors in the womb.

I waas going to point out that being a Tory may not be a choice, since research shows that Tories tend to have enlarged amygdalas, while left wingers tend to have enlarged anterior cingulste cortices, but since ake feels that brain changes are due to life style, that wouldn't let them off the hook.

Besides, however people get to be gay - and many in Christian circles have tried very hard not to be, aand failed - why shouldn't they have the right to get married if they want to? It is not an act that harms any but themselves.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 02:58 PM

"The health figures have everything to do with this topic, as to be accepted into mainstream society, homosexuality must be shown as safe and healthy behaviour" WHY?

All the other things humans do that are dangerous and unhealthy is part of mainstream

Why not answer the questions I asked you? Denying that homsosexuality is or could be genetic does not mean you could not have been gay yourself

Who is Miss Pink Bunny?

mp


Sorry I was not logged in on this system

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 02:56 PM

"The health figures have everything to do with this topic, as to be accepted into mainstream society, homosexuality must be shown as safe and healthy behaviour" WHY?

All the other things humans do that are dangerous and unhealthy is part of mainstream

Why not answer the questions I asked you? Denying that homsosexuality is or could be genetic does not mean you could not have been gay yourself

Who is Miss Pink Bunny?

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: gnu
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 02:55 PM

Ake... "The CDC figures are incontraverable. The quote/link was informed opinion, based on studies by experts. You have absolutely no figures to explain the homosexual/hiv link."

No need.

Experts? Fer fuck sake. These "experts" are dealing with skewed data and if they were actually experts they would know the difference. Unfortunately, they don't. So people like you, who know less than the experts you quote, use their "findings" as fodder to promote your "arguements". Bullshit the lot.

Fact of the matter is, healthy people, gay and ungay, are not included in the data. So, the data is skewed from a purely statistical sampling viewpoint.

Fact is, the amount of skew is not determinable and is debatable... but only by those who wish to skewer other people for no other reason than their own lack of understanding, compassion and self worth.

As the old saying goes, figures don't lie but liars will fuck you over fer money or fun.

Have fun and I might be back in another thousand posts to see if youse all are.

Give me a fuckin break eh? It ain't rocket science. Live and let live. If you can't do that, yer not human.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 02:47 PM

I'm going to shout Discrimination!!..For all those people biased against folks who want to marry aardvarks!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 02:31 PM

"Imagine stating that we will take away the rights of hetrosexual people who eat junk food, are obese, smoke, drink alcohol to excess, or have unprotected sex or even the rights of straight folk singers for not knowing what real folk is.... whatever it is"


In the UK the "rights" of smokers have already been severely
and rightly curtailed.

Discussion is going on about removing "rights" from the obese.

The world is so unfair.

"rights" of travellers are curtailed to suit anti terrorist legislation, are all air travellers terrorists?

Its so unfair.

The list of curtailed rights is endless.

Equality is a myth....welcome to the unfair real world!

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 02:17 PM

The health figures have everything to do with this topic, as to be accepted into mainstream society, homosexuality must be shown as safe and healthy behaviour.....these figures prove the exact opposite, and will never improve while people like you studiously ignore them.

Homosexuality is not genetic, has never proved to be genetic. Variances in brain function occur mainly through learned behaviour.

If there was even the slightest proof of a genetic link, it would have been trumpeted round the world long since.
Also any genetic component would be very obvious to modern geneticists.....the genetic difference would be huge.

The argument expounded by you all Bill includedis....."Its just not fair"....thats it in a nutshell, you have nothing else.

Well I have news for you Miss Pink Bunny, nobody promised that life would be fair....life is very unfair, all we can do is attempt to stop the death and disease.....would you rather be dead than considered "At Risk"?

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 01:48 PM

Show me the link that insists that anyone who is 'different' should not be treated the same as all the other people who are 'different', namely everyone.

So okay... lets accept the mortality figures for homosexual males living shorter lives than hetrosexual males (though I don't ever accept them because smack in the middle are bisexual males). Lets say that gay men die earlier on the planet. Let's say none of us are as concerned as you Akenaton about saving their lives...

Now please tell me why they should be treated less favourably than anyone else and not be given the same rights as everyone wlse who is not gay? Can you imagine for one mnoment what it could have been like for you had you been born gay or bisexual and fell in love with a man you wanted to settle down with for life and declare that love to the world in a church. tell me why you should not be allowed to?

It's not about me being "all heart" as you said in whichever way you meant it. It's about me affording others the same things I am allowed and me being allowed the same thing they are allowed, if we wish to exercise the right to use that.

The health statistics have NOTHING to do with this topic as there can be no good reason to deny someone something if they want it because others have it. This is not even a gay issue. It's a fairness issue

Do unto others as you would have done to you: the ethic of reciprocity

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 01:46 PM

Steaming Willie.... you had better hope that you NEVER find yourself in a room with me.

I'm a peace loving fellow till some idiot tries to physically abuse me. I dont think you would be so "brave" in real time... :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 01:33 PM

"incontrovertible"

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 01:31 PM

The CDC figures are incontraverable.

The quote/link was informed opinion, based on studies by experts.

You have absolutely no figures to explain the homosexual/hiv link.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 01:05 PM

As far as I can see, ake, you did not provide a link in this thread. You did provide a long quote. I took a random phrase from it "Signorile and Ettelbrick regarding marriage" and did a search, which gave me This list

The first item in that list is this one which gives credit to The Family Research Council, which is about as far right-wing with a pre-ordained agenda as you can find in the USA.

When I read the various links obtained from that search..(Yes, I DO read your side of the issue in various formats)...I see site after site and page after page, quoting each other and assuring each other that a few out of context quotes like those in the above link 'prove' their pre-determined prejudices.

What IS clear is that **the study** was loaded, slanted and biased in its very design and interpretation. It 'surveyed' the individuals & groups most likely to provide the answers they wanted, and "The Family Research Council" was only too happy to sing its praises.

Let's be clear... it is possible to find extreme views (or at least quotes that can be interpreted to sound extreme on ANY issue. This 'study' makes no attempt to explore what the effect of more freedom in marriage laws might be or how narrow & restrictive laws have affected the behavior patterns of most gays & lesbians.
   This effect was shown clearly in the American South in the 50s & 60s, as the very basis of self-esteem of African-Americans was warped by decades of being called names and TOLD they they were essentially inferior and did not deserve the rights & privileges of White, Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPS). Many, many gays & lesbians have lived awkward, frustrating lives, believing that they 'needed to either change or pretend to change' because they were TOLD that their deeply implanted attitudes were 'evil, unnatural, illegal...etc. VERY few managed to even pretend
adequately. Now, there is new medical & scientific evidence almost everyday showing that a certain percent of ALL mammals are BORN with genetic tendencies of varying degrees toward same-sex attractions.
   
   You can quote 'statistics' until you are blue in the face, but you cannot show, even with statistics from biased sources & studies, why that small % of humans who are different from the majority should be discriminated against and denied the **OPPORTUNITY** to marry & share in the benefits of marriage.

And if you MUST hype statistics, don't forget to pay close attention to the behaviors of your favored HETEROSEXUAL groups who engage regularly in the same practices & behaviors you so roundly condemn! Promiscuity? Anal sex? etc.... All there and documented.

So, ake... I read YOUR preferred citations. It's your turn to go read & research the sites which see the issue differently.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 12:17 PM

It hasn't caused a stir in the UK that I've heard of. I haven't seen mention of it in the Christian places I look at once in a while.

This is Mudcat though...

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: John P
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 12:08 PM

Back to the topic of the thread, I'm amazed that the UK government getting out the church's business has even caused a stir. Why did they have such a law in the first place? Does anyone know where it came from and who supported it?

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 11:13 AM

Here we go again... from a different angle but with the same implied lack of understand about equality

Tory MP claims most gay people don't want the right to marry

I suppose he entitled to his opinion too BUT it's worrying than an MP should not grasp the4 first tenets of true equality. Whether it is two, twenty, two hundred or two thousand... what is the right number to apply equal rights?

I bet if someone treated him unequally because he was a Tory... "We will not marry Tories because of their beliefs and policies" can you imagine the outcry? Actually that would likely get quite a lot of people in favour of such a ban! lol You choose to be a Tory: you do not choose to be gay

You see, the moment we start to segregate society and people's rights based on what they are or who they are then we really are going back to darker times in our past. We have to move forward to give every citizen the same starting point in life and the same basic priveliges as all unless they have done something that deserves them not being allowed some of those rights. Gay people have done nothing wrong to deserve not having the same rights as their hetrosexual neighbours.

The suggestion now that it's down to numbers does not detract from the basic premisee of rights for all. What is the acceptable number for rights not to be applied? I suggest there is no acceptable number. We are are all very different from each other, though we share far more in common with each other than we don't, so who will be next in the numbers game to not be allowed rights? That this Tory should think there is a threshold to be applied before doing the right thing is quite worrying

the only threshold that has to be reached in this area is one of fairness and that ALL should actually mean all.

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 11:00 AM

You're all heart MP.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 10:48 AM

There are lots of people suffering what may or may not be self inflicted illness but that gives no-one the right to refuse them the same basic rights of all other people.

Imagine stating that we will take away the rights of hetrosexual people who eat junk food, are obese, smoke, drink alcohol to excess, or have unprotected sex or even the rights of straight folk singers for not knowing what real folk is.... whatever it is

This thread is about the rights of gay people being able to marry. Nothing more or less. It has now been made into something that has been gone over so many times I know it better than the bible.

Could we perhaps let this thread keeps its topic and stay on track with that without it becoming yet another faux war cry to save gaydom from its own 'iniquities'? They are big enough and old enough to look after themselves. If they had the same rights as everyone else the topic being discussed, or trying to be discussed rationally and with fairness here, would not be needed at all.

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 10:37 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: John P
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 09:51 AM

Akenaton, bigotry that pretends to be "helping" the oppressed is almost worse than plain old naked bigotry. A lot of people used to support slavery because it was "more kind" to all those black folks who clearly couldn't take care of themselves.

I have an assignment for you: stop reading studies and health figures and go have lengthy conversations on the subject with as many gay people as you can find. If nothing else, you'll find out that gay people are . . . . people. Specifically, ask them what their "agenda" is. I have done this, by the way. The agendas varied all over the place, from figuring out how to afford to fix the roof to getting a difficult tune under the fingers, to wishing for some love in one's life. ALL of them wished for the right to get married, whether they actually wanted to get married right now or not. Oddly, none of them wanted to take over the world or even force their moral and political beliefs on other people.

Claiming that we, by wanting to give normal civil rights to a large segment of our population, are physically harming homosexuals and consigning them to slow death by AIDS is scurrilous and unsupported by any logic or facts. It is the ranting of a person who is frantically casting about for some rational basis for his bigotry.

Of course you like what Little Hawk says; he supports your viewpoint that everyone who disagrees with you is a brain-washed idiot and he is apparently not offended by by the denial of civil rights to other people.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 09:32 AM

It has been mooted here that Akenaton has the right to an opinion.

At the risk of having an opinion on an opinion, I can't argue with the logic, but the reality saddens me.

I have just thought of a compromise though.

If I find myself in a room with Akenaton, I will deploy my canny tactic. I stuff an old sock in his mouth and wrap gaffer tape around his head to hold it in.

You see, having the right to odious opinions is not the same as having the physical ability to spew them out.

And no gay dudes get upset by his diatribe.

Free speech? it is a privilege every bit as much as a right. Use it wisely.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 05:04 AM

Normally I would have written this in a PM, but from the responses to LH's post I think I will post it here.

I find it uncanny how insightfully Little Hawk interprets my outlook.
It has always been thus ever since I arrived here....as if we had been brothers in a previous existence.

You are fortunate to have someone of LH's intellect to explain political and personal motivations......I could never be arsed, let you all wallow in the mire of your own subjective prison.

I cannot believe that some of you still refuse to acknowledge the veracity of the homosexual health figures(especially hiv/aids)
Or the results of very large Scandanavian study into homosexual marriage.

Perhaps you would do well to get beyond the limitations of your political agendas and start to cive some concern to the PEOPLE you pretend to support ....the homosexuals, who are afflicted to an ever increasing extent, by terminal disease .....by supporting the status quo and willfully ignoring the warning of the CDC figures, you are actually doing these people a serious disservice.

If the figures continue to worsen, what would you people advise?
Given that "education, money, and self regulation" have all seemingly failed abysmally.

And please dont start blathering on about "gay marriage" solving the health problems by promoting monogamy......for a start the uptake numbers are insignificant in a "health" context, and "gay marriage" does not represent monogamy.....Please read my first link before answering.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 08:07 PM

Remember what Dante said, Little Hawk?

Don't just blow it off. THINK about it!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 07:59 PM

"...trying to comprehend what he means..."

It seems to me that he SAID what he means, and he said "liberals ARE xxx.."

"Don't you think it's possible for someone to call himself a "liberal" (and really believe he is one) while simultaneously behaving in ways that violate the true principles of classical liberalism and unwittingly behaving in a prejudiced, authoritarian, and deeply bigotted fashion?"

Well...yes, I certainly do... but that is not what he said. He did NOT say something like: "I have seen many liberals who are careless & inconsistent...blah, blah, blah..."

What I read was a blanket condemnation of anyone claiming to be a liberal....and you know quite well how I react to expansive generalizations.

"It mostly has to do with who gets to tell other people how to live their lives.
You mean, as in suggesting that homosexuals should somehow be investigated, controlled, and condemned because of some vaguely mentioned 'study' in Sweden and because of certain dubious 'statistics'?

It is not me who is telling anyone how to live their lives...unless suggesting that they refrain from doing exactly that to others makes me guilty!!

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: John P
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 07:38 PM

Ah yes, Little Hawk is seeing things again . . . .

Sorry, Little Hawk, it doesn't matter what you think of the state of our society. You still have to address individuals as individuals, and it's still rude to tell people their thoughts are being supplied to them by outside forces. It's a really assaholic debating technique, and it seems to be one of the few you know.

The problem with your "fair and balanced" attitude is that there is a big difference between what most liberals believe and what most (so-called) conservatives believe. It mostly has to do with who gets to tell other people how to live their lives. When you give equal weight to both sides of that equation, especially in this discussion, you just end up sounding like someone who enables bigotry.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 06:23 PM

You're not even trying to comprehend what he means, Bill. You're just mouthing off at him.

Don't you think it's possible for someone to call himself a "liberal" (and really believe he is one) while simultaneously behaving in ways that violate the true principles of classical liberalism and unwittingly behaving in a prejudiced, authoritarian, and deeply bigotted fashion?

I do. I know it's possible. I see it happening a great deal in today's culture. I see it encouraged by today's media.

I also see people who call themselves "conservative" (and truly believe they are), yet they simultaneously behave in ways that violate the true principles of classical conservatism and unwittingly behave in a prejudiced, authoritarian, and deeply bigotted fashion. And it is encouraged by today's media.

The same error, deep hypocrisy, occurs in both cases...but due to the exact opposite set of supposed beliefs. In both cases it results in something that in many respects resembles the psychological mindset of fascism...or of any other form of extremism"...that is:

- certainty of their own moral superiority
- certainty of their rightness and righteousness
- arrogance
- absolutism
- depiction of others as steretypes rather than as real people
- reacting to triggers rather than really observing what's happening
- a desire to force or pressure others into adopting their beliefs
- a desire to pass laws to force others into living the way YOU want them to
- a desire to blame the other side of the political divide for EVERYTHING that goes wrong...and I mean EVERYTHING.

and so on.

Hypocrisy, in other words...but usually quite unconscious hypocrisy. Deep knee-jerk prejudice, founded upon fear and a desire to dominate.

Do you deny that there are a good many self-labelled liberals AND conservatives who fall into that same psychological trap? There are many who do. Their fanaticism and obnoxious attitude is invisible to them, but absolutely obvious to those whom they turn their poison tongues upon. This was also true of fascists. They believed they were the best thing around, the veritable saviours of civilization. Their victims knew better.

The same arrogant beast that lurked in the hearts of the fascists (and I speak metaphorically) still lurks in the hearts of many so-called "liberals" and many so-called "conservatives" in present day society. It thirsts to destroy. It thinks of itself as good and noble. It is capable of any monstrous act in service of a supposedly grand social or political ideal.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: John P
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 06:19 PM

Guest999,
Yes, of course Akenaton is entitled to his opinion. And the rest of us are entitled to tell him his facts don't add up, his logic sucks, he is (apparently) a heartless bastard, his statistics don't prove anything, his comments fly in the face of common sense as well as the actual experience of everyone else, he doesn't seem to know anything about most gay people, and he tries to score points in arguments by defining his opponents as mindless automatons who are therefore not worth listening to. Little Hawk also fits the last one, as well as being supportive of bigoted comments.

I could also add that Akenaton's desire to deny civil rights to a group of people makes him a bigot, and his deep and abiding interest in what other people are doing in bed -- to the point of wanting to make laws about it -- makes him a sexual pervert. This isn't about Akenaton's rights. It's about what he actually says and how those of us who don't want him and his ilk to be able to control our lives respond to him.

Where do you stand on all this?

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 06:07 PM

I can't think of anything much more fascistic than trying to dictate that people live only lifestyles that I approve of.

The liberal position, in both philosophy and practice, is more "live and let live." If the way someone else lives doesn't affect me in any particular way, I don't see that I have any right to interfere. Even if I disapprove.

The two self-appointed life-style "policemen" who took 19-year-old Matthew Sheppard out on a country road, beat him and pistol whipped him brutally, and left him to die—which he did some 18 hours later—may have thought they were the "good guy" ("But he was gay!") are hardly what anyone (with, apparently, the possible exception of Ake) could consider "liberals."

Ake, get a good book on political science and maybe another on philosophy, particularly ethics, and read them.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 05:15 PM

"....."liberals" are people who believe or pretend that they follow liberal ideology, yet in practice act as Fascists."

They ARE? Did you just invent this interesting definition? Do you actually understand fascism? I would sure love to know how you tell the difference. Do you have a nice, easy label for yourself? Or should I consult the local fascists for a simple one?

I don't qualify yet, hmmmm? Makes me also wonder what label I do qualify for.

(You may or may not glean from my postings that I find 'most' labels such as you freely dispense to be nothing more than mud slinging to toss at opinions you don't like, in order to cover up a lack of insight.)

(I really can't debate easily with those kind of remarks, so I resort to poking fun at them...not very useful, but.....)

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 03:07 PM

Hell, gnu...I'm betting Don lost his cherry years ago. ;-) But who can say for sure? Perhaps his wearing of outlandish clothing and his over-the-top behaviour on "Coach's Corner" is all due to acting out the frustrations of still remaining a virgin despite his lengthy career in the NHL and the entertainment media. Think of the pressure he would have been under around the other guys in the ultra-macho atmosphere of the locker room. Think of the fear that he might be found out! Ridiculed! Laughed at! Pitied.

I can't help but feel an overwhelming sense of compassion whenever I see a sight like this...

Look at the pain in his eyes...

...though I do, of course, admire his unparalleled ability with colour coordination...

All I can say is, it's a good thing he's had Blue beside him all these years to provide that much-needed emotional support:

Don and Blue

I hope the dog doesn't get too jealous or Svend could be in real danger.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 03:04 PM

Once again, Little Hawk pontificates from the Mountaintop.

Don Firth
(Liberal, but in no way fascist -- I know the difference.)

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 02:55 PM

Yeah, Ake, they just can't seem to imagine that you could disagree with them on one single trigger point political issue...and yet agree with them on much more foundational political matters that they are quite comfortable with.

It doesn't fit their emotional needs. It doesn't fit their need to see you as "wrong". If you're "wrong", then you have to be seen as "all wrong" to fit their emotional expectations. You have to be some kind of monstrous aberration, some kind of dire threat to the peaceable kingdom of all that is right and proper. Accordingly, they resort to reducing you to some silly favorite stereotype that meets all their personal requirements for recreational outrage. Fun for the combative ego...but it doesn't lead to a reasoned discussion or a productive meeting of minds, just a lot of self-righteous posturing, all to the effect of saying:

"I'm a much better and nicer person than you are. You're evil. I'm good. Nyahh! Nyahh! Nyahh!"

;-D Funny. Damn funny. That's the only reason I bother to come here and comment on it, just because it's funny.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: gnu
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 02:54 PM

LH... I think this is great! Svend Robinson is gonna get Don's cherry?

Yeaaaaah... sue me.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 02:50 PM

Bill...."liberals" are people who believe or pretend that they follow liberal ideology, yet in practice act as Fascists.

There are many on this forum.... male, female, and indeterminate gender

Would you like a list?

I'm sorry but YOU do not yet qualify..   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,999
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 02:47 PM

Whether folks like it or not, Ake, you are entitled to your opinion. And thank you for your very kind remark.

B

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 02:35 PM

The biggest laugh LH, is that in my life I have been a supporter of Cuban Communism and hippy cuture, tho' I must admit to leaving Fascism to the censorial "liberals"

Guilty as charged on that one Bill...:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: John P
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 02:32 PM

Little Hawk -
No, he wasn't. Get a clue.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 02:24 PM

Sorry Bruce that was from me ..as I'm sure you'll have guessed.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 02:20 PM

Thank you Bruce....I am touched by what you posted
You are a good man, and I shall try to be as good a friend.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 01:49 PM

Bill, when you said to Akenaton,

I am amazed you left out "dirty, commie, hippie and fascist" from your list.

...you were doing exactly what you had just cautioned him NOT to do in your previous sentence. ;-D

Such a remark is beyond serious debate, as it displays a "slogan mentality" which substitutes contrived hyperbole for reasoned discussion.

Anyway, it was good for a laugh! ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 01:32 PM

I think this is great! It means that Don Cherry can finally come out of the closet, marry Svend Robinson, and everything will be wonderful for everyone from then on...

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,999
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 12:32 PM

On this issue, Akenaton and I are diametrically opposed. We remain friends despite that. Cool, huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 12:02 PM

Yes Penny, I know that.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Penny S.
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 11:53 AM

Jon said "Onto church weddings, I do not believe the state should interfere with religious issues and I don't believe they are. I think in practice you will find some will and some won't. "

The point is that currently the state is interfering, in that churches which wish to carry out religious marriages for gays as they do for heterosexuals are banned by law from doing so.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 11:37 AM

Mr.akenaton, sir.... You have tossed out some sort of personal, biased, unsupported opinion as a definition of 'liberalism'. I'll wager you cannot find ANY actual Liberals who think that way. Such a remark is beyond serious debate, as it displays a "slogan mentality" which substitutes contrived hyperbole for reasoned discussion. I am amazed you left out "dirty, commie, hippie and fascist" from your list.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 11:26 AM

Ms Featherstone said:
"And nor do we believe that any minister who refused would be successfully sued under discrimination law."

That's good (as is the rest of the summary, assuming it is accurate!); however it would be nice if there were a stronger assurance than "we don't believe sueing would be successful." They also believed that Universities charging £9000 per annum would be the exception. We don't yet know, but my guess is they will be wrong on that one.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: mauvepink
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 09:51 AM

"The only way I forsee a problem on the church side is with some gay couples wilfully seeking out those churches who have decided that their faith does not accept same sex unions."

I believe the Equality Minister says faiths won't be sued for refusing civil partnerships according to the latest news on the subject. It most certainly will be an ongoing debate I think for some time.

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: mauvepink
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 09:43 AM

Willie... thanks for the explanation. However if that is you being no so thoughtful heaven knows how good it would look if it was ;-) I thought your points pertinent enough. If I could write that well without thought I would be happy woman indeed

Whilst I agree with some of what you say about bigotry I think if people stay silent too long then they get to think only their view counts. How are they to be eduvated and their ideologies changed without engaging in some education and debate.

All that said, I do not think poeple who have differeing views from me on this topic are all uneducated bigots personally. Many have raised some good point and their OWN opinions and comments. I learn from them too even if diametrically opposed almost to my own viewpoint.

Very often the one's shouting of some agenda are the ones who have the biggest agenda themselves, which they pick up from others rather than actually have their own opinion. Or, worse, hide their own bigotry behind someone elses agenda and try to use that to prove their pointless point. I am not saying that is the case here but you do see it

We live in hope eh?

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: mauvepink
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 09:34 AM

liberal ['lIbErEl or 'lIbrEl] adjective
    1             relating to or having social and political views that favour progress and reform

    2             relating to or having policies or views advocating individual freedom

    3             giving and generous in temperament or behaviour

    4             tolerant of other people

    5             abundant; lavish
            a liberal helping of cream

    6             not strict; free
            a liberal translation

    7             of or relating to an education that aims to develop general cultural interests and intellectual ability

    noun
    8             a person who has liberal ideas or opinions

            [C14: from Latin liberalis of freedom, from liber free]
        *liberally adverb
        *liberalness noun


Simple as that really!

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 05:46 AM

Well I suppose if you're a catholic and attend mass every week, and all your family are catholic - that is presumably the church you would want to be married in.

I don't think people would, by and large, want to have confrontation and nastiness on such a joyous occasion.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 05:03 AM

At the end of the day everyone hetro/gay should be entitled to be in a happy relationship or benefit from the security of a legal marriage if that is what they want. It is about time today's church concentrated on more important issues.

Trying to be practical.


There is no reason why the state should not give identical rights to same sex partnerships as they do hetrosexual partnerships. The legal rights/ security issue in itself need not in any way be a church issue and if there are currently differeneces, it is the government not the churches that should be taken to task.

Onto church weddings, I do not believe the state should interfere with religious issues and I don't believe they are. I think in practice you will find some will and some won't.

The only way I forsee a problem on the church side is with some gay couples wilfully seeking out those churches who have decided that their faith does not accept same sex unions.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 04:40 AM

Thread #135653   Message #3096964
Posted By: GUEST
17-Feb-11 - 04:34 AM
Thread Name: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go

Hey Mauvepink,

Sorry, but having re read my previous post, I think I wrote it confusingly...

I never meant to say that others hadn't read my post, I'm not that full of myself... I meant to admit mine wasn't thoughtful.

I purposely refused to engage in debate, as seeing the other side's view is regretfully beyond me when it comes to reasoning with bigotry. Trying to reason with them gives them the impression their views have a place in decent society, whereas I reckon they should keep their petty hatred in their head rather than shout it loud for us all to hear.

---

Pete from the seven stars reckons that nobody has challenged Akenaton's content.

A good reason for that.

It's below contempt.

Also based on the premise that all gay dudes have common traits.

really?

Do heterosexual people have common traits? After all, I once had a girlfriend who was far more kinky than me, and I thought I had a vivid imagination. Oh, and aren't the vast majority of convicted rapists heterosexual? By marrying Eva Braun at the last minute, we also know of at least one dictator who was heterosexual, methinks many more.

Seem to me that it's convenient to ascribe common traits to large sections of society if it satisfies your odious agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 04:39 AM

A hundred years or so ago, women were struggling against derision and contempt to gain the vote, and gradually liberated themselves, until now they (in the West) enjoy equality. Perhaps in a few years' time we will be able to look back on the discrimination against gays in the same light, as they hopefully enjoy the same rights as anybody to have fulfilling, loving relationships and happy marriages, accepted by all religious bodies without any hesitation at all. (and why not?) It's just a matter of the 'haters' coming to terms with the development of a civilised society. This takes time unfortunately. I feel we're about two thirds of the way there.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 04:35 AM

At the end of the day everyone hetro/gay should be entitled to be in a happy relationship or benefit from the security of a legal marriage if that is what they want. It is about time today's church concentrated on more important issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 04:15 AM

Bill....If that is your view of "liberalism", then I'm afraid you dont understand it very well.
"Liberalism" is not dedicated towards a better, happier and more free society, but rather on the destruction of free speech, government by committee and the removal of "conservatism" in all shape and form.

Now, I suspect that politically I am much further removed from "conservatism" than you are, but that does not obscure the fact that there are many things in conservative ideology which benefit society.....Support of the Capitalist economic and social system being the biggest exception.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 01:09 AM

I'm afraid that Akenaton relies far too much on statistics that he has managed to glean and has spent little time actually talking to the people who are, themselves, involved.

And I am not speaking of "activists and the very powerful 'liberal political lobby.'" I'm speaking of members of the gay community themselves. They tell a story quite different from Akenaton's statistics.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 07:43 PM

(You want my statistics, so you can add one more 'serious study' to your list?) ☺

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 07:38 PM

I dunno. ake... for someone who is caught up in those 'statistics', you sure toss out some dubious ones about 'what the majority of gays do...or do not... want.' If there is only ONE 'serious' study, why is it right? And who did it study? And how were the questions asked?

MY studies indicate that the "gay agenda" is to be as free in what they do and who they associate with... and who they marry...or not... as anyone else. And the 'liberal agenda' is just to allow them that freedom. Pretty durned radical!~

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Mrrzy
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 05:53 PM

Well now, I can't speak to churches/temples/mosques/synagogues/oak groves but when it comes to the *legal* parts of marriage...

1) It's a civil contract. Nobody gets to look into anybody's pants when people make a civil contract.

2) (thread creep) I think they should be 7-year contracts, renewable by default (if you do nothing it gets renewed; if you opt out, it doesn't). The 7-year itch has a biological substrate - it takes that long to conceive and raise a child to the point where formal education (in schools or fields, depending) takes over from parenting as the source of primary care- and education giving. As long as all kids keep two supporting parents it isn't critical that they [the parents] live together as long as they get along... which is more likely than after a nasty divorce with lawyers. Kids with multiple homes may actually have an advantage.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 05:35 PM

The agenda is promoted by a small number of "homosexual activists", most homosexuals simply want to live quietly and deal with the unhappy situation they find themselves in....re horrific health and life expectancy figures.

They also find their predicament made even worse by the really dangerous "liberal agenda", which dictates that society neither comments on, or makes any attempt to understand or improve these statistics. Discussion of the very obvious link between homosexuality and hiv/aids is also considered "taboo".

The facts are that Homosexual Marriage is not wanted by the vast majority of homosexuals....the one serious survey, conducted in Scandanavia proves this conclusively, It is simply a device used by activists and the very powerful "liberal political lobby" to advance their Orwellian agenda.
This thread is full of the "LA LA Landers" and their pink fluffy bunny bullshit.....this is a serious subject with serious consequences not only for homosexuals, but for the whole of society.

But at last the tide is turning against the excesses of the "Human right" laws......Commonsense is returning rights for every criminal and sexual offender are being re-examined.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: mauvepink
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 04:21 PM

I counter the idea completely of an 'agenda'. That agenda as posted mentions 5 people's comments and, whilst they have a right to their opinion, I doubt they speak for all gay men and women no more than all feminists activists speak for all women.

The whole idea of this person, that person, the other person trying to take over the world is the type of hype that allows fear to create bigotry and hate. There will always be some whose idea of taking over the world will pervade their every breath but generally speaking most sensible human beings really are far less meglomaniacal. Lets stop the gays trying to take over society, recruiting in schools, etc etc... transposes very quickly into lets give them no right to live, to equality and even to breathe. It's unacceptable.

Speak to gay people and you will find the only agenda that most have is the same as that of hetrosexuals... to live in freedom of oppression, to be loved, to be safe from harm, to just get on with their lives and have the same rights as hetrosexuals. Why is that so bad a thing to want?

One could argue I have an agenda. Most people do. Having an agenda to wanting to take over society is a bit far fetched for most. But having an agenda to want to change some of society's attitudes toward those less favoured by the majority is not a bad thing. I will happily state I am far more relaxed about being part of such and agenda than I would be in having a part in an agenda against fairness and equality.

I do not think I am alone

Inclusion is the agenda. Inclusion and integration. Is that now what most of us all seek?

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: gnu
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 03:58 PM

"the gay agenda"

Hahahahahaaaaaaa.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 03:54 PM

i think akenaton certainly sticks his neck out,but i dont think i read anyone countering the CONTENT of his post.
there probably are monogomous homosexuals ,but is,nt akenaton correct as regards the gay agenda in general?.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 01:31 PM

Excellent idea! That'll stop the buggers enjoying themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Penny S.
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 01:29 PM

There is a discussion on the issue on the Moral Maze Radio 4 tonight.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 12:59 PM

Sadly, Penny, one of the most common ideas in the nature of humanity is that those who think they are 'morally correct' should judge & control those who think differently.
This is usually, though not 'quite' always, based on presumed religious principles handed down to them by..... well..... purveyors OF religion who had a vested interest in controlling others. The entire system is a house of cards, put together with very strong glue made of prejudice, bigotry, ignorance, clannishness, and a few other revered human traits.

Who me? cynical? nawwwwwww.....

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Penny S.
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 12:29 PM

One of the arguments I have seen against homosexual marriage as opposed to civil partnerships is that it somehow demeans, or denigrates, "real" marriage as defined by the church. It seems to me that the contracting of permanent, monogamous, loving partnerships should not be able to do that.

On the other hand, heterosexual marriages which fail, but lock people (usually the women) into unloving, possessive, controlling, or abusive, partnerships cannot do anything but make marriage seem an abomination. I have known a woman who was so sure that the church taught that her appalling status was indissoluble that she put up with years of behaviour which would have led me to take action, even to murder, if other means in the law failed. (The church, in the end, was wonderfully generous, and she was married in church to a new and loving husband.) I also remember a clergyman and his wife. My parents were explaining how their marriage worked on never letting the sun go down upon their wrath. He was shocked. He and his wife never had any argument. I was watching her as she nodded and smiled. It is always possible that he chose a wife who aleady had no mind of her own, but I had the impression of someone so cowed that she knew no other state than agreement.

I'd rather hold up some of the gay couples seen in the news as models than either of those two. Shakespeare, not holy writ, I know, spoke of the marriage of true minds, and I feel that minds, hearts and souls are more to the point than physical bits and pieces, in the long run.

I also feel that groups who do not want to allow gay marriage in their churches should have that right, but should not seek to control others who do not.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 12:04 PM

Ok, that's what comes of being smart. It's the post just above that one!

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 12:03 PM

And also equally surprised that Gay couples would want to [marry], but that is their choice.

Reread my post above about the legal and financial implications of being married/in a civil partnership. Why should gay couples not want the option of those rights?

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 11:35 AM

There was a time that living together was frowned on right up until the 60s to 80s in some towns, pre-marital sex, babies born out of wedlock etc. now it is hardly questioned at all except occasionally commented on from perhaps some of the war generation and it surprises that the issue of Gay marriage still goes on. And also equally surprised that Gay couples would want to, but that is their choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: mauvepink
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 10:57 AM

"I have read some interesting and well thought through comments in this thread. Mine wasn't.. but there is a reason for that."

I did read it Willie but had no comment to make in return as I thought you expressed what you said in a way that needed no reply from me. I am sorry if you think I never read what you had written

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 05:38 AM

I have read some interesting and well thought through comments in this thread. Mine wasn't.. but there is a reason for that.

Debating with bigots only encourages them. Akenaton being an excellent example. (Perhaps putting excellent and Akenaton in the same sentence might encourage more hate? ah well.)

Sorry, but true.

Perhaps I am hard wired through my DNA to be partial to beer, pickled eggs and football?

Surprisingly, I don't see my every action as a sin. The word sin is derogatory so perhaps superstitious dudes might want to think that their starting gun point makes me reach for the remote and see what's on the other side.

Let he who is stoned cast the first sin.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: mauvepink
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 07:22 PM

A little off topic but my sleep genes are telling me I need to find my bed. It has some survival or reproductive advantage I suspect. I further suspect it is the former ;-)

Enjoying the debate and will return tomorrow (later today) for more I hope.

Thanks for all your comments and opinions thus far

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: mauvepink
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 07:18 PM

I think Dawkins is in favour of the 'gay gene' theory in any case. I cannot do Youtubes but think this may be his piece on the subject...

Dawkins on the gay gene

Hope this is the right one and that it helps. I know his comments were slain and many objected but what I am saying is that he is in favour so would not have disagreed with you

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: mauvepink
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 07:11 PM

Well I am not sure the gene has been found for hetrosexuality but I would acertain it does exist... or a group of genes

Though there are plusses and minuses to the debate a quick precis can be found here about bilology and sexual orientation. I know it's Wiki but there is some good stuff in there for and against.

Lots of links here too

and

Genetics and Homosexuality research

Research is ongoing, as in the case of transsexuality, but there is growing evidence in brain sections, MRI scans, and studies of hormonal effects on gender and sexuality and outcomes on foetuses that are turning up all sorts of evidence for reasons that do not just include nurture, Nature must play a part. Homosexuality is prevalent in animals and is certainly not rare. See list of animals displaying homosexual behavior

There is no doubt whatsoever that research in this field is controversial. That does not make it unneccessary and it is in the interest of all of us for it to be resolved. I earnestly believe that science will eventually turn up unequivocal evidence for some kind of 'gay gene' and thereby vindicate fully it's expression

A caution is fine at this stage. But if scientists were afraid to stick their necks out too far I wonder where we would be as a species today? I think we need to stick our necks out with them too, but that is my unscientific opinion

:-)

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 06:43 PM

I should make clear that I was not graced with being flamed by Dawkins himself, you understand; just people who post to that site.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 06:40 PM

mauvepink wrote earlier in the light of all the recent research showing that homosexuality probably has a genetic basis

I offer a warning about this one. I asked a question about the genetic basis of homosexuality about a year ago on one of Dawkin's web sites because it seems to me there is an intellectually interesting problem. A couple that are exclusively homosexual will not have offspring and so at first sight you would expect it to be selected against in evolutionary terms. However, we know that in most species we have studied that it is present. We also know that there are some species in which substantial subgroups have no offspring, but this can be explained mathematically in terms of how closely interrelated members of that group are. So I naively asked for any references to papers where people had studied this, not necessarily in humans.

Well, I was not so much flamed as burned alive. The mere suggestion that it might have a genetic component marked me out as an infidel, and probably some mad creationist with an agenda who would never be able or prepared to take part in a rational discussion ...

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: mauvepink
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 05:50 PM

Thanks again Pete

There is one aspect of this of course that thus far is a puzzlement. They also say they will give heterosexual couples the chance to have civil partnerships (I think in some way toward showing equal treatment). I have not heard any statements from church bosses saying how they will go about saving the souls of all those people not being blessed in the eyes of God nor those who never get married but live together. They do not seem to get turned away from churches (and of course there is totally no reason why they should be either).

It all comes down to sex in the end, it seems, and is quite arbitrary as to who allows what and interprets which scripture. If the church could get past the sex issue they could maybe welcome more souls of which they should be happy about. Their domain should actually be that of souls surely and not sexuality in light of modern developments?

Still, things ARE changing slowly and for that I am grateful as they appear to get more momentum and positive support.

with respect

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 05:45 PM

Thanks Pete and good luck...

---

Hate them for what?

I think I'm going to leave this thread alone now we are back to having suggestions of hatred...

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 05:44 PM

"So this affair may well help ask the question whether religions want the freedom to do whatever they do on a Sunday, Friday whatever with no interference from people who aren't in their club or whether they are part of the fabric of a community."

I do not see where these are mutually exclusive.. Quakers, and most other religions, have been having their own types of gatherings on whatever day they choose for quite a long while. Many members of most religions also are an integral part of the fabric of their worldly community as well. They may hold office, do volunteer work, hold jobs, etc.

"If they wish to be part of the fabric of the community, they can start by accepting that many people see their services as part of a tradition, so people may wish to use their facilities."

This is unclear. I can only speak from my own experience in saying that Quakers are not, traditionally, open to facilitating the marriage any couple without that couple being considered a part of the community of Friends. This community is then expected to support whatever marriage takes place "under the care of the Meeting". This is not possible if the couple is not an integral part of the Meeting community.

Therefore, the couple needs to be known to the community. A Committee for Clearness for Marriage, then, meets with the couple, one or more times, prior to bringing a report to the larger group on how they perceive this couple's readiness for marriage. The Meeting considers this report before approving or not approving, the marriage. Clearly a community can only support a marriage of which it approves.

Approval does not depend on "unity". One or more member may agree to "stand aside" if they perceive the group as a whole feeling clear to move forward. OR, one Friend could stand in the way of the matter proceeding if they cannot in conscience stand aside. In this case, the marriage cannot proceed until that person feels able, perhaps with the support of the Meeting, to stand aside.

This tradition does not prevent any member from participating fully in the "fabric" of their worldly community.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: mauvepink
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 05:38 PM

Wow! five people's opinions on the whole of gay society... glad that's sorted then. I almost missed that one was a former homosexual so he must really know the subject well. I think not somehow.

"Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process transforming the very fabric of society" can be read several different ways and especially when it comes to changing the minds of those in society who bear a grudge against homosexuals for whatever reason. All the things named above would need some change if a different view is to be taken of gay relationships, marriage, family etc.

I'm afraid I do not see what is wriiten as changing my opinion of fairness and equality in all honesty Akeneton

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 05:29 PM

"So this affair may well help ask the question whether religions want the freedom to do whatever they do on a Sunday, Friday whatever with no interference from people who aren't in their club or whether they are part of the fabric of a community."

I do not see where these are mutually exclusive.. Quakers, and most other religions, have been having their own types of gatherings on whatever day they choose for quite a long while. Many members of most religions also are an integral part of the fabric of their worldly community as well. They may hold office, do volunteer work, hold jobs, etc.

"If they wish to be part of the fabric of the community, they can start by accepting that many people see their services as part of a tradition, so people may wish to use their facilities."

This is unclear. I can only speak from my own experience in saying that Quakers are not, traditionally, open to facilitating the marriage any couple without that couple being considered a part of the community of Friends. This community is then expected to support whatever marriage takes place "under the care of the Meeting". This is not possible if the couple is not an integral part of the Meeting community.

Therefore, the couple needs to be known to the community. A Committee for Clearness for Marriage, then, meets with the couple, one or more times, prior to bringing a report to the larger group on how they perceive this couple's readiness for marriage. The Meeting considers this report before approving or not approving, the marriage. Clearly a community can only support a marriage of which it approves.

Approval does not depend on "unity". One or more member may agree to "stand aside" if they perceive the group as a whole feeling clear to move forward. OR, one Friend could stand in the way of the matter proceeding if they cannot in conscience stand aside. In this case, the marriage cannot proceed until that person feels able, perhaps with the support of the Meeting, to stand aside.

This tradition does not prevent any member from participating fully in the "fabric" of their worldly community.


It is my understanding that Biblical scholars have found NO injunction in the Bible against homosexuality. However, having found several links which might have clarified this,I found it peculiar that none are currently available.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 05:28 PM

Er...how do you know Adam and Eve were straight? Adam may have looked at Eve and longed for her to be a Dave. Likewise, she may have dreamed of him being an Adamette...

And I don't think gay people think of themselves as er...having 'difficulties' any more than you have.


Holy books have a great deal to answer for at times, especially their unholy sections on sexions..

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 05:23 PM

good one jon on the unclean foods.in addition,i think that at least one objective of these laws was to markedly differentiate israel from the other nations and their unclean practices.cf deut 14 2.where the food laws follow on.some of these are now known to be health benificial though the main object was the illustration of the higher calling of israel v21.the same i think applies to the otherwise strange laws re mixed clothing.
no part of the bible is to be ignored but some of the OT is fulfilled in the new covenant.but when the teaching is the same in both testaments as regards what is sinful,you can be sure it still applies.

mp-i understand where you,re coming from as Christ certainly presents as forgiving. but he who is recorded as saying"neither do i condemn you" also said"go-and sin no more".he spoke of judgment as being the out come of non repentance and unbelief.
i am not qualified to comment on genetics other than to say that i understand that there is not universal agreement.
hard as it is,i believe that the christian is called to "deny himself"be he homosexual or hetersexual-eg unmarried,unhappy marriage or just plain temptation.
the bible would not support the idea that homosexuality is a design feature as adam and eve were clearly straight.sometimes it is a choice ,though i accept that for whatever reason some have never thought they were anything other than homosexual and i dont wish to make light of their difficulties.
best wishes pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 05:02 PM

So, when did all you heterosexual people decide to be heterosexual then? I mean, come on, when did you actually sit down, wonder and ponder, then *decide* to be 'straight'?

What's that? You didn't? You just were born that way? It was a natural occurrence?

Well, did it ever occur to some of you that it's *exactly* the same for gay people? They didn't sit down and decide, they simply were born that way too, naturally, in the eyes of God, in the 'image' of God...whatever and whomsoever their and your God may be.

Of course it's OK for gay people to marry in Church. It's been an abomination for way too long that they've been told God hates them, religious folks hate 'em......

Hate them for what?

For being the same as you?

Natural?


Just another way of looking at things, possibly, maybe...

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 04:51 PM

Statistics Special Report:11.

A POLITICAL AGENDA: REDEFINING MARRIAGE
By their own admission, gay activists are not simply interested in making it possible for homosexuals and lesbians to partake of conventional married life. Rather, they aim to change the essential character of marriage, removing precisely the aspects of fidelity and chastity that promote stability in the relationship and the home:

· Paula Ettelbrick, the former legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, has stated, "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so....Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process transforming the very fabric of society."[53]

· Homosexual writer and activist Michelangelo Signorile speaks approvingly of those who advocate replacing monogamy with sexually "open" relationships:

For these men the term "monogamy" simply doesn't necessarily mean sexual exclusivity....The term "open relationship" has for a great many gay men come to have one specific definition: A relationship in which the partners have sex on the outside often, put away their resentment and jealousy, and discuss their outside sex with each other, or share sex partners.[54]
· The views of Signorile and Ettelbrick regarding marriage are widespread in the homosexual community. According to the Mendola Report, a mere 26 percent of homosexuals believe that commitment is most important in a marriage relationship.[55]

Former homosexual William Aaron explains why even homosexuals involved in "committed" relationships do not practice monogamy:

In the gay life, fidelity is almost impossible. Since part of the compulsion of homosexuality seems to be a need on the part of the homophile to "absorb" masculinity from his sexual partners, he must be constantly on the lookout for [new partners]. Consequently the most successful homophile "marriages" are those where there is an arrangement between the two to have affairs on the side while maintaining the semblance of permanence in their living arrangement.[56]
The evidence is overwhelming that homosexual and lesbian "committed" relationships are not the equivalent of marriage. In addition, there is little evidence that homosexuals and lesbians truly desire to commit themselves to the kind of monogamous relationships as signified by marriage. What remains, then, is the disturbing possibility that behind the demands for "gay marriage" lurks an agenda of undermining the very nature of the institution of marriage.

Timothy J. Dailey, Ph.D., is senior fellow in the Center for Marriage and Family Studies at the Family Research Council. Dr. Dailey and Peter Sprigg recently co-authored Getting It Straight: What the Research Says About Homosexuality.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 02:36 PM

John.

Mark 7:18 (NIV) "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'?
Mark 7:19 (NIV) For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")

I'd have to look up the other one.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: John P
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 02:16 PM

Jon, you've said that homosexuality is a sin according to your interpretation of the Bible and that you wouldn't support a church that marries homosexuals. Would you support a church that serves food that isn't kosher? What about one that allowed its members to wear clothes made from a cotton/poly blend?

Which parts of the Bible are important and which parts are OK to ignore?

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: mauvepink
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 01:12 PM

Thank you Jon and Pete for your own gracious way in which you have asked and answered questions. In truth I am far from gracious myself but I do beleive that great things can be acheived when any opposing sides truly delve and discuss their differences.

I respect, for instance, the way you have explained how Christ, being a Jew, would have gone along with the laws the time in respect of his forebears BUT he also said "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another" and it is in that respect I see an almost paradigm shift in the presentation of love and forgiveness.

I truly believe that if Christ were alive today... no, allow me to rephrase that as many beileve he is and I respect them their belief... If Christ was here on Earth today he would not condemn gay people or them wishing to be married. I have to believe him to be a compassionate and merciful man if I am to believe of him. How could any omnipotent creator of something come to take aways it's rights when he is said to have designed the very thing himself and yet still love it? The genetics behind homosexuality - if we invoke a creator - have come from that creator. If he made a mistake in design then that would make him imperfect. We are told he is perfect so I have to believe he made homosexuality come about.

I also truly believe, insofar as I believe or want to believe at all, that Christ should be the embodiment of fairness and equality. I cannot see him treating one differently than another. I sincerely hope that is the case but it is not my intention to crush toes by standing on them here, rather to share other's footwear and try to walk a ways in their shoes

Thank you for being open minded within the confines of your own beliefs. It's not easy to take a stretch sometimes in crowded space. I respect that a great deal

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 12:42 PM

mauvepink-it is true that jesus is not recorded as addressing the subject of homosexuality directly. however he clearly delineated the boundaries of marriage as being as a "man being joined to his wife".in addition to this he was a practising jew and we know what moses is recorded as writing on the subject.he said that he had not come to abolish the law but to fulfil it;admittedly not giving details ,but pauls teaching on the subject tends to confirm the continuation of the OT view of homosexual practise.
i am aware that some interpret scripture to faciltate same sex unions but i dont think that would be the historically understood position.

i would differ from some of your christian friends inasmuch as i do believe there are degrees of sin,though any sin separates us from God but for Christs atonement.
it is worth saying that though same sex is strongly spoken against in the bible,other sins also are;eg adultery/divorce and pride.

though not agreeing with your position ,i appreciate the gracious way that you express it.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 11:29 AM

Thanks for the reply mp. I know that some things are described as an abomination or as being detestable but I believe all sin is sin to God just as your friends explained. I'm better than him because he does this and I only do that does not work.

Complicated? I am. I am not always right. I am fallible. I know I have not always done the right thing too.

I doubt any one of us could truthfully say otherwise...

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: mauvepink
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 10:51 AM

Hi Jon

You mention "If you believed theft was a sin, would you be sitting in judgement by stating your belief? Would you be sitting in judgement by not wanting be an accomplice to theft? " and this is a fair point. I see what you are now getting at.

I have problem with some sins personally. The point I was trying to put across is that according to the bible and church we are all sinners. I personally do not transcribe to the idea in total. I do not think a new born baby can be a sinner simply by being born, as an instance. I also believe being homosexual is not a sin.

I am told by Christian friends though that all sin is sin and I have had a great deal of discussion on topics like murder and stealing a loaf are both equal sins in the eyes of God. So when I say all sin is sin I was not quoting my own belief on that. I personally cannot see how each are in any way equal and deserve the same punsihment or condemnation. But then there am I judging of sorts. I do take your point. I do not deny also I am judgemental in many instances. It is part of the human condition

What I will not do is blame Jesus for being responsible for what I think nor what other people have written about him and his wishes after his ascension. I am not actually Christian myself but I have no problem with Christ's teachings generally.

Complicated? I am. I am not always right. I am fallible. I know I have not always done the right thing too. But that is between my God and I. I judge all the time. We all make assessments every day on people's activities and intent around us. We make mistakes. To err is human, to forgive divine.

Thank you for your peacable example. It's certainly a valid point as much as any I have made from my side of this fence

best wishes

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 08:27 AM

What this means is that religion has to decide whether it is an interest club for its' members or a relevant part of civic life for the community at large.

Church of England clerics and their mates are harping on about being marginalised and the likes of Dawkins questioning their relevance. Well, as the examples given by the Bishop I heard are fairly ludicrous, (one where a Bed & Breakfast owner wants to be free to be a bigot and another where a nurse wants to ask vulnerable people to pray with her when she enters their house as part of her role,) I fail to see how they can attempt to join in with grown up debate in any sense.

So this affair may well help ask the question whether religions want the freedom to do whatever they do on a Sunday, Friday whatever with no interference from people who aren't in their club or whether they are part of the fabric of a community.

If they wish to be part of the fabric of the community, they can start by accepting that many people see their services as part of a tradition, so people may wish to use their facilities.

Sorted.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 11:13 PM

Quakers in Madison WI
Quakers were one of the denominations from the Madison WI area, which issued a statement in 1997, titled: "Madison Affirmation On Homosexuality and Christian Faith". 3 It states:
"Jesus Christ calls us to love God and our neighbor as ourselves. As Christian clergy we embrace gay and lesbian persons as our neighbors. From our reading of scripture and from our pastoral experiences, we believe there is sufficient evidence to conclude that homosexuality is neither sickness nor sin. For too long, homosexual persons have been condemned and mistreated by the followers of Jesus Christ. Sadly, the Bible has been misused in support of this condemnation. This abuse of scripture must end. Heterosexual and homosexual persons are children of God, created in God's image. ...

We believe it is time to eliminate all policies and practices which create barriers and restrictions to the full participation of gay and lesbian Christians in all of the privileges and responsibilities of church membership. Recognizing that our churches still speak and act out of our long-standing prejudices:

        We hope and pray that we will acknowledge our sin and be forgiven for our ignorance, fear, arrogance and self-righteousness; ...
        We rejoice in the refusal of many gay and lesbian Christians to abandon or be forced out of their church homes;...
        We consider these sisters and brothers to be a unique, holy and precious gift to all of us who struggle to become the family of God."

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 10:52 PM

What the Bible says and means about homosexuality

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 08:56 PM

Sin is sin. and IF being gay is a sin, then no-one who sins is fit to judge on that premise

I may be misunderstanding you but it does seem to me that you do believe there are sins. Let me pick on something I would feel confident that you would believe is a sin and ask you:

If you believed theft was a sin, would you be sitting in judgement by stating your belief? Would you be sitting in judgement by not wanting be an accomplice to theft?

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: mauvepink
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 07:49 PM

Well I do live and let live. I'm all for hetrosexuals being able to get married in a church too ;-)

But to think that ONLY they should have that right, especially in the light of all the recent research showing that homosexuality probably has a genetic basis, how much longer should the church (any religion) discriminate against gay people? Why should it just be a hetrosexual thing? I would have thought that any religion should be welcoming the union of two people who love each other.

Christians especially should not be discriminating because the person who died for them never once made any speech against gay people. His message was one of love and forgiveness for all mankind. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Judge yea not as yea may be judged. Sin is sin. and IF being gay is a sin, then no-one who sins is fit to judge on that premise. We are all sinners, the bible tells us... so that is how I feel myself about this. If we are made in God's image then surely what we are is in some way sacred and I do believe the bible says that we are all the same in God's eyes?

Live and let live. Everyone should have the same rights and no-one should be able to take the moral high ground on this because being gay could happen to any one of us, our children, our friends, our parents, priests, ministers... whoever.

There but for the grace of God go I... but then again I am lucky that I have the freedom to be able to be who I am, what I am and how I am. None have the right to be better than someone else who is our equal

Jesus never once spoke out against gay people. He lived among twelve men. He had no problem declaring his love for those around him. Does the church think they know better than Jesus? What possible harm can it do to allow gay people to have the right to marry and be bleesed in a church if they wish. In my mind that would really be taking Jesus words in a manner he would be proud of.

I respect opposing views but we have to stop this heterosexual led rule making that excludes gay people the same rights and benefits of the majority. Gay people have hearts and minds to love with...

So would they exclude someone who was bisexual from marrying in church as long as they were opposite genders? Who knows? Who cares? Fact is that if two people wish to commit their lives to each other in the face of God then why not let them? Jesus never said anything to the contrary. Only men have written things since Jesus spoke his message of love and forgiveness.

Sorry to have harped on. But I am passionate about this because I really see no harm being done and certainly nothing in any way pernicious considering all the true evil in this world.

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 05:12 PM

i identify totally with jons,s sentiments. having a biblically orthodox view regarding homosexual practise does not mean that we hate or despise anyone.perhaps the" live and let live "attitude might be advanced to those whose faith teaches that marriage is a heterosexual union blessed of God.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 04:25 PM

Old episode of Little Mosque on the Prairie which viewed today:
two issues
1. gay marriage at the Anglican Church
2. Second wife for Moslem
(Mosque shares premises with its Anglican landlords)
1. Muslim "A" gets upset about the "abomination" and tries to find a new venue for mosque - turned down by everyone
2. First wife leaves home due to husband not saying unalterable "NO" to his mother
1. gay couple decide they prefer to marry in Toronto although a Muslim has agreed to cater reception with the best curry in town
2. Wife goes home; husband says "NO" to mother. Resolved.

1. Muslim and Anglican become new "friends" demonstrating in front of church. When told by the minister and the imam that wedding will not take place, they go off together for a beer - a root beer. Resolved.

What about next time? The community has been softened up. I'll bet a second go will not create a crisis. Or maybe it will and the third go... It is so hard for people to accept change. Second wives? Gay marriage? Finding a place for a mosque? The minister, "I christened him, how can I refuse to marry him?" Change comes hard but it does come, because some people, then more and more, think out of the rigid little box.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: mauvepink
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 02:50 PM

Hi Penny

It's a good point you make but the hotel would be in breach of current law if they did put their stance. It is simply against the law in the UK to be that discriminatory and offer a service. It is blatatnt discrimination

How odd that a dog would be okay on the premises but they were not welcome as two humans who loved each other. And to show balance a Hotel in the UK has been chided today for putting a notice outside saying "Poofters welcome!". You see even implied bigotry is not okay... ever.

You watch old films and documentaries and you see notices in hotel and B&B windows... no blacks, no Irish, pets welcome, that kind of thing. Heaven forbid we ever see those times return BUT the thinking that underrpins some of those notices is still there. It's wrong and it's illegal. Rightly so too

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Penny S.
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 02:14 PM

I think that the gay couple who booked at the B&B that then barred them were unaware of the situation until they turned up. They checked that their dog would be welcome, but did not ask about themselves. If the B&B did not advertise their stance, how were they to know. Churches are a bit more obvious. And if what the couple want is a wedding, rather than a political confrontation, a declaration of their love, I still think they are unlikely to insist on an unfriendly location for it.

Quakers were mentioned on the radio this morning as among those wishing to change the law. In the UK, we are in a special position with regard to marriage. Like the CofE, unlike all other churches, we do not have to have a registrar present. So the legal prohibition on religious marriage for same sex couples does prevent proper Quaker weddings for such couples.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 01:16 PM

I'd not object, Bill. I think upset is rather more personal and I'd guess it would depend on the circumstances.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 01:07 PM

This is my dream, my hope - me and MLKjr.

When people learn to be tolerant of each and every other person and realize that we can celebrate our differences rather than fight them.

Then the world can be at peace.

I am there. Those who are not can fight it out with words at 20 paces. Have fun. I realize that at the end of the day, we care for each other.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 12:57 PM

Jon... I am curious to know whether you would object.. or be upset... if that gay couple were legally married in a civil ceremony, no matter what you consider God might think about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 11:16 AM

And tbh, for every one church goer I know who would reel at the thought of gay people in church, I know two others who hold the opposite view.

You omit a third category which accounts for most Christians I have contact with these days. They would not reel at the thought of a gay person in the congregation but they would not accept that a same sex couple can be joined by God in marriage.

I'm not overly concerned over numbers though...

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: mauvepink
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 10:42 AM

Why should I be offended gnu? If you mean GO GAYS! as in good for you gays! great gays! wish you well and all... then I see no offence to be made. If humour works for support then use it.

And tbh, for every one church goer I know who would reel at the thought of gay people in church, I know two others who hold the opposite view. Not every religious person has a down on gay people having the life they want. Live and let live eh? amen.

The only thing that would offend me is when people tell gays to GO!

I do not think you meant it the latter way somehow

:-)

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 12:55 AM

Very thoughtful words, Dave.

Blessed are the peacemakers....

Thank you.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 09:29 PM

There are at least two issues... maybe more, depending on how you make lists.

1)Should the 'government' have ANY say in the rights of ANY couple to have a legal marriage with all civil advantages.

2)What should the various churches do IF the government allows any combination of couples to marry?

It seems to me, as in my earlier post, that the government should NOT take a position. Thus, couples could legally marry, whether or not their chosen church agrees to 'sanctify' the union.

Of course, many would not 'feel' married properly unless they had religious approval, but that is gradually changing as the idea that only M/F unions are 'natural'. Science is proving more every year that sexual choice is largely determined by genes and DNA and hormones, etc.
   I consider myself fortunate that I do not have to fight the system and its religious background, but in my LONG experience now, I have known enough good people who did... and who simply and honestly could NOT live a heterosexual life.

I am sad & sorry that so many still feel they must apply a religious test to all of these important matters.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 08:09 PM

All churches aim to be faithful to biblical teaching. As I've heard it expressed, conservatives take the Biblec literally, and liberals take it seriously. Or, conservatives who accuse liberals of having a "pick 'n' mix" attitude to the Bible, only seem to have read the first few chapters of Genesis, selected chapters of Leviticus, the first two chapters of Matthew and Luke, and the Book of Revelation.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: gnu
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 07:24 PM

Who gives a shit what the regulars think on accounta they don't think or perhaps cannot think or give two shits from Monday morning about anybody but themselves. But, I know what you mean... they will turn it into a never ending thread about why they think everybody else should accept their narrow ass intolerance... I'll stop now.

And leave as well. Although I do reserve the right to come back, of course. But, if I don't, to the regulars... get a life and a brain.

At the risk of offending mp and others with a touch of humour (for which I have been smacked before)... GO GAYS!

Hey, I made myself laugh so sue me.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 07:21 PM

i suspect that what starts as voluntary participation of liberal churches in "marrying"homosexuals/lesbians will at length turn to persecution of churches that aim to be faithful to biblical teaching.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 07:16 PM

As I see it there are three possible types of marriage (maybe more?) - for whomsoever. Civil marriage is useful for those who want the the legal perks therein. It is available in some places and yet to come in others.

Spiritual marriage is open for all, in a church which is willing to offer their support of whichever type persons are choosing this type of marriage or in no church at all. A church is not a building; it is the community of people who choose to "worship" in a certain manner. A simple exchanging of vows in private or the presence of, a community of, friends seems perfectly reasonable to me and I know people who have done this. Spirituality is not confined to a church or a religion, it is a personal choice.

Then, of course, there is the option, where it is legal, of a combination of both. A religious ceremony which is also legal in the jurisdiction in which it takes place. The last wedding I attended was presided over by both a rabbi and a minister. It was legal, religious, spiritual and celebrated with Contra dancing.

In 1959, it was a hard choice for my Quaker Meeting in Pennsylvania to support my marriage to an African American. Today it would be no problem. Sigh! Even Quakers are not always as reasonable as I might hope.

A Quaker View of Sex, published at least 30 years ago, gave gay relationships the thumbs up. Many Quakers did not and do not agree. In Canada, however, there have been a number of gay marriages in Quaker Meetings. And some day, the rest of the world will catch up. When people learn to be tolerant of each other person and realize that we can celebrate our differences rather than fight them.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 06:56 PM

Shal we start a pool on when "the regulars" will show up in this thread?
I am guessing Monday morning (~12 hours).

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 06:33 PM

I cannot imagine that a homosexual couple would actually want to be married in a church that believed strongly enough that it was wrong that it would object to them choosing it.

I cannot imagine how a homosexual couple could wish to stay in a bed-and-breakfast arrangement in the home of people who believed strongly enough that it was wrong that they would object to their choosing it. However people are strange.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 05:43 PM

Well, I guess I'm torn on the issue. I think it's high time for the federal and state governments in the U.S. to accept gay marriage. I can see no logical reason for a civil prohibition of gay marriage. If two people want to get married, why should anyone else be able to interfere.

As for churches blessing gay marriages, that's another matter. I think that a church wedding implies that the vast majority of members of that church, offers its blessing to the marriage - and I think that blessings have to be freely given, not coerced. Some churches are ready for that, notably the Unitarian and Unity churches and maybe Reform Jews; but I'm not so sure about the others. I can't imagine the Roman Catholic Church blessing gay marriage in the next couple hundred years, although some Catholic priests and many Catholic nuns privately approve of gay marriages (lay people seem to be far more conservative on this, as do bishops).

It's an interesting question, and it will be interesting to see how it works out.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: artbrooks
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 03:02 PM

pdq, this is a measure to curb government power - but it is a power that I wonder why it has in the first place. And why would a religious Muslim couple want to be married in a synagogue any more than a religious Jewish couple would want to be married in a Catholic cathedral?

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: gnu
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 03:01 PM

pdq... eloquent, elucidating, concise. And true.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: pdq
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 02:51 PM

If one's government has the power to force a Roman Catholic church to host a gay marriage, then they also have the power to force a synagogue to host a Muslim marriage.

The People need to curb government power, not expand it.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: artbrooks
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 02:10 PM

As I read the link from the OP, this is a proposal that the UK government eliminate the current prohibition on G & L couples being married in a church (even though the main-stream religious bodies ( C of E and RC) say "no way". IHMO, and acknowledging that nobody in the US has any business commenting on the issue - since our governments' (plural intended) position on this is a mess - what business does any governmental body have in telling any church what they can and cannot do...short of human sacrifice or snake handling?

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 02:10 PM

DMcG ~~ I take your point indeed. Civil [register office] marriage is at present intended to cover that need ~ perhaps it is just a matter of what you call it. The confusion you rubricate is probably down to the fact that many misguided people will persist in the belief that those who have been together for a certain time have the rights of a so-called 'Common Law Marriage', while there is in fact no such status recognised in law ~~ as one lawyer put it not long ago, "You might as well call a nut-cutlet a Common Law Steak". But there are people who believe the folklore and just will not be persuaded different. It is their own obstinate fault if they have inheritance problems when they could have sorted out the whole matter over a brief period for about £70 and a quarter-hour spent in front of the registrar. Perhaps calling it a civil partnership instead might work with them; but I doubt if it would make much difference.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: gnu
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 01:50 PM

Hmmm... ahhh... isn't (at least part of) the problem that "government" won't recognize same sex marriage because the "government" is influenced by "religious" morals? Such influence is backwards and despicable to me. Of course, the government requiring religions to perform same sex marriages is also backwards and despicable to me. Live and let live eh?

Maybe I have misunderstood the hypotheses and the proposals altogether.

In any case, I do not have a dog in this fight as I am Canadian and we kicked religion out of this debate 5 or 6 years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 01:48 PM

I doubt many would feels that Bill. Christian debates/objections will include whether or not homosexuality is a sin, whether or not a gay couple can be joined by God in Holy matrimony and whether or not a church would be following God by holding a same sex marriage.

Personally, while I have no objection civil partnerships - that is a state issue, I would not support a church that married same sex couples. It goes against my best understanding of the bible and my faith.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 01:47 PM

Well, Micheal, I am not sure it does in practical terms. There is a case before the courts, though, of a straight couple demanding the right to have a civil partnership.

However, the reason I said it is for a reason that has nothing to do with gay/straight issues. Many people who have been in long standing relationships - say 15+ years - don't realise that they have almost none of the legal rights and protections they would have if they had been married. For example if they have separate bank accounts and one dies the other has no inheritance rights to that account if no will has been made. Similarly pension rights and so forth. At the opposite end of the lifeline are young couples who want to marry but completely confuse marriage and weddings so put off getting married until they cann afford say £15k for the hoopla. So in the meantime they live with the risks I outlined above. The solution is to find a way for society as a whole to separate the legal agreement (which we could keep very low key) with the huge-party-stuff, which is really a totally separate thing. We could do that now, but socially we think of registry office weddings and church weddings as broadly equivalent. If we were able to keep civil partnerships as low key affairs, it might give us a shot at solving this problem, which is actually one that affects a lot of people,many of whom don't realise it until too late.

But do I hold out much hope? Almost none, actually.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 01:31 PM

It is important to note that the OP was about UK changes. In the US, it is still a complex mess. Most states still have have prohibitions against gay marriage being 'legal', even IF one's church allows it.

I really do not see why anyone feels that allowing others freedom to marry anyone they wish in anyway diminishes their own status.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 01:23 PM

and even more in favour of allowing straight couples to have a civil partnership if they so wish. ····

DMcG ~~ how does/would this differ from the present civil register office wedding?

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 01:18 PM

I cannot imagine that a homosexual couple would actually want to be married in a church that believed strongly enough that it was wrong that it would object to them choosing it.

I'd go as far as to say I can imagine a few deliberately seeking out such churches.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 01:17 PM

(.. NO registrar for example ...)

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 01:13 PM

I cannot imagine that a homosexual couple would actually want to be married in a church that believed strongly enough that it was wrong that it would object to them choosing it.

Oh, I can. There are all sorts of folks, including those who would do that because it is an important point of principle. And I could imagine a protest group outside a church that refused gay weddings but allowed hetrosexual marriages. And wouldn't that make the straight couple's day? And what resentment might that trigger? As I say, handled badly this could be very divisive.

I imagine that if this or similar legislation occured some churches (such as RC) would adopt saulgoldie's approach - which is, I think, what happens in France - that the church weddings would drop all civil aspects for all weddings, so that there is registrar for example. This would be followed by a completely separate civil ceremony at the registry office

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Penny S.
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 12:57 PM

As things stand, I heard this morning, as gay couples can only have civil services, it is illegal to have any religious component to the service, as it is for heterosexual couples in civil services. I cannot imagine that a homosexual couple would actually want to be married in a church that believed strongly enough that it was wrong that it would object to them choosing it. Churches have refused weddings to heterosexual couples where divorce had been involved, so there is a right to refuse.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 12:15 PM

My take would be that if the law was changed to allow a full marriage in church, and it be legally recognised as that, then the church would have to abide by the law

There's a blurring of language there that is crucial. The proposal is that churches that wish can ALLOW full marriages in their building. That's a totally different to the b&b case and how your sentence seems to read, that the law would be churches CANNOT REFUSE full marriages in their building. I'm only uncomfortable with the 'allow' version because I doubt if it is sustainable and will inevitable be changed in time to the 'cannot refuse' version. I think sailgoldie is absolutely right that there is a confusion between the religious and civil aspects, but also that secular society finds it difficult to accept the religious folks believe that there is more to their church building than a pretty location.

I doubt that many secularists would insist that a foolball stadium had to allow a cricket team to play on their pitch just because they wanted to: both sides have rights and sometimes the rights of the owners do take precidence of the rights of the potential users. The question is always how you balance the rights. My personal view view is that any site that wants to allow a wedding to take place should be allowed to, be that church, hotel, historic site or forest glen, but that every site should have the right to decline to hold such a service, be that church, hotel, etc, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: mauvepink
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 11:51 AM

My take would be that if the law was changed to allow a full marriage in church, and it be legally recognised as that, then the church would have to abide by the law. Just like in the case had the law allowed for that hotel owner to be able to choose legally they could have. As it was trhe law was and is quite specific on what happened. In the one instance the law was in place that makes it illegal to discriminate. It sounds as if this new proposal will have legal conditions allowing a choice to be made. As I said, the detail will be in the small print and I suppose we will have to wait for that.

Nonetheless it is a step forward in the right direction.

I hope the government do not now change their minds as they have on gay men being able to have past convictions for certain acts removed from their records. They have made that process quite difficult and, in the end, it does not mean the conviction is actually removed. It seems that discarded and deleted
mean the same thing to some but on paper it won't!

Hopefully it will all sort out in the end

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: saulgoldie
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 11:49 AM

Something that seems to me to be almost totally lost in the most discussions of flavors of marriage as we currently accept it is that marriage is BOTH a religious contract AND a civil law contract. Any religion may choose to marry whomever it chooses within the confines of that religion. The problem comes in when CIVIL authorities assign LEGAL aspects to marriage.

If the jack-booted government thugs would remove themselves from the marriage loop, then people could marry as they choose within their own faiths, and form their own civil contracts including or excluding whatever paragraphs they choose, relating to all financial issues, parenthood, health care, and so on. It is the GOVERNMENT'S MEDDLING in marriage that is the problem. Once we separate the religious from the legal, the discussion takes an entirely different shape.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 11:24 AM

Peter Tatchell is reported as saying that no-one is insisting that churches, etc, be obliged to marry people in their church but I see no essential difference between that and the bed-and-breakfast case where the owners refused a room to a gay couple. So it seems likely that if this law goes through within relatively short time a gay couple will insist on being married in a church. I fear that could be a major socially divisive move that does great harm to both sides.

On the wider point I'm certainly in favour of allowing gays to marry and even more in favour of allowing straight couples to have a civil partnership if they so wish. (I'd also like to see weddings be the tens-of-thousands hoo-hah with all the intensive market pressures that they are now so that we could use civil partnerships being legally equivalent but without all the expectation of that excessive spending, but I don't see that happening somehow)

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: mauvepink
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 11:10 AM

I am not sure it is gnu but maybe someone with a better grasp on religious doctrines will be able to answer better. Personally I look forward to the day when sexuality is non issue for every religion. I do believe the day is surely coming, and it may be a long way off in some places, but each journey starts with a single step and some major milestones have been being put in place on this aspect of human life in recent times. I doubt it will happen in my lifetimes but it is surely on it's way... I truly hope.

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: gnu
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 10:53 AM

True, but there's a long way to go yet. Is it "acceptable" to Muslims? Hindu's? etc? (I really don't know. That's why I am asking.)

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: saulgoldie
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 10:48 AM

Homophobia is a dinosaur on its way to extinction. It is not if, but when. Religious fanatics may choose to spin in their graves if they like. The rest of us will just sing and dance, and live.

Saul

Subject: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: mauvepink
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 10:15 AM

Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go-ahead

About time too! This has to be a step further in the right direction. It appears that there is a lot of common sense being used too in the positive responces so far.

I think some churches, or at least some Ministers, have been giving blessings to people's unions for some time but this goes a long way further forward. I personally think it's a right step and nothing but good should come from it. As ever, the detail will be in the small print so let's see what happens. I, for one, completely welcome it.

It's not liberalism... it's fairness

Opinions?

mp