The santity of marriage?

1. 78

   kirstenblogposted 13 years ago

   So let me get this straight... Larry King is getting his 8th divorce, Elizabeth Taylor is possibly getting married for a 9th time, Britney Spears had a 55 hour marriage. Jesse James and Tiger Woods are screwing EVERYTHING, yet the idea of same-sex marriage is going to destroy the institution of marriage?? Really?

   replyreport
   1. 62

      Pandoras Boxposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Lev. 18:22 , "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
      
      Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them."
      
      1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,1 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
      
      Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

      replyreport
      1. 91

         livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         And yet, in the US, about 80% of Jews and almost 50% of Christians support equal rights for gays and lesbians (a number that continues to grow).
         
         It's got to be something beyond scripture since there is no consensus on this among religious Jews and Christians.

         replyreport
         1. 62

            Pandoras Boxposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            There's not consensus regarding much of anything amongst religious people.
            
            I hope it's okay for me to say that.
            
            Well sweetie, I disagree. I believe the movement is fueled by religious people, based on religious reasons. I have yet to see any nonreligious person engaged in anti-gay activism. 50% of christians now believe homosexual marriage should be allowed? Funny. The grand total of americans believing it's okay was only 51% a couple of months ago. We must be looking at different polls.
            
            At any rate, 99.99% of atheists are all for it. Yes! I did pull that number out of my rear orifice! And unless I see convincing proof otherwise, I'll stand by it!

            replyreport
            1. 91

               livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Nope.
               
               99.99% was going to be harder to defend, right?
               
               Re: acceptance of homosexuality, 80% of atheists say yes. 79% of Jews (88% of Reform) also say so, as do 58% of Catholics and 56% of mainline Protestants.
               
               http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/table … dition.pdf
               
               Agreed there is little consensus among religious people. Then why put them all in the same box?

               replyreport
               1. 62

                  Pandoras Boxposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  I never did. That's been my whole point since my second post. I never said anywhere or in any way that all christians discriminate against gays, or hate gays or anything about gays. Never happened. If you can show me where I did, I'll be glad to apologize.

                  replyreport
               2. 93

                  habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Wow. This surprises even me. Maybe it is more about age, as you mentioned earlier?
                  
                  My husband is a Christian and is far-right politically, yet he has no problem with gay marriage or with gays serving openly in the military. When I was teaching, I saw few high-school seniors who had issues with gay people. Perhaps we "old farts" could learn a few things from the young folks! lol
                  
                  Maybe the people who spew hate are just the loudest??

                  replyreport
                  1. 78

                     kirstenblogposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Seems like a reasonable theory
                     Perhaps the rest of us should be a little louder then we are?

                     replyreport
                     1. 72

                        Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        I've always found that, as a general rule, the the louder someone gets, the angrier they are, and the less they have to support their position.

                        replyreport
                  2. 91

                     livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Honestly, I think that it's not even related to age - it's whether you know someone who's gay. It's just that fewer older gay people are "out" so there are cohorts that know very few gay people, and thus might think it's "catching."
                     
                     My parents are retired and you couldn't find two more pro-gay people on the planet. But then again they know me quite well.
                     
                     And I agree 100% of that final question...it was rhetorical, right?

                     replyreport
                     1. 93

                        habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Good point, LL. We have a close family member who's a gay male, and he's a great guy. We've also had a good lesbian pal, and I've had numerous gay students who were wonderful. Maybe that's why we're tolerant. The old saying is that you fear most that which you don't know, so maybe everyone who doesn't personally know a gay person should be forced to get to know one. I think it's a lot harder to hate a real person than it is to hate a "faceless" group.

                        replyreport
                        1. 91

                           livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           Yes, definitely. You can "smell" a person who doesn't know a member of a certain group when they rely on a bunch of silly stereotypes about them.

                           replyreport
                           1. 61

                              OpinionDuckposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              with a sniffer like that you must be an animal
                              
                              Inidivdual should be looked at as individuals and how they interact with you as individuals.
                              
                              But you can't do that with groups of people that have a common interest or attribute, because you are now looking at the goal of the group.

                              replyreport
                              1. 91

                                 livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                 If that weren't coming from a person using a waterfowl as a username and avatar, I might be offended.

                                 replyreport
                     2. 72

                        Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        "Honestly, I think that it's not even related to age - it's whether you know someone who's gay."
                        I dunno. Growing up, I never knew anyone who was gay (or never knew that anyone I knew was gay, which amounts to the same thing), but I never had a problem with gay people.
                        
                        I really believe that if one is really uncomfortable with gay people, they aren't entirely secure with their own sexuality, and can't handle the idea of someone else who is secure in an unusual sexuality.

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           OpinionDuckposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           ridiculous
                           
                           Does it mean that if I don't agree with smoking that I really want to smoke?
                           
                           If someone want to have sex with children or animals, does that mean that I want to have sex with children or animals.
                           
                           No....
                           
                           It means that I don't think that those kinds of activities should be validated as normal.

                           replyreport
                           1. 81

                              kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              But homosexuality IS normal. Homosexuals are found in every human society, including both societies that openly accept and even encourage homosexual behavior (such as the ancient Greeks) and societies that regard it as sinful. Homosexual behavior has been observed in thousands of different animal species, from flatworms to chimps.
                              
                              'Minority" does not equal "abnormal."

                              replyreport
                           2. 72

                              Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              "Does it mean that if I don't agree with smoking that I really want to smoke?"
                              No, it could just mean that you don't want to smoke.
                              
                              But if you spend all your time and energy trying to stop other people from smoking, and making smokers miserable, and trying to make sure they don't enjoy the same rights as nonsmokers, then it might mean you're worried that if smoking is allowed, you'll start smoking yourself.
                              
                              Seriously, you've never heard someone say, "Keep those chocolates away from me! I'll eat them!"

                              replyreport
                        2. 91

                           livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           Yes, that's part of it. You might have also understood, correctly, that sexuality was not contagious. You are what you are, and you really can't change it.
                           
                           However, from an elder person's perspective, there might be cause for paranoia - they knew virtually no one who was gay/lesbian when they were young, and now more and more people are coming out. They might not understand there is a natural limit to the number of gay people out there, and they might think more and more people will come out until 100% of people are gay.
                           
                           Sad. But amusing. But sad.

                           replyreport
   2. 60

      EPmanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I absolutely agree with you.
      
      Like I've heard the good Dr. Paul say:
      
      "Any voluntary associations should be permissible in a free society". I firmly believe this.
      
      It's actually the taking away of the right to marry because you are gay that is detrimental to the sanctity of marriage.
      
      And on rights...
      
      There are no female rights, gay rights, minority rights... rights don't come to you based on what "group" you belong to. Rights are inherent, equal, and given on an individual basis.

      replyreport
2. 78

   kirstenblogposted 13 years ago

   Oh bugger! I misspelt the thread title! Sorry folks
   Was meant to say sanctity

   replyreport
   1. 75

      Karandaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Don't you hate that!

      replyreport
      1. 78

         kirstenblogposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         hit the submit button a second too soon, out of habit really and immediately thought, darned!!!!

         replyreport
   2. 60

      evvy_09posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I read it as the Sanity of Marriage,

      replyreport
   3. 69

      waynetposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Marriage has no sanity!
      
      oh...yeah typo!!?   Well marriage has no sanity!

      replyreport
      1. 78

         kirstenblogposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Maybe it was my Freudian slip showing?

         replyreport
      2. 59

         Disturbiaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Well I just divorced my 5th and I hope final husband and he's been married more times than I have (one of his marriages to a girl of 24 when he was 40 lasted all of 6 weeks).  You are correct waynet... marriage has no sanity... it is for the insane only.  Frankly I can't understand why gays would even want to go there.

         replyreport
   4. 66

      Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I thought maybe you were "pulling a Sarah Palin."

      replyreport
3. 62

   Pandoras Boxposted 13 years ago

   Yeh it's all B.S. If they really cared about the sanctity of marriage they'd be spending their time and money trying to educate teenagers about making wise decisions. Ought to be minding their own business instead of sticking their noses in where they don't belong.
   
   But what can you expect from people who talk to gods? Silliness.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      TamCorposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      
      
        That's not nice.  Not everyone feels like that who believes in God, so could you please NOT lump us all in together?

      replyreport
   2. 93

      habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I guess I'm silly because I do talk to God, but as for marriage, you can't help who you love. Same-sex marriage doesn't bother me - it's none of my business. They're not hurting anyone!
      
      Tam, we were writing at the same time!

      replyreport
      1. 79

         TamCorposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Hmmmm, great minds think alike? lol 

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Rajab Nsubugaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Do they also act alike?

            replyreport
      2. 78

         kirstenblogposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Nothing wrong with being silly
         
         I am by far, way more silly then that tho! I talk not only to my understanding of 'God' but I also talk to imaginary people in my head, hold long long conversations with myself, basically I am almost always talking to myself. I only stop when talking to someone else!

         replyreport
4. 60

   PFrutuosaposted 13 years ago

   They don´t respect nothing because to marry and divorce gives them a lot of money. But this will not affect what people think of marriage, generally!

   replyreport
5. 75

   Karandaposted 13 years ago

   Now that you put it in those words, it does make you wonder what all the fuss is about. I got caught up in the dictionary definition for a long time (Oxford English about 20 years old), marriage equals a legal partnership between a man and a woman. But language evolves with time and dictionaries can be and are, frequently changed to be more in keeping with the times.
   
   The Encarta dictionary has already made amendments and now states marriage as a legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      OpinionDuckposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I thought it was only the communists that rewrote history
      
      YOu could call a salad that only contains lettuce, but it isn;t really a salad.

      replyreport
      1. 75

         Karandaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Going back to the dictionary, no, a salad could not consist of only a lettuce as the definition states it is a mixture of vegetables. It doesn't say how many but mixture would imply more than one. Although I have enjoyed what our family calls a lettuce salad made from lettuce, onion and dressing.

         replyreport
   2. 72

      Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      "I thought it was only the communists that rewrote history"
      No, you're thinking of the Religious Right. They've been trying to rewrite the founding era in order to bolster their insidious 'Christian Nation' campaign.
      
      But Karanda is exactly correct that language, and the words in it, does evolve over time.
      
      You want to see how a word changes with time, get a big thick etymological dictionary, and look up the word 'villain.'
      
      It used to just mean 'worker,' and was more or less synonymous with 'serf.' Now it means an evil person, or a bad guy. The opposite kind of thing happened to 'rascal.' It used to be synonymous with thief or criminal, and now it just means a mischievous person.
      
      And if you need further proof that language is not fixed, check this out:
         Whan that Aprill, with his shoures soote
          The droghte of March hath perced to the roote
          And bathed every veyne in swich licour,
          Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
      5    Whan Zephirus eek with his sweete breeth
          Inspired hath in every holt and heeth
          The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne
          Hath in the Ram his halfe cours yronne,
          And smale foweles maken melodye,
      10    That slepen al the nyght with open eye-
          (So priketh hem Nature in hir corages);
          Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimages
          And palmeres for to seken straunge strondes
          To ferne halwes, kowthe in sondry londes;
      15    And specially from every shires ende
          Of Engelond, to Caunterbury they wende,
          The hooly blisful martir for to seke
          That hem hath holpen, whan that they were seeke.
      
      That's in English, mate, but it was written in the 14th Century.

      replyreport
      1. 93

         habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Gotta love Chaucer! He was a hoot! "The Miller's Tale" is hilarious.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            OpinionDuckposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            What does that have to do with this forum.

            replyreport
            1. 93

               habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               It was in reference to Jeff's excerpt!

               replyreport
            2. 72

               Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               It has to do with the fact that language changes over time, as I demonstrated. Seriously, are we going too quickly for you?

               replyreport
               1. 93

                  habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  LOLOLOL!!!!

                  replyreport
      2. 75

         Karandaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Thank you for taking my point and running with it, that is exactly what I was trying to say, language evolves.

         replyreport
6. 62

   Pandoras Boxposted 13 years ago

   Sorry ya'll. I really wasn't aware that atheists were the ones making all the fuss.
   
   But you're right, I'm sure. Even though there's a large segment of our society being denied their rights, we should all tiptoe around the reason why.

   replyreport
   1. 93

      habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Right, PB, but you can't paint EVERYONE who believes in God with the same brush - just like not ALL Muslims are violent extremists.

      replyreport
      1. 79

         TamCorposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Okay, you said that much better than I did, habee...thanks.

         replyreport
      2. 60

         Rajab Nsubugaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         To be more precise habee, not humans are violet extremists.

         replyreport
   2. 79

      TamCorposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      
      
      Okay, it's early, and I haven't had enough coffee, I think, because I'm not quite getting your point here...
      
      Tiptoe around the reason why? Not clear what you're saying, sorry.
      
      And I'm sure, if you checked, you'd see more than just Habee and I disagree with your blanket statement, generalizing about those who are "silly" enough to believe in God...

      replyreport
      1. 62

         Pandoras Boxposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         My opinion is that getting your opinions from an ancient fairy tale is silly.
         
         I am sorry you feel a need to find that offensive, or mean. Such is life.
         
         Let me repeat myself, just to be clear.
         
         I am sorry that silly god-believers choose to use their religion which is based on ancient fairy tales as an excuse to abuse others and then cry foul when someone comments on it.
         
         That is a shame. I find it very silly and I'm truly sorry that this is the situation.
         
         But what can we expect when people insist they're talking to a god? Silliness. That is my opinion.
         
         Have a nice day.

         replyreport
         1. 93

            habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Not all Christians use their belief to abuse others. I have many Christian friends, and not a single one of them is against gay marriage. All of us - except one - also believe that DADT should be repealed. I've known atheists who thought that torturing helpless animals was fun, but I'm pretty sure that not ALL atheists would support their views. One of these sickos told me that he can do whatever he wants because he doesn't believe in right and wrong. Do all atheists feel that way? Of course not! One of the kindest, most altruistic men I've ever known is an atheist.

            replyreport
            1. 62

               Pandoras Boxposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Sure sure Habee, it's always that way. None of the christians you know...
               
               I'm not sure there's any point in continuing the discussion.
               
               What's your point? Did I say anything to negate what you claim? Does any of this change the fact that it is the christian right in america which is persecuting gays and the christian majority which is supporting them in this? Or the fact that they get their beliefs in gay-persecution from the Bible and their 'talks' with gods?
               
               You're comparing apples with oranges and confusing issues. Noone's trying to legalize or illegalize anyone else's personal business based on what one atheist is doing.
               
               I'm sorry. I thought this thread was about the silliness of christians trying to thwart gays from marrying each other and claiming it as necessary to protect the 'sanctity' of their own frequently failed marriages.
               
               I thought that's what this thread was about. Thank you for letting me know that the thread is really about how not all christians are exactly alike.
               
               Really?!!! I never would have guessed that. Thanks for sharing.

               replyreport
               1. 91

                  livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  The fact that many, if not most, of the people against marriage equality are Christian and use the Bible to justify their views, does not mean that most/all of those against marriage equality are Christian or that Christians are required to be against it.
                  
                  I can think of 4 people who are pretty consistently against marriage equality in these forums (maybe not a representative example, but still, you get my point).
                  
                  1 of the 4 is stridently Christian (but breaks all other sorts of religious rules anyway, so wouldn't be accurately described as observant)
                  1 of the 4 is atheist; another is against institutionalized religion
                  3 of the 4 are older (my guess is around 60); the 4th is of indeterminate age
                  2 are partisan conservatives, who spend half their time here bashing Obama and Pelosi; 1 of the 2 would switch his position immediately if the GOP leadership/FNC changed their minds
                  
                  If I were to use this very small sample size to draw any conclusions, I would say age has a stronger correlation than religious affiliation. It's rare to see a younger person being against marriage equality, even if they're conservative politically or even Christian.
                  
                  My point is you can't use probabilities to be sure about any one individual's position on this or any other hotly-disputed issue.

                  replyreport
                  1. 62

                     Pandoras Boxposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Yeh but you know what Jason? I never did. I said in effect that the organized discrimination against gay marriage which includes calls to protect the sanctity of marriage is caused by silly religious belief.
                     
                     It is. Say what you wish to about age, but nobody is lobbying to deny gays the right to get married because it offends old people. They're lobbying based on religious belief, and they're being supported by religious believers and institutions. And that is all I ever said. Being then accused over and over again of having said all christians hate gays is just a stupid argument. I never said it, or anything even remotely resembling it.
                     
                     I did say -more or less- that talking to God and believing he hears you and talks back is silly. I won't apologize for saying so.

                     replyreport
                     1. 91

                        livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Sure, I agree that the vocal opponents to gay marriage often use allusions to scripture to justify their opposition. My point is that the real nexus of their opposition isn't biblical injunction--the theological basis to deny gays & lesbians civil rights is flimsy at best, certainly weaker than against other rights that most evangelicals will not fight--but their lack of personal comfort seeing gay people out living normal lives.
                        
                        But, you will see people using the "decent", "traditional", and "normal" arguments against gay equality, without mentioning religion, too. I've seen it several times in these forums alone.
                        
                        How you personally feel about religion itself is a bit immaterial to this discussion, isn't it?

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           "the theological basis to deny gays & lesbians civil rights is flimsy at best"
                           
                           Gays and lesbians have civil rights.
                           
                           Always have always will.

                           replyreport
                        2. 62

                           Pandoras Boxposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           Yes it is. My Bad.

                           replyreport
               2. 79

                  TamCorposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  
                  
                    Sarcasm, ridicule, it never ends.
                  
                  It's funny how often people like habee, and me, too, I suppose, get blasted for trying to defend our faith...as personably as we can.  And as reasonably as we can...seems we're not allowed to speak OUR thoughts without ridicule--what a shame. Especially when we don't ridicule in return.
                  
                  I thought this thread was about the silliness of christians trying to thwart gays from marrying each other and claiming it as necessary to protect the 'sanctity' of their own frequently failed marriages.
                  
                  By the way--I have a very successful marriage of 22 years--thank you very much--and I also have no problem with gay relationships--I have at least two family members who are gay, and in relationships, and believe it or not, we get along quite well, lol.
                  
                  
                  I'm done here--so have your fun at our expense...believe me, we're all used to it... 

                  replyreport
                  1. 62

                     Pandoras Boxposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     So why are you attacking me?
                     
                     Cause I'll tell you I have no clue. Nor do I really care. It's not my problem. I know I didn't say or do anything that merits this concerted attack. A question was posted, I answered it quite honestly based on the facts, and some people didn't like my truthful answer and chose to attack my position by misrepresenting it.
                     
                     And I'm supposed to respect that? 
                     
                     So this is Christ-like? No apology, just keep insisting I said something I didn't?
                     
                     I didn't ridicule you for stating your position. You attacked me for stating mine. And you called me a big meanie.
                     
                     You called me names and attacked my character. Check yourself. And check the thread. Not that I imagine it will make any difference to you, but I like to give people the benefit of the doubt.
                     
                     And since you announce it like it is supposed to be some kind of badge of honor, let me show you mine, too. I've been married to the same man for 19 years now, my first husband -thank you very much.
                     
                     I know it's not a whole 22 years like you've got to back up your position, but give me a couple of years, if it really matters to you.

                     replyreport
               3. 93

                  habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  The original post mentioned nothing about the "silliness of religion." Christianity nor any other religion was mentioned. I have no problem with your belief that religion is silly. I just don't want to be labeled as a "gay basher" simply because I'm a Christian. The church that I attend - when I attend - does not believe that being gay is a sin. They believe it is genetic and not a conscious choice. Whatever reason someone has for their sexual preference is none of my business. And BTW, I'm not offended. I thought we were just having a friendly discussion and that we were all allowed to voice our opinions.

                  replyreport
7. 60

   know oneposted 13 years ago

   In the title, I was first not sure whether you meant to question the sanity or sanctity of marriage? It seems neither sane nor sanctified at times...
   
   Let whomever wants to get married get married and let them stay married for however long they can bear it. I simply question whether it is right for some couples to have children... and that's got nothing to do with sexual preferences and everything to do with qualifications. More energy should be spent on the output of such relationships and not on arguing their upfront validity.

   replyreport
   1. 93

      habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Too true. You have to have a license to drive a car, but just about any idiot can have a child.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Rajab Nsubugaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I wouldn't group, Larry King, Elizabeth Taylor, Britney Spears or Tiger Woods as "idiots!" What if they believed in God too?

         replyreport
         1. 62

            Pandoras Boxposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            That's funny.

            replyreport
         2. 93

            habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Huh?? I was responding to the post about irresponsible people having kids. I didn't mean Liz, Tiger, Larry, etc. I meant people who have children and then abuse and/or neglect them.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               know oneposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               I understood that   In England you need a licence to watch TV. Really, how hard is that? Just press the button on the remote... But you can have as many kids as you can or cannot afford with next to no qualifications and no government interference upfront.

               replyreport
               1. 78

                  kirstenblogposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Yeah, I found that way weird when I moved here! I get that it is a way for the beeb to make money without having to have loads and loads of ads during all of their shows. I do enjoy not being advertised to when watching say Dr. Who but then again I watch many other non beeb channels, and I have to pay my liscence fee for that?!?! Seriously the advertising on those channels are as bad as the states! And usually mid sentence, even mid word! Bam! Advert!

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     know oneposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     I had many a pointless rant about this when i lived there... but then Big Brother came on and all was right again in my world.
                     
                     Did you know they gave a 50% discount to the blind... really. Not sure about the licence fee situation for the deaf.

                     replyreport
                     1. 78

                        kirstenblogposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        How kind of them!
                        
                        By the way, is it cool that I am engaging in the hijacking of my own thread?!?!
                        Not to say that I am really that worried
                        I prefer a good hijack to personal attacks and such.

                        replyreport
   2. 78

      kirstenblogposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      You know, both words probably fit this particular subject

      replyreport
8. 74

   miss_jkimposted 13 years ago

   Although I do not agree with same sex marriage, I must admit, you make a very good point Kirsten.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      kirstenblogposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks for that!
      I personally just cannot understand why anyone should care
      The big reason for wanting marriage as I understand it is so that a couple has the same legal rights and resources as straight married couples, why should I care?

      replyreport
9. 72

   Jeff Berndtposted 13 years ago

   "... yet the idea of same-sex marriage is going to destroy the institution of marriage?? Really?"
   
   You have to realize that it's not about the sanctity of marriage. It's about feeling powerful and about feeling superior.
   
   Anyone who gets married might at some point end up filing for divorce--even the very pious. To be against divorce would mean setting oneself up against a huge number of people, and might mean that one might become a hypocrite if, heaven forbid, one's own marriage ends in divorce.
   
   But to be against gay marriage, well, one would never want to marry a person of the same sex anyway, so there's no danger of becoming a hypocrite. There are very few gay people. There are fewer gay people who want to marry. Compared to the vast numbers of straight people who are divorced, or will eventually get divorced, gay people are a much easier (read, weaker) target.
   
   So the members of the majority get to persecute a tiny minority with impunity, get to experience a lovely holier-than-thou feeling, and don't have to worry about having their own behavior examined or curtailed. It's win-win-win, unless you happen to be a gay person born into one of those conservative Christian sects. Or the parents or siblings of one. Or the good friend of one. Or...

   replyreport
10. 61

    OpinionDuckposted 13 years ago

    Till death is now till you piss me off, or I find something better.
    
    Marriage has no meaning anymore, except for divorce lawyers.
    The way that marriage is today, everyone getting married should have a real physical contract that would be automatically executed when a divorce is applied for. That would take the bulk of the profit out of the divorce lawyers, and it would take away the power of a judge to make bad decisions on divorce.

    replyreport
11. 60

    evvy_09posted 13 years ago

    Love is love and doesn't matter if you're same sex or not.  As long as gays are not say attacking people with their marriage license, why should anyone care? 
    sorry about the bad example, couldn't think of any other way same sex marriage can possibly harm anyone.
    I can see it in the paper now.
    "Pope hospitalized after multiple paper cuts caused by gay marriage license"
    "In the exclusive interview, he says "I told you so"

    replyreport
    1. 60

       secularist10posted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Haha, those militant Drag Queens! They're going to ruin America! First feather boas, then AK-47s--watch out America!

       replyreport
    2. 78

       kirstenblogposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Cor! That is a chilling vision! Well now I am all turned round on the issue
       Wont somebody please think of the paper cuts?!?!

       replyreport
12. 62

    Pandoras Boxposted 13 years ago

    http://carm.org/christianity-and-homosexuality
    
    The homosexuals and lesbians have gained considerable political and social momentum in America.  They have "come out" as the term goes, left their closets, and are knocking on the doors of your homes.

    replyreport
    1. 72

       Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       "They have "come out" as the term goes, left their closets, and are knocking on the doors of your homes."
       
       You seem to be confusing 'homosexuals' with 'evangelists.' The only people who have ever knocked on my door to recruit me to anything were some Mormon missionaries and some Jehovah's Witnesses. Nice folks. We've had some great talks about theology. Some of them come back every now and again.
       
       But none of them are gay. At least, I don't think any of them were gay. I haven't asked, and it hasn't come up in our conversations.

       replyreport
       1. 93

          habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Lol, Jeff! We don't get any more of those uninvited visitors since we got two Great Danes! The dogs bark and growl and go to the big picture window beside the front door when the doorbell rings. Once our "guests" see the huge snarling canines, they quickly decide to move on to the next house.

          replyreport
13. 62

    Pandoras Boxposted 13 years ago

    http://www.icwseminary.org/evil_abomination.htm
    
    CAMPAIGN AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY: AN EVIL ABOMINATION IN GOD'S EYES
    
    Homosexuals, sodomites, or any other name you chose to call them by, are not gay (which means happy), talented, special, or even gifted. What homosexuals and homosexuality are, is an evil abomination in the eyes of God, a blemish on the face of God's creation.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       secularist10posted 13 years agoin reply to this

       When I look in the eyes of a male interior designer, I see pure evil. Yes I do...

       replyreport
    2. 72

       Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Oh, so apparently there's an anti-gay agenda. Perhaps this is where the assumption that there's some kind of gay agenda comes from: the idea that everything must necessarily have an opposite?

       replyreport
14. 60

    secularist10posted 13 years ago

    Marriage was originally a religious institution. As religious belief has declined in the first world, the meaning and significance of marriage has predictably declined as well. In many parts of Europe today, couples don't even bother to get married. They just live together and raise a family.
    
    I believe the whole concept of "marriage" should be abolished and replaced with contracts recognized by the state. The state shouldn't care about who loves who or who wants to have an intimate relationship with whom, but the state can have a role in recognizing and enforcing contracts that private individuals wish to draw up amongst each other. Aspects of the contracts would include hospital visitation rights, inheritance, custody of children, etc.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       evvy_09posted 13 years agoin reply to this

       "Marriage was originally a religious institution"
       Sorry, I just had to look it up, too curious sometimes.  I found that  the Old Testament in the Bible there isn't any mention of any religious association with marriage. It started out as a agreement between the girl's father and the groom.  It wasn't until the church started gaining power that they decided to control marriage too. 
       The Romans were one of the first to legally document it but still was only a business agreement.  Marrying for love was uncommon.  I believe strongly in marriage but it's history is fairly unromantic.
       hmmm I think I'm just bored

       replyreport
       1. 60

          secularist10posted 13 years agoin reply to this

          I was referring more to modern marriage. Modern marriage as we know it began, as you indicated, with a religious-political implication, and was controlled and directed by religious beliefs.
          
          In addition, outside of the west, in the vast majority of cultures, marriage has had religious and spiritual connotations for a long time--in Hinduism, Islam, etc.
          
          Regarding the Old Testament, there is most certainly a religious association with marriage--look at all the endless rules and regulations about one's wife and one's husband, as well as the children produced by marriage, set down by God.

          replyreport
15. 60

    evvy_09posted 13 years ago

    This should clear up the whole confusion on same sex marriage.
    
    

    replyreport
16. 62

    Pandoras Boxposted 13 years ago

    http://www.tencommandments.org/homosexual.html
    
    Society for the Practical Establishment and Perpetuation of the Ten Commandments
    
    Although homosexuality is at least as heinous as the crime of murder, it can be and is often more heinous than murder. When a person commits the crime of murder, he may not murder but one person and may never commit the crime again. Or even if he murders 10 or a 100 people, at some point his murders stop. But homosexuals often remain such their entire lives and they may commit the act hundreds of time.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       evvy_09posted 13 years agoin reply to this

       That is sick.  Comparing murder to homosexuality?   So the taking of someone's life that affects the family and friends of that person for years to come is not as bad as same sex? 
       Glad to know where some people stand.

       replyreport
       1. 61

          OpinionDuckposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Why not we eequate waterboarding three prisoners with the beheading and blowing up thousands of people.

          replyreport
          1. 78

             kirstenblogposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             Um wrong thread mate
             I think you want one of the political ones
             This is the ever so slightly religious gay marriage thread
             Can't really see the parallel with the moral implications of gay marriage and water-boarding/terrorism

             replyreport
    2. 72

       Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Wow.
       So you view consensual sex between two male partners as the equivalent of murder.
       
       How does it stack up against eating shellfish?

       replyreport
       1. 91

          livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          I think PB was just posting a few things that demonstrated the outlandish beliefs of some religious sects. S/he's an atheist.

          replyreport
          1. 72

             Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             Oh, my bad.

             replyreport
       2. 0

          EmpressFelicityposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Search me!  The people on that web site sound like the guy in this email forward, circa 2004:
          
          
          "Dear President Bush:
          
          11/26/04 "ICH" -- Congratulations on your election victory and for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you and understand why you would propose and support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. As you said, "in the eyes of God marriage is based between a man a woman." I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18.22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
          
          However, I do need some advice from you regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how best to follow them.
          
          1. Leviticus 25.44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not to Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
          
          2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21.7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
          
          3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness (Leviticus15.19-24). The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
          
          4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord. (Leviticus 1.9) The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
          
          5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35.2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
          
          6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Leviticus11.10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there degrees of abomination?
          
          7. Leviticus.21.20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
          
          8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Leviticus19.27. How should they die?
          
          9. I know from Leviticus 11.6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean. May I still play football if I wear gloves?
          
          10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Leviticus 19.19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Leviticus 24.10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, as we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Leviticus 20.14)
          
          I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
          
          Yours truly,
          An Inquiring Supporter"

          replyreport
17. 62

    Pandoras Boxposted 13 years ago

    And a sampling of 500 atheists isn't very convincing.

    replyreport
    1. 91

       livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Sure it is. It's called statistical sampling.
       
       You didn't say that all religious people are anti-gay, but you put anti-gay sentiment down to religious dogma. My point has been there are a few reasons for people to be homophobic, but religion, frankly, is incidental, even if it's a commonly-used excuse.

       replyreport
18. 60

    Dee aka Nonnaposted 13 years ago

    I'm a Christian and all I can say is, if I knew then what I know now I never, ever would have become attached to another with a "legally binding" piece of paper.

    replyreport
19. 61

    OpinionDuckposted 13 years ago

    I think that this forum has lost focus.
    
    bye

    replyreport
    1. 60

       Dee aka Nonnaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       I think I may have done that.  Way playing off or responding to a comment made instead of the original forum topic.  So sorry!

       replyreport
    2. 77

       Uninvited Writerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       You keep flouncing out of forums, but you always come back.

       replyreport
20. 62

    Pandoras Boxposted 13 years ago

    Well I must say this thread has been incredibly enlightening. I am so relieved to hear that christians accept homosexuality as being perfectly normal and acceptable, and that they aren't really trying to stand in the way of gay marriage at all. I've got to go let everyone know that the fight is over, and in fact never actually existed at all, and they can all now enjoy the same freedom to express their love for each other with the dignity of marriage just like everybody else.
    
    I've also gotta quit doing those drugs which must have made me totally hallucinate everything I thought I'd been reading for the last 15 years.
    
    Anyway, my bad. I really thought that there was a huge christian anti-gay movement over the last decade and a half. But now I stand corrected.
    
    Boy the gay community sure has bilked me out of a lot of donation money! Just wait till I tell those guys I'm on to them now.
    
    Thanks everybody!
    
    Oh and someone tell the OP. She must have imagined the whole thing as well.
    
    :

    replyreport
    1. 93

       habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       No, PB - I think you're right: much of the anti-gay movement is powered by Christian fundamentalists. As LL pointed out, some of it, however, has nothing to do with religion. The Christian friends and associates I mentioned in an earlier post are, for the most part, members of a liberal-thinking church that preaches tolerance. I'm sure hardcore Southern Baptists and other ultra-conservative denominations aren't so tolerant. This is pure assumption on my part. I don't attend that type of church, and I don't have any friends who do.

       replyreport
    2. 91

       livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Um, you asked me to point out when you generalized about Christians. This post would be an example.
       
       "I am so relieved to hear that christians accept homosexuality as being perfectly normal and acceptable, and that they aren't really trying to stand in the way of gay marriage at all."
       
       Yes, there are Christians that accept homosexuality as being perfectly normal and acceptable, and they aren't trying to stand in the way of gay marriage at all.
       
       And, there are atheists who don't accept homosexuality as being perfectly normal and acceptable, and they are trying to stand in the way of gay marriage.
       
       (And I say that as someone who is neither Christian nor atheist, but as someone who can read poll results.)

       replyreport
       1. 62

          Pandoras Boxposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Right. The 10% atheist majority is causing it. Gotcha.

          replyreport
21. 59

    Disturbiaposted 13 years ago

    I guess I just don't understand what all the fuss is about.  What business is it of anybody else's who gets married or why?  If gays want to get married, who cares?  Who does it hurt?  In what way does it effect anyone else's marriage?  Are the gay marriage police suddenly going to break into my home and tell me I can only marry another woman?  Hardly.  If the gay guys down the street get married it is not going to have an iota of impact on my life or the lives of anyone I know and love. 
    
    I think those control freaks out there who just can't stand the thought of anybody thinking outside the box, or doing anything they don't approve of should just suck it up, deal with it, and mind their own business.

    replyreport
    1. 93

       habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       I agree. It's none of my business what types of sex others engage in - as long as it doesn't involve children or animals. If it's between consenting adults, who does it hurt? Who gets hurt if two women or two men fall in love and get married? If it's a sin, God will deal with them. It's not for us to judge.
       
       I'm very liberal when it comes to "victimless crimes," too. I wouldn't have a problem with legalizing prostitution and recreational drugs, either, as long as drugs aren't pushed on minors and as long as individuals aren't forced into prostitution and abused by their pimps.

       replyreport
22. 77

    Uninvited Writerposted 13 years ago

    I just noticed the title, what does this have to do with Santa?

    replyreport
    1. 93

       habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       LOL! Maybe Santa is gay??

       replyreport
       1. 60

          Rajab Nsubugaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Santa can't be that sinful.

          replyreport