# mar·riage



## MisterMike (Feb 10, 2004)

_n._ The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

Does anyone believe that the definition somehow needs to be changed, or extended to include the union of two same-sex people?

It kind of reminds me of the one girl who would always try out for the boys football team. I can kind of go along with the cause because there was no girls football team as an alternative.

But it seems there is an alternative for the gay community. (Granted I may not like any of those either) So why change what was already in place for a man and woman???


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 10, 2004)

I know we have touched on this topic before, and managed to get the thread locked, but I am glad you brought the issue up! I just have been thinking about it lately.

My first problem with government recognizing "marriage" (and giving all kinds of tax breaks and advantages for it) is that "marriage" has a religious connotation. Now, I know that the secular definition does not mention anything of a church or religious institution, but the origin of marriage, as I understand it, is religious.

What happends is we start to tread on the line of mixing church and state because of the origins of marriage. Why else would marriage be a civil union between only one man and one woman? Because this is what was instituted by religious institutions. The recognition of "marriage" by the government now becomes a bridge between "church" and "state." One church may not condone same sex marriages, so they now fight to keep it so the government won't recognize them. Another church might condone them, so they are fighting to get the government to do the same. The arguement then boils down to a "religious" one, and comes down to a matter of "belief." And meanwhile, while the government wastes time argueing over "beliefs" they should stay out of anyways, the monogomus gay couples get screwed over. So in a nutshell, I think that Government should stay out of our belief systems.

Solution: I think the solution would be to eliminate "marriage" as something that is recognized by the government, and leave that to the religious institutions to recognize. Government should recognize "civil unions" instead. 

A Civil Union is basically a legal union of two people, and is more secular by nature. By eliminating "marriage" from the governments vocabulary and replacing it with "Civil Union," this takes away the church/state bridge, and allows the government to look at the issue on a secular level. Basically two people contract by law the same way that "married" couples do now a days, with no stipulation on who those 2 people are. The only exception is kids can't marry adults, and the same stipulations on concentual age to marry would apply. But there would be no stipulation in regards to sex. 

So, it would work like this; I marry my fiancee' and that is recognized by my church as marriage, and my state as a civil union. If a gay couple wants be recognized by the state, they get a civil union status also. If they want to be recognized by my church (Catholic) they won't be married; but perhaps another denomination would marry them if they wanted the religious part of it. Either way, the couple would have the same advantages as a hetrosexual couple.

My general feeling is that the government should stay out of religion, but should still encourage things that are for the our social benefit. Monogamy, whether straight or gay relationship, actually has social benifits, so I have no problem with incentives for it (tax and insurance benefits and such). I just think that Government needs to be fair with it, and stay out of the religious portion of it.

PAUL


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 10, 2004)

Paul - you beat me to the punch.

I think the government has no business throwing two definitions out for two different groups of people.  The MA Supreme Court decision said it best, "This is just a reflection of segregation and separate is not equal."  Throw the term marriage away and call them all civil unions under the law.  If you want to be married go to a church, or a synagogue, or a mosque, or a temple, or the damn woods and run around naked.  That is your business, not the governments.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 10, 2004)

Um...I recommend a little trip back through history. In the first place, it appears that the Catholic Church celebrated unions between men that while not exactly marriage, were at the least acknowledgements of something.

Moreover--read through stuff like Foucault's "History of Sexuality," and the Philipper Aries collections, "A History of Private Life," it would appear that up until fairly recently, most of the human race had rather different definitions of "normal sexuality," than the ones we are pleased to take for granted...

And here's a syllogism for y'all.
1. The only grounds on which homosexual union can be opposed are religious and moral.
2. The government has no business deciding religious and moral questions for individuals.
3. Therefore...the government has no business meddling in homosexual unions.

Of course, they do this with tax policy all the time. That is also probaably unconstitutional. 

Again, I find two contradictions fascinating:

a) libertarians who think that "liberty," extends only to behavior of which they personally approve;

b) "strict constructionists," who want to reinterpret and if necessary rewrite the Constitution as much as necessary to stop behavior of which they personally do not approve.

The Mass court made the right decision. Sorry 'bout that.


----------



## Gary Crawford (Feb 10, 2004)

Please let me shed some light on this suject for those of you who do not know any homosexual people.My best freind came out of the closet on me after we had been freinds for fifteen years(What a shock!).I found that I could accept it better than I ever thought and I have learned alot since then.All of you know more homosexuals  than you think(not me,just in case yout thinking that).The reason you don't know they are is because most homosexuals belong to what I call the "Silent Majority".These people act just like straight people and want their private lives kept secret to the rest of us.They don't make public speeches about it,march in "gay rights " parades or want any special rights(including gay marrage).They want to be liked and respected in their communities.They don't want to jeopardize their carreers or relationships with their families or straight freinds.It's the flaming minority that has started this and every other contraversy on the subject.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 11, 2004)

> _Originally posted by MisterMike _
> *Mar*riage n. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.*



Here is the Merriam - Webster definition, which I think is a bit more accurate.

Main Entry: mar·riage 
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>


----------



## MisterMike (Feb 11, 2004)

Definitions change over time, but they shouldn't be changed by the courts. The religious institution of marriage will never change. Of course there is always the possibility of the rise in popularity of gay churches.

But as far as traditional marriage, the "flaming minority" want to defile it. What they cannot get done through voting, they do selectively through the courts. That's all this is about. They want their gay pride out in everyone's faces. Parades, TV, school. They want not only forced acceptance, but full immersion.

Taxes and other money and inheritence issues are about the only government "rights" I can see them having an issue with. These can be re-worked, but not the definition of marriage.


----------



## OULobo (Feb 11, 2004)

The only real issue that the gov. should be concerned with is the issue of spousal rights; inheritance, benefits, compensations, divorce/allamony(sp). The government has to get involved if companies refuse to recognize the union as legal. I think the issue of calling it marriage or civil union or what ever is a joke. It's for people who are more concerned with the civil part than the union part. 

Interesting side note: I've been living with my finace for two years and according to the law, I'm already married! Even without a religious ceremony or a marriage licence, she is still considered my common law wife. So how would this effect if we apply the same sex marriage idea? If I live with my male roommate for two years, does that make him my common law civil union wife/husband/partner? What if I live with multiple people, am I a common law polygamist?


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 11, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OULobo _
> *...am I a common law polygamist? *



Good Point.

Has anyone ever thought about what suppression of homosexual urges does to a society?  This is pretty much what the gay marriage debate is all about.  It is also the reason for enforced celibacy in preists and untold numbers of sexual rules in religion...


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 11, 2004)

Uh...Mike...the problem with your argument is that, "the religious institution of marriage," has changed extraordinarily over the last thousand years or so. It is also more than a little varied across the world at present...like it or lump it, we do not get to describe the perfectly-valid definitions of one part of Christianity as the ones everybody else has to accept or be abnormal.

I'd also argue that "the courts," have not so much overthrown as extended definitions of words for some extremely good reasons--words like, "man," and "citizen," and, "voter," essentially got changed so that black people, and the poor, and women could be treated equally in terms of the law and its protections.

It is also my point that the government has no business making these decisions for people. And, I'd add that we don't get to encourage the government to force certain limited moral ideals down everybody's throat, simply because the government happens at the moment to support our particular point of view.


----------



## OULobo (Feb 11, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *
> It is also my point that the government has no business making these decisions for people. And, I'd add that we don't get to encourage the government to force certain limited moral ideals down everybody's throat, simply because the government happens at the moment to support our particular point of view. *



If the government is finding decisions to enforce laws involving the interaction of the term marriage and job benefits, then it need to make certain decisions. It defends the rights of couples and spouses in the "marriage". That is the heart of this issue. The government has to decide who is "married" so that the "married" couples can obtain rightful job benefits. The terminology issue to me is pointless. If you want to be called married, fine, so be it, but what happens if your employer doesn't consider it so and won't without a legal marriage license. Then the terminology becomes an issue of law.


----------



## Nightingale (Feb 11, 2004)

There is no alternative that gives equal rights and equal protections.  That is what the massachusetts decision was all about.  We've already proven that "separate but equal" is seldom equal.


----------



## someguy (Feb 11, 2004)

I think its a move based purely on religious stuff(yeah I'm using words like stuff in this kind of debate shame on me).  The problem with this area for me is that I'm not sure that the government has a right to do it as I can't see an area that it will "harm" that the gov. should regulate.
Any way you look at it who am I to judge another person on an aspect of life such as this.  I think this is a case of prejudice in action.


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 11, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Nightingale _
> *There is no alternative that gives equal rights and equal protections.  That is what the massachusetts decision was all about.  We've already proven that "separate but equal" is seldom equal. *



Bingo.

That's why I propose eliminating the word "marriage" from our law books, which has both a religious origin as well as the word limits the couple to "man and woman," and replacing it with the more general term "Civil Union," and (of course) giving the same rights in privliges to all involved in a civil union regardless of gender or sexual preference.

you can't change the meaning of the word "marriage," but it can be removed from our legal/government system and replaced with a more general term that doesn't segregate.

PAUL


----------



## Nightingale (Feb 11, 2004)

Paul, I agree with you.

Civil Union:  You are a couple in the eyes of the government with all legal rights and priveledges thereof.  Open to any two people, regardless of gender.

Marriage: You are a couple in the eyes of your church, with all ecclesiastical rights and priveledges thereof.  Church sets the rules as to who gets it and why.

That way, the government is not permitted to discriminate, while churches can continue marrying whomever they see fit.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 11, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Nightingale _
> *Paul, I agree with you.
> 
> Civil Union:  You are a couple in the eyes of the government with all legal rights and priveledges thereof.  Open to any two people, regardless of gender.
> ...



Sigh, if only reason could prevail over bigotry...

This debate is part of a huge sociatal problem that we are going to face in the coming years.  I think it may rise to the level of a civil rights movment.  Why do you think the bible (some versions) have passages that discriminate against homosexuals?  Where is the benifit to discriminating homosexuals?  How did this start?


----------



## Nightingale (Feb 11, 2004)

been doing a little more thinking...

I really do think paul's solution is best.

the reason the religious organizations are so up in arms is that what they see is the government bestowing a religious state on two people who, according to certain religions, should not be joined in a religious manner.  this is okay.  religions have the right to bestow their sacraments on whomever they see fit. that's part of "freedom of religion."

the problem here lies in the blurring of the lines between the religious state of marriage and the secular state of marriage.  One is a religious status. the other is a legal status.  The government has somehow blended the two together, and therein lies the problem.

The government needs to separate what never should have been "married" together in the first place.  Separate the religious issue from the legal one, and nobody would have the right to complain.  The religions can offer their sacrament to whomever they choose, while the government would recognize partnerships irregardless of gender.


To the person who brought up the common law issue:


> In fourteen states and the District of Columbia (see below), though, common law marriages are recognized. If two people live together and "intend to be married" by acting like they are married, telling people they are married, and doing the things married people do (using words like "husband" and "wife," filing joint tax returns, etc.), they become common law spouses. This gives them the same rights and responsibilities as people who got married the old-fashioned way, with a trip to City Hall and a wedding.



so, unless you're running around filing joint tax returns and telling people you're married to your same-sex roommate, there's really no worry.


----------



## psi_radar (Feb 11, 2004)

I suspect the very, very large and powerful insurance industry has some influence over why the government suddenly cares so much about this issue. Think about all the benefits these companies would have to start doling out if same-sex partners were suddenly eligible. 

As my wife said, "It's interesting how for years women unsuccessfully tried to get their own amendment to the constitution to ensure their equality, yet it seems likely this much more trivial amendment will be successful. There's got to be special interests behind that decision." 

As for the issue in general, two consenting adults who make all the emotional and financial efforts to support each other over the years deserve all the legal and societal dignities that marriage offers. I certainly don't think anything relating to what happens in the bedroom remotely belongs in the constitution. Think of all those states (like Mass., I believe) that still have sodomy laws on the books--they're completely absurd. Just to be sure you know, in most places, oral sex is considered sodomy.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 11, 2004)

> _Originally posted by MisterMike _
> *Definitions change over time, but they shouldn't be changed by the courts. The religious institution of marriage will never change. Of course there is always the possibility of the rise in popularity of gay churches.
> 
> But as far as traditional marriage, the "flaming minority" want to defile it. What they cannot get done through voting, they do selectively through the courts. That's all this is about. They want can be re-worked, but not the definition of marriage. *



Like many, I think you may be mis-understanding the Mass SJC's ruling. As I understand it, I am open to clarification and correction, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court said, that the Massachusetts Constitution, and case law, as it stands today, offers no legal reason for preventing a same sex couple from receiving a marriage license.

This is not an example of an activist court. This is exactly what the courts are supposed to do; interpret the laws as written. The Massachusetts legislatures, over 200 years of history, have never defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman. So, when a gay couple was not granted a license from the town hall, they sought understanding and clarification from the courts. The Massachusetts SJC said, essentially, "Gee, your right, there is no reason in the Massachusetts law that you should be prevented from receiving a Marriage License".

Now whether you argree with this (as I do), or not ... that sequence of events does not make for an activist court.

All that aside ... it is not about Gay Pride. It is about Gay Love. I used to think it was about legal rights ... and to a certain extent it is ... Brittney Spears, on her two day excursion into marriage, was afforded 1400 more rights than my friend Steven, and his partner have, although they have been together, monogomously, for 27 years. 

But what it is really about is this ... you know all those emotions, and feelings, and mushy stuff you get to acknowledge to friends and family by talking about your spouse .. and showing your wedding album. Steven and Steve (his partner), for 27 years, have shared together all that mushy stuff; and without the term 'marriage'; the society you live in tells them it is not real.

I hope my wife and I are as happy and faithful as my friends are 21 years from now (she & I have been together for 6 years).

Seperate but equal is never equal. - Mike


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 11, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Nightingale _
> *the reason the religious organizations are so up in arms is that what they see is the government bestowing a religious state on two people who, according to certain religions, should not be joined in a religious manner.  this is okay.  religions have the right to bestow their sacraments on whomever they see fit. that's part of "freedom of religion."*



Perhaps the government should redefine the definition of marriage.  It would be a stout message from a huge group of people to organized religion that dogmatic bigotry is no longer acceptable in this day and age.  I'm not saying that the government should start forcing baptists to marry their homosexual brothers and sisters...well wait a minute, why the hell not?  Yes, yes, the whole separation of church and state thing, but shouldn't it be illegal for ANY group within the United States to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation?  Didn't something similiar happen with slavery?  How about all male schools?  Male only golf clubs?  And on the other end of the spectrum, didn't the government order native children to attend religious schools?  There is precedence for this type of interference.  It all comes down to this, if discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is wrong in one place, it is wrong everywhere.  Maybe, by declaring that marriage is the same as civil unions, the government is stepping in and correcting a gross injustice that has gone on for far too long.


----------



## Nightingale (Feb 11, 2004)

we're getting off topic, but all male schools and golf clubs are still perfectly legal, and so are all female schools and golf clubs.  They are run by private organizations.  The term is "freedom of expressive association"  and you can find out more here:  http://law.freeadvice.com/government_law/civil_rights_law_ada/laws_organizations_discriminate.htm


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 13, 2004)

I thought M. Edward was precisely correct: there's nothing in the Constitution that permits discrimination in this regard.

I wonder why the hell it's any of my business anyway. I mean, I can't even stand it when people near me eat with their mouths open...

And anyway, it's never been gay people who gave me trouble. It's the damn mine-is-bigger heterosexuals that I've always had to watch out for...


----------



## TonyM. (Feb 14, 2004)

I'm confused about why married couples of any persuasion should be entitled to more rights and privileges than single people. Surely with the current world population and birthrate encouraging childbirth through taxbreaks ect. is old thinking that needs to be addressed.


----------



## MisterMike (Feb 14, 2004)

I think married couples have always paid more in taxes, until President Bush signed the tax cuts.

I think there are a lot of tax breaks for things that are beneficial to society. Children who come from traditional families usually do quite well, so that's probably part of the reasoning. Just like the tax break for driving environmentally sound automobiles.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 14, 2004)

Those interested in 'Tax Breaks' and 'Tax Laws' should read 'Perfectly Legal'. It helps explain our current tax structure, and the ways tax laws are crafted. 

You will perhaps find out who benefited from the 'Bush Tax Cuts'.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1591840198/qid=1076806208//ref=pd_ka_1/102-6453898-7421712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 22, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 2. The government has no business deciding religious and moral questions for individuals.



Agreeed the government should not decide religious questions for individuals, but the concepts of "morals" can be secular.  In any case, the government can, and does, restrict behavior due to "morals".  We may not, for instance, rape, steal, murder, or "bear false witness".  From a perfectly secular stance, these behaviors are  immoral and clamping down on them contributes to the good of society.  

An interesting viewpoint on morals from the Catholic Encylopedia, which is an excellent resource:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10559a.htm

Regards,

Steve


----------



## MisterMike (Feb 22, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Those interested in 'Tax Breaks' and 'Tax Laws' should read 'Perfectly Legal'. It helps explain our current tax structure, and the ways tax laws are crafted.
> 
> You will perhaps find out who benefited from the 'Bush Tax Cuts'.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1591840198/qid=1076806208//ref=pd_ka_1/102-6453898-7421712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846



Got my return the other day. Count me in as one who benefited!


----------



## Nightingale (Feb 24, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Agreeed the government should not decide religious questions for individuals, but the concepts of "morals" can be secular.  In any case, the government can, and does, restrict behavior due to "morals".  We may not, for instance, rape, steal, murder, or "bear false witness".  From a perfectly secular stance, these behaviors are  immoral and clamping down on them contributes to the good of society.



Those behaviors are against the law because raping, stealing, or murdering infringe on the rights of the victim.  If you don't want something to happen to you (ie. rape) you have a right to have that act not happen to you.

Gay marriage should not be against the law, because allowing it does not infringe upon the rights of others.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (Feb 24, 2004)

Yeah, well...I'm going to come right out and say it...and I know I'm going to get guff, and I'm not a racist or believe males are superior to females and stuff, but...Gay/homosexual marriage is wrong...What then is the purpose of sex?...I mean, two gay people cannot have a baby by themselves, and also the sex part...not to get too descriptive, but it's kind of hard to see that as proper...I mean design cannot be tampered...

I mean, if gay people want to say I'm prejudice against them, let them say I am...I'll say it...so, I believe that what the Bible says...it says that god created man and woman, and that the man would leave his mother and father, and the woman would leave her  mother and father and become as one unit. And no where in the Bible does it state that God endorses same-sex marriages...Every little tid bit says that gay marriage is wrong and also, studies have shown that gay marriage and just gays have sex can cause STDs alot easier than heterosexual marriage...homosexuality is unhealthy and also, there is not real marriage there...

Also, why did God create man and woman? Husband and Wife?...what's the point...why aren't we all men, or why aren't we all women?...hmmm?...that's kind of whack is we were meant to take the option of homosexuality or heterosexuality...Therefore heterosexuality is the only true option..


----------



## Nightingale (Feb 24, 2004)

> Shaolin-Wolf:  Yeah, well...I'm going to come right out and say it...and I know I'm going to get guff, and I'm not a racist or believe males are superior to females and stuff, but...Gay/homosexual marriage is wrong...What then is the purpose of sex?...I mean, two gay people cannot have a baby by themselves, and also the sex part...not to get too descriptive, but it's kind of hard to see that as proper...I mean design cannot be tampered...
> 
> studies have shown that gay marriage and just gays have sex can cause STDs alot easier than heterosexual marriage...homosexuality is unhealthy and also, there is not real marriage there...
> 
> ...


----------



## Ender (Feb 24, 2004)

Substitution of marriage: find someone you hate...buy them a house


pssst....it's just a joke..*G


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 24, 2004)

The Bible-thumping makes my point precisely, and it's exactly the one that the Mass. Supreme Court made: since arguments like this are based solely in religious belief, there is no way to ground them legally and Constitutionally. 

I realize that folks disagree. One is perfectly entitled to whatever primitive belief we'd like, we're perfectly OK with writing and teaching it. I am entitled to be a Commie rat. We simply aren't Constitutionally allowed to shove our beliefs down other people's throats, or to enforce our beliefs using the legal and civil apparatus.

I wonder why it never seems to make anybody uncomfortable when they share views on homosexuality with, say, the Taliban? With the religious wackadoos presently running Iran? With those Nazi churches in Idaho?

Personally, I'd be nervous about that.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 24, 2004)

I have nothing against Organized Religion.  Although, if I looked at certain aspects history, I could very well form a negative opinion.  With crusades and jihads and witch-hunts and inquisitions and 9/11s, who couldnt form a negative opinion.  The missing information is the good that Religion has done.  Feeding the hungry and education and health and spiritual aid to those in need are part of the Religious tradition as well.  In order to properly understand religion today, it is our imperative to understand both the good and the evil in the organization.

With that being said, I want to address the recent posts about homosexuality.  In the bible, there is a story about two cities.  Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by God because they had invoked his wrath.  There are a number of questions that can be asked concerning this story.  One of which is how the population of those cities invoked the Wrath of God.  The answer to this question is difficult.  For one thing, I have seen 17 different Bibles that say 17 different things concerning this question.  One Bible says that the strangers were driven out of the city because the people who lived there didnt know them.  Another says that the strangers were driven out because their Gods didnt know them.  And then another says that the strangers were killed because they refused to let the people of the city know them sexually.  

Which edition is correct?  According the religious fundamentalists, the Bible contains the absolute word of God.  It was reportedly written by scribes whose hands were Guided by God.  Maybe we need to go back to the First Bible to answer this question.  Around 330 AD a Council was convened Nicene at the behest Emperor Constantine.  The objective of this council was to create a state religion that could be used to  control the populace of the Roman Empire.  So they pooled together the body of Christian writing and chose the books that would form the early Bible.  (Consequently, many of those books have been subsequently dropped in later editions)  The early scripture was written in the ancient language of the Jews.  To understand the Sodom and Gomorrah story, we need to look at the Hebrew word yadah, which means to know.  It doesnt mean any more then that, because specification can come later in the sentence.  This is very much like the English language.  In the old writings, preserved by the Vatican, the story states that the strangers were driven out because they refused to let the people of the city know them.  It says nothing of whether or not this was to know them mentally, physically (sexually), or spiritually.  Specification would come much later, in one of the darkest days of religion.

People across the world have always been victims to charlatanry.  In an age unreason that passed long ago there was a book named the Malleus Maleficorum The Hammer Against the Witches.   This book laid out a process for church sanctioned torture and mass murder.  It also reveals the source of anti-homosexual sentiment in this country.  In those days, burning people alive was big industry.  The victims not only paid with his or her life, but also with their property and their families property.  Everything that the victim owned was used to pay the inquisitors, the magistrates, and even the people who gathered the bundles of wood (******s) to burn them.  The biggest portion of this loot, by far, went to the Church.  In reality, the social function of burning was a phenomenon, used by the Church to make itself into the most powerful organization in Europe.  With this background in mind, there was a distinct benefit for the Church to single out as many people as possible for burning.  Homosexuals were murdered because they were easily identified by their relationships with people of the same sex.  This happened alongside anyone else who looked or acted differently and alongside those who were incriminated by people tortured under the tutelage of the Malleus.  All of their belongings were collected as profits.  

The people who originally immigrated to this country were puritans, fundamentalists, whose ideas sprouted from the old Roman Catholic Church.  With them, they carried their Bibles.  In many cases, the King James edition, which, by the way, is the closest version to what is quoted in the Malleus Maleficorum.  With them, also, came witch-hunts and burnings.  Those days are long gone, thank the Lord, but the memory of that evil remains.  It remains in the steadfast refusal of fundamentalists to understand the history of their beliefs and the evil that wrought them.  There is danger here.  This kind of anti-reason and anti-knowledge is also a remnant of past atrocities.  It is also the harbinger of future evil, able to awaken the daemons of the past.  We need to be vigilant in our understanding or religion.  Through science and reason we can discover much about how our beliefs need to change in this changed time.  Those of you who have expressed knowledge of the Bible in order to support the belief that homosexuality is an abomination are victims of an ancient charlatanry that killed millions.  In effect, you believe in the lies that led to a holocaust of unimaginable proportions.  Beware, you walk a fine line.  When the next holocaust marches out, will you stand with those who hold the ******s or will you finally listen to Jesus and love your fellow man?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 24, 2004)

Ok, I know others have said it, and I have said it myself before.

Seperation of Church and State.

If it is a religious knee jerk reaction that is stopping your support of a same sex marriage then, your opinion is fine. Your beliefs are not law.

If it is explained why it is negative to society and unethical to allow same sex marriages then, people should support a law banning them.

Yet, in all cases (* Excluding religion *) Same sex unions or cival unions or marriage for common terms, increase the benefits to society. Medical and life benefits. The right to see your partner in the hospital. The right to be able to . . ., fill in the blank.

I see it as being unethical in trying to stop cival unions or same sex unions. Now I support the rights of a religion to choose to recognize or not to recognize such a union.

My Opinion, my Beliefs, My Values, My Ethics, and what I believe to be the right choice for everyone's rights.
:asian:


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 24, 2004)

My Letter I sent to president@whitehouse.gov



> Dear Mr. President,
> 
> I hope this e-mail finds you well, and in good health.
> 
> ...


Ooops, I wonder what the problem is? I got the address from the website?



> Message from  yahoo.com.
> Unable to deliver message to the following address(es).
> 
> <president@whitehouse.gov>:
> ...


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 24, 2004)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> I suspect the very, very large and powerful insurance industry has some influence over why the government suddenly cares so much about this issue. Think about all the benefits these companies would have to start doling out if same-sex partners were suddenly eligible.
> 
> As my wife said, "It's interesting how for years women unsuccessfully tried to get their own amendment to the constitution to ensure their equality, yet it seems likely this much more trivial amendment will be successful. There's got to be special interests behind that decision."
> 
> As for the issue in general, two consenting adults who make all the emotional and financial efforts to support each other over the years deserve all the legal and societal dignities that marriage offers. I certainly don't think anything relating to what happens in the bedroom remotely belongs in the constitution. Think of all those states (like Mass., I believe) that still have sodomy laws on the books--they're completely absurd. Just to be sure you know, in most places, oral sex is considered sodomy.



Last year the Supreme Court ruled laws outlawing sodomy were unconsitutional.  I checked awhile back, and Texas still had the law listed on their web site, but it matters not.  The law is no longer binding.  Interestingly, not so very long ago sodomy was illegal in some states between a man and his wife.

Forgive me this digression...but the "talking heads" of Fox and MSNBC were asking lawyers what the big legal events of the year were.  They didn't list this incredibly controversial S.C. decision...rather talked about Kobe Bryant, Scott Peterson, Michael Jackson, and Martha Stewart.  It shows us where our priorities are.



Here is an interesting compilation of arguments against proscriptions of gay marriage...of course, written by a gay man.  I found it worth reading.

http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 24, 2004)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> As my wife said, "It's interesting how for years women unsuccessfully tried to get their own amendment to the constitution to ensure their equality, yet it seems likely this much more trivial amendment will be successful. There's got to be special interests behind that decision."


No disrespect to your wife or any other women is meant.



> Article XIV.
> 
> 
> Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
> ...


Section 1 of the fourteenth amendment, is what the lawyers fell back on, when asked about the ERA. Why would you need a separate Amendment for women? This would imply that when the term man was used it only was meant for males and not females, as opposed to the man kind usage.

One could read that it is already illegal to ban same sex unions or marriages. Although the term state could easily and has the meaning in this case a State, as in one of the United States. Therefore the only true legal way to put a ban on this, is for the federal government to implement the amendment. I wonder if they go to the states legislations like they did with the ERA, would the federal government then be in a dead lock? as no State can make a law. . ., 

Hmmmm? I think I might run for office.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (Feb 24, 2004)

Well, first off, I'd like to ask a Question, which I will leave open, yet give my opinion...you say that Church and State should be separate, but why? I mean if America were not founded by such great, Christian Men and Women, then where would we be? Without the morals laid down by our founding fathers, we'd be somewhere between England and the Phillipines. Last time I checked, the phillipines was not the nicest place to be. Nearly everybody carries at least one knife there, and it's pretty much guerilla and such, aside from the assasinations of people who tick others off and this goes on every day over there. But America: Well, I can't say its too much different other than if you get caught, you get busted big time. And we aren't allowed legally to carry Butterfly knives(balisong) around in alot of states, heck plenty of states have rules to the size and such.

Another issue that bothers me that a few of you brought up is this: Christianity and Catholicism is not the same thing! They believe that you can't talk to God if you have done sins and you have to go to confessional to ask for forgiveness, then, as I've seen with plenty of people I know from Catholic churches, they go out and party, be promiscuous and such, then go back and ask for forgiveness. What the heck is the dividing line between the world and a large majority of Catholics? But then again, Christians basically can do the same thing, but the difference is, a true Faithful Christian will try to turn away from the sin and drive on a straighter path. And for those of you who call Christians bigots and fundamentalists...I don't think you have a right to call us that. First off, do you seriously look into it or just say, "well, they look like religious whackos like my grandma used to be"? I mean, Christianity seriously isn't just chanting and junk and isn't just reading God's Word and just sitting around acting austere and all. Not at all. Heck, Catholic monks do that, aside from constantly reading the Bible. 

Another issue: you say they were just catholics and fundamentalists that came over from the European continent? Hmmm, then where do I fit in? I mean, some people seriously just think Catholics and Christians are the same thing. First off, I do not go to Mass and read from some manuscript over and over and over. Then, I don't believe that the Fear of God is the thing that should greatly govern my life. It's the Love of God. Not Fear. Sure there is the Fear of God, but God Love's us like a father. 'Nuff Said. 

Anyways, getting onto the subject topic: You think that bigots just made this Bible and put in junk that would make it unfair for people to live out their sexual fantasies, which, in my mind, is sick to be, umm, yeah, a guy. Since I'm a guy, I'd rather not be doing that with a guy. It's just totally sick and wrong. Why do you think everything "fits", aside from your "butt" stuff. Yuck. And along with that, why would you have that kind of sex. I mean Abstinance is the way, so is that what you just want to get away with? Have second rate and not get preg or anything? STDs are still transmitted that way. Even people who have never had sex get diseases that way due to the fact that fecal matter has disease and rots. Why risk such a thing as that aside from the other ways? I mean the safest way, well, is abstenance. Why risk it, get married and still go through the fact that you could get STDs?

And back to the church and state issue. Evolution. Not getting into how wrong it is and I don't want this topic swayed to that, but that's a belief in itself. Why do Christian kids in Public School have to learn it? I mean why can't we learn Creationism? The junk that is in those books are balony, yet it's a belief that is pressed on everyone, whether they believe it or not. It's like taking some sort of create-your-own-religion-that's-not-real-system. And that's Separation of Church and State. uh-huh. Sure it is. And you people want to believe that we came from some stupid little amoeba? Bah. What are the chances that all thos amoebas could possibly evolve into a being every time? 1 in in a googleplex(a 1 with 100 zeroes after it). Even more than that. Heck 1 in an infinity. And banning Prayer from school? What is everyone so afraid of? Oh are Christians going to blow up the schools planning in prayer?

So, what you people want is not a structured government, but a I want it my way government and I wish that they would cater to the people, but only if it fits my needs, or makes everybody happy. The government isn't some system that gives people their every want and desire. Sex is a gift from God, but humankind has made it a joke. On TV, Magazines, movies, etc. 

The biggest issue here is that everyone is born into the world with the view that there are 4 sexes basically. Heterosexual male, heterosexual female, homsexual male, and lesbian. Well, back 50 years ago people never publicized gays. Heck, the words gay and queer meant cool words. Gay meant happy. Queer meant strange and unusual. I liked the word queer when I first heard it, and then my mom told me what it meant and I was like, man that sucks. And it's funny that gays remind me of a sect or cult. They act like they have been persecuted and such and then they go an bash the Christians for saying  things against them. And then they go and get more help when nobody will go along with them and bash the Christians. Man, that's pathetic. 

Christians have been around since the beginning of time, and we are here to stay. God is on our side, and we don't have to worry about the flame leaving this earth. But homosexual lifestyle. It will only lead to more acts of demoralization. This world gets worse and worse. I love being a Christian and wouldn't change knowing Christ as my personal LORD AND SAVIOUR! I can't see through the fog of evil in this world without the LIGHT. I can't say too much more, because it looks like rambling. People will always think of others who think differently as bigots. But I like to think of those who are thought of as bigots and not Christians as lost and wide open to the Love of God.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 24, 2004)

I know a guy who is very much against homosexual (male) relations, in any form.
He is in accord with W.
He is a regular church going BAC, heavily involved in his groups activities, projects, etc.

Why do I mention all this?
Because he has the -best- lesbian porn collection I've seen.

2 guys - ew, ick, ungodly, unnatural, sinners!
2 girls - yum, yay, look at em go.


Interesting controdiction huh?  I run into this often.

While this issue is debated, and it spreads, more important things like health, domestic issues, foriegn policy, budgets, etc are being ignored.

I know gays, bi's and straights.  I think all are entitled to love, and pursue happyness. They are all people.  Why is this president seeking to -remove- rights and privilages from a document that for over 200 years has been a shining example of human freedom?

Because its all he's good for?

Religion and Government should not mix.  His agenda is that of the ultra-conservative religious minority.  For that reason alone, it shouldn't stand.  But for these as well:
- It strengthens the institution, not weakens it by expanding the rights to all those seeking comitment.
- Seperate but equal desn't work.
- Its unconstitutional and unAmerican to discriminate
- There are more important issues to worry about

While this issue becomes the dominant theme of the 2004 election, the rest of the world laughs at us.  Japan wonders what the big deal is...having entire industries that focus on various pairings (guy/guy, girl/girl, alien/animal, etc).  Greece (who gave us a slang term for anal sex, as well as the now 'outed' Alexander the Great) just shakes their head.  And Russia, where greeting your comrade with a kiss is tradition, wonders if they will still be welcome at state dinners.

Let em marry, give them the same benifits as 'straight' couples.  The key here is the term 'couple'.  Define marage as 2 people, comitted to love, honor and charish one another, til death do they part.

I salute the mayor of San Fransisco...he had the balls to do what he swore to do.
Uphold the law.  A law that said "You can't discriminate'.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (Feb 24, 2004)

And to go with the recent replies...The homosexual movement is so much different from the women's Right movement and ammendments. Women were treated unfairly. And why would Gays want to be married? I mean I know all of wanting the legal papers and all, but why? Gays and gay sex is ok for people as long as they don't interfere with getting the government involved? 

Big difference from the women's rights and gay rights. Women's rights was lawful and had Scripture backing it up. What's gays excuse? Oh, we want to be treated equal. Well, unless you try your hardest to change what the whole world over knows as marriage is male and female, husband and wife, even in the dictionary, and reference books and amendments, and governments and such, then you need to seriously rethink this. It's like some large cult or sect wanting to be recognized because of its size and they are fed up as being seen as a cult or sect and want to be a "religion". No, it doesn't make sense. 

And one more thing before I'm finished. Oh, The Bible is ruining your fun? awww.  And also, why does this country seem to have the Scriptures from the Bible plastered all over the Lincoln memorial and all the major historical Landmarks. What, are you going to tear down all the landmarks that make this nation a nation? Also, Washington D.C. would have to go. I mean there is significance in all the U.S. that the Word of God speaks Truth. All Through History. But seriously, what is everyone afraid of? Conviction? Well, when I've said that before, everyone get's all tense and pounce on me. LOL! So I guess it's true. Because they know what Christianity is and they don't want it to ruin their fun. They want to live. They want to live life to it's fullest, no matter what. Oh, don't be prudes, have fun. You only live once, right?...yeah, you only live once. Well, I don't want to waste my life away with nothingness. So, its your decision. But seriously, why so afraid? People just wig out when Christians start saying what's right and wrong, yet when some small whatever says something about right and wrong, they say, oh they are nuts, just ignore them, they'll go away...Heh, yeah, well Christians haven't gone away after all the persecution we've gone through since the beginning, so we must be doing something right, or Someone is out there watching over us and will not let the flame of Christianity go out.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 24, 2004)

Interesting post....just a small note:

Christians have not been around since the beginning of time....Even going off the timeline I learned in my bible study classes, there have been humans running around this here ball-o-mud for longer than the 2030 recorded years since Christs birth. (I get my date from biblical schollars, not the wall calendar, case anyone was wondering.)

Jews are another story...its what? Year 5764?

My own religion pre-dates both by a bit as well....

As to sex.... I believe humans and dolphins are 2 species that can do it for pleasure, not just 'reproduction'.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (Feb 24, 2004)

So, we shouldn't descriminate the Nazi's?...lol...alrighty then. I just see it as the Human rights and freedom is kind of been tampered and has so many holes. When will the demoraliztion stop? When the world comes to an end. And I think that lesbian, gay, and bi is just wrong. So, fine call it descrimination, but I don't seriously think that even Animals of the same sex should hump each other, so why should we. I mean if even Animals, the one's without souls, got it right and run on instinct of instillation rather than the immoral instinct called sin, why shouldn't we run on real instinct and not Calvinism...Oh he was born Gay, or she was born Straight or she was born to go to hell...well then what's the point of living if you know the outcome. Why are Christians here if the map is made and him him, her, him, her go to hell and her, him, him, her got to heaven?...I think that Christianity and spreading the Gospel have no reason with Calvanism. Which is a fake belief made up by so many fallible men. The only True Religion(which I have to use the word religion) is the one made by THE GOD, fallible is man, infallible is God! Calvanism is a feeble attempt to rectify fallible man, which, when man tries to fix something, it usually gets out of the frying pan and into the fire, as we've seen with the world today.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (Feb 24, 2004)

I don't mean Christianity as been around since the dawn of time...it's just that The Israelites were "Christians" before Christ, only with rules too strict. And then they split into two Group...The original Branch became Jews and the other Branch became Christians, which the Jews wanted exterminated. I don't mean that Christianity has been around in the B.C. era...Sorry about that.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 24, 2004)

The concept of mariage as "man & wife" is recent.  In the past, it was to control lines of heritage, domination and government succession.

Not love.   Not God.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 24, 2004)

Doing some digging...found interesting stuff...



> Famous GLB People in History
> You're in Good Company!
> 
> "Within the typical secondary school curriculum,  homosexuals  do not exist.   They are 'nonpersons' in the finest Stalinist sense. They have fought no battles, held no offices, explored nowhere, written no literature, built nothing, invented nothing and solved no equations.  The lesson to the heterosexual student is abundantly clear: homosexuals do nothing of consequence. To the homosexual student, the message has even greater power: no one who has ever felt as you do has done anything worth mentioning."
> ...


 http://www.lambda.org/famous.htm


_The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision. ~ Lynn Lavner_


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 24, 2004)

ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> Well, first off, I'd like to ask a Question, which I will leave open, yet give my opinion...you say that Church and State should be separate, but why? I mean if America were not founded by such great, Christian Men and Women, then where would we be? Without the morals laid down by our founding fathers, we'd be somewhere between England and the Phillipines. Last time I checked, the phillipines was not the nicest place to be. Nearly everybody carries at least one knife there, and it's pretty much guerilla and such, aside from the assasinations of people who tick others off and this goes on every day over there. But America: Well, I can't say its too much different other than if you get caught, you get busted big time. And we aren't allowed legally to carry Butterfly knives(balisong) around in alot of states, heck plenty of states have rules to the size and such.


The Pilgrims were puritans and religious fundamentalists. (1620)

Those in Jamestown Virginia were business men. (1609)

The PI is not a walking talking gun fight. In the Southern Islands were there is a strong Islamic presence, there is support for anti-american actions including kidnapping and terroist acts.

And what does, the PI have to do with laws and rights in the U.S.A.?



			
				ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> Another issue that bothers me that a few of you brought up is this: Christianity and Catholicism is not the same thing! They believe that you can't talk to God if you have done sins and you have to go to confessional to ask for forgiveness, then, as I've seen with plenty of people I know from Catholic churches, they go out and party, be promiscuous and such, then go back and ask for forgiveness. What the heck is the dividing line between the world and a large majority of Catholics? But then again, Christians basically can do the same thing, but the difference is, a true Faithful Christian will try to turn away from the sin and drive on a straighter path. And for those of you who call Christians bigots and fundamentalists...I don't think you have a right to call us that. First off, do you seriously look into it or just say, "well, they look like religious whackos like my grandma used to be"? I mean, Christianity seriously isn't just chanting and junk and isn't just reading God's Word and just sitting around acting austere and all. Not at all. Heck, Catholic monks do that, aside from constantly reading the Bible.


Catholics are Christians. Christians is the larger group. Catholics is a sub-sect. Such as Baptist.



			
				ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> Another issue: you say they were just catholics and fundamentalists that came over from the European continent? Hmmm, then where do I fit in? I mean, some people seriously just think Catholics and Christians are the same thing. First off, I do not go to Mass and read from some manuscript over and over and over. Then, I don't believe that the Fear of God is the thing that should greatly govern my life. It's the Love of God. Not Fear. Sure there is the Fear of God, but God Love's us like a father. 'Nuff Said.


Your religious beliefs are yours. You are not only allowed to ahve them they are protected. You can believe in them all you want and not be discriminated against.



			
				ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> Anyways, getting onto the subject topic: You think that bigots just made this Bible and put in junk that would make it unfair for people to live out their sexual fantasies, which, in my mind, is sick to be, umm, yeah, a guy. Since I'm a guy, I'd rather not be doing that with a guy. It's just totally sick and wrong. Why do you think everything "fits", aside from your "butt" stuff. Yuck. And along with that, why would you have that kind of sex. I mean Abstinance is the way, so is that what you just want to get away with? Have second rate and not get preg or anything? STDs are still transmitted that way. Even people who have never had sex get diseases that way due to the fact that fecal matter has disease and rots. Why risk such a thing as that aside from the other ways? I mean the safest way, well, is abstenance. Why risk it, get married and still go through the fact that you could get STDs?


Abstenance is the best and safest way. 
Did you know that in countries where sex education and the human body is not a taboo, the rate of people being virgins at 16 his higher then the U.S.A. Did you know it is also the higher for those getting married as adults. It is not forbidden fruit.

The practice has been around for eons. The birth place of Christianity was ripe with it. It was natural back then. Rules / laws were created to help better society.

Let me ask you do wear clothes of blended materials?
Do you beat your wife?




			
				ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> And back to the church and state issue. Evolution. Not getting into how wrong it is and I don't want this topic swayed to that, but that's a belief in itself. Why do Christian kids in Public School have to learn it? I mean why can't we learn Creationism? The junk that is in those books are balony, yet it's a belief that is pressed on everyone, whether they believe it or not. It's like taking some sort of create-your-own-religion-that's-not-real-system. And that's Separation of Church and State. uh-huh. Sure it is. And you people want to believe that we came from some stupid little amoeba? Bah. What are the chances that all thos amoebas could possibly evolve into a being every time? 1 in in a googleplex(a 1 with 100 zeroes after it). Even more than that. Heck 1 in an infinity. And banning Prayer from school? What is everyone so afraid of? Oh are Christians going to blow up the schools planning in prayer?


Prayer in school. You say a prayer, yet the Catholics require a Father present for it to mean anythign, and is an insult to them. It is an insult to the Buddist and the Muslims and to ..., . Do we allow a prayer for each religion and its different sects? You would need the whole school week just to get through the first prayer to cover the complete list.

As to creationism, well that has been discussed elsewhere search for it.



			
				ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> So, what you people want is not a structured government, but a I want it my way government and I wish that they would cater to the people, but only if it fits my needs, or makes everybody happy. The government isn't some system that gives people their every want and desire. Sex is a gift from God, but humankind has made it a joke. On TV, Magazines, movies, etc.


God? Which one? Dagda? You believe it is a gift. Good for you. Others do not, and have the right to believe different then you do.

As to the government for only me. I do not think so. What is best for society. That is the roll of Government. Society as a whole decides what is ethical. We as individuals pull from our values to decide what is ethical. Those values may be influenced by religious morals. Yet, to have it be that I must pay homage to your god, then I have a problem. Your god is not my god. End of the story. The government needs to do its best to meet the needs of the people. This is done through representation, and by elections to gain teh voice of the people.

As to creationism in school, you have the right to put your child into a private school that teachs the beliefs you wish. And is I remember this properly, it is a couple of weeks in the 6th ot 7th grade and again in the 10th grade for a couple of weeks. As opposesd to being forced every day to listen to someone pray and insult me and my religion by their actions.



			
				ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> The biggest issue here is that everyone is born into the world with the view that there are 4 sexes basically. Heterosexual male, heterosexual female, homsexual male, and lesbian. Well, back 50 years ago people never publicized gays. Heck, the words gay and queer meant cool words. Gay meant happy. Queer meant strange and unusual. I liked the word queer when I first heard it, and then my mom told me what it meant and I was like, man that sucks. And it's funny that gays remind me of a sect or cult. They act like they have been persecuted and such and then they go an bash the Christians for saying things against them. And then they go and get more help when nobody will go along with them and bash the Christians. Man, that's pathetic.


And it is pathetic that Christians throw the first stone and or beat or discriminate against those that are different from them. Like burning witches for the simple fact that they had a cat and knew what hebs would help heal common ailments. Yet, the Christians of this country went on witch hunts.

The Christians of this country burned crosses into the free black mans yards to intimidate them to leave. The christians of this country bought and sold slaves and kept indentured servents.


Gay still means happy.

Queer still means strange or a little different. They have slang terms as well.
Did you know in Quebec, LaCross is slang for sex. The new Buick LaCross was almost renamed just for that fact.

Homosexuals were discriminated against in this country by the religious fundamentalists.



			
				ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> Christians have been around since the beginning of time, and we are here to stay. God is on our side, and we don't have to worry about the flame leaving this earth. But homosexual lifestyle. It will only lead to more acts of demoralization. This world gets worse and worse. I love being a Christian and wouldn't change knowing Christ as my personal LORD AND SAVIOUR! I can't see through the fog of evil in this world without the LIGHT. I can't say too much more, because it looks like rambling. People will always think of others who think differently as bigots. But I like to think of those who are thought of as bigots and not Christians as lost and wide open to the Love of God.


Beginning of time was before the time of Christ. Unless of course you mean in spirit? yet, then there were no followers to be called Christians.

God is on your side? I thought he was on my side. Want to know why I know he is on my side. I hit harder then most people. That menas I can prove that God is on my side. Because I can intimidate you into saying that My God is the God.

Acts of Demoralization, such as mass massacres in the crusades? Such as today by byuing radio time to flood the air waves of the Mid East telling all the Jews and Muslims that they are heathens and going to hell. That the only way is their Christian Way. Yet, there are mutliple radio stations with different messages. No wonder why they hate us for threatening their culture. We cannot even keep it here in our country, peopel give money from this country for these acts. Talk about demoralization.


I am glad that you have found your Light and your God. Now just let me and others live our own lives with out you telling us why we are wrong.

I have found my own Light. I have also found my own inner peace.

Just so you know, I was raised 7th Day Adventists. My grandmother told me I was not allowed to go to church anymore. I also could not beleive in God. Why? Because I knew too much about Atoms and Quarks and  Chemistry and Science. There is no way for anyone to know God and to know science both. Yet teh beauty of faith based religons you make your belief, with out proof. Hence Faith. Yet, when people are so closed minded, not to open allow growth or change, I have a problem.

Oh Yeah I am a Hetro Sexual Male, who appreciates the beauty of the Female body. I just not insist that my way is the only way. I understand that I may not know they mind of God. I may nto know the creators plans. Therefore I will not judge those for being different from me. I applaud it for a chance to learn and to grow.

:asian:


----------



## ShaolinWolf (Feb 24, 2004)

Oh, but you have solely missed the point. I don't mean it as that its to be pressured on you. It's your Choice...Heaven or Hell...I made my choice. And just to say one thing. Not all the Pilgrims were fundamentalists...and seriously what is your version of a fundamentalist? I've heard many that don't make alot of sense...


Also, did I say that my God is on my side under another category...and don't go putting words into my mouth that I didn't say. I said I'm a Christian. Wow, then I must worship Buddha*sarcastic* or Dagda. Now that was a profound statement. No, Christians(Me) worship Christ, hence the name Christians...and the True Catholic Church calls itself Christian, but how far? Do they accept Christ as their PERSONAL Lord and Saviour? or do they just say stuff...yeah, I thought so... And the truth about Christianity is the fact that Jesus Christ is the common denominator and that those who accept him as personal Lord and Saviour and believe that they have sinned and ask for forgiveness and acknowledge that Christ Died for them is the main part.

Yeah, it's my personal Beliefs, but why not just accept that I stated everything...how can I push my beliefs on you if this is on the internet and I state that I believe in this or that. Yo can just ignore it. And, hmmm...I think your pushing your personal beliefs on me now, huh?...nah...your just berating me by pushing your personal beliefs on...whoops that's the same thing, huh?...yeah, I thought so...

Fallible is man, yet infallible is the Lord Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth.
I don't care what your "religion" is as long as you have the common denominator and acknowledge this God. Otherwise, our "religions" will conflict and it will be an ongoing debate and arguement that will last til the end of time...and to go with the comment a few posts back...will I be ready for the holocaust? Hmmm...I'm ready, I'm set, I die, I go home sooner...What about you?


----------



## ShaolinWolf (Feb 24, 2004)

And also, I know some of the Creator's plans...I mean duh, what's the Bible for? He said this and that...I just stated it...I mean, I'm not descriminating...just saying the truth and if you get convicted and take up your sword and rally, go ahead...But you say you don't know the Creator's plans. Well, the Word clearly states what's right and wrong, you just gotta read it. And don't skip parts, otherwise you'll only get it wrong. It clearly states that Homosexual is wrong and Heterosexual is Right....And right now I'm thinking this topic is going to stay heated...no wonder they locked it before...LOL




Also side note: you said homage is to my God is not your god...well I never said pay homage or anything of the sort, did I? Again, don't put words in my mouth that I didn't type...and don't misinterpret while reading in between the lines...

Also...you said gay and queer mean the same thing now as they did then along side the slang...ummm no...they don't...you say those words in a room full of people and I guarantee they will react with the thoughts of homosexual...I GUARANTEE IT...and the LaCrosse thing...ummm, it's an accepted and official sport...so it doesn't matter what it means, people are playing it at this very moment...doesn't matter what it means in Canada...that's Canada, not America...Language barrier...


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 25, 2004)

I want to thank, "Shaolin Wolf," for stating his (funny how it's mostly guys who get all hot and bothered about gay people, isn't it?) "case," in a way that perfectly demonstrates precisely why the Government has no business whatsoever deciding who may and may not get married. But hey, to heck with that wacky Constitution and those silly guarantees of religious freedom.

Loved the all-too-typical bit about how Catholics aren't real Christians, too. 

Congratulations on a complete violation of the best traditions of American religious tolerance as handed down from Roger Williams, Anne Hutchinson, the Quakers, Jefferson (who happened to be a Deist...look it up) and the rest, Emerson and all those guys, Dorothy Day, and so many others....congrats.

Give me Mark Twain's religious vision and moral code any day...and three slaps with a wet copy of, "Extract From Captain Stormfield's Visit to Heaven."


----------



## OULobo (Feb 25, 2004)

I think that Mr. Wolf needs to update and re-examine his facts and possibly then his opinions on the Roman, or any for that matter, Catholic Church. Some statements he has made have been off-base, naive, or assumptive. If Catholics are fundamentalists, then how can you blame us for going out and having a good time.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 25, 2004)

Does anyone else find it totally scary that the United States of America seems to be on the path of becoming a 'Fundamentalist' society? After the president's announcement yesterday, and reading ShoalinWolf's comments ... I see my beloved country becoming a place where 'Christian Fundamentalist Terrorists' can take root and force their beliefs on to society.

It calls to mind a famous phrase:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Or maybe it's just me - Mike


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 25, 2004)

Last I checked, there were somewhere in the neighborhood of 500+ gods/godesses listed.  How do we know which is the right one? 

As to references against homosexuality in the Christian Bible, considering the discrepencies between printings, versions and translations, can someone provide references?  I also have to ask if these references are in the "Official" editions (4 gospel versions), or also found in the other gospels recently discovered? (ala gospel of mary.)


The constitution is a document that except for 1 repealed instance grants rights and privilages.  The concept of "Marrage" as has been argued is a religious one, and therefore doesnot belong defined in the constitution.  The fact that many of the founders were christian is valid....as is the fact that many were not. -They- in their wisdom wrote in the seperation of Church/State so that abuses such as this demand by GWB would not stand.

Sometimes, I think they were more enlightened back then....I'd move, but theres the joint problems of the space/time continuum...oh year, and that being burned as a witch thing.....


----------



## ShaolinWolf (Feb 25, 2004)

I didn't mean that I don't know that some catholics are Christians...and Being a Christian means accepting Christ as PErsonal Lord and Saviour...geez...you people keep issing stuff...and also,I know that THe God, the Creator, Maker of Heaven and Earth is the true God. He answers prayers and is Faithful. 
but...catholics have it wrong sometimes too...

And I want to thank "rmcrobertson" and "OULobo" for being assumptive also. Again people love putting words in the mouths of others so they look good. Also, What is your definition of a good time, Lobo? You just said good time, so that can mean alot of things. And what do you want, freedom to do whatever you want int this country. I think you both have demostrated wha it takes to ovethrow the government and make it communist...lol...


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 25, 2004)

ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> Oh, but you have solely missed the point. I don't mean it as that its to be pressured on you. It's your Choice...Heaven or Hell...I made my choice. And just to say one thing. Not all the Pilgrims were fundamentalists...and seriously what is your version of a fundamentalist? I've heard many that don't make alot of sense...
> 
> 
> Also, did I say that my God is on my side under another category...and don't go putting words into my mouth that I didn't say. I said I'm a Christian. Wow, then I must worship Buddha*sarcastic* or Dagda. Now that was a profound statement. No, Christians(Me) worship Christ, hence the name Christians...and the True Catholic Church calls itself Christian, but how far? Do they accept Christ as their PERSONAL Lord and Saviour? or do they just say stuff...yeah, I thought so... And the truth about Christianity is the fact that Jesus Christ is the common denominator and that those who accept him as personal Lord and Saviour and believe that they have sinned and ask for forgiveness and acknowledge that Christ Died for them is the main part.
> ...


Wolf,

I am glad you have found God.

I am glad you can present your opinions here.

You present them in the manner that only you are correct. Comments like
"God is on my side" and " It's your Choice...Heaven or Hell...I made my choice." and "or do they just say stuff...yeah, I thought so".

You have passed judgement on me without know me. Not very Christian in my book.

You see, God is on My side also. And since be both believe maybe we should go to war and kill each other and our families. Now that would be a real way to honor you beliefs.


"I think your pushing your personal beliefs on me now, huh?...nah...your just berating me by pushing your personal beliefs on...whoops that's the same thing, huh?...yeah, I thought so..."

So, it is ok for you to pushs your beliefs on me and to pass judegment on me and to tell me i am going to Hell. And the God is not on my side but yours? And I am the one forcing my beliefs on you?

No, I asked you not to insist that your beliefs be mine. To not present your beliefs, this way, if you do not wish to get replies. There are much more humble and Christian ways to present you belief without insulting me and everyone else who does not attend your church.

That is all I was saying. Think before you pass judgement on me and others?

As to living my life. I try not to pass judgement. I live my life, and give money to friends and family when they are in need. I do not expect repayment. I could have much more material items, if I was more greedy and did not give it away. Yet, I going to hell because I do not bow down on the same knee as you, and I do not say the same phrase as you. I live my life the best I can. I do not practice religion, for I find it to be very hypocritical, in my opinion.

Like I said, I am glad you are happy. I am glad you have been able to find your guiding light. Live your life. Enjoy it with out condemning me for being a hetrosexual male who abstains and not passing judegement on others? I let the creator or God or Jesus do that. I am too busy just trying to be me.


As to being in a state of Grace. I will let the power to be determine of that is the case. I will not be arrogant and make the statment that I am in a state o grace based upon some ceremony or based upon the word of some other human. I live my life the way I do. And in the end I will see if it was good enough to ascend.


With Respect


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 25, 2004)

ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> And also, I know some of the Creator's plans...I mean duh, what's the Bible for? He said this and that...I just stated it...I mean, I'm not descriminating...just saying the truth and if you get convicted and take up your sword and rally, go ahead...But you say you don't know the Creator's plans. Well, the Word clearly states what's right and wrong, you just gotta read it. And don't skip parts, otherwise you'll only get it wrong. It clearly states that Homosexual is wrong and Heterosexual is Right....And right now I'm thinking this topic is going to stay heated...no wonder they locked it before...LOL


Which version of the Bible? The actual hand written scrolls? The King James version that was prayed upon in the 16th century and became the new bases
for the English Language?

Do you eat meat on Friday? This is a sin. Do you fast compeltely on the Sabbath? That being from Friday at Sunset to Saturday on Sunset? This is a
sin not to fast. It is alos a sin to work. This is in the bible as well. Do you practice the whole bible or only the parts you want?

"I mean, I'm not descriminating...just saying the truth and if you get convicted and take up your sword and rally, go ahead."

You have passed judement on me again. You do not know the path I have walked nor the path I am walking. You do not know the numbers of Ministers I count as friends? You know nothing, ok very little, about me and yet you can stand back and state you are right and I am wrong. Please, do not pass judgement on me. Do not preach to me about you knowing and I do not.

Please quote me the Chapter and Verse where Homosexuality is incorrect?
Also read the rest of the page. I want to know wat you are quoting so we can review it and discuss it. Thank You



			
				ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> Also side note: you said homage is to my God is not your god...well I never said pay homage or anything of the sort, did I? Again, don't put words in my mouth that I didn't type...and don't misinterpret while reading in between the lines...
> 
> Also...you said gay and queer mean the same thing now as they did then along side the slang...ummm no...they don't...you say those words in a room full of people and I guarantee they will react with the thoughts of homosexual...I GUARANTEE IT...and the LaCrosse thing...ummm, it's an accepted and official sport...so it doesn't matter what it means, people are playing it at this very moment...doesn't matter what it means in Canada...that's Canada, not America...Language barrier...


Ok so Canada is different then that proves you have not point wiht the PI and England?

America is America. You are making judegements, and by making those judegements you are stating that the only way is to do it your way, or to pay homage to your God. Logic My Friend. No matter if you said it or not. This is what follows from your points.

Also words change over time. They always have. Nimrod today is a negative, yet, he was a great hunter who provided for his family.


----------



## MisterMike (Feb 25, 2004)

What gets me is that people come crawling out of the woodwork calling Christians Bible Thumpers, Pimitives, Fundamentalists, and hypocrites.

Just shows the level of ignorance, hatred towards Christians which is rarely publicized, and overall downward trend in society, even on this board which is representative of the "good 'ol" martial arts practitioners/teachers.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 25, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Does anyone else find it totally scary that the United States of America seems to be on the path of becoming a 'Fundamentalist' society? After the president's announcement yesterday, and reading ShoalinWolf's comments ... I see my beloved country becoming a place where 'Christian Fundamentalist Terrorists' can take root and force their beliefs on to society.
> 
> It calls to mind a famous phrase:
> 
> ...


Mike,

Well the problem is that we have a revolution coming this fall. It may be bloodless and unlike other countries, Yet it still is a revolution. I wish everyone would get out and vote. I know I have skills and can go to other countries if needed. If this country that my family as has been in for 383 years not including the American Indian heritage, I would be willing to leave. Maybe Canada, or NZ or Austrialia? Oh Well, I try not to make politcal issues religious issues. Yet, when the poloticians make it their campaign you have no choice.

Thank You


----------



## MisterMike (Feb 25, 2004)

OK..and now for a little Evangelism.

I'd like anyone instersted to get the book "The Purpose Driven Life." It made the NYT's best seller list - yes, imagine that, a secular book list.

It is very well written and an easy read, with lots of Scripture passages to go with the explanations in the book. Do a little reading before coming up here and tearing into Christianity before you know anything about it.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 25, 2004)

Interesting points Mike....which I have some agreement with.

I've known several "Born Again" Christians.
1 hated heavy metal.
1 loved it
1 prefered country

1 couldn't stand porn
1 had the best lesbian collection I ever saw
1 recently decided he didn't need it, gave it all to me.  (Ebay time?) 

1 preached against violence...then joined the air force
1 preached against war...plays alot of war games.

We all have our contradictions, etc.  We're all human, with the flaws that our creator (be it mom n dad, god, or some germs that said "today, lets be blond") installed in us.

Not all Xians are frothing at the mouth, thumpies.  Not all Homosexuals are hair dressers in purple pants.  

I know alot of both, am glad to call them my friends, and wish to see them all happy.

If any 2 people are that commited to one another, that they want to ensure they are taken care of and protected, then who am I to prevent that?  Because a book that has been mis-translated repeatedly over the centuries says so?  Not good enough.

Allowing gays to marry only strengthens the idea of marrage, as it allows them to make that commitment, and truely "Love Honor and Cherish Til Death do Us Part".

What is wrong with loving someone, wanting to spend your life with them, and ensure that when you die, they are looked out for?

I thought the Christian Faith was about Love.... not all this hate.
Was I wrong?


----------



## MisterMike (Feb 25, 2004)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Mike,
> 
> Well the problem is that we have a revolution coming this fall. It may be bloodless and unlike other countries, Yet it still is a revolution. I wish everyone would get out and vote. I know I have skills and can go to other countries if needed. If this country that my family as has been in for 383 years not including the American Indian heritage, I would be willing to leave. Maybe Canada, or NZ or Austrialia? Oh Well, I try not to make politcal issues religious issues. Yet, when the poloticians make it their campaign you have no choice.
> 
> Thank You



Well if we decided to leave the country for every president we didn't like, there'd be no-one left 

Every 4 to 8 years we are going to have someone different. They could have their morals grounded in the different religions, but they are never going to please everyone.

The thing is, it is not just Christians and religious people against these gay marriage decisions. It violates our American family traditions and all practical thought and definitions of the family unit.

I think our elected President is concerned for the preservation of family because the chances of bringing up children properly depends on it. A whole home with a Mommy and a Daddy have a lot more in their favor when it comes time to raise children. I'm not saying there are no cases to the contrary but the divorce rate is up and the grades are going down.

Oh, marriages based out of Christianity have a higher success rate. Just wanted to plug that


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 25, 2004)

Just a short background on me:
I spent 4 years in High School in BAC level bible studies.
Have read several different versions of the bible cover to cover, in depth.
Was a star student in my sunday school classes as a youth.
Spent several years hanging out with, and attending seminars, services and missions with a local church.
Also, I shared an apartment with 1 of the gents I mentioned before for 2 years.
I am not now, nor have I been a christian for some time. Why? I found a path that works for me. 
I still value my christian friends, and we have some -interesting- debates.

I believe that we all have the capacity to love, if allowed, regardless of race, creed, or preference.

I also believe that we are all entitled to believe what we believe, regardless of the wrongness -OR- rightness of it.  

End of sermon.
Peace.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 25, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> What gets me is that people come crawling out of the woodwork calling Christians Bible Thumpers, Pimitives, Fundamentalists, and hypocrites.
> 
> Just shows the level of ignorance, hatred towards Christians which is rarely publicized, and overall downward trend in society, even on this board which is representative of the "good 'ol" martial arts practitioners/teachers.


Mike,

I apologize if I have insulted you. That was not my intent. My intent was to point out that many people use religion to hide behind, and they do not follow the religion, they follow the parts that convient for them, or fit their already established beliefs or bigotry. Yes harsh words. Yet, when people tell me I am going to hell because I do not do what they do, then I take exception. You have presented so far a very nice point of view. You have no insulted me or others as far as I know. So, once again if I have insulted you , I do Apologize. It was not my intent. I know the impact is what counts not the intent. Hence my apology and the the posts directed at the poster, not at Christianity as a whole or a sub-sect as a whole.

With Respect
:asian:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 25, 2004)

Mike,
  Marrages based on deeply held beliefs tend to succeed more than the 'of convenience' types that occur too commonly today. Its not just the Christians, however they make up the majority so have better stats.  That success rate also occurs in business...more businesses founded on a solid spiritual background succeed than those of 'less spiritual nature'. (Sorry, lost my train of thought there.)

Off topic, you ever read Og Mandino's works?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 25, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Well if we decided to leave the country for every president we didn't like, there'd be no-one left
> 
> Every 4 to 8 years we are going to have someone different. They could have their morals grounded in the different religions, but they are never going to please everyone.
> 
> ...


 
Mike,

The number of Traditional Families I know are very few. Married and divorced. kids from previous marriages and no marriage just from relationships. 

Also Traditional Families had multiple generations living in the same house, all working on the same piece of land. I know we ave made progress in technology and the family unit has gotten smallr do in part to standard of living increasing, and people not required to live together to get by.

Could you point to some states on the Christian Marriages? I like to read up on that and learn. 
Thank You


----------



## MisterMike (Feb 25, 2004)

I think you are right Kaith. They are not about hate. There is no hate thy neighbor verse.

I wish it wouldn't have to come to the passing of a constitutional ammendment to define marriage. States should do as they see fit. But there is also no reason the same thing couldn't be passed on marrying your sister/brother. Where do you draw the line and why is nobody is going to get hurt?

My thought is that our laws are based out of religion and now people are putting to the test whether we can uphold them that way.

I wait for the future  Things may not go the way everyone wants, but to pick "teams" and rub the other side's faces in it..well...I guess that's politics.


----------



## MisterMike (Feb 25, 2004)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Mike,
> 
> I apologize if I have insulted you. That was not my intent. My intent was to point out that many people use religion to hide behind, and they do not follow the religion, they follow the parts that convient for them, or fit their already established beliefs or bigotry. Yes harsh words. Yet, when people tell me I am going to hell because I do not do what they do, then I take exception. You have presented so far a very nice point of view. You have no insulted me or others as far as I know. So, once again if I have insulted you , I do Apologize. It was not my intent. I know the impact is what counts not the intent. Hence my apology and the the posts directed at the poster, not at Christianity as a whole or a sub-sect as a whole.
> 
> ...




No, Rich you haven't. I see people saying "religious" things that I take offense too as well. I think your posts are beneficial in helping us to realize that we have to get to the root of the matter. And I think that matter is in one of my previous posts just a few minutes ago (do we disregard that our laws and morals were based on religous beliefs and how do we deal with it today). Anyways, glad to have you on here.  :asian:


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 25, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> . . . It is very well written and an easy read, with lots of Scripture passages to go with the explanations in the book. Do a little reading before coming up here and tearing into Christianity before you know anything about it.


Mister Mike ... at the age of 17, I became a born-again christian, by accepting Jesus Christ as my personal lord and savior. I have been a member of the Full Gospel Businessman's Associate, and an evangelical Christian music ministry. I do understand quite a bit about Christiantity.

I am now 39 years old, a recovering alcoholic (which suggests a belief in a Power Greater than the self) and an athiest.

However, what my personal beliefs are irrelevant to what I think is good for the country. This country was founded on several beliefs and principles, and we could enumerate them ad nauseum, but three of them are:

Opportunity: Each of us is entitle to the chance to work and to succeed on our own merits, regardless of birth or background.
Liberty: Each of us has the right to choose our own path in the world, as long as we do no harm to our fellow citizens; the right to believe what we want to believe, and say so; the right to worship any god, or no god; the right to feel safe in our own neighborhood or any other.
Responsibility: Each of us has the obligation to work if we can; to care for our children, and for our parents when the time comes; the obligation to obey the law, pay our bills, pay our taxes, pull our own weight.

When a person states (as ShoalinWolf has) that the school system teaching evolution is wrong, that we can not have evolved from an amoeba, that is a FUNDAMENTALIST belief; a literal translation of the bible, a dis-regard for any critical thinking. 

That is exactly the type of thought process that has been ascribed to the 19 hi-jackers on September 11. That is exactly the type of thought process that has been ascribed to the 'suicide-bombers' in Israel and Baghdad.

And for the very thoughtful among us, that same fundamentalist belief that has caused the current administration to disregard science in almost every policy decision, from stem cell research, to arsenic safety levels in water, to clean air, to the decommissioning of the hubble space telescope. 

Thanks - Mike


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 25, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> But there is also no reason the same thing couldn't be passed on marrying your sister/brother. Where do you draw the line and why is nobody is going to get hurt?


Actually, there was a time when it was common for people of power to take their siblings as their spouse. It consolidated power and property in the family. It was not uncommon for royalty in europe to marry within the family. I think the practice also goes back as far as the Roman empire & the Egyptian empire.

But there is a very good reason to not marry your sibling. Genetic diversity. The term is called inbreeding. At a single generation, there is relatively little chance for danger, however, in a multi-generational inbred situation, the health risks increase quickly. This basic genetic science is not difficult to understand and / or observe. 

If you observe dog breeding practices in the pure-bred dog world, you can see many instances of health problems caused by inbreeding. Hip dysplasia, cateract, and cancer are common in some breeds, due to inbreeding. So, adopt a mutt.

For those who choose to see .....     Thanks - Mike


----------



## MisterMike (Feb 25, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> When a person states (as ShoalinWolf has) that the school system teaching evolution is wrong, that we can not have evolved from an amoeba, that is a FUNDAMENTALIST belief; a literal translation of the bible, a dis-regard for any critical thinking.
> 
> That is exactly the type of thought process that has been ascribed to the 19 hi-jackers on September 11. That is exactly the type of thought process that has been ascribed to the 'suicide-bombers' in Israel and Baghdad.
> 
> ...




I'm with you up to this point but I think ShaolinWolf would be better to defend his point of view than I am, after all, it's his. I can kind of see his point since the theory of evolution could have holes shot through it unitl it looked like Swiss cheese but we've been down that thread before.

The main difference I see between the "Fundamentalists" as people put it is that the Islamists are trying to KILL us. Seems the religion of peace is not all it's cracked up to be?? OR, extremists are the problem, no matter what the topic.

Case in point: Laura Ingraham had a gay caller on the air the other night who said she thought it was a bad idea for the "flaming homosexuals" to be pushing this agenda. It gives a worse image for the group who if they really just want to be equal, should just live quietly like the rest of us straight folk.

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, ok 99.9999% of the time, but just because Merriam Webster wants to change it, well, maybe I should come up with MY own dictionary too.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 25, 2004)

I checked a bit... in the US, laws have been passed that prohibit inter-family relations.  I only peeked, so may be a bit off on the exact limits (which may vary for different areas) but I couldn't marry my sister, but could marry my 3rd cousin.
Again, the genetic issues were cited as the reasoning, not the "ewww" factor.

Marrages between relations was used to cement alliances, seal treaties, and extend dynasties since before teh Roman times.
Many Egyptian kings were married to their sisters.  (King Tut I think was one)
The English Royal Family is a modern example of the practice, to a limited extent. (cousins)


----------



## OULobo (Feb 25, 2004)

ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> And I want to thank "rmcrobertson" and "OULobo" for being assumptive also. Again people love putting words in the mouths of others so they look good. Also, What is your definition of a good time, Lobo? You just said good time, so that can mean alot of things. And what do you want, freedom to do whatever you want int this country. I think you both have demostrated wha it takes to ovethrow the government and make it communist...lol...



I made no assumptions, just pointed out that your comments on Catholics were basically wrong. I have many definitions of a good time and some of them are not what you would call a good time, but I am secure in my belief that God is understanding in my reasons for doing them. Now as to the statements you made:



			
				ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> Another issue that bothers me that a few of you brought up is this: Christianity and Catholicism is not the same thing! They believe that you can't talk to God if you have done sins and you have to go to confessional to ask for forgiveness, then, as I've seen with plenty of people I know from Catholic churches, they go out and party, be promiscuous and such, then go back and ask for forgiveness. What the heck is the dividing line between the world and a large majority of Catholics? But then again, Christians basically can do the same thing, but the difference is, a true Faithful Christian will try to turn away from the sin and drive on a straighter path. And for those of you who call Christians bigots and fundamentalists...I don't think you have a right to call us that. First off, do you seriously look into it or just say, "well, they look like religious whackos like my grandma used to be"? I mean, Christianity seriously isn't just chanting and junk and isn't just reading God's Word and just sitting around acting austere and all. Not at all. Heck, Catholic monks do that, aside from constantly reading the Bible.



As has been stated, all Catholics are christians (thought the inverse is not necessarily true) and one of the oldest forms of christianity and by far the largest. Secondly, I believe you are refering to the Roman Catholic church, which is not the only catholic church, and as such you should be a little more specific. Catholics don't believe that you "can't talk to God if you have done sins", only that you will be barred from salvation unless those sins are absolved. Not all Catholics (just like not all christians) "go out and party, be promiscuous and such, then go back and ask for forgiveness". That is a blanket statment that could be applied to many people, not just Catholics. Not all Catholic monks are "sitting around acting austere and all", many don't even live in a monestary or wear the robes of an order. 




			
				ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> Another issue: you say they were just catholics and fundamentalists that came over from the European continent? Hmmm, then where do I fit in? I mean, some people seriously just think Catholics and Christians are the same thing. First off, I do not go to Mass and read from some manuscript over and over and over. Then, I don't believe that the Fear of God is the thing that should greatly govern my life. It's the Love of God. Not Fear. Sure there is the Fear of God, but God Love's us like a father. 'Nuff Said.



If you go to a service and read from the bible then you are really doing the same thing a Catholic does when he goes "to Mass and read from some manuscript over and over and over." There are only so many words in the bible to read, when you're done, most Christians start over somewhere. Catholics haven't based their faith on fear of God in a very long time. The belief is based on letting the grace of God and the word of God (through Jesus) govern the choices in life so that we may please God.



			
				ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> Also, did I say that my God is on my side under another category...and don't go putting words into my mouth that I didn't say. I said I'm a Christian. Wow, then I must worship Buddha*sarcastic* or Dagda. Now that was a profound statement. No, Christians(Me) worship Christ, hence the name Christians...and the True Catholic Church calls itself Christian, but how far? Do they accept Christ as their PERSONAL Lord and Saviour? or do they just say stuff...yeah, I thought so... And the truth about Christianity is the fact that Jesus Christ is the common denominator and that those who accept him as personal Lord and Saviour and believe that they have sinned and ask for forgiveness and acknowledge that Christ Died for them is the main part.



Umm. . .which Catholic church is the "True" one? If you are describing christianity by "Jesus Christ is the common denominator and that those who accept him as personal Lord and Saviour and believe that they have sinned and ask for forgiveness and acknowledge that Christ Died for them " then I'd say that Catholics do this all and choose to do more. To say that these things are not in the most basic laws of Catholicism show that you are indeed misinformed about that faith.


----------



## MisterMike (Feb 25, 2004)

OK so it has been banned in some states since it has been deemed "unsafe" for genetic reasons. (I kind of wonder if that wasn't in God's plan but anyhow...)

Let's go on to sayyyyy...3 men. Can 3 men get married? How about 2 women and one man? Where did this magic number of 2 come from and WHY are we STILL using it???

Maybe we can remove every aspect of what marriage is until it is completely unrecognizeable.

 :idunno: 

Call me crazy...


----------



## OULobo (Feb 25, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> I checked a bit... in the US, laws have been passed that prohibit inter-family relations.  I only peeked, so may be a bit off on the exact limits (which may vary for different areas) but I couldn't marry my sister, but could marry my 3rd cousin.
> Again, the genetic issues were cited as the reasoning, not the "ewww" factor.
> 
> Marrages between relations was used to cement alliances, seal treaties, and extend dynasties since before teh Roman times.
> ...




I read recently that first cousins have been give a scientific (read genetic) okay.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 25, 2004)

I am giving myself a vacation from argument, and just proferring a few random remarks.

1. If you're discussing your faith in Christ, your church attandance, your ideas about the afterlife, your concepts of civil society, you're doing what C.S. Lewis or Emerson or de Chardin or Bunyan did. If you spout bigotry about Catholics not being Christians, if you start demanding that everybody live by your narrow little version of God, if you distort history, if you start announcing who gets to go to heaven, and if you constantly advert to the Bible to justify this sort of nonsense, you're a Bible-thumper in my book. 

2. No justification of hate? Uh...anybody read the Old Testament lately?

3. Regrettably, there is a tradition of religious bigotry in the United States. Some may be comfortable, allying themselves with, say, the Puritan persecution of witches and women and Catholics and Baptists, or the ongoing, religion-based hatred of Jews all too visible in the Nation of Islam, or those wacko neo-Nazi, "Jesus was pure Aryan," types, but I am not.

4. Hey, I've got a nifty idea. Let's guarantee the rights of immature children to get married and have kids, let's enshrine the charming doctrine that women (like children) need to be shepherded by a Strong Man, let's be sure that real men have the right to get married, attend church, and behave like utter hypocrites. Let's let dads and moms sink or swim in a hostile market. Let's set things up, economically speaking, so that eeverybody has to work all the time and kinds gets zip, then turn around and blame women for everything. Just no gay marriage; that would Attack The Family. 

5. Much of the attacks on gay people and whoever else come from peoplee who are angry and frustrated about what has happened to their lives, or at least their sense of their lives, and who are for ideological reasons utterly unable to confront the extent to which it is the Holy Marketplace Of Capital (which, as Marx corrrectly noted, causes, "everything that is solid to melt into air") that "caused," their problems.

6. Were there any gay people in the Texas or Alabama ANG? That why Hizzoner didn't show up for a year or so? Or was it that Vietnam turned out to be a hotbed of immorality and gay marriage, that what caused Dubya to duck out on the responsibilities now shoved on everybody else? 

7. Can you say, "red herring?"

8. Read some Voltaire: "Religion was born when the first fool met the first rogue."

Normally, I try to write more rationally and politely. However, I really, really dislike open bigotry.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 25, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> OK so it has been banned in some states since it has been deemed "unsafe" for genetic reasons. (I kind of wonder if that wasn't in God's plan but anyhow...)
> 
> Let's go on to sayyyyy...3 men. Can 3 men get married? How about 2 women and one man? Where did this magic number of 2 come from and WHY are we STILL using it???
> 
> ...


The Mormons allow and some even expect that there will be multiple wives. They have guidelines and rules to follow, the senior wife is always treated with respect, and never displaced for a junior wife.

In the Islam faith there is an allowance for a man to have up to four wives, more if special conditions are met. This is due to the lack of men after a war, and those men left are resposnible to continue and to repopulate society. They also had harems, which were their sisters and otehr female family members to maintain until they were remarried or married off.

So faiths allow or have multiple people in a Marriage.

:asian:


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 25, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> I read recently that first cousins have been give a scientific (read genetic) okay.


Kentucky, Allows for just about anyone to get married in a family sense.


----------



## OULobo (Feb 25, 2004)

Here comes one that'll make me a target for some, but I think that gay marriages/unions/whatever are a great way to help the population problem. They often choose not to procreate and adopt instead. That's a few birds with one stone. Happy gays with the kids they always wanted, less people having babies, more adoptions to a stable home, more children learning that gays (their parents) aren't the devil and less racism being bred into children as many of the adoptions will be cross racial. Okay, now, fire away, I'm ready.  :jedi1:


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 25, 2004)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> The Mormons allow and some even expect that there will be multiple wives. They have guidelines and rules to follow, the senior wife is always treated with respect, and never displaced for a junior wife.
> 
> In the Islam faith there is an allowance for a man to have up to four wives, more if special conditions are met. This is due to the lack of men after a war, and those men left are resposnible to continue and to repopulate society. They also had harems, which were their sisters and otehr female family members to maintain until they were remarried or married off.
> 
> ...


I understand these religions are waiting in the wings to see what happens with the gay marriage thing. If its allowed they plan to challange current restrictions; however, some of these communities that exist outside current law are simply nothing more than child molestation rings. Did you know they all have to go to Canada to swap there children to prevent inbreeding and, of course, prosecution? The husbands are usualy old men who can't support there families so we all pay for it with our taxes. Oy!
Sean


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 25, 2004)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> I understand these religions are waiting in the wings to see what happens with the gay marriage thing. If its allowed they plan to challange current restrictions; however, some of these communities that exist outside current law are simply nothing more than child molestation rings. Did you know they all have to go to Canada to swap there children to prevent inbreeding and, of course, prosecution? The husbands are usualy old men who can't support there families so we all pay for it with our taxes. Oy!
> Sean


TOD,

I thought according to the laws of the Morman faith, you could not get a second wife unless you had the money and income to support the second wife without affecting the first wife or the children of the first marriage.

I know there are exceptions, I did not know this was the norm, can you provide an article on the web or some other source for me to review and learn from.

Thank You


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 25, 2004)

Regarding that list of gays in history....

I'm somewhat uncomfortable with some lists because of potential inaccuracies.  Julius Ceasar, for instance, is listed.  I wasn't aware of his homosexuality or bisexuality.  Hadrian, on the other hand, was clearly so (and I didn't notice him on the list)...as was Frederick the Great.


Anybody note the incongruity between the Republican party's stance on states' rights and the proposition for the amendment regarding marriage?  What ever happened to "let the states decide"?   Republicans have been saying for years that the government that governs the best, governs the least.  I guess they throw that out the window during election years.  


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 25, 2004)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> TOD,
> 
> I thought according to the laws of the Morman faith, you could not get a second wife unless you had the money and income to support the second wife without affecting the first wife or the children of the first marriage.
> 
> ...


Sorry, I only know this from a 20/20 episode. Perhaps you can look that site up, and search the archives to about four years ago. I've seen similar reports on others shows. I do live just below the place in canada where they all swap, but the name escapes me.
Sean


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 25, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> I read recently that first cousins have been give a scientific (read genetic) okay.


Don't tease me like that...I got a first cousin who'se drop dead hot.
(also is a Netware sys-admin who makes 5x what I do....)


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 25, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Regarding that list of gays in history....
> 
> I'm somewhat uncomfortable with some lists because of potential inaccuracies. Julius Ceasar, for instance, is listed. I wasn't aware of his homosexuality or bisexuality. Hadrian, on the other hand, was clearly so (and I didn't notice him on the list)...as was Frederick the Great.


I take the lists with a grain of salt...hard to see at a casual glance which are serious and which arent.



> Anybody note the incongruity between the Republican party's stance on states' rights and the proposition for the amendment regarding marriage? *What ever happened to "let the states decide"? *Republicans have been saying for years that the government that governs the best, governs the least. I guess they throw that out the window during election years.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Steve


There was this little disagreement back in the 1860's that decided that states rights are subservient to the federal.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 25, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Don't tease me like that...I got a first cousin who'se drop dead hot.
> (also is a Netware sys-admin who makes 5x what I do....)


Bob you made $3,000 dollars last year. Ithink she might make more then 5x


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 25, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Don't tease me like that...I got a first cousin who'se drop dead hot.
> (also is a Netware sys-admin who makes 5x what I do....)


If you look like her, chances are she thinks your drop dead hot as well; however, I suggest you adopt children.(ha ha) Incidently WA state will not let married cousins adopt children. Go figure.
Sean


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 25, 2004)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> I understand these religions are waiting in the wings to see what happens with the gay marriage thing. If its allowed they plan to challange current restrictions; *however, some of these communities that exist outside current law are simply nothing more than child molestation rings. Did you know they all have to go to Canada to swap there children to prevent inbreeding and, of course, prosecution? The husbands are usualy old men who can't support there families so we all pay for it with our taxes. Oy!*
> Sean


Yes, and many 'straight' 'christian' business men travel to SE Asia to have sex with underage, drugged children who are later killed because they are 'used up'.

We can use stereotypes, etc and empty thoughts.

Or we can back things up with facts.  Please see the highlighted part of your quote.  Can you back this up with some facts, and just how it relates to same-gender mariages?


----------



## ShaolinWolf (Feb 25, 2004)

Ya know, I could start a whol arguement why Christians and Catholics are different...but what I'd like to say is, not insulting, READ!!!!...I restated that in a later post...I KNOW PLENTY OF CATHOLIC CHRISTIANS!!!!!!!!!...BUT!!!!BUT!!!!!!...You obviously don't know about how the Roman Catholic Church persecuted Christians...And, I'm not going to give you all the background because you can go look it up yourself and I don't have time to type up it all...I'm just saying, the Catholics back then were not Christians...Ever read about Martin Luther? NO  NOT MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.!!!!!...Martin Luther, who nailed the ninety-five theses on the church in Wittenberg, Germany. Now, the man was originally Catholic, but he saw the light. I'm not going to explain the whole thing because you can look it up...Happened in 1517 A.D....The catholics of old were not the earliest form of Christianity...they were straight out killers of Christianity...OR well, they called us, who were heretics back then, heresy...and they said they were the only way to God...hmmm...and for the millionth time...Not all Catholics are Christians...I can't convince you of that, because Catholics have been calling themselves Christian since the beginning of Catholicism and killed off the True Christians...and Reading from the Bible is hearing God's Word...Mass reading come from some short book that could be read in no time...Reading from the Bible is of God...GOD DID NOT WRITE THE MASS BOOKS!!!!...And yeah, your going to be insulted by alot of this...

Also, Kaith, Did I just say that all were sinners and were going to hell and passing judgement...NO!, I meant it in the fact that those who are unsaved...also, I don't believe in Tolerating other "religions"...so, your going to have to deal with that...I only believe in one God, He who made Heaven and Earth...and is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit...Jesus Christ...And I do not believe in 500+...and yes this is my opinion, and what I believe to be true...

And like I said before...This topic ought to be locked...It got locked before and this kind of topic always gets locked eventually...

I just want to say...Christians are only Christians who accept Christ as their personal Lord and Saviour...I'm not getting into the whole subject, because then it's just going to be another theological debate that always happens over this subject...and yes, alot of my stuff has been hilter kilter...I'm sorry, but I typed too fast and I was tired, so I left stuff out...it was late...


----------



## OULobo (Feb 25, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Don't tease me like that...I got a first cousin who'se drop dead hot.
> (also is a Netware sys-admin who makes 5x what I do....)




Move to Kentucky and you're all set. 

I personally have family in AL and if you go to the graveyard for our little town my mother can name our relation to every headstone, except four. Luckily none of my female cousins are really that attractive or in my age group.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 25, 2004)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Bob you made $3,000 dollars last year. Ithink she might make more then 5x


:shrug: :moon: 

ok...so she makes 20x what I do.....
Shes still hot. 




			
				Touch 'O' Death said:
			
		

> If you look like her, chances are she thinks your drop dead hot as well; however, I suggest you adopt children.(ha ha) Incidently WA state will not let married cousins adopt children. Go figure.


Dude, I said she was hot...not blind. 
She don't look like me at all.  (Sorta like Tracy Lords, but without the poutyness)


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 25, 2004)

SW, you're a little disjointed in the text, but ya make some good points in there.

The Christian religion traces back to the Roman Catholic church founded by 1 of Jesus' followers.  It has split many, many times, with the resulting re-interpretation of the core.  The RC also has its own writings which are accepted as holy.  All trace to Jesus as savior.

Oddly enough, there is also at least 1 Jewish sect that traces to Jesus.

The Islamic faith also accepts Jesus as a holy man.



> I just want to say...*Christians are only Christians who accept Christ as their personal Lord and Saviour*...I'm not getting into the whole subject, because then it's just going to be another theological debate that always happens over this subject


Agreed, on both points.




> Also, Kaith, Did I just say that all were sinners and were going to hell and passing judgement...NO!, I meant it in the fact that those who are unsaved...also, I don't believe in Tolerating other "religions"...so, your going to have to deal with that...I only believe in one God, He who made Heaven and Earth...and is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit...Jesus Christ...And I do not believe in 500+...and yes this is my opinion, and what I believe to be true...


You are entitled to your opinion, and though I disagree, will defend your right to have it. 

Peace.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 25, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Yes, and many 'straight' 'christian' business men travel to SE Asia to have sex with underage, drugged children who are later killed because they are 'used up'.
> 
> We can use stereotypes, etc and empty thoughts.
> 
> Or we can back things up with facts.  Please see the highlighted part of your quote.  Can you back this up with some facts, and just how it relates to same-gender mariages?


Isaw it on 20/20, and the isue is that they will challange the marriage laws once the same gender folk are allowed to marry. Here's a fact for you, I personaly know two women who are still married to multiple partners. there marriage documents say they willingly married the man and his wives; so, to file for divorce leagaly would prove they broke the law as well. The legalese states that they married a female as well the husband. 
Sean


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 25, 2004)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> Isaw it on 20/20, and the isue is that they will challange the marriage laws once the same gender folk are allowed to marry. Here's a fact for you, I personaly know two women who are still married to multiple partners. there marriage documents say they willingly married the man and his wives; so, to file for divorce leagaly would prove they broke the law as well. The legalese states that they married a female as well the husband.
> Sean


Interesting mess that one.


Ok, heres a thought/tangent.

What is so important about getting married?

*It declares your commitment to each other.*
_I can do that without a judge/priests ok/papers._

*It allows for inheritance.*
_So will a well writen will._

*It allows for sick-time / death benifits / grievence time.*
_So will a good savings plan, combined with a well thought out insurance policy._

*It allows for children.*
_So will a well thought out will._

All of the benefits of "mariage" can be passed on by the use of a well writen will, living will, savings plan and insurance policies.

So, whats the big deal over the 'term'?


----------



## OULobo (Feb 25, 2004)

ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> Ya know, I could start a whol arguement why Christians and Catholics are different...but what I'd like to say is, not insulting, READ!!!!...I restated that in a later post...I KNOW PLENTY OF CATHOLIC CHRISTIANS!!!!!!!!!...BUT!!!!BUT!!!!!!...You obviously don't know about how the Roman Catholic Church persecuted Christians...And, I'm not going to give you all the background because you can go look it up yourself and I don't have time to type up it all...I'm just saying, the Catholics back then were not Christians...Ever read about Martin Luther? NO  NOT MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.!!!!!...Martin Luther, who nailed the ninety-five theses on the church in Wittenberg, Germany. Now, the man was originally Catholic, but he saw the light. I'm not going to explain the whole thing because you can look it up...Happened in 1517 A.D....The catholics of old were not the earliest form of Christianity...they were straight out killers of Christianity...OR well, they called us, who were heretics back then, heresy...and they said they were the only way to God...hmmm...and for the millionth time...Not all Catholics are Christians...I can't convince you of that, because Catholics have been calling themselves Christian since the beginning of Catholicism and killed off the True Christians...and Reading from the Bible is hearing God's Word...Mass reading come from some short book that could be read in no time...Reading from the Bible is of God...GOD DID NOT WRITE THE MASS BOOKS!!!!...And yeah, your going to be insulted by alot of this...
> QUOTE]
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 25, 2004)

ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> Ya know, I could start a whol arguement why Christians and Catholics are different...but what I'd like to say is, not insulting, READ!!!!...I restated that in a later post...I KNOW PLENTY OF CATHOLIC CHRISTIANS!!!!!!!!!...BUT!!!!BUT!!!!!!...You obviously don't know about how the Roman Catholic Church persecuted Christians...And, I'm not going to give you all the background because you can go look it up yourself and I don't have time to type up it all...I'm just saying, the Catholics back then were not Christians...Ever read about Martin Luther? NO NOT MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.!!!!!...Martin Luther, who nailed the ninety-five theses on the church in Wittenberg, Germany. Now, the man was originally Catholic, but he saw the light. I'm not going to explain the whole thing because you can look it up...Happened in 1517 A.D....The catholics of old were not the earliest form of Christianity...they were straight out killers of Christianity...OR well, they called us, who were heretics back then, heresy...and they said they were the only way to God...hmmm...and for the millionth time...Not all Catholics are Christians...I can't convince you of that, because Catholics have been calling themselves Christian since the beginning of Catholicism and killed off the True Christians...and Reading from the Bible is hearing God's Word...Mass reading come from some short book that could be read in no time...Reading from the Bible is of God...GOD DID NOT WRITE THE MASS BOOKS!!!!...And yeah, your going to be insulted by alot of this...
> 
> Also, Kaith, Did I just say that all were sinners and were going to hell and passing judgement...NO!, I meant it in the fact that those who are unsaved...also, I don't believe in Tolerating other "religions"...so, your going to have to deal with that...I only believe in one God, He who made Heaven and Earth...and is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit...Jesus Christ...And I do not believe in 500+...and yes this is my opinion, and what I believe to be true...
> 
> ...


Wolf,

Roman Catholics are the current religion based out of Rome with the Pope. This was based as Kaith put it on one of the Disciples of Jesus. There was a later split that became the Eastern Orthadox or Eastern Catholics with their own Popes as well. At one time there were three Popes, one in Constantinople, the other in Rome and another in Avinogne (Sp) France.

The followed from the teachings of Jesus Christ, they are Christians. There are other Churches that also sprung up from the other Disciples, in other areas around the Med Sea. 

No matter how much I dislike the Catholics approach, I will still admit they are Christians. They may have been bad ones in the history of man, yet, they are.

Martin Luther the Father of Luthernism. That Sprng from Catholicism

John Wesley the Father of Methodism that fromteh Church of England that Split from Catholicism.

The Protestants of France or the Huergonauts (Sp) also split from the main body of church Catholicism.

Make a clear and detailed point on another thread if need be on why Catholics are not Christains. As I do not like the Catholic approach I would love to have some details. Yet, I do tolerate them. Even if I disagree.


Once again I ask which version of the Bible are you reading? PSST! God did not write the Bible either. There is a story that the Bible was chosen from a bunch of stories that were pilled up on an alter. Thsoe that fell off were not deemd worthy of being in the book. After a certain point the scrolls would start to fall off. So being the first person to put your favorite on the alter would kind of wait the out come. God may have inspired people to make those writings. He did not write the Bible.

Wolf, you directed a point to Kaith that I think should be at me. I believe that you are saying that I am going to hell. I believe that you are saying that I am wrong. By your words. You do not believe in tolerating other religions. This is fine, jsut remember the other Fundamentalists of other religions when they are shooting you or car bombing you for their beliefs as well. Maybe you are the one who sould get the grip and deal with it?


The Topic is not locked becuase people have not gotten to a point of repeating circular arguements or calling people names. Just because you do not like what is written here does not mean you get to lock it. Go read your book and tell people who you know I am going to Hell because I do not believe like you.

My Arguement on why everyone who has ever lived or will live is going to hell.

Ok, let us say there are only two groups out there. 

Group A states "Our way is the only way, and if you do not follow us you are going to hell"

Group B makes a similar Statement.

So if you are not a part of group A or B you are going to hell.

If you are a part of Group B then Group A is condemning you to hell.
If you are a part of Group A then Group B is condemning you to hell.

So everyone goes to hell. No one wins.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (Feb 25, 2004)

Ok, well, I'm sorry to have been so misunderstandable...I'm better with talking about it than writing about it...I will stop being in this thread because it's gotten out of hand and I'm just rambling on toward you people..

I'm not going to say anymore about Catholics...read the other stupid forum that just got started...LOL...It's just an issue that won't be resolved...I did not say that all Catholics are not Christian...I have heard from plenty of Catholics and such that believe a different doctrine than the one's you obviously know...AGAIN, I KNOW CATHOLIC CHRISTIANS!!!!...and I'm  not getting into the Christian/Catholic debate...and what do you call Martin Luther of 1517? I'm not even asking...I'm not getting into this debate because I've gotten into so many theological debates pertaining to this and so many other things, that I'm frankly tired and that's not the reason I got on MartialTalk.com...so, no hard feelings and I hope you all don't have any against me...Sorry about what I said...But it's as I've learned from History...I've done alot of Religion Historical classes and I'm sorry that the lot of you think I'm nuts...anyways...I'll not get into anymore of this on Martial Talk unless its interesting and pertains differently...and another thing...you all can talk about gay/homosexual lifestyle...oh well...have fun...lol


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 25, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Interesting mess that one.
> 
> 
> Ok, heres a thought/tangent.
> ...


Bob, you can go spend hundreds if nto in the thousands for a living will, to get the same benefits that a $30 Marriage Certificate from the County gives you. As the widow and widower you automatically inherit all of your spouses assets. I know your point was why not allow it since you can get the equivalent today. I am just pointing out who today is a form of discrimination.

:asian:


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 25, 2004)

Shaolin Wolf.

I am just going to say a few things, then I am done with the conversation.

First of all, I am Catholic. I am Christian also (not that there is a distinction, but I am clearing this up).

As a fellow Christian I will say that I don't like it when other Christians are judgemental, exclusive rather then inclusive, or willing to generalize hastily without proper tact or thought. You come across this way. Also your view on history comes accrossed as very narrow, as is your view on "the big picture" of religion in general.

The result with is you turn good people away from wanting to explore Christianity, and you fulfill the stereotypes that have kept people away from your faith. This is hardly Christian.

At some point you have to look in the mirror and decide if bantering in a way that only means to elevate yourself above others because of your faith is really worth turning people off and away from your faith. If I were you, I'd decide what's really important before typing. Perhaps with some thought, you'll realize that there is a different way to go about things, history isn't black and white, and perhaps there are a lot of answers and truths out there other then yours (that aren't condeming).

I think you have quite a lot of research to do yet.

If you want to talk further on the subject, you can PM me you ph# and we can talk.

Otherwise, I am done addressing you on the subject.

PAUL


----------



## ShaolinWolf (Feb 25, 2004)

ALSO, YES GOD WROTE THE BIBLE!!!!...believe what you want, but contrary to popular belief, He wrote the Bible...He just had Human hands write it on paper...But if you want to believe what you want to believe so be it, it's my personal belief is that God wrote the Bible and so sayeth the Bible...So, I guess it's all my opinion...And another thing...how can you say I'm pushing my beliefs on you when I'm just stating my opinion...Also, how can you say your not?...hmmm?...your stating you opinion...but oh well, quote me all you want and tear up all my words...I don't care...besides I'm through with this thread because I'm getting off the subject of MA...I haven't really been talking to alot of people on here due to the fact that I've spent my time on this thread...so, let's get back to the issue of Homosexuality and just debate whether it's right or wrong...ok?...I mean we are totally off subject...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 25, 2004)

ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> ALSO, YES GOD WROTE THE BIBLE!!!!...believe what you want, but contrary to popular belief, He wrote the Bible...He just had Human hands write it on paper...But if you want to believe what you want to believe so be it, it's my personal belief is that God wrote the Bible and so sayeth the Bible...So, I guess it's all my opinion...And another thing...how can you say I'm pushing my beliefs on you when I'm just stating my opinion...Also, how can you say your not?...hmmm?...your stating you opinion...but oh well, quote me all you want and tear up all my words...I don't care...besides I'm through with this thread because I'm getting off the subject of MA...I haven't really been talking to alot of people on here due to the fact that I've spent my time on this thread...so, let's get back to the issue of Homosexuality and just debate whether it's right or wrong...ok?...I mean we are totally off subject...


2 quick notes, then I gotta get some work done (for a change) today. 

1- Everyone has an opinion. Everyone is entitled to it.

2- Lets drop the religious debate here for now, and get back to the "gay mariage" one.

Thanks.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 25, 2004)

ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> ALSO, YES GOD WROTE THE BIBLE!!!!...believe what you want, but contrary to popular belief, He wrote the Bible...He just had Human hands write it on paper...But if you want to believe what you want to believe so be it, it's my personal belief is that God wrote the Bible and so sayeth the Bible...So, I guess it's all my opinion...And another thing...how can you say I'm pushing my beliefs on you when I'm just stating my opinion...Also, how can you say your not?...hmmm?...your stating you opinion...but oh well, quote me all you want and tear up all my words...I don't care...besides I'm through with this thread because I'm getting off the subject of MA...I haven't really been talking to alot of people on here due to the fact that I've spent my time on this thread...so, let's get back to the issue of Homosexuality and just debate whether it's right or wrong...ok?...I mean we are totally off subject...


Wolf,

I know you said you were done.

If you state that I believe that God wrote the Bible. I let thsi stand as your belief. If you YELL!!!! GOD WROTE THE BIBLE!!!! you come across as being a religious fanatic. Just my opinion.

Now as to your opinion and my Opinion. You opinion allows for you to be right and for be to go to hell.

My Opinion allows for you to express your opinion, and in the end the Creator and greater power will decide if one or both or neither of us is correct. You see, I do not condemn you. You have only your way or the highway. You insist that it is correct, as opposed to stating this is what I believe to be true. I allow for the fact that I might be wrong.

That sir is the difference between your presentation here and mine. I present my opinion, and it upsets you because it is not yours. You yell at me and others. If you were to yell at me in person I would ask you to calm down. If you continued I would wait until you were done and then ask you not do it again. If you continued still, I might start yelling back. I can be loud also. I can be childish and make a scene, and not care. Take a word of advice from PAUL and study how you make your presentations. If they are the same in person, you might get a worse of a response. Including laughter, and or violence.

Peace and I hope you can continue to grow from the light you have found.
:asian:


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 25, 2004)

gay marriage


I think it should be allowed.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (Feb 25, 2004)

Well, anyway it's my personal belief...and I'm sorry for shouting...anyways...like I said, let's get back to the thread...it's getting or well it got off subject...a subject that will be a heated arguement...


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 25, 2004)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> gay marriage
> 
> 
> I think it should be allowed.


Marriage between anyone, should be allowed. As long as everyone knows what they are getting into up front. I would not limit it to sex or the number 2. I would limit it to being an adult and of sound mind.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 25, 2004)

ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> And also, why does this country seem to have the Scriptures from the Bible plastered all over the Lincoln memorial and all the major historical Landmarks.



Yes, but what about the pagan imagery?  Oh wait, they are the same!  Pago-Christians!  And how about the symbols dedicated to Set?  Horus?  Satan - yep, that one is in our national seal.  So upon whose principals was our country founded?

This gay marriage question is rediculous.  It stinks of suppressed homo-eroticism expressing itself as hatred and malice.  Makes a bunch of people want to fight...gee, think somebody wanted it that way?  Anyone read Frank Herbert, "...suppression of homosexual desire turns regular soldiers into berserk warriors..."

God does not discriminate.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 25, 2004)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Marriage between anyone, should be allowed. As long as everyone knows what they are getting into up front. I would not limit it to sex or the number 2. I would limit it to being an adult and of sound mind.


 But how many supposed "Adults" are of sound mind?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 25, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> But how many supposed "Adults" are of sound mind?


Yes, I agree that the young and in love could be accused of not being of sound mind  

I will let the state determine who is of sound mind. i.e. anyone who is not under the care of someone else permanently for mental issues. (* Sounds bad *)


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 26, 2004)

> There was this little disagreement back in the 1860's that decided that states rights are subservient to the federal.



This isn't always true, Bob.  Federal courts can, and often do, defer to lower courts and uphold their decisions.  Federal law supersedes state law, of course, if there is a conflict between the two laws.  If there is no Consitutional amendment regarding an issue, then the states are in fact free to decide.

One state's dictates act as precedent for another, however.  If, say, California were to pass a law allowing gay marriages (unlikely), other states would likely follow suit.  There is also argument that should the gays in S.F. move back to their home states, their marriages would have to be recognized.  I'm not sure of the truth in this.

What I was pointing out was the incongruity of the Republican "pro states rights" stance and their present attempt to seize such autonomy away from the states via Constitutional amendment.  Its hypocritical at best.  

In any case I don't believe such an amendment will pass.  Many Republicans are against it.  It is one thing for a state to outlaw a gay marriage, quite another for the Federal government to do so.  I suspect, however, that this will be the one great legal debate of the decade, if there are any.


Regards,

Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 27, 2004)

I just read this in the current issue of 'The Nation'. Alan Hawkins of Brigham Young University puts forth the following argument:



> Consider the plight of an underemployed and uninsured single mother in her early 30s who sees little real prospect of marriage (to a man) in her future. Suppose she has a good friend, also female and heterosexual, who is single and childless but employed with good spousal benefits. Sooner or later, friends like this are going to start contracting same-sex marriages of convenience. The single mom will get medical and governmental benefits, will share her friend's paycheck, and will gain an additional caretaker for the kids besides. Her friend will gain companionship and a family life. The marriage would obviously be sexually open. And if lightning struck and the right man came along for one of the women, they could always divorce and marry heterosexually.
> In a narrow sense, the women and children in this arrangement would be better off. Yet the larger effects of such unions on the institution of marriage would be devastating. At a stroke, marriage would be severed not only from the complementarity of the sexes but also from its connection to romance and sexual exclusivity--and even from the hope of permanence.


Is there anything wrong with this picture? Think about it.

Mike


----------



## loki09789 (Feb 27, 2004)

We live in a different day and age compared to that of the original drafters of US law.  One of the reasons that the legal def. of Marriage is based on the Judeo/Christian values that the founding fathers lived with.  Even in the face of Church/state issues, Church values will be transformed into Citizenry morals. 

Marriage as defined exists because it encouraged family units.  These family units would produce, train and raise the next generations of moral citizens who would carry the mantel of citizenship as responsibility.  WIthin the context of history, this would be a logical institution to promote in a growing nation in need of stability, bodies to produce food and commercial products, fill out armies, ...

The roots of Marriage might be religious in nature, but even within the context of Citizenry, marriage is more than just a legal contract.  It has a sacredness to it because the man/woman union will create national stability and future citizens.  Couch it in legalize for the sake of establishing a framework, but it is not the same as any other contractual agreement. Legal or religious, marriage is a union of self not just services.  A gay marriage, though I can recognize the constitutional issue, will not - by the nature of the gender issue - produce future citizens.  Adopt, bring in children from past/other relationships but that is not the same as production.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 27, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> . . .The roots of Marriage might be religious in nature, but even within the context of Citizenry, marriage is more than just a legal contract. It has a sacredness to it because the man/woman union will create national stability and future citizens.


What exactly is 'sacred' about creating future citizens?





			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> . . . Couch it in legalize for the sake of establishing a framework, but it is not the same as any other contractual agreement. Legal or religious, marriage is a union of self not just services.


Why is marriage not the same as any other contract? Certainly, the sacrement of marriage is different from a contract, because of its spiritual component. But, 'LEGALIZE' is not the language of spirituality. Is there a difference between the sacrement of marriage and the civil marriage?





			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> . . .  A gay marriage, though I can recognize the constitutional issue, will not - by the nature of the gender issue - produce future citizens. Adopt, bring in children from past/other relationships but that is not the same as production.


By 'production', are you refering only to the bioligical process of conception? The last time I checked, conception does not require marriage. Are the next generation of citizens just a function of nature? There is no place for 'Nurture' in producing citizenry?


----------



## loki09789 (Feb 27, 2004)

The sacred-ness issue is within the ideology of patriotism vs religion.  The family unit is considered the core of the development of citizen in this country.  Future citizens within a nation of religion keep it alive, the same as in a nation of citizens.  As American citizens we carry multiple ideologies, citizenry/faith or moral structures.... my point is that much of the American value construct is founded in Judeo/Christian values by virtue of the values of the leaders of the country and the platforms that still get people voted into office.

No, You don't need to be married to concieve, but the basic American belief is that it is better for the family and the child if that conception is within a family unit.  Stability is not guarenteed, but it is more likely.  I would consider a well developed person as one was a product of nurturing.

If you only think of marriage, whether civil or religious, as a contract then you are not acknowledging the personal nature of it.  THe goal and purpose of a marriage 'contract' is inherintly different from other 'contracts.'  Marriage as contract only can be abused for tax breaks and convenience regardless of the gender of those who enter into it.  I don't know anyone who works on a strictly mercenary level of values.

I understand that there is a distinction between my personal values as a citizen and my personal values outside of that.  I would vote FOR the right of gay recognzied marriages if it came down to it.  Why because, my personal values aside, this is a country supposedly base on nondescrimination.  Much like the sufragist movement, the gay marriage issue is about equal recognition within the eyes of the law - full and diginified membership in the country that you live, work and pay taxes to.  There are practical benefits, but they are there or churchs that register for tax breaks as well.  Again, it is never just a contractual agreement when ideology is involved.  

My personal feelings are for me to be an example of not to lord over others and impose on others, and I choose to be an example of someone who recognizes that I don't always understand how a member might contribute, but he/she has the right to contribute just as much as I do.

I don't know who else has said that clearly where they stand on this, but I would like to hear from others.

Paul M.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 27, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> . . .The family unit is considered the core of the development of citizen in this country.


On this we are agreed. I have a friend, who has had the same partner for 27 years. Together, they adopted and are raising a child who is now 8 years old. Doesn't this constitute a 'family unit'? But so far, I have not mention gender...



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> Future citizens within a nation of religion keep it alive, the same as in a nation of citizens. As American citizens we carry multiple ideologies, citizenry/faith or moral structures.... my point is that much of the American value construct is founded in Judeo/Christian values by virtue of the values of the leaders of the country and the platforms that still get people voted into office.


Certainly, other faiths have structures around the 'family unit'. One need not be from the Jewish, or Christain belief structures to have cannonized families. In fact, Christianity, has only been around for the past two millenia ... did 'family units' exist before that time? Did societies exist before that time? 



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> No, You don't need to be married to concieve, but the basic American belief is that it is better for the family and the child if that conception is within a family unit. Stability is not guarenteed, but it is more likely. I would consider a well developed person as one was a product of nurturing.


Can a man and a woman, living in a non-sexual relationship raise well developed persons via adoption? Is sexuality required to create a 'stable family unit'? If not, what does the gender of the supervising family roles matter?
Also, I don't think the belief that stability in the family is strictly an 'American Belief'.




			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> If you only think of marriage, whether civil or religious, as a contract then you are not acknowledging the personal nature of it.


Actually, I think that by entering into a marriage contract, I am acknowledging the *very* personal nature of the contract. I do think that those who oppose marriage of same-sex couples are not acknowledging the personal nature of the contract. They are putting their belief structures into the personal matter of others.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> THe goal and purpose of a marriage 'contract' is inherintly different from other 'contracts.' Marriage as contract only can be abused for tax breaks and convenience regardless of the gender of those who enter into it. I don't know anyone who works on a strictly mercenary level of values.


There are more than 1049 rights granted to married couples by the federal and state governments that are denied to same-sex couples, whether the relationship is based on sexuality or not. I'm not sure that searching for a way to secure these rights should be considered 'mercenary'. Although, some may enter into a 'Civil Marriage' (if such a thing ever comes to exist) strictly to benefit on their income taxes, or to have Social Security survivor benefits, but I think that the number would be few ... how many men and women are marrying *just* to receive these benefits?




			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> I understand that there is a distinction between my personal values as a citizen and my personal values outside of that. I would vote FOR the right of gay recognzied marriages if it came down to it. Why because, my personal values aside, this is a country supposedly base on nondescrimination. Much like the sufragist movement, the gay marriage issue is about equal recognition within the eyes of the law - full and diginified membership in the country that you live, work and pay taxes to. There are practical benefits, but they are there or churchs that register for tax breaks as well. Again, it is never just a contractual agreement when ideology is involved.
> 
> My personal feelings are for me to be an example of not to lord over others and impose on others, and I choose to be an example of someone who recognizes that I don't always understand how a member might contribute, but he/she has the right to contribute just as much as I do.
> 
> ...


My clear two cents. There is no good reason to deny a same sex couple a marriage license. What they do, or don't do, is none of my business. They should be allowed the same protections, and the same frustrations, my wife and I share after being married (by a JP in a Gazebo on a Golf Course... not in a church).

Mike


----------



## loki09789 (Feb 27, 2004)

Certainly, other faiths have structures around the 'family unit'. One need not be from the Jewish, or Christain belief structures to have cannonized families. In fact, Christianity, has only been around for the past two millenia ... did 'family units' exist before that time? Did societies exist before that time? 

Yes they did, but my point here is the influence of these Judeo/Christian values on the current issue and laws in America.  We are the adolescent on a global scale.

Can a man and a woman, living in a non-sexual relationship raise well developed persons via adoption? Is sexuality required to create a 'stable family unit'? If not, what does the gender of the supervising family roles matter?
Also, I don't think the belief that stability in the family is strictly an 'American Belief'.

I am discussing the basic tenets of American values around marriage, based on current definitions.  Topic, not personal values.

I never said that it was strictly American, but it is part of American values.

Actually, I think that by entering into a marriage contract, I am acknowledging the *very* personal nature of the contract. I do think that those who oppose marriage of same-sex couples are not acknowledging the personal nature of the contract. They are putting their belief structures into the personal matter of others.

That is why I don't think it is my place to impose personal values on the rest of the population, as much as it is my duty to vote as a citizen promoting the values of American equality and freedom.


There are more than 1049 rights granted to married couples by the federal and state governments that are denied to same-sex couples, whether the relationship is based on sexuality or not. I'm not sure that searching for a way to secure these rights should be considered 'mercenary'. 

I am not saying that gay marriage agenda is to secure these right for mercenary reasons.  I was referring to a post earlier about how the legalization of gay marriage would open doors for same sex friends to use it for tax breaks and benefits... my point was that it doesn't matter what the sex, someone will find a way to try and scam the system.  I agree that there are few of these though.

My clear two cents. There is no good reason to deny a same sex couple a marriage license. What they do, or don't do, is none of my business. They should be allowed the same protections, and the same frustrations, my wife and I share after being married (by a JP in a Gazebo on a Golf Course... not in a church).

Mike[/QUOTE]

Agreed, and I am wrestling with my personal values and my social/citizenry values openly here, so I can understand why it might look like I am anti or ultra critical of gay marriage/lifestyle.  I have to separate my stance for my personal lifestyle choice and my stance as a voting power:  Will I promote equal and dignified citizenship or will I limit someone elses access to that right with my vote.  I choose to promote the equal opportunity position.

Paul M


----------



## Quick Sand (Feb 27, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I just read this in the current issue of 'The Nation'. Alan Hawkins of Brigham Young University puts forth the following argument:
> 
> 
> Is there anything wrong with this picture? Think about it.
> ...



As regards to the quote you had in the above post. Technically, yes this could happen but I see no reason why it is more likely to happen with same sex friends then it would happen with two friends that are male and female. How often to two male and female friends decide to get married just for tax benefits etc? It's not likely to happen any more with same sex friends.

I fully and completely support same sex marriage. If someone wants to change the legal term and have EVERYONE considered to be in a civil union in the eyes of the law instead, I would support that too. As long is it's the SAME term for hetro and homo couples and they all recieve the SAME benefits.

I wanted to throw something at my TV when I watched Bush's speech on Tuesday morning and it's made me glad to be Canadian.


----------



## loki09789 (Feb 27, 2004)

Is there any current rumblings about this gay marriage issue in Canadian gov.?  If so, are the terms,arguments any different?

Paul M


----------



## MisterMike (Feb 27, 2004)

I dunno...

Nevermind the whole marriage fiasco, but the whole issue of homosexuality is what's un-natural, so this would obviously lead to anything they try to do which is reserved for a man and woman, like produce offspring or marry.

It seems we are trying to fit a tradition of what a man and woman would do to what a sick or disturbed same sex couple wants in their deviant lifestyle.

But it is tradition that is under attack, and on a higher level, the will of our Creator.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 27, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> It seems we are trying to fit a tradition of what a man and woman would do to what a sick or disturbed same sex couple wants in their deviant lifestyle.
> 
> But it is tradition that is under attack, and on a higher level, the will of our Creator.



Mike

This attitude contributed to the death of thousands of homosexuals.  Do you truly believe that was the the will of your creator?  Do you believe that anything your creator created would be "sick or disturbed"?  Do you believe in satan?  If so, don't you think this hatefull speech would be his work?

Homosexuality is not a choice.  It is not a sin.  A PERSON IS BORN GAY!!!!  :jedi1: 

How can that be a sin?

upnorthkyosa


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 27, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> . . .Nevermind the whole marriage fiasco, but the whole issue of homosexuality is what's un-natural, so this would obviously lead to anything they try to do which is reserved for a man and woman, like produce offspring or marry. . .


There is an error in the logic of this statement. And there is a supposition that I think is open to discussion.

Homosexuality is un-natural * Therefore * Two homosexual people wanting to marry is un-natural * or * Two homosexual people wanting to raise a child is un-natural

Change the word homosexual to 'People who eat Dogs', and you might be able to see that one statement does not logically follow the other. (I love my puppies ... but in some places in the world, they are a food source).

We've had the discussion before about whether homosexuality is nature or nurture, and we don't need to re-hash it here. One of the great things about the United States, is we have always welcomed those who are different from us. MisterMike, as you see homosexuality as different from you, and your beliefs, I would hope that you can also welcome those who are different into your community. And shouldn't they be allowed to the same priveledges and responsibilies that you enjoy? - Mike


----------



## MisterMike (Feb 27, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Mike
> 
> This attitude contributed to the death of thousands of homosexuals.  Do you truly believe that was the the will of your creator?  Do you believe that anything your creator created would be "sick or disturbed"?  Do you believe in satan?  If so, don't you think this hatefull speech would be his work?
> 
> ...



No, this attitude is not. Perhaps you mistook my intent.

I think homosexuality is satan's work manifested thru a psychological abnormality.


----------



## MisterMike (Feb 27, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> There is an error in the logic of this statement. And there is a supposition that I think is open to discussion.
> 
> Homosexuality is un-natural * Therefore * Two homosexual people wanting to marry is un-natural * or * Two homosexual people wanting to raise a child is un-natural
> 
> ...



I know we've hashed the nature-nurture thing out before, but I only listed it as part of my explanation before even going into religion.

To me, there are perfectly natural reasons (nature still coming from God) and there are religious reasons to be against this.

And of course, you cannot substitute in "people eating dogs" while misquoting my statement and still have the same logic. I agree there.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 27, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> . . . And of course, you cannot substitute in "people eating dogs" while misquoting my statement and still have the same logic. I agree there.


Gee ... I didn't think I mis-quoted you. I did change the grammer, to fit the logic statement. Let's see; you said:



			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> I dunno...
> 
> Nevermind the whole marriage fiasco, but *the whole issue of homosexuality is what's un-natural*, so this would obviously lead to anything they try to do which is reserved for a man and woman, like produce offspring or marry.
> 
> ...


To which I drew the thought; *Homosexuality is un-natural. *I did not use quotes, so technically, I don't think I was quoting you. But that aside, did you mean to say something other than; *homosexuality is un-natural*? Because when I read the clause '*the whole issue of homosexuality is what's un-natural*', I get the idea that you think that homosexuality as being something that is not natural. I may also have got the idea that you think that *homosexuality is un-natural* by your choice of words when you describe:



			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> sick or disturbed same sex couple


.

I just want to be clear. And I certainly don't want to mis-quote, or mis-state any of your thoughts.


----------



## MisterMike (Feb 27, 2004)

You are correct. That is exactly what I meant to say. That homosexuality is not natural.

So if you take something that was traditionally meant for a natural couple and apply it to something it is not meant for, well, you can't. Bearing children for 1. Which I believe you misquoted as "wanting to raise a child"

Marriage is the other. Which you quoted as "wanting to marry" Yes, they can want to marry. But its a square peg/round hole kind of thing IMO.

A lot has been said for each side in this "debate". I quote debate because one side has sort of sidestepped all of that and just gone right to the Town Hall. I wonder what would happen if we just wrote in an Ammendment to ban it without the due legal process...

So here we are, it's happening. Do I think it should be banned? Yes. Why, becuase it conflicts with a lot of things, naturally and religiously. Will it be banned? Maybe not. But I have to protect and educate my kids about a lot of things, what's one more.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 27, 2004)

If its unnatural, why does it exist in nature?

I also recall reading how 'lefties' were considered evil/etc....but that was later changed.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 27, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> So if you take something that was traditionally meant for a natural couple and apply it to something it is not meant for, well, you can't. Bearing children for 1. Which I believe you misquoted as "wanting to raise a child"


Bearing Children... Biologically, it does require a male and female. But raising a child *traditionally* has taken more than just a man and woman. *Traditionally*, societies had extended families. Grammies and Grampies and Aunties and Uncles, and all played a part in not just producing a child, but raising the child.



			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> Marriage is the other. Which you quoted as "wanting to marry" Yes, they can want to marry. But its a square peg/round hole kind of thing IMO.


Why do you think the desire to pledge love and commitment to each other is the same thing as trying to put a SQUARE PEG into a ROUND HOLE? Surely, you don't mean to equate SEX with MARRIAGE? One can be an important compenent of the other, but it is not required. Right now, same-sex couples are prohibited from publically making the commitment called marriage, so whether they want to or not is irrelevant, isn't it?




			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> A lot has been said for each side in this "debate". I quote debate because one side has sort of sidestepped all of that and just gone right to the Town Hall. I wonder what would happen if we just wrote in an Ammendment to ban it without the due legal process...


Actually, the same-sex marriage people took the *due legal process*. They asked to be married, they were denied, they felt this denial was outside the laws of Massachusetts, the sought legal remedy in the appropriate court. The Massachusetts court reviewed the laws, and case histories, and determined there was no legal cause to withhold a marriage license from two people of the same gender. That is *exactly* how the legal system in the United States is designed to work.



			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> So here we are, it's happening. Do I think it should be banned? Yes. Why, becuase it conflicts with a lot of things, naturally and religiously. Will it be banned? Maybe not. But I have to protect and educate my kids about a lot of things, what's one more.


I appreciate your point of view, in this world there are many things that we want to share with our children, and things we want to keep them safe from. I do not consider homosexuality one of the things that we need to protected them from, but we are all entitled to our opinions.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 27, 2004)

I'd note that unfounded hatred, an ignorance of actual history and biology, and an insistence that everybody live by the rules of one's own religion aren't natural, but apparantly they are.

I apologize for my immoderate tone on this thread. But I can't see that a moderate tone would help, and I am genuinely appalled at some of the unreason I've read here.


----------



## Quick Sand (Feb 27, 2004)

Am am not a lawyer or anything but this is my current understanding of the situation here in Canada. 

B.C. and Ontario have fully recognized the right for same sex couples to marry and it is now completely legal in these two provinces.  artyon:  In Quebec the Supreme Court gave the government until July 2004 to make the necessary changes and make same sex marriage legal there as well. The rest of the provinces are continueing to expand on the rights of same sex couples. Although they have not fully allowed marriage YET, most have at least made ammendments to allow for same sex couples to enter into a form of civil union that gives them basically the same legal benefits as married couples in terms of insurance, taxes, adoption, etc. So far, Alberta seems to be the most resistant to these changes but even it is starting to come around.

Things here in Canada aren't perfect but I'm proud of the fact that we are continueing to EXPAND on the rights of same sex couples instead of trying to REDUCE them as Bush seems to want to.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 27, 2004)

A man and a woman get married.  Ten years later, man has a sex change and becomes a woman.  Now, two women are LEGALLY married, living together, loving each other, and raising each other kids.  They even make love.  Are they still married?  What does God say about this?  I just saw this on Dr. Phil so you KNOW it happens.  

upnorthkyosa


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 28, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I dunno...
> 
> Nevermind the whole marriage fiasco, but the whole issue of homosexuality is what's un-natural, so this would obviously lead to anything they try to do which is reserved for a man and woman, like produce offspring or marry.
> 
> ...




Tradition be damned.  The government isn't in the job of legislating tradition.  

We've covered the issue of the "nature" of homosexuality elsewhere, Mike.  You've avoided commenting on posts that link to sites that present a tremendous amount of data and testimony by scientists, health officials, and medical organizations that posit homosexuality's biological origin.  You can ignore such evidence, but it pretending it doesn't exist doesn't invalidate it.



Regards,


Steve


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 2, 2004)

Things here in Canada aren't perfect but I'm proud of the fact that we are continueing to EXPAND on the rights of same sex couples instead of trying to REDUCE them as Bush seems to want to.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the info.  I am glad that Canadian gov. is focusing on national spirit and not confusing it with personal or religious values.

On the issue of Bush, he was voted into office and made the leader of our nation (here come the Electoral College debate).  He is doing his job the best way he knows how.  That choice was based on the values and stance that the majority of citizens found necessary for the nation now.  As a citizen of the USA, I have the right to express my opinion and lobby/influence my government by vote and protest if I want to change/support issues.  That is how we make our differences.  Criticism alone won't get anything done - except make the media very rich  - so we have to exercise our responsibilty to vote if we want to earn the right to complain.

I think things have been really good for so long, relatively speaking of course, that citizens - in the USA at least - have forgotten that voting and contributing to the welfare of the nation/community is a responsibility as well as a right.  How many here don't even vote, and yet enjoy the freedom of speech to complain without being thrown in jail?

Personal values aside, voting and recognizing the role/responsibility of citizen is a big deal.  Are you the complainer in the dark, or a candle lighter?  All this verbal stance taking if fine for discussion, but what actions will/do we take based on it?

Paul M.


----------



## someguy (Mar 2, 2004)

Quick Sand said:
			
		

> Am am not a lawyer or anything but this is my current understanding of the situation here in Canada.
> 
> B.C. and Ontario have fully recognized the right for same sex couples to marry and it is now completely legal in these two provinces.  artyon:  In Quebec the Supreme Court gave the government until July 2004 to make the necessary changes and make same sex marriage legal there as well. The rest of the provinces are continueing to expand on the rights of same sex couples. Although they have not fully allowed marriage YET, most have at least made ammendments to allow for same sex couples to enter into a form of civil union that gives them basically the same legal benefits as married couples in terms of insurance, taxes, adoption, etc. So far, Alberta seems to be the most resistant to these changes but even it is starting to come around.
> 
> Things here in Canada aren't perfect but I'm proud of the fact that we are continueing to EXPAND on the rights of same sex couples instead of trying to REDUCE them as Bush seems to want to.


Give Canada cookie.  Good job Canada.  

"That choice was based on the values and stance that the majority of citizens found necessary for the nation now."
So if the majority of people said that Atheism is bad so it should be?  How about a Pagan religion?  Race?


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 2, 2004)

someguy said:
			
		

> Give Canada cookie.  Good job Canada.
> 
> "That choice was based on the values and stance that the majority of citizens found necessary for the nation now."
> So if the majority of people said that Atheism is bad so it should be?  How about a Pagan religion?  Race?



If you are dealing with a democratic nation with the constitution or something similiar to it, eventually freedom issues win out.  Legislation legalizing slavery existed, now it is gone and seen as 'evil' yet it was there.  Women's vote was a heated issue and eventually they were awarded the vote... 

IF the majority of a nation vote and support that idea, for better or worse, government officials will support it or be voted out and the official that does support it will be put in office.  I didn't make the system, it isn't a perfect system, but it is the one I live with.  All the more reason to vote and take up the responsibility of citizenship.

The Choice quote was how the voter's chose the President, not personal take on an issue.  I was addressing the fact that the President, good or bad, is there, and doing the job he was sworn to do the best way he knows how.  

IF you don't agree, don't vote for him ever, or again.  Vote for one of the other candidates that is closest to your values/position/issues.  Notice I didn't say the same.  There is never a perfect fit, just the best possible choice given the choices.

IF you don't support his stance or issues, vote if it warrants or write/support lobby groups that stand against the issue.  Participate in some protest - hopefully legal and non violent.  If it is not, be prepared for the consequences.

Complaining and talking here is fine to vent.  How will you act to make a difference though?

Paul M.


----------



## sma_book (Mar 13, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I just read this in the current issue of 'The Nation'. Alan Hawkins of Brigham Young University puts forth the following argument:
> 
> 
> Is there anything wrong with this picture? Think about it.


 
Actually, follow the below link and you can pretty much see that versions of this - but not the marriage part - are already happening. From an ex-single mom point of view, this makes more sense than many of the other options out there.

http://www.co-abode.com/themoms.php

IMHO, however, this is seperate from the whole marriage thing. Both my parents are gay. However, my childhood doesn't quite fit the two gay-parent stereotype. My mom & dad married each other first. Dad, who was in absolute denial about his gay-ness, eventually ran off to play with the boys much to the pain and sorrow of my mother. Many years later, my mom found much more love, sanity, and over all goodness with those of her own sex. There was more emotional angst in my life from dealing with the repercussions of my mom and my dad being 'in the closet' rather than from their actual orientation. 

If people feel an honest genuine commitment to one another that does not harm me or anyone else, that isn't shrouded in self-deception, why shouldn't they be allowed to make that commitment public? I have seen more dysfunctional straight people than gay, and I have seen plenty of both.

- Sheryl


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 15, 2004)

"If people feel an honest genuine commitment to one another that does not harm me or anyone else, that isn't shrouded in self-deception, why shouldn't they be allowed to make that commitment public? I have seen more dysfunctional straight people than gay, and I have seen plenty of both."

Psych babble would call this dysfunction related to repression/denial in the cases you are referring to about gays and marriage.  On a cultural level, isn't repression something that the constitutional rights of US citizens is suppose to be protecting us from?

Thanks Sheryl


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Mar 15, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> A man and a woman get married.  Ten years later, man has a sex change and becomes a woman.  Now, two women are LEGALLY married, living together, loving each other, and raising each other kids.  They even make love.  Are they still married?  What does God say about this?  I just saw this on Dr. Phil so you KNOW it happens.
> 
> upnorthkyosa




Some years ago I met a couple who had met and dated in a lesbian relationship.  One of them had a sex change.  Now both of them consider themselves to be heterosexual and in a heterosexual relationship.  
NOW...how does THAT complicate things?  

The "male" has a vagina (the surgery for construction of a male appendage is exorbitant), and both engage in the same sexual methods that they did as lesbians.  Yet to all outwards appearances, the "male" is truly male...and looks like he could bench about three and a quarter.

Human sexuality is far too complicated and diverse to spend a great deal of time legislating it.  If two adults engage in consensual behavior that harms no other person, why should they suffer the consequences of negative legislation?

Much of this issue regards property rights, as has been mentioned.  I suspect a family member can contest a will set forth by one homosexual for the benefit of his/her partner.  A marriage license is a contract much more binding, is it not?  Can we restrain people from their intended post-mortem distribution of their property and wealth?  

I don't know...somehow I can't see securing "the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity" as applying to a few, and not all.

Regards,


Steve


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 16, 2004)

Hey, I have a question. As a matter of religious liberty, if two people decide to get married, and they find a church/minister (in any form) that's willing to marry them, then why--as a matter of religious liberty--in the world should anybody have the right to tell them no? Except on the grounds that their religious beliefs are wrong and therefore not worth respect, which last time I checked, ain't Constitutional?

Despite the distortions, all the Court in Massachusetts said was that they could find nothing in the Constitution to justify religious discrimination. Which is what some of you guys are pushing.

Then there's the whole "equal protection under the law," stuff, but I doubt the folks who're all upset by this topic have much respect for that either.

I just cannot see why in the hell anybody figures that they have the moral or legal right to tell other people who they can and cannot marry.


----------



## MisterMike (Mar 16, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Hey, I have a question. As a matter of religious liberty, if two people decide to get married, and they find a church/minister (in any form) that's willing to marry them, then why--as a matter of religious liberty--in the world should anybody have the right to tell them no? Except on the grounds that their religious beliefs are wrong and therefore not worth respect, which last time I checked, ain't Constitutional?



They can, but it doesn't mean it is a marriage as far as other religions are concerned. Some religions say you can only confess to a Priest while others would say you do not need a Priest. The thing is we do not have a U.S. Deptartment of Confession so there is no real squabbling about it.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Despite the distortions, all the Court in Massachusetts said was that they could find nothing in the Constitution to justify religious discrimination. Which is what some of you guys are pushing.



The court found that there was nothing stating it had to be between a man and a woman. I guess you have to be really clear now-a-days otherwise we'll have a disaster of biblical proportions.

Mayor: What do you mean, biblical?
Ray: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor... real Wrath-of-God-type stuff. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies.
Venkman: Rivers and seas boiling!
Egon: 40 years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanos.
Winston:The dead rising from the grave!
Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats, living together... mass hysteria!

Oops, I was daydreaming there....



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Then there's the whole "equal protection under the law," stuff, but I doubt the folks who're all upset by this topic have much respect for that either.



Sho-a they would.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I just cannot see why in the hell anybody figures that they have the moral or legal right to tell other people who they can and cannot marry.



Depends which version you follow. The "legal" one or the "religious one."

In some places black is black, white is white and marriage is between a man and a woman. Now we have too much gray.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 16, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I guess you have to be really clear now-a-days otherwise we'll have a disaster of biblical proportions.
> 
> Mayor: What do you mean, biblical?
> Ray: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor... real Wrath-of-God-type stuff. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies.
> ...


You know ... at times like these ... I really like MisterMike. And gee, I would have thought you were too young to remember that film.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 16, 2004)

I see. Point a) everybody has to follow my religious tenets, and nobody's allowed to have other beliefs than mine; b) only the people I decide should have rights to equal protection under the law should have rights to equal protection under the law, c) I don't really know anything about actual biology, but in my view some things jist ain't natch'rul.

There are a lot of things with which I disagree that I put up with, even respect, as necessary compromises about things that are really none of my business anyway. For example, that whole insane notion that God made man superior to women. 

I also see that my point got missed. I'd be interested to know, since there's nothing in the Constitution permitting the government to pick and choose which religious practices it likes, exactly how it i that you Constitutionally justify telling people they cannot get married in a church (or whatever) of their choice, by a willing minister (or whatever) who believes that their God (or whoever) legitimates such a marriage. In other words, marrying is a matter of religious liberty, eh? So....

I love these arguments, because they're always the same. We cain't be lettin' no black man marry no white wimmen! It says so right herein the Bible! And it ain't natch'rul anyway! You look at  black dawgs--they don't want to be marrying no white dogs! 

Personally, I just don't have enough arrogance to tell other people what they should believe, or how their God speaks to them.


----------



## sma_book (Mar 17, 2004)

Below is the text from one of those e-mails that friends and family forward along for guffaws and chuckles. Those who believe in a very strict interpretation of the entire bible will probably not find it amusing, or scarier yet, will want the honest answers to the questions posed.  :wink2: :

Regards,
Sheryl
-------------------------------------------
Subject: Fw: Food for Thought

Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality who dispenses advice
to people who call in to her radio show. On her radio show recently, she
said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination
according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.

The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by a US
resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as
thought provoking.

**********************************
 Dear Dr. Laura:
  Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and 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. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how 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 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 uncleanliness - Lev.15: 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 - Lev.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.  The passage clearly states he should be put to death. Am I  morally  obligated to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an   abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees'  of   abomination? 

7. Lev. 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 Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? 

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 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? - Lev.24:10 

16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 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.

Your adoring fan,


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 17, 2004)

Oh man....I love it!


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 17, 2004)

Yes, People actually pick and choose what they want to quote and enforce from this book that is called the Bible. Yet, by so doing, they themselves have cast the first stone.

I just really like those that are holier than thou, for they have chosen a path, and refuse to open theri eyes and see what is around them.

Just my opinion


----------



## michaeledward (May 15, 2004)

And on Monday morning, the world will come to an end. 

Just wondering if this is going to affect any body who posted in this thread?

Mike


----------



## Cobra (May 16, 2004)

I didn't read the other posts but I would like to say is that marriage is between a man and a woman, period. There is nothing around it. civil union is different. There is nothing wrong with civil union.

The government anyways shouldn't be interfering with marriage. What does a secular government know about marriage?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 16, 2004)

Found this on another forum...thought it interesting.


> Marriage has shown an amazing variety over the centuries, and still does so today. Amongst the variations for which we have words in English are polygamy, polygyny, polyandry, endogamy, exogamy, common law marriage, and of course monogamy. There are also 'arranged marriages' and 'political marriages' (an idea which seemed to have peaked in the middle ages.)
> 
> Concubinage, the practice of forming a somewhat enduring union with some other woman than the wife, or such union between two unmarried persons, has prevailed to some extent among most peoples, even among some that had attained a high degree of civilization, as the Greeks and Romans.
> 
> ...


----------



## michaeledward (May 16, 2004)

Cobra said:
			
		

> I didn't read the other posts but I would like to say is that marriage is between a man and a woman, period. There is nothing around it. civil union is different. There is nothing wrong with civil union.
> 
> The government anyways shouldn't be interfering with marriage. What does a secular government know about marriage?


Is the government a seperate entity from the citizenry? Isn't our government established 'by the people and for the people'. Can't the people decide what marriage is?

If the government can not know about marriage ... who can?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (May 17, 2004)

Cobra said:
			
		

> I didn't read the other posts but I would like to say is that marriage is between a man and a woman, period. There is nothing around it. civil union is different. There is nothing wrong with civil union.
> 
> The government anyways shouldn't be interfering with marriage. What does a secular government know about marriage?




Well, John Ashcroft and Dubya seem to think that this ISN'T a secular government.

Didn't Caligula marry his horse?

Regards,


Steve


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 17, 2004)

Hmm....The May 16th Something Positive seems to have an interesting look at the issue....

http://www.somethingpositive.net/index.html

:rofl:


----------



## CanuckMA (May 17, 2004)

ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> I don't mean Christianity as been around since the dawn of time...it's just that The Israelites were "Christians" before Christ, only with rules too strict. And then they split into two Group...The original Branch became Jews and the other Branch became Christians, which the Jews wanted exterminated. I don't mean that Christianity has been around in the B.C. era...Sorry about that.




It's time yo got that second brain cell implanted.

Jews never wanted Xtians exterminated, rather the other way around. Jews never were 'Xtians'. The rules are not too strict, you guys just are too lazy to follow them.


----------



## CanuckMA (May 17, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Is there any current rumblings about this gay marriage issue in Canadian gov.?  If so, are the terms,arguments any different?
> 
> Paul M



The Federal Gov has sent the text of the proposed legislation to the Supreme Court to make sure that it could not be challenged. The new law proposes a civil definition and full rights to religious institutions to refuse to perform same sex unions if they so desire.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 17, 2004)

*Reminder*

When engaged in the discussion of a hot/sensitive or otherwise emotionally charged topic, please refer to the following thread for allowable guidelines.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14456

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Thank you,
The Management


----------



## Phoenix44 (May 18, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Didn't Caligula marry his horse?


No, Caligula did not marry his horse.  He made his horse a high priest.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 19, 2004)

OK, thread's dying. Time that I wrote what I think, in order to piss everybody off...

At bottom, Marx was right. Marriage--the Holy Family--is all about the raationalization of economic and ideological production--to make sure that, "human subjects," are produced in a fashion consistent with the needs of capitalism. 

This is partly why we see all these fantasies about, "traditional," marriage, which never really existed: I refer you to the histories, "The Structures of Everyday Life." It's an attempt to shore up something that's far more recent than the "traditionalists," are willing to let on.

But marx was also ignernt. Marriage is also an institution, "designed" (there was no intelligent design on the parts of human beings here, any more than there was in biological evolution--though, in retrospective reconstruction, it appears so) to keep women in their, "proper," place.

These defenses of a tradition that never was--they're all about male hysteria, and the wish to keep women in the kitchen...except for the issue that contemporary economic productgion needs women in the workforce, which is the real reason the family's under assault.

Once again, it's a helluva lot easier to blame leftists and relativists than it is to examine the material relations of production in the present day. 

Hey, here's a joke from Prairie Home Companion: 

"Why are single women skinnier than marrried women?"

"Well, a single woman comes home, checks the fridge, sighs and goes off to bed. A married woman comes home, checks out what's in the bed, makes a beeline for the refrigerator."


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 19, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> OK, thread's dying. Time that I wrote what I think, in order to piss everybody off...
> 
> At bottom, Marx was right. Marriage--the Holy Family--is all about the raationalization of economic and ideological production--to make sure that, "human subjects," are produced in a fashion consistent with the needs of capitalism.
> 
> ...


Robert, you have failed to mention child rearing in this rant. Why is that? Isn't that what marrage is all about? The word Husband means banded to the hussy(woman of the house), and the house is where the children are reared and the house and name is what they inheret(which is sometimes nothing). My point is that , of all a man's children, the wealth goes to the son of the woman he married; therefore, its always been about the proper transferance of wealth. With that in mind, the institution of marriage was breached a long time ago.


----------



## Cruentus (May 19, 2004)

rmcrobertson,

I don't fully agree with the marxist idea, just because marriage in the broad sense, as a monogomous relationship between a man and woman (who rear children) has existed before capitalistic structures, and in communities/tribes where capitalism is not the structure. Now, granted, I have no doubts that the "american family" idea was used to propigate capitalism here in the U.S., but the "marriage" in it's broadest sense has existed for quite sometime. 

See Westermarks "History of Human marriage" And Howards "History of Matrimonial institutions." Howard Backs up Westermark and Starcke, and says that their theories confirm earlier assessments by Spencer and Darwin.

PAUL


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 19, 2004)

I see. Anything I don't understand is a rant.

Further, I was correct: marriage is a productive "machine," designed to produce children and "create," capital. Great.

These arguments that, "FILL IN NAME OF INSTITUTION HERE," always existed in either a) its present form, or b) the form I say it existed," always rest upon historical fantasy, irrespective of the considerable diversity of human experience.

Yes, some marriages have been monogamous in our current sense. Some societies have advocated such arrangements. 

And some have not. Various societies have promulgated polygamy, polyandry, serial marriage, marrying your sister, etc. etc. etc., including--yes indeedy!--homosexual marriage.

The invention of a consistent history of marriage exactly like that producing the present nuclear family rests upon avoiding any consideration of a helluva lot of people and a lot of societies, or writing them all off as perverse. It's erroneous in the same ways and for the same reasons that the discussions of martial arts tradititions are erroneous..

And anyway, I thought the whole point of being an American was that we weren't helpless slaves to the traditional past.


----------



## heretic888 (May 19, 2004)

My personal opinion is that Marx was right. But only partially.

Marriage, in whatever culture, is obviously a social institution. At the same time, however, it is _also_ more than that.

I believe Marx's major flaw (in pretty much all his theories) is that he was victim of gross reductionism: namely, he attempted to reduce ALL religion, all beliefs, all marriage, and so forth to nothing but attempts to establish material modes of production.

No doubt those may be true, but that is by no means _all_ religion or marriage is.

Laterz.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 19, 2004)

Ah. A common misunderstanding.

It isn't Marx who's doing the reducing, but the economic system he's analyzing: that's what's up in the famous statement about capitalism's turning, "everything solid into air." That's what's up in his discussion of what the wage hour means: a reduction of the multiple values of the human being to ONE value and ONE only--so much money per hour. 

Don't blame the critic for what they're criticizing. These claims that marriage is only ONE thing, and has always only been ONE thing are, from my point of view, a reduction of  human beings and their multiple relationships to ONE structure, and ONE alone, a structure that helps  crank out little units of religious value (marriage reflects the Will of God), biological production (marriage is to make babies), and social purpose (marriage is the ground of social principles). 

In other words, these claims about Christian values are really assertions of capitalist value. Crank out them wworkers, them consumers, that ideology making the whole thing OK and in fact invisible.


----------



## Cruentus (May 19, 2004)

Robert,

I see what your saying. In that case I would agree that Marriage has been used for many different purposes throughout history, and one of those is to assert Capitalistic values.


----------



## heretic888 (May 19, 2004)

Perhaps.

But the point remains is that's not _all_ marriage is. Nor is it _all_ religion and whatnot is, either. And that was what Marx was claiming.

Its also further confounded by the fact that the institution of both marriage and religion predate any widespread capitalism by several centuries.

I'm afraid what Marx did is what a lot of thinkers do --- they got a piece of the puzzle and thought it was the whole thing. A tree is not the forest.

Laterz.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 20, 2004)

If you'll read my post, you'll find no assertion that  Marx is the only way to see things. I'd also point out that Marx is not responsible for the monotony of capitalism.


----------



## heretic888 (May 20, 2004)

> If you'll read my post, you'll find no assertion that Marx is the only way to see things.



Errr... I don't recall saying he was. I was simply point out that Marx himself only focuses on an extremely _limited_ slice of the whole pie (if you will), and has a tendency to treat that piece as if it was the whole (with any non-materialistic philosophy being, in his view, an "opiate of the masses" --- a conclusion I would basically agree with, with the qualifier that it applies to _all_ concrete-literal philosophies, whether religious or secular).



> I'd also point out that Marx is not responsible for the monotony of capitalism.



Perceived monotony, anyway. 

Don't get me wrong, I believe that there are some very important truths to socialism that humanity would do well to embrace --- I just think we shall do so when we are collectively ready, and now does not appear to be that time. At the same time, there are qualities from capitalism that we should be sure to preserve, as well. At any event, I think it is a more utopian view, if anything, and the particulars that Marx outlined (such as violent revolution) don't particularly sit well with me.

I do believe, however, that Marx himself engaged in a very extreme form of reductionism and materialism (with all philosophies being relegated to his 'ideologies' of oppression), and tended to miss out on a big piece of the pie due to that.

Laterz.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 16, 2004)

Any comments about the debacle in the Senate this past week?


I'm surprised that Frist (Bush) pushed so hard on the issue. I see it only as a loser for the Republicans, but they wanted to mark the tree, I guess.

Thoughts?


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 16, 2004)

I haven't seen this thread before!  To jump in...



> But it seems there is an alternative for the gay community.


No, there is not.  Unless civil unions are made legal - what happens to the long-term "life partner" when her lesbian partner is sick in the hospital?  Sorry, only family allowed in.  What happens to a couple where each person is from different countries?  Sorry, no marriage, no green card or visa so you can live together. 

Ack - the fact that people want to change our Consitution (which I have very strong feelings about!) for the first time to EXCLUDE people, to start to make it a DEVISIVE document - that breaks my heart.  I'm thoroughly glad that it did not pass.  

I have similar feelings about gay civil unions (since we're talking about a legal thing here, not the perspective of individual religions) as I do to abortion (woah!  hot topic!).  If you don't want one, don't have one.  If you don't want a gay union, by all means, abstain!  But please don't tell other couples who love each other - and some have been together for decades - that they shouldn't.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 16, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> No, Caligula did not marry his horse.  He made his horse a high priest.



Maybe he married his sister.  I forget.  Maybe the horse presided at his wedding?


Michael, I've seen it argued that the Republicans wanted the cloture to fail so they could point out the moral degradation of the Democrats voting against it.  Had the cloture passed, it would have taken much of the wind out of their sails insofar as distracting the country from the election.  As they seem to be slowly but surely losing, one can understand the desperation of their efforts.

It might have disconcerted them somewhat to have a number of Republicans like John McCain vote against the cloture...and then having him state that such an effort as put forward by the Right was un-Republican.

Good points, Feisty.  I've often argued that heterosexuals shouldn't have Gay sex or get married to the same gender.  

In Newsweek this week the cover article discusses "The New Infidelity:  The secret lives of wives" and mentions that women's rate of infidelity is at 30-40% (correct me if I'm wrong...I'm pulling this from memory).  50% of men cheat.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5359676/site/newsweek/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5359395/site/newsweek

George Barna of Barna.org (he's a respected evangelical statistician) reports that the divorce rate of "born again" Christians exceed that of the general population...and evangelicals themselves have a thirty percent divorce rate.

Makes one what, exactly, it is that Rick Santorum is trying to protect.  Sounds like we "breeders" have pretty much mucked up the institution of marriage as it is.

The REAL threat of Gay marriage, as I see it, might be that Gays might eventually have lower divorce rates than those Barna lists.  That would be embarrassing.

The other significant danger would be that Carson Kressley might get married, settle down, and leave "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy".   I mean...dang...the guy KNOWS clothes.  Slobs like me will be lost without him.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 16, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> In Newsweek this week the cover article discusses "The New Infidelity: The secret lives of wives" and mentions that women's rate of infidelity is at 30-40% (correct me if I'm wrong...I'm pulling this from memory). 50% of men cheat.


You know, as you think about these statistics ..... its the women who have extra-marital encounters really have it good, don't they?

<<< ducking >>>

Mike


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 16, 2004)

Well, as always...the economy's screwed (sorry, the economy's actually fine, providing you're rich), we're tangled up in at least one idiotic wars, one-third of Americans have no health insurance, our educational system sucks, the Prez has the vision and decency of pigeon ****....

Time to git on after them gay people!!!


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 16, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Well, as always...the economy's screwed (sorry, the economy's actually fine, providing you're rich), we're tangled up in at least one idiotic wars, one-third of Americans have no health insurance, our educational system sucks, the Prez has the vision and decency of pigeon ****....
> 
> Time to git on after them gay people!!!




Now STOP.

I will not brook a pigeon bigot on this forum.  

Pigeon's have far better vision than George W. Bush.  Any comparison to him is an insult far beyond any they merit.  What's next, Robert?  Shall you call them "rats with wings"?  

Might I remind you that pigeons served in WWI and WWII as carriers of critical messages over enemy lines at great risk to life and limb...er, wing?  

Please note these veteran pigeons have NO veteran benefits?  Had they any benefits, Bush would likely cut them.

So...go easy on the birds.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jul 16, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> I have similar feelings about gay civil unions (since we're talking about a legal thing here, not the perspective of individual religions) as I do to abortion (woah! hot topic!). If you don't want one, don't have one. If you don't want a gay union, by all means, abstain! But please don't tell other couples who love each other - and some have been together for decades - that they shouldn't.


 I definitely agree with you about gay union.  

 I'm also pro-choice, but at the risk of thread gankage, I will point out that it is not intellectually consistent to compare the two viewpoints.  Letting gay people get married, even if you think they're abominations in the eye of your particular sky-god, doesn't really harm you (or anyone else).

 If, however, you happen to believe that abortion involves *murdering human beings*, then you're not likely to be comfortable with "live and let live" on that particular issue.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jul 16, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Once again, it's a helluva lot easier to blame leftists and relativists than it is to examine the material relations of production in the present day.


 I've never actually engaged in a discussion with someone who attacked Marx who had actually read *anything* Marx and/or Engels (or any of their followers, or any scholars studying their works) had written. Usually, they based their diatribes off of a screed from the John Birch Society.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 16, 2004)

> The REAL threat of Gay marriage, as I see it, might be that Gays might eventually have lower divorce rates than those Barna lists. That would be embarrassing.
> 
> The other significant danger would be that Carson Kressley might get married, settle down, and leave "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy". I mean...dang...the guy KNOWS clothes. Slobs like me will be lost without him.


 Steve, you had be laughing my butt off with these.  First point - "funny 'cause it's true!" (or may be).  Second, I'm just amused by the thought of Carson settling down and not being his over-the-top self.



> Well, as always...the economy's screwed (sorry, the economy's actually fine, providing you're rich), we're tangled up in at least one idiotic wars, one-third of Americans have no health insurance, our educational system sucks, the Prez has the vision and decency of pigeon ****....
> 
> Time to git on after them gay people!!!


Point taken, Robert. 

And, PeachMonkey



> I'm also pro-choice, but at the risk of thread gankage, I will point out that it is not intellectually consistent to compare the two viewpoints.


This is true.  My comment was not really intellectually consistent with the two topics, but is my feeling on both of those issues.  

All these folks, keeping me honest.


----------



## Rob Broad (Jul 16, 2004)

Have you ever noticed how Marriage and Carriage rhyme.  They are also very similar, you are hitched either way.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 17, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Steve, you had be laughing my butt off with these.




Feisty, I note that whenever anybody writes anything funny, you laugh your butt off.  I must observe that your butt is somewhat poorly attached to your hips.  

Might I suggest velcro?  

Better yet, use duct tape.  I have five rolls that I ended up not using in the War on Terra, and you're welcome to them.

Peachmonkey...insofar as Birchers and Marx, I've been thinking of starting my own organization...the John Birch Communist Society.  It will be made up largely of polarized totalitarians whose world views are narrow, but highly conflicted.  Prospective members have to be willing to take a pledge reflecting their willingness to submit to cognitive dissonance.

The bumper sticker for that one should really cause some confusion, don't you think?


Regards,


Steve


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jul 17, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I've been thinking of starting my own organization...the John Birch Communist Society.


 Sounds great to me, Steve.  I call dibs on the "Pro-gun, Anti-War" stickers!


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 17, 2004)

> Feisty, I note that whenever anybody writes anything funny, you laugh your butt off. I must observe that your butt is somewhat poorly attached to your hips.
> 
> Might I suggest velcro?
> 
> Better yet, use duct tape. I have five rolls that I ended up not using in the War on Terra, and you're welcome to them.


It's true - I keep losing that dang thing! Luckily, I usually just sit down on it and find it wedged in the couch cushions. Sulking. 

I hear there is now clear duct tape, for the functional yet fashionable person. Then no-one will know that I keep laughing my *** off of my body. :ultracool


----------

