Is it just me, or does wetback seem to be repressing something?

Thomas out side of the bible homosexuals is against nature, homosexuality is a sickness, they are not normal, they need help. homosexuals deserve a bullet in the head not special laws. Children should not be taught by anyone that its normal behavior its unacceptable.

If you wanna suck cock and take it in the ass, then do so without telling me everyone bleeds red.

Churches like to ‘pick their sins’ and some would cost them too much at the collection plate to harp on.

Again, be logical and consistent.

Not sure if this was posted towards me or Gene, Diane, but in any case you are exactly correct. When a church comes out and says they are endosing a pastor who cannot keep his married life in order, that is a grave mistake as well…. I am very consistent in condeming all sin.

The problem with some of those analogies is that you don’t seem to differentiate between the actions of two consenting adults and actions that are harmful to unconsenting adults or despicable behavior with children.

The Bishop didn’t make sweeping generalizations about all behavior, you did. I say shame on you.

Oh, but she does. She takes those behaviors that she “likes” and pardons them even though they are clearly sin. To be consistent, any preconception one might have in life must not be sin becasue “God made me this way”. If I am made to like to have sex with women, then womanizing is not a sin, right?

She is blatantly wrong and there isn’t even a way to argue her point rationally.

homosexuals deserve a bullet in the head not special laws.

Wetback, your words make it obvious that you are a hate filled homophobe. It’s too bad you hate must manifest itself in violence against your fellow man. What does not only your Bible but the law say about threats of murder?? I take your comments seriously and will report your threats to the authorities.

Rob:

Some people come into this world with affections towards cows, horses, and sheep.

Did you intend to overlook those with a penchant for camels?

Bishop Schori is just making things up as she goes along. There is no scriptural basis for her beleif, and certainly nothing that should cause her to embrace what scripture clearly condemns.

FWIW, the Episcopal Church also ordains Adulterers, so at least they are being consistent. (And so are the orthodox, who oppose the ordination of adulterers).

Diane, you say that Jesus never spoke about homosexuality?

1. If He should have (as Schori must think) , don’t you think he might have? He never spoke about pedophilia or beastiality either. That makes these okay?

2. Arguably, when Jesus did speak about marriage, about Men and Women coming together in one flesh, He WAS talking about homosexuality as well. Men are Men, Women are Women, and “sexual orientation” is not part of Gods plan for us. If it were otherwise, don’t you think He might have mentioned it?

The ECUSA has been off the deep end for a long time now, but finally the sleepers in the pews are starting to take note. Not long from now, they will be another fringe gay sect, ala the Unitarians and Metropolitans. They are worshipping a god that does not approve of the Bible.

OMG somewhere in the world 2 chicks are doing it!!!

What are we gonna do about it???

So there we have it, Diane points out that Jesus took away the law, and all Churches are curropt. wheres the argument here?

Hey Gene I do have a question for you if you dont mind (off topic) do you believe its necessary to be baptised by a priest or what have you, or do you believe that its only a tradition and that Jesus Christ has baptised us already?

Just curious, to me I dont see how someone who has (most likely) commited sin in there life time baptise a baby who commited no sin, it appears it should be the other way around to me lol.

I dont mean to bring this thread off topic but Iam just curious to what Gene believes.

jason: You make the common leftie mistake of assuming the opposite. According to Christianity, homosexuality is immoral. I clearly said that immorality is a matter of religion. I am not a religion. Get it yet? I don’t participate in homosexual behavior. Does that make me a “homophobe” in your judgemental moral relativism? I don’t fear homosexuality either. Confuse you? I don’t fit into any of your pigeonholes, so what are you going to do now? Try to stick to facts and logic, if you can. Personal attack is usually a sign of lack of substance. What is the benefit to society at large of homosexuality? Why should we advocate or even tolerate it? What is the benefit of that for me?

Not at all, Daniel. Like WETBACK, you must not actually see what I post. Here it is again:

Note I said that I could think of.

My point is that sin is sin. Churches tend to pick and choose. If we believe the Bible, we don’t ‘pick and choose’ what is and what isn’t sin.

Romans 1 is the ONLY New Testament scripture I can think off that talk about homosexuality, while condemnation of adultery and remarriage except for adultery scriptures are throughout the New Testament and talked about by Jesus himself, who never mentions homosexuality. Paul is the one who talks about it in Romans.

diane on June 19, 2006 at 5:17 PM

I NEVER said there weren’t others. Didn’t want to run and grab my concordance.

and I also mentioned greed:

Paul also says alot of other people won’t enter the kingdom of God. Ephesians says, for example, that the greedy have no inheritance in the kingdom of God.

And divorce without scriptural basis.

There’s a whole laundry list. You prefer to cherry pick homosexuality as the ‘biggie’ apparently but have no basis for segregating it from the others, such as gluttony and greed and slander….

By the way: Do you know any ‘greedy’ ‘christians’?

Unless you are ‘deceived’….better start warning them!!! It’s lumped right in with homosexuality and ADULTERY.

Now, if we want to get into adultery, there’s a list of well known..

Well, never mind.

Sorry Wetback. There are multiple examples of homosexuality in nature among all speceis. They don’t read the bible. Your argument is soley based on hate and ignorance. You are a homophobe. What happens between consenting adults is no business of yours.

WETBACK, has anyone in your family been divorced and remarried for reasons other than adultery?
Then they are termed adulterers. Interesting how some churches concentrate on certain sins.

Jason: So, now something is only immoral if it’s illegal? Immorality doesn’t depend on legalism, except in your world.

Hitting the highlights. First, the state does not require “love”, nor enforce any of the marriage vows couples might claim during their ceremony. The actual requirements of a legal marriage are very slim, and easily met, even by homosexuals. If they wanted to…

First, though, the government should not (and does not) allow or disallow marriages based on children.

My exceptions disproved this. The government does allow marriages that it ordinarily would not have, based on the presence (or impending birth of), or guaranteed absence of children.

Second, there is nothing to say that two people of the same gender cannot raise a child as well as a couple of different genders.
And you may dispute that and that’s fine.

Of course I dispute it, because men and women are different. Two fathers are never going to equal a Mom and Dad, just as two apples can never equal an apple and an orange.

But let me ask: if it were true that a gay couple could in fact raise a child as well as a straight couple, would you allow it then?

I already do allow it. No state prohibits it. Happens all the time. But this fact is no argument for same-sex marriage. Especially by your own “marriage isn’t about kids” logic

What about this, since you are concerned about the children, what if a two men fall in love and want to make a lifelong commitment, but decide never to adopt or otherwise raise children at all? Do you oppose that?

Personally? I would not oppose it. Legally? I would never endorse it. The state has no particular interest in adult “roomates”, regardless of whether or not they love each other. The state’s interest is in Family, which by its very nature, requires both men and women.

Thanks for the decent chat.

So, jason equivalences immorality as “tolerance”. Nice redefinition. I guess if I don’t like bank robbers, I’m “intolerant”, then?

Sin is sin, immoral behavior is immoral. There is no black and white here… Homosexuality, beastiality, pedophilia, pornography, lust… all sexual perversions and sexual sins. They all are condemed by God and the fact that this church is OK with the behavior shows you what a worthless church they are indeed

Sphagnumb- You are a sinner of the worst kind. You JUDGE people who live lifestyles you disagree with. You on your high horse EQUATE what adult men and women do in their own privacy with bestiality and pedophilia. How sad it is, one (you) can be so full of hate that they have to demonize anyone who is different from them or those who they cannot understand.

Oh wait, you were one of the guys who liked to beat up on the homos? You know, teach them a lesson. Beat that hetero sense into them. I hope you have a homosexual child. Maybe then you can tell us how you corrected it’s behavior. Maybe you’d beat the hell (homosexuality) out of it?

Chuck Currie, from the UCC, feels the same way.

I’d like to see adulterers, fornicators, porn addicts, gamblers, and alcoholics all stand up in church and demand acceptance for their behavior.

I wonder how these liberal denominations would react to that.

Robert108, I’m interested that you have labelled me a leftie, even though you do not know anything about me. If the definition of a leftie is someone who can see the hypocrisy spouted on this page, then count me in.

Research suggests that sexuality actually occurs on a continuum, with a small proportion of the population either strictly homosexual or heterosexual (you said 5%). The rest of the population falls somewhere in between.

As for your comment that if it was just a variation there would be more of them is laughable. Variation is just that, variable. Not dominant. It hasn’t been bred out of the human population because it does not appear to be genetically triggered, rather it appears to be hormonally triggered. Research continues on this. However, if it were genetic, a) homosexuals/bisexuals can and do have children, and b) homosexuality could be selected for through evolution because of the advantage it confers through extra child rearing capacity in family groups. There are also a number of other possibilities.

Another interesting fact is that the most virulently anti-homosexual people are often repressing their own latent homosexual tendencies, often in a self loathing way. Now I’m not implying anything about you guys, but if the shoe fits, etc.

I don’t know if there is any benefit to society in general if two homosexuals have a lifelong public commitment. Who benefits besides the happy couple?

Exactly. Why pass laws that benefit individuals if they don’t also benefit the collective? The common good before the private good, as I always say.

Especially by you. Almost every post you make defames someone. How about something positive for a change? You criticize the ideas and thoughts of others, but rarely offer any solutions to the problems you claim exist. Why is that?

r108-

Morality / Immorality is a matter of opinion. You think homosexuality is immoral. I don’t. I am not concerned with what people do as long as they are not hurting anyone else. Bank Robbery is illegal and I think it is immoral as well.

KiwiInOz, you have said many of the things I already said.

Now you see why I walked out of church two years ago when I finally got my last dose of double standards and war supporting.

Here’s some of the attitude that finally clinched it for me with the churches in the area (and probably most areas, although there are some wonderful Christians who meet together as they used to in the early days of the church):

don’t think we need to be killing them… more along the lines of letting them die out. pick an island in the middle of nowhere, and send all the homos there (males on one island, females on another). give them everything they need to survive and live in comfort, but no means of getting off the island. with no way to reproduce and no new young minds to corrupt, their numbers would decrease at a decent rate.

I guess he’d like to send them there along with all the rest of us who don’t agree with everything the ‘religious folks’ here from the far, far, faaaaaaaaaar right think is essential to true humanity and valuable personhood.
They’d love all of us who don’t agree with their position on everything to be put on an island, I have the feeling. And, you know, if it was a long way from them, I think it sounds darn good.

Actually, though, I think they need to be isolated from the normal people of the world on that island they’ve chosen for others. They are a raving group of far right NeoCons who really are dangerous, much like Hitler’s followers. They have that same crazy devotion to these leaders in whatever capacity they are in and they hate everyone else.

You’re right, KiwiInOz, Jesus was the only one left standing when he offered to let them throw the first stone. But you know what? I have the feeling that one of these ‘folk’ WOULD have picked up the biggest rock they could get their hands on and bashed the woman’s brains out.

Because they are so pure, as you can see from this thread, so full of love and compassion. Surely one of them would have had the right to throw that stone?

Jesus didn’t though. He just told her he didn’t condemn her and to go and sin no more. She wasn’t homosexual even!

Homophobe bigot #1(wetback)- We should put a bullet in their heads.

Homophobe bigot #2(Daniel)- We should round them up and ship them off to an island.

Feel the Christian love!! Kill all the homos!! No, wait, ship them off to a desert island so they kill themselves off!! Doesn’t matter, either way, they all die!!

You people call yourselves christians? I guess you are not the compassionate christians we so often hear about. You do not care about anything but your “christian” beliefs.(which convicts everyone who does not fit your definition of “christian” to death)

Anyone who does not fit into your little club is worthy of nothing less than death and eternal torture in hell.

Wetback,

Baptism,
I believe what the Bible says (as I understand it).

First you must come to faith in Jesus. If not Baptism is an act of making you wet. That’s all.

Anyone can Baptize if it’s done in faith. “Anything not of faith is sin”. Priest or Pastor not required.

A baby can’t believe in Jesus so baby baptism is a waste of time.

Baptism is an act of obedience after coming to Faith. It is a call of the Holy Spirit in your life. It is an act that demonstrates by the action an identification with the death and resurrection of Jesus. Dead to sin, Alive in Christ.

When I baptize, I want to be sure it is not a legalistic act. That it is an act of obedience.

Last obvious question. MUST you be baptized to get to heaven. Yes and No.

Yes, if the Holy Spirit convinces you of it’s necessity and you decide out of stubbornness not to, that is resistance to the Holy Spirit. Never a Good Thing. The Ethiopian Eunuch says, “What hindereth me to be baptized”

NO, if it’s just some traditional action of a religious nature. Most baby baptisms are simply actions meant to keep the in-laws at bay.

If we really believed that non faith (baby) baptisms were effectual then we should load up a military cargo plane with as much water as it will hold and fly over cities during outdoor concerts, ball games and festivals spraying water on them yelling “I baptize you……….”

He that BELIEVES and is BAPTISED shall be saved, He that Beliveth not (nothing here about baptism is there) shall be damned.

It’s all about obedience. To obey is better than sacrifice.

So, thanks for asking.

I guess Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Revelation was left out of Diane’s Bible. Sorry bout that.

I don’t really give a rip what the Anglican Church thinks. It has joined the great whore church.

Those who understand things will come out from among them. This is where division come. Compromise.

The idea that dumbing down our theology will attract people is baloney. Never happens.

The people you try to attract aren’t going to go to Church anyhow.

Kiwi, Robert108 calls everyone who isn’t right of Atilla the Hun a ‘leftie’.

Another interesting fact is that the most virulently anti-homosexual people are often repressing their own latent homosexual tendencies, often in a self loathing way. Now I’m not implying anything about you guys, but if the shoe fits, etc.
KiwiInOz on June 20, 2006 at 1:08 AM

Hmmm…three of the ‘bloggers’ just accused me of possible lesbianism in another thread. I think you may be right. There is definitely some anxiety in that direction on their part it appears.

Newly elected leader of the U.S. Episcopal Church Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said on Monday she believed homosexuality was no sin and homosexuals were created by God to love people of the same gender.

I hate these attempts to make religion more “progressive” by providing more roles to women, divorcees and, now, homosexuals. The more people to whom we can deny religious access, the more people will reject the claims of religion. I am all in favor of churches limiting their ranks to straight, conservative, white, right-handed tall men who shave twice a day.

Thomas I dont give a F who you show them to, truth hurts dont it.

In the defence of all the young children who are forced to have to be lectured on the twistedness of homosexuals. and as for my Bible, God would bless anyone who keeps the young pertected from such abominations.

Homosexuality has been around for centuries, at the least. Homophobia has not been around very long at all.

homosexuals deserve a bullet in the head not special laws.

Wow! That about sums it up. The Christian solution to the homosexual problem! Let’s just shoot ‘em!

I know r108 would disagree though, because he does not hate / fear homosexuals.(not a homophobe that r108) Let’s wait and see.

First of all if you are going to use religion to base your argument on then you are starting from a premise that does not exist. Prove your God or shut the fuck up! If you have to depend on your religion or God to back up or give you morality then you are basing your world view on a fantasy.

In case you missed it, this is a religious topic. This is a topic about a church and a woman’s seeding further evil into that church. You missed the point entirely I believe.

Their silence on those topics is what I’m talking about, Daniel.

Yes, they are ‘cherry picking’ and they have no reason to do so. It’s lumped in with many other sins and you are picking this one out because this woman okays it.

I’m really not sure what your point is, Diane. The church that I am a member of speaks out very loudly and often about all of the topics you have raised. But even if it didn’t, does someone’s church not condeming one sin make other sin acceptable? Heavens no!

Sin is sin, immoral behavior is immoral. There is no black and white here… Homosexuality, beastiality, pedophilia, pornography, lust… all sexual perversions and sexual sins. They all are condemed by God and the fact that this church is OK with the behavior shows you what a worthless church they are indeed. They might as well change their name to the United Sunday Get Together-ers….

gay marriage is about love, unlike having sex with animals or children or Sphagnum’s affairs with many women. People who want to get married to anyone are selecting a person that they want to make a life-long commitment to. I don’t think that the government should be telling anyone who they can and cannot love.

“gay marriage is about love…”

How can you know this is true in every case? Are you all-knowing? Gay love, however wonderful it might be in any particular case, is not marriage. The institution of marriage, which has always been heterosexual, is a primary building block of every society in the world. Heterosexuals consider marriage to be a responsibility, not a “right” which might give you some insight why it is wrong to call gay relationships “marriage”. If gays want to solemnize their relationships, let them create that institution for themselves; just don’t hijack the institution of real marriage for what they do.

“the government should be telling anyone who they can and cannot love.”

The govt is not doing anything of the kind. You make a common logical error here. The govt supports the traditional requirements for marriage. Anyone is still free to love anyone else.

“Marriage, for anyone, is about love and commitment. Isn’t our society better off when people in love can make a life-long public commitment?”

For real marriage, it’s about commitment to being an essential part of the social structure. It is about legitimization of offspring, the joining of families and the continuance of bloodlines, along with love and commitment. Only one of those is true of homosexual relationship.

I don’t know if there is any benefit to society in general if two homosexuals have a lifelong public commitment. Who benefits besides the happy couple? On the other hand, real marriage benefits everyone in many ways.

I’ll say again: I think homosexuals should create their own institution of commitment, and stop trying to hijack ours. They can have all the perks(which is one of the real agendas here) by signing a contract for exchange of services, plus a durable power of attorney. That gives them all that “married straights” have, without the social responsibility. Rights without responsibilities, the leftie’s dream!

r108-

It is only immorality in your opinion. Also, it is not illegal like bank robbery, so your analogy is ridiculous.

nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

defamer: one who attacks the reputation of another by slander or libel

Alot of that going around.

Diane,

Marriage and divorce in the pulpit.

Read my blog on this:
The Sacrilidge of Christian Marriage

Well you really aren’t very familiar with the torah, are you.

Satan, sin, evil – it’s all right there.

Satan shows up in the book of Job, and Chronicles, for example.

You guys are something else.

Put a bullet in their brains or stick them on an island to die out? I recall a man called Jesus is reputed to have said ‘let he who is without sin cast the first stone’. Which of you is going to take up that challenge?

Homosexuality isn’t natural? You obviously don’t get out much. Homosexuality is widespread amongst the animal kingdom, of which we are a part. Can’t get much more natural than nature.

After conception we all start out female, but then hormones trigger the genes to express male or female characteristics (X or Y). It would appear that too much or too little of the male hormone (testosterone) or female hormone (oestrogen) may have an influence on sexual characteristics. But don’t start letting the facts get in the way of your prejudices.

Moral relativism? Why is it any less moral relativism to not follow the rest of the laws in Leviticus, other than not lying with a man as a woman? Stop wearing clothes of two materials or by god you’ll be stoned.

So Paul has something to say about who gets in to heaven? I thought that Jesus determined who and how one got to heaven. Talk about revisionism.

You guys are a bunch of laughs. I see little to distinguish you from the Taliban. Don’t hide behind a religion of peace and love to spout your hate and prejudices.

BTW, Hell exists in any number of religions, so what you said about Christianity is untrue. Stick with what you know, K.

Heterosexual relationship is the fundamental building block of every civilization in history, I believe. We can start there. There is also the blending of families, sharing of property, inheritance….

Need more?

i think you’re overreacting a bit there, diane. i wasn’t saying “ha! look, diane missed one, so her entire argument is obviously wrong!” it was more along the lines of “hey, here’s another one.”

and diane, as far as your cherry picking argument goes (not very), i think you’re a bit off. the reason we’re making faggotry the “biggie” is because we have a pastor right here saying it’s ok. if you can find me a high-profile pastor (or any pastor, for that matter) saying that greed, gluttony, or slander, then i’ll be happy to argue against that person as well. until then, homosexuality is the issue at hand.

If the “sterile couple” is heterosexual, they already meet the requirement for real marriage. If the “sterile couple” is homosexual, it is of no significance. Sterile heterosexual couples aren’t out to change the fundamental definition of an institution that is thousands of years old, and which has existed in every civilization in history.

Just for starters.

Just popped back in again – it’s lunchtime. An interesting thread this one.

Wetback. I’m curious as to how you reconcile your brand of Christianity (“with a bullet”) with those of the guy who started it all. You know – love one another; turn the other cheek etc. There is absolutely nothing in your statements that separates you from the statements made by Muslim fundamentalists in Al Queda or the Taliban, etc. Each convinced that theirs is the only true way, and each prepared to impose it on others at the sharp end of a weapon. In the immortal words of Billy Connolly “Fuck off”.

I am also interested in people talking about families, and whether gay couples could provide everything a child needs. The fact of the matter is that the modern concept of nuclear family does not provide all that a child needs. The axiom, it takes a community to raise a child, was never more true. Extended families seem to provide more balanced kids than nuclear families (just check out the numbers of sole children in therapy!).

The sole parent families that I know seek to provide positive role models from the missing gender for their children, as can and do gay couples. Having a Mum (translation – Mom) and a Dad is no guarantee of positive role models. It takes love.

“Til death do us part’? That’s some serious shit.

Too bad it’s not enforceable anywhere in the 50 states. Those vows don’t even qualify as a contract. A pity, imho…

All a marriage does is make it feasable for a couple of people in love to uphold those vows.

So it would be unfeasible for them to uphold their vows, without the stamp of approval from the state? The same state that doesn’t enforce those vows anyway? Hmmm…

” Common Good before the Private Good yet again, r108.”

Dave: I know Marxism has confused you so that you don’t know up from down, right from left or good from bad, but this is ridiculous. In a free society, the common good is decided by the majority, who, in this country, overwhelmingly support traditional, or real, marriage. Only in your little Marxist world is the “common good” decided by a tyrannical minority, or a dictator. You have it exactly backward.

Nick what about that Husband Wife thing?

Dave, the vegan anarchist.

Stop equivalenting!!!

The proper role of government is to protect against the usurpation of rights. Allowing group A to marry whom they choose but not group B does not qualify.

“I don’t think “society” should do anything that restricts individual freedom.”

Dave, the vegan anarchist. How quaint.

I didn’t actually say that you were bisexual Marty – but your last comment raised an issue that hadn’t been discussed before. The key point – you can’t choose your orientation, but you can choose whether you act on it. Some (both hetero and homo) choose celibacy, some choose to marry someone of the opposite gender. This latter choice has been shown to be psychologically damaging in so many cases, particularly if the person is homosexual rather than bisexual.

Robert – the scientific jury is still out on whether there is a specific gene, a complex of genes, or hormones responsible for sexuality. Re-read my comment about choice – they are still bisexual in orientation.

Wetback – one of what people?

Dave: You just ignored all the facts about majority support for real marriage, and the attempted enforcement of so-called “gay marriage” by a small minority. What about that?

I don’t “oppose” same-sex marriage. I don’t recognize it as a reality. You can put words together, but if they have no corresponding reality, they have no meaning. What homosexuals do is not marriage. I support them, once again, to create their own institution for their own purposes. Just don’t call it “marriage”, because it isn’t.

Marxism enforces minority rule, and cares nothing for the majority wishes. That is the analogy. Get it?

You say one of them twice, genius.

Student,

The state only does what benefits the state. The only reason we don’t have polygamous marriages is because it places an undue burden on the state- not because it’s amoral or people will go to hell, or that the family structure is different.

You are way too young to be so jaded… and way to old to be so naive. A careful study of our history will show that most often, this country winds up doing what the majority wishes… and that usually happens also to be what is right. Its just that sometimes it takes us a while to garner the necessary consensus and initiate the required actions.

Our government was designed to be inefficient, plodding, and often cumbersome. Our Founding fathers didn’t trust government much to begin with (you’ll notice reading the emphasis in the Constitution is on limiting what the federal government is premitted to do, rather than limiting either the perople or the states), so they designed it to work slowly.

A good example is slavery. It took four generations after the Constitution, and a ferocious bloody war, to legally eliminated slavery, and another hudred years to disentangle the non-legal portions of our society, but we managed to do so.

Some wag once noted that we get the government we deserve. But this country isn’t about its government… its about its people. Obviously, that makes a difference… or we wouldn’t have the immigration problems we have.

Do you really think this is something society should reward?

I don’t think “society” should do anything that restricts individual freedom.

Dave: It should only be “legalized” if the majority wants it to be legalized, according to the way we do things in this country. It isn’t a dictatorship or rule by elite just yet, is it?

Kiwi: The fact that bisexuals can pick and choose proves it isn’t simply genetic, doesn’t it? Sexuality can be a matter of choice, then. The only valid case for genetic sexuality is really heterosexuality, which is necessary for preservation of the species. Even then, heterosexual behavior is regulated by law.

Heterosexual relationship is the fundamental building block of every civilization in history, I believe. We can start there. There is also the blending of families, sharing of property, inheritance….

Need more?

How is it fundamental? The romans were homosexual and they had a large empire with plenty of orgies. Not to mention, bathing with little boys. Of course it fell, but nonetheless, it was very successful for a while.

Blending of families occurs with any marriage. I’m going to have a stepfather, his family is going to be my family. However, I do not share the same blood.

Sharing property and inheritance happens with a LEGAL marriage. Sterile people and homosexuals can adopt children and leave inheritance and property to them. Mom knows a pair of married lesbians who have a house together. Homosexuals can be compared to sterile couples except for the fact that it’s two of the same private parts, yet they can do some interesting things together.

Ergo, if you wear two kinds of fabric together, you become guilty of homosexuality….and everything else in the law.

so does that mean you really are a lesbian diane?

student student– In the US, the state is the people. We vote, and I will on 7Nov06 for one man, one woman marriage in our constitution. This waste of time and money is because of Two or three judges in Massachusetts. That is the state with John Kerry and ? Kennedy, the one who drowned and killed Mary Jo K. in 1969.

The Truth: I just briefed a medical squadron who came back from Iraq this year. Several people are trying to get back there. They are patriots. They care for people. Our enemy, the islamo-facists, and (some would say, satan) are the ones who kill innocent civilians on purpose and even advertise their deaths on TV or the internet. There are some who post here who are completely brainwashed as to what goes on in the real world. They live in some fantasy world–never having been deployed nor put their lives on the line for our freedoms. I truly feel sorry for them. I have encountered several of them. One can not talk to them in an adult manner. They live in a theoretical world. Keep being a student, and keep your open mind. I also talked with an Junior in High School at this get-together of military nurses and doctors. She has her head on straight and wants to be a lawyer. She knows about the liberals in Georgetown. Her parents are: one man and one woman. They have taught her good moral values. She will be a productive, honest person in our society.

but nobody will get divorced if nobody gets married.

How is a homosexual marriage different from straight marriage? Would homosexuals trivialize it? I would think homosexuals would strive to be apart of the fabric of society. Many homosexual couples are adopting children. Wouldn’t it be important for society to accept them. At least for the childrens sake? I guess I need to have the Chief talk to me about it again??? I believe that two consenting adults that are tax paying citizens, should be able to decide if marriage is right for them. It just seems like discrimination to me??? I am not saying I approve of homosexuality or not.

You’re welcome, Zsa Zsa. I had to work today. I saw someone who reminded me of what you might look like from a description you wrote a few months ago ! She wants to get to Iraq or Afghanistan and work for KBR. (that’s Halliburton for the liberals)

Anyway, I hope my repeat post will help.

The Truth: There is a posting on a hospital here in Columbia that states basically that a person in the hospital can designate their “significant other” to have the priority on visits. The heterophobics need to stop their foolishness and political statements and attempted robberies of our SS money.

Robert your exaggerations don’t prove your point but make you look silly. Marriage is for adults. What kind of love? Yeesh you got me on that one. Let’s try leaving it up to the lovers themselves.

Marty (I can’t figure out how to do the cool white quotes thing…)
-vows: Of course the state can’t enforce anything in the vows, but unless those things are promised it’s not a real marriage it’s a business partnership. Marriage is first and foremost about love and commitment, remember.
-exceptions: OK but what if, as I said, the gay couple isn’t in it for children and is marrying out of love for each other? If a state makes exceptions for those not in love but for children, surely they should be fine with two people in love and without children, right?
-’adult roommates’: A family is a family before there are children. Who do you think comes to the wedding?

But this is all irrelevant, because a true marriage is a commitment of love between two people and two people only. Everything else is dependent on that love.
When a baby is being changed, it doesn’t matter if it’s a man or a woman as long as it’s got a fresh diaper. It doesn’t care whether the hand that feeds it is a man’s or a woman’s. It will love those who love it, and that’s what a family is. BUT that won’t happen without the parents first loving each other and making a commitment to each other.

Once the couple makes the decision of commitment they should be allowed the same opportunities as anyone else to fulfil their promises.

Chief…Will is in DC and goes to see the soldiers who just get back from Iraq. There are idiot protester’s welcoming them back with signs saying baby killers etc.

WETBACK quite openly advocates mass murder, writing:

A bullet is quicker than a ballot.

Nick, (use the b-quote button for quoting):

If a state makes exceptions for those not in love but for children, surely they should be fine with two people in love and without children, right?

Well of course, so long as they play by the same rules as everyone else. The state doesn’t require married couples to have children, but knows that so often they will. Equality demands that even childless couples are treated equally, which is why even gay men and lesbian women are free to marry each other — no one cares about their orientation at all.

A family is a family before there are children. Who do you think comes to the wedding?

A marriage is a joining of two families, certainly. Consummation is also important, is it not? Same-sex partners cannot “consummate”, nor can they join their family bloodlines. Again, proving that more so than not, marriage IS about having children… and grandparents…

But this is all irrelevant, because a true marriage is a commitment of love between two people and two people only.

You keep saying that, but where is it written? By what ancient and sacred wisdom did you reach this conclusion? Or, are you just making it up? Moving along…

When a baby is being changed, it doesn’t matter if it’s a man or a woman as long as it’s got a fresh diaper. It doesn’t care whether the hand that feeds it is a man’s or a woman’s.

What about the daughter, when she turns 13 and has her first period — how well can her fathers love respond to this event? What about the 13 year old son who locks himself in the bathroom for hours at a time doing what young boys do, how will his lesbian mothers empathize? What of the girl who comes home from her first date, having been pawed and nearly date-raped by an oversexed young man — doesn’t she deserve to get both sides of this story from her parents? What kind of balance do you think she will get from two lesbians?

I can go on and on and on like this, if you need me to…

Nick: You are incorrect. Having children is not a requirement for marriage; the vast majority of real married couples produce children, and the fact of their marriage legitimizes those children and provides them with a large part of their identity. Children who are not born to married parents are very disadvantaged in life. The minority of married couples who don’t bear children don’t somehow justify calling what gays do “marriage”. There are other considerations, as well. Again and again, I have said that I support homosexuals to create their own institution for solemnizing their relationships, if they want to do that. Society in general has no interest or stake in it, either way. Just don’t hijack real marriage for the selfish or politically agendized desires of a very small special interest group. We still have majority rule in this country, not the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Yes, Zsa Zsa, they are probably some like some of these liberal people who post here saying, “we support the troops, bring them home”! etc. Liars, hypocrites, unpatriotic individuals who don’t have a clue what others have done for them. They are the “dixie chicks” of America. Clueless, unappreciative, and counterproductive. If only they were not so brainwashed by communist propaganda. More truth: I also talked with a Korean woman who has been here for 30 years. she recently went back last month. I asked her, “what do people in South Korea want, ‘reunification’? She said yes, the younger ones want to see their relatives and think it would be like East and West Germany. What they don’t realize is that the USSR fell. They, just like a few here do not understand the evils of communism, nor satan in this world. Maybe in a few years or decades they may learn. Oh, thank Will for his efforts. Ask him if he can take a few digital pictures to show some of these non-believers what the unpatriotic people are doing to our brave Soldiers.
“Whatever It Takes”

Boys and girls need moms AND dads, because someday they’re going to be one or the other themselves.

Back to banning divorce again, are we?

Marty, how can a child grow up with a healthy view of other races if it grows up with a racist mother; how can a child grow up with a healthy view of women if the father is a mysogynist? You have created a straw man and are tilting at it with everything you’ve got.

I suggest that you also need to make the distinction between people of either gender who are militantly oposed to the opposite gender, and those who happen to be attracted to a member of their own gender. Gay people don’t expect everyone to be like them, and the majority of gay couples are supportive of their child’s sexuality, and don’t try to force them to be otherwise. Incidentally, children of gay couples are no more likely to be gay themselves than children of heterosexual couples. Homosexuality isn’t a learnt behaviour, and it isn’t a choice. Anyone who thinks that it is a choice needs to let us all know when they chose NOT to be homosexual.

As for whether we are all male or all female, can you tell me whether you class a person who is XXY or XYY as male or female? What about a person whose in utero development means that they are hermaphrodite? Also, as I mentioned earlier, in utero we all start out as female. It’s not as black and white as you’d like to make out.

Cheers

I cannot remember his book now. He was a philosopher and wrote a book about how faith and reason were incompatible. Wow… I guess that narrows it down below a couple thousand. Anyway, he was on the Laura Ingraham show. Laura challenged him that the New Testament never commanded Christians to kill sinners. He then said that in Romans Paul instructed Christians to kill homosexuals. It was pretty funny until Laura failed to offer a rebuttal. Romans says that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God. I guess not going to heaven for the author (who ironically doesn’t believe in heaven) is of the same weight as being physically killed. Only politically minded (as in idolatry) Christians could ever derive the idea of advancing the kingdom of heaven by deadly force.

Robert, are you still here? Is there any subject under the sun you don’t consider yourself an authority on? For crying out loud, give it a rest, willya?

“Robert, are you still here? Is there any subject under the sun you don’t consider yourself an authority on? For crying out loud, give it a rest, willya?”

I literally laughed out loud when I read this.

Then I realized she wasn’t talking to herself.

What a fucking joke you are diane. At least he tries to stick to the subject at hand, instead of bending and shaping into a rail against Israel or Bush.

That’s called originality. Say it with me: O-ridge-a-nal-uh-tee. Something you and your ilk obviously do not possess.

Its almost painful to read posts like these, diane. You’ve called the kettle black so many times on this blog that shoving it back in your face is starting to become less of a game and more of an obligation around here.

But a fun obligation, mind you.

‘Cause its all about the fun around here.

V

So now i’m being diagnosed as a bi-sexual eh kiwi? How nice of you.

I’m not bi-sexual, nor am i homosexual. I’m heterosexual — and I chose to be. I could have chosen otherwise, and nearly did. “orientation”? Nah, I’m just a horndog like every other guy — but far more open minded than most.

Life’s never black and white.

Mine is. Yours could be if you wanted it to be.

Dave: Animals (homosexuals) Have No Rights.

I turned 20 in 1986 as well Marty. That makes us ancient now. I didn’t have to make any choice; my sexuality was clear. I had just moved to Australia in ’86 and the women were hot!

The point you imply is valid – people with a bisexual orientation on the spectrum of human sexuality CAN choose whether or not to act on their orientation. It would appear that many vacilate, finally choosing to stay with one gender or the other (usually the opposite). However they may often have affairs with the same gender.

Life’s never black and white.

Now there’s work to be done.

Cheers

Real marriage is a lot more than that; it’s a commitment to become part of the fabric of society, something larger than the personal emotional needs of the couple.

Common Good before the Private Good yet again, r108.

well, what with being a guy and all, it would be just a bit tricky for me to be a lesbian, don’t you think diane?

Chief…I have missed you! Thanks.

If homosexuality is only a small amount of people, then it shouldn’t concern you. As a matter of fact, if two males or two females decide to marry each other, it should be none of your business.

Homophobic may not be the word you are looking for, but you are scared of homosexual people it seems, or have some kind of hate for them.

what do you think they did in roman bathhouses? or while they were forced to stay away in the roman army. They weren’t allowed to see their wives, so they either had to sneak out or find a man.

What is the benefit of a heterosexual marriage? Neither seems to benefit me. It’s all a personal choice. Perhaps we should just get rid of the entire institution of legal marriage and leave it up to the church. Not only that, but just have the banking accounts differ. Marriage, for some straight people is just a title and they really don’t care about what their partner is doing. you could say the same about homosexuals. You’re forgetting that homosexuals and sterile people fall into having nearly the same benefits as each other. It’s really none of your business how much sex is going on in the home.

And another:

James 3:1

Let not many of you become teachers..knowing that, as such, we shall incur a stricter judgement.

********************

Way too many people these days teaching and preaching with no love but alot of judgement.
Surprises ahead?

Hijack alert

Well, well, well, nutters what have we here…What’s that you ask?

ANOTHER BUSH GOP FOUND GUILTY

That makes 21 found guilty or plead guilty.
It’s a great day for democracy.

Hey Marty maybe Kiwi is just trying to distant Him/her self from you like a liberal, know what I mean?

Na, Kiwi is just another one of those people.

poppycock

Dave: As usual, you are confused, logically. A small group of individuals(the gay marriage lobby) does not get to impose its wishes on society in this system. In a marxist system, if a small elite decides that “gay marriage” is desirable for some reason, it mandates it, by reason of its dictatorship of the proletariat. The majority of the population not wishing to have their institution of marriage hijacked by a small special interest group is called democracy, which is the opposite of marxist dictatorship. Get it yet?

“Society” doesn’t benefit if we allow neo-Nazis to march in Skokie. “Society” doesn’t benefit if we allow libraries to store copies of Mein Kampf. And, as we’ve said above, Society does not benefit if we allow smokers to smoke and gays to marry. So why do we support these things?”

Society benefits from the First Amendment being exercised. We allow(or support, if you say so) smoking, even though it is harmful to non-smokers, who are in the majority. That is probably why smoking regulations are becoming more common. We do not support “gay marriage”, by a very wide margin, therefore, it shouldn’t be allowed. Get it? BTW, if a majority of Americans wanted “gay marriage”, we would have it. They don’t. The “gay marriage” advocates, therefore, are using unconstitutional means to advance their agenda, thus the marxist analogy. Clear yet?

I resort to a personal move because this is a personal issue. It is about two people who love each other and want to make a commitment to each other being legally recognized by the country that they pay taxes to.
It isn’t about lobbys or whatever, it’s about two individual people who picked each other out of a million others and want to make a lifetime commitment. That type of commitment and dedication should be encouraged, gay or straight. And the union that is created between those people is called a marriage.

WETBACK, I invited a rapist into my life and he almost killed me. I believe he should be castrated in the most painful way. Do you go for torture at all?

Robert I won’t ask you how your wife feels when you tell her that you married her for “property and inheritance,” because of course that’s not true. In America, where people have the right to chose the direction of their lives (and people die for that right), the ability to marry the person of your choice is cherished.

It’s also something we had to work for. Some other cultures and early Americans often had arranged marriages for property and inheritance reasons, but they also rode around in horse drawn carriages. The point is that just because we used to do something doesn’t mean it’s the way we should do it always. We’ve moved past marriages based property and inheritance.

In a country that prides itself on individual freedoms a person should be allowed to marry (and there cannot be another word, the unifying of two things is a ‘marriage’ no matter what it’s called officially) whoever they love and are willing to make a lasting commitment to.
I won’t go home to my wife and see her as “property and inheritance” and I hope none of you do now.

Marriage throughout history has existed to form political and economic ties, and to enlargen families.

Romantic love was virtually unknown until the troubadors of Provence started writing poems about it around the 11th century. Love in marriage has almost never existed except as an afterthought.

Love has had little or nothing to do with the vast majority of the history of marriage.

And no one is arguing that the government can ‘stop gays from loving each other’ – that is just a strawman.

Correction: God lives in the heavens above however, there is no set up “heaven” afterlife with good people going to heaven nor bad people going to hell. Hell is something created totally by the early christian church is a way to have people obey its teachings.

Dave: You simply must try to be logical. I guess I have to spell it out for you.

“We” don’t benefit from Nazis marching in Skokie; the Nazis do. The only benefit “we” get from that is the upholding of the basic principle of free speech, so that we all(except for the valedictorian) get the overall benefit of free speech.
In a like manner, then, if marriage were a “principle” or a “right”, then rescuing the one gay man from being too lazy or stupid to get durable power of attorney to visit his partner in the hospital would uphold some principle by which the rest of us would benefit in some overall sense. Actually, heterosexuals already qualify for marriage, for the most part, so there is no benefit accruing to society in general by altering the basic nature of the institution of marriage.
It’s not the exact same principle at all. For us, getting married is discharging some responsibilities to society, not an exercise of freedom. To put it bluntly, for us, marriage is bondage for a higher purpose. For homosexuals, it would be simply another arrow in their quiver of privileges. It is an entirely different matter. Yet another flawed analogy from you, Dave.

there is no benefit to society when a sterile person gets married either.

I don’t think “society” should do anything that restricts individual freedom.

Nobody’s punishing them, for making these horrid choices Dave. But neither are we under any obligation to reward them, or pretend they are legitimate — much less “equal”.

That is why I constantly ask the question about what any benefit to society might accrue from “gay marriage”. I have yet to receive an answer to that one.

A gay man would acquire the freedom visit his life partner in the hospital. Freedom benefits society.

I agree, there is implied sin in disobeying the ten commandments, but sin is forgiven once a year at yom kippur. There is no such thing is original sin in the Jewish Relgion nor is there any concept of a satan. Heaven and Hell are not defined in the Jewish religion nor or they contained within the original hebrew bible.

“Do you really think that this is something that society should reward?”

You mean two people in a loving relationship dedicating themselves to raising a child? Absolutely.

But that’s not the point. Marriage isn’t about kids so let’s not pretend that it is. Marriage is about two people in love making a commitment to each other, no one else. A government should support such commitments in all cases, and it’s wrong and harmful when they do not.

Is it really any brattier than the cry for “marriage equality” when that’s what they have right now?

The problem with is not that they are being treated unequally because of their sexual orientation, it’s that they ARE being treated equally DESPITE their sexual orientation.

A little honesty would be nice. Emotional propaganda i can live without.

robert108 writes:

One gay man isn’t “society at large”. I asked how the rest of us would benefit.

Earlier, when I asked you how society benefits from allowing neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, you wrote:

Society benefits from the First Amendment being exercised.

Exact same principle: Individual freedom is beneficial to society.

If you focus on the selfish needs of the couple alone, it is easy to see why you don’t understand that banning divorce is the only real away to fight the war on marriage.

Wouldn’t it be important for society to accept them. At least for the childrens sake?

Zsa Zsa, I personally find it extremely offensive, and a cruel thing to do to a child, to deprive them of either a Mother or a Father for no better reason than the sexist bias of their “parent”.

I do not think it is important for society to validate or accept this kind of sexism. I think it is very important that we do not.

At least for the children’s sake, you ask? These “parents” went out of their way to create unmarried and sexually segregated homes, knowing full well what that would mean for the children in their care. Why does society owe them something that their “parents” were unwilling to provide on their own?

Gay activists keep saying they want to be married and have families “just like everyone else”, but that’s a lie. They can, and often do marry and have families “just like everyone else”. But separate is not equal, and a family segregated by sexist bias is not “just like everyone else”.

A bullet is quicker than a ballot.

“Gay and straights who are not in love should not, and only rarely do, get married.”

Well, commissar, since you are making requirements, why not make the usual ones, like one man, one woman; not too closely related; above a certain age? Why is your requirement OK, but the ones that we have all chosen for thousands of years are not?

Not only that, Nick, but what kind of love is OK with you? Selfish, possessive love? Erotic love? Perverted love? Insecure love? Or is only true, higher love acceptable? Inquiring minds want to know. It has only been in the last 500-600 years that love even entered the marriage institution, and even then as an addition, not a requirement, as you would make it. Who judges this love, to see if it is worthy of marriage?

I say again, Nick, as far as the “equal rights” meme is concerned, that is handled with a contract and a durable power of attorney. Period. Any two people can do that. BTW, gay people can get married; it just has to be to someone of the opposite sex, like it has been for thousands of years.

This vow is one of the most important and traditional parts of every marriage ceremony, right?

“to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; from this day forward until death do us part.”

Kids? nope. Bloodlines? nope. ‘The fabric of society’? nope. Building a civilization? nope. the ‘Interest of the State in the Insititution’? nope. One dick and one vagina? nope. LOVE? YES. COMMITMENT? YES.

I don’t need to say it 1000 times, Marty, everyone who has ever gotten married already has.

Apparently you didnt see where I was going with that genius.

Kiwi: Anyone who thinks that it is a choice needs to let us all know when they chose NOT to be homosexual.

Summer of 1985.

I got question for you to Nick: Tell me how much cock did you last night?

Marty, I’m glad that you oppose parents who mistreat their children. I am too.
First, though, the government should not (and does not) allow or disallow marriages based on children. Children are a distinct (but very important in their own right) issue.
Second, there is nothing to say that two people of the same gender cannot raise a child as well as a couple of different genders.
And you may dispute that and that’s fine. But let me ask: if it were true that a gay couple could in fact raise a child as well as a straight couple, would you allow it then?
Of course you would, if you are really concerned for the children.
What about this, since you are concerned about the children, what if a two men fall in love and want to make a lifelong commitment, but decide never to adopt or otherwise raise children at all? Do you oppose that?

Nick: this is what I think of your point, I believe if you scroll up you’ll see it as well.homosexuals deserve a bullet in the head not special laws.

That’s fine wetback. I just need to make it perfectly clear that while I oppose SSM vehemently (for the children’s sake), and do believe what the bible says about same-sex sexual relations, i’ll have nothing to do with the likes of you, or Phred Phelps and his band of cretins.

Jesus would not have treated my fellow sinners that way, neither will I.

Marty, since your at least making an agrument I’ll address your questions. Wetback please don’t post anything further.

The feasibility thing: Absolutely, the laws are set up so that people who are married can fulfil those vows better. How can someone be there in sickness and in health if they can’t visit the hospital? For richer or poorer if they can’t share share inheritance or other eastate planning? When a couple in love decide to make the commitment to becoming one entity, these are the legal things that need to happen.

To your ‘exceptions’: People should not be having kids (or unsafe sex) before they are married. With their cousins or with anyone else. The reason people are allowed to marry under those circumstances is to avoid shame and to force people to be responsible when they haven’t been. It has nothing to do with marriage, it’s just a cover. It’s exactly what you call it; an exception. (Plus, and I know this is beside the point, but you shouldn’t worry about gay couples getting pregnant…)

I can’t follow your point about the treatment of people with kids. What does the court to that makes it seem that unmarried parents are married then divorced? Are childless divorces really “nice, clean and tidy”? That’s not what I’ve heard.

Again, I’ll stress that this is about love. Gay and straights who are not in love should not, and only rarely do, get married. What’s worse for ‘the interest of the state’ and the ‘fabric of society’, a couple of unmarried, pregnant cousins in a forced, loveless marriage or a pair of people who are in love and who have both decided to make a lifelong commitment?

They’re just having a guilty fantasy, Diane.

Signing off for the day.

Cheers.