NationStates Jolt Archive

They are not GAY!! They are homosexual ! He-llooo! Also, "gay" people are perfectly fine, and yes, they need more rights.
Evil Conservative Side: NOOOOOO! "Gays" need less rights, not more! They are all evil work of the Devil and have been put to tempt to mortal man/woman!!! NO!
Good Liberal Side: Ah shut up. "Gays" are not works of the devil.

As you may have noticed, I have a split personality. Like so:
:fluffle:

Unfortunately, some people have a different idea of what constitutes common decency than you and I.

It doesn't matter anyway. Laws shouldn't be legislated on what anyone's idea of common decency is. This is the problem with the arguements of those against gay rights, their opinions on things as subjective as morals and what is common decency are the only arguements they have.

They are not GAY!! They are homosexual ! He-llooo! Also, "gay" people are perfectly fine, and yes, they need more rights.
Evil Conservative Side: NOOOOOO! "Gays" need less rights, not more! They are all evil work of the Devil and have been put to tempt to mortal man/woman!!! NO!
Good Liberal Side: Ah shut up. "Gays" are not works of the devil.

As you may have noticed, I have a split personality. Like so:
:fluffle:

Wow. You're a bubbly one aren't you.

I don't get the first bit though. Gay, homosexual.....same diff or not?

Okay, I see absolutely no problem with gay mariage. I mean, who honestly cares if two people of the same sex get married? Whats the problem with that?
And, since religion doesn't matter in the politics of this country (at least it shouldn't), only the rights given or denied by the Constitution (slight exaggeration) are law. And the Constitution, as far as I know, says nothing about only people of the same sex being able to marry. So lets give gay people the right to marry and move on to issues that we should be concentrating on!

You are all completely RIGHT!!!.. the govt should have no say on the matter. HOWEVER, I DOUBT, severely, that many churches or synagogues or mosques or whatever, will agree to gay marriage... HENCEFORTH, i am trying to get to the point that gay marriage WONT HAVE TO BE MADE ILLEGAL, naturally, the MARRAIGE wont happen if its left to the Churches...


****************************)
enough with this malarky, you young people and ur devil monkeys, and jesus horses (dinosaurs)
-sorry just felt like saying that one randomely (im very pro-evolution)
****************************)

You know what, I thought about the exact same thing two days ago.
Wierd.
The posting patterns match somewhat, but MSB hasn't said anything about comparing all his opponents to Nazis, which Terminalia did a few times in the threads I remember seeing him in ("Nazi views lol, have a good look at your own PC ones, how Nazi are they?"), if I'm remembering correctly, and nor does MSB seem to accuse all opponents of being 'too PC'.
Of course, I only knew of Terminalia for the last month or so of his NS-existance.

It was actually when he did say something about PC thuggery that made me think of it. Add that to nationalist Aussie, and it all adds up.

You are all completely RIGHT!!!.. the govt should have no say on the matter. HOWEVER, I DOUBT, severely, that many churches or synagogues or mosques or whatever, will agree to gay marriage... HENCEFORTH, i am trying to get to the point that gay marriage WONT HAVE TO BE MADE ILLEGAL, naturally, the MARRAIGE wont happen if its left to the Churches...


****************************)
enough with this malarky, you young people and ur devil monkeys, and jesus horses (dinosaurs)
-sorry just felt like saying that one randomely (im very pro-evolution)
****************************)

So, you would abolish all legal marriage and all rights, privileges, benefits, and protections associated with marriage. Quite a long way to go to deny rights to homosexuals isn't it?

Still doesn't solve the problem of marriage being a fundamental right.

And you are still wrong about religions and gay marriage. Proof was posted earlier in the thread.

well, i read it, and what i got from it, is that the supreme court agreed with virginia state law. The govt is involved b/c ppl are petitioning for gay marriage, when the religious aspect of it is, that no church or religion I've heard of actually promotes gay marriage. If the govt stayed out of it, gay marriage would just NOT happen, and there wouldnt be a hissy fit about it.

Ever heard of the United Church of Christ? Or the Unitarian Universalist church? The Presbyterian Church of the USA (some sects)? The Episcopal Church (some sects)? The Reconciling Methodists?

They are all religious groups that support gay marriage. We can also through in many Pagans, Wiccans, and some Jewish groups--though I am not as familiar with them as the Christian ones. Therefore, since these religious groups support gay marriage, the arguement can be made that the government is interefering with their right to freedom of religion.


This being the case, leads me to what i was saying before, it is up to the states (and not the federal govt. including Congress) to decide, and/or each church/religious organization... and knowing none that condone gay marriage, it would thus be unheard of.

By the 14th amendment rights and privledges have to be applied equally to all citizens of the nation.


Like i said, civil unions are a different matter., im just talking about MARRIAGE.

Separate but equal has worked so well before. Of course, with civil unions as they stand, we are really talking about separate but unequal--something even less consitutional.

1. my uncle got married in civil ceremonies too (he's white, his wife is black)
2. yes, they are called reform jews
3. states rights were also used in anti-slavery arguments too, but mostly there was a problem with the new states admitted to the Union in the west (from the MExican-American War). The north wanted to keep slavery where it was, the south wanted to expand it to new states, and the west wanted popular soveirgnty. The Emancipation Proclamation came after the virtual defeat of the south.

Honestly, i think popular soveirgnty is the best way to go on the issue.. have a vote within the state whether or not to allow Gay UNIONS.

You had me right up to the end. You lost me for two reasons--first, minority rights should not be dependant upon the votes and whims of the majority. Secondly, this has already been decided by the 1st, 9th, and 14th Amendments.

So, you would abolish all legal marriage and all rights, privileges, benefits, and protections associated with marriage. Quite a long way to go to deny rights to homosexuals isn't it?

Still doesn't solve the problem of marriage being a fundamental right.

And you are still wrong about religions and gay marriage. Proof was posted earlier in the thread.

no i would keep all marriages that the religious organizations accept. Anyone who is married (this includes gays that somehow find a way to get married through a religious organization) will get the benefits. Those who are civily unioned will get whatever benefits comes with that package (a few less than a real marriage if im correct). Marriage is a fundamental right to all those who are accepted by the religion to be married, if gays find some church that allows it, good for them, i think the govt should stay away from legislation towards or against the issue, let the gays get pissed off @ the churches instead. and finally, some persons opinion before in this thread does not sway me at all. Common knowledge states that few, if any religions will allow gay marriage, period, thats it, end of story. there are a few liberal sects of various religions that will, but im saying mostly, which is over 90%, of religious organizations in the world, and the US are AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE. and thats that.

You are all completely RIGHT!!!.. the govt should have no say on the matter. HOWEVER, I DOUBT, severely, that many churches or synagogues or mosques or whatever, will agree to gay marriage... HENCEFORTH, i am trying to get to the point that gay marriage WONT HAVE TO BE MADE ILLEGAL, naturally, the MARRAIGE wont happen if its left to the Churches...

See my previous post about the religious organizations (churches really doesn't cover anywhere near the full range of religions in this nation) that already want to support gay marriages. Hell, there have been Christians churches founded SOLELY on the premise of gay equality.

no i would keep all marriages that the religious organizations accept. Anyone who is married (this includes gays that somehow find a way to get married through a religious organization) will get the benefits. Those who are civily unioned will get whatever benefits comes with that package (a few less than a real marriage if im correct). Marriage is a fundamental right to all those who are accepted by the religion to be married, if gays find some church that allows it, good for them, i think the govt should stay away from legislation towards or against the issue, let the gays get pissed off @ the churches instead. and finally, some persons opinion before in this thread does not sway me at all. Common knowledge states that few, if any religions will allow gay marriage, period, thats it, end of story. there are a few liberal sects of various religions that will, but im saying mostly, which is over 90%, of religious organizations in the world, and the US are AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE. and thats that.

Except that no religious organization gets to be involved in making laws in this country. That would be against the establishment clause.

You are all completely RIGHT!!!.. the govt should have no say on the matter. HOWEVER, I DOUBT, severely, that many churches or synagogues or mosques or whatever, will agree to gay marriage... HENCEFORTH, i am trying to get to the point that gay marriage WONT HAVE TO BE MADE ILLEGAL, naturally, the MARRAIGE wont happen if its left to the Churches...


You do realise that you don't actually have to be in a place of religious worship to be legally married right. Gays don't neccesarily want to be married in churches, mosques etc. It's up to each individual church on a case-by-case basis who they let get married in them.

no i would keep all marriages that the religious organizations accept.

Congratulations! Now you are taling about a violation of the First Amendment. I knew you could do it!

Anyone who is married (this includes gays that somehow find a way to get married through a religious organization) will get the benefits. Those who are civily unioned will get whatever benefits comes with that package (a few less than a real marriage if im correct).

And a violation of equal protection as well!

Marriage is a fundamental right to all those who are accepted by the religion to be married, if gays find some church that allows it, good for them, i think the govt should stay away from legislation towards or against the issue, let the gays get pissed off @ the churches instead.

We have a trifecta! A violation of substantive due process!

and finally, some persons opinion before in this thread does not sway me at all. Common knowledge states that few, if any religions will allow gay marriage, period, thats it, end of story. there are a few liberal sects of various religions that will, but im saying mostly, which is over 90%, of religious organizations in the world, and the US are AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE. and thats that.

Apparently facts and links don't phase you either.

Common knowledge is the refuge of the deliberately ignorant.

It doesn't matter anyway. Laws shouldn't be legislated on what anyone's idea of common decency is. This is the problem with the arguements of those against gay rights, their opinions on things as subjective as morals and what is common decency are the only arguements they have.Which is why laws aren't made on common decency. Sometimes uncommon decency is better.

I still don't quite understand the reasoning that "marriage" is religious but "civil union" is..well...civil. I can get married in a church but without the marriage license from the state, the marriage is not leagally binding. It's worthless (hmmm, worthless, like my current marriage because I'm gay)
Add to that the YEARS of debate that went into the Xian church accepting marriage at all. Agian I go back to Paul 'it would be best if you were like me...unmarried.' Yes the church argued the case of priests getting married but it also argued its followers getting hitched. Raging nasty debate before it was finally decieded that forbiding marriage was a sure way to run out of followers.
And lest we forget and get all caugt up in the 'sanctity' of marriage-Marriage was/is about PROPERTY. You're my woman, I own you! I'll give you three pigs and a sheep for your daughter. But daddy I don't love him. Shut up kid, this isn't about love, this is about sheep. What do you think a dowery is? You are buying a bride from her family.
And before my marriage is blamed for bringing down the fine ol' institution of marriage I remind you:
Married by America, the Bachelor, the Bachelorette, Who wants to Marry My Dad, So You Want to Marry a Millionaire....I'm sure I'm missing some. Yes my friends, that is the fine institution of marriage. sheesh.
hugs and kiss kiss

It was actually when he did say something about PC thuggery that made me think of it. Add that to nationalist Aussie, and it all adds up.

Terminalia was before my time. But I just went back and read some of his posts.

Very similiar style (although Terminalia was more openly flaming -- which caused deletion, so maybe learned a little). Similiar words used. Similar positions -- both rabidly homophobic and believe that feminism is the root of all evil. Both Catholic Australian nationalists. Same tendency to cry "foul" and seek matyrdom when pinned.

I think we have a winner.

Terminalia was before my time. But I just went back and read some of his posts.

Very similiar style (although Terminalia was more openly flaming -- which caused deletion, so maybe learned a little). Similiar words used. Similar positions -- both rabidly homophobic and believe that feminism is the root of all evil. Both Catholic Australian nationalists. Same tendency to cry "foul" and seek matyrdom when pinned.

I think we have a winner.

I thought you debated some with term right there at his ending. . . . I know that it was back in my better times when I was actually about to put coherant thoughts together. I remember being relieved when you started posting because it made things easier for me to not have to think so hard ;)

On a totally unrelated (well pseudo unrelated) I have a date tomorrow night with the hottest, sweetest, funniest guy I've ever met. Pray for me/keep your fingers crossed that it works out!

this may or may not have already been said, but i don't have time to read all of these right now...

the american constitution being what it is, i don't feel that the government has the right to tell anyone who they can or can't love. this isn't about homosexuality, it's about "defending freedom" and "the war on terrorism." if bush supports a ban on gay marriage, then he's being a terrorist in his own rights.

on the other hand, i feel that a union between homosexuals should not be called a marriage. though i don't agree with the idea of homosexuality, i feel that it's legal for any 2 people to spend the rest of their lives together. they should have all the benefits and everything of a married couple, and it should be exactly the same except in name. this is just a personal opinion of mine, but i feel that the definition of marriage is man and woman, so they should just call homosexual unions something else, rather than redefining the old term.

I thought you debated some with term right there at his ending. . . . I know that it was back in my better times when I was actually about to put coherant thoughts together. I remember being relieved when you started posting because it made things easier for me to not have to think so hard ;)

On a totally unrelated (well pseudo unrelated) I have a date tomorrow night with the hottest, sweetest, funniest guy I've ever met. Pray for me/keep your fingers crossed that it works out!That's one bad thing about CatTribe- he lets the rest of us get lazy. We can just sit back and go "Yeah, I would've said that."
BTW-This guy got a straight brother?

holy 4 letter word this thread has gone on a while

I thought you debated some with term right there at his ending. . . . I know that it was back in my better times when I was actually about to put coherant thoughts together. I remember being relieved when you started posting because it made things easier for me to not have to think so hard ;)

On a totally unrelated (well pseudo unrelated) I have a date tomorrow night with the hottest, sweetest, funniest guy I've ever met. Pray for me/keep your fingers crossed that it works out!

Guess you haven't met me then. BAM!

wow this thread is really long, so what are some christian thoughts on this. anyone?

wow this thread is really long, so what are some christian thoughts on this. anyone?

Been done......lots of pages ago. Most xian views focus on either the 'sin' or the fact that a marriage is only through church so can't apply (unless it's a reform church.)
I know it sucks to read through all the posts when they break 1,000

wow this thread is really long, so what are some christian thoughts on this. anyone?

this isn't about christianity. the government isn't (or at least shouldn't be) ruled by religion. it's not about what the christians, atheists, pagans, or any other religious groups believe. it's about the constitution and equality. civil rights and all that stuff.

I guess it all hinges on whether homosexuality is a mental ilness or a genetic property. and It is nearly impossible to get someone who beleives either of those to change thier mind.

this may or may not have already been said, but i don't have time to read all of these right now...

the american constitution being what it is, i don't feel that the government has the right to tell anyone who they can or can't love. this isn't about homosexuality, it's about "defending freedom" and "the war on terrorism." if bush supports a ban on gay marriage, then he's being a terrorist in his own rights.

on the other hand, i feel that a union between homosexuals should not be called a marriage. though i don't agree with the idea of homosexuality, i feel that it's legal for any 2 people to spend the rest of their lives together. they should have all the benefits and everything of a married couple, and it should be exactly the same except in name. this is just a personal opinion of mine, but i feel that the definition of marriage is man and woman, so they should just call homosexual unions something else, rather than redefining the old term.

Separate is not equal . . .

That's one bad thing about CatTribe- he lets the rest of us get lazy. We can just sit back and go "Yeah, I would've said that."
BTW-This guy got a straight brother?

Actually yes he does, but I haven't met him.

Guess you haven't met me then. BAM!

No, I haven't . . .but if you'd like to come by sometime, we could set something up ;)

Separate is not equal . . .

i'm not saying they should be separated, i'm just saying they should have different names. when computers were first created, they didn't call the monitors "televisions."

i'm not saying they should be separated, i'm just saying they should have different names. when computers were first created, they didn't call the monitors "televisions."

Yes, a different name means a different program, means separate legislation, means SEPARATE.

Yes, a different name means a different program, means separate legislation, means SEPARATE.

the intent of women's suffrage was to create equality between men and women, but that doesn't change the fact that there are inherent differences between them. homosexual couples aren't capable of bearing children together, so there's a difference (yes, i'm aware that some heterosexual couples aren't physically capable of reproduction, but that's because of genetics or a choice to remove that capability). but just because there's a difference doesn't mean they should be treated differently. i'm not talking about shoving homosexuals in the back of the bus, i'm saying a different name for their unions.

the intent of women's suffrage was to create equality between men and women, but that doesn't change the fact that there are inherent differences between them. homosexual couples aren't capable of bearing children together, so there's a difference (yes, i'm aware that some heterosexual couples aren't physically capable of reproduction, but that's because of genetics or a choice to remove that capability). but just because there's a difference doesn't mean they should be treated differently. i'm not talking about shoving homosexuals in the back of the bus, i'm saying a different name for their unions.


Which is still separate. . . . . what part of the definition of the word is being confused here?

What marriage originally was in terms of the relationship and power structure within the marraige has changed vastly over the years yet the term marriage has managed to evolve it's definition to adapt to modern times, why can't it do the same with the gender of those in the marriage?

Which is still separate. . . . . what part of the definition of the word is being confused here?

my dispute is not over the definition of separate, but the definition of marriage, which (in my opinion) is man and woman. that being said, i don't think it's fair to exclude homosexuals, but since they don't fit into that definition, the most logical choice would be to call it something else. redefining words tends to get messy and offends a lot of people (namely the religious groups in this case).

i'm not saying they should be separated, i'm just saying they should have different names. when computers were first created, they didn't call the monitors "televisions."
Televisions have nothing to do with anything, thats just a straw man.

Giving marriages between same sex and opposite sex couples a different name is a de facto seperation. And seperate is not equal.

my dispute is not over the definition of separate, but the definition of marriage, which (in my opinion) is man and woman. that being said, i don't think it's fair to exclude homosexuals, but since they don't fit into that definition, the most logical choice would be to call it something else. redefining words tends to get messy and offends a lot of people (namely the religious groups in this case).


No, the logical thing to do would be to redefine the word as the institution changed--which has already happened many many times. If religious groups don't want to call it marriage in their walls--fine. The governmetn doesn't get to pander like that. Separate programs are not equal or constitutional.

While I think it should be called marraige, maybe it should be done in stages. Get the civil unions first, then worry about what they're called. Go after the rights, letting the homophobes have that little word they think should be their's alone. Once that's done it'll be easier to get the courts to agree the name difference is a crock.

Though I know it's still not really equal to call them different names, I think you'd have a better chance of getting the whole package if you let them think they got their own little word all to themselves and snuck in with the rest later.

While I think it should be called marraige, maybe it should be done in stages. Get the civil unions first, then worry about what their called. Go after the rights, letting the homophobes have that little word they think should be theirs alone. Once that's done it'll be easier to get the courts to agree the name difference is a crock.

Though I know it's still not really equal to call them different names, I think you'd have a better chance of getting the whole package if you let them think they got their own little word all to themselves and snuck in with the rest later.

Oh I'm not saying that we don't get sneaky about getting. I'm just debating the ultimate outcome/what is right.

No, the logical thing to do would be to redefine the word as the institution changed--which has already happened many many times. If religious groups don't want to call it marriage in their walls--fine. The governmetn doesn't get to pander like that. Separate programs are not equal or constitutional.

you'll have to excuse me, since i plan on becoming an english major when i go to college, and i consider the redefinition of words to be a form of mutilation of our language. let me remind you that i am for full equality of homosexuals and heterosexuals. it's my opinion that changing the name of gay unifications doesn't create inequality, and i understand that you disagree. but let me also remind you that it's already being called "gay marriage." maybe i'm just weird, but that always sounds slightly derogatory to me, so i'm just saying they should call it something else.

...though i don't agree with the idea of homosexuality...

Hahahah, that one always cracks me up. Any other "ideas" you have been arguing with lately?

Personally I've been having trouble with pine trees, I don't agree with the idea of them.

Originally Posted by Leo420
Your not born GAY, its not something you catch, it's a moral CHOICE!


I just want to backtrack a bit to the born gay/become gay argument.
Tonight when you curl up in bed with your significant other take a moment to breath in the scent of them, feel their skin slide against yours and take time to trace the curves of their body. How do you feel? Does it feel right, do they fit and complete you? When I'm with my wife, I fit! Everything about her feels right to me. It doesn't with men. Yes, I could leave my wife of 10 years right now, take up with a man and make the choice to have only men in my bed from now on, but it won't feel right.
If you jump into bed with the opposite gender tonight, how will it feel? (and yes, I am going deeper than sex here, I'm talking beyond the libido)
Is my sexuality a choice? Only in who I have sex with. Deep down, where it really counts, women fit better then men.
hmmm, there she is now......I'm gonna go test my theory.... :p

You do realise, of course... that tht feeling isn't the sole preserve of the heterosexual... right?

That way you feel? That tenderness... that natural 'fit'.... that indefinable 'rightness'?

Well, across this world... millions of boys are feeling that for their girls... and millions of boys are feeling that for their boys.

And the same for the girls, of course.

The government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. Marriage is a religious term. I say, civil unions for everybody and leave the term "marriage" to churches. If you're against that, I'd say you're a homophobe. (Although it's almost as bad to force a bunch of Mormons, for instance, to recognize two men as "married")

Keep the church out of marriage entirely, is my belief.

Marriage is a purely technical term, and has no connection to religion. Let them hold their little ceremonies if they want, but a marriage is two (or more) units (we mean people, here, but the term works just a well for any two objects) being joined together as one new unit.

Totally non-religious. As it should be. As it always has been.

You do realise, of course... that tht feeling isn't the sole preserve of the heterosexual... right?

That way you feel? That tenderness... that natural 'fit'.... that indefinable 'rightness'?

Well, across this world... millions of boys are feeling that for their girls... and millions of boys are feeling that for their boys.

And the same for the girls, of course.I wasn't under the impression that he was arguing against gays feelings. I think he goofed while trying to quote Leo420.
He gives an example that should let straights realize that ones preference isn't all about sex. It's about who you feel romantic love and that feeling of belonging with. I sometimes get the impression that people ignore that.

I wasn't under the impression that he was arguing against gays feelings. I think he goofed while trying to quote Leo420.
He gives an example that should let straights realize that ones preference isn't all about sex. It's about who you feel romantic love and that feeling of belonging with. I sometimes get the impression that people ignore that.

It isn't a 'sometimes' thing, I don't think...

And, I don't think they acidentally ignore it, either.

People can easily dismiss sex... it is an aberration... it is sex-chemicals misfiring.

But when you start dealing with the inexplicable complexity of love.... well, then people start losing solid ground from which to fight against your claims of injustice.

Well - that's what I think is happening, anyway.

Keep the church out of marriage entirely, is my belief.

Marriage is a purely technical term, and has no connection to religion. Let them hold their little ceremonies if they want, but a marriage is two (or more) units (we mean people, here, but the term works just a well for any two objects) being joined together as one new unit.

Totally non-religious. As it should be. As it always has been.


Not to totally disagree with you here...wait, that's exactly what I'm about to do.

Go back through the mists of history and look at practically every culture (I say practically because I haven't studied all of them.) Almost every single culture has a marriage ceremony officiated by a priest or that attachs a mystical significance to union. That goes for the big modern day religions, like, say, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism. I'll bet Sikhism, Wicca, Zoroastrianism, Druidism, and lots and lots of other beliefs attach a significance to marriage in a spiritual way, and it probably has more to do with religion than law for most people worldwide than the other way around.

Now, that being said, saying that you can't marry a member of the same sex is just plain silly. It's not just the union of bodies, it's the union of souls. And if that soul happens to reside in a member of the same sex, far be it from me or anyone else to tell anyone what they can and can't do.

The easiest solution to gay marriage is to take the word marriage out of state law, not religious doctrine. If some Christians want the word marriage to hold "special meaning" fine, let them. Everyone can have "civil unions," since they're the "exact same thing," right? And in the meantime give same sex partners the same rights as other married people, because it's the decent and moral thing to do.

Not to totally disagree with you here...wait, that's exactly what I'm about to do.

Go back through the mists of history and look at practically every culture (I say practically because I haven't studied all of them.) Almost every single culture has a marriage ceremony officiated by a priest or that attachs a mystical significance to union. That goes for the big modern day religions, like, say, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism. I'll bet Sikhism, Wicca, Zoroastrianism, Druidism, and lots and lots of other beliefs attach a significance to marriage in a spiritual way, and it probably has more to do with religion than law for most people worldwide than the other way around.

Now, that being said, saying that you can't marry a member of the same sex is just plain silly. It's not just the union of bodies, it's the union of souls. And if that soul happens to reside in a member of the same sex, far be it from me or anyone else to tell anyone what they can and can't do.

The easiest solution to gay marriage is to take the word marriage out of state law, not religious doctrine. If some Christians want the word marriage to hold "special meaning" fine, let them. Everyone can have "civil unions," since they're the "exact same thing," right? And in the meantime give same sex partners the same rights as other married people, because it's the decent and moral thing to do.

If you thought more deeply about what you said: "Almost every single culture has a marriage ceremony officiated by a priest or that attachs a mystical significance to union"... you'd see what I mean. Pretty much every culture has, sooner or later, decided on the mechanism of marriage.... either to enforce the ownership of one partner by the other, or to regulate the transaction of titles, lands or wealth.

For the most part, religions have attached ceremonies to these transactions... but, it remains true that marriage is a legal institution... a marketing mechanism, even... that just HAPPENS to have some religious bells and whistles chasing after it.

One has only to look back a few hundred years at the history of the UK. Sure, there WERE religious ceremonies for marriages.... but was that for all marriages? No - far from it. Most were married through Common Law.

In fact, mass marriage through the church is a relatively NEW invention for most western cultures.

you'll have to excuse me, since i plan on becoming an english major when i go to college, and i consider the redefinition of words to be a form of mutilation of our language. let me remind you that i am for full equality of homosexuals and heterosexuals. it's my opinion that changing the name of gay unifications doesn't create inequality, and i understand that you disagree. but let me also remind you that it's already being called "gay marriage." maybe i'm just weird, but that always sounds slightly derogatory to me, so i'm just saying they should call it something else.

Perhaps when you study the history of language you will discover that words always have and always will take on new meanings over time. Unless you consider the Oxford English Dictionary a log of abomination, your linguistic snobbery is just silly.

When you add the fact that the concept of marriage has historically included same-sex unions, your point moves beyond absurd.

you'll have to excuse me, since i plan on becoming an english major when i go to college, and i consider the redefinition of words to be a form of mutilation of our language. let me remind you that i am for full equality of homosexuals and heterosexuals. it's my opinion that changing the name of gay unifications doesn't create inequality, and i understand that you disagree. but let me also remind you that it's already being called "gay marriage." maybe i'm just weird, but that always sounds slightly derogatory to me, so i'm just saying they should call it something else.

You plan on beoming an English Major, yet you resist the evolution of langauge?

You don't realise just how much of 'our language' is stolen or corrupted...

If you thought more deeply about what you said: "Almost every single culture has a marriage ceremony officiated by a priest or that attachs a mystical significance to union"... you'd see what I mean. Pretty much every culture has, sooner or later, decided on the mechanism of marriage.... either to enforce the ownership of one partner by the other, or to regulate the transaction of titles, lands or wealth.


That's certainly a valid point which I concede, which I didn't think of based on the context of your previous statement that "marriage...has no connection to religion." However I maintain that to many people marriage goes beyond the mere functionality of legal practices and agreements. While marriage has most certainly been used by people of practically every culture (again, I haven't studied them all,) to simply gain property or position, notably Christian Europe circa 0-1900AD (a bit of a generalization,) homosexual marriage is not just about legal rights to many of the people who seek it.

The fact that the Catholic Church is so often attacked on its position about gays is because it condemns homsexual practices and refuses to acknowledge gay practices and marriage as something other than a sin. Contrary to popular opinion, homosexuality is not classified as a sin by the Church, but homosexuals are absurdly called to "a life of chastity." This is entirely unfair and probably wrong.

I say this being a Catholic and therefore of the opinion that humanity is profoundly imperfect, and its unreasonable to expect us to be perfect in any way, especially where love is concerned (a realm of human experience where what could be considered poor moral judgement is widespread by practically everyone, everywhere, and where the lack of poor judgement is more cause for concern than its absence.) It should also be noted that I'm of the screwy persuasion that marriage is a sacrament and always has been, and love itself is something holy (which is why I'm a proponent of gay marriage.)

Therefore, I'll bow out of arguements until I can do more research to bolster any eventual claims.

Speaking of that, however:

When you add the fact that the concept of marriage has historically included same-sex unions, your point moves beyond absurd.

I've heard this argued before, and I've heard the argument attacked because the example usually provided by anthropologists applies to one tribe in Africa where same-sex marriage occurs exclusively amongst women for purely legal considerations and is viewed by the tribe as a legally-binding sham. Are there other examples that you can provide?

Edited for egregious mispelling of "argument."

you'll have to excuse me, since i plan on becoming an english major when i go to college, and i consider the redefinition of words to be a form of mutilation of our language. let me remind you that i am for full equality of homosexuals and heterosexuals. it's my opinion that changing the name of gay unifications doesn't create inequality, and i understand that you disagree. but let me also remind you that it's already being called "gay marriage." maybe i'm just weird, but that always sounds slightly derogatory to me, so i'm just saying they should call it something else.

I'd agree with The Cat-Tribe and Grave_n_idle that if you're against words' meaning evolving or sentence structure being redefined (e.g. use of prepositions at the beginning of a sentence,) that English is not the major you should take.

French sounds much more like what you're looking for, as I understand their Academy of Language is still around.

That's certainly a valid point which I concede, which I didn't think of based on the context of your previous statement that "marriage...has no connection to religion." However I maintain that to many people marriage goes beyond the mere functionality of legal practices and agreements. While marriage has most certainly been used by people of practically every culture (again, I haven't studied them all,) to simply gain property or position, notably Christian Europe circa 0-1900AD (a bit of a generalization,) homosexual marriage is not just about legal rights to many of the people who seek it.

The fact that the Catholic Church is so often attacked on its position about gays is because it condemns homsexual practices and refuses to acknowledge gay practices and marriage as something other than a sin. Contrary to popular opinion, homosexuality is not classified as a sin by the Church, but homosexuals are absurdly called to "a life of chastity." This is entirely unfair and probably wrong.

I say this being a Catholic and therefore of the opinion that humanity is profoundly imperfect, and its unreasonable to expect us to be perfect in any way, especially where love is concerned (a realm of human experience where what could be considered poor moral judgement is widespread by practically everyone, everywhere, and where the lack of poor judgement is more cause for concern than its absence.) It should also be noted that I'm of the screwy persuasion that marriage is a sacrament and always has been, and love itself is something holy (which is why I'm a proponent of gay marriage.)

Therefore, I'll bow out of arguements until I can do more research to bolster any eventual claims.


Okay - there are two forces at work... greed: in the form of the preservation of wealth, or the perpetuation of power... and love: in the form of a uniting force that makes people want to spend time together.

Let's look at marriage in those contexts?

Well... first - we have to allow for the fact that, for most of our Post-Christian history, 'marriage' (as we would recognise it) has been the sole province of the wealthy. Thus, we have more than a thousand years before any PRETENSE at 'love' as an occupation for the wealthy was introduced... in the form of 'courtly love'. It is worth noting that, even at that point, 'love' was still not a reason for marriage... indeed, the point of 'courtly love' was basically to pick someone you COULND'T have... so that you could safely make extravagant gestures of unrequited passion toward them.

So - up until fairly recently, the wealthy (who were the ones having what WE would recognise as 'a wedding') were marrying to consolidate powerbases, avoid wars, unite families, combine wealth, promote a title... etc... 'marriage' was a tool of finance, and of politics.

So - what were the 'commonalty' doing? Well, they were getting pregnant... and thus, there was the need for a form of 'ownership'... but they were also uniting because they WANTED to. They would live together for a period of time (this has historically and geographically varied... from months to years) after which they would become Common Law partners... this doesn't seem to have been entirely limited to 'mixed' couples, either.

You must note that Common Law is entirely about 'law'... and has no religious significance... there were (usually) no ceremonies, the 'contract' was between partners... to love each other and stay together... without the witness of, or the need for, divine power.

Thus, certainly in the West, 'marriage' truly has been a non-church event... and certainly not an event that falls into the province of any one religion or denomination.


Regarding the NEED for gay marriage. Jesus and Paul both teach adamantly against lust. In fact, reading pretty much all of the New Testament protestations supposed to refer to homosexuality... the sin of lust is what is being condemned.

Now, Paul also goes so far as to say that marriage is far preferable to lust... 'it is better to marry, than to burn'. Thus - a sanctified 'lust' is no longer a 'lust'. It becomes a blessing, within the sacrament of marriage.

It is not hard to imagine how this might ALSO apply to the 'gay' marriage... mitigating the 'sin' of lust, by betrothing two souls for eternity.

At least - that is the biblical understanding of this Godless Heathen. :)

I've heard this argued before, and I've heard the argument attacked because the example usually provided by anthropologists applies to one tribe in Africa where same-sex marriage occurs exclusively amongst women for purely legal considerations and is viewed by the tribe as a legally-binding sham. Are there other examples that you can provide?


Well, many native american cultures revered homosexuals and their unions.
Then there are St. Baccus and St. Serge (I believe it was Serge). You might find this link useful in seeing that even the Christian church (including Catholics) have celebrated same sex unions:

http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/gaymarriagerite.html

I will admit that the site is somewhat liberal (okay, extremely so). Still it details farely well verifiable historical fact.

You are talking about sentience. . . I am talking about sapience. There is a difference in the two. Sapience lies along the continuum of self-awareness--but it is a point on that continuum. You are either sapient or you are not.

I guess I was talking about some species being sapient and some not then.

Obviously, flies are not sapient. But can you say the same about, for example, dolphins?

my dispute is not over the definition of separate, but the definition of marriage, which (in my opinion) is man and woman.

So?

that being said, i don't think it's fair to exclude homosexuals, but since they don't fit into that definition, the most logical choice would be to call it something else.

Why?

redefining words tends to get messy and offends
a lot of people (namely the religious groups in this case).

So?

I guess I was talking about some species being sapient and some not then.

Obviously, flies are not sapient. But can you say the same about, for example, dolphins?

I cannot say for certain that any species is sapient or not--I can state how likely I think it to be. However, what I can state is that they are sapient OR they are not.

On a totally unrelated (well pseudo unrelated) I have a date tomorrow night with the hottest, sweetest, funniest guy I've ever met. Pray for me/keep your fingers crossed that it works out!

*hugs* Good luck!

*thinks about praying that you get laid, decides that might be a bit much, prays that you have a good time (which might include the former) instead* =)

wow this thread is really long, so what are some christian thoughts on this. anyone?

My thoughts:

God wishes for us to experience love, in all its many forms. There is the love of God, there is the love of a child for their parent, a parent for their child, the love between two friends, the love of family, and the romantic love that forms between two people - arguably one of the highest forms of love. Some people are more able to find that love with a member of the same gender. This is not a problem.

In my personal view, sex is something that should be confined to a relationship in which such love is involved. Promiscuity is a misuse of that gift. Of course, this rule applies equally to heterosexual and homosexual couples.

you'll have to excuse me, since i plan on becoming an english major when i go to college, and i consider the redefinition of words to be a form of mutilation of our language. let me remind you that i am for full equality of homosexuals and heterosexuals. it's my opinion that changing the name of gay unifications doesn't create inequality, and i understand that you disagree. but let me also remind you that it's already being called "gay marriage." maybe i'm just weird, but that always sounds slightly derogatory to me, so i'm just saying they should call it something else.

Well, I guess we shouldn't be calling what we currently have marriage then. I mean, as late as 40 years ago, marriage was defined as being between a white man and a white woman or a black man and a black woman. Slightly earlier, it was still basically a "man gets the wife as property" type of definition.

So, since we can't call our current institution marriage, what shall we call it guys?

I have nothing against faggots its just that I think they should use special locker rooms, and restrooms.

I'd agree with The Cat-Tribe and Grave_n_idle that if you're against words' meaning evolving or sentence structure being redefined (e.g. use of prepositions at the beginning of a sentence,) that English is not the major you should take.

French sounds much more like what you're looking for, as I understand their Academy of Language is still around.
Yes but French evolves too. The Academy is not the "be all and end all" of what is acceptable in the french language.

I have nothing against faggots its just that I think they should use special locker rooms, and restrooms.
Silly troll :fluffle: come here and give me a hug

ok Ill admit it I have a problem with fags. They started AIDS after all. Those damn ass rammers

ok Ill admit it I have a problem with fags. They started AIDS after all. Those damn ass rammers
Enough with the flamebaiting and trolling, Nomenia. Find a way to say what you want to say without being offensive, or stop posting here. Got it?

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator
Forum and Game Rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023)

Nomenia seems to have a serious issue with faggots. What did fags ever do to anyone besides blow them, anally penetrate them, or spread aids? Other than that, these hell bound humans have done nothing wrong. Last time I checked, deep throating someone wasn't against the law, and swallowing aids ridden sperm isn't either. As far as I'm concerned, these anal lovers can screw all the ass and have as much penile fellatio that they crave.

<snip>
Congratulations, Ishballa / Nomenia. (Yes, I know you're the same person.) You just earned yourself and all your puppets a three day forumban.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator
Forum and Game Rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023)

I have nothing against faggots its just that I think they should use special locker rooms, and restrooms.
d00d, do you have any idea of how expensive that would be???

ok Ill admit it I have a problem with fags. They started AIDS after all. Those damn ass rammers
lol

This guy is a funny one.

----

*notices Frisbeeteria's post above*

I've noticed (unscientifically) that more people gat banned in homosexuality threads than in any other kind. I wonder why that is.

well, i read it, and what i got from it, is that the supreme court agreed with virginia state law. The govt is involved b/c ppl are petitioning for gay marriage, when the religious aspect of it is, that no church or religion I've heard of actually promotes gay marriage. If the govt stayed out of it, gay marriage would just NOT happen, and there wouldnt be a hissy fit about it.

and Amendment 1 is : Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the govt. for a redress of grievances.

so dont give me that crap about 1st amendment rights being violated.

This being the case, leads me to what i was saying before, it is up to the states (and not the federal govt. including Congress) to decide, and/or each church/religious organization... and knowing none that condone gay marriage, it would thus be unheard of.

Like i said, civil unions are a different matter., im just talking about MARRIAGE.

The following Churches/Religious-organizations endorse and promote Same-sex marriages.

The Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
Ecumentical Catholic Church
Church of God
Alliance for Jewish Renewal (ALEPH)
Reconstructionist Judiaism
Reformed Judaisism
Unitarian Universalist Association

The following organizations leave the decision to individual congregations:
United Church of Christ
Quakers

and The Presbyterian Church (USA) allows the blessings of same-gender unions.

Contrary to your own self-deception, and disconnection with reality, if the government wasn't involved with marriage, gay-marriages WOULD in fact happen.

Keep the church out of marriage entirely, is my belief.

Marriage is a purely technical term, and has no connection to religion. Let them hold their little ceremonies if they want, but a marriage is two (or more) units (we mean people, here, but the term works just a well for any two objects) being joined together as one new unit.

Totally non-religious. As it should be. As it always has been.

Religious organizations are made of people, so the application still applies to "Religion"... That is why a "church" or "congregation" has the same rights as its members... because the organization is its members.

There is a partial connection between "marriage" and "religion", many religions consider it an aspect of their faith, especially Christians, Jews and Muslims.

I think the "system" as it stands is fine. It's the legislative scope which needs to be fixed to repair the problem with homosexuals and lesbians being denied marriage.

I have nothing against faggots its just that I think they should use special locker rooms, and restrooms.

Why would firewood need restrooms and locker-rooms?

(Me being a little etymological bastard).

*hugs* Good luck!

*thinks about praying that you get laid, decides that might be a bit much, prays that you have a good time (which might include the former) instead* =)


Thanks Dem. You know whats funny? Usually, I would be hoping that I get laid. But this time its different. . . this time I just hope I know whether or not to kiss him at the end of the date. I've become a flushing high school girl, lol.

Thanks Dem. You know whats funny? Usually, I would be hoping that I get laid. But this time its different. . . this time I just hope I know whether or not to kiss him at the end of the date. I've become a flushing high school girl, lol.

In my opinion, that's even better. If you don't want to sleep with him right off the bat, there's probably more there than you might think. =)

*gets all giggly* You have to keep me updated!

I've heard this argued before, and I've heard the argument attacked because the example usually provided by anthropologists applies to one tribe in Africa where same-sex marriage occurs exclusively amongst women for purely legal considerations and is viewed by the tribe as a legally-binding sham. Are there other examples that you can provide?

Feel free to look further up the thread where I provide some dozen or more links about this with many, many examples of same-sex marriage historically.

EDIT: Here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8810766&postcount=603). I did it for you.

In addition to ample evidence that the modern concepts of marriage as "one man, one woman" are not fixed in history, there are references therein to:

John Boswell's fine book Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (University of Chicago Press, 1980), in which he documents legally recognized homosexual marriage in ancient Rome extending into the Christian period, and his Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe (Villard Books, 1994), in which he discusses Church-blessed same-sex unions and even an ancient Christian same-sex nuptial liturgy.

Gary Leupp's Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan (University of California Press, 1995) in which Leupp describes the "brotherhood-bonds" between samurai males, involving written contracts and sometimes severe punishments for infidelity, in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

The Azande of the southern Sudan, where for centuries warriors bonded, in all legitimacy, with "boy-wives."

Marjorie Topley's study of lesbian marriages in Guangdong, China into the early twentieth century.

Same-sex marriage between Zunis, a southwestern Native American nation.

Igbo tribe, situated in what is now eastern Nigeria

Same-sex unions of Roman soldiers.

Same-sex marriage in ancient Egypt.

Mesopotamia

Ancient Greece.

Ancient Rome.

Aztec, Mayan, and Incan civilizations

West Indies.

49 different Native American cultures.

Kenyan Meru, the Siberian Chuckchee, Tahitian mahus, and the Indian hijras

In China during the Yuan and Ming dynasties

Aboriginal populations of Australia and the islands of Melanesia

East Africa, especially the Nuer of Sudan

West Africa, especially Nigeria and Dahomey

South Africa, including the Southern Bantu

etc., etc., etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitchkitten
I wasn't under the impression that he was arguing against gays feelings. I think he goofed while trying to quote Leo420.

Actually, I'm a she, with a wife, so a gay she. I don't know who Leo420 is though I think it's a poster on this thread


don't remember who this quoted from....
But when you start dealing with the inexplicable complexity of love.... well, then people start losing solid ground from which to fight against your claims of injustice.


ummm, I think we're arguing the same point....maybe not. I'm getting confused. My point is that while you may be able to change who you have sex with I don't think you can change who you 'fit' with. Who completes you.
I kinda got lost when it was assumed I was a man since I refer to my wife as a wife.
meh.
:rolleyes:

And I gotta say I'm impressed that this thread reached over 1,000 posts before someone dropped the 'faggot' on us.

Not just a seperate locker room for flamable bits of wood, but cigaretts too! In the UK at least :)
(Me also being a little etymological bastard like Tekania).

I cannot say for certain that any species is sapient or not--I can state how likely I think it to be. However, what I can state is that they are sapient OR they are not.

Since this obviously isn't going anywhere, fancy a cookie?

Since this obviously isn't going anywhere, fancy a cookie?



choc. chip please :D

Gays deserve more right than other people because other people suck.
Cum to think about it gay guys suck too, but not in that way.
Gays aren't overpopulating the world with their "accidents" like those freaky hedros. Ooh, it gives me the shakes just thinkin' about them.

...So sorry, couldn't help it with such and open topic...

-Don't really care though.

this is an interesting topic. I have one thing to say. they deserve rights TO A POINT, but people dont have to watch them everyday then walk up to them and say they are gay. people all im saying is that we were created for one purpose on this earth. ONE MAN ONE WOMAN. thats how its supposed to be.

this is an interesting topic. I have one thing to say. they deserve rights TO A POINT, but people dont have to watch them everyday then walk up to them and say they are gay. people all im saying is that we were created for one purpose on this earth. ONE MAN ONE WOMAN. thats how its supposed to be.

Depends on if you've read AROUND the bible... midrash texts support Eve as being the third bride to Adam... after Lilith, and an un-named bride.

So - ONE MAN, THREE WOMEN... it's god's plan...

So - ONE MAN, THREE WOMEN... it's god's plan...
If only.

Why would firewood need restrooms and locker-rooms?

(Me being a little etymological bastard).Their also quite nice with mashed potatoes (British cuisine)

Their also quite nice with mashed potatoes (British cuisine)

This is just cruel.... almost half a decade I've been in this god-forsaken country... no faggots, no curries, no kebabs, no pie-and-mash, no black pudding...

And people just keep reminding me of all I'm missing.... waaah! :(

Originally Posted by The People and Sharks
ONE MAN ONE WOMAN. thats how its supposed tobe.

And lots of mutated children. You can only do so much with just two genetic hosts....
hmmm, where's my smiley icon with three eyes? :D

As a Bisexual I think that same sex couples should have the same rights as everbody else. Bisexuals, gays. lesbians, TG's, TV's and CD's should not be treated as second class citizens.

As a Bisexual I think that same sex couples should have the same rights as everbody else. Bisexuals, gays. lesbians, TG's, TV's and CD's should not be treated as second class citizens.

I agree. Everyone who hates people of other sexes is a completely ignorant dipsh1t. I am not fond of them, but i know a few who are cool peeps, but this aversion in no way keeps me from fighting for their right to party (sorry i had to say that).

As a Bisexual I think that same sex couples should have the same rights as everbody else. Bisexuals, gays. lesbians, TG's, TV's and CD's should not be treated as second class citizens.
Neithers should VCRs, DVDs, DVD-RWs, CD-RWs, MP3s...


Anyway, I do agree that it's wrong that many gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and TGs are discriminated against. I am glad that I am fortunate enough to be alive during this new civil rights movement. Perhaps one day, children will be reading in their history books (or e-books, or whatever) about the gay rights movement and its impact on their society in much the same way we read about the African-American/women's civil rights movements today.

I don't think it will be too much of an issue when all the history books are electronic. Either some fascist regime will have been induced and all minority groups will have been exterminated, or else equality will be given to everyone. Either one extreme or the other. No grey area. Just like life.

This is just cruel.... almost half a decade I've been in this god-forsaken country... no faggots, no curries, no kebabs, no pie-and-mash, no black pudding...

And people just keep reminding me of all I'm missing.... waaah! :(

No kebabs?

Do you guys have a different definition for kebabs or are you just living in the wrong part of GA?

No kebabs?

Do you guys have a different definition for kebabs or are you just living in the wrong part of GA?

Hmm? Kebabs? Where did you find kebabs?

Hard to make a comparison... I've not noticed such a thing around here... well, except when someone puts couple of pieces of meat on a skewer and calls it a 'kabob', apparently.

Tell me more of these kebabs? :)

Hmm? Kebabs? Where did you find kebabs?

Hard to make a comparison... I've not noticed such a thing around here... well, except when someone puts couple of pieces of meat on a skewer and calls it a 'kabob', apparently.

Tell me more of these kebabs? :)

Are you making fun of a Southern lady's accent?

Them's fightin' words, pilgrim. ;)

(FYI, http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=kebab)

You know what I think??

Letting gays by in the military would be a good idea.

That would just mean less of them that we have to deal with.

You know what I think??

Letting gays by in the military would be a good idea.

That would just mean less of them that we have to deal with.

Oh, that's just wonderful...

You know what I think??

Letting gays by in the military would be a good idea.

That would just mean less of them that we have to deal with.

Plus, that means that we wouldnt have to send the people who deserve to live into hostile territory.

You know what I think??

Letting gays by in the military would be a good idea.

That would just mean less of them that we have to deal with.

Plus, that means that we wouldnt have to send the people who deserve to live into hostile territory.

Now you've got me confused.

You know what I think??

Letting gays by in the military would be a good idea.

That would just mean less of them that we have to deal with.

Plus, that means that we wouldnt have to send the people who deserve to live into hostile territory.

Too asinine and hateful an opinion to only post once?

how does that confuse you?

Dont you think that abominations dont deserve to live?

oh, and posting it twice was an uncounscious mistake. I forgot about the edit button, my bad.

how does that confuse you?

Dont you think that abominations dont deserve to live?

oh, and posting it twice was an uncounscious mistake. I forgot about the edit button, my bad.

Last time I checked, I wasn't an abomination. Weird. Oh well, guess I'll continue enjoying my free lifestyle with whomever I choose to partner with. Naaah :P

Plus, that means that we wouldnt have to send the people who deserve to live into hostile territory.
so homosexuals dont deserve to live?

how does that confuse you?

Dont you think that abominations dont deserve to live?

oh, and posting it twice was an uncounscious mistake. I forgot about the edit button, my bad.

Sorry, it's just that I'm very hungry. And when I'm that hungry, I tend to get confused easily (as when I'm very tired).

What exactly makes them abominations, hmm?

Are you making fun of a Southern lady's accent?

Them's fightin' words, pilgrim. ;)

(FYI, http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=kebab)

Not at all... this was written on a sign... I'd never seen the word 'kabob' before then... it took me a minute to work out what a kabob might be.

:)

I love the Southern Lady accent... that's how I ended up there in the first place. :)

(Of course, if I'd known I was saying farewell to all of the mother country's fine foods.... sigh) :(

how does that confuse you?

Dont you think that abominations dont deserve to live?

oh, and posting it twice was an uncounscious mistake. I forgot about the edit button, my bad.

Sorry, is this just your excuse to spit hatred, or do you have an actual point to make, or any evidence to support it?

Sorry - I know... it sucks to use facts, when a good solid hate works...

It depends which way you look at it, if you look at gay rights from a political standpoint, they should have the right to marry who they wish.

However if you look at it from a natural standpoint, homosexuality breeds nothing but death, as you can't make a baby with one set of chromosomes.......

Remember, GOD made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve :fluffle:

It depends which way you look at it, if you look at gay rights from a political standpoint, they should have the right to marry who they wish.

However if you look at it from a natural standpoint, homosexuality breeds nothing but death, as you can't make a baby with one set of chromosomes.......

Remember, GOD made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve :fluffle:

It's not like the whole world is turning gay. Besides, this planet is overpopulated to begin with. Easing up on the baby making might actually do some good. Last point, lots of gay couples have children. They just go about it in a different manner than a straight couple would. What's the harm?

[snip]

Remember, GOD made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve :fluffle:

Raise your hand if you are getting tired of that arguement. *Raises hand.*

It's not like the whole world is turning gay. Besides, this planet is overpopulated to begin with. Easing up on the baby making might actually do some good. Last point, lots of gay couples have children. They just go about it in a different manner than a straight couple would. What's the harm?

That's what I'm wondering.

It depends which way you look at it, if you look at gay rights from a political standpoint, they should have the right to marry who they wish.

However if you look at it from a natural standpoint, homosexuality breeds nothing but death, as you can't make a baby with one set of chromosomes.......

1. We don't restict marriage to only the fertile or those with children.

2. Homosexuals can reproduce. They are not sterile.

3. From a natural standpoint ... it is natural. It naturally occurs in humans and in other species.

Remember, GOD made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve :fluffle:

Prove it, sparky. Prove it.

1. We don't restict marriage to only the fertile or those with children.

2. Homosexuals can reproduce. They are not sterile.

3. From a natural standpoint ... it is natural. It naturally occurs in humans and in other species.



Prove it, sparky. Prove it.

With you around, I don't have to do any work!

*hands you a massive cookie*

With you around, I don't have to do any work!

*hands you a massive cookie*

Ah, damn, there goes my diet. :rolleyes: ;)

:D

how does that confuse you?

Dont you think that abominations dont deserve to live?

oh, and posting it twice was an uncounscious mistake. I forgot about the edit button, my bad.

OK ... please elaborate:

1. Define abomination.

2. Prove that homosexuals are abominations.

3. Explain by what criteria we determine who has a right to life.

4. Explain why you have a right to life but homosexuals don't.

5. Explain how your plan squares with the 5th, 8th, and 14th Amendments.

6. Explain why military service is a punishment for abominations.

7. Explain why your answer to #6 is not an insult to every veteran in the history of our country.

Like I said there are two different points of view which I both respect, everyone is partial to their own and tries to argue it, which is why these kinds of debates never end.......

In many ancient societies there was no taboo about homosexuality, ancient Japan, etc. However I'm not sure about gay marriages.

BTW I wasn't aware a gay couple can reproduce without the help of a third party ;).

BTW I wasn't aware a gay couple can reproduce without the help of a third party ;).

It's doesn't matter how they do it, just that they can. =P

Like I said there are two different points of view which I both respect, everyone is partial to their own and tries to argue it, which is why these kinds of debates never end.......

Bully for you.

There are at least two points of view. One right. :) One wrong. :(

Sorry, but I'm not required to respect discrimination or homophobia.

In many ancient societies there was no taboo about homosexuality, ancient Japan, etc. However I'm not sure about gay marriages.

Then you are unaware of the long list of links that has been posted more than once re historical gay marriage.

BTW I wasn't aware a gay couple can reproduce without the help of a third party ;).

It is possible. But you didn't say anything about "without the help of a third party" before, did you?

It's doesn't matter how they do it, just that they can. =P

Your heart is in the right place and you are close: it doesn't matter whether they can or not.

Human rights are not contingent on fertility or desire/ability to reproduce.

Like I said there are two different points of view which I both respect, everyone is partial to their own and tries to argue it, which is why these kinds of debates never end.......

In many ancient societies there was no taboo about homosexuality, ancient Japan, etc. However I'm not sure about gay marriages.

BTW I wasn't aware a gay couple can reproduce without the help of a third party ;).

Actually, if you had been around the forum long, you should/would have seen a fairly regular occurence of people presenting lists of evidence of cultures that have had homosexual unions... and many others (including most christian nations, for MOST of their existence) that have tolerated same sex unions.

It is only in this post-Victorian era that the church has tried to force it's powerbase into an issue as individual as marriage.

What does it matter if a gay couple can reproduce without 'help'? Many 'straight' couples need help... be it fertility treatment, surrogate partners, donors, etc.

Your heart is in the right place and you are close: it doesn't matter whether they can or not.

Human rights are not contingent on fertility or desire/ability to reproduce.

Homophobes barely consider us human. :( But you are correct. I was merely pointing out a flaw in his arguement, 'tis all.

Remember, GOD made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve :fluffle:

Actually, 'god' made ['adam] and [Chavvah]... which basically means: the clay (the flesh) and the life (the spirit).

The 'marriage' of 'adam and Chavvah is another way of describing Genesis 2:7 "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul".

Note: Genesis 2:7 is the 'marriage' of ['adamah] (the ground) and [Chay] (life) - the same story, even the same characters.

One version is just an allegory for the other.

It has nothing to do with an actual 'wedding'.

Homophobes barely consider us human. :(
We homosexuals aren't human though. We're a superior race from outer space!
...oh wait, I wasn't supposed to let out the secret.

I personally think that Homosexuality is like a crime against nature and/or humananity since it hurts humanity (Sorry if you take offense about this). This is how. Sex is supposed to be used for reproduction to help keep the species alive, and is more beneficial then asexual reproduction since in asexual reproduction everysingle organism in that species is a clone (except the mutated ones) and another species (Especially contagious disease) would kill them (except some mutants but we dont care about them for now). That is why there are two genders required for reproduction for humans, male and female. Male and male and female and female sex has no purpose besides pleasure but that was made in three species of animals (Humans, Dolphins and some species of african monkey) so that the mates would stay together longer so they can both take care of the offspring. A man was evolved to only stay with a woman for 4 years but that length later changed.


.....I think you should read this webpage...... http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

It has some interesting facts about just how "unnatural" homosexuality is.


"When homosexual bonding does occur in the absence of opposite sex pairs, members of such a pair often resist attempts to 'convert' them back into heterosexual relationships. Even when deprived of their bonded partner, white-fronted Amazon parrots will not revert, and long-eared hedgehogs have refused heterosexual partners for as long as two and a half years, much of their natural lifetime. In the case of Stellar's sea eagles and female barn owls, both housed without opposite sexed members of their species, homosexual pair bonds among females were strong enough that when inseminated, they coparented the chicks that resulted."

If same sex pairings were "a crime against nature"....why would they be found throughout nature? According to the site's statistics, there are some species were almost half of the members form homosexual pairings.

As for the whole marriage issue......well...what I want to know is why the government is using the judo-christian definition of marriage. If some random religion felt like performing marriage ceremonies for same sex couples, why should the goverment tell them "no", and deny couples wed under such a situation the rights they grant couples married under "one man one woman" Christianity?

We homosexuals aren't human though. We're a superior race from outer space!
...oh wait, I wasn't supposed to let out the secret.
I believe it. Gay people rock! :cool:

We homosexuals aren't human though. We're a superior race from outer space!
...oh wait, I wasn't supposed to let out the secret.

Oh shoot...I must have missed that memo when I came out the closet. x.x I always knew I was awesome, I just never knew why! ;)

Hmm? Kebabs? Where did you find kebabs?

Hard to make a comparison... I've not noticed such a thing around here... well, except when someone puts couple of pieces of meat on a skewer and calls it a 'kabob', apparently.

Tell me more of these kebabs? :)

Well, we do it with either steak or chicken (or both) generally, and perhaps with shrimp, if we feel like it. Along with that, we'll add peppers (green, red, yellow, whatever we have on hand), onions, mushrooms, sometimes a bit of pineapple, sometimes maybe some bacon - it changes with what we have around, really. Marinate, maybe with a bit of Worshester sauce and some other spices. Then, if a grill is available, we grill them. If not, we'll put them on the skewers and try to cook them in the oven (not nearly as good, but it still works).

Edit: And to keep this on topic. I have eaten ke(a)bobs with my gay friends. =)

Well, we do it with either steak or chicken (or both) generally, and perhaps with shrimp, if we feel like it. Along with that, we'll add peppers (green, red, yellow, whatever we have on hand), onions, mushrooms, sometimes a bit of pineapple, sometimes maybe some bacon - it changes with what we have around, really. Marinate, maybe with a bit of Worshester sauce and some other spices. Then, if a grill is available, we grill them. If not, we'll put them on the skewers and try to cook them in the oven (not nearly as good, but it still works).
Yumm, sounds good... but that's not what I'm looking for... :(

This is what would be called a 'shish' kebab down our way, and, while good, it is not the true kebab of the epicure...

The universal kebab of the UK is the Lamb 'Doner' kebab.

http://www.thechillisource.org/html/mainmenu.php

(Go to the site, and click on 'Types' in the left-hand frame - the Lamb Doner is the first Kebab listed).

Oh - and to keep on topic... so have I. :)

Yumm, sounds good... but that's not what I'm looking for... :(

Well, if you ever want that type, you should come visit. =)

The universal kebab of the UK is the Lamb 'Doner' kebab.

http://www.thechillisource.org/html/mainmenu.php

(Go to the site, and click on 'Types' in the left-hand frame - the Lamb Doner is the first Kebab listed).

Oh - and to keep on topic... so have I. :)

Hmmm, looks like gyro meat to me. =)

I've eaten gyros with my gay friends too. =)

Well, if you ever want that type, you should come visit. =)


Oooh, don't tempt me.. you don't realise how long I have been kebab-less. :)


Hmmm, looks like gyro meat to me. =)

I've eaten gyros with my gay friends too. =)

So what is this 'gyro'? This one I have not heard of... is this some closely guarded Atlanta secret???

Of course - what I'd really kill for, is a decent Indian curry - but the only places I can find around here are right in Atlanta, and that's kind of out of my way. :(

On topic: I've eaten curries with my gay friends, too. :)

(I think we might be stretching the 'on-topic' thing a little...) :)

A gyro is a Greek dish. Its meat wrapped in a pita, I think.

Oooh, don't tempt me.. you don't realise how long I have been kebab-less. :)

*Shrug* It would probably at least a little bit more out of your way than Atlanta, but unless you are actually a 80-year old pedophile, I wouldn't mind having you over sometime. =)

So what is this 'gyro'? This one I have not heard of... is this some closely guarded Atlanta secret???

It is Mediterranean, I believe. Lamb meat cooked like you show it, sliced into small pieces and wrapped in pita bread with lettuce and kind of a ranch sauce. I see it at most malls.

Of course - what I'd really kill for, is a decent Indian curry - but the only places I can find around here are right in Atlanta, and that's kind of out of my way. :(

Yeah, I don't imagine you'd find much of that up in your neck of the woods. =(

On topic: I've eaten curries with my gay friends, too. :)

(I think we might be stretching the 'on-topic' thing a little...) :)

Yeah, ok, last post on this. =) I did once go to a birthday dinner of my bisexual friend who had a crush on me at this great Indian place in Atlanta though. We had curry. =)

I have yet to be convinced that marriage is a "right" as much as it is a religious practice.

I have yet to be convinced that marriage is a "right" as much as it is a religious practice.

In that case, you should be lobbying for all laws regarding it to be removed from the books. After all, if it is a religious practice, the government should have nothing to do with it at all. That means no benefits, no responsibilities, and no regulation (beyond, perhaps, banning marriage at a very young age).

On the one hand, this would do away with the legal institution of marriage altogether. Since this is all that is being fought over, I don't think many people would go for it.

On the other hand, it would mean that homosexual marriages - already performed in many churches - would get the same legal consideration as heterosexual marriages, that is, none.

this is an interesting topic. I have one thing to say. they deserve rights TO A POINT, but people dont have to watch them everyday then walk up to them and say they are gay.
What world are you living in?

1. We don't restict marriage to only the fertile or those with children.

2. Homosexuals can reproduce. They are not sterile.

3. From a natural standpoint ... it is natural. It naturally occurs in humans and in other species.
How do you not get tired of making these statements over and over again? You're not likely to convince people who are as clever as a dead goat.

Although I know this is only looely related, but... where do you draw the line?

If you decide to allow gay marriages, what legal ground do you have to reject bigamism, for example? Or people marrying their pets?
So far, the legislation is limited to one man, one woman with the future prospect of children, forming a family. The definition of marriage :

Marriage
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Marriage is a relationship and bond, most commonly between a man and a woman, that plays a key role in the definition of many families. Precise definitions vary historically and between and within cultures, but it has been an important concept as a socially sanctioned bond in a sexual relationship. Globally, societies that sanction polygamy as a form of marriage are far less common than those that do not and monogamy is overwhelmingly most widely practiced, followed distantly by polygyny, which is found primarily in tribal cultures; other marriage arrangements are extremely rare. Since the latter decades of the 20th century many of society's assumptions about the nature and purpose of marriage and family have been challenged, in particular by gay rights advocacy groups, who disagree with the notion that marriage should be exclusively heterosexual.

So, where and how do you draw the line?

<snip>what I want to know is why the government is using the judo-christian definition of marriage.<snip>
Because the government is scared of their mad throwy judo skills!*





*I'm sorry, but I really couldn't resist.

Although I know this is only looely related, but... where do you draw the line?

If you decide to allow gay marriages, what legal ground do you have to reject bigamism, for example? Or people marrying their pets?
...

Not this again... As has been said so many times before, the line is drawn at adults that can give legal consent. That means no pets, no children, no appliances, etc.

The only real hindrance to the possibility of bigamy/polygamy as I see it are the legal issues that would arise; who would have the power of attourney etc.

Although I know this is only looely related, but... where do you draw the line?

If you decide to allow gay marriages, what legal ground do you have to reject bigamism, for example? Or people marrying their pets?

If you cannot recognize the difference between pets and people, you have a personal problem you should work on.

But, pray tell, why would the world end if consensual bigamy was not a crime?

So far, the legislation is limited to one man, one woman with the future prospect of children, forming a family.

1. Historically, marriage has not been limited to "one man, one woman." In addition to the copious examples of same-sex marriage throughout history, look at your Bible. How many wives did Solomon have?

2. The United States has never limited marriage to "one man, one woman with the future prospect of children, forming a family." One need not be capable of having children, have any desire for children, etc, to get married or stay married.

3. Gays and lesbians can, have, and do have and raised children. They have families too!

The definition of marriage :

Marriage
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Marriage is a relationship and bond, most commonly between a man and a woman, that plays a key role in the definition of many families. Precise definitions vary historically and between and within cultures, but it has been an important concept as a socially sanctioned bond in a sexual relationship. Globally, societies that sanction polygamy as a form of marriage are far less common than those that do not and monogamy is overwhelmingly most widely practiced, followed distantly by polygyny, which is found primarily in tribal cultures; other marriage arrangements are extremely rare. Since the latter decades of the 20th century many of society's assumptions about the nature and purpose of marriage and family have been challenged, in particular by gay rights advocacy groups, who disagree with the notion that marriage should be exclusively heterosexual.

So, where and how do you draw the line?

Did you read your own "definition"?

I don't grant the Wikipedia the power to define law or human rights, but it expressly rejects your narrow view of marriage as limited to one man, one woman ...," doesn't it?

Although I know this is only looely related, but... where do you draw the line?

If you decide to allow gay marriages, what legal ground do you have to reject bigamism, for example? Or people marrying their pets?
So far, the legislation is limited to one man, one woman with the future prospect of children, forming a family. The definition of marriage :

Marriage
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Marriage is a relationship and bond, most commonly between a man and a woman, that plays a key role in the definition of many families. Precise definitions vary historically and between and within cultures, but it has been an important concept as a socially sanctioned bond in a sexual relationship. Globally, societies that sanction polygamy as a form of marriage are far less common than those that do not and monogamy is overwhelmingly most widely practiced, followed distantly by polygyny, which is found primarily in tribal cultures; other marriage arrangements are extremely rare. Since the latter decades of the 20th century many of society's assumptions about the nature and purpose of marriage and family have been challenged, in particular by gay rights advocacy groups, who disagree with the notion that marriage should be exclusively heterosexual.

So, where and how do you draw the line?

Lol your statement only says commonly but is directly followed by "but the deffinitions vary historicaly"
Just because it is the statistical strong runner does not mean many other forms (polygamy, same sex ... and others) have historicaly not been accepted.
There is no real historical basis to restrict gay marrige and deffinitions hardly set human rights nor law even if it did say between one man and woman

Lol your statement only says commonly but is directly followed by "but the deffinitions vary historicaly"
Just because it is the statistical strong runner does not mean many other forms (polygamy, same sex ... and others) have historicaly not been accepted.
There is no real historical basis to restrict gay marrige and deffinitions hardly set human rights nor law even if it did say between one man and woman

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not at all opposed to gay marriage. It's none of my business, if they want to marry I don't see any reason why not.
BUT - just legally speaking - when you legalise marriage, how can you oppose poligamy?
I understand the statement about "marriage only between consenting adults", that's a good basis, but it wouldn't exclude a man marrying 2 or more women... or a woman marrying 2 or more men? If that's their lifestyle, if they, as adult persons, feel that way and would like to marry, what could you hold against them?

On second thought, I might as well start another thread on the topic...

But, pray tell, why would the world end if consensual bigamy was not a crime?



I'm really only asking on a strictly legal basis... I wouldn't have a problem with bigamy either, but I have the feeling a larger number of people out there would ;)

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not at all opposed to gay marriage. It's none of my business, if they want to marry I don't see any reason why not.
BUT - just legally speaking - when you legalise marriage, how can you oppose poligamy?
I understand the statement about "marriage only between consenting adults", that's a good basis, but it wouldn't exclude a man marrying 2 or more women... or a woman marrying 2 or more men? If that's their lifestyle, if they, as adult persons, feel that way and would like to marry, what could you hold against them?

On second thought, I might as well start another thread on the topic...
I would have absolutely no problem with polygamy most you will find don’t

I would have absolutely no problem with polygamy most you will find don’t

Just started that separate thread... wanna bet there's one or two feminists out there who will get it wrong and try to fry me? ;)

Just started that separate thread... wanna bet there's one or two feminists out there who will get it wrong and try to fry me? ;)
I think most of them will be fine if there is an allowance for multiple husbands instead of just wife’s

I'm really only asking on a strictly legal basis... I wouldn't have a problem with bigamy either, but I have the feeling a larger number of people out there would ;)

Legally, bigamy is not polygamy. Bigamy is having two separate marriages.

A primary reason why it is a crime is that it is usually not consensual on the part of the other two spouses.

It also causes vast legal complications regarding the rights and responsibilites (such as property rights) between the individual and the two separate spouses.

Pretty easy to distinguish bigamy from same-sex marriage.

Polygamy is a better question, although also easily distinguished.

Bigamy would definitely still be a violation, in may book, falling under a violation of the marrital contract of the persons.

Polygamy is different though; in this, you're talking about a single contractural union (marriage) between more than two spouses... In this case, it should be legal, as gay-marriage should be.

Bigamy, as the practice of two seperate marrital contracts, of which only one is a party to both, is a violation of contract law, where it violates the contract of the other party (in this case, the person a party to both contracts, has violated each of the contracts, in the attainment of the contract with the other party not in party to the contract).

I like to look at marriage as a contract law perspective, because, in all legal power, that is exactly what it is, and should be.

It depends which way you look at it, if you look at gay rights from a political standpoint, they should have the right to marry who they wish.

However if you look at it from a natural standpoint, homosexuality breeds nothing but death, as you can't make a baby with one set of chromosomes.......

Remember, GOD made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve :fluffle:

well, this is a political argument so i guess we just look at it from a political standpoint. most gay people don't have children anyway so the natural standpoint is, for the most part, useless.
Remember, God doesn't have any say in American politics ;)

I'm really only asking on a strictly legal basis... I wouldn't have a problem with bigamy either, but I have the feeling a larger number of people out there would ;)

The problem with bigamy is that it is an entirely different situation. The government recognizes marriage for several reasons. One is that the two people involved are in a unique situation not matched by anything else. They have agreed to live as a single entity and have generally meshed their finances and lives as such. This situation necessitates certain protections and responsibilities. The other is pure convenience (for the government). It recognizes a marriage because it would be horribly inconvenient to do otherwise.

Now, bigamy is a different situation altogether. It is not the same situation as two people living as one. It branches out and the priviledges applied to marriage would be impossible to directly apply. In truth, the best way for the government to recognize bigamy, if it so chooses, would be to have the people incorporate themselves.

Edit: s/bigamy/polygamy

I have yet to be convinced that marriage is a "right" as much as it is a religious practice.

I have yet to be convinced that marriage is a religious practise, at all.

Everything points to it being a civil matter... it even requires the signing of a contract.

Why we still have to fit our laws to the religion of desert prophets is beyond me.

*Shrug* It would probably at least a little bit more out of your way than Atlanta, but unless you are actually a 80-year old pedophile, I wouldn't mind having you over sometime. =)

It is Mediterranean, I believe. Lamb meat cooked like you show it, sliced into small pieces and wrapped in pita bread with lettuce and kind of a ranch sauce. I see it at most malls.

Yeah, I don't imagine you'd find much of that up in your neck of the woods. =(

Yeah, ok, last post on this. =) I did once go to a birthday dinner of my bisexual friend who had a crush on me at this great Indian place in Atlanta though. We had curry. =)

<Sneaking just a tiny little bit more hijacking in...

Fairly sure I'm not 80 years old... not by about half a century... and certain I'm not a pedophile. :)

I am a bit of a goth, though... which scares some people. :)

Well, you never know, then. Dinner and discussion with someone educated, science-orientated, and bearing kebabs... I can't see a downside. :)

I like the sound of this 'gyro' thing... it DOES sound something like the common variety of Doner Kebab (only with Ranch Dressing)... but I've never seen one... The nearest big mall to me is the Mall of Georgia, I think... and I don't recall seeing anything 'gyro-y' there. :(

And now, I'm sitting here thinking about kebabs and curry. Sigh. I am SOOOO hungry!!!

In truth, the best way for the government to recognize bigamy, if it so chooses, would be to have the people incorporate themselves.


I think this is a great idea.

Remove all the rules about which consenting adults can 'marry' which, and make it purely a matter of contract law... where the stipulations of the relationship are implicit in the contract.

So - you sign a monogamy contract, you are bound to one partner, unless you agree to renegotiate contracts.

Or, you sign an 'incorporation' contract that limits 'shares' in a relationship to a set group of persons (two, or more)... effectively ALSO tidying up many of those loose ends about property, etc.

Not happy with the relationship structure? Just don't sign THAT contract...

Cage the animals. It shouldn't be called gay rights. It should be called gay WRONGS!

Cage the animals. It shouldn't be called gay rights. It should be called gay WRONGS!
so you advocate putting homosexuals in cages as if they were animals in a zoo?

Cage the animals. It shouldn't be called gay rights. It should be called gay WRONGS!

Some advice: you are entitled to your opinion, but even a deeply held opinion can cross the line of forum rules if it is worded in an manner that is grossly inconsiderate of the points-of-view and sensibilities of other posters and prone to provoking emotional (again, usually angry) responses.

(Note: I am not a mod. Just trying to avoid a flame war without hassling the mods.)

Cage the animals. It shouldn't be called gay rights. It should be called gay WRONGS!

SO you believe 'mariage' is 'wrong'?

That is, after all, one of the 'rights' we are debating.

Thanks for your time... you are obviously busy. Don't let me keep you...

so you advocate putting homosexuals in cages as if they were animals in a zoo?

Oooo. That would be so education for kids!

But I prefer seeing gays and lesbians in their natural habitat.

Oooo. That would be so education for kids!

But I prefer seeing gays and lesbians in their natural habitat.

Yeah....but in their natural habitat, you can't throw peanuts at them.

Cage the animals. It shouldn't be called gay rights. It should be called gay WRONGS!
Technically as a human you are an animal too? I could build you a cage if you feel like animals belong in cages, it could be your nice new home.

Yeah....but in their natural habitat, you can't throw peanuts at them.

You can.

You just may get (a) things throw back, (b) beaten up, and/or (c) arrested.

Of course, the same things may happen if you throw things in a zoo.

And stay away from the homophobe exhibit. Nasty critters.

Technically as a human you are an animal too? I could build you a cage if you feel like animals belong in cages, it could be your nice new home.

I love this thread! If people ask my thoughts on something, they should be prepared to hear them. Maybe people would be better off leaving it alone. If someone doesn't agree, or doesn't like my thoughts, tough.

I love this thread! If people ask my thoughts on something, they should be prepared to hear them. Maybe people would be better off leaving it alone. If someone doesn't agree, or doesn't like my thoughts, tough.
Just because we respect your right to share your opinion does not mean we have to respect the opinion itself

Cage the animals. It shouldn't be called gay rights. It should be called gay WRONGS!

so Dorkie, are you one of those religious people or do you just not like us?

Some advice: you are entitled to your opinion, but even a deeply held opinion can cross the line of forum rules if it is worded in an manner that is grossly inconsiderate of the points-of-view and sensibilities of other posters and prone to provoking emotional (again, usually angry) responses.

(Note: I am not a mod. Just trying to avoid a flame war without hassling the mods.)

I like to look on such inane twaddle like this: There is a level of absurdity at which posts stand as their own refutation.

Dorksonia appears to have reached it.

I love this thread!

Bully for you!

If people ask my thoughts on something, they should be prepared to hear them. Maybe people would be better off leaving it alone. If someone doesn't agree, or doesn't like my thoughts, tough.

And if you express your thoughts, others may disagee.

If you don't like our disagreement with you or don't like our thoughts, tough.

Funny how that works.

Although I know this is only looely related, but... where do you draw the line?

If you decide to allow gay marriages, what legal ground do you have to reject bigamism, for example? Or people marrying their pets?


If you allow people to eat chicken how on earth do you stop them eating live children?

I love slippery slopes.

There should be a slippery slope corollary to Godwin's Law.

Bully for you!



And if you express your thoughts, others may disagee.

If you don't like our disagreement with you or don't like our thoughts, tough.

Funny how that works.

Agreement at last!

If you allow people to eat chicken how on earth do you stop them eating live children?

I love slippery slopes.

There should be a slippery slope corollary to Godwin's Law.

if gay marriage is mentioned the probability of a comparison to bestiality becomes 1?

good enough?

I hope the legalization of Gay MArriage leads to Bigamy. I already have two lovely ladies that would marry me and they love each other two so we would be such a happy family together. :) But alas, the law wont allow it :( What is wrong with Bigamy? Will it lead to gay marriage?

This may be words from the uneducated, so please tolerate a little more... :p

If 'marriage' as a term is seen as purely male with female, then why do you want that? Why not create a new legal term that is not gender specific... instead of changing the old, create the new...

Not to mention that the piece of paper saying you are married is the smallest fraction of what it is to be married..... unless you are in it for tax breaks or something???????? (that will cost me :p )

I say, if you feel you are married, and your partner feels you are married, then have a 'wedding', invite your friends, wear rings (all the other symbols not dictated by law)..... and know to yourself you are together.... even if its not legal blah blah blah.... you have love, and that is what counts....right? ;)

Yes, you have love, but you don't have the right to visit your spouse in the the hospital, because that is reserved for family only, you have absolutely no rights when it comes to inheritance if one of you passes away. You may not adopt in many cases. You may not refer to your partner as a spouse on legal documentations, so inusurance is impossible to share. This is just a few blockades that occur in a same sex "marriage" that is not government approved.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not at all opposed to gay marriage. It's none of my business, if they want to marry I don't see any reason why not.
BUT - just legally speaking - when you legalise marriage, how can you oppose poligamy?
I understand the statement about "marriage only between consenting adults", that's a good basis, but it wouldn't exclude a man marrying 2 or more women... or a woman marrying 2 or more men? If that's their lifestyle, if they, as adult persons, feel that way and would like to marry, what could you hold against them?

On second thought, I might as well start another thread on the topic...

No-one is denied a polygamous marriage while others are not, unlike same-sex marriage.

Gay rights are human rights.

What's wrong with that?

you have absolutely no rights when it comes to inheritance if one of you passes away

there is a wonderful document called a will, your stuff goes to whoever is listed in the will, everyone should have one or the state decides after taking at least half of it to start with, in some states, this applies to even married people, so fill out a will and avoid the problem
your other option (the one used by rich people) is to set up a trust, which names whoever is a benificiary of the trust

you have absolutely no rights when it comes to inheritance if one of you passes away

Yep, with a will, you can even leave everything to your cat if you choose. So just get one made out to your partner person. Problem solved.

there is a wonderful document called a will, your stuff goes to whoever is listed in the will, everyone should have one or the state decides after taking at least half of it to start with, in some states, this applies to even married people, so fill out a will and avoid the problem
your other option (the one used by rich people) is to set up a trust, which names whoever is a benificiary of the trust

Unless the will is contested, because you have no 'legitimate' claim...

this seems like it became a bit off-topic :D

anyways, my opinion on "gay rights" or "equal rights for gay people" or whatever you wanna call it:

1) they should be treated equally... no reason not to do so...

but

2) there are some financial things, lower taxes when you're married, stuff like that. This is a kind of sponsorship from your state to encourage people to get babies (no babies = no state - sooner or later).
Since obviously gay people are not that good at getting babies, they shouldnt geht these lower taxes.

weehaaa, my opinion

Unless the will is contested, because you have no 'legitimate' claim...

Which I don't think should be allowed, contestation was only limited originally to cases arrising from accusations of the will invalidity as a contract.... It has gone past that now, where people contest, merely because they want more.

Technically, in contract, a person can require the executor to give out his/her possessions as deemed by the will. Legitimacy only exists as far as the will itself being properly witnessed and signed. "Legitmacy" should not be an issue...

The best option is to make your will early, and to avoid any massive drastic changes over time. Those are the only two areas where courts will rule in favor of the contestor...

Which I don't think should be allowed, contestation was only limited originally to cases arrising from accusations of the will invalidity as a contract.... It has gone past that now, where people contest, merely because they want more.

Technically, in contract, a person can require the executor to give out his/her possessions as deemed by the will. Legitimacy only exists as far as the will itself being properly witnessed and signed. "Legitmacy" should not be an issue...

The best option is to make your will early, and to avoid any massive drastic changes over time. Those are the only two areas where courts will rule in favor of the contestor...

I think, perhaps, you are not allowing for the conservatism of American judges.

It is unfortunate, but people will try to invalidate the claims of those closest to the deceased, if they feel that it is 'appropriate'... because of personal feelings about the deceased, about the 'partner', etc... or just about the content of the will.

Gay couples are automatically weaker here, because there is no 'official recognition' to show favour.

I think, perhaps, you are not allowing for the conservatism of American judges.

It is unfortunate, but people will try to invalidate the claims of those closest to the deceased, if they feel that it is 'appropriate'... because of personal feelings about the deceased, about the 'partner', etc... or just about the content of the will.

Gay couples are automatically weaker here, because there is no 'official recognition' to show favour.

Well, something else I don't agree with, a judges purpose is to rule from the law, both in aspect of its codified and uncodified principles. They are rulling based upon personal moral conviction (and even being a "Christian" myself, in-camp with many of these types; I am ethically opposed to their course).

Well, something else I don't agree with, a judges purpose is to rule from the law, both in aspect of its codified and uncodified principles. They are rulling based upon personal moral conviction (and even being a "Christian" myself, in-camp with many of these types; I am ethically opposed to their course).
Are not the un codified principals just a value judgment as well … ruling on them is just trying to put the interpretation that they think is correct. (and it has to happen all the time specialy in new situations that arise that were not "coded" before)

Are not the un codified principals just a value judgment as well … ruling on them is just trying to put the interpretation that they think is correct. (and it has to happen all the time specialy in new situations that arise that were not "coded" before)

They are, in a sense, but values based upon principles consistent with the existing code, and foundation, as opposed to personal values of morality. Slavery, for example, ended eventualy because regardless of argument, it did not line up with the foundation of the Common Law argument and principle. Segregation eventually ended, because it did not line up with the same. Women's rights, and all of that are a result with the "codified" laws, being made equal with the uncodified principles of the Common Law.

Though, that is right, and what the courts in fact do; answer situations that arrise inside and outside of codification (this is Common Law), as opposed to answering only what is in the code (Civil Law). The US has a "Common Law" basis of judicary.... Which is far more fluid and dynamic than the Civil system of law (as found in most of continental Europe).

In the end, it all speaks of the inevitability of gay-marriage... Not merely an "if" it happens, but a "when".

Not too long ago, marriage between mixed race couples was a big no-no!
Schools were split due to race, religion, etc. No it's the debate over same sex unions and gay schools! Has the world gone mad? Can people not put personal differences aside and just get along with everyone? What the heck has gone wrong with the world?

In the world today, I fail to understand why people would want gays to be married. I am gay, and yet i oppose gay marriage. I believe in gay unions, or 'civil partnership' - call it what you want, but it is my belief that marriage is a religeous institution for heterosexual couples.

I'm not a homophobe (i'm gay remember), but why would we want to be married within an institution that condems us? For years, hatred for gays has been preached at the alter, and people want to be blessed there? NOT ME!

Some people go on and on about God and religion and why 'gays should die' - yet they have not been inside a church for decades... who is fooling who here? Religion, politics and sex do not mix!

that's my view anyway.

In the United Kingdom, gay couple have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples (with the exception of marriage). It is just something I don't believe we should change. afterall... what would be the point of having a protestant pope? think about it... it would not work!

Well, something else I don't agree with, a judges purpose is to rule from the law, both in aspect of its codified and uncodified principles. They are rulling based upon personal moral conviction (and even being a "Christian" myself, in-camp with many of these types; I am ethically opposed to their course).

I absolutely agree.

I think, if you want to take the (not-inconsiderable) wages for being an arbiter of the law, you have an obligation to serve the law.

And you SHOULD put that above your own convictions and concerns, unless they coincide with law.

I'm an Atheist, but I do have a moral code. However, if my moral code and the law differ... it would be my job, if I were a judge, to enforce ONLY the law.

Not too long ago, marriage between mixed race couples was a big no-no!
Schools were split due to race, religion, etc. No it's the debate over same sex unions and gay schools! Has the world gone mad? Can people not put personal differences aside and just get along with everyone? What the heck has gone wrong with the world?

In the world today, I fail to understand why people would want gays to be married. I am gay, and yet i oppose gay marriage. I believe in gay unions, or 'civil partnership' - call it what you want, but it is my belief that marriage is a religeous institution for heterosexual couples.

I'm not a homophobe (i'm gay remember), but why would we want to be married within an institution that condems us? For years, hatred for gays has been preached at the alter, and people want to be blessed there? NOT ME!

Some people go on and on about God and religion and why 'gays should die' - yet they have not been inside a church for decades... who is fooling who here? Religion, politics and sex do not mix!

that's my view anyway.

In the United Kingdom, gay couple have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples (with the exception of marriage). It is just something I don't believe we should change. afterall... what would be the point of having a protestant pope? think about it... it would not work!

Now THAT's a new one...

I don't think I've ever seen it argued that gay-marriage would make the Pope Protestant, before...

I absolutely agree.

I think, if you want to take the (not-inconsiderable) wages for being an arbiter of the law, you have an obligation to serve the law.

And you SHOULD put that above your own convictions and concerns, unless they coincide with law.

I'm an Atheist, but I do have a moral code. However, if my moral code and the law differ... it would be my job, if I were a judge, to enforce ONLY the law.

I tend to take the Aristotelian/Platonic concept of Ethics/Morality... Differing the two. Ethics, based in reason of inter-relation, morality being an absolute. Where morality and ethics don't coincide, ethics take precedent.

And yes, everyone has "morals"... In a way, even though based in ethics, certain principles become "moral". For example, "Freedom of speech" is both ethical and moral, it should be an absolute, because ethically it is.

Ethically, a judge should rule from the law, codified and uncodified.

I am glad you understand all of this, and I am sadened that theonomists around me cannot grasp their differing responsibilities, as christians, and as officers of the law and principles of this nation. I'm saddened with officers take sides on issues, when they should be rulling from the principles of this country.

I tend to take the Aristotelian/Platonic concept of Ethics/Morality... Differing the two. Ethics, based in reason of inter-relation, morality being an absolute. Where morality and ethics don't coincide, ethics take precedent.

And yes, everyone has "morals"... In a way, even though based in ethics, certain principles become "moral". For example, "Freedom of speech" is both ethical and moral, it should be an absolute, because ethically it is.

Ethically, a judge should rule from the law, codified and uncodified.

I am glad you understand all of this, and I am sadened that theonomists around me cannot grasp their differing responsibilities, as christians, and as officers of the law and principles of this nation. I'm saddened with officers take sides on issues, when they should be rulling from the principles of this country.

This just brought to my mind another similar thought... the efforts by some Republicans, at the moment, to imply that 'ethics' is somehow a Partisan issue (with Republicans the unfortunate victims of evil Democrat attempts to ensure 'ethics' on them) - while at the same time claiming to be a 'morality' party...

This just brought to my mind another similar thought... the efforts by some Republicans, at the moment, to imply that 'ethics' is somehow a Partisan issue (with Republicans the unfortunate victims of evil Democrat attempts to ensure 'ethics' on them) - while at the same time claiming to be a 'morality' party...

Yes, and when viewed apart from all else, you can see it for the hypocrisy it is.

For example, it is logically inconsistent to hold a view of using governmental funds to suppliment industry, yet deny funding for supliment to general society (social vs. corporate welfare); yet the GOP tries to strip as much money from the social system, yet supports more hand-outs to industry.

Their argument is that it is immoral to support dead-beats.... At the same time, it seems it's perfectly moral to support dead-beats if they have incorporated.

Or how about screaming about governmental activities over religion; and screaming about religious freedoms of christians, and then wanting to legislate marriage from just the christian viewpoint.

My church is in the middle of this social battle. The PCA has a minority of theonomists (Post-Millenials)... Amillenials still hold the majority amongst most Presbyteries (The James River Presbytery of the PCA, which is the council over my particular congregation has all of 1 theonomist in representation, A single Ruling Lay Elder, and the Pastor of the congregation doesn't even side with him) and the General Assembly, and there has already been one fractionation with a group of Theonomists in the south trying to pressure the General Assembly... I'm expecting the Assembly to tackle the issue within the next couple of years; and not in their favor.

What the neo-cons want, and more specifically with the Republican's being influenced heavily by these theonomist views amongst certain of the Reformed and Baptist groups, is basically to overthrow the Constitution and form a "Theocratic Regime".

Postmillenial Theonomists have no interest in anything but attaining "God's Kingdom on Earth" by setting up a new "Christian Empire"... And have no problem what-so-ever, in taking Church Politics into the General Government, and that, by any means necessary... Amillenialists, on the other hand, have no issue on this... And we're fighting it in our Presbyteries and in the General Assembly... And we still have the overwhelming majority amongst Lay, Rulling, and Teaching elders.

The more conservative Baptists, on the other hand, have little they can do about this... Lacking any form of coherant government, they are hijacked one congregation at a time.

So you can see exactly what you're dealing with here.

So what are your thoughts on gay righs?
the idea of 'gay rights' is dumb. Its like 'strait rights'. It just encorages discrimination. How about HUMAN rights or PEOPLE rights. Basically, if im going to conform to your phrasing, i think gays deserve all the rights straits do.

the idea of 'gay rights' is dumb. Its like 'strait rights'. It just encorages discrimination. How about HUMAN rights or PEOPLE rights. Basically, if im going to conform to your phrasing, i think gays deserve all the rights straits do.
Strait-n. A narrow channel joining two larger bodies of water.
Straight-adj./n. Heterosexual.

there is a wonderful document called a will, your stuff goes to whoever is listed in the will, everyone should have one or the state decides after taking at least half of it to start with, in some states, this applies to even married people, so fill out a will and avoid the problem
your other option (the one used by rich people) is to set up a trust, which names whoever is a benificiary of the trust

There are over 1000 rights, protections, and privileges uniquely reserved from married coupled under federal law. (Not to mention the hundreds to thousands more under various state laws.)

Do you really want to quibble about whether it is theoretically possible for a same-sex couple to leap through additional hoops to secure what may be some equivalance for these rights, protections, and privileges? That would be separate additional burdens and obstacles for each one of the over 1000 things automatically confered on those who marry. (And that ignores that many do not have any such alternative a parallel.)

Even with your example of a will, there is a serious legal distinction between a will granting property to your spouse and the automatic provisions of marriage. In addition to wills being far more contestable (particularly where the inheritor is not your legal spouse), there are the hassles of probate than can be largely, if not entirely avoided, by spouses.

So, to argue gays and lesbians can simply work around their inability to marriage is insulting and inaccurate.

Not to mention that none of this explains why they should be denied what is -- in and of itself -- recognized as a fundamental right.

In the world today, I fail to understand why people would want gays to be married. I am gay, and yet i oppose gay marriage. I believe in gay unions, or 'civil partnership' - call it what you want, but it is my belief that marriage is a religeous institution for heterosexual couples.

I'm not a homophobe (i'm gay remember), but why would we want to be married within an institution that condems us? For years, hatred for gays has been preached at the alter, and people want to be blessed there? NOT ME!

This thread seems to be more about the rights associated with married couples (as described by Cat Tribe above) and the right to be recognised as a couple by law rather than the right to marry.

2) there are some financial things, lower taxes when you're married, stuff like that. This is a kind of sponsorship from your state to encourage people to get babies (no babies = no state - sooner or later).
Since obviously gay people are not that good at getting babies, they shouldnt geht these lower taxes.

(a) In most states, taxes are higher for married couples with tax breaks only if they happen to have children (dependents).

(b) Homosexual couples can (if we aren't stupid) adopt.

I hope the legalization of Gay MArriage leads to Bigamy. I already have two lovely ladies that would marry me and they love each other two so we would be such a happy family together. :) But alas, the law wont allow it :( What is wrong with Bigamy? Will it lead to gay marriage?

Good for you! Marry them anyway. Have a big party, invite friends and families, drink, eat, be marry (make marry if its that kind of party). Who cares if it's a legal marriage? It will be a marriage to you, and you can open a joint banking account to help you pretend. :)

Originally Posted by Nimrodesia
Since obviously gay people are not that good at getting babies, they shouldnt geht these lower taxes.
:headbang:
GAH! head...hurts...
For the love of all things good and holy! Marriage Is Not All About Babies!
The argument has been done to death! Several times!
No kids, no tax break, regardless of sexual orientation
PLEASE at least skim the previous posts.....

Originally posted by Draconis Federation
Ha gay rights that a laugh no such thing freaks

This would make so much more sense with punctuation. And drugs.

This thread seems to be more about the rights associated with married couples (as described by Cat Tribe above) and the right to be recognised as a couple by law rather than the right to marry.

Let me clarify.

Those who claim there is no practical difference between having you marriage recognized by the state and not recognized one thing I and others have pointed to the rights associated with marriage.

Our nation has expressly recognized that there is a fundamental right to marriage as a legal union. Supreme Court cases going back well over 100 years expound on this right as among the most basic civil rights of humankind.

The denial of the right to legally recognized marriage is discrimination.

Plain and simple.

Strait-n. A narrow channel joining two larger bodies of water.
Straight-adj./n. Heterosexual.
spelling was never my high point. But what do you think of my post. You know, the meaning of it. Or are you just here to bere a gramar nazi.

Let me clarify.

Those who claim there is no practical difference between having you marriage recognized by the state and not recognized one thing I and others have pointed to the rights associated with marriage.

Our nation has expressly recognized that there is a fundamental right to marriage as a legal union. Supreme Court cases going back well over 100 years expound on this right as among the most basic civil rights of humankind.

The denial of the right to legally recognized marriage is discrimination.

Plain and simple.

I live in the UK, so I'm not up to scratch on the whole American law thing. Sorry. I was just saying what seemed to be going on, particularly recently, as people started saying things like "Lower taxes for married couples" (however true that may be) and everything.

Once again, my most humble apologies.

spelling was never my high point. But what do you think of my post. You know, the meaning of it. Or are you just here to bere a gramar nazi.
Sorry, I was nazified for a moment. Let me analyze. *Scans post.* I don't agree with it. I mean, it's a great concept, noble even, but I really don't think reality allows for it.

I just learned a new word:

homoaffectionals

I don't know what it means, but here's the article it came from....
http://www.dailytribune.com/stories/051105/loc_sexissues10001.shtml
just thought I'd share :D
warm fuzzies

afterall... what would be the point of having a protestant pope? think about it... it would not work!
I don't know. Personally I'm holding out for an atheist Pope.

I don't know. Personally I'm holding out for an atheist Pope.

how about an agnostic pope?
"In the name of the deity who may or may not be out there, the offspring it may or may not have generated, and the holy anthropomorphic personification representative of the societal father figure, amen."
has a nice ring to it, don’t you think?

how about an agnostic pope?
"In the name of the deity who may or may not be out there, the offspring it may or may not have generated, and the holy anthropomorphic personification representative of the societal father figure, amen."
has a nice ring to it, don’t you think?
Awesomeness. :D

how about an agnostic pope?
"In the name of the deity who may or may not be out there, the offspring it may or may not have generated, and the holy anthropomorphic personification representative of the societal father figure, amen."
has a nice ring to it, don’t you think?
Good enough It is going in my profile :fluffle:

Good enough It is going in my profile :fluffle:

I'm Honored. :p

(accepting award) I'd like to thank the god or gods who might have intervened and possibly made this possible....
Ok, carrying the gag to far now. I'll stop

Yes, and when viewed apart from all else, you can see it for the hypocrisy it is.

For example, it is logically inconsistent to hold a view of using governmental funds to suppliment industry, yet deny funding for supliment to general society (social vs. corporate welfare); yet the GOP tries to strip as much money from the social system, yet supports more hand-outs to industry.

Their argument is that it is immoral to support dead-beats.... At the same time, it seems it's perfectly moral to support dead-beats if they have incorporated.

Or how about screaming about governmental activities over religion; and screaming about religious freedoms of christians, and then wanting to legislate marriage from just the christian viewpoint.

My church is in the middle of this social battle. The PCA has a minority of theonomists (Post-Millenials)... Amillenials still hold the majority amongst most Presbyteries (The James River Presbytery of the PCA, which is the council over my particular congregation has all of 1 theonomist in representation, A single Ruling Lay Elder, and the Pastor of the congregation doesn't even side with him) and the General Assembly, and there has already been one fractionation with a group of Theonomists in the south trying to pressure the General Assembly... I'm expecting the Assembly to tackle the issue within the next couple of years; and not in their favor.

What the neo-cons want, and more specifically with the Republican's being influenced heavily by these theonomist views amongst certain of the Reformed and Baptist groups, is basically to overthrow the Constitution and form a "Theocratic Regime".

Postmillenial Theonomists have no interest in anything but attaining "God's Kingdom on Earth" by setting up a new "Christian Empire"... And have no problem what-so-ever, in taking Church Politics into the General Government, and that, by any means necessary... Amillenialists, on the other hand, have no issue on this... And we're fighting it in our Presbyteries and in the General Assembly... And we still have the overwhelming majority amongst Lay, Rulling, and Teaching elders.

The more conservative Baptists, on the other hand, have little they can do about this... Lacking any form of coherant government, they are hijacked one congregation at a time.

So you can see exactly what you're dealing with here.

:) Very well put.

I have made many of these same points myself. in various threads - well, about the US turning into a theocracy. Bush obviously still believes firmly in the policies of Manifest Destiny - he just has bigger aspirations than last time.

What upsets me is that so many of the US people seem to have taken him to their hearts... his 'common man' act, resonates far more strongly than I would have thought.

I have also made the point about the hypocrisy of 'Christian' politics... the yelling 'oppression' at the one end, and petitioning for monotheistic law at the other end. The way I read it, the Bible says Christians should let government do the governing (render unto Caesar, and all that), while they 'separate' themselves from the sins of the heathen.

For me, the big problem with Republican-Christian politics, is that many of the Christians are letting themselves be bought. Republicans aren't sure they can win a particular seat? Easy - stick a Christian hot-button issue on the voting form (ban gay marriage, or ban abortion). The Republicans have got themselves set-up as the 'moral' party, and managed to persuade many Americans (who must be very forgiving, have very short memories, or just not read much news) that they are.

Thus, they 'buy' conservative votes on those hot-button issues...

People really need to follow Jesus' advice in Mark 12:17 "And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's". Conservative Christians NEED to separate their religon from their politics.

Exactly, which is why the Amillenialist majority in the various Presbyteries and in the General Assembly oppose the theonomist view. And it is expected it will have to be directly responded to within the next couple of years. We believe in a delination between Church Government, and the "General Government".

Baptists of the reformed and non-reformed background lack alot of this control.

Presbyterianism is represenative, on all levels.

Each Congregation has "Rulling Lay Elders" which are appointed by the congregation. In addition to a single Teaching Elder (Pastor), who is appointed by the congregation (but ordained by the Presbytery). They form the "Session", which is the "body" of ruling elders for an individual congregation. The installation and removal of Rulling or Teach Elders occurs by congregational vote by all Communicate Members.

Rulling and Teaching elders are bound to the Confession (Westminster Confession of Faith), though this is not binding upon members of the congregations themselves.

The Presbytery consists of one Rulling Elder (appointed from the session) and the Teaching Elder; from each Congregation in a "Region". The Presbytery meets once a quarter.

The General Assembly, sometimes called a Synod, consists of one rulling elder (appointed by the session) and one Teaching Elder from every congregation in the Country. The General Assembly meets once a year.

Acts and resolutions passed by the Presbytery of a region, is binding upon all congregations in the region.

Acts and resolutions passed by the General Assembly (or Synod), is binding upon all congregations in the country.

Most General Assemblies and Synods accross the globe also send representatives to the WORC (World Council of Reformed Churches). US representatives in this body include, The Reformed Baptist Church, the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), The Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (PCUSA), and The Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC).

This is abit different than the congregationalists, which are more confederated in nature... Acts by their "Councils" or "Conventions" are "recommendations" and are not binding as a whole on the congregations (this is why the Baptists have demonstrated far more theonomy than Presbyterians... They lack any checks and ballances in their government against overbearing corruption which occurs in the individual diaconates or pastors of individual congregations... [such as what has occured recently in North Carolina's East Waynesville Baptist Church]).

The Postmillenial Theonomists adopt a system known as Dominion Theology; which believes it is the duty of the Church to obtain Dominion over the general government. And they advocate use of General Government power to enforce religious discipline, in mass.... Amillenialists on the other hand see religious discipline as only a power of the Church government upon the members of the congregation, and do not believe the General Government should be involved. They believe it is through this that "God's Kingdom" (The Millenium) is instilled on earth..... Which differs from the Amillenialists, who believe the millenium is instilled at the return of Christ... So this is really an eschatological (end-times) issue which has over-flowed into all other areas of government...

Dominionists want to see General Government power instilled, and death penality imposed to punish Apostacy (denial of the faith), sodomy, adultery, and countless other "sins".

Amillenialists on the other hand are evangelical. And merely want to liberty and freedom to preach and teach, and bring sinners to Christ in this manner.

So what are your thoughts on gay righs?
Is there some sort of award for starting/posting in the 1000th thread on the subject? :p

Exactly, which is why the Amillenialist majority in the various Presbyteries and in the General Assembly oppose the theonomist view. And it is expected it will have to be directly responded to within the next couple of years. We believe in a delination between Church Government, and the "General Government".

Baptists of the reformed and non-reformed background lack alot of this control.

Presbyterianism is represenative, on all levels.

Each Congregation has "Rulling Lay Elders" which are appointed by the congregation. In addition to a single Teaching Elder (Pastor), who is appointed by the congregation (but ordained by the Presbytery). They form the "Session", which is the "body" of ruling elders for an individual congregation. The installation and removal of Rulling or Teach Elders occurs by congregational vote by all Communicate Members.

Rulling and Teaching elders are bound to the Confession (Westminster Confession of Faith), though this is not binding upon members of the congregations themselves.

The Presbytery consists of one Rulling Elder (appointed from the session) and the Teaching Elder; from each Congregation in a "Region". The Presbytery meets once a quarter.

The General Assembly, sometimes called a Synod, consists of one rulling elder (appointed by the session) and one Teaching Elder from every congregation in the Country. The General Assembly meets once a year.

Acts and resolutions passed by the Presbytery of a region, is binding upon all congregations in the region.

Acts and resolutions passed by the General Assembly (or Synod), is binding upon all congregations in the country.

Most General Assemblies and Synods accross the globe also send representatives to the WORC (World Council of Reformed Churches). US representatives in this body include, The Reformed Baptist Church, the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), The Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (PCUSA), and The Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC).

This is abit different than the congregationalists, which are more confederated in nature... Acts by their "Councils" or "Conventions" are "recommendations" and are not binding as a whole on the congregations (this is why the Baptists have demonstrated far more theonomy than Presbyterians... They lack any checks and ballances in their government against overbearing corruption which occurs in the individual diaconates or pastors of individual congregations... [such as what has occured recently in North Carolina's East Waynesville Baptist Church]).

The Postmillenial Theonomists adopt a system known as Dominion Theology; which believes it is the duty of the Church to obtain Dominion over the general government. And they advocate use of General Government power to enforce religious discipline, in mass.... Amillenialists on the other hand see religious discipline as only a power of the Church government upon the members of the congregation, and do not believe the General Government should be involved. They believe it is through this that "God's Kingdom" (The Millenium) is instilled on earth..... Which differs from the Amillenialists, who believe the millenium is instilled at the return of Christ... So this is really an eschatological (end-times) issue which has over-flowed into all other areas of government...

Dominionists want to see General Government power instilled, and death penality imposed to punish Apostacy (denial of the faith), sodomy, adultery, and countless other "sins".

Amillenialists on the other hand are evangelical. And merely want to liberty and freedom to preach and teach, and bring sinners to Christ in this manner.

It sounds like I have far more sympathy for the Amillenialist than the Postmillenialist... if for no other reason than a true believer shouldn't (in my opinion) be trying to do God's work... as you say, surely the return of Christ would happen in God's own time... and doesn't require the assistance, or 'prompting' of events?

I certainly dislike the vision of Dominionists gaining the power to enforce their own religious choices on others - partly because they'd be quick to do away with me, and partly because I do not believe it is a human prerogative to carry out 'God's' judgement.

Amillenialists, on the other hand, seem okay... so long as their evangelism is judicious. :)

It sounds like I have far more sympathy for the Amillenialist than the Postmillenialist... if for no other reason than a true believer shouldn't (in my opinion) be trying to do God's work... as you say, surely the return of Christ would happen in God's own time... and doesn't require the assistance, or 'prompting' of events?

I certainly dislike the vision of Dominionists gaining the power to enforce their own religious choices on others - partly because they'd be quick to do away with me, and partly because I do not believe it is a human prerogative to carry out 'God's' judgement.

Amillenialists, on the other hand, seem okay... so long as their evangelism is judicious. :)

Yes, theonomy is somewhat rampant, and it is the specific danger of the Postmillenial Theonomic Dominionists that is the danger. I should note that not all Postmillenials are necessarily Dominionists.... Though most of the reformed church in general is "theonomic", which in its purity as a Theological Discipline on merely indicates whether the "laws" are binding today (the major differentiation is between thenomy as a theology, seeing as the law being binding upon believers; and Theonomism, seeing as the law being binding upon all mankind).

Historical background of the Reformation pushes many reformers out of involvement in government except where absolute necessity occured (such as Knox's involvement in setting up the original Presbyterians in Scottland against Queen Mary).

Puritans represent the first political theonomists in America, meshing church and general governmental powers in the Massachusetts Bay Colony.

Most others in the new world colonies, such as Anglican and Presbyterian Virginia, Catholic Maryland, and Baptist Rhode Island, set about deliniating between Church and Secular government, to avoid a repetition of what happened in Old World Europe... In part, you can thank many of the Christians who settled the American Colonies for the religious liberties (which predated the Constitution) in the Colonies.... Unlike the Puritans, they learned from the errors which occured in Europe. Including as far as Providence Plantation (Rhode Island), Reformed Dutch Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Catholic Maryland having some of the first recognized non-christian religious group settlements in the New World.

This is not the same as Theonomic American Revisionistic Christian thought... Not that "Christian Ideals" were the foundation, but rather, that these Christians were an integral part of creating the principle of "Religious Liberty" in the colonies... From most of them fleeing various forms of persecution in the old world...

Quakers and Anabaptists (Mennonites and Amish) and Baptists fleeing Catholic and Anglican Persecution.

Presbyterians and Anglicans fleeing Catholic persecution.

Catholic's fleeing Anglican and Lutheran Persecution.

All fleeing to these new colonies, and setting up governments where all are considered libertine in religious thought. Virginia herself having Religious Liberty clauses in her own Colonial Charter a century before the Declaration of Independance... and even having religious liberty rights engrafted in her own bill of rights in her "State Constitution" of 1776, before the Constitution of the US was even a pipe dream. (Thanks in part to many of these Christians, like the Anglican, Patrick Henry, first non-colonial Govenor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, after its own declaration of independance in May of 1776 from the British Crown.... He was the one who insisted, with support of the McCords of southwest Virginia, Presbyterians, and the Baptist George Clinton of New York).

It's interesting to note, at this time, that James Madison, the Episcopalian, was opposed to religious liberties being engrafted into the Virginia Constitution of 1776... He later sided with the Deist, Thomas Jefferson, on the issue when the Constitution came into play, federating the individual Commonwealths and States.

So it's a turn of tides... Centuries ago, racked with the understanding of what General Governmental Theonomy can do upon individual sects; these men understood what it meant to strive for liberty, and for the rights to their personal faith.... 2 centuries later, the descendants of these churches now are trying to undo the work of their forebearers. Lacking any understanding of the dangers their ideas imposed; herded by charismatic leaders, who scrath their ears on command; they are set out to undo 200 years of history and inter-cooperation. To restore the Theocracies of Old World Europe in present America... And re-writting history for their own goals, to make their followers believe en masse that their "Christian Nation" has been "hijacked" by secularists....

They hijack speaches by James Madison, Patrick Henry, Henry Clay, John Adams, George Washington, and countless other early Christians in this Commonwealth, as well as other colonies; to show they were Christians, and then implant the seed of discord, by filling in the lines with Theonomic theology, and how it is our duty to "restore" this country to those "times"... When in fact, it was "Those times" these very men, as Christians, and as patriots, were trying to change, and give us what we have now.

It's really sad at the state of ignorance these people have entered into, and continue to push towards. And shows us all the value of a complete understanding of history, both the rights and wrongs of our past ancestors, to better our course for the day.

To gather another quote for them, of Patrick Henry, "I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past." A not so well known quote... However, the last sentence of the speech he said this, is most familiar to people.... "I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

Patrick Henry used the past, to guide the future course of the Commonwealth, as govenor. And later of the new Country as a whole...

Those in the present rewrite history, to conform to their ideals, and undo all that great men such as this gave us, in the past.

"So it's a turn of tides... Centuries ago, racked with the understanding of what General Governmental Theonomy can do upon individual sects; these men understood what it meant to strive for liberty, and for the rights to their personal faith.... 2 centuries later, the descendants of these churches now are trying to undo the work of their forebearers. Lacking any understanding of the dangers their ideas imposed; herded by charismatic leaders, who scrath their ears on command; they are set out to undo 200 years of history and inter-cooperation. To restore the Theocracies of Old World Europe in present America... And re-writting history for their own goals, to make their followers believe en masse that their "Christian Nation" has been "hijacked" by secularists...."

Sorry - I didn't trim the post for it's content... but for emphasis.

This is art.

I don't tip my hat to the words of others lightly, this is masterful.

I totally agree that the 'people' are being fooled... the 'charismatics' give them a picture of a past that has never existed, with their own agenda as the reason why it will work. They ignore the facts that our 'golden pasts' are usually equal parts nostalgia and ignorance of the reality.

And then, they take the things that DID work, and ignore HOW and WHY they worked. Why was the early settlement of the US such a positive time (in some places) for the new colonial religions? They churn out the 'reasons' that match their agenda... ignoring the real facts.

Excellent post, my friend.

By definition, when Henry split from the Catholic Church, wasn't he a theonomist?

And wasn't Cromwell's government a theonomy?

America wasn't the first Western nation to go along these lines.

I totally agree that the 'people' are being fooled... the 'charismatics' give them a picture of a past that has never existed, with their own agenda as the reason why it will work. They ignore the facts that our 'golden pasts' are usually equal parts nostalgia and ignorance of the reality.

How do you know it didnt exist?

How do you know it didnt exist?

Because people use terms like 'golden age', 'back to basics', 'return to family values'... and add qualifiers for what they think it means... like a time BEFORE the permissive sixties and yet they describe 'nuclear family groups'.

They refer to a time when there was no pornography (ignoring the fact that there has been pornography at least as long as there has been printing...).

They talk about the happy Victorian family, with their rigid moral code... and ignore the fact that pornography and prostitution were rife in the Victorian era, and that 'society wives' were left at home by their 'society husbands'... who would take 'escorts' to social gatherings.

They talk about a time before drugs - and ignore the fact that 100 years ago the most common medicine for headaches was opium dissolved in alchohol...

They talk about returning to the sanctity of marriage, and ignore the fact that a few hundred years ago, almost nobody married.... and marriages were pretty much ONLY performed for the continuation of honours, titles... the transfer of wealth, etc...

Never trust anyone who talks a bout a 'golden age'... they are usually inventing a time they WISH had happened, rather than one that actually has.

Because people use terms like 'golden age', 'back to basics', 'return to family values'... and add qualifiers for what they think it means... like a time BEFORE the permissive sixties and yet they describe 'nuclear family groups'.
They refer to a time when there was no pornography (ignoring the fact that there has been pornography at least as long as there has been printing...).
They talk about the happy Victorian family, with their rigid moral code... and ignore the fact that pornography and prostitution were rife in the Victorian era, and that 'society wives' were left at home by their 'society husbands'... who would take 'escorts' to social gatherings.
They talk about a time before drugs - and ignore the fact that 100 years ago the most common medicine for headaches was opium dissolved in alchohol...
They talk about returning to the sanctity of marriage, and ignore the fact that a few hundred years ago, almost nobody married.... and marriages were pretty much ONLY performed for the continuation of honours, titles... the transfer of wealth, etc...
Never trust anyone who talks a bout a 'golden age'... they are usually inventing a time they WISH had happened, rather than one that actually has.

I agree with all of the above, except the hardly anyone marrying part, even poor people would have had a priest perform some ceremony for them in their dwelling.
To deny porn being around for ages is silly, but I'd say their referring more now to its abundance, and the easy access to it, particularly through this medium.
The same goes for drugs, I cant see the Victorian era or before having the same problems in the scope we have now with heroin, cocaine, crack, ice, ecstacy, marijuana even.
They probably know that before modern times there were all the problems we have today in some format or another, just not as abundant and chaotic as it is now.

I agree with all of the above, except the hardly anyone marrying part, even poor people would have had a priest perform some ceremony for them in their dwelling.
To deny porn being around for ages is silly, but I'd say their referring more now to its abundance, and the easy access to it, particularly through this medium.
The same goes for drugs, I cant see the Victorian era or before having the same problems in the scope we have now with heroin, cocaine, crack, ice, ecstacy, marijuana even.
They probably know that before modern times there were all the problems we have today in some format or another, just not as abundant and chaotic as it is now.
Most of the difference I am betting is lack of avalability rather motivation

I agree with all of the above, except the hardly anyone marrying part, even poor people would have had a priest perform some ceremony for them in their dwelling.
To deny porn being around for ages is silly, but I'd say their referring more now to its abundance, and the easy access to it, particularly through this medium.
The same goes for drugs, I cant see the Victorian era or before having the same problems in the scope we have now with heroin, cocaine, crack, ice, ecstacy, marijuana even.
They probably know that before modern times there were all the problems we have today in some format or another, just not as abundant and chaotic as it is now.

About the 'hardly marrying' thing - I'm being utterly serious. Look at most of European law for the last few centuries - and you'll see that all have 'common law' marriages - which are the legal recognition (effectively) of cohabitation.

Most of the last two millennia has actually bneen spent with pretty much no marriage, and pretty much no church condemnation of cohabitation.

It just wasn't talked about, because it wasn't considered an issue.

Which is why all this Neo-Con talk about the 'sanctity of marriage' is such a preposterous concept...

Regarding the drug use, the refinement of the drugs is about the only difference. Opiates were ubiquitous a few generations ago - literally, store-bought headache treatments contained opium. Go back few hundred years and look at how the UK sponsored it's empire, and it is largely a tale of drug-trafficking, slave-trading and war.

I don't think there is anything more 'abundant' or 'chaotic' about the world now, than there was a hundred years ago. We just record it now, and can view it from further away.

The only difference is mass-media and instantaneous communication.