Gay marriage...

[RGA]

So a squirrel to the rescue - if you can get past the voice - he's a smart little guy :-)

Gay Marriage : Foamy The Squirrel - YouTube

and just of the fun of it

[RGA]

Posting from a Catholic institution which bans the use of words associated with non theocracy or same S partners. LOL

Gay Marriage : Foamy The Squirrel - YouTube

[JohnMichael]

A blast from the past and why I came out on AR.

Marriage and gay couples don't mix.

[RGA]

As a straight guy I could never ever understand homophobia. I frequently say "I Love Gay Men"

People would look in shock and I would say "the more gay men there are the less competition there is for me with the ladies." When you're not Brad Pitt every bit helps. Besides gay men also had the stereotypes of being hard bodies - yeah that guy is well dressed and great looking - he's probably gay.

I remember going to a Gay nightclub in Korea as part of the Hash House Harriers running club (their motto is "A drinking club with a running problem). Great club - 17000 all around the world in most every major city. A lot of silly fun.

Anyway, whilst in the club a guy walked by me and cupped me. Whaaat? OMG? I was stunned. M'eh - after the initial shock I thought - "I got it going on when a gay guy is into me." I was wearing a terrific red shirt with black leather jacket. Besides it was the only bar in town playing Madonna. And I like Madonna in a nightclub.

I have a wildly interesting group of friends from the blue collar redneck towns to Mormons and pastors. One of my closer friends is a professional dominatrix partnered to a man who just had an operation to get breasts.

I know a hot Lesbian couple - and like the Squirrel - I'd LOVE if they moved in next door since they're also exibisionists.

It's sex - who cares. Some guy likes to get spanked or tied up why does anyone care? Two girls want to get married - again who cares? Granted Lesbians are reducing my opportunity pool so I like them less than Gay men :-)

Although I'm a lesbian in a man's body. Yeah I tried that line a couple of times on some lesbian friends - hey it was worth a try.

I don't know why the west is so paranoid about showing a breast on film - that will get you rated R or X but slaughter fifty people with a machete - no problem so long as you don't say the F word.

I met a lovely French woman here (also a Professional Dominatrix) - yeah I attract powerful women. She's so unbelievably attractive with that sultry French vixen velvety voice and dark red hair with knee high leather boots and pure white perfect skin and pouty red lips in a slender 5'9 package with big bedroom eyes. Wow. No wonder guys line up to be her slave.

If people weren't so damn repressed and anal about things they'd enjoy their lives and wouldn't be as pissed off all the time out starting wars, and diddling alter boys. And all the arguments against are STUUUUUUPID. They never back anything up with any sort of proof - or even examples as to why it's bad for the sanctity of marriage or family values. Huh? But the intelligent part of society has to drag these centuries behind the rest of the world thinkers into modern times and better values and morals - if we left it to those noodle brains women would not be voting, blacks would be slaves and called blacks, I would be shot for this post or locked up as a commie traitor. Locked up by someone like J. Edgar Hoover (Holy Hypocrites Batman).

That's why I loved Boston Legal and I was so irritated that Fox did everything they could to railroad the show. And eventually succeeded.

My fear with Obama is that this stance may kill his presidency. I don't know - being Black didn't hurt him too much but a lot of the poor in the U.S. are African American. A lot of the poor go to church. Most in the Church hate Gays and they cloak it in BS - we love you but it's a sin. Yeah right.

So if Obama wins again (fingers crossed) I will be utterly amazed. When I first heard the news report I thought "wow he must want out of the job." I just can't see people electing a U.S president being an Atheist or "scientific" or pro gay marriage.

But then in 1950 I doubt anyone thought it possible to have an African American elected president.

2024 - a lesbian minority of middle eastern family heritage who is an Atheist gets elected president. And if America were really cool this woman would be a Republican. Now THAT would be something.

[dean_martin]

A blast from the past and why I came out on AR.

Marriage and gay couples don't mix.

There were some ugly comments in that thread. My hat's off to you for keeping your cool.

[GMichael]

There were some ugly comments in that thread. My hat's off to you for keeping your cool.

Wow! I think we've come a long way from those days. We still have more to go though.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

There were some ugly comments in that thread. My hat's off to you for keeping your cool.

Ugly? They were damn right means as hell, insensitive, and showed why this country cannot get past its biases and prejudices.

[Feanor]

Ugly? They were damn right means as hell, insensitive, and showed why this country cannot get past its biases and prejudices.

I'm glad that I missed that thread, (though I was around here at the time). Maybe it was that interval when I avoided Off Topic.

I was always fine with equal civil unions but there was a time when I have reservations about same-sex marriage by that name. The nature of my reservation was that I felt it might be best to avoid the term "marriage" so as not to antagonize religious people who feel strongly against it.

I tended to feel like that way right up until the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that it was discriminatory to deny same-sex couple the right to marry. I finally realized that the Court was right and I was wrong: true equality could not exist until everyone was entitled to used the same term for their relationship.

Like Obama, my attitude had evolved.

[bobsticks]

There were some ugly comments in that thread. My hat's off to you for keeping your cool.

Ain't that the truth...

...that said, I can see why some people might not approve of Gay Marriage.

---maybe a person believes that a two thousand year old document translated many, many times over many, many languages should be taken literally...(at least the part about the gays but probably not Leviticus or Romans or Corinthians)...

---see above, and add a refusal to read that part of the Constitution that separates Church and State...

---maybe a person has so many horrific, dysfunctional qualities that they need to cast aspersions on the behavior others to avoid looking at themselves...

---maybe a person dislikes all sex...

---maybe a person is so eager a follower that they chose to align themselves, or rather, that they would cast their lot with those that make careers out creating division and promoting judgement...

---The LGTB crowd has by-and-large followed the path of peaceful protest while a lot of them coloreds and laa--tee--nooos got some guns....and some days you just gotta be a bigot, right?


Gee, under those circumstances it's pretty easy to see how somebody might get all up in arms over the issue...

[ForeverAutumn]

Ain't that the truth...

...that said, I can see why some people might not approve of Gay Marriage...

I know that you're being facetious, but I honestly don't get why someone would not approve. Hard as I try, I just can't understand why people think that it's any of their business or their right to judge.

Why is this even something that should be voted on? Who I marry or don't marry affects no one. NO ONE. Except me and the person I marry.

Yes, there should be laws in place for the sake of safety of minors and that sort of thing. But if I'm a consenting adult who wants to marry a consenting adult who wants to marry me, why would anyone else care? Especially people who don't even know me.

That's what I don't understand.

[Feanor]

So a squirrel to the rescue - if you can get past the voice - he's a smart little guy :-)
...
and just of the fun of it

This had me going almost up to the point where it says, "In a theocracy like ours ...".

Oh, but wait: read Chris Hedges' American Fascists ...

[ForeverAutumn]

That's great! I just posted it on my facebook page.

I was in a discussion with some Christians on a friend's Facebook page, regarding same sex marriage. For the most part everyone actually stayed pretty civil, although I have to admit that I did take the opportunity to egg them on a bit. Anyhow, one of them actually said that she believed that if you hung out with gay people, you could become gay; that their spirit would overtake yours. I was astounded that someone could really believe that...like homosexuality is a contagious virus!

Now, two days later, I can think of a list of great responses. But at the time I was just so flabbergasted, that I was too shocked to even answer back. People like that frighten me.

[GMichael]

First off, I love the counting system used. That was great.

Second, I like most all people. Gay, straight, black white, purple or green is all OK to me. If a green guy wants to marry a purple guy, then lets have a party. I draw the line at mean people though. I'd rather live next to an idiot that someone who is mean at heart.

Third, I would love a hot lesbian couple next door, but not if it means that the old gay couple have to leave. They are too good to me and are not going ANYWHERE!

Fourth, who's got a fifth?

[dean_martin]

As far as I'm concerned, the debate's over, the slippery slope argument is bull**** (no one's going to marry an animal or an inanimate object), people came to this country to break from all kinds of "traditions", to dodge paying taxes to the crown, to avoid jail and hard labor, etc. We're supposed to accept everyone. We are indeed the great experiment and as such we should be leading by example rather than dragging humanity back to the Middle Ages.

[thekid]

The problem I see in this issue is that people mix the legal contract of "marriage" with the religious rite of "marriage". In its earliest form marriage was strictly a legal contract which revolved around property rights and the transfer of property. Organized religions then developed rites which "sanctified" the marriage of a couple within their sect or religious order. As time passed people merged the two concepts together and began to think that both the legal and religious acts were needed to constitute a marriage. This of course is not true. You can get married in a church but if you do not buy a license and fill out the right paperwork the state does not recognize you as legally married.

As far as I am concerned if some organized religion does not want to recognize/perform their traditional "marriage" rite for a Gay couple then I think that is their right. To assert that same concept allows them to oppose or deny a Gay couple from entering into the legal contract of "marriage" is just plain wrong.

I find it odd that people who oppose Gay marriage tend to be strict constitutionists but seem to have no problem mixing Church and State when it comes to Gay marriage.

Just my two cents.....

[Mash]

The scandal here is not Gay Marriage. It is the divorce rate of Hetero couples with children and also Hetero couples having children out of wedlock. Hetero couples can produce children while Gay couples cannot. We should be concerned about the children who result from, and then become the victims of, divorce or unstable Hetro couples..

[bobsticks]

The scandal here is not Gay Marriage. It is the divorce rate of Hetero couples with children and also Hetero couples having children out of wedlock. Hetero couples can produce children while Gay couples cannot. We should be concerned about the children who result from, and then become the victims of, divorce or unstable Hetro couples..

Absolutely correct...though if you ask gay folks who are effected by the current laws they might regard them as scandalous.

[RGA]

Forget Gays

Some Religion (err most) can barely stomach girls. What's wrong with these F-tards. Our Lady of Sorrows (Ariz.) baseball team forfeits state title rather than play against team with a girl | Prep Rally - Yahoo! Sports Canada

[JohnMichael]

Forget Gays

Do not forget us so soon. I live in a state where I can be discriminated against in employment, denied housing, and not allowed to marry.

[RGA]

Do not forget us so soon. I live in a state where I can be discriminated against in employment, denied housing, and not allowed to marry.

Don't forget Atheist biology teachers trying to teach the "fact" of evolution. They'll throw rocks through your window and fire you in some places.

Thanks to the Audio Note distributor for sending me along a little history piece to add to this discussion

"When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite."

anthropologist: When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite

[Feanor]

The scandal here is not Gay Marriage. It is the divorce rate of Hetero couples with children and also Hetero couples having children out of wedlock. Hetero couples can produce children while Gay couples cannot. We should be concerned about the children who result from, and then become the victims of, divorce or unstable Hetro couples..

Stable, committed relationships are advantageous to individuals and to society. Sexual orientation of couples is really no issue at all.

Just for the record, I do oppose multiple, (polygamous / polyandrous), marriage because in actual operation it tends to oppress the multiple partners and unfairly reduce available spouses for other members of the community. (I also oppose marriage to animals, house plants, or "ice cream" ),

[ForeverAutumn]

Here's the problem I have with the argument about marraige being a "religious rite". My husband and I are both atheists. We were married by a Unitarian minister who performed a beautiful non-sectarian ceremony. Yet, we are "married". We are not in a civil union. There is absolutely nothing religious about it. Yet we have the right be married. So should everyone else.

[thekid]

It may be interesting for some people to speculate on the sexual orientation or marital status of Jesus (It certainly helped make the DaVinci Code a best-seller) but I would be careful to support any views on this topic based on passages or phrases used in the Bible. The Bible that exists today has been translated from a variety of languages at least 3 times so word choices are sketchy at best for proof in this area. The text of the Bible has also gone through several editings which often reflect the biases of the editors. Throw in the fact that the source documents such as the Gospels appear to have been written 20-30 years after Jesus lived you raise additional issues.

Viewing the Bible as relegious text or philosophical treatise is one thing. Using it as a historical document or to establish the personality or traits of individuals within its narratives is something else.

[JohnMichael]

It may be interesting for some people to speculate on the sexual orientation or marital status of Jesus (It certainly helped make the DaVinci Code a best-seller) but I would be carefully to support any views on this topic based on passages or phrases used in the Bible. The Bible that exists today has been translated from a variety of languages at least 3 times so word choices are sketchy at best for proof in this area. The text of the Bible has also gone through several editings which often reflect the biases of the editors. Throw in the fact that the source documents such as the Gospels appear to have been written 20-30 years after Jesus lived you raise additional issues.

Viewing the Bible as relegious text or philosophical treatise is one thing. Using it as a historical document or to establish the personality or traits of individuals within its narratives is something else.

Not only has the Bible been translated from many languages but men decided what books went into the Bible. There were more Gospels written than the four in the Bible. Books called the apocrypha had been included in the Bible between the Old and New Testaments but are no longer included. There is also interesting information about Jesus and his life in the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient writings. The Bible is limited in information some might say to influence and direct faith and thought.

[Mash]

How did the Bible and JC get into this?

FYI Terms used in the time of JC usually ment something very different than they do today.

Rabinical Law was a lot stricter then, too. Adultery could get you a REAL headache. But takingt a second wife? I think the story of Rachel answered this (if my memory is correct).

Homosexuality? Oh, boy.......................