Marriage and gay couples don't mix.

[piece-it pete]

"conflict results in progress, moderation in mediocrity"

Congrats Jim that's a quotable quote! You get a gold star lol.

As W.E.B. DuBois liked to say, we need plain talk.

I once heard it put this way: We have the Constitutional right to speak our opinion. But no one has the right for that opinion to be given credibility. Well, not yet, anyway.

I cringe now when I hear moderate - it always means I have to "adjust" my position and never the other way around. With the majority of college kids now believing that freedom of speech should be regulated, and so many adults agreeing, it's only a matter of time before we are censured for speaking our minds. It fits hand in glove with the decay I mentioned in my last post. I see us making the transition from true democracy to a de-facto tyranny, as in Rome so long ago. It makes me sad.

But "The institution of heterosexual marriage is crumbling", so why not hurry it along.

There's an audio tie-in to all this too. With the loss of freedom comes a consolidation of power for whatever group has the power (whoever decides what acceptable speech is). These folks aren't exactly free-traders either, so restrictions on the movement of capital is inevitable. The guarenteed result is the British disease, at the very least.

Audio is a hobby and will suffer greatly when incomes contract (does anyone really believe tariffs and legal job guarentees will INCREASE income?). We are currently living in a golden age, vs the 99.99999% of the entire human population to date who have lived in abject poverty and harrassment that we simply can't comprehend.

So lets do some huge-scale social engineering! Hey, we only have EVERYTHING to lose, we are outside history somehow, and besides: it's just not fair!!

Awww boo-hoo. Gays are overall much more sucessful income wise than heretos - where's the protest? Let's have a hereto pride parade and see how kind, loving and supportive the the gay community is of THAT.

We need a more adult mentality vs the current adolesent one. It's a cold hard world and we've managed to carve out a haven for a little while. I hate to see it go.

Pete

[Resident Loser]

...with John Cleese and the exceptional ensemble cast?

In one episode Basil Fawlty(Cleese) is having some work done on the hotel which he owns...he decides to run an errand leaving Polly in charge...she in turn decides to have a little "lie down" leaving instructions with Manuel to wake her...well, the builders read the blueprint upside-down and screw up to a fare-thee-well.

Basil returns some time later to find the entrance to the dining room missing and new doors where they shouldn't be...Sybil, his wife, alternatively known as the Dragon Lady, will be back soon, he is terrified....he lays into Polly, whose only excuse is that Manuel forgot to wake her...and that it's Fawlty's fault for hiring sub-standard contractors in the first place to which he responds "Oh, I see all along I thought it was your fault because I left you in charge or Manuel's fault because he didn't wake you, but now i see It was MY fault. I must be punished" He procedes to whack himself about, howling self-deprecating insults, alternating with the wail of "I'm dead! Your dead! We're all dead!"

So you see, if you complain or find fault with unacceptable behaviour, it's not the offending party or action that's wrong...no, no, no my friend...it's you...it's your fault!!! Plain as the nose on your face.

jimHJJ(...as I stated earlier, burn 'em...)

[shokhead]

[QUOTE=JohnMichael]We have a parade for the same reason as the veterans and the Shriners. We are proud and want the community to know we are here. If you follow your logic about a man and a woman for maintaining family should every marriage that does not create children be disbanded. I am sorry no matter how much you love your wife you can not impregnate her so she will have to leave you and marry a man that can. Or if the wife can't get pregnant you will be given a different wife. As society becomes more enlightened we correct the wrongs of previous generations. We have learned the importance of equal rights and that everyone brings value to society. The ideas of people of color going to seperate schools or riding on the back of a bus or women not being able to vote seems abhorent to us now. And a little embarrassing. As more states and countries approve gay marriages another minority is achieving equal rights.[/QUO

Those comparison doesnt work at all,sorry. Why dont you give us a positive list of what the gay movement has done for the world.

[Resident Loser]

...that AIDS "Patient Zero" was a gay flight attendant...

Why dont you give us a positive list of what the gay movement has done for the world.

jimHJJ(...you mean like that?...)

[E-Stat]

As society becomes more enlightened we correct the wrongs of previous generations. We have learned the importance of equal rights and that everyone brings value to society.

I think the primary problem you run into is trying to change Judeo-Christian religious tenets. Those who believe in the Bible will not accept any modern "correction" of what they truly believe is the word of God. Don't get me wrong - I believe in equal rights such as those regarding legal issues, but marriage is inherently a religious concept that conflicts with homosexuality. Forever. Why isn't a civil union acceptable?

As for the "gotta-have-children" notion, my wife and are are childless by choice. Even the Bible doesn't require married couples having offspring.

rw

[JohnMichael]

I think the primary problem you run into is trying to change Judeo-Christian religious tenets. Those who believe in the Bible will not accept any modern "correction" of what they truly believe is the word of God. Don't get me wrong - I believe in equal rights such as those regarding legal issues, but marriage is inherently a religious concept that conflicts with homosexuality. Forever. Why isn't a civil union acceptable?

As for the "gotta-have-children" notion, my wife and are are childless by choice. Even the Bible doesn't require married couples having offspring.

rw

First off your decision not to have children is fine with me. I was following shokheads logic not stating my feelings. I support any relationship between two consenting adults. As far as religion my partner and I are Catholics so I do know all the Judeo-Christian tenets. We also have three children between us. A civil union is fine but when I first became aware of the thread it was titled "Marriage and gay couples don't mix" The only reason I got involved with this thread is I thought I could show a little humanity to the thread. We are decent, hard working and spiritual people. A lot of the comments had nothing to do with the people actually involved in this issue. Some comments such as RL's eloquent statement "burn em" was offensive.

[RGA]

Sorry did someone say marriage is a Christian owned word? Funny The Romans and Greeks had marriages years before God was invented.

[E-Stat]

A lot of the comments had nothing to do with the people actually involved in this issue. Some comments such as RL's eloquent statement "burn em" was offensive.

Indeed. I truly have a number of good friends and relatives who share your views.

rw

[E-Stat]

Sorry did someone say marriage is a Christian owned word? Funny The Romans and Greeks had marriages years before God was invented.

You need to brush up a bit on your biblical history. The Romans were decidedly late comers when it comes to Moses and Abraham.

rw

[RGA]

Ahh yes my brain was asleep - however I'm not convinced they own the word -- Augustus Caeser did not follow Christianity and yet they had marriages under his rule. He lived from 63BC - They believed in the "Gods" not one God.

It seems to me the no one religion can take claim to a name. Not that any of this yap yap is going to change anyone's views on anything -- it just creates larger gulphs between people. may as well live it up while you can because as Rowan Atkinson's skit went if true -- he stands as the Devil holding a list -- Murderers, rapists, and lawyers you stand over there. Ahh Christians - yes sorry the Jews were Right.

As the computer in WarGames once said -- the only way to win is not to play. I'll pass on the dice roll of which religion is right meaning everyone else gets to take tea with Lucifer. And one thinks Audio is full of elitest snobs....they got nothing on a couple of books.

[E-Stat]

Ahh yes my brain was asleep - however I'm not convinced they own the word -- Augustus Caeser did not follow Christianity and yet they had marriages under his rule. He lived from 63BC - They believed in the "Gods" not one God.

He was only several thousand years late to the party.

It seems to me the no one religion can take claim to a name.

I merely point out that the Judeo-Christian segment of our society take their beliefs quite seriously. They will not buy the current "let's just all live together and do whatever we please" fashion.

rw

[Resident Loser]

Some comments such as RL's eloquent statement "burn em" was offensive.

..the first time or second...not only is your gender a bit bent, your sense of humor needs to be put up on the rack and be given a lube job...Contextually it was part of my message to Pete...You find it offensive? There are a great many things I find offensive but can do little to remedy...F'rinstance, seein' 6-7yr-olds doin' a bump and grind on the way to MickeyDs...I mean they see it on the tee-vee and their friends do it and their parents allow it, because they might be ostricized or appear less than cool if they did otherwise. Kid's see stuff and they think it's all okee-dokee...Got some news for ya' IT AIN"T!!!

Just because you get off doin' the horizontal hucklebuck with another guy that doesn't mean I HAVE to like it nor do I have to tolerate it and/or quietly stand by while "special" laws are passed, nor am I required to calmly witness the "PC" follies as employers aid in yet another step in the subversion of normalcy, by extending family-style benefits to those who engage in "alternate lifestyles".

What's next? Some AC/DC triple spouses? Three "consenting adults" of dubious sexual preference, demanding further extension of "inclusionary" legislation. Everybody get's the gold star, eh?

What about my Canine-American(or Feline-American if you go THAT route) friends? Unconditional love on the grandest scale...can I "marry" my Lab? No! That's OK. Howzabout I simply coerce my employer to provide healthcare benefits for the pup? Or the pussycat? I don't have dependents, so it seems fair to me. Even required yearly shots and exams run a bundle. Get into serious health issues and the costs are considerable. "Oh, but you don't need to have or support a pet" sez you...well, you don't need to do what you do and expect anyone else to be burdened by YOUR choice.

Perhaps I'll rot in hell for being "intolerant"(again, note how it's MY fault)...maybe you will for being a sodomite...it's up to Him/Her/Whoever, if, in fact, He/She/Whatever exists. Based on the track record, as in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah(?)...I'll take my chances...

jimHJJ(...BTW, that marriage feast where Jesus turned water into wine and blessed the institution...was it Jacob and Samuel tying the knot?...)

[piece-it pete]

John,

I do believe Jim is yanking your chain. And succeeding.

He doesn't actually want to burn you in a fire - just lower you slowly into boiling oil lol.

Secretly, so does RGA .

I haven't thanked you for posting to this thread - thanks, it's good to hear from the horses' mouth, as it were.

As we have become so affluent it has become possible to pretend to detach ourselves from the still-there reality that actions have consequences. An obvious example is unilateral disarmament. A terrible idea, but sounds so nice from a touchy-feely point of view.

Gay "marriage" is similar thusly: it is social engineering on a grand scale, and all we're worrying about is how it hurts someones' feelings to not do it.

RGA brings up a good point in a roundabout way - the Christian west has no monopoly on marriage. In fact all cultures have some sort of marriage, and THEY ALL MEAN THE SAME THING. Why?

I will argue that a rose is a rose, by any name.

I find it interesting that the press and pop culture are painting anyone who questions their mighty judgements as bigots and haters. Isn't this the same thing we're being accused of doing - pre-judging without understanding?

John, while I've got your ear I'm going a bit ot to understand your views. If you could speak both for yourself and for your understanding of the gay communities' thoughts (I realise they may be different) I would appreciate it - I genuinely want to know:

I read an article authored by one of the doctors that set up our response system to contain an outbreak of legionares' disease (don't remember the name, sorry, I should have saved it) who said that if we would have quarentined the gay sectors of the major metro areas immediately following the discovery of aids it would have almost stopped, at least appreciably slowed, the spread of that disease in this country, saving thousands to date. This is standard medical practice, although we have not needed to use it in recent history. He said it was political reasons that prevented the quarentine from going into effect, in a nutshell calling the politicos cowards & murderers (which if true they would be, sacrificing lives for politics).

Would the leaders of the gay community have agreed to this? If not why not?

Pete

[piece-it pete]

And almost forgot - how do you reconcile the core Catholic beliefs with an active homosexual lifestyle?

Thanks,

Pete

[RGA]

He was only several thousand years late to the party.


I merely point out that the Judeo-Christian segment of our society take their beliefs quite seriously. They will not buy the current "let's just all live together and do whatever we please" fashion.

rw

Yes more than a little late -- I read on site that marriage has been around since the dawn of civilization in some form. My point though is that marriage runs independantly of time lines -- those societies that Don't believe in the one God still had marriage.

It's like the ten commandments - nobody needed those to suddenly have a civilized society -- and I can't imagine a need beyond the treat others as you would have them treat you -- the rest are redundant and this would be followed by philosophers.

Frankly, what people do in their homes that don't hurt others or each-other (and no it is not proven to hurt society either) then go for it. Shudder!! People dancing is obviously the downfall of civilization. To me it should be a non-issue. But people simply must lead everyone elses lives as well as their own.

If two gay people want to marry why do I care? Is it because they are going to shoot people? No? then what? Oh because a book I happened to have been brain washed beaten into me as soon as I could start to read. Since in their mind they'll be going to hell anyway then you may as well let them enjoy their time here before they go.

The church does not have to get involved anyway - the state which is supposed to be non religous run (thank heaven) has to stamp a form and we can even put a little sticker that says this union NOT under God. Besides Gays should not want to be married anyway -- most marriages may as well be the kiss of death for the relationship anyway. And least in the case of two men -- in divorce we know that a GUY will in fact end up with the house

[Resident Loser]

...just lower you slowly into boiling oil lol...

But it would be extra extra virgin olive oil with a sprig of rosemary and just a hint of shallot...get out the all-clad and find me my toque!

jimHJJ(...balsamic vinegar anyone?...)

[Pat D]

John,

I do believe Jim is yanking your chain. And succeeding.

He doesn't actually want to burn you in a fire - just lower you slowly into boiling oil lol.

Secretly, so does RGA .

I haven't thanked you for posting to this thread - thanks, it's good to hear from the horses' mouth, as it were.

As we have become so affluent it has become possible to pretend to detach ourselves from the still-there reality that actions have consequences. An obvious example is unilateral disarmament. A terrible idea, but sounds so nice from a touchy-feely point of view.

Gay "marriage" is similar thusly: it is social engineering on a grand scale, and all we're worrying about is how it hurts someones' feelings to not do it.

RGA brings up a good point in a roundabout way - the Christian west has no monopoly on marriage. In fact all cultures have some sort of marriage, and THEY ALL MEAN THE SAME THING. Why?

I will argue that a rose is a rose, by any name.

I find it interesting that the press and pop culture are painting anyone who questions their mighty judgements as bigots and haters. Isn't this the same thing we're being accused of doing - pre-judging without understanding?

John, while I've got your ear I'm going a bit ot to understand your views. If you could speak both for yourself and for your understanding of the gay communities' thoughts (I realise they may be different) I would appreciate it - I genuinely want to know:

I read an article authored by one of the doctors that set up our response system to contain an outbreak of legionares' disease (don't remember the name, sorry, I should have saved it) who said that if we would have quarentined the gay sectors of the major metro areas immediately following the discovery of aids it would have almost stopped, at least appreciably slowed, the spread of that disease in this country, saving thousands to date. This is standard medical practice, although we have not needed to use it in recent history. He said it was political reasons that prevented the quarentine from going into effect, in a nutshell calling the politicos cowards & murderers (which if true they would be, sacrificing lives for politics).

Would the leaders of the gay community have agreed to this? If not why not?

Pete

Men can have many wives
Men can also have many concubines
Women are told who to marry
Women are property of father, then of husband
Etc.

http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/equali...l_marriage.htm

I keep wondering where this unchangeable marriage thing is. In fact, marriage has been quite a changeable thing in history, varying with time and place. It has changed in major ways--for example, marriage in the Bible was certainly not limited to your own rather limited and incomplete definition of marriage.

[piece-it pete]

hmmm I don't see man to man there....

And this wasn't a predominantly religious thread, I just wanted to know. How about addressing the other concerns?

RGA if all other societies have had some sort of marriage then what's up with the Bible stuff?

Pete

[Resident Loser]

Men can have many wives
Men can also have many concubines
Women are told who to marry
Women are property of father, then of husband
Etc.

The Mormons used to do that...are there still some who do? Polygamy had it's place in Biblical times and still does in the animal kingdom...

Men still screw-around on their wives...some things never change...although now the avoidance of b@stard children is paramount(for the most part)...in the past, more children, bigger tribe, more muscle and all that it entails...nowadays it's simply the inability to keep it in your pants and exhibit some self control.

There are many cultures which still have control over who marries who...Political, financial, social issues here.

Likewise the "property" issue...Patriarchal society no?

The one thread that runs through all twelve(well, except for stoning non-virgins...maybe...) items in your referenced article is procreation...heirs...no matter how you slice it, dice it or test-tube and Petri dish it, it was a "blood" issue...and please, let's not go down the "adopting into a loving home" route or some artificial methodology...

jimHJJ(...then we go off on a whole 'nother tangent...)

[ericl]

..the first time or second...not only is your gender a bit bent, your sense of humor needs to be put up on the rack and be given a lube job...Contextually it was part of my message to Pete...You find it offensive? There are a great many things I find offensive but can do little to remedy...F'rinstance, seein' 6-7yr-olds doin' a bump and grind on the way to MickeyDs...I mean they see it on the tee-vee and their friends do it and their parents allow it, because they might be ostricized or appear less than cool if they did otherwise. Kid's see stuff and they think it's all okee-dokee...Got some news for ya' IT AIN"T!!!

Just because you get off doin' the horizontal hucklebuck with another guy that doesn't mean I HAVE to like it nor do I have to tolerate it and/or quietly stand by while "special" laws are passed, nor am I required to calmly witness the "PC" follies as employers aid in yet another step in the subversion of normalcy, by extending family-style benefits to those who engage in "alternate lifestyles".

What's next? Some AC/DC triple spouses? Three "consenting adults" of dubious sexual preference, demanding further extension of "inclusionary" legislation. Everybody get's the gold star, eh?

What about my Canine-American(or Feline-American if you go THAT route) friends? Unconditional love on the grandest scale...can I "marry" my Lab? No! That's OK. Howzabout I simply coerce my employer to provide healthcare benefits for the pup? Or the pussycat? I don't have dependents, so it seems fair to me. Even required yearly shots and exams run a bundle. Get into serious health issues and the costs are considerable. "Oh, but you don't need to have or support a pet" sez you...well, you don't need to do what you do and expect anyone else to be burdened by YOUR choice.

Perhaps I'll rot in hell for being "intolerant"(again, note how it's MY fault)...maybe you will for being a sodomite...it's up to Him/Her/Whoever, if, in fact, He/She/Whatever exists. Based on the track record, as in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah(?)...I'll take my chances...

jimHJJ(...BTW, that marriage feast where Jesus turned water into wine and blessed the institution...was it Jacob and Samuel tying the knot?...)

Wow Jim, you've convinced me.. interracial marriage IS wrong!

Eric(..And Jazz is the Devil's Music..)

[Resident Loser]

Wow Jim, you've convinced me.. interracial marriage IS wrong!

Eric(..And Jazz is the Devil's Music..)

...Start another thread re: any subject whatsoever and at least I'll have the B@!!$ to give you an honest opinion instead of some feeble circumlocution of the subject...

Do I have a problem with miscegenation? Is that your REAL question? Damn straight...but at least the plug fits the socket, if you get my drift...

And, it's not jazz...it's rock and roll...

jimHJJ(...I happen to like jazz quite a bit...)

[piece-it pete]

Wow Jim, you've convinced me.. interracial marriage IS wrong!

Eric(..And Jazz is the Devil's Music..)

Hello, fearless leader!

This isn't racial. I'm against black homosexual "marriages" as well as white, red, etc....

Equal oppretunity.

Strangely enough I personally know 2 black guys, normally dems, who voted for the shrub just because of this one issue.

Pete (Classical is the atheists nightmare?)

[ericl]

...Start another thread re: any subject whatsoever and at least I'll have the B@!!$ to give you an honest opinion instead of some feeble circumlocution of the subject...

Do I have a problem with miscegenation? Is that your REAL question? Damn straight...but at least the plug fits the socket, if you get my drift...

And, it's not jazz...it's rock and roll...

jimHJJ(...I happen to like jazz quite a bit...)

Holy crap, did you just admit that you are against interracial marriage?

I suppose you can argue that it takes "B@!!$" to spout homophobic and racist views behind the safety and anonyminity of the internet, just like it took a lot of "B@!!$" forEdgar Ray Killen to kill a bunch of civil rights workers. Either way, it is certainly nothing to be proud of. I'd much prefer that you exhibited a little bit of wisdom and compassion as opposed to bold ignorance and hate.

Eric

[shokhead]

How would the world work without male/female connections? Ever try screwing a screw into a screw? It doesnt work because it isnt right.

[Resident Loser]

Holy crap, did you just admit that you are against interracial marriage?

...that's what YOU said I've said...I said I have a problem with it...but I don't have to like it nor do I have to say I do to appease anyone...Why not ask a few black women how they view the subject and how it cuts into their psyche to be considered second-class by their own...

...to spout homophobic...views...

Did I say I have a fear of homosexuals? Push aside all the doublespeak rhetoric...it's not in vogue to say "qu**r" or "f@g" so it's "gay". It's not PC to call things what they are so we need euphemisms like "alternative lifestyle"...it's all candy-coated with sugar on top...it's all pure BS with a very specific agenda...

...racist views...

Just what did I say that is "racist"? I have a specific viewpoint re: the subject YOU brought up, but I consider everyone OK until proven otherwise...you have some sort of problem with THAT?

...kill a bunch of civil rights workers...

So now we have they tried-and-true ploy...I agree with killing people, eh? What's next compare me to Hitler?

I'd much prefer that you exhibited a little bit of wisdom and compassion as opposed to bold ignorance and hate.

First of all, no you don't...you love it because you think my honesty somehow discredits me...you seem to think I wander willy-nilly into debates? I look at both sides of issues in order to understand them...sometimes that investigation changes or adjusts my position, most of the time however, it doesn't...and "hate"...well, that's your word...another part of that ploy I mentioned earlier to make me out as someone inherently evil...

jimHJJ(...have a nice day Mr. Cellophane...)