Marriage and gay couples don't mix.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

...male and female are the norm...anything else is not...

It maybe the norm to YOU, but not to a gay person. It maybe the norm for millions of people, but not to millions of gay people. I feel as normal as a single man as I did as a married man. Did God leave you in charge of deciding what is normal for everyone? I sure hope not.

No one is telling anyone what they are supposed to do...most clergy will say "hate the sin, but love the sinner"...

No they are not telling them what they are supposed to do, they are telling them what they cannot have. They are exporting what is normal for one person, has got to normal for everyone. I am sorry, but I don't buy it. Clergy today are a fine example of moral behavior. They will say hate the sin, but lover the sinner after they remove their hands off of the little boy, church secretary, or the church's finances. Bah!

On the most fundamental of levels, everything is a choice...if you choose to engage in behavior that is not the norm, that is your right...just don't expect any validation for your particular prediliction.

Everything is not a choice. I didn't choose my mother or father, my skin color, where I was born, or my sexual orientation. Nobody get's up one morning and decides " I want to be a straight white male", "they have easier lives in America", or " I want to be gay so I can be discriminated against, assaulted, denied equal rights, and be generally isolated by narrow minded people too scared to evolve pass ignorance." You and I both know it just doesn't work that way. Sometimes nature makes the call, and who are you to decide that nature is wrong.

whatever it's "cause"...making allowances for each and every "lifestyle" is like giving blue ribbons to all the 4yr.olds who participate in the dance recital...we want to be "inclusive"...we don't want anyone to feel slighted...BULL!

For hundreds of years this country accommodated the lifestyle of the racist normality. For years this country has accommodated the lifestyles of the rich and powerful. In both of these cases someone had to suffer to support these lifestyles. The blacks had to suffer to support what whites considered as normal. When it was finally realized that owning people, and further discriminated against them was wrong, the TRIED to make a change. Anyone who tries to justify discrimination is part of the problem with this country, whether is be skin color, social class, or sexual orientation.

That sort of thing teaches nothing...it just validates a lowered level of responsibility for ones' own actions. Among other things.

Nobody should be slighted. Why do you think that only one mindset is the right mindset? I usually called this kind of thinking narrowmindedness. Respecting the rights and opinions of everyone is actually a rise in intellectual consciousness. America need that right now, too many believe that we HAVE to discriminate against some one, or some group of people, or things just are not right.

And while I'm not certain of the author, the Bible is supposed to be the word of God...and somewhere I recall two towns that were destroyed by that vengeful God...what version do YOU subscribe to?

I think you might be out of your element here. Do you clearly understand why he destroyed those towns? Do you understand that God doesn't do that kind of thing anymore because of Jesus's sacrifice on the cross? And to answer your question, I subscribe to the loving God. The angry fire and brimstone approach has never led anyone to christ.

Two people who choose to live together(regardless of gender) are just that...it too requires no legal validation...Why should they be accorded the same rights and privileges as those who take it upon themselves to make what should be a lifelong commitment(divorce rates notwithstanding), who take the the biological responsibility to further the species(although a truncation of this line would seem to be more in order every day)?

I am pretty dang sure that most gay couples would take a strong exception to your rather narrow minded view of the commitment gay couples make to each other. Marriage now days is not a life long commitment, and you don't need to get married to have a bioligical responsibility to further the species. People now days have no concept of life long commitment and the current divorce rate supports that view. What you are trying to do here is glorify and honor something that really doesn't mean that much anymore. What is worse, is you are minimizing the level of committment that gay couples share with each other to prop up something that with the exception of gender, is identical. Love is love. Love crosses over the bounds of color, social class, sexual orientation, etc etc. People marry because they love each other, and want to be with each other. That perspective supercedes any gender based constraint.

And to the last part of your other post. Anytime you have a group of white slave owning men sitting around a bunch of tables writing the words" all men are created equal", and not supporting that with their actions, they are nothing more than a bunch of white men sitting around a table writing inspiring, but hollow words.


jimHJJ(...Hey Pandora...get me than can of nightcrawlers woodja' !!!...)[/QUOTE]

With pleasure, bon appetit!

[Resident Loser]

TtT: "...maybe the norm to YOU, but not to a gay person...Did God leave you in charge of deciding what is normal for everyone?..."

RL: I didn't decide...Did God decide?...From a secular viewpoint, nature did...it's called biology.


TtT: "...they are not telling them what they are supposed to do, they are telling them what they cannot have. They are exporting what is normal for one person, has got to normal for everyone. I am sorry, but I don't buy it. Clergy today are a fine example of moral behavior. They will say hate the sin, but lover the sinner after they remove their hands off of the little boy, church secretary, or the church's finances. Bah!..."

RL: Bah! indeed...There is no legitimate precedent to support any equality under law...you are free to do as you will...just don't expect validation of your behavior...As far a clergy is concerned, I doubt that it's any thing new...however, the issues you point to are a smokescreen and have nothing to do with my statement...

TtT: "...Everything is not a choice. I didn't choose my mother or father, my skin color, where I was born..."

RL: And they didn't choose you...but they did choose to produce something that turned out to be you...you can choose to have a close relationship with them or distance yourself from them...Ask Michael Jackson about skin color...You can lie about your place of birth or even move to a place more suited to your tastes...give it a rest, could your motives be any more transparent?

TtT: "...or my sexual orientation..."

RL: I wonder what percentage of homosexuals are genetically "hardwired" and what percentage engage in that behavior just because it gets 'em off?

TtT: "... Nobody get's up one morning and decides " I want to be a straight white male", "they have easier lives in America", or " I want to be gay so I can be discriminated against, assaulted, denied equal rights, and be generally isolated by narrow minded people too scared to evolve pass ignorance."

RL: Oh yeah that's an evenhanded presentation...Homophobia? It's an asinine word...an asinine concept...well considering said presentation...No. they engage in homosexual behavior because of the physical aspects...whatever else may develop and for whatever reason, the physicality seems to be of paramount interest(as it is in hetero relationships)...it's embeded deep in our lizard brain; surely the biological "urge- to-merge" cannot be denied...however, it can be controlled...one makes a conscious choice in the matter.

TtT: "...Sometimes nature makes the call, and who are you to decide that nature is wrong...."

RL: I think I covered this somewhere along the line...biology...lizard brain...hardwired vs. preference...

TtT: For hundreds of years this country accommodated the lifestyle of the racist normality. For years this country has accommodated the lifestyles of the rich and powerful. In both of these cases someone had to suffer to support these lifestyles. The blacks had to suffer to support what whites considered as normal. When it was finally realized that owning people, and further discriminated against them was wrong, the TRIED to make a change. Anyone who tries to justify discrimination is part of the problem with this country, whether is be skin color, social class, or sexual orientation.

RL: This country...what about the world? Subjugation via discrimination is not unique to a time or place. Ignoring my earlier history lesson doesn't mean it doesn't exist...People are definitely "hardwired" to exert control to some extent...it's not just in the past...it happens today, all over the world...you just don't hear about it because the media doesn't focus on it...the non-whites who engage in it don't focus on it...it's just white America and a bunch of old dead white guys fault...yeah, right...

TtT: "...Nobody should be slighted. Why do you think that only one mindset is the right mindset? I usually called this kind of thinking narrowmindedness. Respecting the rights and opinions of everyone is actually a rise in intellectual consciousness. America need that right now, too many believe that we HAVE to discriminate against some one, or some group of people, or things just are not right..."

RL: Just so much Dr. Feelgood inclusionary claptrap...Some time ago Wm. A. Henry wrote a book entitled "In Defense Of Elitism" which was reviewed int the NYTimes Book Review. The more salient parts of said review follow...

"Henry notes that the 'worst aspect' of P.C. follies is 'the erosion of the intellectual confidence to sort out, and rank, competing values.' Every effort to do so courts the charge of 'insensitivity'. But every failure to do so encourages mediocrity and a sentimentalizing dishonesty about life."

Continuing, "Henry's book offers a splendid anatomy of these problems, but his forthrightness is certain to raise howls of indignation. Item: 'Every corner of the human race may have something to contribute. That does not mean all contributions are equal... is scarcely the same thing to put a man on the moon as it is to put a bone in your nose.' Again: ' The unvarnished truth is this: You could eliminate every woman writer, painter and composer from the caveman era to the present moment and not significantly deform the course of Western culture'."

And finally, "It is painful to admit, I know, but Henry is right. The only real question is what to do about it. There are two main responses. One is to deny reality and pretend there are no important individuals or cultures, that all have achieved the same level of distinction. That is the P.C. alternative, now in ascendance. The other is the response of Henry's elites, those 'who ruthlessly seek out and encourage intelligence and who believe that competiton--and, inevitably, some measure of failure--will do more for character than coddling ever can."

TtT: "I think you might be out of your element here. Do you clearly understand why he destroyed those towns? Do you understand that God doesn't do that kind of thing anymore because of Jesus's sacrifice on the cross? And to answer your question, I subscribe to the loving God. The angry fire and brimstone approach has never led anyone to christ."

RL: Are you same biblical/religious scholar? Out of MY element? Do you subscribe to the theory of the "end days"? Sorta looks that way to me..."end days" that is...The "loving God" certainly seems to be gettin' p!$$ed...and I can't blame Him...

As to your next statement, there isn't enough time to address the how's, why's and wherefore's involved...suffice it to say it's the endless circle, the needle-in-a-haystack...as to the latter part, in a nutshell, biologically-based, non-Platonic, physical attraction, however one is natural, the other is not, regardless of how "natural" it may seem...

TtT: "....And to the last part of your other post. Anytime you have a group of white slave owning men sitting around a bunch of tables writing the words" all men are created equal", and not supporting that with their actions, they are nothing more than a bunch of white men sitting around a table writing inspiring, but hollow words...."

RL: Ignore history and indulge in your blinkered 21st cenury mindset at your peril...and I earlier forgot to mention feudalism and vassals and then there's indentured servitude and were you aware that some free blacks owned slaves? Or that some skilled black craftsman were allowed to hire themselves out, earning the money to buy their freedom...just another commodity to Masa...

jimHJJ(...as Yogi Berra said "you could look it up"...)

[shokhead]

TtT: "...maybe the norm to YOU, but not to a gay person...Did God leave you in charge of deciding what is normal for everyone?..."

RL: I didn't decide...Did God decide?...From a secular viewpoint, nature did...it's called biology.


TtT: "...they are not telling them what they are supposed to do, they are telling them what they cannot have. They are exporting what is normal for one person, has got to normal for everyone. I am sorry, but I don't buy it. Clergy today are a fine example of moral behavior. They will say hate the sin, but lover the sinner after they remove their hands off of the little boy, church secretary, or the church's finances. Bah!..."

RL: Bah! indeed...There is no legitimate precedent to support any equality under law...you are free to do as you will...just don't expect validation of your behavior...As far a clergy is concerned, I doubt that it's any thing new...however, the issues you point to are a smokescreen and have nothing to do with my statement...

TtT: "...Everything is not a choice. I didn't choose my mother or father, my skin color, where I was born..."

RL: And they didn't choose you...but they did choose to produce something that turned out to be you...you can choose to have a close relationship with them or distance yourself from them...Ask Michael Jackson about skin color...You can lie about your place of birth or even move to a place more suited to your tastes...give it a rest, could your motives be any more transparent?

TtT: "...or my sexual orientation..."

RL: I wonder what percentage of homosexuals are genetically "hardwired" and what percentage engage in that behavior just because it gets 'em off?

TtT: "... Nobody get's up one morning and decides " I want to be a straight white male", "they have easier lives in America", or " I want to be gay so I can be discriminated against, assaulted, denied equal rights, and be generally isolated by narrow minded people too scared to evolve pass ignorance."

RL: Oh yeah that's an evenhanded presentation...Homophobia? It's an asinine word...an asinine concept...well considering said presentation...No. they engage in homosexual behavior because of the physical aspects...whatever else may develop and for whatever reason, the physicality seems to be of paramount interest(as it is in hetero relationships)...it's embeded deep in our lizard brain; surely the biological "urge- to-merge" cannot be denied...however, it can be controlled...one makes a conscious choice in the matter.

TtT: "...Sometimes nature makes the call, and who are you to decide that nature is wrong...."

RL: I think I covered this somewhere along the line...biology...lizard brain...hardwired vs. preference...

TtT: For hundreds of years this country accommodated the lifestyle of the racist normality. For years this country has accommodated the lifestyles of the rich and powerful. In both of these cases someone had to suffer to support these lifestyles. The blacks had to suffer to support what whites considered as normal. When it was finally realized that owning people, and further discriminated against them was wrong, the TRIED to make a change. Anyone who tries to justify discrimination is part of the problem with this country, whether is be skin color, social class, or sexual orientation.

RL: This country...what about the world? Subjugation via discrimination is not unique to a time or place. Ignoring my earlier history lesson doesn't mean it doesn't exist...People are definitely "hardwired" to exert control to some extent...it's not just in the past...it happens today, all over the world...you just don't hear about it because the media doesn't focus on it...the non-whites who engage in it don't focus on it...it's just white America and a bunch of old dead white guys fault...yeah, right...

TtT: "...Nobody should be slighted. Why do you think that only one mindset is the right mindset? I usually called this kind of thinking narrowmindedness. Respecting the rights and opinions of everyone is actually a rise in intellectual consciousness. America need that right now, too many believe that we HAVE to discriminate against some one, or some group of people, or things just are not right..."

RL: Just so much Dr. Feelgood inclusionary claptrap...Some time ago Wm. A. Henry wrote a book entitled "In Defense Of Elitism" which was reviewed int the NYTimes Book Review. The more salient parts of said review follow...

"Henry notes that the 'worst aspect' of P.C. follies is 'the erosion of the intellectual confidence to sort out, and rank, competing values.' Every effort to do so courts the charge of 'insensitivity'. But every failure to do so encourages mediocrity and a sentimentalizing dishonesty about life."

Continuing, "Henry's book offers a splendid anatomy of these problems, but his forthrightness is certain to raise howls of indignation. Item: 'Every corner of the human race may have something to contribute. That does not mean all contributions are equal... is scarcely the same thing to put a man on the moon as it is to put a bone in your nose.' Again: ' The unvarnished truth is this: You could eliminate every woman writer, painter and composer from the caveman era to the present moment and not significantly deform the course of Western culture'."

And finally, "It is painful to admit, I know, but Henry is right. The only real question is what to do about it. There are two main responses. One is to deny reality and pretend there are no important individuals or cultures, that all have achieved the same level of distinction. That is the P.C. alternative, now in ascendance. The other is the response of Henry's elites, those 'who ruthlessly seek out and encourage intelligence and who believe that competiton--and, inevitably, some measure of failure--will do more for character than coddling ever can."

TtT: "I think you might be out of your element here. Do you clearly understand why he destroyed those towns? Do you understand that God doesn't do that kind of thing anymore because of Jesus's sacrifice on the cross? And to answer your question, I subscribe to the loving God. The angry fire and brimstone approach has never led anyone to christ."

RL: Are you same biblical/religious scholar? Out of MY element? Do you subscribe to the theory of the "end days"? Sorta looks that way to me..."end days" that is...The "loving God" certainly seems to be gettin' p!$$ed...and I can't blame Him...

As to your next statement, there isn't enough time to address the how's, why's and wherefore's involved...suffice it to say it's the endless circle, the needle-in-a-haystack...as to the latter part, in a nutshell, biologically-based, non-Platonic, physical attraction, however one is natural, the other is not, regardless of how "natural" it may seem...

TtT: "....And to the last part of your other post. Anytime you have a group of white slave owning men sitting around a bunch of tables writing the words" all men are created equal", and not supporting that with their actions, they are nothing more than a bunch of white men sitting around a table writing inspiring, but hollow words...."

RL: Ignore history and indulge in your blinkered 21st cenury mindset at your peril...and I earlier forgot to mention feudalism and vassals and then there's indentured servitude and were you aware that some free blacks owned slaves? Or that some skilled black craftsman were allowed to hire themselves out, earning the money to buy their freedom...just another commodity to Masa...

jimHJJ(...as Yogi Berra said "you could look it up"...)

Never said its how it has to be or written in stone,only mo which i have a right to. I said it had NOTHING to do with god,it just mo. It is alright that i belive this way isnt it or do i have to go by how you think it should be because its starting to sound that way.

[Resident Loser]

...to the head?...what ARE you talking about?...too bad we passed Christmas...maybe this year Santa will bring you a clue...tell ya' what I'm gonna' do, here it is 350 or so days ahead of time: switch to one of the other display modes so you can keep track of who is talkin' to who...

jimHJJ(...perhaps it will become clearer...although I do have significant doubts...)

[shokhead]

...to the head?...what ARE you talking about?...too bad we passed Christmas...maybe this year Santa will bring you a clue...tell ya' what I'm gonna' do, here it is 350 or so days ahead of time: switch to one of the other display modes so you can keep track of who is talkin' to who...

jimHJJ(...perhaps it will become clearer...although I do have significant doubts...)

Slow down and take a big suck of air. There now. Are you ok. Gee,i made a mistake. Its ok,its just a forum,not surgery. I'd hate to see you if you got your undies up your crack.

[Resident Loser]

...laid-back Lakewood, not paying attention to minor details is no biggie. Here in NYC...well let's just say, knowin' where yer goin' can help avoid a trip to the ER...

jimHJJ(...of course you probably don't get THAT either...)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Never said its how it has to be or written in stone,only mo which i have a right to. I said it had NOTHING to do with god,it just mo. It is alright that i belive this way isnt it or do i have to go by how you think it should be because its starting to sound that way.

I got the same impression, and it's not the first time either. That is why I am choosing to not respond to anything coming from this individual.

Yes there is. Girls depend on their mother (female gender) to teach them about their body, desires and way they should behave. Having a male gender as their mother deny them that right.

Girls do depend on their mother to teach them about their bodies, but aunts and grandmothers can do that as well. I guess I prefer to think of solution to tackle some of these issues rather than having minor stumbling block stop me. If the will to make these kinds of arraingments is there, the way can certainly be made.

Now the question becomes why do we have to "force" kids to adapt to their same sex parents if they don't have to? As I said, this is a good example of denying somebody right in order to protect somebody's else right.

Smoke if we use this logic of force, then we are forcing them to adapt to being raised by a single parent in the case of divorce. We are forcing them to choose which parent they want to live with. We are forcing on them a custody verdict, something they have absolutely have no say so in. They are forced to listen to parental arguments and disagreements, and Kids are constantly adapting to everything. Kids have no problem adapting to being loved and nutured, something a gay or straight couple, or single parent can do.

May be you should take a look at our prison. Most of them are not gay, but choose to do it.

And many do not. You cannot really compare a choice of nature, with a choice of expediency. Men in prison have absolutely no access to women. In this case they make do with what they have. But you will find there are more things they will not do, than they will. The don't reciprecate, and you better not call them gay! LOL

Smoke, I live in a neighborhood that has both straight and gay couples with children. I watched the children of the gay couple next door grow up. They are now in college. I have had many chances to talk to them, and they are no different than the children that belong to the straight couples in my neighborhood. They have the same peer pressures as the children of straight couples, same puberty issues, and not one mention that their gay parents presents a problem to them, or to others.

[Resident Loser]

...that you are in agreement with someone who hasn't a clue...only adds to your legendary abilities...

TtT: "That is why I am choosing to not respond to anything coming from this individual."

RL: Gee, and I thought it was because you have nothing concrete to counter my argument.

jimHJJ(...as the bar sinks slowly in the sunset...)