Marriage at risk? / LJWorld.com

Then he'd start talking about how he went out the previous week (or night, depending upon the day) and dropped $500 on full contact lap dances and Jaegermeister.

Ummm… yeah. Tell me again exactly how letting two people get married is cheapening YOUR marriage and the lap dances aren't?

8 December 2006
at 8:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

Hammer, this is Nail Head; Nail Head, meet Hammer.

Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com

8 December 2006
at 9:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

muffaletta (Anonymous) says…

Love, commitment and partnership are good.

8 December 2006
at 9:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…

scenebooster now come on I am one of those ones and have no problem with gay marriage and do not think in any way that it cheapens or threatens ,regular, marriage at all…
But no one ever said I was a good catholic so you know. I am one that is willing to see all the wrong with that org. or church well most of them really. It has been my observation that a lot of gay couples are more devoted and last longer than the “normal” relation ship in todays world so the couples must be doing something right.

8 December 2006
at 10:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

blue73harley (Anonymous) says…

Ditto the LTE and muffaletta.

8 December 2006
at 10:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

oscarfactor (Anonymous) says…

Amen, and I am not a lesbian.

8 December 2006
at 10:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Dazie (Aileen Dingus) says…

SPs?

Sarah (Jessica) Parkers?
Solvent Primers?
Suicidal Pandas?
Sublime People?

;)

8 December 2006
at 10:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

number3of5 (Anonymous) says…

no matter what christian faith you claim, homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of the lord. so marriage between two people of this persuasion is wrong in any christian belief. but the marriage of a man and a woman is not. but we have thrown away most of the other values that should be important in this world why not just throw away all of them and allow this to continue and add murder, mayhem, and the breakage of all of gods laws to the list of things to make legal.

8 December 2006
at 10:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

75x55 (Anonymous) says…

Hard to argue with that one, Lisa.

But it leads to another question - why would homosexual couples want to be part of a broken institution?

If it is only for the various legal benefits applied to marriage, then avoid marriage altogether and develop a more 'empowered' civil union institution.

That might benefit both sides, as those with a cavalier disregard for the sacred vows of marriage won't be forced into that option by default.

See? Everybody wins. Less divorce, higher regard for marriage - though there will be that 'dis-union' thing.

8 December 2006
at 10:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

crazyks (Anonymous) says…

Some things come automatically with marriage that do not with civil unions. The ones that come to mind are that your spouse is automatically your next-of-kin if anything ever happens to you. Which gives them the legal right to be informed of medical information, and the right to make treatment decisions in the event that you are not able to make them for yourself.

In a lot of cases, and this includes unmarried straight couples as well, you are not considered family by hospitals, and may not even be allowed to visit the person if they are seriously ill. My sister went through this with her live-in bf. He had to sign a paper stating that she should be told all of his medical information and had his permission to visit him. But what if you're in bad enough shape that you can't sign such a paper?

Marriage also automatically assigns custody of any children to the surviving spouse in the event of a person's death. Civil unions do not. It also lets the surviving spouse be the one to make decisions about cremation, burial, etc., in the event of your death.

Think of the Terri Schiavo case here. Without the marriage, her family could have swooped in and done whatever they wanted to with her. Civil unions do not afford that same protection.

Number3of5 (are you Borg?), the things that some heterosexual men and women do within the supposed “sanctity” of marriage are also an abomination to the Lord. But this apparently doesn't stop even so-called religious people from doing them, and it usually doesn't become front-page news.

8 December 2006
at 11:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mom_of_three (Anonymous) says…

In the bible, I believe stealing and cheating on your spouse is definitely frowned upon, but in many circumstances, there is forgiveness.
And I believe forgiveness and tolerance is also in the bible - where exactly does that fit in the various religions in regards to homosexuality?
Gay marriage doesn't affect my marriage one way or another. In the Gay marriage debate, my husband has a problem with using marriage, as it definition involves a man and a woman. So I say call it a civil union.
But as crazyks points out, it has it drawbacks, too, as what rights you can have.

8 December 2006
at 11:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mom_of_three (Anonymous) says…

I don't see how allowing gay marriage, with the same rights as heterosexual couples, will affect my rights or my marriage at all.

8 December 2006
at 11:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

deec (Anonymous) says…

True story.
Couple A has been together about 20 years. They have never cheated on each other and are very happy together.
Couple B was together about 20 years. Multiple acts of infidelity, physical and emotional abuse were committed, which finally led to divorce.
Couple A are gay. Couple B were married in the catholic church.

8 December 2006
at 11:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…

couple be going to he** according to the church but not forbeing married, couple a going to he* for being married both in the same boat according to the church.
But yeah agree with you on that one.
What ever happened to live at let live? Of course as long as it is legal and does not hurt anyone, oh yeah gay marriage is not legal is it? Well so much for that saying.

8 December 2006
at 11:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

75x55 (Anonymous) says…

“forgiveness and tolerance is also in the bible ”

'Tolerance' for what?

There is much on forgiveness of sin(s) - but what would 'tolerance' be in regards to?

8 December 2006
at 11:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mom_of_three (Anonymous) says…

tolerance -

From what I have read, isn't it an underlying principal of Jesus' teachings.
He would help anyone no matter what their beliefs were or who they were.

8 December 2006
at 11:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

deec (Anonymous) says…

Actually according to the words of Jesus, adultery is the only grounds for divorce. Annullment (catholic divorce)is also possible for adultery. And the gay couple are not “married” because well, they are gay.

8 December 2006
at 11:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mom_of_three (Anonymous) says…

You may believe homosexuality is wrong, but that doesn't mean that those folks don't deserve the same rights as everyone else, for wanting their longtime unions to be recognized under the law.

8 December 2006
at 11:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

75x55 (Anonymous) says…

“He would help anyone no matter what their beliefs were or who they were.”

Really? Where does it say that?

8 December 2006
at 11:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

deec (Anonymous) says…

I am absolutely in favor of gay marriage, so that couple A, if they so choose, can have all the legal protections and rights of marriage.
Gay marriage has nothing to do with straight marriage being “destroyed”. That was my point. Couple A have a wonderful long-term loving relationship. Couple B's marriage was hell on earth. Yet couple B's marriage was sanctioned by religion and state.
Further, plenty of “straight” men are big fans of the sodomy stuff.

8 December 2006
at 12:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…

why does everyone keep bring up the male aspect of this? HELLO woman make gay couples also so where is the yuck and disgusting when think of two woman having sex?? A little fantasy land going on guys?:)

8 December 2006
at 12:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…

“no matter what christian faith you claim, homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of the lord.”

Not so. And I'll thank you to keep your “christian faith” out of my “christian faith” and I'll avoid calling you a heretic. Thank you very much!

Besides, I keep losing track of the “abominations” you cherry-pick to be important and the ones you find too inconvenient to be bothered with.

What's more, “Christ's faith” is clear: love thy neighbor. So far, James Dobson hasn't dared re-write the Gospel to insert some anti-gay quote from Christ. Whatever deviation of this you're trying to shoe-horn into your bigotry you can just keep to yourself.

“why not just throw away all of them and allow this to continue and add murder, mayhem, and the breakage of all of gods laws to the list of things to make legal.”

First, “make legal” is MAN'S laws. Whatever “Gods laws” may be - which god? which cherry-picked law? you're really claiming to know the mind of God? - they have nothing to do with our laws. Besides, MAN'S law makes “murder, mayhem” etc. illegal not because of God but because rational consideration find that these acts harm others and limit others' rights. In contrast, marriage rights for gays harm NO ONE.

(Personally, I'm just not persuaded that marriage per se is the best solution to the problem - but I'm at least open-minded enough to be persuaded as the facts are evaluated. Perhaps, that's the same open-mindedness that convinced just this week the Conservative Jews - the Jewish equivalent of strict Catholics and evangelical Protestants - to accept gays as rabbis and bless same-sex unions. Conservative Jews one day, Southern Baptists the next.)

8 December 2006
at 12:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

deec (Anonymous) says…

So sodomy is okay if a woman is involved. Got it.

Consensual sex is the business of the adults involved. The perceived ickyness of those acts is not grounds for denying the legal benefits of marriage to gay couples.

8 December 2006
at 12:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

Topeka: And you know, for a fact, that ALL, or even most of gay men regularly engage in anal sex? Perhaps that idea just comes from the hetero-male centered idea that sex must equal penetration of some sort or another. It doesn't make it necessarily true, or required.

8 December 2006
at 12:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

deec (Anonymous) says…

Way to win an argument-start the name calling. You emphasized the male-male aspect, not me.

In the example I cited, couple A are 2 women.

8 December 2006
at 12:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

Scenebooster: You know, banning the movie ad from showing really isn't a good things, and the people screaming to eradicate Christmas really aren't fighting a good or a fair cause. Of course, they are just a tiny segment of the population, though you wouldn't realize that because there are a bunch or people and organizations who hunt down every single example to yank out so they can operate under the idea that they are somehow an abused demographic (which, largely, they are not), but the small nature of the problem does not make it okay, or allowable.

Still, I think, Right-thinker, that you misrepresent what would happen if there was a ban against a muslim display. There might be a small uproar, but most folks I think would be just as blase as with this issue. It would just be a differing subset of outraged folken.

8 December 2006
at 12:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

deec (Anonymous) says…

The market for straight oral and anal porn would say otherwise. Ditto the market for girl on girl action.

8 December 2006
at 12:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…

oh right thinker you are making my day with that one.
MTV is a mans paradise, fanatsy world.
Hey topeka all is good all are entitled to opinions.

8 December 2006
at 12:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

Topeka: I don't know or care what the percentage is. I'm just saying that the only people, in this particular debate, that are fixated on anal sex are the hetero men, which makes me wonder why they keep thinking about it and bringing it up.

8 December 2006
at 12:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

deec (Anonymous) says…

Neither am I but my straight catholic ex sure as heck was! Especially the sodomy stuff.

8 December 2006
at 12:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…

hey now this catholic does not care one way or another, oh yeah I am a very bad catholic, never mind.

8 December 2006
at 12:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…

youmay all resume your previous positions now :) lol

8 December 2006
at 12:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

skewed_veiw (Anonymous) says…

Which religion Scene, I don't suppose you mean islam. Pretty sure I read where they behead homosexuals and it's hard to get married without a head.
vik

8 December 2006
at 12:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…

try catholic

8 December 2006
at 12:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

calnvy (Anonymous) says…

dear mr beautiful-downtown-topeka….

you definitely have the right to your opinion.

I just feel sorry for you. Living with so much shame and guilt. What a miserable existence. The only thing that makes anything disgusting is conditioning. A fertilized duck egg with a partially developed embryo is considered a delicacy in southeast asia…. but the thought of it makes me want to vomit.

the environment in which you were raised is what makes gay sex…. porn…. and possibly bright flashy colors disgusting to you… not the fact that is actually is disgusting.

to each his/her own…

8 December 2006
at 1:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

Topeka: Errr… . riiiiiiiggght. That's certainly the way it happened, isn't it.

8 December 2006
at 1:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…

oh topeka was that just a mis hit of o or did you mean god? And I for one am not obssed can't speak for others.

8 December 2006
at 1:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

deec (Anonymous) says…

My original post was intended to show the utter hypocrisy of the “marriage is for straight folks” crowd. The legal rights and benefits of marriage have nothing to do with the “ickiness” of other people's sex lives. Further there is virtually no difference between the sex practices of “straight” men and gay men, other than the gender of the participants.

8 December 2006
at 1:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

God for you????

8 December 2006
at 1:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

calnvy (Anonymous) says…

delusional…. well i do try to give even narrow minded people the benefit of the doubt…. so that could be true…. but a liar… hmmm don't really know where that could come from.

you my friend are the liar…. everyone knows that downtown topeka is far from beautiful…. in fact i think its disgusting…. I mean I have nothing against the people who live there…. but i just think its gross

8 December 2006
at 1:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Whoops someone beat me to it….nevermind

8 December 2006
at 1:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

KUDB99 (Anonymous) says…

hey Right Thinker…..I think we should just take them all and put them in a…..oh, what do you call it, a “camp” where we can “concentrate” all of the subversive non-Christians….and anyone else who don't agree with the mandate of the Christian States of America.

Then let's all march around a bon fire burning books, CD's, and other articles that promote the “homo” lifestyle. That way, in the Christian States of America only upstanding, like-minded individuals can propogate and prosper. We don't want anything to prevent us from saving the world.

Better yet, let's appoint a grand inquisitor to seek the Truth! That would be great, we then could save their souls, and I'm certain that very little torture would be necessary.

In the land of the free and the home of the brave, we're not that far away……Sig Heil……from the Christian States of America.

8 December 2006
at 1:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

KUDB99 (Anonymous) says…

(sarcasm…….of course)

8 December 2006
at 1:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…

people people can't we all just get along??:)

8 December 2006
at 1:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

deec (Anonymous) says…

Uh, no. Did you READ my posts? See, there you are bringing it up again.
1. I am a woman.
2. One of MANY reasons I am divorced is because my “straight” ex was obsessed with sodomy
3. The whole point of my original post was to showcase the hypocrisy of the anti gay-marriage people.
4. Look up the definition of sodomy sometime.

8 December 2006
at 1:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

deec (Anonymous) says…

I'm not upset, just amused. Methinks you doth protest too much.
Sodomy is not just that of which you seem to obsess. It also includes oral.

8 December 2006
at 1:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…

enough people move on now

8 December 2006
at 1:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

calnvy (Anonymous) says…

thankfully my delusion only lasts for a brief moment in cases such as this….

beautiful-downtown-topeka….. your mindless bable just reinforces my belief that the majority of the people that share your viewpoint have the intelligence level of a fresh box of sticky notes.

I dont know why i even allowed myself to get in to a tit-for-tat argument about nothing, when what I really wanted to do was give a shout out to Lisa Rason for her very rational comment to the editor.

There are a ton of smart people on here that can have an honest and sensible debate…. to you I apologize for subjecting you to all of this useless drivel.

marriage issues should be on the back burner anyway….

too many young men and women have been blown to bits because this country has been focused on STUPID debates like this and not rallying together on the REAL and important issues.

8 December 2006
at 1:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

skewed_veiw (Anonymous) says…

Topeka, — So it they don't “mount another man from behind” – if they make love face to face so they can kiss and touch each other tenderly, is that better for you?

8 December 2006
at 1:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

Enough people move on where? If there are enough of them, shouldn't where be important?

>B^)>

8 December 2006
at 1:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

deec (Anonymous) says…

The legal rights and benefits of marriage should be extended to gay couples. Discrimination against same-sex couples based on gender is discrimination.

8 December 2006
at 1:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

skewed_veiw (Anonymous) says…

scenebooster said on December 8, 2006 at 8:39 a.m.

+++Therefore, gay marriage (and the movement against it) boils down to religion, and a certain religion (guess which one!) attempting to dictate what consenting adults are legally able to do in this country.+++

I did read your whole post and I'm just trying to guess which “one” religion you refer to. Catholic? well if they really, they thought it was sin, would they have let all those priests continue to work? naaaa,

Phelps is a baptist, and as I pointed out Islam takes the whole idea of homophobia to a new level.

I and with you on the idea of gay marriage. I have wondered why they couldn't get married since I was 10. I agree with you when you say “As a married adult, I cannot see any way in which gay marriage affects my marriage at all.”

Marriage for everybody!!!!! ditto.

8 December 2006
at 1:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

So, topeka, what is your opinion on girl-on-girl?

Personally, I happen to agree that man-on-man is pretty gross, but that's because we are big and hairy, and our anatomy is, objectively, rediculous looking. That's probably why men usually need visual stimulation for attraction, and woman tend to prefer mental stimulation be added in.

… at least, that's the way it seems in my sample population (i.e. friends). I'm sure it's not universally true.

8 December 2006
at 1:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…

jonas done said I as brain dead give me a brake ok man be nice I am old and crazy and a bad catholic. :(
Now how about this most people have things thatjust makes them go yuck, so some people do not like the idea of porn or oral sex or anal sex of gay[male] sex the article is about equal right and if this destroys reg. marrages. Now if any of you have kids you know this to be true they do not talk sex to easy with parents and god forbid you talk about mom and dad having sex just creeps them out. Does not mean that they do not know mom and dad have sex just yuck no do not want to hear or think about it. So some people might get creeped out thinking about man on man sex but might just agree with gay marriage sex is sex people jus no goats ok.

8 December 2006
at 1:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…

like I said brain dead, previous post proves it jonas.

8 December 2006
at 1:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

skewed_veiw (Anonymous) says…

and woman on man sex is disgusting to some people, Sex in any form is disgusting to some people.

Perhaps you need to accept the fact that love looks different to different people and get over it.

If two people find each other and decide to make a commitment to one another to build a life together it is a travesty to deny them that right.

That said I'm not sure how it is up to the government at all.

8 December 2006
at 2 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

skewed_veiw (Anonymous) says…

Oh Jonas, I have to agree with your assessment of the nekkid male….um parts. They are funny. but not all men are big and hairy and …….well ….. frankly some women are.

8 December 2006
at 2:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

deec (Anonymous) says…

There are over 1000 specific legal rights and benefits available to married couples, such as rights of automatic inheritance, the right to make decisions regarding medical treatment and funeral arrangements, specific tax breaks for married couples, custodial rights and responsibilities for progeny, etc.

8 December 2006
at 2:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

skewed_veiw (Anonymous) says…

deec - I know but why can't lawyers figure out a way to make all that possible with out changing the constitution? Except for the tax breaks… I don't know how they could get around those … but maybe the Cheney's do…

8 December 2006
at 2:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

deec (Anonymous) says…

Why would you have to change the constitution? Wouldn't the 14th amendment, sections 1 and 5, apply?

8 December 2006
at 2:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

deec (Anonymous) says…

Also, rather than rewriting the tax code, social security law, etc., wouldn't it be easier just to stop discriminating against same sex couples?

8 December 2006
at 2:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

skewed_veiw (Anonymous) says…

Yes it would. Let's do it!

8 December 2006
at 2:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

crazyks (Anonymous) says…

Calnvy, quite frankly I think the fresh box of sticky notes is more intelligent. It's an insult to sticky notes everywhere to compare them with these clods.

Since I don't remember seeing anywhere in the Constitution where it defines marriage as only between a man and a woman, why would it have to be changed?

8 December 2006
at 3:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Tychoman (Anonymous) says…

You people are completely insane.

8 December 2006
at 3:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

staff04 (Anonymous) says…

To quote poster Agnostick, who I have come to respect:

“The only thing that the “institution of marriage” needs “protection” from is the wandering tallywackers of self-righteous hypocrites.”—Agnostick, December 4, 2006

Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.

8 December 2006
at 3:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…

we are not insane tychoman just brain dead.

8 December 2006
at 3:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

Speak for yourself. I fully embrace being insane.

8 December 2006
at 3:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

staff04 (Anonymous) says…

Oh, and for any of you who are really into the salacious, the House Ethics Committee decided that Mark Foley didn't do anything wrong. For those who doubt the wisdom (actually, probably more for those who don't doubt) of the ethics committee, I would encourage you to read a couple of pages of the message log from the evidence presented to the committee:

http://www.house.gov/ethics/Page_PDFs…

Enjoy!

8 December 2006
at 3:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…

not you jonas can't be:) oh well ok I'm brain dead no doubt about that today.

8 December 2006
at 3:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…

on the mark foley thing I found it amusing that they came to a end of any kind of investagation so fast, never thought DC moved that fast. usually takes couple years I thought to figure anything out.

8 December 2006
at 4:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

pagan_idolator (Anonymous) says…

Oh Jonas! Some of us women like big hairy naked men! And all their amusing pieces.

8 December 2006
at 4:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

I suppose, idolator, that it's good that is the case. For our species, at least.

8 December 2006
at 7:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

Yawn.

9 December 2006
at 12:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Tychoman (Anonymous) says…

You're disgusting, CW, absolutely disgusting. Go troll some other board.

9 December 2006
at 8:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…

Man aids will tell? let me guess it is gods punishment for the wicked?

9 December 2006
at 11:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Tychoman (Anonymous) says…

Culture Warrior's name is the very definition of hypocrisy. I can't believe you just wrote that.

It looks like Conservativeman/Patriotman's back.

O Lord, protect me from your followers.

9 December 2006
at 11:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…

yesterday was more fun on here we were just insane.

9 December 2006
at 11:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Porter (Anonymous) says…

Two posters seen at a recent Phred rally:
“AIDS will be the judge of what is “inappropriate”“
And:
“Monkey love will kill you!”

Care to quote Ted Haggard next???

9 December 2006
at 12:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…

The only way a mariage is at risk is from the people that are married to each other. a happy gay couple has no impact on a “normal” married couple so why are people so worried? there is no reason.

9 December 2006
at 4:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Tychoman (Anonymous) says…

You are so anxious to bring up a “child molestor phase,” as if it's the next stage from someone being gay to move up to.

I have read your posts, and you incessantly bring sex and other non-issues into play when it comes to gay marriage and refuse to drop the subject.

9 December 2006
at 4:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Porter (Anonymous) says…

Too funny, indeed.

Let's make some implied remarks and then bash people for making–what are they called c-man–ASSumptions??

You're a freaking comedian.

Where did the child molesting thing come from? I'm not going to make any ASSumptions about what you mean, so please fill us in.

“Just because you read something you don't like doesn't always mean its wrong”…….How about “Judge not Lest ye Be Judged”?

9 December 2006
at 7:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Katara (Anonymous) says…

I think we can pretty much assume that you are just on the forum to troll and contribute nothing else.

On second thought, I don't think there is any assumption going on, I think it would be a statement of fact, o inflammatory one.

You choose to post statements that are designed to taunt Tychoman. You gloat when you get the desired response.

Does it really make you feel better about yourself? Does it give you that big of a lift or ego boost?

How lonely you must be…

9 December 2006
at 8:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

sloppyscience (Anonymous) says…

Ignorantly beloved, we are here to join this 50 year old, thrice divorced man, and this 16 year old (with parental consent) girl in matrimony. A penis and a vagina being the only requirement in this, our blind, hate-filled conservative culture.

9 December 2006
at 9:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Katara (Anonymous) says…

CW, I was under the impression that you aren't too concerned about someone's Christian values so why make an issue about someone else having a problem with current Christian values?

You aren't observing and commenting. You are judging and commenting with a lot of your comments being directed as who you believe Tychoman might be. And you seem to have a lot of problems with his sexuality as that is what the majority of your taunts are.

And that is why I said something.

I don't think you fully understand the concept of what a troll is. A troll is someone who makes inflammatory comments about a topic in order to get reactions about it. You fit the definition. It is what you are on this forum.

You are also making someone calling you out as a troll as trollish behavior. Sorry, doesn't work that way.

Just an FYI…

” The term “troll” can mean a number of different things, but in essence, a troll is a person who aims to have 'pleasure' at your expense.

http://www.jfo.org.uk/info/new/troll.htm

I remember a banned poster who did that a lot and had it posted in his profile. You and that former poster have a lot of striking similarities, including the same insults. Coincidence?

9 December 2006
at 10:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Becca (Becca Sturgeon) says…

Good grief Culture Warrior, do you personally know any gay people that are child molesters? No, because you are generalizing. You are stereotyping people because you're homophobic. Get over yourself. Nobody's listening to you anymore.

10 December 2006
at 12:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Tychoman (Anonymous) says…

CW, where did I insult someone's Christian values? Point it out, troll.

10 December 2006
at 2:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Becca (Becca Sturgeon) says…

Threatened by you? You really think you affect me that much? No, I'm just sick and tired of the intolerance that you spew.

10 December 2006
at 3:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

pelliott (Anonymous) says…

i am amused how often the thought of how someone else making love to someone looks, sickens the imaginer, they can't seem not to think about it. One of the first guys I dated seemed apalled that old people did it, fat people, gay people, preachers. Well he looked pretty funny too. I think if people love each other and want to commit to each other in marraige thats great. If you think about how people have sex with each other and let that determine you feelings on their right to civil rights, lets go. No one ugly, no one too pretty, no one who doesn't shake the boobies right, no one with bad breath. No one over 23. Make your list, imagine them all doing it, then just tell them no. Or let them alone, if your marraige is rocked by other people caring about each other it isn't a marraige, unless your marraige is based on looking in the back windows of other peoples homes.

10 December 2006
at 5:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Porter (Anonymous) says…

That's right. Intolerance of intolerance is such a horrible, horrible thing….

10 December 2006
at 6:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

“if your marraige is rocked by other people caring about each other it isn't a marraige, unless your marraige is based on looking in the back windows of other peoples homes.”

kinky!

10 December 2006
at 6:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

beatrice (Anonymous) says…

Homophobia is queer.

10 December 2006
at 9:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Becca (Becca Sturgeon) says…

Right Thinker, who are calling a “hard lefty”? The person behind me?

10 December 2006
at 11:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Becca (Becca Sturgeon) says…

Posted by right_thinker (anonymous) on December 10, 2006 at 4:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

“I'm just sick and tired of the intolerance that you spew.”—Becca

Oh lord sweetie, there ain't no intolerance spewed like the intolerance spewed from the hard-lefties on this here board. Get a clue girl.

–––––––––––––––––––––––

The comment you posted was in response to me, so therefore one can only infer that you were calling them a hard lefty. Which would be wrong, and no, I don't take any kind of medication for any mental illnesses, unless you consider Valerian an medication.

10 December 2006
at 11:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Tychoman (Anonymous) says…

Don't sweat it, Becca, RT doesn't know the definition of 'moderate.' There's either a good person (someone who thinks like he does) or a “far-left secular progressive commmunist” (someone who doesn't think like he does).

10 December 2006
at 11:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Becca (Becca Sturgeon) says…

Well, Tychoman, if being a good person means being like RT, then I'd chose far left secular progressive communist any day.

11 December 2006
at 1:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Tychoman (Anonymous) says…

Welcome!

11 December 2006
at 1:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Well, I would like to marry TWO gals, so THERE!

Thanks.

Marion.

11 December 2006
at 3:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Becca (Becca Sturgeon) says…

Oh, Marion, the horrors! Two? You must really be up for a challenge. ;)

11 December 2006
at 7:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…

wow off the page for a day and all sorts of issues are on here and nasty name calling. darn family getting in the way of this forum….:)

11 December 2006
at 7:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…

shodower, I consider myself to be christian and I am in favor of same sex marriage. so what does thst do to your post and thinking?
It is more like the intolerant of all things diffrent that are opposed.

11 December 2006
at 8:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

So, with marriage suffering as much as it is, how does opening it up to sodomy, polygamy, beastiality, and whatever else anyone wishes to redefine marriage as, help improve it?

11 December 2006
at 8:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

werekoala (Anonymous) says…

Actually, it may turn out that gay marriage may weaken some heterosexual marriages. More specifically, the marriages of homophobic people.

Why? Because when normal straight people are exposed to gay porn, they have little to no reaction. But when homophobic men are exposed to gay porn, they become aroused.

This leads me to conclude that the reason homophobes are so vitrolic about the whole thing is that they really do feel threatened, that they are very tempted by homosexuality, and only strong social inhibitions are keeping them from acting on their deepest and darkest desires. They know that the more and more accepting society is of homosexuality, the easier and easier it will be for them to give into the desires that they have convinced themselves are sick, twisted, evil, and wrong. Eventually, their whole fragile artifice will come crashing down on them, as it did to Rev. Haggard.

What's really sad is these poor tortured cases think that since they experince these strong impulses and desires that must be fought, so does everyone else. They think that they are a normal case, and that once homosexuality becomes accepted, everyone wil find it just as hard to resist as they do.

Just look at their arguments, like homosexuality is a choice - why would anyone choose that sort of social stigma? If you corner homophobes on this, a lot will say that the reason people choose it is that the “gay lifestyle” is just too appealing, and these people are “weak” for giving in to it. Which gives you an interesting insight into the mind of a homophobe, because most straight folks don't seem to find it much of a struggle not to be gay.

But homophobes do, and that's why they fight so hard against gays gaining acceptence. It would be tragic, if these folks weren't such jerks about the whole thing.

11 December 2006
at 8:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…

I do not remember polygamy and beastiality, being mentioned in any of this before. Where did that come from? Same sex marriage. Oh yeah marions two wives comment.

11 December 2006
at 8:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…

Not many homophobes wuold be watching gay porn.

11 December 2006
at 8:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

Are we trying to legalize sodomy in particular?

By the way, the dogs are trying to find the signal from the mothership. Sometimes the tri-angulations are a bit tricky.

11 December 2006
at 8:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…

Well stupid me here I was thinking goats:):)

11 December 2006
at 8:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

werekoala (Anonymous) says…

gr-

“Sodomy” as defined by Merriam-Webster:
“anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex”

Hate to burst your rosy little bubble, but there are plenty of marriages that alreasy experience sodomy. Goodness, I feel sorry for the women you've been with if your relationships DON'T have at least one aspect of it.

Plus, the Supreme Court recently struck down any remaining anti-sodomy laws as being unconstitutional.

“polygamy, beastiality”

Marriage is a contract between two parties capable of legal consent. Neither of which is possible in these two cases. But I guess when you've got nothing, it's easier to try and change the subject than admit that you're wrong.

So here we have GR - wrong on one argument, and irrelelvant on 2 others. Par for the course amongst the haters.

11 December 2006
at 8:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

werekoala (Anonymous) says…

right_thinker:

Is it projecting? Maybe, I'm trying to see where that mindset could come from. But the basic fact, that men who are “homophobic” become aroused when watching gay porn, is a proven fact in psychology.

(“homophobic” in this context is not meant as a PC term, but is defined as men who express feelings of strong to severe discomfort regarding homosexuality).

Here's the abstract, from this site:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/qu…

J Abnorm Psychol. 1996 Aug;105(3):440-5.Click here to read Links
Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?

* Adams HE,
* Wright LW Jr,
* Lohr BA.

Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens 30602-3013, USA.

The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

PMID: 8772014 [PubMed - indexed for medline]

11 December 2006
at 9:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

wk:

Whether married people participate in such things as sodomy is not the issue. They are not attempting to redefine marriage to support such behavior.

“it's easier to try and change the subject than admit that you're wrong.”

Actually, some homosexualists on this forum were promoting nothing is wrong with polygamy and beastiality. I believe you are in the wrong, there.

To put it in their terms, 'your link is outdated'.

No known way how “alternative marriage” will help improve marriage?

11 December 2006
at 9:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ksmoderate (Anonymous) says…

“Actually, some homosexualists on this forum were promoting nothing is wrong with polygamy and beastiality.”

Who?

And what is a “homosexualist?”

11 December 2006
at 9:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

Posted by gr (anonymous) on December 11, 2006 at 9:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually, some homosexualists on this forum were promoting nothing is wrong with polygamy and beastiality. I believe you are in the wrong, there.”

Maybe I can give you polygamy, but I'm going to ask you to find the post to back up your claim that someone posted that there was nothing wrong with bestiality. I've watched virtually all of the debates on this particular topic, and I can't recall seeing anyone say anything of the sort.

11 December 2006
at 10:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

werekoala (Anonymous) says…

gr-

“Whether married people participate in such things as sodomy is not the issue. They are not attempting to redefine marriage to support such behavior.”

With respect, that's precisely the issue - you're saying that certain actions on the part of others in the privacy of their marriage can some inexplicable way weaken your own marriage, and I'm pointing out that such actions already happen routinely, and yet your marriage is surprisingly robust in the face of all that married oral and even anal copulation.

You've defined marriage as being free of sodomy, and I (along with the US Supreme Court) am telling you that your definition is incorrect.

==============================

“Actually, some homosexualists on this forum were promoting nothing is wrong with polygamy and beastiality. I believe you are in the wrong, there.”

Please cite, because I think you're lying. In fact, unless you can tell me who argued seriously in favor of beastiality, and under what headline, I'm gonna go ahead and assume you're full of it.

But again, you're changing the subject away from homosexuality. The basic difference between us is that I don't expect that my prejudices should have veto power over whether or not a life-long loving partnership is legally recogonized. You want your own little provincial biases and canalized prejudices to be able to decide whether or not other people should be given equal rights.

It was people just like you 50 years ago who were against interracial marriage because back then that was considered “unnatural”. Today we are embarassed and ashamed of our forefathers who felt that way, and I can promise you, your children and grandchildren will be embarassed by the attitudes you show today.

======================================

“To put it in their terms, 'your link is outdated'.”

Eh? This is why I hate it when idiots get ahold of computers. The date a paper was published has little or nothing to do with it's current relevance, taken alone.

What matters is what new knowledge has come to life since a paper's publication. One paper 20 years old may still be relevant, assuming no new data has been discovered to alter it, while another paper published last year may be made irrelevant by last month's issue of Science.

I cited that study because it was a landmark in the field. Here's a link to an abstract from last year that will tell you much the same thing:
http://www.leaonline.com/doi/abs/10.1…

Hint: you're still wrong.

11 December 2006
at 10:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

werekoala (Anonymous) says…

ksmoderate:

I googled “homosexualist”, simply because I can't believe gr is the type to welcome new ideas, so i was curious where he got that particular gem. Here's the first page that comes up on Google. It's hysterical!

http://www.adequacy.org/stories/2002….

Here's a gem of a quote:

“Again we can see the homosexual agenda of the Communist-run car industry at work. Clearly the whole concept of a three wheeled vehicle is perverse. By making the pervese seem acceptable, Leylands automobile designers set the agenda for their homosexualist and Communist brainwashing of the British public.”

LOL! If this is where gr is getting his ideas, you start to see why he says the kinds of things he does.

11 December 2006
at 10:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

C_W writes:

“I've posted that gay marriage is no-ones business. Just as long as they keep kids out of it.”
___________________________________________

Going back to the “ASSumptions”…

Do you also feel that straight marriage is nobody's business, as long as they keep kids out of it?

Sounds like you're buying into some urban myths. Like the one that gays and lesbians are child molestors, or that gays and lesbians “recruit” young children.

Your statement implies that you believe that same-sex married couples are somehow at a higher risk for engaging in child molesting or pedophilic behavior. Do you have anything (research, statistics etc.) to back this up? Or are you just parroting whatever Fred/Rush/Dobson/Falwell feeds you?

Here are some links to get the ball rolling:

http://parenting.ivillage.com/gs/gssa…

http://www.falseallegations.com/profi…

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/c…

Thanks

Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com

11 December 2006
at 10:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

Oops, sorry, need to correct a typo in my last post:

“Do you have anything (research, statistics etc.) to back this up? Or are you just parroting whatever Fred/Rush/Dobson/Falwell feeds you?”

The word “feeds” should be “spoon feeds.” Much more appropriate.

Sorry for any confusion… thanks.

Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com

11 December 2006
at 11:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ksmoderate (Anonymous) says…

werekoala:

Simply amazing. And I had high regard for the English…maybe time to realize there are complete and utter boobs no matter where you go. I guess idiocy and ignorance aren't just American traits!

11 December 2006
at 11:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

werekoala (Anonymous) says…

right_winger:

Heh! Well, then you're probably safe from getting “The Ghey”. I understand that certain aspects of our changing society bother people, and their being bothered doesn't necessarily imply homophobia. But the people who get very very very worked up about the “gay depravity” and start comparing them to dogs, are in my opinion, highly suspect.

ksmoderate:

“I guess idiocy and ignorance aren't just American traits!”

Of course not! By the way, this is the kind of comment that makes for “left-wing Anti-American” soundbites, so I'd suggest toning it down.

It's all just sample bias. You live in the US. So you see our society in all its glory and in all its grime. You see all the trashiness and stupidity, and if you want to, you can focus in on it.

Meanwhile, every country tends to export its glamour and conceal its grime. So unless you go there, you tend to think of all these foreign countries as exotic and glamourous, and our own country as flat and boring. But natives of a foreign country will feel just the opposite.

One of the truths that we are finally starting to slowly realizes as a race is that people are people - no matter where you go. They may have odd customs, but they are still people, who love, hate, laugh, fear, cry, and hope.

11 December 2006
at 11:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

deec (Anonymous) says…

The legal rights of 2 consenting ADULTS to marry should not be abridged.

11 December 2006
at 12:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

werekoala (Anonymous) says…

“Your assumptions however imply that man/boy relationships are not homosexual in nature?”

Only in the sense that a relationship between a man and a 7 year old girl could be considered heterosexual. In other words, it's not in any way shape or form what most people think of when they think of the word “heterosexual”. It's an abusive relationship between a victim and a rapist, that's it.

Trying to conflate adult homosexuality and sexual abuse is both uninformed (most man-boy sexual abuse comes from self-identified “straight” men), and dismissive of the horrific crime against a person that sexual abuse is. If you think there's no difference between a consenting relationship and the rape of a child, well, you're just disgusting.

11 December 2006
at 12:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

deec (Anonymous) says…

I said 2 consenting adults. Two.

11 December 2006
at 12:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

werekoala (Anonymous) says…

Culture_Warrior:

“The legal rights of 2000(+) consenting ADULTS to multiple marry, cross and criss cross and disolve unions should not be abridged. Great post deec!

I want to marry 1500 romanian brides, each bringing a twenty thousand dollar dowry. How dare the government impose restrictions upon my lovely brides and their desire to keep me fulfilled.”

A few points:

1) The only people talking about poligamy are the people against gay marriage. Which begs the question why you aren't talking about gay marriage instead of poligamy and child abuse. Could it be, because you've got nothing?

This is like me saying I'm against people driving cars, and when you ask me why, I give statistics about plane crashes, and point out that planes have wheels too, and drive around on the runway.

2) You can (theoretically) marry 1500 people right now, as long as you do it one person at a time. Look at Liz Taylor, fer gosshakes. You'd do much more to strengthen marriage by making it harder to get maried and divorced, so neither can be done on a whim.

But that doesn't cater to your prejudices, now does it?

3) $20,000 dowry? Dang, all I got for my wife was three camels and a goat. Did you leave any of these Rumanians for the rest of us?

11 December 2006
at 12:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

The mechanics of a man/boy sexual relationship can be identified as “homosexual,” yes. The motivations are quite different, though, between…

1) Consenting adult male/Consenting adult male

2) Predatory adult male/Coerced child male

I'd suggest you put down the Clausewitz and read something a bit different. ;)

The links I offered are some starters… here's a couple more:

MYTH: Homosexuals are more likely to molest children.

FACT: The most likely person to sexually abuse a child is a heterosexual male, often a family member or close family friend. Pedophiles who molest children of the same sex are almost never homosexual in their adult sexual relations.

http://corecouncil.nd.edu/questions/m…

“There is no distinct profile of a child abuser. Some are violent, others passive, some charming, others lacking in social skills. Dr. Sharon K. Araji, a professor of sociology who researched the demographic data up until 2000, states that around 90% of child sexual abusers are male and have been married. However, since little research has been done on female child abusers, that statistic may under-represent them. Among the males, the average age is 32-34 (although many initially became abusers during adolescence), and they are represented in all socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic groups. Most have multiple victims, looking for children who know them or who appear to be needy, passive, trusting or lacking in supervision.”

http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_…

“Pedophilia is a psychological disorder that does not require, and usually does not involve, a criminal act. The pedophile might keep his desires a secret. He may never go public or share his fantasies with anyone. At times, they will even marry a single mother to gain or continue access to her children. Pedophiles can be very determined and single-minded in their efforts to stay close to children. Maintaining access to children at all costs is one of the defining trademarks of pedophilia, which will be discussed later. Child molesters, however, can have many different motivations for their crimes. And those motives, surprisingly, are often not of a sexual origin.”

http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_…

“The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.”

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow…

How would you classify guys like James Porter and Warren Jeffs?

Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com

11 December 2006
at 12:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

jonas: “Maybe I can give you polygamy, but I'm going to ask you to find the post to back up your claim that someone posted that there was nothing wrong with bestiality. ”

I may have had in mind the bit about dead deer carcasses. If I spent the effort to find it about live ones, would it change your mind?

wk: “With respect, that's precisely the issue - you're saying that certain actions on the part of others in the privacy of their marriage can some inexplicable way weaken your own marriage,”

Speaking of backing things up, I don't think you can. I have shown many links showing the terrible things homos do. It would be crazy to think they are going to stop. Heteros also do terrible things. The issue is not to public condone them as being normal and acceptable. If you want to copulate with a deer carcass, whatever. But don't go expecting the rest of society to accept it as being normal.

“I'm gonna go ahead and assume you're full of it.”

And if I do show you? Then what?

Unlike them, you discriminate a difference. Why? Are you wanting “your own little provincial biases and canalized prejudices to be able to decide whether or not other people should be given equal rights.”?

And what do you think of my link?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/new…
Which quotes the New England Journal of Medicine. One claimed it was outdated. Do you? How so?

Actually, you need to search further for the term, homosexualist. Here's one site:
http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/pinkswas…

11 December 2006
at 12:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

Gr:
Missed the dead deer carcass, I guess. Were you to find that quote my view of your credibility would at least go up, but I would say that, no, my viewpoint on the general concensus of the acceptability or likelihood of legalized bestiality would not change. There are very few people who think that it is okay, or that it is likely to become legal. It also has virtually nothing to do with homosexuality. All these points are certainly up to dispute.

What, pray tell, was the context of the dead deer carcass quote? To be honest, I can't imagine it was a serious claim, if that is what you are implying, as I feel it unlikely a person with interests in not just bestiality but necro-bestiality would be outed and booted rather quickly.

11 December 2006
at 12:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

crazyks (Anonymous) says…

“Heteros also do terrible things. The issue is not to public condone them as being normal and acceptable. If you want to copulate with a deer carcass, whatever. But don't go expecting the rest of society to accept it as being normal.”

So you admit that heterosexuals also do things that you don't approve of? But you think they should still be allowed to marry?

Yet if homosexuals do the same things, this is a reason not to allow them to marry?

So, if it's the same sexual act, a heterosexual doing it does not mean they can't marry. If a homosexual does it, to you this is a major reason why they shouldn't marry.

Isn't this a contradiction, even to you?

11 December 2006
at 12:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

werekoala (Anonymous) says…

gr-

“I have shown many links showing the terrible things homos do. It would be crazy to think they are going to stop. Heteros also do terrible things.”

So if both “homos” (simply charming, by the way) and “heteros” do these terrible things (please repost these links, I must have missed them), may I then assume you are both against homosexuality AND heterosexuality!

Makes sense to me, an easy way to settle this debate - no more sex, spores for everyone!
=================================

“The issue is not to public condone them as being normal and acceptable. If you want to copulate with a deer carcass, whatever. But don't go expecting the rest of society to accept it as being normal.”

Um, how is homosexuality in any way shape or form similar to copulating with a deer carcas?
===================================

“And if I do show you? Then what?”

Well, then you'd have won that point. Being correct might be unfamiliar to you, but you'll grow to like it. That is - assuming you can show that proof. But you can't, so you're still full of it, unfortunately.

=================================

“And what do you think of my link?”

Well, this is where sources matter - I quote direct from a scientific journal abstract, while you quote from a wing nut site with just as little if not less credibility than the DailyKos.

Other than that, it uses supports prejudicial attitudes with tenuous quotemining from outdated sources. So yeah, it's a bunch of crap, that plays well to the true believers but is easily discredited among professionals.

Oh, and your other site, about all the gay Nazis - that's just precious. Here's the deal - normal, well-adjusted people do not seek out insane amounts of personal power. People who are traumatized from without, or internally from supressing one or more aspects of their true nature, are far more likely to be driven enough to attain power. This explains all the self-hating Nazi closet cases, just as it explains Ted Haggard. But the site veers close to Holocaust Denial, and so I'd recommend against citing it outside of folks who share your inbred memes.

11 December 2006
at 1:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

werekoala (Anonymous) says…

Culture_Warrior

“Werekoala? Try to put together a coherent thought. Follow Agnosticks example and articulate an argument.”

Please enlighten me - exactly what part of may argument did you find “incoherent”? Please inform me, and I'll try to explain it better.

Don't worry, I'll type slowly, and use small words ;-).

11 December 2006
at 1:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

What was the context? You mean the person doing it or the person saying nothing was wrong? I will assume you don't need the justification of the twisted individual….

Someone posted a link about getting it on with a dead deer. I was commenting about it and someone else said they had no problems with threesomes and, I think I remember, with dead deer. They said marriage should include whatever. I think they were blowing me off.

I might try to find it to get brownie points from you. Maybe I won't…

11 December 2006
at 1:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Porter (Anonymous) says…

????
A devient (sic) priest? Where'd that one come from, c-man?

11 December 2006
at 1:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

werekoala (Anonymous) says…

right_thinker:

As a drive-by, I'd say it stops when everyone is equal. When all that people are judged by is their minds and abilities, not for their genders.

I don't mean some new-agey affirmitive action equal, where some are more equal than others, but truely equal, where it doesn't matter if you're a man, a woman, a transvestite, or a neuter, you have equal protection under the law, and the law does not discriminate based on gender, only on ability and legal competency.

I certainly see your point, but put it this way - can't you see some folks in the Civil rights era saying “well, when does it stop?” First they let the blacks ride anywhere, then vote, then removed the drinking fountains - what next?

But the answer, by and large, has been - not much. Sure, we've still got racial divides in this country, but they ain't as bad as they were. And we haven't fallen down the “slippery slope” to letting dogs vote, either.

So to me, saying “if gays get married, soon people will be marrying their dogs!” is no different from some Alabama hick saying, “If they let blacks vote, soon people will be letting dogs vote too!”

please note:
I don't mean that as any sort of discriminatory attitude towards any race on my part. I personally think the comparison between blacks and dogs is incredibly offensive! What I'm trying to illustrate is that the whole gay sex = beastiality is equally offensive and nonsensical.

11 December 2006
at 1:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

sloppyscience (Anonymous) says…

“where does it stop?” I'm tired of people using the “slippery slope” threat on everything they don't like as their only defense. As has been said before, allowing gay marriage isn't a slippery slope. It's not going to lead to your neighbor marrying his dog. Giving women the right to vote didn't lead to hamsters voting.

11 December 2006
at 1:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

werekoala (Anonymous) says…

sloppyscience - great minds!

11 December 2006
at 1:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Porter (Anonymous) says…

No, not a priest. Sorry to disappoint you. You'll have to work yourself up over some other fantasy.

I still don't get where that came from. I hope you're talking about someone else.

11 December 2006
at 1:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

I did find where Mullins quoted,
“Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit.”

But wasn't what I had in mind. You'd be surprised how many topics concern gay agenda, gay rights, equal rights, and dead and carcass! I'm still looking.

wk: “Other than that, it uses supports prejudicial attitudes with tenuous quotemining from outdated sources. So yeah, it's a bunch of crap, that plays well to the true believers but is easily discredited among professionals.”

You are so funny. Your sources aren't outdate, but mine are? Do you have new information? Here's a direct abstract: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/a…

wk, I find comparing civil rights to gay marriage offensive.

11 December 2006
at 1:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

deec (Anonymous) says…

The right to marry the person you love, who is a consenting adult, is not a civil right?

11 December 2006
at 1:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

“Posted by right_thinker (anonymous) on December 11, 2006 at 1:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jonas, I'm gonna comment as an observer, on gr's carcass et al…….I guess the best way to put it is; where DOES it stop? 30-40 years ago, stuff we see now was not even on the radar.”

I suppose you probably are right, but I don't think that “on the radar” means anything but that society has noticed an issue and is now focusing on it. Kind of like with the idea of teen pregnancy. Were there statistics, before the collection of pregancy stats, that showed how many people “went to the aunt's up state for the summer.”

If you want an honest answer on where it stops, I say it should stop at consensuality (sp?) and not at any by-definition arbitrary moral or ethical level. At the heart of it, marriage is nothing more than a legally recognized combining of two seperate asset and decision-making entities into one entity. Certainly there is, in many social cultures, a sacred or higher level aspect to it, but it is not necessary to the legal institution for it to have that, which is why you can get the govt. and not the church, and it counts, but not the other way around. And, of course, no one is talking about forcing churches to perform sacred bondings against their wills. (At, least, I assume no one credible is calling for it). In the end, I simply don't see why it is the govts. right or responsibility, nor the larger society's, to say what I can't do with my own stuff, or let someone else make decisions on my behalf.

Back to consensuality. The key to the legal agreement is to have all parties equal willing participation, because if someone is an unwilling partner then that is an infringement upon their rights. This is where I make the next assumption: an animal is not capable of understanding, and truly entering into, a legal agreement. If you disagree with that, then by all means try and back it up, but I don't believe that you can. In the same vein, in our society we have an understanding that children do not have the same decision rights as adults, due to their lack of relevant experiences, and the relative with which they can be swayed and influenced. Due to this lack of decision-rights, children can not enter into a binding agreement, either, without their parent's consent. I'm pretty sure that there are already cases of legal minor getting married, too.

11 December 2006
at 1:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

Polygamy, of course, would slip past this, but to be honest, the only real problem I have with polygamy is the chance of using it as a tax shield to unfairly advance your situation. This would certainly not be hard to shore up. At any rate, it's the govts. right to decide to change the tax code, and they don't have to change marriage tax shield amounts at all, no matter the number of entrants into the arrangement. Anyway, is anyone out there going to try and make a biblical argument against polygamy?

Anyone? You'll amuse me greatly if you try.

So: no bestiality, no child-endangerment. Do we need to talk about necrophilia? I certainly hope not, but feel free to expound on your views.

11 December 2006
at 1:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

sorry about the length, but honest answers take time in complicated cases.

11 December 2006
at 1:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

werekoala (Anonymous) says…

gr - the sources I was referring to was the 1980 paper regarding homosexual practices. Sexual practices amongst all people have changed a great deal over the last 25 years - homosexuals have been able to lead more normal lives, and the importance of safe sex has been brought to the forefront.

Do gay men still lead more hazardous lives than straight white men? Yes, but so do black males, latino males, and children born into poverty. None of which is reason to say that any these people should not be covered under married/domestic partner benefits.

11 December 2006
at 2:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Tychoman (Anonymous) says…

GR, Culture Warrior, you two are quite possibly the most ignorant people I've encountered to date on this forum.

11 December 2006
at 2:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

werekoala (Anonymous) says…

Oh, and it took me a while - I finally managed to track down the source of the rumors gr has been spreading about the NGLTF cutting domestic partner benefits - it's a lie.

Here's the link to prove it:
http://www.ngltf.org/news/release.cfm…

What happened was something that happens at many non-profits - they had to cut some benefits. One of which they did was say that they had to move from 100% coverage of partners/spouses to 50% coverage.

GR's article implies this is because of the exhorbitant cost of health care for gays, and flings about contradictory statistics that try to show it's safer to be an AIDS baby in Africa than a gay male, what with all the feces-eating and all that those nasty “homos” do.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The NGLTF, in keeping with its principles, treats spouses and domestic partners the same when it comes to benefits. And it did have a fundraising short-fall, so it had to cut benefits across the board. Saying this was because of the high cost of buggery is intentionally distorting the issue.

11 December 2006
at 2:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

werekoala (Anonymous) says…

“wk, I find comparing civil rights to gay marriage offensive.”

That's okay, I find comparing long-term loving relationships between adults to child rape and beastiality offensive, too.

Beam in your own eye, my man.

11 December 2006
at 2:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Becca (Becca Sturgeon) says…

OMG, Right Thinker, you can't possibly be that stupid, can you? Valerian is an herb. It has sedative properties to help me sleep. And if you sense any kind of hypersensitivity on my part towards you, it's because of your ignorance, not because your a conservative, and because you can't open your mind and see past the ignorant conclusions you've drawn.

11 December 2006
at 2:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

C_W states:

“Porter committed homosexual acts against children.”
____________________________________

He also committed heterosexual acts against children. Many of his victims were girls.

Should we rescind the right of heterosexual marriage, because of the risk that heterosexuals might try to marry children, and commit heterosexual acts against children?

Some could argue that the risk is greater, I suppose. When you think about it, heterosexual child molestors could marry up, breed, and essentially “produce their own victims”… couldn't they?

Very telling, btw, that you picked two names out of my posts… and completely ignored the scientific research and crime statistics.

Very, very telling indeed. :)

Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com

P.S. “Porter”… no, *not you*. Check your PMs, please!

11 December 2006
at 2:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

“Natural law.” Agreed, C_W. Couldn't be more “natural”…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_s…

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/ne…

http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com

11 December 2006
at 2:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Becca (Becca Sturgeon) says…

I have a hard time believing that anything I say is going to hurt your feelings. I'm not that powerful.

11 December 2006
at 3:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Tychoman (Anonymous) says…

CW, what the hell are you talking about with “natural law”? Are you saying that being gay is against natural law? I've got news for you: it isn't.

11 December 2006
at 3:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Becca (Becca Sturgeon) says…

Right wing ogre is a little strong. I just wish that you could listen to where someone else is coming from without feeling like it's threatening you in some way that's all. I don't think anybody is an ogre, right wing or not. I just wish we could all learn to get along. How can we expect the leaders of this country to be united over something when we can't even get along over something?

11 December 2006
at 3:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

emilyhadley (Emily Hadley) says…

I didn't see his original letter until now.

Isn't that the same Jim Mullins that ran against Marci Francisco for the 2nd District Senate seat?

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2004/oct…

Sure sounds like the same guy.

11 December 2006
at 4:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Porter (Anonymous) says…

Sorry Agnostick, I didn't catch the names in your “PM”. Conservativeman —err, I mean Culture_Warrior caught me assuming again.

11 December 2006
at 5:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

I would say, C-W, that the whole point to the entirity of human civilization is to sidestep the natural order and natural law, using our highly-evolved (ha!) brains and our ability to live well together in groups.

11 December 2006
at 7:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

budwhysir (Anonymous) says…

the sky is blue and grass is green. but they get along and enjoy the sight of a rainbow without passing any judgement about the view the other has

11 December 2006
at 8:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

hottruckinmama (Anonymous) says…

oh c'mon rightthinker where is your sense of adventure?

11 December 2006
at 8:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

werekoala (Anonymous) says…

“at least we don't have to copulate out in the woods when it's 5 below zero.”

No kidding! Can you say “shrinkage!”?

/hates even going to the pool

12 December 2006
at 9:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

“Atheistic Natural Law Theory?” Interesting…

Your second paragraph brings up a good question… here's how I'd look at it…

1) These “homosexual inclinations” observed in certain species of animals—how predominant is the trend? In what percentage of penguins, for example, is this behavior observed?

2) What is the overall impact on the species?

One species is in which limited homosexual behavior has been observed is the American Bison. Towards the end of the 19th century the bison was nearly driven to extinction—not because of sexual deviant behavior, but because of massive hunting by settlers.

So… to bring this back to the letter at the top of the page… allowing a small percentage of gays and lesbians the legal rights to marriage will hardly bring about the end of “traditional marriage,” much less the extinction of the human race.

That's how I see it, at least.

Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com

12 December 2006
at 9:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

crazyks (Anonymous) says…

I have observed homosexual behavior in both cats and dogs. Yet I don't see that either one is in great danger of becoming extinct.

In fact, just the opposite is true…

12 December 2006
at 12:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

So, I guess it would be okay for gay people to curl up into balls together and lick one another while lying in the sun?

12 December 2006
at 12:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

No, that sounds like raging paranoia from a right-wing, Bible-thumping nutjob! LOL :p

Can you show me where the “gay crowd” (or at least a representative thereof) has advocated for the elimination of health care coverage for families and couples? Is it the government that sets coverage standards and options, or is it the private insurances companies themselves that offer these protection options?

My employer offers a health care/health insurance plan. I have the freedom to take it, or not. If I choose to take it, I can freely choose whether or not I wish to include my wife and/or my daughter in the plan. I can tell you that for 2007, we are all enrolled in the same plan, with one exception: Since my wife and daughter currently don't need glasses or contacts, I only enrolled myself in the “vision plan” (eye exams themselves are covered under the medical component of the plan). All three of us have health coverage, and all three of us have dental coverage. My daughter will have her first dental checkup sometime next year.

My wife's employer offers similar benefits, but every year, when we review all our options, my employer consistently offers the better deal.

Can you cite concrete examples in which allowing same-sex marriage has adversely affected health care coverage for me, my family… or even you?

Plural marriage is already happening, and has been happening for years. Some good articles on it can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_J…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YFZ_Ranch

You seem terribly concerned about any kind of “marriage” that doesn't fit the traditional “one man-one woman” structure. Would you advocate a federal raid on places like Colorado City/Hildale area, or the YFZ Ranch in Texas? These folks seem to be a lot more “organized” than the GLBT community, don't you think?

As to children for gays: I would rather a child be raised in a loving, stable gay or lesbian home, than a foster care situation… or an unstable, abusive “traditional” environment.

Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com

12 December 2006
at 1:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

Animals hunt for food. Some humans still hunt for food. Some people hunt wild game this time of year, while others hunt for bargains at local retailers. So, in that sense, I suppose some “animal behaviors” are okay for humans. On the other hand, when our daughter was born, I don't recall my wife making a meal out of the afterbirth, like a dog would; but then, she had a C-section, which is probably more common amongst humans than animals…

You can't seem to make up our minds, C_W. You hold up the “Animal Kingdom” as a sterling example, **when it suits your position**… and then immediately dismiss it when something is presented that does not.

And yet you say that *I'm* lost?

Keep trying, though… :)

Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com

P.S. What about the insurance? Plural marriage?

12 December 2006
at 2:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

heysoos (Anonymous) says…

Nice to see you guys are still pissing at each other over here…

Keep up the good work protecting…well, whatever it is you are fighting about…

12 December 2006
at 2:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

Thanks, heysoos! Kinda keeps C_W occupied, and as you know, I can never walk away from a good game of “Fish In The Barrel”… ;)

C_W writes:

“Animals kill each other over territory, mating and dominance. By your assertion of normal 'natural' behavior murder is ok. Part of the animal kingdom.”
______________________________________________

How is that different from your assertion that humans should follow the “natural law” of the animal kingdom, and only “mate” at the heterosexual level? You introduced “natural law” into the discussion as an argument against homosexual behavior. In case you've forgotten:
_______________________________

“Jonas, The most convincing posts yet. Well done. I would accept your argument if not for natural law. Order dictates that stripes go with stripes and spots with spots. Very well articulated.”
_______________________________

Since then, I've introduced at least three articles from reputable sources that have observed that, sometimes, to follow your analogy, “stripes go with spots.”

You also attempted, earlier in this thread, to infer that somehow gays and lesbians are somehow more likely to molest children, simply because of their sexual status. How many straw effigies are you chasing after, anyway?

Humans are also like animals, in that we also kill for mating, territory (or “personal possessions”) and dominance. (Animals and humans both kill for food, too—why you left this out, I won't bother asking)

I would argue that animals, however, act more on instinct, than on reason or emotion. How many animals kill for greed? How many kill for lust? How many kill out of anger, hatred? How many kill out of gluttony?

I don't think you tried to equate homosexuality with murder; rather, I think you're desperately grasping at whatever straws are left for you. You say that just because something is “natural” doesn't make it “normal.” I don't think anyone's ever argued that point, C_W. Clearly, there is a much greater preponderence of heterosexual couplings, than homosexual couplings. The question people have consistently dodged is, How will granting legal status to homosexual couples negatively impact you and your marriage, at the personal level?

I agree with you that the situation in Hildale and Colorado City is a bad one. Should the government step in?

Keep it up, man… keep it up… ;)

Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com

12 December 2006
at 5:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

Of course, C-W, you know very well that bringing nature into this argument is the ultimate catch-22 for either side, with the remaining leverage being solely how you manage to frame the argument.

It is against nature. But if it occurs in nature, then we should be behaving on a higher level than other animals. The second one cancels the first out, which makes it strange that you would bring it up earlier, and follow it up with the second point that negates it.

13 December 2006
at 12:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

C_W can't figure it out much farther, jonas, than Bibles and automatic weapons, you know. ;)

C_W, I found your previous link about “Atheistic Natural Law Theory” to be an interesting read.

Another round of interesting reading…

http://catallaxyfiles.com/?p=2182

Does “inspired natural law” apply to humans? I guess I would have to say that it depends on what a particular human is inspired by. Music? Religion? Spirituality? Faith? Inspired by who? Or what?

Saw something interesting on TV this weekend. Caught the better part of the movie, “March of the Penguins” on Hallmark Channel. Fascinating documentary, I highly recommend it!

Anyways, there was one segment that talked about the first time that the penguin chicks are stuck out into the cold and wind by themselves, out from under the warm shelter of the mother's body. Some of the chicks survive that “first night on their own,” and some don't. For some of the female penguins that lose chicks, the pain of the loss is unbearable. Some of these “childless mothers” are driven, in desparation, to attempting to steal a chick away from another female… a sort of “child-napping,” if you will.

The cameras recorded one such attempt.

The cameras also recorded the typical outcome of such “attempted kidnappings”: The other mothers and females in the community move in and thwart the attempt, ensuring that the chick stays with its own mother.

On the other hand, if a penguin is suddenly “orphaned,” it doesn't seem like another female will move in and make the adoption.

In the human population, “baby stealing” is generally frowned upon. The process of adoption, however, is revered.

Like I said, it's a good movie. :)

Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com

13 December 2006
at 9:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

deec (Anonymous) says…

Back to topic, the right of two consenting adult humans to marry should not be abridged due to the gender of the two people.

13 December 2006
at 12:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

“I wasn't quoting inspired natural law. Atheistic natural law was cited. Why stop at two consenting adults? Why not have a complex interwoven union of hundreds? Nature supports it.”
____________________________________________

deec, I agree with your “back to topic.” You have to remember, though, that extremists use the ol' “bait-&-switch” strategy to steer these things off the road. Personally, I think the correct answer (yours, really) to this question was given before this thread even started. As I intimated in my first post, Lisa Risor hit the nail on the head in her LTE. The last 200 or so posts have just been interesting exercises in debate on things that are only partially germane to the topic.

But I digress… on to C_W's slippery slope…

As I recall, C_W, some *have* taken things beyond “two consenting adults” numerous times in the past. There were communes of all kinds in the 1960s, there are still “swingers” and “polyamorists” around today. I'm assuming that you're talking about the mere *physical sexual act*; that is, after all, where you've steered this topic in the past several posts.

Now, if you're talking about giving some sort of legal status to a “marital union” of three or more people… I'll worry about that bridge when we come to it. Unlike you, I'm not much of an alarmist on this topic. Just because a marriage license is granted to two gay men or two lesbian woman on Friday afternoon, doesn't mean we'll have 10 people waiting to get a “marriage license” on the following Monday morning. I don't take things to the Nth degree when it comes to individuals. Or individual freedoms.

And in case you've forgotten… San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom issued same-sex marriage certificates in February, 2004. For two or three weeks, same-sex couples flocked to the courthouse—some of them having waited and co-habitated for many years, even decades—and got hitched. Legally.

And then there's the case of Massachusetts, where same-sex marriages have been legal since May 2004.

C_W, do you have any documented cases of large groups of people attempting to get “married” in either San Francisco or Massachusetts? I mean, same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts—isn't this the “golden opportunity” those large groups of people have been waiting for?

No, wait… lemme guess… those big groups of people are… “just around the corner”… right? ;)

Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com

P.S. Some interesting info…

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A092308…

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/mar…
(PDF File)

http://www.divorcereform.org/spec.html

http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/…

13 December 2006
at 12:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

I'll put a cap on all this “animal vs. human” and “natural law” mumbo jumbo:

At the genetic level, human beings share a lot in common with some of our animal friends. Humans and chimpanzees share 96% of the same DNA. The world-renowned chimp expert Jane Goodall has spent 45 years studying these animals. They make and use primitive tools, they have intricate familial and social structures, members of one group/family were documented to attack and raid other families. Cases of murder, cannibalism and infanticide have been documented over the years.

That other 4% of DNA that we don't share with chimps? That's probably what, on a good day, has given us Socrates… Plato… Genghis Khan… Benjamin Franklin… Bach… Mozart… Einstein… Frank Lloyd Wright… and Steven Spielberg, just to name a few.

Humans?

On our best days, we're much better than animals.

On our worst days, we can be much worse than animals.

Most days, we're probably just a few notches above 'em.

The day that we recognize and grant same-sex couples with rights, privileges, and legal status equal to heterosexual couples… that will be one of our “best days.”

I seriously doubt the sky will fall.

And now, back to my coleslaw and Clausewitz!

Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com

13 December 2006
at 12:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Tychoman (Anonymous) says…

Guys I think we can all agree by now that CW is nothing more than an idiotic troll who does nothing but antagonize other posters.

13 December 2006
at 5:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…

The only current examples of bigamy of which I am aware have been inspired by religious dogma, that of the religiously-insane mormons and religiously-insane muhammedans. It is religion that furthers bigamy. The old testament is replete with bigamists, including Solomon, Abraham, and Moses. If we were to follow the word of god as written in the bible, harems would abound.

13 December 2006
at 7:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

crazyks (Anonymous) says…

So you have nothing against gay marriage, CW?

Then why have you wasted numerous posts going on and on about animals vs humans, and “atheistic natural law”, and which behaviors are acceptable and which aren't?

14 December 2006
at 9:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

“Humans and chimpanzees share 96% of the same DNA. ”

I just read that bananas share 50% DNA with humans. Not sure what to make of it in relation to behavior.

“The only current examples of bigamy of which I am aware have been inspired by religious dogma, that of the religiously-insane mormons and religiously-insane muhammedans.”

I believe some have said heterosexuals have done bad things. Just because some behave inappropriately doesn't mean all will. Since polygamy isn't “currently” within the law just like gay marriage isn't within the law, one could conclude only lawbreakers are choosing to participate in such behavior.

I think I remember (though I never really know anymore), one suggested that since it's illegal for homosexuals to marry, that's why they have all these multiple partners along with great amounts of stress. But, once it's legal, they will live happy stable lives with only one partner. So, mentioning how some choose to currently live lives of bigamy doesn't really have any relevance of meaning.

============

Adding some light on “natural law”: Natural law (if it has anything to do with evolutionary law) says individuals who fail to produce “fit” offspring will not have their genetics promoted. (Can't remember the exact phrasing there). If you don't leave offspring with your genes, your genes will cease to exist. Why someone thinks the population will cease, I really don't know. Those individual genes will cease. If you are talking recessive genes, they will persist at a low level for awhile. But, I don't think anyone wants to talk “recessive” genes.

14 December 2006
at 9:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

crazyks (Anonymous) says…

Gays who marry aren't doing it illegally, gr. They're either going to places where it is legal, or they're having their own ceremonies, without benefit of clergy or the state.

And last I checked, being in a homosexual relationship wasn't illegal at all. You apparently would just like it to be.

Come to think of it, with all the social rules about marriage that there are, you could say that Adam and Eve were never married. No church, no clergy, no judge or justice of the peace, no marriage license.

So how were they legally married?

14 December 2006
at 9:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

C_W writes:

“Side note: Families would be allowed to stay together longer. 50 year old mom marries her 25 year old son.”
_______________________________________________

Sounds like this is a day you're pining for, huh C_W?

Better be careful, though…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fumarase…

14 December 2006
at 9:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

Sometimes we walk hand in hand by the sea
And we breathe in the cool salty air
You turn to me with a kiss in your eyes
And my heart feels a thrill beyond compare
Then your lips cling to mine
It's wonderful, wonderful
Oh so wonderful my love

Sometimes we stand on the top of a hill
And we gaze at the earth and the sky
I turn to you and you melt in my arms
There we are, darling, only you and I
What a moment to share
It's wonderful, wonderful
Oh so wonderful, my love

The world is full of wonderous things, it's true
But they wouldn't have much meaning without you

Some quiet evening I sit by your side
And we're lost in a world of our own
I feel the glow of your unspoken love
I'm aware of the treasure that I own
And I say to myself
It's wonderful, wonderful
Oh so wonderful, my love

And I say to myself
It's wonderful, wonderful
Oh so wonderful, my love

14 December 2006
at 9:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

Oh, not a personal attack, “Edmund.” Just a personal observation on something you seem to be obsessing about.

And, a bit of a joke, too.

Remember what Mama said…

“And you got to know, Edmund, you can't keep a Peacock down. There'll be more. One day, there'll be more. Now we have to move on… start a new family… one we'll be proud of. Find a new place to call ours. A new home. A brand new home.”

14 December 2006
at 10:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

“Gays who marry aren't doing it illegally, gr. They're either going to places where it is legal, or they're having their own ceremonies, without benefit of clergy or the state.”

crazyks, my comment was in response to the quote immediately above my comment. Would you say they were “legal” bigamists?

“And last I checked, being in a homosexual relationship wasn't illegal at all.”

So, what's the issue, then?

14 December 2006
at 10:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

jonas: “Anyway, is anyone out there going to try and make a biblical argument against polygamy?”

Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.” (NIV Matt 19.8-9, pp. Mark 10.1-12)

So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man. (Rom 7)

14 December 2006
at 10:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

crazyks (Anonymous) says…

Being in a loving, intimate gay relationship without the benefit of marriage isn't illegal.

Neither is being in a loving, intimate, straight relationship without the benefit of marriage illegal.

You don't have to be married in order to be in a relationship, either gay or straight.

But those who are married are afforded legal benefits that those who merely cohabitate don't get.

That's the issue. Either both gay and straight couples should get these legal benefits, or neither should.

Sounds simple enough to me. I don't know why the homophobes insist on dragging in polygamy and bestiality when the issue itself is so simple.

14 December 2006
at 4:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Valkyrie_of_Reason (Kathy Getto) says…

crazyks:

“Sounds simple enough to me. I don't know why the homophobes insist on dragging in polygamy and bestiality when the issue itself is so simple.”

The answer is also simple - FEAR.

14 December 2006
at 5:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Tychoman (Anonymous) says…

STOP:
comparing gay marriage to polygamy, bigamy, incest, bestiality, etc.

bringing in pedophilia, necrophilia, etc.

posting, CW and gr.

14 December 2006
at 5:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

JayCat_67 (Anonymous) says…

Hi! My name is BillyRayEarlBob. Me and my wife done been mareed fer 6 whole months. 'course I thot the fifth time'd be a charm, but boy was I rong. Heck, 'snot like I wupped up on her a hole lot. 'Less she deserved it. Anyhoo, I's at the bar the other day waitin' fer the football game to come on when there's this thing on TV 'bout these les'beans in Massa… Messachew… Aw heck, one of dem west coast states. Anyways, they was gettin' marreed. And I thunk to myself, I likes thinkin', I thunk to myself, “Well he!!, ain't that sumpthin. I'd like to see that.” Then they showed pichers of them and boy they din't look like them les'beans in BobbyRay's movie collecshun. After that, the game started and let me tell you my chiefs got an a$$whuppin' laid on them like I ain't never seen. It took an extra 6 pack of Milwaukee's Best to help get over that one. So's then I went home and you no what that dum woman went and did? She done asked me how the game went. Talk 'bout openin' a fresh wound. She's lucky tho. I only gave her a shiner since I's to drunk fer accracy. Anyhoo, I done slept it off and when I woke up, I yelled at her to fetch me an asprin. Din't get an anser. I got up and found this note sayin' she's leavin'. Now I thot she done went out to get some food, but after 'bout three days, I started wonderin' if sumthin' wasn't amiss. Shor 'nuff, she dun run off with the mail man. All while I had the worst hangover since our weddin' nite. Dang les'beans dun ruint my marrige.

Thank You fer listnin'

14 December 2006
at 10:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Tychoman (Anonymous) says…

Stupid stupid troll.

17 December 2006
at 5:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

gr: Haven't been on this thread for a few days, but you do realize, do you not, that your post has nothing to do with polygamy. Polygamy is being married to more than one party at the same time. Getting divorced screws that equation up.

17 December 2006
at 11:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

eastsider (Anonymous) says…

“If they can keep us fighting
about marriage and God,
there'll be no one left to notice
if our leaders do their jobs…..” (Catie Curtis, “People Look Around”)

Ease up, friends.

Lisa R.

18 December 2006
at 8:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

jonas: “Haven't been on this thread for a few days, but you do realize, do you not, that your post has nothing to do with polygamy. Polygamy is being married to more than one party at the same time. Getting divorced screws that equation up.”

And what did my texts have to do with polygamy? I realize I didn't spell it out for you, but I thought you would try to understand what it had to do with it. The text said if someone divorces except for unfaithfulness, they commit adultery. If being “legally” divorced and then marrying another makes one guilty of adultery, don't you think being still married for sure makes one guilty of adultery? Or, do you have a different definition of adultery?

18 December 2006
at 2:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

SocialWorker50 (Anonymous) says…

I find all this “laughing out loud”, overt hostility toward Gay people, and talk about bestiality, child molestation and the “grossness” of other folk's sexual activities really painful. I work with people who have sexual trauma, and I've worked with sex offenders in the past. All the sex offenders I've personally worked with self described as heterosexual men. So are all the offenders of all the trauma clients I've worked with, whether the victims were girls or boys when the events occurred.
I'm a lesbian who would very much like to marry the love of my life. We're going to marry whether it's legal or not. I really don't care that much about pornography, but it does gall me that almost all pornographic tapes aimed at heterosexual men contain “hot girl-on-girl action” i.e. portrayals of women having sex. So my sex is not too dirty to be trotted out for thrills by countless heterosexual men who would vote against my marriage, but it's way too dirty for me to stand in front of my loved ones, my family and God and make a lifetime committment to love one another. I have to say that that is deeply painful to me. It saddens me that my love is not a sacred committment, but a political football for folks to throw around on an as-needed basis to get poor folks to vote republican against their own interests. As a social worker who works with poor people, it saddens me for them and for me too.
I think war is gross. I think homelessness is gross. I think child sexual abuse is gross. I think laughing at the pain of those who don't share your privlidges is gross. I think making decisions on who other people can marry based on whether or not their sex turns YOU on is gross. I think it's gross that so few women achieve sexual fulfillment in their heterosexual relationships, and that so few men care. Two men making love? Not gross to me. At least they're probably both having fun - something that you really can't say about the sex that happens in most heterosexual marital relationships. So I'm asking, if you're at all on the fence about this, for you to dig deep and step into my shoes for a moment. I'd like them to be white…with a small heel…I'd like them to match my dress…I just want to marry the most wonderful woman I've ever met. Won't you let me?

18 December 2006
at 4:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

SocialWorker50…

I'll let you, as long as you promise not to commit any of the following sins:

http://www.uglydress.com/brides.html

Best wishes to the both of you! :)

Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com

18 December 2006
at 4:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

opinion (Anonymous) says…

Socialworker50 said:

“At least they're probably both having fun - something that you really can't say about the sex that happens in most heterosexual marital relationships.”

I can.

18 December 2006
at 4:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

I don't “police” anything, C_W. Your own words speak for themselves… and for you. :)

I'll see your “blah blah blah” and raise you a “yadda yadda yadda”…

Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com

P.S. Your 4:09pm post also exposes the rampant homophobia you've been trying to deny since this thread started…

18 December 2006
at 5:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

Gr: No, but polygamy and adultery are not, even biblically, mutually inclusive actions, I don't believe. The problem, as I see it, with divorce from a biblical perspective is that it upsets god's blessings upon the union.

However, that doesn't necessarily preclude marrying more than one person, just not ending any of those marriages. At any rate, to the best of my knowledge, there were a number of folks in the bible that had more than one wife, or at least more than one woman. Abraham springs immediately to mind, but it seems like there are more to my mind. I must admit, though, that I'm not biblically well-read enough to know if the acceptability of multiple marriages lasted through to Jesus's time.

Of course, I can't see a biblical condonation of a woman having more than one husband, but I guess that's all that you can expect from a society that considered women to be the servants and vassals, so to speak, of men.

18 December 2006
at 6:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ksmoderate (Anonymous) says…

C_W:

If your real problem with Social Workers is that they are Socialists, you would have just said that. By further qualifying this person (“you're a middleaged lesbian in social work, you are the problem, not the solution”), you are bringing the fact that this lady is a lesbian into your reason for not liking Social Workers—like it or not. If I and Agnostick read it that way, then chances are others did as well.

By the way: Why do you believe Social Workers are Socialists? Just curious.

18 December 2006
at 8:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

Aaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnndddddddddddd… the meltdown begins… ;)

Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com

P.S. Anyone taking the time to read this entire thread can plainly see that several “issues” have been discussed here, by you, me, and several others.

18 December 2006
at 10:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

B-b-b-but what about ksmoderate's question? :O

Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com

P.S. You forgot “cyberstalking”… LOL!!!!

20 December 2006
at 8:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

jonas: “Gr: No, but polygamy and adultery are not, even biblically, mutually inclusive actions, I don't believe. The problem, as I see it, with divorce from a biblical perspective is that it upsets god's blessings upon the union.
”

How about “mutually exclusive”? Like I say, maybe there's a difference of opinion of what “adultery” means.

Main Entry: adul*tery :voluntary sexual activity (as sexual intercourse) between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband;

Maybe you are suggesting “other than his wife” as “other than his wives”. Is there anywhere in the Bible that says it's ok (not just recorded) to marry more than one wife?

“At any rate, to the best of my knowledge, there were a number of folks in the bible that had more than one wife, ”

There were also indications of people “laying” with animals. There were also instances of people killing their brothers. There are instances today of people dragging others behind their trucks. Just because it happened or was recorded doesn't make it right.

“Abraham springs immediately to mind, ”

And of what condition was his life? Seems to be very strong support for not choosing to participate in polygamy. A cause and effect scenario.

20 December 2006
at 9:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

crazyks (Anonymous) says…

But Abraham was a very revered person in the Bible. In fact, it was through his direct line that Joseph, and thus Jesus, was descended. This was a promise that God made to Abraham.

So, evidently Abraham's sexual behavior didn't make him lose favor with God. Matter of fact, it seems to be just the opposite. Abraham's wife conceived their son long after she was past the age of naturally being able to do so.

20 December 2006
at 9:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

Based on what I'm reading, Abraham only had one wife, Sara. Before Isaac was born, Sara told her slave woman, Agar, to sleep with Abraham. That's how Ismael was born.

That's what I'm reading, at least…

Plenty of other folks in the Bible had plural marriages, though. Smart thing to do back then, when health care and sanitation was so poor, and life expectancy was so low that you had to keep crankin' out the babies, no matter what.

Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com

20 December 2006
at 12:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

“But Abraham was a very revered person in the Bible.”

Do you suggest that “very revered” people don't make mistakes? I urge you to read about Abraham and the results of his mistakes.

“He testified concerning him: 'I have found David son of Jesse a man after my own heart; he will do everything I want him to do.'”

Do you suggest adultery and murder to cover it up is proper? How do you deal with David's rebuke?

=========

“Based on what I'm reading, Abraham only had one wife, Sara. ”

Apparently, God considered it so, too. He didn't need their help to make His promises come true.

Gen 17:19 Then God said, “Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.

The context indicates Isaac is the true son. Though, Ishmael, was blessed, too. Unfortunately, Abraham's “helping God” descendents have caused the world many problems which may not have been, otherwise.

Amazing how like father, like son plays out in this case. Which, Isaac's mistakes also reap results.

20 December 2006
at 1:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

crazyks (Anonymous) says…

I'm suggesting that even though Abraham made those mistakes, he was still one of the chosen people by God. His sexual behavior didn't keep him from being one of the chosen, either.

So how can you be so sure of anyone else, either? Since it's entirely up to God and not you, and I assume you don't have a direct liine to God…

20 December 2006
at 2:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

Ok……Trying to figure out what you're saying.

Polygamy and adultery (since that's what jonas and I were talking about) should be permitted, and then ask God to forgive them?

Or, are you saying homosexual choice of behavior is a mistake and they can ask God to forgive them and it'll all be ok?

Or any number of other behavior?

20 December 2006
at 6:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

crazyks (Anonymous) says…

Let's see if I can explain it to you in terms that you'll understand…

I'm saying, gr, that Abraham did a lot of things that people nowadays wouldn't approve of, either, saying it was against God…and yet he was still chosen by God.

So who are you to say definitively that homosexual behavior is bad, regardless, and that God will punish people for it?

How do you know how God chooses people? How do you know what God considers most important in a person's life, as far as being a good person is concerned?

Do you think being homosexual holds as much weight against someone as being a murderer? An adulterer? A liar? A child molestor? Being rich? (remember…he also said it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get to heaven…)

Since you aren't God, you have no idea.

And you're right, Scene, religion has nothing to do with whether homosexuals should be allowed to enter into a LEGAL contract such as marriage.

I only mentioned the religious aspect because others brought it up.

21 December 2006
at 9:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

First, God doesn't punish people. Though, it appears you think that. I believe you are implying that Abraham didn't make a mistake, since God accepted him. Because, if he did make a mistake, God would reject him. Which you never say how you dealt with God's rebuke of David, a man after His own heart.

But then, you may be saying that anything goes and God accepts and condones all type of behavior choices. I'm not God, but God has given us the Bible to instruct us.

Do you think religion has nothing to do with whether multiple people “should be allowed to enter into a LEGAL contract such as marriage”? The Bible speaks against homosexual and adultery behavior. If you say religion shouldn't be allowed to prohibit one, it shouldn't also be allowed to prohibit the other = polygamy. And, religion says you shouldn't copulate with animals, so that should be allowed, too. Otherwise, It's just your religious bigamy prohibiting a loving person and his dog from having the same celebration that others enjoy.

…Unless you think SOME things should not be permitted.

21 December 2006
at 10:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

crazyks (Anonymous) says…

You are just bringing up straw arguments. Bestiality and polygamy have nothing to do with homosexual marriage, and you know it.

Do I think that religion should have anything to do with a legal contract such as marriage? NO. Since our Constitution says that government cannot either suppress or support any particular religion, religious views should have nothing to do with legal matters.

And I didn't say that God punishes people. What I said was that sinning still doesn't keep you from being chosen by God, if that's his intent. What does that have to do with punishment?

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or does it just come naturally?

21 December 2006
at 10:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

Well, I'd pretty much given up on this thread… but I like the new direction you guys have taken it in the past couple of days!

gr, I think I kinda know what “scene” and “crazy” are trying to get at. Let me throw something out for consideration… something that's been floating around for several years, and I'm sure we've all read a few times before…

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religi…

You can find that “letter” plastered all over the internet; I chose the Snopes link because it goes into some nice detail about things. But the overall question the letter asks is clear:

Over the centuries, why is it that some Biblical laws have been cast aside, and not others?

Another question I've often pondered is, “If homosexuality is such a big deal, then why didn't it make the 'Top Ten List?'” (The Ten Commandments)

Some of those ancient old laws from the Old Testament made pretty good sense back then. The Jews weren't supposed to eat pork or shellfish. When you consider what we know *today* about foodborne illnesses that can be caused by those particular items… it really sometimes gives one pause? How did the old farts that wrote down all that stuff back then *know* it?? Did they just watch a bunch of people getting sick from undercooked pork…

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dpd/parasit…

and say, “Hey, we lose too many people like this. We'd better make a law that forbids eating pork.”

[more]

21 December 2006
at 10:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

Face it, folks: People back then were, for lack of a better word, warriors. Life expectancy was short, infant mortality was high. If a woman cranked out eight babies, there was probably a good chance that less than half of them would live 30 years. You needed men to fight in the battles, to be soldiers. And you needed the *women* to bear the babies that would grow up to be soldiers!!

So, I think it was really about “Survival of the Tribe.” There was definitely “strength in numbers,” and to keep the numbers high, the leaders did whatever they could to keep the numbers up. Keep people in line. Forbid them from killing each other, or from doing anything (theft of property, adultery etc.) that would enrage somebody into a crime of passion. And if somebody had same-sex tendencies, the threat of death might at least scare 'em into marrying up properly and cranking out a few babies… for the sake of the Tribe, keeping the numbers up.

As to whether or not God punishes people, there are several instances in the Bible that describe it—first and foremost, the big flood…

“And God said: My spirit shall not remain in man for ever, because he is flesh, and his days shall be a hundred and twenty years. Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, and they brought forth children, these are the mighty men of old, men of renown. And God seeing that the wickedness of men was great on the earth, and that all the thought of their heart was bent upon evil at all times, It repented him that he had made man on the earth. And being touched inwardly with sorrow of heart, He said: I will destroy man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth, from man even to beasts, from the creeping thing even to the fowls of the air, for it repenteth me that I have made them.”

Genesis 6:3-7

Just some random thoughts…

Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com

21 December 2006
at 2:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

crazyks (Anonymous) says…

Well, if you believe in what the Bible says, people back in Abraham's day were still living to be over 100.

They had so many concubines and children because they were apparently still following the “go forth and multiply” thing.

Back then, I guess they thought they still needed as many children as possible to populate the earth. Unfortunately, God never told them to stop doing this.

21 December 2006
at 4:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

“Over the centuries, why is it that some Biblical laws have been cast aside, and not others?”

Excellent point. Therefore, polygamy.

=======

“Bestiality and polygamy have nothing to do with homosexual marriage, and you know it.”

crazyks, why do you distinguish between polygamists and homosexuals? Why is one considered a religious thing to not worry about anymore and not the other one? Why do you object to polygamy? Why do you think one is a “straw argument”, but not the other?

===========

Agnostick: “Hey, we lose too many people like this. We'd better make a law that forbids eating pork.”

Or, did the people have no idea, but by following the rule, the reaped the benefits of not getting sick?

“People back then were, for lack of a better word, warriors. Life expectancy was short, infant mortality was high.”

Could you show me where you find that evidence about life expectancies and survival rates in the Bible? I don't recall Abraham “cranking 'em out” and Jacob seemed to have had quite a few that lived.

“first and foremost, the big flood…”

Actually, your quote gives evidence against “punishing”. What was Noah doing for 120 years? After the flood, it didn't seem that the survivors were very much “after God's own heart”. God didn't save the “righteous” and punish the wicked. He saved those who got on the Ark. God did His best through Noah preaching for 120 years to try to get them on the Ark. Do you think they might listen if He gave them more time? They were too busy giving “scientific” explanations of how it never rain nor never could rain. Without listening to God's mercy for their lives, the flood came and took them away. Should God had forced them against their will?

21 December 2006
at 6:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

crazyks (Anonymous) says…

Well, gr, I don't recall ever saying I was against polygamy. Iif they have the means to properly care for all their wives and children financially, without help from the state or federal government, then I can't say that I have a problem with it.

Though I do tend to think of polygamy as a convenient excuse for some men. Otherwise, why are all polygamous societies geared toward men? Why do they allow men to have numerous wives, but they don't allow women to have numerous husbands?

Although myself, personally, I don't know why you'd want more than one husband. I had one, and quite frankly he wasn't worth it, so now I have none.

But polygamy is no more relevant to homosexual marriage than it is to heterosexual marriage. You could try to claim that allowing heterosexual marriage would lead to mass polygamy and bestiality, too, but it hasn't.

So why do you think it would if gays were allowed to legally marry?

LJWorld.com

Archive for Friday, December 8, 2006

Marriage at risk?

Top ads RSS

Marketplace

Lawrence Humane Society 785-843-6835

LJWorld.com

Archive for Friday, December 8, 2006

Marriage at risk?

Discussion

Post a comment

Post a blog entry

Top ads RSS

Marketplace

Lawrence Humane Society 785-843-6835