daffy64 May 10, 2012 11:57 AM EDT So just what is "the homosexual lifestyle"? Promiscuity? They're asking TO BE MARRIED for Pete's sake.
There's so many wrongly inaccurate points in your writing it's hard to know where to begin. The idea that marriage is to "link" children to a parent is a moot point. What about couples like myself who don't have or plan to have children? Should they be denied the right to marry?
And city officials have to carry out their duties whether they like it or not. If a mixed race couple is getting married and you can't stand it...well...tough. Get a new job.
And do you think renters have the right to turn away people they don't like? How about blacks or hispanics?
And nobody's asking anyone to "put aside their religious beliefs". Don't like gay marriage? DON'T PARTAKE OF IT. Your religion forbids a food? DON'T EAT IT. But it might still be available to others.
And how can you compare pedophiles, where there is a (child) victim of a crime to two consenting adults?
Honestly, you're so ignorant and bigoted, I feel for you. How about crossing the border into sin-land (otherwise know as Canada) as seeing a country where all people are treated as equals under the law. You'll be amazed at a little thing called LIBERTY.
If homosexuality is not a lifestyle, then what is it? Is it not officially referred to as an "alternative lifestyle?" By what distortion of logic can you bring promiscuity into it? I certainly didn't mention that.
Perhaps learning something about the very history of marriage would enlighten you. The first mention of the institution is found in Sumerian writings (Akkadian) wherein it clearly legitimizes children and places a responsibility for them upon those entering matrimony. From that point onward the very core of marriage was based on that premise. Those not wanting children need not marry. That rule applies yet today and if you married without wanting children, that was your privilege but does not, in any way, alter the purpose of the institution.
Your curiously faulty logic also suggests that it is okay to oblige people to do things to which they morally object. They should "get another job" instead of openly opposing that obligation. If we had conformed to that line of thinking, we would have mandatory abortion in the case of interracial pregnancies today (Alabama 1886) and life sentences for possessing one marijuana cigarette (Texas 1984) but those laws were repealed by people who did not think like you.
Your "logic" continues with the concept that "if you don't like it, don't partake of it." The "change the channel" line of thinking. But you conveniently ignore the consequences. I don't like war but I was forced to go to one. The consequences were more severe than conformity. So are there social consequences to the legalization of same sex marriage that defies thousands of years of moral tradition. If you are interested in having homosexual activity available, then I am not. Nor am I willing to be victimized by those who label opponents of same sex marriage as intolerant, discriminate, ignorant or narrow minded. I oppose the movement of UNESCO to put textbooks in schools wherein Clifford and Robin are a happy married couple with their adopted family. Instead of the promotion of this lifestyle (yes, lifestyle), I ask that homosexuals conduct their lives in the same privacy as they have always done. If there is legislation to guarantee basic rights to a surviving member of such a union, I would support that, but I will not endorse same sex marriage.
I did NOT compare pedophiles and bestiality to homosexuals on the basis of their activity, rather on the basis of the claim of being "by nature" what they are. Reading the words might have helped understand the point.
I have, incidentally, visited Canada many times and found it to be a delightful nation with friendly people. I, in turn, have always thought of you as an intelligent poster and now you think I am ignorant.
I guess we were both wrong.
Oh great, now Santorum has more ammo why we should do away with schools now! LOL ...isn't this why he DOESN'T want everybody to be able to go to college? The educated question authority (ie the church)!
Why are you quoting Mark Twain to imply that he is Pro Gay rights. Mark Twain would be considered an extreme social conservative by today's standards and did not support gay rights.
Have you ever read Mark Twain, or did you just find this quote somewhere?
Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University's history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).
These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.
Boswell is not the most respected scholar in the field by a long shot and if one examines the Patrologia Graeca, they will find that the very ritual Boswell claimed united a same sex couple was, in fact, a ritual to unite spiritual brothers to work in favor of the expansion and general functions of the Orthodox Church.
by jlspin9731 May 10, 2012 1:35 PM EDT You are exactly right! If he were not running for re-election, this would never have been addressed!! We are not stupid!!! -*-------------------- If he were not a politician - it would have been addressed at the kitchen table over dinner! Just like the rest of us! What? Did no one tell you that Obama IS a politician??? Good Grief!
by Zann-Zel May 10, 2012 12:29 PM EDT I read the Bible cover to cover three time - each time I was pregnant with my children.
I support Love!
I support people making commitments to each other!
I support marriage whether its a man and a woman or two women or two men - as long as they are consenting adults, the promises they make are between them and if they choose, God! But their promises, their lives, are NOT my choice, or my business! I have no right to judge!
________________________________________________________________
Reading the Bible is not nearly as much of an achievement as understanding the Bible. The latter cannot be done without reading the Apocrypha or having studies relative to the times in which Biblical events took place. Beyond that, the Bible cannot be understood without a knowledge of Hebrew and Greek. Unfortunately, early church translators were not as divinely inspired as the authors are alleged to have been.
So now we speak of love. A famous court case now taking place in England involves a brother and sister who were separated at birth and later found each other and married without knowing about their blood relationship. Another case is Susan K. and Patrick S. of Germany, (the court did not reveal their last names) a brother and sister met under the same circumstances as the England couple and had a baby. The court ordered them to divorce and separate and they refused because they loved each other as man and woman, not brother and sister.
The Max Planck Institute study tells us that two to four percent of all people have incestuous relationships. Interestingly, this is about the same percentage as the homosexuals among us. If we base such relationships on the issue of love, we are led to endorse homosexuality, incest, and what follows?
I am a Christian. I believe as we read the Bible we all take something different from it. The thing we need. Whatever God's personal message to us is. I don't need someone else to tell me how to understand God's message. The relationship between God and I is a personal one.
I am a scholar that opposes exegesis, the assumed right to interpret Scripture according to our "needs." Understanding the text of the Bible, or lacking the understanding, has nothing to do with one's relationship with God.
Translation: You're one of those people that thinks you can hold the power over others because you're "educated". Kinda like the priests that didn't want people to learn to read - as long as they were the only ones who knew how to read they held the power of God over people!
so lets vote on it and let the people decide, while were at it lets let the majority decide if mixed marraiges should be legal, balck & white, christian and non-christian, muslin and jew, etc, etc. Civil right should NOT be left up to a majority vote, some times the purpose of the supreme court is to PROTECT the MINORITY from the MAJORITY! ...if we'd have left it up to majority vote the south would still be segregated or have slavery!
Being educated limits no one and grants power over no one. I have never made such claims. But those who depend upon faith over knowledge are usually the first to label others in defense of all they do not know.
y daffy64 May 10, 2012 12:33 PM EDT "Let the children come to me; do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the Kingdom of God belongs. Truly I tell you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it." (Mark Ch.10 vers 13-16.) --------------------
I would like anyone who doesn't understand to spend some time with a young child. Its so refreshing! They don't SEE color! They don't Judge! We should all attempt to be "as a little child".
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
So just what is "the homosexual lifestyle"? Promiscuity? They're asking TO BE MARRIED for Pete's sake.
There's so many wrongly inaccurate points in your writing it's hard to know where to begin.
The idea that marriage is to "link" children to a parent is a moot point. What about couples like myself who don't have or plan to have children? Should they be denied the right to marry?
And city officials have to carry out their duties whether they like it or not. If a mixed race couple is getting married and you can't stand it...well...tough. Get a new job.
And do you think renters have the right to turn away people they don't like? How about blacks or hispanics?
And nobody's asking anyone to "put aside their religious beliefs". Don't like gay marriage? DON'T PARTAKE OF IT. Your religion forbids a food? DON'T EAT IT. But it might still be available to others.
And how can you compare pedophiles, where there is a (child) victim of a crime to two consenting adults?
Honestly, you're so ignorant and bigoted, I feel for you. How about crossing the border into sin-land (otherwise know as Canada) as seeing a country where all people are treated as equals under the law. You'll be amazed at a little thing called LIBERTY.
If homosexuality is not a lifestyle, then what is it? Is it not officially referred to as an "alternative lifestyle?" By what distortion of logic can you bring promiscuity into it? I certainly didn't mention that.
Perhaps learning something about the very history of marriage would enlighten you. The first mention of the institution is found in Sumerian writings (Akkadian) wherein it clearly legitimizes children and places a responsibility for them upon those entering matrimony. From that point onward the very core of marriage was based on that premise. Those not wanting children need not marry. That rule applies yet today and if you married without wanting children, that was your privilege but does not, in any way, alter the purpose of the institution.
Your curiously faulty logic also suggests that it is okay to oblige people to do things to which they morally object. They should "get another job" instead of openly opposing that obligation. If we had conformed to that line of thinking, we would have mandatory abortion in the case of interracial pregnancies today (Alabama 1886) and life sentences for possessing one marijuana cigarette (Texas 1984) but those laws were repealed by people who did not think like you.
Your "logic" continues with the concept that "if you don't like it, don't partake of it." The "change the channel" line of thinking. But you conveniently ignore the consequences. I don't like war but I was forced to go to one. The consequences were more severe than conformity. So are there social consequences to the legalization of same sex marriage that defies thousands of years of moral tradition. If you are interested in having homosexual activity available, then I am not. Nor am I willing to be victimized by those who label opponents of same sex marriage as intolerant, discriminate, ignorant or narrow minded. I oppose the movement of UNESCO to put textbooks in schools wherein Clifford and Robin are a happy married couple with their adopted family. Instead of the promotion of this lifestyle (yes, lifestyle), I ask that homosexuals conduct their lives in the same privacy as they have always done. If there is legislation to guarantee basic rights to a surviving member of such a union, I would support that, but I will not endorse same sex marriage.
I did NOT compare pedophiles and bestiality to homosexuals on the basis of their activity, rather on the basis of the claim of being "by nature" what they are. Reading the words might have helped understand the point.
I have, incidentally, visited Canada many times and found it to be a delightful nation with friendly people. I, in turn, have always thought of you as an intelligent poster and now you think I am ignorant.
I guess we were both wrong.
Not only is Barak not a good President, he is not a good father.
~Mark Twain
Have you ever read Mark Twain, or did you just find this quote somewhere?
These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.
You are exactly right! If he were not running for re-election, this would never have been addressed!! We are not stupid!!!
-*--------------------
If he were not a politician - it would have been addressed at the kitchen table over dinner! Just like the rest of us!
What?
Did no one tell you that Obama IS a politician??? Good Grief!
Where have you people been? Faux News?
LMAO!
I read the Bible cover to cover three time - each time I was pregnant with my children.
I support Love!
I support people making commitments to each other!
I support marriage whether its a man and a woman or two women or two men - as long as they are consenting adults, the promises they make are between them and if they choose, God! But their promises, their lives, are NOT my choice, or my business! I have no right to judge!
________________________________________________________________
Reading the Bible is not nearly as much of an achievement as understanding the Bible. The latter cannot be done without reading the Apocrypha or having studies relative to the times in which Biblical events took place. Beyond that, the Bible cannot be understood without a knowledge of Hebrew and Greek. Unfortunately, early church translators were not as divinely inspired as the authors are alleged to have been.
So now we speak of love. A famous court case now taking place in England involves a brother and sister who were separated at birth and later found each other and married without knowing about their blood relationship. Another case is Susan K. and Patrick S. of Germany, (the court did not reveal their last names) a brother and sister met under the same circumstances as the England couple and had a baby. The court ordered them to divorce and separate and they refused because they loved each other as man and woman, not brother and sister.
The Max Planck Institute study tells us that two to four percent of all people have incestuous relationships. Interestingly, this is about the same percentage as the homosexuals among us. If we base such relationships on the issue of love, we are led to endorse homosexuality, incest, and what follows?
I believe as we read the Bible we all take something different from it. The thing we need. Whatever God's personal message to us is. I don't need someone else to tell me how to understand God's message. The relationship between God and I is a personal one.
~Woodrow Wilson
"Let the children come to me; do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the Kingdom of God belongs. Truly I tell you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it." (Mark Ch.10 vers 13-16.)
--------------------
I would like anyone who doesn't understand to spend some time with a young child. Its so refreshing! They don't SEE color! They don't Judge! We should all attempt to be "as a little child".