Homosexual Marriage to the Church
guardian Snow
certain other sets of people are human.”
Aldous Huxley
What if, we lived in an alternate reality where homosexual marriage
was the excepted norm of society?
I would naturally rally for marriage to be defined between a man and a
woman and this alternate society would tell me that I have no right to
impose my beliefs upon them… The same is true in reverse! In an
alternate reality, the homosexuals would complain that I am attempting
to impose my moral values on them, which is exactly what they are
doing to the rest of the world.
From my perspective, homosexuality is not natural and is undesirable
behavior. Several U.S. states in the last election passes laws that
say Marriage is to be defined as between a man and a woman. My
Christian brothers have rightly taken a hard line on the issue.
It is unfortunate that one must take the hard line on this issue but
past experience has taught us that if we give an inch, they will take
a mile. A clear example is set by Canada where the portions of the
Bible speaking about Homosexuality are considered, “Hate Speech” and
it is now considered socially wrong to put these passages in a public
forum.
If we say it is alright for homosexual Marriage, where can we draw a
moral line in the sand? Aren’t age of consent laws just another moral
standard? Should we now allow adults to have sex with babies and
children because some people believe society has wrongly imposed its
moral standards on other people? Some consider this just another
“religious dogma” that should be abolished.
http://www.nambla.org/
NAMBLA is one such organization that tells us just that! They say
it’s wrong to “persecute man/boy love”.
Sex is your choice, whether or not you have it and with whom you have
it with, nobody forces you to have sex legally.
The arguments put forward by the gay lobby is that Homosexuals deserve
to have the same rights as people who are straight and that by denial
of the “right of marriage” to them announces them as “second class
citizens”. The fact is they have the same rights already under any
law and so the reality is that they want to have their choice legally
enshrined as a social value. They want special “civil rights” and
usually say that being gay is not a choice and compare it to skin
color as if somebody holds a gun to their head to make them have same
sex partners.
The reason one MUST take a hard line is because once we forever go
down that road of “relative moral values”, you can’t turn back. It’s
already controversial to speak on the homosexual issues in
congregations and heaven forbid we speak about the high decease rate
of AIDS and sexually transmitted viruses flourish among those that
have sex outside of a single partner.
By making it clear that I oppose homosexual marriage, I’m certain to
be labeled by those who disagree with me with terms such as, “Nazi,
Homophobic, Right Wing Zealot” or any of the other labels they can
apply to me that give off a negative connotation.
To disagree with them does not mean I hate or fear homosexuality. I
happen to have a few friends that are homosexual and my feelings are
well known to them. I neither hate nor fear anything about them, I
just have no desire to share their values or lack of. I find it
interesting that this same standard is used by all people.
[Barry]
> I respect you as a person but I can never respect your beliefs.
[Snow]
But to respect me as a person is to respect my beliefs just as I
should respect what you believe and we should agree to disagree. You
are entitled to your beliefs and I am entitled to mine and neither of
us should assume we have the right to impose our beliefs on the
other. Would you agree?
I do not hate something just because I disagree with it. Do you hate
me just because you disagree with me?
People have the right to hold different opinions without being labeled
but already society has started the dumbing down process.
“Alternative Lifestyle or Queers”
“Same Sex Marriage or a perversion and abomination”
Parents should have the right to teach their children their social
values, right or wrong. A free society must choose to respect
individual rights but is it the right of people to impose values on a
minority? Yes or else we must now allow anarchy to be the law of the
land and these relative morals to overtake the world. Even murderers
believe in their own mind that they have good reasons for committing
the acts they do… It is our social duty to impose moral standards and
then stand by them and defend them and to do less is to give up our
very soul.
Christians are not without blame in the permissive society that
engulfs them and in fact while giving the false appearance of
opposition, has nurtured and fostered the homosexual culture by its
lawless doctrine and zero accountability value system.
You can’t expect to teach, “Christ is our righteousness” which in
effect transfers individual responsibility and blame on the Messiah
and expect righteous fruits.
You can’t impose only the moral laws that don’t apply to you on other
people. Expect people to know you are all hypocrites. You can’t say,
“Gays are going to Hell but we aren’t for being adulterers.”
You can’t teach:
Rom 10:4 For the Messiah is the end of the law for righteousness to
every one that believeth.
And then expect to assert your moral laws. Is it a wonder that so
many homosexuals seek to become and are Christian ministers? It’s the
perfect religion for the Gay Community and all they have to do is
ignore a few small passages of scriptures just like any “good
Christian” does.
Why does the Christian religion teach AGAINST righteous behavior? How
can they teach you “No one is righteous” and expect righteous fruits?
Christianity is the poison pill that promotes, nurtures and preaches
that “God forgives all your sins”, so why should I ever stop sinning?
I have no need to.. as long as I believe in Jesus Christ, I can behave
like a demon selling porn to babies and the most evil media that
promotes murder and promiscuity and as long as I believe, I am saved
by Jesus Christ, I can sleep with the alter boys, rape my neighbors
baby, sell death on the internet and Jesus Christ will forgive me.
Being Christian means that I get to blame all of society’s woes on the
Atheist, Muslim, Buddhist or Jew (or anybody not Christian) and never
examine my own behavior. I can blame all the fags for the destruction
of western culture six days a week and tell them on Sunday when they
make their donation to my church, “God forgives them”.
Believing the Christian dogma means I get to call anybody else
“antichrist” and judge them if they don’t agree with me without any
blame resting on my own shoulders because “Jesus is my righteousness”.
I am now free to impose moral authority on anybody else and condemn
them to hell because Jesus made me the judge of all mankind.
1Co 6:3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things
that pertain to this life?
Well, I’m not your judge but you can take your Christian dogma and get
stuffed! If your deity doesn’t condemn you for not keeping the
Sabbath, he’s not condemning fags either, so bend over and take it
like a man. You can’t teach the Torah is abolished and then quote:
Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman,
both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put
to death; their blood shall be upon them.
You can’t teach the “end of law” and expect people to subscribe to Rom
1:27 And then teach men that your deity forgives you for all your sins
just by believing it to be so. It’s no wonder Jeffrey Dalmer the
cannibal murderer was a Christian! It’s also no wonder the Catholics
and Anglicans have homosexual ministers (but not woman)!
Americans should not hate the homosexuals because it is their beliefs
that have fostered them and nurtured them into the “community” that
they are. Hating homosexuals and violence against these people that
have been created by your own creation is evidence that you hate
yourselves and your own religion that has allowed this belief of the
“forbidden fruit” to flourish, is it a wonder that the United States
number one export to the world is pornography and violence?
Simply picking and choosing which moral code you want to uphold and
then telling everybody that Christ forgives you when you do is the
invitation to eat and swallow death. As you examine the political
landscape of division in America, it saddens me that the vast
majority, only seek to be the right in judging others rather than
judging themselves first.
The next time you decry homosexual marriage, remember it was your
religion and your teachings that fostered it. You did it not because
you followed Jesus but because you followed apostle Paul and YOU
preached against the law of the Torah!
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua <-- please join
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/messianic_Yehoshua/
Mat 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of
thorns, or figs of thistles?
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
Remember, a real decision is measured by the fact that you've taken
new action. If there's no action, you haven't truly decided.
Tony Robbins
Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path
and leave a trail. Though we travel the world over to find the
beautiful, we must carry it with us or we find it not.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
http://www.isr-messianic.org/ <- download scriptures free
Darrell Stec
> What if, we lived in an alternate reality where homosexual marriage
> was the excepted norm of society?
Too bad you know nothing about the history of the Christian Church. For if
you had,then you would be aware of the fact that you did not need to live
in an alternate reality for that to be true. From its inception in the 4th
century CE and lasting for 1000 years, there was a rite of the Holy
Sacrament of Matrimony for two men, and a rite of Holy Sacrament of
Matrimony between two women, as well as the more modern exclusionary
matrimony between a man and a women.
Anti-gay posturing is something very recent, in the last couple of
centuries. For you see, the modern misinterpretation of both the Old
Testament and New Testament leads modern Christians to think daddy god and
son god were anti-gay. Of course since most Christians cannot read the
scriptures in their ancient languages of Hebrew, Greek and Latin the only
recourse for them is to parrot the very poor English translations.
It seems you fall in that category.
--
Later,
Darrell
Sanity's Little Helper
posteth:
> ļæ½The propagandist's purpose is to make one set of people forget that
> certain other sets of people are human.ļæ½
> Aldous Huxley
That's exactly how Christianity works. Take everybody's humanity away from
them, then offer it back in exchange for accepting your bullshit.
"You're a human being if, and only if you accept that our god had himself
nailed to a lump of wood to save you all from his own wrath, and to fail to
do so is to persecute all Christians, because we're human and you aren't,
so we're the victims and you aren't".
--
David Silverman
aa #2208
Defender of Civilisation
"Christian" (n). A person who views insulting non-Christians as a sacred
duity, and any response as persecution
Not authentic without this signature.
Sanity's Little Helper
I have searched for the sources of this information, and I'm perfectly
ready to believe it, but I have found nothing online (a translated
transcript of the actual liturgies will suffice). What do these rites
actually say? It certainly can't be beyond anybody's wit to translate them
and publish them now.
guardian Snow
> guardian Snow inscribed forevermore utilizing silicon chips::
>
> > What if, we lived in an alternate reality where homosexual marriage
> > was the excepted norm of society?
>
> scriptures in their ancient languages of Hebrew, Greek and Latin the only
> recourse for them is to parrot the very poor English translations.
>
> It seems you fall in that category.
>
> --
> Later,
> Darrell
It's a shame you didn't actually read the majority of my post. I have
never heard of the first topic you mentioned but that is not saying
you are wrong but You have assumed to much in your last statements
when you haven't even consider my whole post, especially the second
part where I say essentially the same thing in my own way.
Are you any better in your rush to judgment?
thomas p.
"guardian Snow" <mr_snow...@yahoo.com.au> skrev i meddelelsen
news:c773d53f-525b-4f9f...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
"The propagandist's purpose is to make one set of people forget that
certain other sets of people are human."
Aldous Huxley
What if, we lived in an alternate reality where homosexual marriage
was the excepted norm of society?
I would naturally rally for marriage to be defined between a man and a
woman and this alternate society would tell me that I have no right to
impose my beliefs upon them. The same is true in reverse! In an
alternate reality, the homosexuals would complain that I am attempting
to impose my moral values on them, which is exactly what they are
doing to the rest of the world.
------------------------------
thomas p
No, they are not. Where is the law that says you have to approve of
homosexual marriage or enter into one yourself?
------------------------------
"guardian Snow"
From my perspective, homosexuality is not natural and is undesirable
behavior. Several U.S. states in the last election passes laws that
say Marriage is to be defined as between a man and a woman. My
Christian brothers have rightly taken a hard line on the issue.
-------------------------
thomas p
Because you do not like homosexuality? What if you did not like divorce and
remarriage; should people then loose the right to seek a divorce? The
solution is simple; if you do not like same-sex marriage, don't have such a
marriage.
--------------------
"guardian Snow"
It is unfortunate that one must take the hard line on this issue but
past experience has taught us that if we give an inch, they will take
a mile. A clear example is set by Canada where the portions of the
Bible speaking about Homosexuality are considered, "Hate Speech" and
it is now considered socially wrong to put these passages in a public
forum.
If we say it is alright for homosexual Marriage, where can we draw a
moral line in the sand? Aren't age of consent laws just another moral
standard? Should we now allow adults to have sex with babies and
children because some people believe society has wrongly imposed its
moral standards on other people? Some consider this just another
"religious dogma" that should be abolished.
--------------------------
thomas p
Some people are very silly and ignorant. Marriage is a legal contract. An
important principle for such contracts is that parties to the contract must
be able to give informed consent. That is the reason for age of consent
laws. Your above argument also assumes its conclusion. You are
essentially saying that since same-sex marriage is bad there is the danger
that it will lead to other bad things. It is only your opinion, and
furthermore you cannot deny civil rights in a secular state unless you have
a secular reason.
-------------------
"guardian Snow"
http://www.nambla.org/
NAMBLA is one such organization that tells us just that! They say
it's wrong to "persecute man/boy love".
Sex is your choice, whether or not you have it and with whom you have
it with, nobody forces you to have sex legally.
----------------------
thomas p
So you advocate denying a civil right to one group because another
completely different group has absurd ideas.
----------------------------
"guardian Snow"
The arguments put forward by the gay lobby is that Homosexuals deserve
to have the same rights as people who are straight and that by denial
of the "right of marriage" to them announces them as "second class
citizens". The fact is they have the same rights already under any
law and so the reality is that they want to have their choice legally
enshrined as a social value. They want special "civil rights" and
usually say that being gay is not a choice and compare it to skin
color as if somebody holds a gun to their head to make them have same
sex partners.
---------------------------
thomas p
Nobody held a gun to mixed race couples either. Your argument is specious
to say the least. The right of two people to choose each other is not a
special right.
-------------------------
"guardian Snow"
The reason one MUST take a hard line is because once we forever go
down that road of "relative moral values", you can't turn back. It's
already controversial to speak on the homosexual issues in
congregations and heaven forbid we speak about the high decease rate
of AIDS and sexually transmitted viruses flourish among those that
have sex outside of a single partner.
By making it clear that I oppose homosexual marriage, I'm certain to
be labeled by those who disagree with me with terms such as, "Nazi,
Homophobic, Right Wing Zealot" or any of the other labels they can
apply to me that give off a negative connotation.
To disagree with them does not mean I hate or fear homosexuality. I
happen to have a few friends that are homosexual and my feelings are
well known to them. I neither hate nor fear anything about them, I
just have no desire to share their values or lack of. I find it
interesting that this same standard is used by all people.
-------------------
thomas p
I don't hate or fear Catholics. I just have no desire to share their values
or lack of. Do you see the analogy? Yes, I know: "That's different!" It
isn't though. It is exactly the same, and you are a bigot.
snip
guardian Snow
> To disagree with them does not mean I hate or fear homosexuality. I
> happen to have a few friends that are homosexual and my feelings are
> well known to them. I neither hate nor fear anything about them, I
> just have no desire to share their values or lack of. I find it
> interesting that this same standard is used by all people.
> -------------------
>
> thomas p
>
> I don't hate or fear Catholics. I just have no desire to share their values
> or lack of. Do you see the analogy? Yes, I know: "That's different!" It
> isn't though. It is exactly the same, and you are a bigot.
Every person is responsible for all the good within the scope of his
abilities, and for no more, and none can tell whose sphere is the
largest. Our Judgment’s of others prevent us from seeing the good that
lies beyond appearances. Love is the ability and willingness to allow
those that you care for to be what they choose for themselves without
any insistence that they satisfy you.
If having my own opinion makes me a bigot then by your definition
every person with one is a bigot in one form or another. Your
judgment of me does not define me, it defines your need to be
judgmental.
Why would you attack people, do you even know? People speak as if they
are casualties. They can still pretend to be a victim being trampled
on, the hanged man spending time accusing people that aren't involved.
So ultimately we hate the fact that you know you’re in rebellion of
society and condemn all those who try and help. You condemn them
because you feel they condemned you but the fact is, I am not your
judge and I have no desire to judge you. You alone have judged
yourself and created your own negative apathy.
When you judge another, you do not define them, you define yourself.
Your own self loathing becomes quickly apparent as you blame all those
trying to teach the truth. These people have painted a self fulfilled
dark future and not ours and that is what they resent.
Why do you expect to receive love when you wrongly accuse others? The
truth is we don't want it, even when it's offered and we demonstrate
that by accusing innocent people and pretending righteousness. I don’t
call you a fool but it's foolish to reject something you don't or
can’t understand. A person who won't read has no advantage over one
who can't read. This does not say you can't read but that you are not
willing to read or understand another man's point of view.
“Adversity is the first path to truth.”
Lord Byron
I appreciate you sharing your perspective and I wish you well in your
walk of life Thomas P.
It is for the reason to be free that we teach only the way of peace,
to stay in the word of truth. There is no way to prosperity,
prosperity is the way.
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
'Men have forgotten this truth,' said the fox. 'But you must not
forget it. You become responsible, forever, for what you have tamed.'
And now here is my secret, a very simple secret; it is only with the
heart that one can see rightly, what is essential is invisible to the
eye.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
guardian Snow
> thomas p
>
> Some people are very silly and ignorant. Marriage is a legal contract.
"Argument is meant to reveal the truth, not to create it."
Edward de Bono
One that has social repercussions on society. Not just on the
individuals involved in the contract but on the entire definition of
what is a family that "in my opinion" is being rushed into place
without consideration as to how it redefines relationships.
If it were so "silly and ignorant", you wouldn't have bothered to post
a message. You want to assume it is your right to force me by law to
accept your argument as legitimate via "legal contract" which was
never made with me. How can you assume to redefine my understanding
of a natural relationship.
Civil Unions aren't enough, you seek to not only redefine
relationships for me but for my children as well and then wonder why
you have hit a wall of opposition.
> An
> important principle for such contracts is that parties to the contract must
> be able to give informed consent. That is the reason for age of consent
> laws. Your above argument also assumes its conclusion. You are
> essentially saying that since same-sex marriage is bad there is the danger
> that it will lead to other bad things. It is only your opinion, and
> furthermore you cannot deny civil rights in a secular state unless you have
> a secular reason.
Civil rights assumes that you have had your rights refused based on
something that is beyond your control and clearly you have control
over where you place body parts, hopefully. I have already provided a
reason that was secular as you just parroted back in your rejection of
my logic.
"To be a prisoner means to be defined as a member of a group for whom
the rules of what can be done to you, of what is seen as abuse of you,
are reduced as part of the definition of your status "
Catharine MacKinnon
What your argument wants to assert is that it is the "civil right" of
any minority to assert its will over that of the majority of society.
If this is the case then the Taliban should have the right to force
woman to ride in the back of the car, wear vales, ban television and
education to segments of society because they believe their cause is
from "Allah". Are they not a minority with "civil rights" issues?
Or...
Maybe it should be the right of the Communist to put in prison any
dissenters that promote Capitalism and Free Market Societies.
Maybe it should be the right of the Eco Warrior to bomb factories or
the right of the Anti abortionist to prevent those who practice this
from conducting business by blockading clinics and harassing the
staff.
In the end, the "Human Rights" debate assumes it is some form of
torcher by another segment of society to disagree but the reality is
that as individuals, we are always going to disagree on something and
at some stage in the rationalization of a law abiding nation, we must
have standards that define who and what we are.
I respect that you might be gay and I have no issue with it. Please
respect my right to have my own opinion without you feeling the need
to ram yours down my throat.
"If he who employs coercion against me could mould me to his purposes
by argument, no doubt he would. He pretends to punish me because his
argument is strong; but he really punishes me because his argument is
weak."
William Godwin
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
Begin to see yourself as a soul with a body rather than a body with a
soul.
Wayne Dyer
Ymton Emanlaer
525b-4f9f-8be...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com:
>
>
I find it revealing that your attitude towards gay marriage "...one must
take the hard line on this issue..." is similar in nature to the
attitudes of radical Islam towards Christians.
Isn't there enough intolerance in this world? Why can't you just live
and let live? How about if I decide to actively oppose Christianity
through my own actions? I'd probably be charged (and rightly so) with a
violation of civil rights. All gays want is equal protection under the
law and to be allowed their pursuit of happiness, just like the
constitution promises. Why can't you give it to them? How does the
marriage of two men or two women harm you?
This "hard line" against gay marriage is nothing more than that which
was once used an excuse for slavery: an interpretation-specific
biblically supported policy of bigotry, intolerance of difference, and
hatred.
It is precisely because of this pervasive attitude by Christians of
imposing their beliefs on others that I have taken an increasingly dim
view of Christianity. It would seem that I am not alone in that feeling.
Christianity is shrinking with fewer adopting its beliefs, particularly
among the young. I welcome this trend and hope that it continues.
Humanity is far better off without religion and the intolerance it
engenders.
thomas p.
On Sep 30, 8:19 pm, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> To disagree with them does not mean I hate or fear homosexuality. I
> happen to have a few friends that are homosexual and my feelings are
> well known to them. I neither hate nor fear anything about them, I
> just have no desire to share their values or lack of. I find it
> interesting that this same standard is used by all people.
> -------------------
>
> thomas p
>
> I don't hate or fear Catholics. I just have no desire to share their
> values
> or lack of. Do you see the analogy? Yes, I know: "That's different!" It
> isn't though. It is exactly the same, and you are a bigot.
"guardian Snow"
Every person is responsible for all the good within the scope of his
abilities, and for no more, and none can tell whose sphere is the
largest. Our Judgment's of others prevent us from seeing the good that
lies beyond appearances.
--------------------
thomas p
What incredible irony! What incredible chutzpah!
------------
"guardian Snow"
Love is the ability and willingness to allow
those that you care for to be what they choose for themselves without
any insistence that they satisfy you.
If having my own opinion makes me a bigot then by your definition
every person with one is a bigot in one form or another.
------------------
thomas p.
We both know that I did not call you a bigot because you have an opinion.
-----------------------
"guardian Snow"
-----------------
thomas p
Total evasion of the points of my post noted as well as a dishonest, unnoted
snip of nearly all the post. Instead you responded with the above bit of
self-righteous hypocrisy and deliberate misrepresentation.
last_per...@yahoo.com
> guardian Snow inscribed forevermore utilizing silicon chips::
>
> > What if, we lived in an alternate reality where homosexual marriage
> > was the excepted norm of society?
>
> Too bad you know nothing about the history of the Christian Church. For if
> you had,then you would be aware of the fact that you did not need to live
> in an alternate reality for that to be true. From its inception in the 4th
> century CE
CE and BCE never caught on with the mainstream, much to the chagrin
of cornholers, ZioNazis and other assorted Christ-haters.
Seeing either now is an immediate indicator that the writer is one
of the aforementioned, with the attendant lack of credibility.
thomas p.
On Sep 30, 8:19 pm, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> thomas p
>
> Some people are very silly and ignorant. Marriage is a legal contract.
"Argument is meant to reveal the truth, not to create it."
Edward de Bono
One that has social repercussions on society. Not just on the
individuals involved in the contract but on the entire definition of
what is a family that "in my opinion" is being rushed into place
without consideration as to how it redefines relationships.
If it were so "silly and ignorant", you wouldn't have bothered to post
a message. You want to assume it is your right to force me by law to
accept your argument as legitimate via "legal contract" which was
never made with me. How can you assume to redefine my understanding
of a natural relationship.
Civil Unions aren't enough, you seek to not only redefine
relationships for me but for my children as well and then wonder why
you have hit a wall of opposition.
-------------------------
thomas p
What utter nonsense. First of all I have done no redefining. Marriage is a
legal contract. Secondly I have not met any "wall of opposition"; like the
bigot you are you make assumptions about those who support everyone being
treated equally. Finally there is nothing in any of the existing or
proposed laws allowing same-sex marriage redefining anybody's relationships.
-------------------
thomas p
> An
> important principle for such contracts is that parties to the contract
> must
> be able to give informed consent. That is the reason for age of consent
> laws. Your above argument also assumes its conclusion. You are
> essentially saying that since same-sex marriage is bad there is the danger
> that it will lead to other bad things. It is only your opinion, and
> furthermore you cannot deny civil rights in a secular state unless you
> have
> a secular reason.
-------------------
"guardian Snow"
Civil rights assumes that you have had your rights refused based on
something that is beyond your control and clearly you have control
over where you place body parts, hopefully. I have already provided a
reason that was secular as you just parroted back in your rejection of
my logic.
--------------------
thomas p
The above is false. Freedom of religion is a civil right, and it is not
beyond one's control. You have provided no secular reason.
-----------
"guardian Snow"
What your argument wants to assert is that it is the "civil right" of
any minority to assert its will over that of the majority of society.
-----------------
thomas p
I did nothing remotely like that.
-------------------
"guardian Snow"
If this is the case then the Taliban should have the right to force
woman to ride in the back of the car, wear vales, ban television and
education to segments of society because they believe their cause is
from "Allah". Are they not a minority with "civil rights" issues?
Or...
Maybe it should be the right of the Communist to put in prison any
dissenters that promote Capitalism and Free Market Societies.
Maybe it should be the right of the Eco Warrior to bomb factories or
the right of the Anti abortionist to prevent those who practice this
from conducting business by blockading clinics and harassing the
staff.
In the end, the "Human Rights" debate assumes it is some form of
torcher by another segment of society to disagree but the reality is
that as individuals, we are always going to disagree on something and
at some stage in the rationalization of a law abiding nation, we must
have standards that define who and what we are.
I respect that you might be gay and I have no issue with it. Please
respect my right to have my own opinion without you feeling the need
to ram yours down my throat.
---------------------
thomas p
Since nobody suggested that you could not have an opinion the above is
absurd. You are not just expressing an opinion; you are the one who, like
the Taliban, wants to force your will on others, making your above charges
yet another great piece of irony.
I also note that you once again make assumptions about my sexual orientation
without any foundation. It has no relevance for the issue, but, you appear
to have difficulty understanding that someone could support civil rights for
homosexuals unless one was also a homosexual. You reveal your bigotry
with such wonderful clarity.
Uncle Vic
wrote:
> What if, we lived in an alternate reality where homosexual marriage
> was the excepted norm of society?
Did anyone see the season opener of Family Guy? It was all about a little
toy Stewie had which allowed travel between alternate universes. The first
one they visited was a universe where Christianity had never been invented.
It was just as I'd imagined...
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Separator of Church and Reason.
Convicted by Earthquack.
My modern calendar ends on 12/31/09. There are no days after that, so it's
obviously the date of the end of the world!
guardian Snow
> guardian Snow <mr_snow_pheo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:c773d53f-
> 525b-4f9f-8be0-ddafe4e35...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> I find it revealing that your attitude towards gay marriage "...one must
> take the hard line on this issue..." is similar in nature to the
> attitudes of radical Islam towards Christians.
>
> Isn't there enough intolerance in this world? Why can't you just live
> and let live?
Good question and the same applies in reverse. Why must you force
your values on me and my children by trying to redefine natural
relationships? How come I'm the one that must conform to your ideals
or be shouted down as a bigot? I'm not the one having parades down
the main street insisting that you obey me.
I have chosen to respect your right to believe what you want but
simply having your "alternative lifestyle" isn't enough.. no, you
won't be satisfied until you can ban bible passages as hate speech and
corrupt my children with your mind virus that says it is right to
force your views on other people.
The modern reality is that it is the sexual deviant that is parading
down main street shouting, “Gay Pride”. I now have to explain to my
children why the people dressed queerly and ultimately it is the
homosexual community that insist they must be in your face, shouting
you down, calling you a bigot simply because you don’t agree with
their un-natural behavior.
There is no “Straight pride” parade because it is a social norm and we
do not feel the need to flaunt sexuality in front of children down the
main streets of the world.
It is the Homosexual that believes he may label me to negate me
because he hates society and has chosen to rebel and overthrow by
faulty arguments. They want to force society to swallow their view of
how the world should be by changing the laws and making sure their
labels hang on anybody that dares to speak up.
The typical reply is, “you’re a bigot” to anybody that disagrees with
them as if they can’t control who they have sex with as if it’s at the
barrel of the gun that they practice their behavior.
I don’t care that men choose to be Gay but please, do not expect me to
endorse your behavior. You cannot bully me into accepting your
argument by trying to shout me down and label me.
I don’t hate you and I’m not afraid of your ramblings… I’ll keep my
kids in doors when you have your parades which to me are no better
than the Ku Klux Klan having parades down the main street trying to
impose their racist views on the majority of good people.
You have a minority opinion, get over it. Society has woke up to the
fact that, “like it or not” you want to force us to conform to your
perversion at the threat of the force of law.
The Homosexual yelling, “Bigot” is no different than the racist
yelling, “Nigger” at the man of color simply because he is different.
It is simply a label to negate the view of another human being.
The dark reality of the homosexual lobby that they refuse to admit is
they hate society which is why they must use “any means necessary” to
overthrow the will of the majority. The homosexuals hate me or
anybody that dares to hold their own opinion. They must label me to
negate me, less they be seen to be the ones teaching children by
example sexual behavior before they are old enough to even know what
the repercussions of it are.
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
To be a prisoner means to be defined as a member of a group for whom
the rules of what can be done to you, of what is seen as abuse of you,
are reduced as part of the definition of your status.
Catharine MacKinnon
If he who employs coercion against me could mould me to his purposes
by argument, no doubt he would. He pretends to punish me because his
argument is strong; but he really punishes me because his argument is
weak.
William Godwin
Argument is meant to reveal the truth, not to create it.
Edward de Bono
It is as absurd to argue men, as to torture them, into believing.
John Henry Newman
guardian Snow
> Since nobody suggested that you could not have an opinion the above is
> absurd.
You suggested that because my opinion is not yours, I'm a bigot.
> You are not just expressing an opinion; you are the one who, like
> the Taliban, wants to force your will on others, making your above charges
> yet another great piece of irony.
The MAJORITY have already spoken and said that Gay Marriage is
unacceptable. You are the one arguing that minorities must be allowed
by force of law to overthrow the majority.
Being Gay is NOT the social equivalent to being a man of color. You
can't control your skin color but you can control who you have sex
with or even if you have sex.
By your violent opposition, you have become the mental rapist trying
to force your ideals on those who really don't care what you do in the
privacy of your own home... just don't think I'm going to approve of
it when you parade it to my kids as a good alternative.
Ymton Emanlaer
451e-8ff9-d...@k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
> Why must you force
> your values on me and my children
Having "Christian" values forced on them is what gays have experienced in
the form of hatred, murder, beatings, and laws intended to marginalize and
persecute.
Your version of having values "forced" on you would seem to be limited to
having to explain to your kids that not everyone believes what you
believe.
> by trying to redefine natural
> relationships?
In nature, *MANY* animals have been observed in homosexual relationships.
You're the one redefining "natural relationships".
> How come I'm the one that must conform to your ideals
> or be shouted down as a bigot?
Ummmm...maybe because your ideals make you a bigot?
> I'm not the one having parades down
> the main street
Hmmmm...St. Patrick's Day parade, Millions of kids dress up in weird
costumes and beg for candy on Halloween...I'm sure I can come up with
more.
> insisting that you obey me.
LOLOL...yeah, I can see it now...guys dressed up in rainbows yelling "OBEY
ME! OBEY ME!"
>
> I have chosen to respect your right to believe what you want
Liar. If you respected my rights you wouldn't be trying to foist your
beliefs on me by invading an atheist forum and spouting your theist
garbage.
> but
> simply having your "alternative lifestyle" isn't enough.
"alternative lifestyle" is an expression that was an intentionally
insulting lie when it was first put forth. It has long been accepted, even
by the normally narrow-minded Catholic Church that homosexuality is an
inherent trait, not a choice. Your use of the phrase only serves to
indicate your bigoted intent and willful ignorance.
. no, you
> won't be satisfied until you can ban bible passages as hate speech
PSALM 137:9
"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the
stones."
DEUTERONOMY 21:18-21
"18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the
voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have
chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out
unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is
stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and
a drunkard.
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die:
so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and
fear."
1 Timothy 2:12 "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority
over the man, but to be in silence."
No hate speech here.
> and
> corrupt my children with your mind virus that says it is right to
> force your views on other people.
Who is the one forcing views upon another? You are. How is allowing two
people that love each other to marry and live together forcing anything on
you? It isn't going to do anything to you at all.
>
> The modern reality is that it is the sexual deviant that is parading
> down main street shouting, �Gay Pride�.
Sexual deviant: see "natural relationships" above. Also see the court
judgements against Catholic Priests for sexual abuse of children
> I now have to explain to my
> children why the people dressed queerly
See "Halloween" above.
> and ultimately it is the
> homosexual community that insist they must be in your face, shouting
> you down, calling you a bigot simply because you don�t agree
That's the first thing that you've said that's true. The reason that they
do this is because they're damned fed up with the persecution, bigotry an
social marginalizing that has been forced upon them for decades and
THEY'RE PISSED OFF!
> with
> their un-natural behavior.
*sigh*
Again: see above.
>
> There is no �Straight pride� parade because it is a social norm and we
> do not feel the need to flaunt sexuality in front of children down the
> main streets of the world.
By the use of the editorial "we", I assume you mean people like you. OK,
accepted. But you're not the only people in the world. Far from it.
The pictures on the web site referenced below are of a Japanese festival
of fertility called "Hounen Matsuri". The Japanese aren't hung up about
sexuality like Christians are.
http://actualidad-de-hoy.blogspot.com/2009/03/hounen-matsuri-el-festival-
del-pene.html
>
> It is the Homosexual that believes
So now you speak for all homosexuals?
...<snip of more BS>...
>
> I don�t care that men choose to be Gay but please, do not expect me to
> endorse your behavior.
Blatant liar once again. No one is asking you to endorse anything. All
they want is to be left alone and to live in peace the way that they want
to.
...<snip the rest of your inflamatory blah blah blah BS>...
I don't expect that you'll change your mind or manner. Just don't expect
recipients of your bigotry to remain silent either.
guardian Snow
> Liar. If you respected my rights you wouldn't be trying to foist your
> beliefs on me by invading an atheist forum and spouting your theist
> garbage.
I haven't said a word for religion and in fact if you actually read
the entire post you would see that I consider Christianity the mind
virus that fosters homosexuality.
Don't try to make this about religion.
William (nmn) Taylor, Esq
<mr_snow...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>�The propagandist's purpose is to make one set of people forget that
>certain other sets of people are human.�
>Aldous Huxley
>
>What if, we lived in an alternate reality where homosexual marriage
>was the excepted norm of society?
Easy one, the human race would cease to exist in about 78 years. The
time line, however, would be shortened considerably (most likely to 46
years) if the male-homo-couples continued to spread AIDS via their
inherent promiscuity and absolute refusal to practice safe sex as they
are currently doing.
Next question;
William (nmn) Taylor, Esq
I've have SOME BAD NEWS FOR YOU and then I have SOME MORE BAD NEWS
FOR YOU. Which do you want first?
BAD NEWS NO. 1
"What same-sex "marriage" has done to Massachusetts
It's far worse than most people realize
October 20, 2008
by Brian Camenker
For a 4-page printable version go here.
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.html
Anyone who thinks that same-sex �marriage� is a benign
eccentricity which won�t affect the average person should
consider what it has done in Massachusetts. It�s become a hammer
to force the acceptance and normalization of homosexuality on
everyone. And this train is moving fast. What has happened so
far is only the beginning.
On November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
announced its Goodridge opinion, ruling that it was
unconstitutional not to allow same-sex �marriage.� Six months
later, homosexual marriages began to be performed.
The public schools
The homosexual �marriage� onslaught in public schools across the
state started soon after the November 2003, court decision.
At my own children's high school there was a school-wide
assembly to celebrate same-sex �marriage� in early December,
2003. It featured an array of speakers, including teachers at
the school who announced that they would be �marrying� their
same-sex partners and starting families either through adoption
or artificial insemination. Literature on same-sex marriage �
how it is now a normal part of society � was handed out to the
students.
Within months it was brought into the middle schools. In
September, 2004, an 8th-grade teacher in Brookline, MA, told
National Public Radio that the marriage ruling had opened up the
floodgates for teaching homosexuality. �In my mind, I know that,
`OK, this is legal now.' If somebody wants to challenge me, I'll
say, `Give me a break. It's legal now,'� she told NPR. She added
that she now discusses gay sex with her students as explicitly
as she desires. For example, she said she tells the kids that
lesbians can have vaginal intercourse using sex toys.
By the following year it was in elementary school curricula.
Kindergartners were given picture books telling them that same-
sex couples are just another kind of family, like their own
parents. In 2005, when David Parker of Lexington, MA � a parent
of a kindergartner � strongly insisted on being notified when
teachers were discussing homosexuality or transgenderism with
his son, the school had him arrested and put in jail overnight.
Second graders at the same school were read a book, �King and
King�, about two men who have a romance and marry each other,
with a picture of them kissing. When parents Rob and Robin
Wirthlin complained, they were told that the school had no
obligation to notify them or allow them to opt-out their child.
In 2006 the Parkers and Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights
lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to
opt-out their elementary-school children when homosexual-related
subjects were taught. The federal judges dismissed the case.
The judges ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in
Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize
homosexual relationships to children, and that schools have no
obligation to notify parents or let them opt-out their children!
Acceptance of homosexuality had become a matter of good
citizenship!
Think about that: Because same-sex marriage is �legal�, a
federal judge has ruled that the schools now have a duty to
portray homosexual relationships as normal to children, despite
what parents think or believe!
In 2006, in the elementary school where my daughter went to
Kindergarten, the parents of a third-grader were forced to take
their child out of school because a man undergoing a sex-change
operation and cross-dressing was being brought into class to
teach the children that there are now �different kinds of
families.� School officials told the mother that her complaints
to the principal were considered �inappropriate behavior.�
Libraries have also radically changed. School libraries across
the state, from elementary school to high school, now have
shelves of books to normalize homosexual behavior and the
lifestyle in the minds of kids, some of them quite explicit and
even pornographic. Parents complaints are ignored or met with
hostility.
Over the past year, homosexual groups have been using taxpayer
money to distribute a large, slick hardcover book celebrating
homosexual marriage titled �Courting Equality� into every school
library in the state.
It�s become commonplace in Massachusetts schools for teachers to
prominently display photos of their same-sex �spouses� and
occasionally bring them to school functions. Both high schools
in my own town now have principals who are �married� to their
same-sex partners, whom they bring to school and introduce to
the students.
�Gay days� in schools are considered necessary to fight
�intolerance� which may exist against same-sex relationships.
Hundreds of high schools and even middle schools across the
state now hold �gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender
appreciation days�. They �celebrate� homosexual marriage and
move forward to other behaviors such as cross-dressing and
transsexuality. In my own town, a school committee member
recently announced that combating �homophobia� is now a top
priority.
Once homosexuality has been normalized, all boundaries will come
down. The schools are already moving on to normalizing
transgenderism (including cross-dressing and sex changes). The
state-funded Commission on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and
Transgender Youth includes leaders who are transsexuals.
Public health
The Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Public
Health is �married� to another man. In 2007 he told a crowd of
kids at a state-sponsored youth event that it�s �wonderful being
gay� and he wants to make sure there�s enough HIV testing
available for all of them.
Since homosexual marriage became �legal� the rates of HIV / AIDS
have gone up considerably in Massachusetts. This year public
funding to deal with HIV/AIDS has risen by $500,000. As the
homosexual lobby group MassEquality wrote to their supporters
after successfully persuading the Legislature to spend that
money: "With the rate of HIV infections rising dramatically in
Massachusetts, it's clear the fight against AIDS is far from
over."
Citing �the right to marry� as one of the �important challenges�
in a place where �it�s a great time to be gay�, the
Massachusetts Department of Public Health helped produce The
Little Black Book, Queer in the 21st Century, a hideous work of
obscene pornography which was given to kids at Brookline High
School on April 30, 2005. Among other things, it gives �tips�
to boys on how to perform oral sex on other males, masturbate
other males, and how to �safely� have someone urinate on you for
sexual pleasure. It also included a directory of bars in Boston
where young men meet for anonymous sex.
Domestic violence
Given the extreme dysfunctional nature of homosexual
relationships, the Massachusetts Legislature has felt the need
to spend more money every year to deal with skyrocketing
homosexual domestic violence. This year $350,000 was budgeted,
up $100,000 from last year.
Business
All insurance in Massachusetts must now recognize same-sex
�married� couples in their coverage. This includes auto
insurance, health insurance, life insurance, etc.
Businesses must recognize same-sex �married� couples in all
their benefits, activities, etc., regarding both employees and
customers.
The wedding industry is required serve the homosexual community
if requested. Wedding photographers, halls, caterers, etc., must
do same-sex marriages or be arrested for discrimination.
Businesses are often �tested� for tolerance by homosexual
activists. Groups of homosexual activists often go into
restaurants or bars and publicly kiss and fondle each other to
test whether the establishment demonstrates sufficient
�equality� � now that homosexual marriage is �legal�. In fact,
more and more overt displays of homosexual affection are seen in
public places across the state to reinforce "marriage equality".
Legal profession
The Massachusetts Bar Exam now tests lawyers on their knowledge
of same-sex "marriage" issues. In 2007, a Boston man, Stephen
Dunne, failed the Massachusetts bar exam because he refused to
answer the questions in it about homosexual marriage.
Issues regarding homosexual �families� are now firmly entrenched
in the Massachusetts legal system. In many firms, lawyers in
Massachusetts practicing family law must now attend seminars on
homosexual "marriage". There are also now several homosexual
judges overseeing the Massachusetts family courts.
Adoption of children to homosexual �married� couples
Homosexual �married� couples can now demand to be able to adopt
children the same as normal couples. Catholic Charities decided
to abandon handling adoptions rather submit to regulations
requiring them to allow homosexuals to adopt the children in
their care.
In 2006 the Massachusetts Department of Social Services (DSS)
honored two men �married� to each other as their �Parents of the
Year�. The men already adopted a baby through DSS (against the
wishes of the baby�s birth parents). According to news reports,
the day after that adoption was final DSS approached the men
about adopting a second child. Homosexuals now appear to be put
in line for adopting children ahead of heterosexual parents by
state agencies in Massachusetts.
Government mandates
In 2004, Governor Mitt Romney ordered Justices of the Peace to
perform homosexual marriages when requested or be fired. At
least one Justice of the Peace decided to resign.
Also thanks to Gov. Romney, marriage licenses in Massachusetts
now have �Party A and Party B� instead of �husband and wife.�
Romney did not have a legal requirement to do this; he did it on
his own. (See more on this below.)
Since homosexual relationships are now officially �normal�, the
Legislature now gives enormous tax money to homosexual activist
groups. In particular, the Massachusetts Commission on Gay
Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Youth is made up of the most
radical and militant homosexual groups which target children in
the schools. This year they are getting $700,000 of taxpayer
money to go into the public schools.
In 2008 Massachusetts changed the state Medicare laws to include
homosexual �married� couples in the coverage.
The public square
Since gay �marriage�, annual gay pride parades have become more
prominent. There are more politicians and corporations
participating, and even police organizations take part. And the
envelope gets pushed further and further. There is now a profane
�Dyke March� through downtown Boston, and recently a
�transgender� parade in Northampton that included bare-chested
women who have had their breasts surgically removed so they
could �become� men. Governor Patrick even marched with his �out
lesbian� 17-year old daughter in the 2008 Boston Pride event,
right behind a �leather� group brandishing a black & blue flag,
whips and chains!
The media
Boston media, particularly the Boston Globe newspaper, regularly
does feature stories and news stories portraying homosexual
�married� couples where regular married couples would normally
be used. It�s �equal�, they insist, so there must be no
difference in the coverage. Also, the newspaper advice columns
now deal with homosexual "marriage" issues, and how to properly
accept it.
A growing number of news reporters and TV anchors are openly
�married� homosexuals who march in the �gay pride� parades.
Is gay marriage actually legal in Massachusetts?
Like everywhere else in America, the imposition of same-sex
marriage on the people of Massachusetts was a combination of
radical, arrogant judges and pitifully cowardly politicians.
The Goodridge ruling resulted in a complete cave-in by
politicians of both parties on this issue. Same-sex �marriage�
is still illegal in Massachusetts. On November 18, 2003 the
court merely ruled that it was unconstitutional not to allow it,
and gave the Legislature six months to �take such action as it
may deem appropriate.� Note that the Massachusetts Constitution
strongly denies courts the power to make or change laws, or from
ordering the other branches to take any action. The constitution
effectively bans �judicial review� � a court changing or
nullifying a law. Thus, the court did not order anything to
happen; it simply rendered an opinion on that specific case. And
the Legislature did nothing. The marriage statutes were never
changed. However, against the advice of many, Gov. Romney took
it upon himself to alter the state's marriage licenses to say
"Party A and Party B" and order officials to perform same-sex
"weddings" if asked, though he had no legal obligation to do so.
Technically, same-sex marriages are still illegal in
Massachusetts.
Nevertheless, we are having to live with it. And furthermore,
this abdication of their proper constitutional roles by the
Legislature and Governor has caused a domino effect as "copycat"
rulings have been issued in California and Connecticut, with
other states fearful it will happen there.
In conclusion
Homosexual �marriage� hangs over society like a hammer with the
force of law. And it�s only just begun.
It�s pretty clear that the homosexual movement�s obsession with
marriage is not because large numbers of them actually want to
marry each other. Research shows that homosexual relationships
are fundamentally dysfunctional on many levels, and �marriage�
as we know it isn�t something they can achieve, or even desire.
(In fact, over the last three months, the Sunday Boston Globe�s
marriage section hasn�t had any photos of homosexual marriages.
In the beginning it was full of them.) This is about putting the
legal stamp of approval on homosexuality and imposing it with
force throughout the various social and political institutions
of a society that would never accept it otherwise. To the rest
of America: You've been forewarned."
BAD NEWS No.2
http://www.urbanministry.org/wiki/he-end-marriage-scandinavia
The End of Marriage in Scandinavia
Kurtz, Stanley. (2Feb04) �The End of Marriage in
Scandinavia: The "conservative case" for same-sex marriage collapses,�
The Weekly Standard, Volume 009, Issue 20.
OVERVIEW
According to this article a majority of children in Sweden and Norway
are born out of wedlock (60% of first-born children in Denmark).
Opponents of same-sex marriages note how rising births to unmarried
parents coincide with full approval of gay marriage in the past ten or
so years. Both trends, they say, point to a Nordic trend to separate
marriage from parenthood. There is not question, for them, whether
same-sex marriage ill undermine the institution of marriage; it�s
already evident that it has.
More precisely, it has further undermined the institution. The
separation of marriage from parenthood was increasing; gay marriage
has widened the separation. Out-of-wedlock birthrates were rising; gay
marriage has added to the factors pushing those rates higher. Instead
of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage, Scandinavian gay
marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated,
and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock
parenthood, is acceptable (the author of this article explains).
A study by Darren Spedale, an independent researcher, found that in
the six years following Denmark�s legalization of gay marriage
(followed by Norway in 1993 and Sweden in 1994), Denmark�s
heterosexual divorce rates climbed 10% while heterosexual divorce
rates declined by 12%. Journalist Andrew Sullivan and Yale law
professor William Eskridge Jr. made much of these statistics in
articles they wrote for the McGeorge Law Review. Sullivan�s article
was subtitled, �The case against ssame-sex marriage crumbles,� and
Eskridge wrote that Spedale�s study had exposed �the hysteria and
irresponsibility� of those predicting that gay marriage would
undermine marriage.
Conservatives continue their argument pointing out that Darren
Spedale�s unpublished paper hardly gets to the truth of marriage in
Scandinavia, in serious decline throughout the 1990s. In fact,
�marriage and divorce no longer mean what they used to.�
If marriage and divorce statistics look better in Denmark and the rest
of Scandinavia, it�s really �because the pool of married people has
been shrinking for some time.
You can�t divorce without first getting married. Moreover, a closer
look at Danish divorce in the post-gay marriage decade reveals
disturbing trends. Many Danes have stopped holding off divorce until
their kids are grown. And Denmark in the nineties saw a 25 percent
increase in cohabiting couples with children. With fewer parents
marrying, what used to show up in statistical tables as early divorce
is now the unrecorded breakup of a cohabiting couple with children.
What about Spedale's report that the Danish marriage rate increased 10
percent from 1990 to 1996? Again, the news only appears to be good.
First, there is no trend. Eurostat's just-released marriage rates for
2001 show declines in Sweden and Denmark (Norway hasn't reported).
Second, marriage statistics in societies with very low rates (Sweden
registered the lowest marriage rate in recorded history in 1997) must
be carefully parsed. In his study of the Norwegian family in the
nineties, for example, Christer Hyggen shows that a small increase in
Norway's marriage rate over the past decade has more to do with the
institution's decline than with any renaissance. Much of the increase
in Norway's marriage rate is driven by older couples "catching up."
These couples belong to the first generation that accepts rearing the
first born child out of wedlock. As they bear second children, some
finally get married. (And even this tendency to marry at the birth of
a second child is weakening.) As for the rest of the increase in the
Norwegian marriage rate, it is largely attributable to remarriage
among the large number of divorced.
The family dissolution rate is different from the divorce rate.
Because so many Scandinavians now rear children outside of marriage,
divorce rates are unreliable measures of family weakness. Instead, we
need to know the rate at which parents (married or not) split up.
Precise statistics on family dissolution are unfortunately rare. Yet
the studies that have been done show that throughout Scandinavia (and
the West) cohabiting couples with children break up at two to three
times the rate of married parents. So rising rates of cohabitation and
out-of-wedlock birth stand as proxy for rising rates of family
dissolution. And now that married parenthood has become a minority
phenomenon, it has lost the critical mass required to have socially
normative force.
According to Danish sociologists Wehner, Kambskard, and Abrahamson,
"Marriage is no longer a precondition for settling a family--neither
legally nor normatively. . . . What defines and makes the foundation
of the Danish family can be said to have moved from marriage to
parenthood."
The writer of this article concludes that �Scandinavia
has long been a bellwether of family change. Scholars take the Swedish
experience as a prototype for family developments that will, or could,
spread throughout the world.
QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION AND DISCUSSION
1. What relationships do you see among the following issues: the
strength of a society, the definition and strength of �family,� the
loosening of traditional morals, pre-marital cohabitation, rising
divorce rates, same-sex unions, and the welfare of children?
2. Do you take the more liberal or more conservative perspective
regarding sex, marriage and the raising of children? Why so?
3. What effect should religion and faith have on the morals/mores
and laws of a society?
IMPLICATIONS
1. We should do more than accept trends as expressions of what is
right and progress.
2. Sex, love and marriage need to be pondered individually and
discussed in the public, faith, and family arenas.
Dean Borgman cCYS
thomas p.
"William (nmn) Taylor, Esq" <william-n...@stanford.edu> skrev i
meddelelsen news:80g8c5pk1e6e9iiea...@4ax.com...
> how it is now a normal part of society - was handed out to the
> students.
>
> Within months it was brought into the middle schools. In
> September, 2004, an 8th-grade teacher in Brookline, MA, told
> National Public Radio that the marriage ruling had opened up the
> floodgates for teaching homosexuality. "In my mind, I know that,
> `OK, this is legal now.' If somebody wants to challenge me, I'll
> say, `Give me a break. It's legal now,'" she told NPR. She added
> that she now discusses gay sex with her students as explicitly
> as she desires. For example, she said she tells the kids that
> lesbians can have vaginal intercourse using sex toys.
>
> By the following year it was in elementary school curricula.
> Kindergartners were given picture books telling them that same-
> sex couples are just another kind of family, like their own
> of a kindergartner - strongly insisted on being notified when
The world can only hope. Thanks for the good news.
snip
thomas p.
On Oct 1, 2:37 am, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Since nobody suggested that you could not have an opinion the above is
> absurd.
"guardian Snow"
You suggested that because my opinion is not yours, I'm a bigot.
----------------------
thomas p
No I did no such thing. Please stop lying. It makes real discussion
impossible - unless that is your intention.
-----------------
thomas p
> You are not just expressing an opinion; you are the one who, like
> the Taliban, wants to force your will on others, making your above charges
> yet another great piece of irony.
"guardian Snow"
The MAJORITY have already spoken and said that Gay Marriage is
unacceptable. You are the one arguing that minorities must be allowed
by force of law to overthrow the majority.
-------------------
thomas p
Civil rights under a modern, democratic system belong to minorites and
majorities. In Saudi Arabia the majority agrees that women should be
excluded from public life and that Christianity should be forbidden. Is
that okay with you?
--------------------------
"guardian Snow"
Being Gay is NOT the social equivalent to being a man of color. You
can't control your skin color but you can control who you have sex
with or even if you have sex.
---------------------
thomas p
As I mentioned before you can also control what religion you belong to.
Would that justify outlawing, for example, all non-Christian religions?
-----------------
"guardian Snow"
By your violent opposition, you have become the mental rapist trying
to force your ideals on those who really don't care what you do in the
privacy of your own home...
----------------------
thomas p
What violence have I committed? My ideals in this particular issue are
expressed by the phrase "equality before the law".
------------------------
"guardian Snow"
just don't think I'm going to approve of
it when you parade it to my kids as a good alternative.
------------------------
"guardian Snow"
Parade what in front of your kids? Please stop making assumptions about me
personally, and please stop lying about me.
thomas p.
Where do you get your nonsense from?
guardian Snow
> Civil rights under a modern, democratic system belong to minorites and
> majorities. In Saudi Arabia the majority agrees that women should be
> excluded from public life and that Christianity should be forbidden. Is
> that okay with you?
Absolutely. I think that Christianity is a wretched mind virus that
plagues humanity. On the other hand, besides my opinion of
Christianity, I respect that people have a right to disagree with me,
unlike you.
Do you think it is your job now to go invade Saudi Arabia and set them
straight and promote Jesus? :))
Ymton Emanlaer
ec840f...@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com:
OK, so it's not about religion. It's about persecution and bigotry which
typically finds its roots in religion.
guardian Snow
> OK, so it's not about religion. It's about persecution and bigotry which
> typically finds its roots in religion.
So what religion is yours that you think its your right to force your
belief on me and my children?
I have no need or desire, hatred or care of what you believe... keep
it. Why must people insist on sexualizing everything? Indoctrinating
children in schools, parading up and down the streets.. If you wanted
to go pound some bum.. have at it.. trust me.. I'm not going to be
your judge and to be really honest.. I don't want to know about it.
Do you understand that?
Gay people are their own worst enemies because they assume that people
want to know what goes on in your bedroom... leave it there and stop
thinking I'm a bigot because you have a filthy practice.
I'll teach my kids.. you teach yours
Ymton Emanlaer
bf0f-d98...@y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
> On Oct 2, 1:04�am, Ymton Emanlaer <gaq...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> OK, so it's not about religion. It's about persecution and bigotry
which
>> typically finds its roots in religion.
>
> So what religion is yours that you think its your right to force your
> belief on me and my children?
>
Ummm...see above "It's not about religion"
Regardless, no one should have the right to force their practices upon
another. No group should be denied the rights given to the majority.
Straights, the majority, are allowed to marry (in this context: legally
bond and become a couple in the eyes of the law). Gays, the minority, are
denied the right to marry. This is a right given to the majority and
denied to the minority.
If gay marriage could be shown to be materially harmful to straight
marriage, then an argument could be made that it should be denied. There
is no such material harm that I am aware of. Therefor, gay marriage should
be allowed.
Please tell me what material harm could result from allowing gay marriage.
> I have no need or desire, hatred or care of what you believe... keep
> it.
Good. Same here.
> Why must people insist on sexualizing everything?
Sex is simply becoming less and less a taboo subject and so it is
discussed more openly and frequently. It's not that people are insisting
on sexualizing everything; it's just that you have a sensitivity to it and
perceive it as everything being sexualized. There is no conspiracy to
sexualize everything just to offend you.
> Indoctrinating
> children in schools,
If the curriculum offends you, there are options: Go to the school board,
file a lawsuit, organize with others of like mind, home schooling.
> parading up and down the streets.
Parades require parade permits. Go the your city council and request that
the permits not be issued.
If you don't like what people are wearing in the streets, get your local
laws changed to prohibit what you don't like.
If you find that you can't get any results from your local government
because you're in the minority...welcome to the world that gays have lived
in for decades. Move.
>
> Gay people are their own worst enemies because they assume that people
> want to know what goes on in your bedroom...
Uh....since when? Give an example.
And even if that is true (it isn't), gays have a more legitimate beef in
that straights force gays to know what goes on in their (straight)
bedrooms because the OVERWHELMING majority of sexuality depicted in the
media is heterosexual.
> leave it there and stop
> thinking I'm a bigot because you have a filthy practice.
LOL...you're so convincing that you're not a bigot. Archie Bunker would be
proud.
MarkA
> On Oct 1, 1:43 am, Ymton Emanlaer <gaq...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> guardian Snow <mr_snow_pheo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:c773d53f-
>> 525b-4f9f-8be0-ddafe4e35...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>> I find it revealing that your attitude towards gay marriage "...one must
>> take the hard line on this issue..." is similar in nature to the
>> attitudes of radical Islam towards Christians.
>>
>> Isn't there enough intolerance in this world? Why can't you just live
>> and let live?
>
> Good question and the same applies in reverse. Why must you force
> your values on me and my children by trying to redefine natural
> relationships?
Here's some breaking news, Skippy.....nobody's trying to "force their
values on you". They just want the same rights as heterosexuals. Pretty
radical, eh? As far as "forcing values on your children", we live in a
society that provides equal rights for people, regardless of their skin
color, religion, national origin, or even (gasp) sexual orientation. If
you like, you can teach your kids to hate gays, or blacks, or Jews, but
they must treat them as they would anyone else.
> How come I'm the one that must conform to your ideals or be shouted down
> as a bigot? I'm not the one having parades down the main street
> insisting that you obey me.
You don't listen to much talk radio, do you?
>
> I have chosen to respect your right to believe what you want but simply
> having your "alternative lifestyle" isn't enough.. no, you won't be
> satisfied until you can ban bible passages as hate speech and corrupt my
> children with your mind virus that says it is right to force your views
> on other people.
>
> The modern reality is that it is the sexual deviant that is parading
> down main street shouting, “Gay Pride”. I now have to explain to my
> children why the people dressed queerly and ultimately it is the
> homosexual community that insist they must be in your face, shouting you
> down, calling you a bigot simply because you don’t agree with their
> un-natural behavior.
It turned out that sitting quietly in the corner waiting to be recognized
wasn't working.
>
> There is no “Straight pride” parade because it is a social norm and
> we do not feel the need to flaunt sexuality in front of children down
> the main streets of the world.
The majority generally doesn't have to fight against the oppression of the
minority.
>
> It is the Homosexual that believes he may label me to negate me because
> he hates society and has chosen to rebel and overthrow by faulty
> arguments. They want to force society to swallow their view of how the
> world should be by changing the laws and making sure their labels hang
> on anybody that dares to speak up.
>
> The typical reply is, “you’re a bigot” to anybody that disagrees
> with them as if they can’t control who they have sex with as if it’s
> at the barrel of the gun that they practice their behavior.
If you have a coherent reason why homosexuals should not be allowed to
live their lives with the same rights as heterosexuals, we'd all be keen
to hear it. So far, the answer every time has been, "Because I'm a bigot."
>
> I don’t care that men choose to be Gay but please, do not expect me to
> endorse your behavior. You cannot bully me into accepting your argument
> by trying to shout me down and label me.
>
> I don’t hate you and I’m not afraid of your ramblings… I’ll keep
> my kids in doors when you have your parades which to me are no better
> than the Ku Klux Klan having parades down the main street trying to
> impose their racist views on the majority of good people.
>
> You have a minority opinion, get over it. Society has woke up to the
> fact that, “like it or not” you want to force us to conform to your
> perversion at the threat of the force of law.
>
> The Homosexual yelling, “Bigot” is no different than the racist
> yelling, “Nigger” at the man of color simply because he is
> different. It is simply a label to negate the view of another human
> being.
>
> The dark reality of the homosexual lobby that they refuse to admit is
> they hate society which is why they must use “any means necessary”
> to overthrow the will of the majority. The homosexuals hate me or
> anybody that dares to hold their own opinion. They must label me to
> negate me, less they be seen to be the ones teaching children by example
> sexual behavior before they are old enough to even know what the
> repercussions of it are.
Homosexuals don't "hate society"; they just don't like assholes like you.
>
> Shalom,
> *´¨)
> ¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
> (¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
>
> To be a prisoner means to be defined as a member of a group for whom the
> rules of what can be done to you, of what is seen as abuse of you, are
> reduced as part of the definition of your status. Catharine MacKinnon
>
> If he who employs coercion against me could mould me to his purposes by
> argument, no doubt he would. He pretends to punish me because his
> argument is strong; but he really punishes me because his argument is
> weak.
> William Godwin
>
> Argument is meant to reveal the truth, not to create it. Edward de Bono
>
> It is as absurd to argue men, as to torture them, into believing. John
> Henry Newman
--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock
guardian Snow
> > There is no “Straight pride” parade because it is a social norm and we
> > do not feel the need to flaunt sexuality in front of children down the
> > main streets of the world.
>
> By the use of the editorial "we", I assume you mean people like you. OK,
> accepted. But you're not the only people in the world. Far from it.
>
> The pictures on the web site referenced below are of a Japanese festival
> of fertility called "Hounen Matsuri". The Japanese aren't hung up about
> sexuality like Christians are.
Christians are half the problem but you only show me that you didn't
read my initial post. Christianity is the mind virus that promotes
the ideas that homosexuality is a "forbidden fruit" when in reality
all it is *to me* is just a disgusting sexualization of what should be
your private practice.
I honestly couldn't care what you do in the privacy of your own home
and don't take this wrong.. Christians and society are just as much to
hold accountable on the issue of sexualizing children. I can't go
into the supermarket without seeing picture of half naked woman at the
counter... so please don't think that Gays are alone in my little rant
against the loose morality of society.
To me, the deeper issues involved are the very concept that you must
bring your sexuality to the public forum at all. The behaviour of
homosexuals during their "pride" parades is actually one of the very
reasons why your cause will NEVER succeed without forcing your lack of
morals down the throats of the rest of society by force of "contract
(marriage) laws" in the same way that trade agreements undermine
national sovereignty.
Christians are equally to blame if not more so then homosexuals in
being willing and eager participants in the degradation of social
morals.
Isn't it ironic that they will condemn you to hell for 6 days a week
and then say, "God forgives you" after you make your donation at the
local church?
The reality is that without "Christian" participation in sexualizing
society via media, advertising, pornography... the majority of
problems would disappear overnight and the homosexual marriage issue
wouldn't even be considered a problem.
This thread is titled, "Homosexual Marriage to the Church" because in
my view it is Christianity that is joined to the spread of harlotry.
Maybe you didn't read this part:
Being Christian means that I get to blame all of society’s woes on the
Gays, Atheist, Muslim, Buddhist or Jew (or anybody not Christian) and
never examine my own behavior. I can blame all the fags for the
destruction of western culture six days a week and tell them on Sunday
when they make their donation to my church, “God forgives them”.
Believing the Christian dogma means I get to call anybody else
“antichrist” and judge them if they don’t agree with me without any
blame resting on my own shoulders because “Jesus is my righteousness”.
I am now free to impose moral authority on anybody else and condemn
them to hell because Jesus made me the judge of all mankind.
1Co 6:3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things
that pertain to this life?
Well, I’m not your judge but you can take your Christian dogma and get
stuffed! If your deity doesn’t condemn you for not keeping the
Sabbath, he’s not condemning fags either, so bend over and take it
like a man. You can’t teach the Torah is abolished and then quote:
Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman,
both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put
to death; their blood shall be upon them.
You can’t teach the “end of law” and expect people to subscribe to Rom
1:27 And then teach men that your deity forgives you for all your sins
just by believing it to be so. It’s no wonder Jeffrey Dalmer the
cannibal murderer was a Christian! It’s also no wonder the Catholics
and Anglicans have homosexual ministers (but not woman)!
Americans should not hate the homosexuals because it is their beliefs
that have fostered them and nurtured them into the “community” that
they are. Hating homosexuals and violence against these people that
have been created by your own creation is evidence that you hate
yourselves and your own religion that has allowed this belief of the
“forbidden fruit” to flourish, is it a wonder that the United States
number one export to the world is pornography and violence?
Simply picking and choosing which moral code you want to uphold and
then telling everybody that Christ forgives you when you do is the
invitation to eat and swallow death. As you examine the political
landscape of division in America, it saddens me that the vast
majority, only seek to be the right in judging others rather than
judging themselves first.
The next time you decry homosexual marriage, remember it was your
religion and your teachings that fostered it. You did it not because
you followed Jesus but because you followed apostle Paul and YOU
preached against the law of the Torah!
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua <-- please join
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/messianic_Yehoshua/
Mat 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of
thorns, or figs of thistles?
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
Remember, a real decision is measured by the fact that you've taken
new action. If there's no action, you haven't truly decided.
Tony Robbins
Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path
and leave a trail. Though we travel the world over to find the
beautiful, we must carry it with us or we find it not.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
http://www.isr-messianic.org/ <- download scriptures free
guardian Snow
> > Good question and the same applies in reverse. Why must you force
> > your values on me and my children by trying to redefine natural
> > relationships?
>
> Here's some breaking news, Skippy.....nobody's trying to "force their
> values on you". They just want the same rights as heterosexuals. Pretty
> radical, eh?
You have them. The same laws that apply to me apply to you. Your not
seeking "the same rights", you are seeking special recognition of your
behaviour as a protected right.
thomas p.
"guardian Snow" <snowp...@eck.net.au> skrev i meddelelsen
news:3940cfd1-1893-4869...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
----------------------------
No homosexuals are merely seeking the same rights. That you are unable to
see that is your problem. Further, regardless of what you have claimed, you
are hardly part of the majority, and the numbers opposing same-sex marriage
are steadily decreasing.
guardian Snow
> "guardian Snow" <snowpheo...@eck.net.au> skrev i meddelelsennews:3940cfd1-1893-4869...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
You're right, thank you for sharing that with me. I hope you have a
wonderful day.
MarkA
So all this flap about "protecting the sanctity of marriage" was just a
bad dream I had last night? THAT's a relief! For a while I thought I was
living in a country where heterosexuals could enjoy certain legal
entitlements of marriage that were denied to homosexual couples. Thanks
for setting me straight! (no pun intended).
singin4free
>
> Mat 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of
> thorns, or figs of thistles?
>
> Shalom,
> *´¨)
> ¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
> (¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
>
> Remember, a real decision is measured by the fact that you've taken
> new action. If there's no action, you haven't truly decided.
> Tony Robbins
>
> Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path
> and leave a trail. Though we travel the world over to find the
> beautiful, we must carry it with us or we find it not.
> Ralph Waldo Emerson
>
> http://www.isr-messianic.org/ <- download scriptures free
There were homosexuals a long time before there were Christians. Look
at the society Christianity grew up in. It was a counter to the
culture of the time which included all sorts of lasciviousness,
idolatry, fornication, impurity, and yes, homosexuality. For the
Greeks and Romans it was part of their culture, and even emperors
flaunted their relationships. Then came the gospel - and the society
changed. Wherever the gospel was preached, turning from sin to God was
the first word. Christians were persecuted because they preached
against the norms of the society, not just immorality but especially
abandoning pagan gods for the worship of the one true God of the Jews,
by faith in his Son Jesus the Messiah. As gentiles turned in droves to
the Son of God, the ideal of life changed from self-pleasing to
pleasing God. The Jews and the Christians were in agreement on the
essential moral standards, as opposed to the pagans. Today is no
different. Snow bases his warped theory on the idea that Christians
preach cheap grace. That has never been true and is not true now.
Grace is what brings many who otherwise would feel unworthy of God's
love to the foot of the cross, to accept God's forgiveness, to be
changed into new creatures, to live a holy life. The mountain of the
Law is ominous to those who would seek to be saved by works without
the benefit of the blood of Christ. And indeed it may fall on them
when they fail. But in his great love, God has shown us mercy by his
Son.
guardian Snow
> On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 21:12:39 -0700, guardian Snow wrote:
> > On Oct 2, 5:13 am, MarkA <t...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Good question and the same applies in reverse. Why must you force
> >> > your values on me and my children by trying to redefine natural
> >> > relationships?
>
> >> Here's some breaking news, Skippy.....nobody's trying to "force their
> >> values on you". They just want the same rights as heterosexuals. Pretty
> >> radical, eh?
>
> > You have them. The same laws that apply to me apply to you. Your not
> > seeking "the same rights", you are seeking special recognition of your
> > behaviour as a protected right.
>
> So all this flap about "protecting the sanctity of marriage" was just a
> bad dream I had last night?
Yep. Go back to sleep.
> THAT's a relief! For a while I thought I was
> living in a country where heterosexuals could enjoy certain legal
> entitlements of marriage that were denied to homosexual couples.
Hmmm, Legal entitlements... what an interesting thing you quest for.
My journey is about justice but our vision of how we should raise our
children is clearly different. Expect me to continue to disagree with
you and hopefully we can respect each other at the end of the day.
I wish you all the best in your quest. I have bigger problems to deal
with and see you only as a symptom of a greater evil.
If your quest was truly about love, you would put others before
yourself.
> Thanks
> for setting me straight! (no pun intended).
With love and respect for all people of a different view, hopefully we
can agree to disagree.
thomas p.
--------------------
thomas p
Think nothing of it. Too bad you are unable to accept reality, but it will
not go away.
thomas p.
----------------
thomas p
As long as everyone follows your rules you will be happy. Hypocrite.
guardian Snow
> thomas p
>
> As long as everyone follows your rules you will be happy. Hypocrite.
Not my rules. You seem to think the 61 percent of California voters
that rejected homosexual marriage don't count as human beings with a
valid opinion. You can be angry about the fact that other people find
your behaviour objectionable and would rather you keep it private or
you can learn to respect that people aren't always going to agree.
My guess is that you are going to continue to say people are bigots
because they don't care for the way some elements of society.. not
just people who practice homosexuality behave.
As always... you label me to negate me.
Ymton Emanlaer
denied marriage.
I don't care what your religious beliefs are or are not. I don't care if you
choose to adhere to vitorian era ideas about sexuality. All I care about is
the inequity imposed upon gays and others due to intolerance of the fact that
they're different from the majority.
Since you seem to be incapable or unwilling to see the existence of this
inequity, there is no point in further conversation.
guardian Snow
I see the difference, not inequity. I see that you become your own
roadblock by screaming fowl play and insisting that others conform to
your view of inequity.
True inequity is the person starving to death in Africa as we sit here
bantering like children about things that in the greater scheme of
things has no relevance on whether or not you are going to be with
your lover. Real problems are things like half a million people in
India having no access to flushing toilets and a entire caste system
of "untouchables" that clean up poop for a living.
“A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing
left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.”
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
The real problem is that everybody is so busy caring about only
themselves and what they perceive as a problem...
Their are a lot more real problems plaguing the world. Be a solution,
not a contributor.
I wish you well in your walk.
"A single event can awaken within us a stranger totally unknown to us.
To live is to be slowly born."
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
For true love is inexhaustible; the more you give, the more you have.
And if you go to draw at the true fountainhead, the more water you
draw, the more abundant is its flow.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
A test of a people is how it behaves toward the old. It is easy to
love children. Even tyrants and dictators make a point of being fond
of children. But the affection and care for the old, the incurable,
the helpless are the true gold mines of a culture.
Abraham Joshua Heschel
Respond directly:
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/messianic_Yehoshua/
guardian Snow
> The main point to which I've been speaking is the inequity of gays being
> denied marriage.
Allow me to say that what you are speaking about is simply a perceived
problem. It is a symptom of the greater injustice of modern society,
not the real problem.
A real problem is that homosexual men are dieing without compassion
and without access to health care that could be provided by their
partners.
With that said, Why must people be married to get the "family rate" on
a health care plan? If I want to provide health care for anybody ...
not my wife, as long as I am willing to pay the higher premium and
absorb the cost, why must it only be for legally recognized spouses?
Shouldn't be the same if I include homeless Joe off the street?
Shouldn't I be allowed to carry any person on my health care plan I
deem fit? The real problem is in corporate greed and in the very
word, "entitlement". Nobody is entitled to anything but compassion
and I find it disturbing that our medical community is such a poison
pill mixture of government regulations.
To that end, I don't think it's the medical community but the
government competition against it's own citizens that drives cost to
the point of it being unaffordable for the average system.
The government poisons the well and then comes with the cure in the
form a corporate health care and vaccines that don't really help.
But that is just my thoughts...
William (nmn) Taylor, Esq
wrote:
Common knowledge. You should read something other than homo-porn mags,
am...@seas7.e4word.com
You offer up another atheist myth. Persecution and bigotry which
atheism claims finds root in religion does no such thing -- the root
of persecution and bigotry is in human nature. Atheists are just as
capable and perhaps even more so than are those of the several
religions of demonstrating the behaviors of persecution and bigotry.
You stand corrected. Accept the truth and relinquish another myth.
am...@seas7.e4word.com
<gaq...@gmail.com> wrote:
>If gay marriage could be shown to be materially harmful to straight
>marriage, then an argument could be made that it should be denied. There
>is no such material harm that I am aware of. Therefor, gay marriage should
>be allowed.
Homosexuals are not concerned about marriage as an institution. They
only want to gain access so that it can be used as another step up the
ladder of deception they are using in their attempt to be recognized
as "normal" when they are far from it. Normal people don't knowingly
and wilfully continue for more than a quarter of a century a behavior
known spread a deadly disease.
That is exactly what male homosexuals have done and continue to
do to this day and they have made NO EFFORT to abate the behavior.
Accept the fact that you have made yourself, by your inherent sexual
promiscuity a burden on our society. That you contribute nothing to
the scheme of mankind and that should homosexuality vanish from the
face of the earth in the next
instant it would not be missed.
William (nmn) Taylor, Esq
>Homosexuals don't "hate society"; they just don't like assholes like you.
CORRECTION: Homosexuals aka gays love ass holes. It's the primary
reason that they have been the No.1 vector of HIV/AIDS in the US since
the beginning of the epidemic in 1980. A reasonable person not
enamored of ass holes would have noticed the connection between ass
hole loving and the spread of HIV/AIDS. But then homosexuals are no
reasonable people were they they wouldn't love ass holes and would
have abandoned the promiscuousness and unsafe sex acts that has
prolonged the HIV/AIDS problem in the US. Homosexual males, though
they represent less than 5% of the general population, are responsible
for more than 50% of the AIDS cases in the US every year.
Heterosexuals males who make up almost 50% of the population account
for about 19% of the AIDS cases. Does that give you a clue as to where
the AIDS epidemic problem lies in the US?
William (nmn) Taylor, Esq
wrote:
>
But the number of states passing amendments to the Constitution
proclaiming marriage to be between a man and a woman is steadily
INCREASING!
Kadaitcha Man
> Homosexuals don't "hate society"; they just don't like assholes
You don't get out much, do you?
--
Ubuntu 9.04 (2.6.28-15)
William (nmn) Taylor, Esq
Just as with most rights you must exhibit a certain behavior to be
entitled to that right. You don't want to comply with the required
behavior but you still try to cop the right. You're shysters and
four-flushers.
Artcinco
Kadaitcha Man <an...@no.email> wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:13:45 -0400, MarkA <to...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > Homosexuals don't "hate society"; they just don't like assholes
>
> You don't get out much, do you?
....noticing that everyone is AVOIDING you?
Kadaitcha Man
What leap of insane logik do you suppose it is that causes you to exclude
yourself from the set of "everyone"?
--
Ubuntu 9.04 (2.6.28-15)
Artcinco
Kadaitcha Man <an...@no.email> wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 02:32:43 -0400, Artcinco wrote:
>
> > In article <3663k8....@news.alt.net>,
> > Kadaitcha Man <an...@no.email> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:13:45 -0400, MarkA <to...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Homosexuals don't "hate society"; they just don't like assholes
> >>
> >> You don't get out much, do you?
> >
> > ....noticing that everyone is AVOIDING you?
>
> What leap of insane logik do you suppose it is that causes you to exclude
> yourself from the set of "everyone"?
I avoid you also you LOSER
It is assholes like you who are ruining society for normal people
thomas p.
Common knowledge? Ah well then.
thomas p.
<am...@seas7.e4word.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:m49gc55elvvcfn4qd...@4ax.com...
Corrected by your unsupported assertions? You must think a lot of yourself.
thomas p.
<am...@seas7.e4word.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:dm9gc5tu9f8p7s0gv...@4ax.com...
The above is an unsupported, hate-filled rant by a person who insists he is
not a bigot or a homophobe.
thomas p.
As are the states and nations allowing same-sex marriage. Furthermore the
majority of people under 30 do not oppose same-sex marriage. These
developments are not surprising, since opposition is based on ignorance,
fear and bigotry. In another generation people will have a hard time
understanding what the problem was, and same-sex marriage will be common.
Jewdas
Where in the headers of this group, do you see anything about "Faggots
Welcome here"? Do your sodomizing elsewhere.
>
>
guardian Snow
> >> Homosexuals are not concerned about marriage as an institution. They
> >> only want to gain access so that it can be used as another step up the
> >> ladder of deception they are using in their attempt to be recognized
> >> as "normal" when they are far from it. Normal people don't knowingly
> >> and wilfully continue for more than a quarter of a century a behavior
> >> known spread a deadly disease.
> >> That is exactly what male homosexuals have done and continue to
> >> do to this day and they have made NO EFFORT to abate the behavior.
> >> Accept the fact that you have made yourself, by your inherent sexual
> >> promiscuity a burden on our society. That you contribute nothing to
> >> the scheme of mankind and that should homosexuality vanish from the
> >> face of the earth in the next
> >> instant it would not be missed.
>
> > The above is an unsupported, hate-filled rant by a person who insists he is
> > not a bigot or a homophobe.
>
< Where in the headers of this group, do you see anything about
"Faggots
> Welcome here"? Do your sodomizing elsewhere.
This is cross posted to several other groups because I wanted a range
of opinions.
alt.messianic.yeshua, soc.culture.jewish, alt.atheism,
alt.journalism.gay-press, alt.christnet.evangelical
Christians, Jews, Messianic, Homosexuals and Atheism.. I thought it
would be a good cross section of society.
Kadaitcha Man
Apparently you lie.
> It is assholes like you who are ruining society for normal people
--
Ubuntu 9.04 (2.6.28-15)
thomas p.
"Jewdas" <Jew...@circumcision.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:7ir1vmF...@mid.individual.net...
Oh look another loon.
am...@seas7.e4word.com
wrote:
>
Look around you! The proof of what I have said is evident to anyone
cognizant enough to see it. By the way, the sun will rise in the east
tomorrow. Do you want me to post something to support that or would
you just like to step out side early in the am and see it for
yourself. It would be excellent training in helping you see things
that are glaringly obvious to other people but seem to fly right over
your head,
am...@seas7.e4word.com
wrote:
>
Did you see something in my post that wasn't true? If you did please
point it out otherwise your claim that I am a bigot and a homophobe is
nothing more than a silent scream of frustration.
William (nmn) Taylor, Esq
wrote:
You are lying to your self in frustration. Forty states now have
Constitutional amendments that state very clearly that a marriage can
only be between one man and one woman and several other now have bills
pending that will make the same amendment to their Constitution. Give
it up -- It's not going to happen on a large scale and will isolated
to a few 'backward liberal village states' in the Northeast.
am...@seas7.e4word.com
wrote:
>
>"Jewdas" <Jew...@circumcision.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>news:7ir1vmF...@mid.individual.net...
>> thomas p. wrote:
(...)
>> Where in the headers of this group, do you see anything about "Faggots
>> Welcome here"? Do your sodomizing elsewhere.
>
>Oh look another loon.
Cried the bigot
guardian Snow
> On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 16:41:55 +0200, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >"Jewdas" <Jew...@circumcision.com> skrev i meddelelsen
> >news:7ir1vmF...@mid.individual.net...
> >> thomas p. wrote:
>
> (...)
>
> >> Where in the headers of this group, do you see anything about "Faggots
> >> Welcome here"? Do your sodomizing elsewhere.
>
> >Oh look another loon.
>
< Cried the bigot
Bigot
BIG'OT, n.
1. A person who is obstinately and unreasonably wedded to a particular
religious creed, opinion, practice or ritual.
Bigot... Aren't we all. You really shouldn't cry bigot all the time
because you are wedded to your particular opinion also and by
definition, a bigot also.
I think it comes do to the fact that you are afraid of normal
relationships and think that being in rebellion of the natural order
of life, maybe you think it's cool. Maybe you like thinking that your
a victim being persecuted which makes you not much different then most
Christians going around calling people anti-christ and blasphemer.
Name calling is the last bastion of the man who has a weak argument.
Buddha once said, “When one has the feeling of dislike for evil, when
one feels tranquil, one finds pleasure in listening to good teachings;
when one has these feelings and appreciates them, one is free of
fear.”
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
“All that we are is the result of what we have thought. If a man
speaks or acts with an evil thought, pain follows him. If a man speaks
or acts with a pure thought, happiness follows him, like a shadow that
never leaves him. All wrong-doing arises because of mind. If mind is
transformed can wrong-doing remain?”
Buddha
thomas p.
<am...@seas7.e4word.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:517jc5dmrsql056pv...@4ax.com...
By the way, you still have provided no evidence. Repeating your claim and
asserting that everyone knows it is true is not evidence.
thomas p.
<am...@seas7.e4word.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:h08jc59g5un1mqu6h...@4ax.com...
Weak, very weak. On the other hand I suppose Goebbells would have called
anybody who dislike Nazis a bigot.
thomas p.
On Oct 5, 6:30 pm, a...@seas7.e4word.com wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 16:41:55 +0200, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >"Jewdas" <Jew...@circumcision.com> skrev i meddelelsen
> >news:7ir1vmF...@mid.individual.net...
> >> thomas p. wrote:
>
> (...)
>
> >> Where in the headers of this group, do you see anything about "Faggots
> >> Welcome here"? Do your sodomizing elsewhere.
>
> >Oh look another loon.
>
< Cried the bigot
Bigot
BIG'OT, n.
1. A person who is obstinately and unreasonably wedded to a particular
religious creed, opinion, practice or ritual.
Bigot... Aren't we all. You really shouldn't cry bigot all the time
because you are wedded to your particular opinion also and by
definition, a bigot also.
I think it comes do to the fact that you are afraid of normal
relationships and think that being in rebellion of the natural order
of life, maybe you think it's cool. Maybe you like thinking that your
a victim being persecuted which makes you not much different then most
Christians going around calling people anti-christ and blasphemer.
Name calling is the last bastion of the man who has a weak argument.
thomas p
�
You are the one with no argument. I have merely pointed that out. Talking
about name calling, I notice that you are still implying that I am
homosexual. We both know that that is meant as a personal attack (only a
bigot would think it effective), which you would not have to use if you had
anything to offer besides your bigotry.
thomas p.
<am...@seas7.e4word.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:dd7jc5t7ndgkvrtvu...@4ax.com...
I wonder what you think I am frustrated by. I do not care to go through
each of your hysterical claims. The first sentence will be sufficient:
"Homosexuals are not concerned about marriage as an institution."
Since you do not read minds, you have no way of know that. Most of the
rest amounts to you declaring that you do not like homosexuals and
generalized insults concerning their behavior. Essentially your entire
post was a lie.
thomas p.
How many states allowed same-sex marriage 10 years ago? I don't need to lie
to myself. I merely make observations about object facts, and no matter how
it turns out I personally do not lose anything.
guardian Snow
> "guardian Snow" <snowpheo...@eck.net.au> skrev i meddelelsennews:3ad42934-fe53-40ba...@w37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
True. I didn't post to make an argument, I made a statement which you
disagreed with. In order for you to actually have a valid point, you
must provide the argument instead of just calling me and everybody
that post to you a bigot.
What I find interesting is that You seem to think that if you call
everybody bigot, it grants you some type of moral authority which only
reside in that lie you tell yourself. In other words Thomas, you are
a legend in your own mind telling lies to yourself to boost your own
apathetic ego.
Christians and homosexuals in this sense, seem to have a lot in
common.. They are essencially people all infected with the same
mental virus that precludes them from examining their own behaviour.
They think if they hang a label on other people, this makes their
behaviour better.
"A dog is not considered a good dog because he is a good barker. A man
is not considered a good man because he is a good talker."
Buddha
I called you a homosexual because I am under the impression that you
like the same sex Hershey Highway. I really don't know if you catch
or receive and I don't want to know your business... I think you
missed that in your rush to judgment that this is the whole point..
I'm not asking... so please don't tell.
What I do hope for is that you can learn to respect the fact that
other people find your behaviour disgusting... I'm one of them. You
can label me as you wish but even if you ever got a law to say your
behaviour was now moral, I would still think your behaviour is a
perversion.
This is not attacking you personally.. it is speaking of your
behaviour. Smoking cigarettes is disgusting also.. I don't think the
smoker is disgusting.. just his habits. There in lies the difference.
If you are going to claim you are not a homosexual.. you certainly
have an invested interest.
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
Respond directly:
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/messianic_Yehoshua/
Ennui has made more gamblers than avarice, more drunkards than thirst,
and perhaps as many suicides as despair.
Buddha
thomas p.
------------------------
thomas p
No, you are the one who made a number of assertions all of them negative
about homosexuals and which you are unable to support. Your response to
disagreement has been to repeat your assertions and to add personal insults.
I have pointed out that your claims are baseless. You can easily prove me
wrong by providing objective evidence.
--------------------------------------
"guardian Snow"
What I find interesting is that You seem to think that if you call
everybody bigot, it grants you some type of moral authority which only
reside in that lie you tell yourself. In other words Thomas, you are
a legend in your own mind telling lies to yourself to boost your own
apathetic ego.
------------------
thomas p
--------------------------------
You continue to respond with insults and zero evidence. Pathetic actually.
---------------
"guardian Snow"
Christians and homosexuals in this sense, seem to have a lot in
common.. They are essencially people all infected with the same
mental virus that precludes them from examining their own behaviour.
They think if they hang a label on other people, this makes their
behaviour better.
------------------
thomas p
Sorry projection of your faults is also not evidence.
-------------
"guardian Snow"
"A dog is not considered a good dog because he is a good barker. A man
is not considered a good man because he is a good talker."
Buddha
I called you a homosexual because I am under the impression that you
like the same sex Hershey Highway. I really don't know if you catch
or receive and I don't want to know your business... I think you
missed that in your rush to judgment that this is the whole point..
I'm not asking... so please don't tell.
What I do hope for is that you can learn to respect the fact that
other people find your behaviour disgusting... I'm one of them. You
can label me as you wish but even if you ever got a law to say your
behaviour was now moral, I would still think your behaviour is a
perversion.
This is not attacking you personally.. it is speaking of your
behaviour. Smoking cigarettes is disgusting also.. I don't think the
smoker is disgusting.. just his habits. There in lies the difference.
If you are going to claim you are not a homosexual.. you certainly
have an invested interest.
---------------
thomas p
Still no evidence for your position. Yes, you are a bigot.
MarkA
>
> "guardian Snow" <snowp...@eck.net.au> skrev i meddelelsen
> news:3940cfd1-1893-4869...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 2, 5:13 am, MarkA <t...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> > Good question and the same applies in reverse. Why must you force
>> > your values on me and my children by trying to redefine natural
>> > relationships?
>>
>> Here's some breaking news, Skippy.....nobody's trying to "force their
>> values on you". They just want the same rights as heterosexuals. Pretty
>> radical, eh?
>
> You have them. The same laws that apply to me apply to you. Your not
> seeking "the same rights", you are seeking special recognition of your
> behaviour as a protected right.
This is real easy; try to follow along: if the government is going to
recognize a relationship between a man and woman called "marriage", it is
obliged to recognize the same relationship between 2 men or 2 women.
Otherwise, they don't have the same rights. Not so hard, is it?
> ----------------------------
>
> No homosexuals are merely seeking the same rights. That you are unable
> to see that is your problem.
That's funny. I thought the problem was that YOU are unable to recognize
that denying marriage status to a couple based on their gender is an
example of the government promoting a religion, which they are not allowed
to do.
> Further, regardless of what you have
> claimed, you are hardly part of the majority, and the numbers opposing
> same-sex marriage are steadily decreasing.
True. More and more people are recognizing that marriage should include
same-sex couples.
--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock
MarkA
Eventually, the SCOTUS will rule in favor of same-sex marriage. Then, all
those state Constitutional amendments won't be worth the shit that
occupies the cranial space of those who wrote and voted for them.
MarkA
> On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 16:15:18 +0000 (UTC), Ymton Emanlaer
> <gaq...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>If gay marriage could be shown to be materially harmful to straight
>>marriage, then an argument could be made that it should be denied. There
>>is no such material harm that I am aware of. Therefor, gay marriage should
>>be allowed.
>
>
> Homosexuals are not concerned about marriage as an institution. They
> only want to gain access so that it can be used as another step up the
> ladder of deception they are using in their attempt to be recognized
> as "normal" when they are far from it.
I would be very surprised if *ANY* homosexuals gave a rat's ass about what
YOU consider "normal".
> Normal people don't knowingly
> and wilfully continue for more than a quarter of a century a behavior
> known spread a deadly disease.
Apparently, you have never heard of "gonorrhea", "syphilis", or "herpes".
Your argument would also have trouble explaining why people smoke, fail to
exercise, or neglect to wash their hands after using the toilet.
> That is exactly what male homosexuals have done and continue to do to
> this day and they have made NO EFFORT to abate the behavior. Accept the
> fact that you have made yourself, by your inherent sexual promiscuity a
> burden on our society. That you contribute nothing to the scheme of
> mankind and that should homosexuality vanish from the face of the earth
> in the next
> instant it would not be missed.
Speaking of "burdens to society", I don't think I would be so eager to
cast the first stone, if I were you.
am...@seas7.e4word.com
<snowp...@eck.net.au> wrote:
>On Oct 5, 6:30�pm, a...@seas7.e4word.com wrote:
>> On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 16:41:55 +0200, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >"Jewdas" <Jew...@circumcision.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>> >news:7ir1vmF...@mid.individual.net...
>> >> thomas p. wrote:
>>
>> (...)
>>
>> >> Where in the headers of this group, do you see anything about "Faggots
>> >> Welcome here"? Do your sodomizing elsewhere.
>>
>> >Oh look another loon.
>>
>< �Cried the bigot
>
>Bigot
>BIG'OT, n.
>
>1. A person who is obstinately and unreasonably wedded to a particular
>religious creed, opinion, practice or ritual.
>
>Bigot... Aren't we all.
Of course. And I so stated in a recent post here in which it was
either an atheist or a homosexual who said that bigotry was rooted in
religion. I was pleased to point out to him/her that bigotry is a
trait present in all humans
>You really shouldn't cry bigot all the time
>because you are wedded to your particular opinion also and by
>definition, a bigot also.
I am only pointing out the behavior that qualifies as "bigoted",
>I think it comes do to the fact that you are afraid of normal
>relationships and think that being in rebellion of the natural order
>of life, maybe you think it's cool. Maybe you like thinking that your
>a victim being persecuted which makes you not much different then most
>Christians going around calling people anti-christ and blasphemer.
An interesting thought but presumptuous and totally in accurate and
which makes you not much different than most atheist and homosexuals
going around calling people not like them homophobic or intolerant
>Name calling is the last bastion of the man who has a weak argument.
Hmmmmm -- You said in this reply,"Maybe you like thinking that
your(sic) a victim being persecuted which makes you not much different
then most Christians going around calling people anti-christ and
blasphemer."
>Buddha once said, �When one has the feeling of dislike for evil, when
>one feels tranquil, one finds pleasure in listening to good teachings;
>when one has these feelings and appreciates them, one is free of
>fear.�
>Shalom,
Damn! I didn't know Buddha was a Jew.
> *��)
> �.�� �.�*��) �.�*�)
>(�.�� (�.� (Snow(.�.�*��)
>�All that we are is the result of what we have thought. If a man
>speaks or acts with an evil thought, pain follows him. If a man speaks
>or acts with a pure thought, happiness follows him, like a shadow that
>never leaves him. All wrong-doing arises because of mind. If mind is
>transformed can wrong-doing remain?�
>Buddha
Man who smoke pot choke on handle. -Confucius
am...@seas7.e4word.com
wrote:
No, what everyone is waiting for is for you to provide evidence that
persecution and bigotry typically finds its roots in religion.
am...@seas7.e4word.com
wrote:
>
><am...@seas7.e4word.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>news:h08jc59g5un1mqu6h...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 16:41:55 +0200, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Jewdas" <Jew...@circumcision.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>>>news:7ir1vmF...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> thomas p. wrote:
>>
>> (...)
>>
>>>> Where in the headers of this group, do you see anything about "Faggots
>>>> Welcome here"? Do your sodomizing elsewhere.
>>>
>>>Oh look another loon.
>>
>> Cried the bigot
>
>Weak, very weak. On the other hand I suppose Goebbells would have called
>anybody who dislike Nazis a bigot.
As you have called someone whose opinion on an issue you didn't like
because it differs from yours a "loon?
William (nmn) Taylor, Esq
>Eventually, the SCOTUS will rule in favor of same-sex marriage.
Predicting is difficult and especially so when it involves the
future. If you have a dozen eggs you may not get a dozen chickens.
am...@seas7.e4word.com
But you will be the first to attempt to cast an insult rather than a
civil response.
MarkA
> On Oct 3, 12:58 am, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> thomas p
>>
>> As long as everyone follows your rules you will be happy. Hypocrite.
>
> Not my rules. You seem to think the 61 percent of California voters
> that rejected homosexual marriage don't count as human beings with a
> valid opinion. You can be angry about the fact that other people find
> your behaviour objectionable and would rather you keep it private or
> you can learn to respect that people aren't always going to agree.
Voters are human beings with valid opinions. They just aren't very good
at making laws that are compatible with the Constitution's guarantee of
"equal protection". That's why we have judges.
MarkA
It may not be as hard as you think. The heresy of one generation is blase
in the next. There used to be laws to discriminate against blacks and
women. Society evolves.
MarkA
I have no qualms about being insulting to idiots who don't have the good
manners to keep their idiocy to themselves. And, just so we're clear,
arguing that homosexuals should be denied basic human rights because they
have a higher rate of AIDS is an argument from idiocy.
--
MarkA
Keeper of the Butter Dish of Balshazar
guardian Snow
You are not interested in my perspective, clearly. You already have
equal protection under the law in all western civilizations. You are
not seeking equal protection, you are seeking to have your behaviour
enshrined in law as morally acceptable. In other words, you are
seeking to ram your behaviour which includes un-natural mating down
the throats of me and my children by force of law.
We both know that if homosexual marriage were to become common law,
the next step is teaching homosexual behaviour in the public schools
which they already do to a minor extent. My kids get enough confusion
in life, they don't need yours too. I don't care what you do with
your lover but in the end, your argument is about money over morals.
You have fabricated a "problem" and dramatically call anybody that
disagrees bigots and claim you are being denied but not a single
person cares what you do in the privacy of your home and so it is
about your public acceptance... I must accept you or be called
hateful names. You are not a victim, you are the aggressor seeking to
push your perversion. Your argument wants to make your behaviour a
"human right" by force of law.
am...@seas7.e4word.com
>> On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:12:10 -0400, MarkA <to...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> :
>>>
Homosexuals are not denied ANY human rights. You have every right that
I have but you are seeking special rights based on nothing more than
who you like to have sex with. It's as simple as that but from your
unintelligible post it seems that even the simple stuff is too
complicated for you. Perhaps you might find a workshop on understand
the Constitution and the Bill of Rights at a local community college
in your area that you could attend that would help in bringing you up
to speed. Further more, I again DIRECT your attention to the
undeniable fact that homosexuals are not concerned about marriage as
guardian Snow
> On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 19:52:25 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
You know.. if it were just a matter of homosexuals wanting to get
married, I wouldn't give to cents on the issue and I wouldn't waste my
time on the topic.
I've stated several times now that I don't care what they do in
private and this leads to the core of the issue.. it's not about what
they do in private, it's about them insisting there perversion be
taught to the rest of society by force of common law as simply an
"alternative lifestyle".
The idea that my kids must now think of homosexuals as the poor
downtrodden and abused class of people simply based on who they have
sex with is absurd.
Real problems flourish on this planet and I made mention of just a few
and instead of spending there energy on helping others that are truly
in need, they care only about themselves and their own recognition
that justifies their mind virus.
NOBODY is born gay. Who we are is according to our beliefs... change
the belief and the being changes.
“All that we are is the result of what we have thought. If a man
speaks or acts with an evil thought, pain follows him. If a man speaks
or acts with a pure thought, happiness follows him, like a shadow that
never leaves him. All wrong-doing arises because of mind. If mind is
transformed can wrong-doing remain?”
Buddha
I agree with the older definition of homosexual perversion being a
mental illness. For the homosexual it is not enough to contain their
mind virus in their own circles of thought, they presume that they are
victims until all people share their illness.
"It's no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick
society."
Jiddu Krishnamurti
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
Bad things do happen; how I respond to them defines my character and
the quality of my life. I can choose to sit in perpetual sadness,
immobilized by the gravity of my loss, or I can choose to rise from
the pain and treasure the most precious gift I have - life itself.
Walter Anderson
MarkA
> On Oct 6, 8:14 am, MarkA <t...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 08:25:06 -0700, guardian Snow wrote:
>> > On Oct 3, 12:58 am, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> thomas p
>>
>> >> As long as everyone follows your rules you will be happy. Hypocrite.
>>
>> > Not my rules. You seem to think the 61 percent of California voters
>> > that rejected homosexual marriage don't count as human beings with a
>> > valid opinion. You can be angry about the fact that other people find
>> > your behaviour objectionable and would rather you keep it private or
>> > you can learn to respect that people aren't always going to agree.
>>
>> Voters are human beings with valid opinions. They just aren't very good
>> at making laws that are compatible with the Constitution's guarantee of
>> "equal protection". That's why we have judges.
>
> You are not interested in my perspective, clearly.
Clearly, you are just plain wrong. There is nothing to discuss.
Homosexuals do NOT have equal protection, otherwise there wouldn't be an
issue with gay marriage. Giving gays the same legal right to marry as
mixed gender couples is NOT a "special privilege" by any stretch of the
imagination.
> You already have
> equal protection under the law in all western civilizations. You are
> not seeking equal protection, you are seeking to have your behaviour
> enshrined in law as morally acceptable. In other words, you are seeking
> to ram your behaviour which includes un-natural mating down the throats
> of me and my children by force of law.
Another statement that is factually untrue. The desired endpoint is to
stop legal discrimination against gays, NOT to "ram your beviour" down
anyone's throat.
>
> We both know that if homosexual marriage were to become common law, the
> next step is teaching homosexual behaviour in the public schools which
> they already do to a minor extent.
Kids should know that homosexuality exists, like it or not. It has been
observed in every animal species for which it has been studied. If you
only want your kids to learn a fairy tale version of reality, that's what
home-schooling is for.
> My kids get enough confusion in
> life, they don't need yours too. I don't care what you do with your
> lover but in the end, your argument is about money over morals.
???
>
> You have fabricated a "problem" and dramatically call anybody that
> disagrees bigots and claim you are being denied but not a single person
> cares what you do in the privacy of your home and so it is about your
> public acceptance... I must accept you or be called hateful names. You
> are not a victim, you are the aggressor seeking to push your perversion.
> Your argument wants to make your behaviour a "human right" by force of
> law.
If the government is going to extend special privileges to married
couples, it must include homosexual couples. It really is just that
simple.
MarkA
So, are the legal entitlements of marriage "human rights" or "special
rights", by your definition? In either case, it is obvious that
homosexuals do --> NOT <--- have the same rights as heterosexuals,
otherwise there would be nothing to discuss.
> Further more, I again DIRECT your attention to the
> undeniable fact that homosexuals are not concerned about marriage as
> an institution. They only want to gain access so that it can be used
> as another step up the ladder of deception they are using in their
> attempt to be recognized as "normal" when they are far from it.
Is your paranoia about the "homosexual agenda" so bad that it prevents you
from understanding that legally barring a group from marriage in
discrimination? Again, who the fuck cares about YOUR perception of
normal, besides you?
MarkA
So, you are in favor of legalizing gay marriage. Good for you.
>
> I've stated several times now that I don't care what they do in
> private and this leads to the core of the issue.. it's not about what
> they do in private, it's about them insisting there perversion be
> taught to the rest of society by force of common law as simply an
> "alternative lifestyle".
In most social situations, one's sexual orientation is irrelevant. YOU
may perceive homosexuality as a mortal sin, but that doesn't change the
fact that they are entitled to equal protection under the law.
>
> The idea that my kids must now think of homosexuals as the poor
> downtrodden and abused class of people simply based on who they have
> sex with is absurd.
There are still states with anti-sodomy laws. If you think there is no
discrimination against homosexuals, you are delusional.
>
> Real problems flourish on this planet and I made mention of just a few
> and instead of spending there energy on helping others that are truly
> in need, they care only about themselves and their own recognition
> that justifies their mind virus.
>
> NOBODY is born gay. Who we are is according to our beliefs... change
> the belief and the being changes.
Right. People choose to be gay. Just like pedophiles choose to be
pedophiles. It's so much fun dodging the law. You really are living in a
different Universe, aren't you?
>
> “All that we are is the result of what we have thought. If a man
> speaks or acts with an evil thought, pain follows him. If a man speaks
> or acts with a pure thought, happiness follows him, like a shadow that
> never leaves him. All wrong-doing arises because of mind. If mind is
> transformed can wrong-doing remain?” Buddha
>
> I agree with the older definition of homosexual perversion being a
> mental illness. For the homosexual it is not enough to contain their
> mind virus in their own circles of thought, they presume that they are
> victims until all people share their illness.
Every animal species that has been studied in nature shows homosexuality.
It is clearly part of the "normal spectrum". If it makes you feel any
better, you can consider it part of "God's Plan."
>
> "It's no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick
> society."
> Jiddu Krishnamurti
>
> Shalom,
> *´¨)
> ¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
> (¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
>
> Bad things do happen; how I respond to them defines my character and the
> quality of my life. I can choose to sit in perpetual sadness,
> immobilized by the gravity of my loss, or I can choose to rise from the
> pain and treasure the most precious gift I have - life itself. Walter
> Anderson
>
> Respond directly:
> http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/messianic_Yehoshua/
--
guardian Snow
> >> Voters are human beings with valid opinions. They just aren't very good
> >> at making laws that are compatible with the Constitution's guarantee of
> >> "equal protection". That's why we have judges.
>
> > You are not interested in my perspective, clearly.
>
> Clearly, you are just plain wrong. There is nothing to discuss.
> Homosexuals do NOT have equal protection, otherwise there wouldn't be an
> issue with gay marriage. Giving gays the same legal right to marry as
> mixed gender couples is NOT a "special privilege" by any stretch of the
> imagination.
In your own statement you make the distiction between two types of
people. Gays who practice homosexuality and other people. So while
you speak of "the same", you can't help but acknowledge the
difference. The behaviour is your mind virus that you choose to live
with.
MarkA
I am not claiming that there is no difference between gays and straights;
obviously there is. The issue is that the two groups are treated
differently under the law, with no justification beyond that some
religious groups think that homosexuality is a sin. Are you really that
dense, or are you just getting desperate for an argument?
thomas p.
"MarkA" <to...@nowhere.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:pan.2009.10.06....@nowhere.com...
Fascinating isn't it?
Darrell Stec
OK. I am going to have to stand up and defend guardian Snow. He really is
that dense.
--
Later,
Darrell
guardian Snow
Now that you can recognize the difference between the two behaviors,
you can recognize that society regulates behaviour by the force of
law. Your argument fails to recognize that justification goes way
beyond religious reasons in that it is socially undesirable behaviour
like rape and not natural. Should we no make rape legal just because
a minority consider it alright to violate another persons beliefs?
Homosexuality is a behaviour, not a physiological characteristic. It
is an abnormal behaviour of normal people. It is a result of lack of
correct education, and often of corruption by others.
Unlike animals, Man cannot rely exclusively on his instincts and
emotions, his instincts and emotions must be controlled by his reason.
This control by reason is not inborn, but develops through a prolonged
learning process. Usually this happens in a social setting and starts
within the family. Even simple instinctive acts like urination are
subject to a lengthy learning process. Unlike animals, people do not
urinate wherever they feel the urge, they do it in special places. The
same applies to sex.
The Chief Instigator
Well, idiot "aman", they're being denied the right that heterosexuals
have: the right to marry the non-related consenting adult of their
choice. That glitch is already erased in four states, and the same
reasoning as in Loving v. Virginia will likely machine-gun your
self-satisfied sense of superiority. They're not asking for special
rights, just the same as the rest of us have. That's the take of this
Kinsey 0 heterosexual.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Houston 4, Manitoba 2 (October 3)
NEXT GAME: Friday, October 9 vs. Texas, 7:35
The Chief Instigator
> On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 06:44:25 -0700, guardian Snow wrote:
>
>>
>>> >> Voters are human beings with valid opinions. ??They just aren't very good
>>> >> at making laws that are compatible with the Constitution's guarantee of
>>>
>>> > You are not interested in my perspective, clearly. ??
>>>
>>> Clearly, you are just plain wrong. ??There is nothing to discuss.
>>> Homosexuals do NOT have equal protection, otherwise there wouldn't be an
>>> mixed gender couples is NOT a "special privilege" by any stretch of the
>>> imagination.
>>
>> In your own statement you make the distiction between two types of
>> people. Gays who practice homosexuality and other people. So while
>> you speak of "the same", you can't help but acknowledge the
>> difference. The behaviour is your mind virus that you choose to live
>> with.
>
> I am not claiming that there is no difference between gays and straights;
> obviously there is. The issue is that the two groups are treated
> differently under the law, with no justification beyond that some
> religious groups think that homosexuality is a sin. Are you really that
> dense, or are you just getting desperate for an argument?
From his attitude, I suspect it's some random slumgullion of both.
thomas p.
------------------
thomas p
Should we make any behavior you do not like illegal or "regulation" just
because you don't like it or just because you insist "it is like rape and
not natural"? In other words what is the objective basis for you assertions
about homosexuality?
snip
guardian Snow
> "guardian Snow" <snowpheo...@eck.net.au> skrev i meddelelsennews:81413755-bd24-4721...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
That it is a behaviour shunned by the public. Urinating in public is
also illegal should we now honor those who do this practice just
because you don't find it objectionable? While several people want to
pretend this is about some religious belief, it's not. At the core
even homosexuals know that they have a practice, that for those people
who do not suffer from your mental virus... it makes our skin crawl
with disgust.
Why do you think in all the years they aired pro-homosexual shows like
Will and Grace on television, they never actually showed them engaging
in the practice? Because when people see men kissing, it repulses the
average person... nobody wants to see what you do.
You can sell your filth up until people actually have to watch you...
It's a lot like watching a guy drop trout and urinate in front of you
on the sidewalk. We know it happens... it's illegal because the
majority say it is not to be encouraged in our society.
You on the other hand have no respect for other people and so, you
feel it is your "right" to flout your behaviour with parades about
your sexuality instead of keeping it in the bedroom where it belongs.
thomas p.
----------------------------
"guardian Snow"
That it is a behaviour shunned by the public. Urinating in public is
also illegal should we now honor those who do this practice just
because you don't find it objectionable? While several people want to
pretend this is about some religious belief, it's not. At the core
even homosexuals know that they have a practice, that for those people
who do not suffer from your mental virus... it makes our skin crawl
with disgust.
-----------------------
thomas p
Urinating in public is a health hazard, therefore there is a reasonable
justification for making it illegal. People not liking something is not a
reason for making it illegal.
-------------------------
"guardian Snow"
Why do you think in all the years they aired pro-homosexual shows like
Will and Grace on television, they never actually showed them engaging
in the practice? Because when people see men kissing, it repulses the
average person... nobody wants to see what you do.
You can sell your filth up until people actually have to watch you...
It's a lot like watching a guy drop trout and urinate in front of you
on the sidewalk. We know it happens... it's illegal because the
majority say it is not to be encouraged in our society.
You on the other hand have no respect for other people and so, you
feel it is your "right" to flout your behaviour with parades about
your sexuality instead of keeping it in the bedroom where it belongs.
-------------------
thomas p
Did you notice that I asked you a question concerning your opinions? I did
not include any personal insults but kept strictly to the issue. I am sorry
that you did not feel capable of answering in the same manner. By the way
you still do not know what my sexual orientation is, so the insults are not
only irrelevant and rather vicious expressions of bigotry; they are also
baseless no matter what my sexuality is. I would still like to have an
objective discussion about the issue with you, but you seem determined to
avoid such a thing - too bad.
guardian Snow
> "guardian Snow" <snowpheo...@eck.net.au> skrev i meddelelsennews:4b076429-3d53-4ab5...@q40g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Bigotry is just another way of expressing a person that has an opinion
in a negative fashion. You are a bigot also. You do not seek
objective discussion, you seek discussion on grounds you feel favor
you and your pro-homosexual agenda. Nothing in my comments are
vicious, you just paint it that way to propagandize because this is
what you do and how you are trained to be a victim.
You see other peoples points of view as attacks rather then just
honest expressions of another person point of view but I haven't said
anything personal to you and in fact that would be foolish since I
don't know you or have any desire to because you have made it clear
that you have no desire to know or understand me.
guardian Snow
> Should we make any behavior you do not like illegal or "regulation" just
> because you don't like it or just because you insist "it is like rape and
> not natural"? In other words what is the objective basis for you assertions
> about homosexuality?
You are ignoring the fact that the MAJORITY of rational people already
consider homosexuality socially unacceptable and are passing laws to
define marriage between men and woman.
While you can argue it is bigoted behaviour, the same applies to you.
Making the argument personal about my view is disregarding that
society is already telling you what you refuse to hear.
They already do regulate behaviour they don't like like murder, rape
and theft and even smoking. You just disagree because you happen to
like this behaviour but I don't see you fighting for the "human
rights" of smokers.
thomas p.
Sorry, your words demonstrate that I am correct. Furthermore I did not
attack you personally when I asked you the questions above, but you
responded with a personal attack. There simply is no doubt.
>
> You see other peoples points of view as attacks rather then just
> honest expressions of another person point of view but I haven't said
> anything personal to you
Your words:
"You can sell your filth up until people actually have to watch you..."
and in fact that would be foolish since I
> don't know you or have any desire to because you have made it clear
> that you have no desire to know or understand me.
Yes that would be foolish, but, as your own words demonstrate, that is what
you did - repeatedly in post after post. Denying it now is pathetic. Bye.