Mum & Dad
Lynx
legalizing smae sex marriage. Also that they can adopt children.
Is there any signs of Gibraltar following suit?
jim.gm4dhj
"Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
news:qp0xe.10536$oJ....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> The media is making a great deal of noise over Spain's new civil law,
> legalizing smae sex marriage. Also that they can adopt children.
> Is there any signs of Gibraltar following suit?
>
into dressed as a wumin
Jim Watt
Its not a big issue locally, and given the strength of the
Catholic church who seem against such things Gibraltar
will probably follow the UK, slowly and unless forced to
do so by an EU directive, reluctantly.
--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com
Lynx
"jim.gm4dhj" <jim.g...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:sE4xe.14499$11.1...@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
In my days, hey, I sound like an old fart. In my days, that's where young
couples would go in the early evening to hold hands, whisper sweet nothings
into each others ears, and if one got lucky there would be the odd peck or
two. Of course, there were no computer games, nor were our minds
over-saturated with violent and over-explicit sexual american crap. Still,
so long as some keep the memories of those days alive, maybe, just maybe,
the young will once again gain their youth once more, maybe, someday.
As you describe it, I don't think I'd like to take a walk around those
parts, not just yet anyway.
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
news:qnn9c1he1f2nf7vir...@4ax.com...
Marriage, up till now, has always been between a man and a woman. Why not
formulate another term for a legal joining of partners? Where does freedom
end and where does undermining of freedom begin?
Almogaver
Lynx wrote:
>
> Marriage, up till now, has always been between a man and a woman. Why not
> formulate another term for a legal joining of partners? Where does freedom
> end and where does undermining of freedom begin?
How does same sex marriage undermine anybody's freedom ?
Lynx
"Almogaver" <en_roger...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1120221388....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
It has to be said that marriage, as we have come to know it in western
culture, if not wherever else humans abode, has always been between a man
and a woman. Obviously I am not stating anything new. Furthermore, when a
couple get married, more often than not they start a family. Again, nothing
new. All of this is what can be termed as traditional, the norm, or maybe
even the way things are done. So, from the perspective of those husbands and
wives who, each with their partner, form that nucleus known as the family.
In the main a nucleus which is held sacred. The very nucleus from which we
all stem from. Who else can procreate, have a family, if not a man and a
woman? That unit known as the family. That unit which has been under so much
attack from many "new standards", "new expectations" and which happens to be
the most heavily taxed in most western societies, needs to be protected from
distorted imitations.
Almogaver
You still did not answer the question. How does it undermine anybody's
freedom ? It's not like traditional marriage is all of a sudden
outlawed.
Almogaver
You still did not answer the question. How does it undermine anybody's
Jim Watt
I believe the UK is on the right track talking about 'civil contracts'
rather than marriage. Great institution that it is.
And AFAIK nothing happens in Alemeda gardens by day or
night that would shock your granny.
Jim Watt
<en_roger...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>You still did not answer the question. How does it undermine anybody's
>freedom ?
Society depends on people getting married raising children and
the cycle repeating itself smoothly. Anything that dissrupts that
is perceived as being a bad thing by the more cautious elements.
Ken
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
Ken
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
Come come Jim (Watt), you have no idea how easily spooked Jim's (GM4DHJ)
granny is! I mean, one look at Andrew coming round the corner with his chain
saw and John in his khaki shorts and floppy hat - anything could happen.
They would probably be polite and offer to show her around, knowing those
two. Shocking behaviour to one used to the cold northern shoulder treatment!
Ken
Ken
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
Like taking "holy orders" and becoming celibate, presumably?
Ken
jim.gm4dhj
> Come come Jim (Watt), you have no idea how easily spooked Jim's (GM4DHJ)
> granny is! I mean, one look at Andrew coming round the corner with his
> chain saw and John in his khaki shorts and floppy hat - anything could
> happen. They would probably be polite and offer to show her around,
> knowing those two. Shocking behaviour to one used to the cold northern
> shoulder treatment!
>
> Ken
The location's important: for Homer and his era, the rock of Gibraltar -- a
pillar of Hercules -- marked the end of the known world, on the other side
of which lay infinity. Just as the novel ends on a spatial marker of
infinity, so it creates a sort of temporal in-finitude, through layered
memories which leave Molly saying yes to no identifiable singular man, but
in a sense to all life and sex -- an affirmation, ending on the word 'yes',
made all the more powerful by the cadenced, rhythmic quality of Joyce's
prose by this time, reiteratedly emphasising that affirmative 'yes'. The
novel, in other words, worries about history as nightmare (not surprisingly
since written during WW1), but finds a way of escaping the vicissitudes of
time and history almost altogether; letting Molly presumably fall back to
sleep, and projecting its protagonists towards a dimension -- cosmic,
infinite, whatever -- beyond the specific confines of time and reality.
jim.gm4dhj
"...and the sea the sea crimson sometimes like fire and the glorious sunsets
and the figtrees in the Alameda gardens yes and all the queer little streets
and pink and blue and yellow houses and the rosegardens and the jessamine
and geraniums and cactuses and Gibraltar as a girl where I was a Flower of
the mountain yes when I put the rose in my hair like the Andalusian girls
used or shall I wear a red yes and how he kissed me under the Moorish wall
and I thought well as well him as another and then I asked him with my eyes
to ask again yes and then he asked me would I yes to say yes my mountain
flower and first I put my arms around him yes and drew him down to me so he
could feel my breasts all perfume yes and his heart was going like mad and
yes I said yes I will Yes."
James Joyce - Ulysses
jim.gm4dhj
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
You put it admirably. Good one.
Lynx
You feel free and non threatened within your millennium's old
institutionalized union with another human, being with whom you can form a
family. Along comes some other idea, which has nothing to do with the
procreating of a family, carrying on the genes if you will. These two
totally different unions of humans cannot go by the same name. It is a
threat to the understanding and tradition of the union of man and woman. Of
course, it does not only affect the adults' status in society, man and
woman, the repercussions onto the children are yet to be fathomed.
You ask questions, how about contributing your perspectives on the matter?
Lynx
"Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:da4a2j$ksr$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
This topic is totally divorced of religious structures. The point in
question is, that there is a world of a difference between the two types of
unions, and no one has yet even dared to touch on how this nuveu-marriage
can in fact affect future generations. Where's your mum? He's over there!
Two kids waiting to be picked up from school.
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 09:21:31 GMT, "Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
>>news:qnn9c1he1f2nf7vir...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 00:48:22 GMT, "Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote:
>>>
>>>>The media is making a great deal of noise over Spain's new civil law,
>>>>legalizing smae sex marriage. Also that they can adopt children.
>>>>Is there any signs of Gibraltar following suit?
>>>
>>> Its not a big issue locally, and given the strength of the
>>> Catholic church who seem against such things Gibraltar
>>> will probably follow the UK, slowly and unless forced to
>>> do so by an EU directive, reluctantly.
>>
>>Marriage, up till now, has always been between a man and a woman. Why not
>>formulate another term for a legal joining of partners? Where does freedom
>>end and where does undermining of freedom begin?
>
> I believe the UK is on the right track talking about 'civil contracts'
> rather than marriage. Great institution that it is.
The sensible thing to do.
> And AFAIK nothing happens in Alemeda gardens by day or
> night that would shock your granny.
Well, maybe I will re-visit the Alameda Gardens after all.
Ken
> quality...init ? ............
Well, it certainly is something . . . .
K
Almogaver
It is a delicate subject and people get pretty worked up over it.
Personally it does not bother me in the slightest. Like the poet said
"what's in a name". If you are prepared to call it something else, but
it still smells and feels like marriage then it is marriage, is it not
?
What I really think is that there is a lot of (often generational)
prejudice hidden behind many of the arguments of the "no" camp.
Religious education may have something to do with it. Maybe the Irish
Christian Brothers had something to do with spreading that mindset in
Gib. I remember people mentioning them in this NG in the past.
Would Gib be fairly Catholic, despite being British ? It's not a trick
question. I honestly don't know.
Jim Watt
<en_roger...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>It is a delicate subject and people get pretty worked up over it.
>Personally it does not bother me in the slightest. Like the poet said
>"what's in a name". If you are prepared to call it something else, but
>it still smells and feels like marriage then it is marriage, is it not
>?
>
>What I really think is that there is a lot of (often generational)
>prejudice hidden behind many of the arguments of the "no" camp.
>Religious education may have something to do with it. Maybe the Irish
>Christian Brothers had something to do with spreading that mindset in
>Gib. I remember people mentioning them in this NG in the past.
>
>Would Gib be fairly Catholic, despite being British ? It's not a trick
>question. I honestly don't know.
Gibraltar is around 90% nominal catholics, with a significant
number of fanatics. However, don't confuse the situation in
Ireland with elsewhere. There religion defines two groups with
different agendas. There are plenty of Roman Catholics in
England who do not want to subvert the state and are totally
British. Similarly here there is no divide betwen the handful of
Anglicans and the others.
Locally, there are a handful who write to the newspapers regularly
saying that being gay is a crime against God, but they are barking
mad.
Personally I think there is a case for 'civil unions' rather than
'marriage' but personally the only union I need is the TGWU.
Matrimony is a great institution, other great institutions include
prisons and mental hospitals.
However, it will increase the turnover of my legal friends who
will be involved in the dissolution of civil unions and increase
the work in those who do family law.
Lynx
> Lynx wrote:
>> "Almogaver" <en_roger...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:1120236085.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> > Lynx wrote:
>> >> "Almogaver" <en_roger...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >> news:1120221388....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> >>
>> matter?
>
> It is a delicate subject and people get pretty worked up over it.
> Personally it does not bother me in the slightest. Like the poet said
> "what's in a name". If you are prepared to call it something else, but
> it still smells and feels like marriage then it is marriage, is it not
> ?
>
> What I really think is that there is a lot of (often generational)
> prejudice hidden behind many of the arguments of the "no" camp.
> Religious education may have something to do with it. Maybe the Irish
> Christian Brothers had something to do with spreading that mindset in
> Gib. I remember people mentioning them in this NG in the past.
>
> Would Gib be fairly Catholic, despite being British ? It's not a trick
> question. I honestly don't know.
Agreed, it is a delicate subject. Delicate to anyone who approaches the
topic, regardless of their stance. The precipitous manner in which some
authorities are rushing through legislation, makes the mind boggle.
Prejudice in this instance, I think, can be found in both camps. And
religion, of course, has played a huge role in forming the mindset of
western civilisation. I suspect some heterosexuals might question the
validity monogamy. This too would be a threat to marriage as we have come to
know it. If we go back to ancient Babylon or Greece, we find different
"acceptable" standards to what we consider acceptable today.
The Christian Brothers did and taught according to their training and
vocation, one would say. Like a clergyman once stated while being grilled
over some disturbing incidents reported in the media. He said that not
everyman is suited to wear the cloth, anymore than everyman is suited to be
married, etc.
Jim and Ken may be better qualified to speak on where Gib stands today where
religion is concerned. As far as I can tell, the bulk of Gib is Catholic, as
is Spain, amongst other European countries.
Lynx
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
Family Law. In some countries that is a contradiction in terms. For more
often than not the elements profiting from within set one party against the
other, the kids get caught in the crossfire, and everyone's a loser. Family
Law, a money making and life destroying institution, if ever there was one.
Ken
"Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
Other similar contradictions include "temorary tax measures" and "military
intelligence".
Ken
Ken
"Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
>
> "Almogaver" <en_roger...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1120466855.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> Lynx wrote:
>>> "Almogaver" <en_roger...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:1120236085.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>> > Lynx wrote:
>>> >> "Almogaver" <en_roger...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> >> news:1120221388....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>> >>
> where religion is concerned. As far as I can tell, the bulk of Gib is
> Catholic, as is Spain, amongst other European countries.
I was going to have a personal rant here, but I thought better of it as I
might offend some folk. Therefore be it known I could have but chose not to.
Ken
Almogaver
"Government organization"
Almogaver
Although I understand where you're coming from, I still find it
interesting that you find it does undermine freedom. I would have
thought it actually INCREASES freedom as now gay people are also
allowed to get married. As to having two dads or two mums, is it really
that important if they love and care for the child in question ? Surely
a loving family (gay or otherwise) beats an orphanage.
What makes my mind boggle is that in 2005 certain things are still
taboo. You should have heard some of the things that were said by the
ultra conservative camp on the issue. But according to Jim Watt I see
they exist in Gib as well, so nothing new there.
Lynx
Is that a confession?
Ken
"Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
No, just a statement.
K
Ken
Ultimately, what is incontrovertible is that same-gender partnerships would
not be able to have children who would be the offspring of both partners.
Whether it is desireable that same-sex partners should become "parents" by
adoption is another matter. I do not know enough about the issues to form a
valid opinion on it, but I can see how it might screw up a child.
"Where's your mum?" asks James.
"There he is!" replies Michael.
K
Lynx
>
> Although I understand where you're coming from, I still find it
> interesting that you find it does undermine freedom. I would have
> thought it actually INCREASES freedom as now gay people are also
> allowed to get married. As to having two dads or two mums, is it really
> that important if they love and care for the child in question ? Surely
> a loving family (gay or otherwise) beats an orphanage.
>
> What makes my mind boggle is that in 2005 certain things are still
> taboo. You should have heard some of the things that were said by the
> ultra conservative camp on the issue. But according to Jim Watt I see
> they exist in Gib as well, so nothing new there.
The topic is delicate and here we are but generalizing. The increase in
freedom you refer to, can be seen by some as a form of impudnce.
In essence love is not generic. The love of parents for children, is
different to that of uncles and aunties, grandparents, etc. Suggesting that
all heterosexual marriages are made in heaven and their children therefore
live in bliss, would be a fantasy. But human failings do not automatically
qualify alternative modes of family units. To stand for one principle,
doesn't necessarily mean the ostracizing of others, far from it. I guess I'm
saying, "al pan, pan, y al vino, vino".
As for certain things still being taboo in 2005, well. There are extremists
in any camp, be it conservative or liberal. And of course, Gib cannot be an
exception to the rule. In the case of a gay family unit with children, how
do the children refer to and identify the "parents"? There is no alternative
to a mother and a father. So, is the sexual orientation of the grownups
inculcated into the blank minds of the young? What of the male and female
role models for children to follow? The image, it would seem, is somewhat
blurred. These questions need to be addressed and answered. Agreed?
Lynx
You made me feel like I said something wrong. Have your personal rant. Go
ahead, make my day......
Lynx
You took the last two lines right out of my scrapped scrip.....great
minds....
Our friend Almogaver has a sensible disposition and an interest in Gib. He's
welcomed to the group, I'm sure.
Ken
"Lynx" <ca...@home.tranquilo> wrote in message
I never thought you had, it was never my intention to make you feel so.
> Have your personal rant. Go ahead, make my day......
OK, here goes. Now that you ask.
Religion. Wonderful. It appears that humankind has a desire, a need, to
believe. That is, to take as irrefutable that for which there is no proof.
Furthermore, in the presence of proof to the contrary, the belief continues
unabated. Why? I have no idea, but it appears to be the case. Religion is a
case in point but by no means the only one.
The Loch Ness Monster was a spoof started by a couple of friends one day who
arranged a film to appear to show that which it did not. The fact that they
owned up to the prank has not stopped legions BELIEVING that there is in
fact some prehistoric remnant of an ichthyosaur or similar residing in the
waters. Similar stuff happened with Bigfoot, all started with the capture on
film of a supposed hairy ape. When the film was debunked and the
perpetrators admitted their attempts to deceive, the people already caught
up in the frenzy of belief continue to do so. Both these cases are extreme,
in that there is proof of the spoof nature of the beast. Similar stories
with fairies.
The list does not end there. People will rather BELIEVE some (at times
certainly well-meaning) quack who tells them what they want to hear rather
than trust in data gathered by meticulously conducted double blind,
placebo-controlled trials. Many will prefer a "natural" cure, borne of
mushrooms grown in a sweaty jamjar in someone's garage rather than a clean,
controlled, quality assured pharmaceutical industry based on aforementioned
trials. "Natural" they figure will be devoid of side effect and
complication, invention is nasty and is likely to do you harm. Well I have
news. Meningitis and polio are natural, third-generation cephalosporins and
immunisation are contrived. Go figure.
And so to religion and God. Given Man's propensity to believe, some wise
sage once commented with the circular argument, his tongue firmly in his
cheek, that if God had not already existed Man would have had to invent Him.
God I suspect is borne not only of Man's NEED to believe, but also of Man's
conceit. Man is too vain to consider that his existence on this planet is as
fleeting, as fragile and ultimately as meaningless as that of a maggot,
cockroach or eagle. Surely, there HAS to be something more? Surely there can
not really be a void, a complete absence of anything, even of consciousness,
when eventually the lights go out in our fragile bodies? Well, why not?
Nature serves no greater purpose, life as we know it is a mere chance coming
together of certain substances. In humans, that chance association of
chemicals developed a realisation of its own existence, developed
consciousness (whatever that is) and became introspective. Later it
developed astrophysics, the motor car, toothpaste in squeezy tubes and
sliced bread among other things, some useful. We are sure that WE must have
a higher purpose than the sparrow, and so we create the notion of an
afterlife, a super-being that treats us preferentially over and above the
rest of nature (though the evidence speaks overwhelmingly to the contrary,
but heck, this is a belief after all) and a smug conceit to go with it. This
is a common trend throughout peoples everywhere, developed independently of
other populations, hence my conclusion that we are hard-wired to create God.
Through religion of course the literati have over aeons gained control of
the masses, laying down codes of behaviour that will "ensure" favour in
later times, for a bit of sacrifice now and of course while keeping the
priesthood in certain comfort. Hence the Vatican is strewn with gold, and
charismatic preachers (not all by any means) repeatedly find themselves the
grateful recipients of their flocks' generosity. Some, if not the majority,
no doubt really believe in the sanctity of what they preach.
I OTOH am a doubting Thomas. AFAIAC if I can't somehow demonstrate something
is there, I REFUSE to believe it is.
Rant over, chuck your flames in this direction. My intention was not to
cause offence, if any was caused.
K
Lynx
I bet you feel better now. Looks to me like you're describing human nature.
You're right and you're wrong. The bottom line is that there is such a thing
as a western culture, a tradition, if you will. If there are to be
significant changes in this culture/tradition, then they will have to be
adopted gradually and with proper education/conditioning of the masses.
Another Renaissance, one might say.
No offence taken, on the contrary. Long live freedom of expression.