California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

The healing has begun...

I agree 100%.

But when someone merely wishes to preserve the word "marriage" for monogamous heterosexual couples is subjected to villification and disgraceful and gratuitous insults I am pretty sure that they are being subjected to a hate campaign.

A glance through all the posts on this thread would cause any reasonable person to conclude that the haters are on the side which wishes to use the word marriage for homosexuals.

There are sound literary, economic, political, psychological and traditional reasons why the word "marriage" should be preserved for what it has meant for the whole life of our Western culture. When anybody gives any or all of those reasons to preserve the word is subjected to the language I have been subjected to it is plain where the hate is coming from.

But it's normal practice on some of these threads for people with a bad case of hate to express accuse others of being haters simply because they are making a perfectly reasonable argument with which they don't agree. RexRed is the serious hater on here and one or two others are not far behind.

That the argument they make for preserving the word "marriage" for its traditional use is reasonable is obvious from the fact that 44 or 45 states so preserve it as do most countries in the world. And even in California the proposed new use of the word is years away from being brought back. It is also obvious from the split votes in the places where it has come into use.

I think that the extreme hatred expressed on this thread against the one poster who sides with the overwhelming majority of the US and European populations on this matter disgraces the LGBT movement and there is a suspicion that RexRed is a homophobic deliberately setting out to discredit that movement.

Hate is in almost every debate post RexRed has put up.

Yeah--crapon the haters. 100%. It's too easy to accuse people of being haters when they are not in the least that. Not one scorrick of hate is in any of my posts.

What is a young person after 50 years of the word "marriage" being accepted and normalised in the new usage proposed going to make of the first sentence of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice?



And the same applies to the whole book and to all the other works of literature which have proved lasting because of their excellence.

There is not one reason why it should be changed except the whimsical fancy of those who wish to do. Accusing those who wish to preserve the word of being haters is not even an argument.

Crap on the haters. Yes.

Get it into your prejudiced head Rex that my objection to contraception has nothing, I repeat, nothing, to do with the Catholic Church. Contraception is flat out misogyny. If you take the trouble to read Professor Germain Greer's books you will see why.

A lady should be able to have complete confidence that the man she is in a sexual relationship with will take complete responsibility for all the actions involved. She should not have to poison herself with chemical substances or insert plastic devices into her body or, if they fail, subject herself to the absolute indignity of an abortion procedure.

That there is deep shame attached to the abortion procedure is easily demonstrated by the fact that despite the vast numbers of abortions taking place I have never met a lady who admitted to having had one and despite the most horrifying nature of many surgical operations being seen on TV we have yet to see an abortion performed.

Forget the bishops and the Catholic Church. They have nothing to do with my position. Go argue with a bishop if you want. But if you want to argue with me don't bring third parties into it with whom I have nothing to do.

No matter how much you discredit the bishops and the Church it has nothing to do with the validity of contraception or with me.

Your straw man is ridiculous. Contraception looks ridiculous, feels ridiculous and is ridiculous. It's a charter to get your rocks off on the cheap. It's full-blown misogyny. Not a woman would entertain it if she hadn't been pressured into it. It's a seat belt. Bungee jumping secure in safety straps. Casanova didn't need it.

It's using women. As Cliff Richard said in his Living Doll hit.

What part of CHOICE don't you understand? A woman has a choice to poison her body with contraceptives and an equally bright and intelligent mind to decide personally if that is what she wants... She does not need your bigoted and sexist err... help or permission. Also a man has a choice if he wants to get he testicals mutilated with surgery if he so wants, so he can have sex without making babies, this is freedom...

The problem is you and "others" seem to think it is proper to take this CHOICE away for whatever sick and disgusting reasons.

Standard practice of losers. No response to the argument. Just a cartoon which is nothing but a facile assertion in the Joseph Goebbels style.

That is complete rubbish. It fails to deal with the obvious fact that the "bright and intelligent mind" has been pressured and mesmerised.

I am well aware that a healthy woman does not need my advice or permission. When did I say she did?

My argument is NOT rebutted by calling it bigoted or sexist. You are those things. My argument stands on what it says.

And as a homosexual what do you know about this matter?

You are arguing to neuter women. Take all their natural powers away. Render them not dangerous.

What is "sick and disgusting" about being opposed to women poisoning themselves with chemical substances, inserting plastic or metallic devices into their bodies, resorting to the shaming procedure of abortion and generally rendering themselves into a convenience for male orgasm?

Of course women have the choice to do those things. When did I say they hadn't? But how much are they pressured and mesmerised into doing them? They have had no pressure or smarmy words from me to do them. I can take care of a woman without the help of the manufactures of these substances and mechanical devices.

I see now... women are so weak minded, they so easily succumb to pressures and they are so prone to being mesmerized by men... They needed you and the pedophiles of the catholic church to "take care of them".

After all they have only two purposes in life to make babies and be mommies... (I am being cynical here)

Ask a woman. What sort of a guide are you?

You're obsessed with evil priests as if it matters to the Christian morality codes how ever many there are and there are not very many. And there will soon be less because they are being more carefully recruited and watched now than they were. And if ever there becomes none where will you posit your attacks on the Christian morality code then? Presumably you will then approve of it having nothing left to attack it with.

Attack the code. Those charged with its keeping are frail human beings. You're having a free ride on the backs of these priests you have had found for you.

Women don't need me to take care of them on this subject. They know very well what I mean. I got it off them. I was a misogynist once myself. That's how I know how to recognise misogynists. Closet ones are easy. They are quick to call others misogynists.

Women who have been cajoled, pressured and mesmerised into doing something to frustrate their bodies so that men can have a responsibility free blow out might be allowed, without you speaking on their behalf, to consider what I say. There is no pressure from me to insist they take any notice.

And they don't need your pointless jibes to help them to make their minds up because they are all invalid in grown up discourse. And doubly so coming from a man and double again coming from a homosexual. If they wish to be artificially contaminated with all manner of industrially produced items and expertise for their own convenience or for the convenience of a man they are perfectly free to do so. But anybody who says that they are not being contaminated by those items is mesmerising them as far as I'm concerned. And I am quite content to allow them this privilege.

You can't talk about contraception without talking about contamination. Explain to me why contraception is not a biological contamination of the pristine female nature. Your best friends, the evil priests, won't help you with that question because it doesn't matter how many evil priests there are in deciding such a matter.

This is supposed to be a day of love, though I lost my love with the loss of gay marriage in Maine, I refuse to spend this day quibbling...

Happy Valentines Day wherever you are my prince...

Bob Dylan Love Minus Zero/ No Limit.

That is a very good video.

So are yours, keep em coming!

Steven Colbert reports that in 2010 catholic charities received 2.9 billion dollars (That's billion with a B) of US taxpayer money. This money was received "TAX FREE"... The Catholics use a good portion of this money to buy ads from the media promoting hate propaganda that "gays want to teach kindergarten kids sex education..."

So gays pay taxes to the government, so they can give a "political" church tax free money, so this church can pay for hate ads against homosexuals? What part of separation of church and state does the church and our government not understand? What part of faith-based political machine don't the American tax payers understand?

THIS is a conflict of interest and a breach of the non profit tax free status of the church. Then the church uses this money to lobby senators. Talk about ponzi schemes!

Yahoo answers defines ponzi scheme as such:

You take money from one person.
Then you take money from another person.
Then you pay the first person a 30% profit from the money the second person gave you.
Then you get a third person and pay the second person 30%, and so on.....

Comment:

Let's go over this...

You (the catholic church) take money from one person. (parishioners)
Then you take money from another person. (the government/taxpayers)
Then you pay the first person a 30% profit from the money the second person gave you. (catholic charities)
Then you get a third person (the media) and pay the second person 30%, and so on..... (till our senators are also bribed)

When 14 year old gays kill themselves due to this hateful propaganda, it gives new meaning to the words "blood money"...

This money is granted to the church so they will use it to help people with their faith based charities! It is NOT given so that the church can play craps in the stock market politics of Washington DC!

Who gets ripped off? American tax payers, our government, the poor, women's health, homosexuals and the people seeking aid and help from catholic charities... Like, a meager cup of soup for the homeless on a cold winter's day... And food pantries that help moms feed their kids when times get tough.... Most of this food pantry food is donated too! Do these bishops think this money is "granted" so they can spend it at their own political whim?

Especially when catholic charities withdraw their funding (that is government funding) from soup kitchens because these soup kitchens accept gays and refuse to condemn marriage equality... Shouldn't accepting government money to the order of billions of dollars require that the catholic charities serve ALL Americans equally and fairly?

If they do not intend to serve the people fairly (including women) this money should go to other private charities and entitlement programs that better serve the people whom they are initially taking the money from... People deserve their tax payer dollars to reasonably work FOR them (remember, FOR the people?). This money should not work against THE PEOPLE at the political whims of psycho priests and bible babel bishops that don't represent fairly even their own catholic base.

...continued

I have no problem with catholic charities helping immigrants.. Even if they are here illegally. In fact I applaud this action. That is the true meaning of charity to me... But they should be barred from engaging in ANY political lobbying whatsoever and buying politically motivated hate ads. Taking money earmarked for charity and basically giving it to the media? This is nothing short of collusion and is a misappropriation of funds.

col·lu·sion/kəˈlo͞oZHən/
Noun:
Secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, esp. in order to cheat or deceive others.
Such cooperation or conspiracy, esp. between ostensible opponents in a lawsuit.

I wonder what God and the lord Jesus would think of that? God would help homosexuals long before he would help those who steal from the poor with no conscience or remorse. Remember, unrepentant thieves were hanging next to Jesus on crosses... NOT HOMOSEXUALS...

If the bishops want to engage in these types of politics they should lose their tax exempt status and lose all government funding. Then see if they want to take their church donations and give it to the media rather than paying their hospital and church heating bills... Or they could take the money out of their own pockets. Set a up a lemonade stand... "Lemonade for homosexual hate ads..." Or how about a homosexual hate ad bake sale? Maybe a homosexual hate ad pot luck dinner? But taking collection plate and tax grant money for this hate is simply unethical and immoral!

Americans (the middle class 99%) are hurting financially and we do not pay taxes and contribute to charities so these hard earned dollars can be frittered away for ideological dark age, male sexist chauvinism.

Christopher Cain Arrested: Videotaped Gay Beating of Brandon White

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/suspect-arrested-videotaped-beating-gay-georgian-man

Christopher Cain, Atlanta Anti-Gay Attack Suspect, Arrested And Charged With Aggravated Assault And Robbery

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/12/atlanta-anti-gay-suspect-christopher-cain-arrested_n_1271811.html

Since this discussion is all about gay marriage, I figured I would talk about about priests, nuns etc... and their "marriage to God".

The roman catholic church talks about their trinity and that is one aspect of the catholic doctrine that I do find interesting. I did not always entertain the idea of the trinity. In fact I was once against it. The cult of zero concepts have softened my position on the trinity.

But as the trinity has its delicious mystical side, it also has its rather curious side.

For instance, if a priest is married to god, on the surface that seems kosher... but if god is actually "three in one" then the priest is married to God, Jesus and the holy spirit (where catholics often associate the holy spirit with Mary the mother of Jesus). This seems to embody all of the very things that catholic bishops "claim" to be sinful...

When the bible clearly states in several old and new testament places that Jesus was merely a man. In fact some scriptures and denominations state that had Jesus not been completely and absolutely only a man, that our redemption could not possibly be valid. For one man caused the original transgression and it would take another man (not a god-man) to pay for said transgression.

Then this would mean priests are married to a man who is clearly spoken of as being merely "flesh and blood". Thus priestly marriage is between a man and another man according to their priesthood as it relates to their strict adherence to the trinity as it stands. And the church has for many years applied the word marriage and not "civil unions" in the vernacular of their own priesthood dogma.

The catholic deity of GOD almighty is strictly thought to be male also, in spite of the many scriptures that state that God is neither male nor female. Then there is the virgin Mary, where this seems to go against the idea that the clergy are supposed to be celibate. Likewise nuns are married to Jesus a man as they are married to god and also married to the virgin Mary... That is if the trinity is actually true at all.

So are we to faithfully believe priests are married to this god that is actually three persons?

And what of marriage as being between ONE man and ONE woman? Would being married to three persons of either sexes also constitute polygamy?

It would seem that the trinity gives the clergy a CHOICE on which aspect of God's sexuality they choose to love the most... I have heard it said that, "god is the greatest lover" but this trinity seems to take that idea much farther than even gays care to go with it.

Gays, at least most of them, are asking for a monogamous relationship with only one same-sex "person" while the priests and other clergy are married to three persons consisting of both sexes... Two of them namely stated as unarguably male (God and Jesus), and God is often thought of as ambiguous, where Hebrew scripture attribute both male and female characteristics to the Hebrew God.

So if it were only marrying God alone as a single "person" there is much speculation as to God's sexuality and preference for his "beloved".

Is this not a bit hypocritical of their own doctrines? They live by one doctrine and impose a completely other doctrine on others? What have they themselves done to the institution of marriage by their very own doctrines?

Also the idiot republicans and bishops have likened Obama's stance on contraception to "rape"... This is only to draw suspicion away from themselves! It is a man or men who takes away a woman's freedom and CHOICE that is guilty of rape-like behavior, not the other way around. Preserving a woman's choice is certainly not even close to rape...

Also, human rights are not granted, they are immutable. They are something we all own and we do not receive them from our government or the church, we simply "claim" them, because they were and are already ours...

So these bishops and priests that are trying to bully woman by limiting their choices are tantamount to rapists. They rape children by taking away their choice through fear and intimidation, they rape women with these attempts to limit their choices, they think that bullying gays, lesbians and hoodwinking children with their pulpit pageantry is acceptable behavior. Then they accuse Obama of the very crime that they themselves have perpetrated....

I know I am not the only one that has thought this thing through... It is all out in the open and it does not look ethical for this polygamous priesthood of three persons married in a "supposed" celibate order.

How can "marriage" truly be considered celibacy or abstinence anyway?