@farmerman,
Quote:Then youve missed the nuance of the discussion. (Why am I not surprised?). Gays wish to be recognized under the rules of MARRIAGE (as defined by the predominant {Think: CHRISTIAN RELIGION})
That's utterly ridiculous. The CHRISTIAN RELIGION condems homosexuals out of hand. It's like trying to be a member of a club that bans spitting on the premises and demanding to be allowed to spit inside its walls.
So--the first thing to do is to persuade the CHRISTIAN RELIGION to lift its ban on homosexuals: which is tantamount to tacit approval. The alternative is to Ignore the CHRISTIAN RELIGION altogether but then there would be no urge to participate in one of its hallowed institutions: namely, the Holy and Blessed State of Matrimony. ( Derived from Matriarch and His Money).
They are going at it from the wrong end.
@spendius,
Bottom up protests rarely work. The Church of England has partially lifted the ban on homosexuality in men. Work on them.
If the benefits that accrue are the ENTIRE INTEREST then it follows that they are coming at the cost of the rest of the community. Possibly the voters of Maine haven't worked that out yet.
Spendiua, some variants of Christianity, by no means all, condemn homosexuality. Some have no problem with it. And marriage isn't the property of the church. It is a civil institution,in the U.S.at least. It is not the property of the church. You need a state marriage license. A church wedding is completely optional. Heck, we even have places, like Las Vegas, where you can be married by Elvis, or at least an Elvis-wannabe. And no one is saying, even in gay marriage-legal states, that churches must conduct gay weddings. Though, again, I think some do.
@spendius,
So it's another begging bowl job if fm's "ENTIRE INTEREST" is valid. Which opens the gate to other begging bowl pleadings.
Equal treatment under the law isn't generally considered a "begging bowl". Rather it's a matter of justice.
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic wrote:
Please do not take this as fact with out checking into it because I am going by memory and my memory is very bad!
This whole anti gay thing reminds me of one of the forgotten books of the bible where people were telling Jesus that Mary Magdalene could not be one of them because she was a woman and we all know how woman were looked down upon so Jesus said he would make her a man!
You may note at this point that in the above cited passages from the Gospel of John, the Beloved Disciple is clearly male. Also, in 19:25-27 and 20:1-11 the Beloved Disciple and Mary Magdalene appear in the same scenes simultaneously. How can I allege that Mary Magdalene is the Beloved Disciple in light of this? The answer will be addressed in detail below. But for now: The reason that the Beloved Disciple was turned into a man in the text was because this disciple was clearly the founder and hero of the community that produced this Gospel. At some point after the death of Jesus, the emerging male leadership of that community simply became embarrassed about having a female founder. (Remember, we're dealing with male attitudes towards women 2,000 years ago.) In order to "mainstream" their community, they suppressed some of the more radical practices that Jesus taught them through his example -- such as treating everyone with equal dignity and respect, including the sick, the poor, the oppressed, the outcast, and women. Jesus apparently did not object to men and women sharing power and positions of leadership. Some of his successors, however, were not courageous enough to be so radical. So, in the case of the Gospel of John, the female Beloved Disciple had to become male. I will elaborate on just how I believe this happened below.
http://74.6.238.254/search/srpcache?ei=UTF-8&p=forgotten+book+jesus+make+mary+magdalene+a+man&fr=my-myy&u=http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=forgotten+book+jesus+make+mary+magdalene+a+man&d=4857947523779720&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=c84e4dd5,c53a3e63&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=hC6B1CwMWyH16OpZsgJ0MQ--
I might take this a bit further to say Mary Magdalene was a man dressed as a woman. Hebrew law states a woman was never allowed to accompany men into an "upper room" but perhaps a man dressed as a woman was an exception.
@MontereyJack,
The CHRISTIAN RELIGION has pronounced on the justice. A man needs certain benefits to help him to look after a wife. In a homosexual union there are two male incomes and no female demands. So the male homosexuals will soon be driving the flashier cars and flaunting their wealth in other ways. Which might be tempting to waverers and thus provide a larger recruitment pool. Which might leave those ladies with certain unfortunate dispositions struggling to find a husband to love and cherish her all the days of her life. And they would get no benefits other than what homosexuals do at present. The homosexuals would get the benefits and large numbers of ladies would get nothing. No husband; no benefits--nothing. Just for having a big nose or Olive Oil legs.
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
The CHRISTIAN RELIGION has pronounced on the justice. A man needs certain benefits to help him to look after a wife. In a homosexual union there are two male incomes and no female demands. So the male homosexuals will soon be driving the flashier cars and flaunting their wealth in other ways. Which might be tempting to waverers and thus provide a larger recruitment pool. Which might leave those ladies with certain unfortunate dispositions struggling to find a husband to love and cherish her all the days of her life. And they would get no benefits other than what homosexuals do at present. The homosexuals would get the benefits and large numbers of ladies would get nothing. No husband; no benefits--nothing. Just for having a big nose or Olive Oil legs.
And what of heterosexuals who have two incomes, woman who work and men who stay home or couples who don't work at all because of old money should their marriages be considered null and void on the same logic you espouse? Round in circles you go Spendi and it is blistering to think never a consideration is ever given to couples of the same sex.
You act as if women never work outside the home but women like Hillary Clinton and Oprah might disagree. Your picture you paint about women is as pathetic as the one you paint about gays.
Even as a gay homosexual I see that women are strong, independent self reliant and would generally find offense in your stay and home and be silent confabulations.
@RexRed,
spendi is a pathetic individual who's perception of the world is created in his own mind. As can be observed on the many threads that spendi posts his nonsense, he still doesn't realize that his ideas are not based on common knowledge or common sense. His imagination is the core of his beliefs that springs from his voracious reading of the classics, but has learned nothing. His quotes from long-gone authors have no relationship to the topic under discussion. Will he ever learn this basic truth?
@cicerone imposter,
I bloody well hope not. I might end up like you.
@Ionus,
Were the Greeks the ones who influenced the old testament writings?
@spendius,
I thought that that we were talking about the rights here in the USA
@RexRed,
I could see this to be true if she looked like the blond in this video!
I can not tell that she is a man! I bet Spendius can!
Feminine Men
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Puivcv6KduM&NR=1&feature=fvwp
@spendius,
Quote:the male homosexuals will soon be driving the flashier cars and flaunting their wealth in other ways.
Spendius I thought that you were all about the love of money, I guess that I miss read you at times
@reasoning logic,
I like this... makes me almost feel straight.
@MontereyJack,
Quote: Support for gay marriage in the state in 59%, versus 33 opposed. Politicians who come out against the law tend to lose their seats
Its that high. We must be growing up as a society. My next iussue will be to see some atheist get elected to a high public office. Imagine a gay atheist running for president?
@farmerman,
That would be about two or three centuries from now. LOL
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Quote: Support for gay marriage in the state in 59%, versus 33 opposed. Politicians who come out against the law tend to lose their seats
Its that high. We must be growing up as a society. My next iussue will be to see some atheist get elected to a high public office. Imagine a gay atheist running for president?
I am not sure about atheists yet... I think it is just as foolhardy to believe strongly in god as it is to disbelieve strongly in god. I prefer not knowing for sure myself. I think that is more honest. I think an agnostic would make a better president gay or straight. Perhaps agnosticism is a close cousin to the founding father's deism.
@farmerman,
I do not think that will happen as long as we have religion but then again if you believe in miracles anything is possible!
