Same Sex Marriage

Walter, "Some" of those christians happens to be my siblings. Wink

c.i.

0 Replies

tresWill - sorry i didn't respond sooner. I haven't been around here much lately. The link c.i. posted speaks directly to my comment. I know a couple of parishes that have married priests who were married ministers from another faith who converted to Catholicism. (bad sentence, right idea)

0 Replies

Just saw this thread now. Tres, I very much like your intro.

0 Replies

Thanks blatham. It's nice to get some positive feedback from a source I respect now and then. Very Happy

0 Replies

tres, We all respect you - now and then, too! Wink

c.i.

0 Replies

I love weddings and one of the most memorable I attended was the wedding of two women in Berkeley, CA, in 1998. Any couple who would wants to formalize their commitment to each other in a public ceremony should have that right. The same sex marriages are recognize by the American Society of Friends and are recorded in the history of the organization just as any marriage would be. In addition, the couple must go through the Quaker process of meeting with a clearness of purpose committee made up of the elders. Once the committee submits it's report acknowledging the clarity of the couple then a meeting for worship is held where the couple stand and state their commitment to each other and then the meeting signs the marriage certificate.

0 Replies

Personal opinon-wise... my preference would be to line up all those people who think they have anything at all to say regarding what other consenting adults get up to in their bedrooms and give them a big Stooge-slap.

0 Replies

Well, I neither support the idea, nor object to it. If some people are gay/lesbian, and it is believed that this cannot be corrected, since this is defined on the genetic level, then it is much better if they engage in permanent unions than if they resort to promiscuity and public bathroom sex. At least, permanent unions are favorable from the epidemiologic point of view: promiscuity increases STDs morbidity both in gays and straights.

0 Replies

What consenting people choose to do in the privacy of their own homes is their own business. If two people have the intent to want to commit themselves in matrimony, I can only see benefit to society on the whole. Committed couples (of any persuasion) tend to contribute more to the community and are more likely to benefit society.

Love is love, not matter what shape or form. Who am I to tell another person how they can (or cannot) form their marital union? In my mind, the issue enfringes on an individual's constitutional rights - similar to one's right to choose their religion. Government must be LESS intrusive, not more, if it is to serve all the people best.

0 Replies

Moreover, I agree with fbaezer's opinion when he/she said:

"The main reason I'm for it is that it legally protects the couple. Much too often we see that relatives of a homosexual person block the partner's entrance into a hospital, his/her right to inheritance when there's not a will, or his/her right to have a widow(er) pension, etc. That is an unfair and discriminatory tratment of a person because of his/her sexual preference."

0 Replies

Quote:

Well, I neither support the idea, nor object to it. If some people are gay/lesbian, and it is believed that this cannot be corrected, since this is defined on the genetic level, then it is much better if they engage in permanent unions than if they resort to promiscuity and public bathroom sex. At least, permanent unions are favorable from the epidemiologic point of view: promiscuity increases STDs morbidity both in gays and straights.

And if not genetic...then it is evil, I suppose. And promiscuity/bathroom sex...that's like a gay thing, right? They can't control themselves and just hump like animals, often in public? Admirable thinking and writing, and all done with knees so rapidly ajerk they become a mere blur.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Personal opinon-wise... my preference would be to line up all those people who think they have anything at all to say regarding what other consenting adults get up to in their bedrooms and give them a big Stooge-slap.

I like the way Dennis Miller put it: "There is nothing in the world more fascinating to me than my orgasm, and nothing less fascinating to me than your orgasm."

0 Replies

Good quote, TW!

0 Replies

Denis Miller wrote:

"There is nothing in the world more fascinating to me than my orgasm, and nothing less fascinating to me than your orgasm."

IMHO, Mr. Miller is inaccurate. If he was right, visual pornography that depicts lots of other people's orgasms would be much less popular than it is.
Hmm, Blatham tends to attack me even when I do not object ideas he/she advocates, on the contrary, I provide some kind of moderate support of these.

0 Replies

The words "less fascinating" may still be true. It doesn't negate other's orgasm such as in watching porno. It's sort of like "foreplay." c.i.

0 Replies

steissd - You're taking him too literally. The statement was made in the context of a rant decrying our need to regulate other people's sex lives (and as a corollary, the need some people have to put their sex lives in our faces).

0 Replies

Ah, OK. Now I understand the real meaning of the expression quoted. This may refer to the feelings the average straight man or woman experience when they see the gay pride parade.

0 Replies

Quote:

This may refer to the feelings the average straight man or woman experience when they see the gay pride parade.

And what exactly is that 'average' response?

0 Replies

Average response, IMHO, is not so much favorable to gays. I guess, they make a mistake when they arrange such parades, these only enhance homophobia. As far as I know, straight people in general do not make a big issue of the ways they make love, and do not demonstrate this in public.

0 Replies

well Blatham; the obvious (whats a'matter for you?) "average" is whatever i am.

0 Replies

Same Sex Marriage

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know