Gay marriage making progress in Norway, State of California

[Safe-Keeper]

You all know that recently, a Surpreme Court in California made gay marriage legal within the entire 36.5 million people state. Meanwhile in Norway, there's clear support in five of eight parties for gay and lesbian marriage, adoption, and artificial insemination (the latter should hopefully shut up the anti-gay "they can't have children" whining choir, though I'm not holding my breath:p). That's 41.3 more people who now have the right to marry within their own gender, should they so desire.

Score one for progress:up:.

Oh, and while I remember it, I want to post this:http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r292/safe-keeper/EqualLegalRights.jpg

'Cause you just know there are still people out there who think "separated but equal" is a valid way to handle minority rights:nope:.http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/%5BIMG%5Dhttp://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r292/safe-keeper/EqualLegalRights.jpg%5B/IMG%5D

[Letum]

One day people will look up up in the history books and wonder why why we where so
socially backward at this time and why everything took so long to change.

[rifleman13]

Wild, dark times are rumbling toward us, and the prophet who wishes to write a new apocalypse will have to invent entirely new beasts, and beasts so terrible that the ancient animal symbols of Saint John will seem like cooing doves and cupids in comp.

- Heinrich Heine

:huh::huh::huh:

[Polak]

I am glad that there is no support for such things in Poland.

[Skybird]

One day people will look up up in the history books and wonder why why we where so
socially backward at this time and why everything took so long to change.
I think it is far more likely that they cast curses on us for our self-deconstruction, our unlimited relativizing of norms that keep a survivable social community together, for our shortsightedness and stupidity. In this context - and in several others as well.

[Jacky Fisher]

This is good news overall. I just wish they wouldn't use the term 'marriage'. Its too loaded a term.

Gays can't screw up marriage any more then straight folks already have:o

[LtCmdrRat]

This is good news overall. I just wish they wouldn't use the term 'marriage'. Its too loaded a term.

Gays can't screw up marriage any more then straight folks already have:o:up:

In case Gays and Lesbians will call it marriage I call "straight" families and couples - misunderstanding that appears periodically due to unortodox traditions.

[Iceman]

Your logic is flawed here Safe-Keeper and whomever thinks that the person who calls themselves "Gay" is not in violation of not God law or Man's law but what about the laws of nature if you must call it that...it's like trying to screw two nuts together or two bolts...it just does'nt naturally work that way.

Man though has the unique ability to try to rationalize any behavior as "OK".


To me...blowing your head off with a shotgun for example would be perfectly ok huh?....To "ME" maybe that is ok...or sacrficing little babies upon fires or whatever...

My point is every person on Earth...whether they are religious or not or athesist has natural sense of right and wrong...It becomes a "Choice"...a voluntary Choice a person makes as to which way he or she will live they're life.

Being a follower of Jesus Christ..this type of behavior is any human souls God given right to choose...that said it is also the Creators right not to have to live with such who make such choices...and again...it is all back to choice and Free will...given by God Himself..enjoy your choice...and please choose wisely...

41.3 million people...you say...?

Wide is the road that leadeth to destruction.

[Schroeder]

As long as they don't hurt anybody I don't care what they are doing. If they are really loving each each other then I don't see any reason for them not to be together.:cool:

[Skybird]

I do not care for them being together, it is not my business as long as they do not make it my and other's problem. the problem for me starts regarding the special protection of naturally created families, hetero couples I mean, for these smallest social cells are the future basis of every social community, and I do not wish to see the already heavily battered institution of "family" being relativesed even more into meaningless. For psychological and sociological reasons I cannot take the argument of artificial insemination as to be meant serious. Women and men are not only different in physiology, but in sociological and psychological deimensions as well, and a kid learns different things from it'S mum's role model than it learns from it's father'S role-model. And to make one thing clear: I HAVE been psychologist myself, so I have at least an idea of how many ill-thought out "statistics" and "research studies" have been done trying to "prove" that kids do not deveklope differently in the first 20 years if one parent is missing in their life, or both parents are of the same sex. It is nonsens. I also know these disgusting tendency in psychology (one of the reasons i left it behind) to obediently engage in proving the kind of picture of man's nature that polticially and ecopnomically is wanted, psychology does so to boost it's own reputation and powerstatus in society by lining up with the society-deciding powerfactions, camps and parties, because by it's own stand it has relatively little valuable things to say and to offer, but is master in creating hot air and selling it as "science" (Karl Popper for no rasons separates sciences into true sciences and pseudo-sciences, and psychology is one of the latter - can you imagine how much I was loved by my former colleagues? :) ). But to compensate for that it has drastically changed it's paradigms quite often in relatively short ammount of time.

So I am not discriminating to gays. I am concerned about the new step to relativise the importance of families as the inevitable basic cell of social community. This is being done by putting families and thus: hetero marriages, into endless relations until they have no specially protected and valued status anymore.

Western societies suffer from declining populations. and this and ongoing relativizing and minimizing of the importance of families is one major reason, beside some others.

Couples as they are meant by nature to preserve the species, have all they need to make sure for that all without artifical insemination. Even while it is true that surprisingly many mammal species show the behavior of homosexuality, it remains to be the exception from the rule - not a new rule of laboraty routines equal in importance and meaningfulness to the original natural solution to preserve the surviuving of the species. we can peacefully tolerate homosexuality as the curiosity and exception from the rule that it is - why we need to see it of the same importance and meaning as mixed relations and heterosexuality, is beyond me.

[Safe-Keeper]

I think it is far more likely that they cast curses on us for our self-deconstruction, our unlimited relativizing of norms that keep a survivable social community together, for our shortsightedness and stupidity. In this context - and in several others as well.Blah, blah, blah. You gay marriage opponents keep saying gay marriage is ruining society and causing divorce, but I've yet seen as much as a single one of you back it up with facts.

And even if gay marriage did cause a rise in divorce rates, that's not a reason to prohibit it. Women's rights, too, caused a huge increase in divorce rates, when women suddenly became economically independent and gained the ability to walk away from a failed marriage without being shunned by her community. Yet today we consider those good things.

Divorce rates increasing? Tough luck. There's a ton of things we can do to counter this without denying minority groups rights.

Your logic is flawed here Safe-Keeper and whomever thinks that the person who calls themselves "Gay" is not in violation of not God law or Man's law but what about the laws of nature if you must call it that...it's like trying to screw two nuts together or two bolts...it just does'nt naturally work that way.Yawn. Not only is it an Appeal to Nature that you're not even being consistent about (if you really wanted humans to stick with nature, you'd go join the Amish), but there's also this kinky deal about homosexuality in animals (http://youtube.com/watch?v=7RlTAyNI8WE).

Oh, and "God's law"? There's so much nonsense in the Old Testament that it could drive any sane man crazy.
Man though has the unique ability to try to rationalize any behavior as "OK".Any animal has the ability to rationalize any behaviour as "OK".

[Skipping religious rant]

I do not care for them being together, it is not my business as long as they do not make it my and other's problem. the problem for me starts regarding the special protection of naturally created families, hetero couples I mean [...] "Chauvinist? Me? I've got nothing against women, I just think they should stay in the kitchens where they belong."

"I've got nothing against slaves, it's their damned revolts, I can't stand."

"Those stupid nig****. Nothing bad about them as such, but geez, can't they keep the peace instead of marching and demonstrating all day?!"

"Traditional marriage" is a myth. Marriage has been changing nonstop for as long as we've had it. There have been several huge changes to the "institution of marriage" in this century alone.

I do not wish to see the already heavily battered institution of "family" being relativesed even more into meaningless. I keep hearing people say this. I'm completely and utterly at a loss to understand why.

Did the thousand-year old system of democracy become meaningless when women gained the ability to vote? Did marriage become "more meaningless" when whites gained the ability to marry blacks?

[Doolan]

Who gives a damn about nature, if I may ask?

Technically, gay marriage is not more unnatural than using contraceptives or eating a steak with bordelaise sauce instead of biting a cow as it walks by.

Gay marriage "beats the purpose" of sex? Ok, so do contraceptives (and catholic priests, but that's a different story altogether). And when I eat, I rarely do it with the sole purpose of not starving to death: I do it because I enjoy it. Many times I eat when I'm not hungry and drink when I'm not thirsty just because I like it.

A fine painting or the works of Beethoven or Shakespeare have no "natural purpose" whatsoever and I still love them.

While all animals are capable of this, humans are remarkably good at turning things into more of an art and less of an instinct. That's why nutrition became gastronomy and perfectly good mammoth hides became pretty awesome leather jackets, and that's why a crazy German can devote his entire life to writing musical notes on a sheet of paper just to make my evenings more interesting.

And hey, sexy lingerie won't make my offspring grow stronger and healthier, but what the heck, I love it when my girlfriend wears it.

As for the institution of marriage, I have nothing against it, but it has changed a tad. Like safe-keeper said, women's rights have had a huge impact in it, as one of its original purposes was keeping women tied to the household and keeping them from fleeing when their husbands spent a fortune in submarine simulators and naval miniatures :D

[August]

Like safe-keeper said, women's rights have had a huge impact in it, as one of its original purposes was keeping women tied to the household and keeping them from fleeing when their husbands spent a fortune in submarine simulators and naval miniatures :D

:D

Seriously, having the wife stay home and keep house wasn't such a bad thing. It's good for a family for one parent to keep house and the raise children full time. Someone that doesn't have to leave work when the kid gets sick. Someone at home when the children gets home from school. Someone who doesn't have to work all day then do housework at night. Someone that isn't forced to choose between their job and their family on a daily basis.

[antikristuseke]

Your logic is flawed here Safe-Keeper and whomever thinks that the person who calls themselves "Gay" is not in violation of not God law or Man's law but what about the laws of nature if you must call it that...it's like trying to screw two nuts together or two bolts...it just does'nt naturally work that way.

Man though has the unique ability to try to rationalize any behavior as "OK".



There is homosexuality in some other animals than humans aswell, so this law of nature thing does'nt really work in your favor. Besides, mankind is not in any risk of extinction and leting them get married has'nt changed anything.


:D

Seriously, having the wife stay home and keep house wasn't such a bad thing. It's good for a family for one parent to keep house and the raise children full time. Someone that doesn't have to leave work when the kid gets sick. Someone at home when the children gets home from school. Someone who doesn't have to work all day then do housework at night. Someone that isn't forced to choose between their job and their family on a daily basis.

I agree, some still choose to do so, but at least now the choise is theirs to make.

[bradclark1]

If God didn't want gays he wouldn't have made them.:know:

[AVGWarhawk]

Safe Keeper,

I have only one comment on the video. Rubbish! I can remember as a kid my parents friends who bred dogs. The male dogs were bred so many times, they would hump anything that moved. My ankle was not safe. Instinct only! When the female is in season and the male of the species can detect this from miles away on smell alone, the drive to create is overwhelming to the point were anything is far game. When we look at the equation of survival of the fittest, it does not include female+female or male+male.

I have to go with Iceman on this one...ability to rationalize anything...a unique human ability.

[FIREWALL]

I'm of the mindset that " Time will tell. "

More likely with alltime high fuel costs, people loseing their homes and unemployment at an alltime high this will lose news worthyness and blow over in time.

Something bigger in the news always comes along.

[August]

I agree, some still choose to do so, but at least now the choise is theirs to make.

The only problem is that now most couples no longer can longer afford to choose to let one of them stay home.

[antikristuseke]

I agree, some still choose to do so, but at least now the choise is theirs to make.

The only problem is that now most couples no longer can longer afford to choose to let one of them stay home.

Unless they are willing to endure a lower standard of life. But giving rights to women did not cause this situation.

[AVGWarhawk]

I agree, some still choose to do so, but at least now the choise is theirs to make.
The only problem is that now most couples no longer can longer afford to choose to let one of them stay home.


Most times you will find these couples have gotten in over their heads with credit card debt and vehicles they could ill afford. Couple scan not live beyond their means yet the banks allow them to do so and it is accepted gleefully. It is all about how you handle your money. People need to know their limits.

[AVGWarhawk]

I agree, some still choose to do so, but at least now the choise is theirs to make.
The only problem is that now most couples no longer can longer afford to choose to let one of them stay home.
Unless they are willing to endure a lower standard of life. But giving rights to women did not cause this situation.

Agreed on the women right deal and standard of living. I'm the sole bread winner in my house. We do well but certainly not driving Hummers and going to Disneyland every summer. That is fine by us. Our girls have a mom who is there and dad when he is done working for the day.

Anyway, back to the gay marriage discussion.

[Fish]

Being a follower of Jesus Christ...
Wasn't he gay?
And his 12 apostles?:hmm:

[Skybird]

I think it is far more likely that they cast curses on us for our self-deconstruction, our unlimited relativizing of norms that keep a survivable social community together, for our shortsightedness and stupidity. In this context - and in several others as well.Blah, blah, blah. You gay marriage opponents keep saying gay marriage is ruining society and causing divorce, but I've yet seen as much as a single one of you back it up with facts.
I understand that you just have read an article about divorce rates and their causes and figured that might be a possible reply to claim that is a valid rehtoric trick to squash opposition to relativising the institution of the family, and gay marriages. That way you have answered arguments that I have not claimed, and thus, I have nothing to do with you lament.

Thanks to your [quote:] "blah blah blah" [end of quote] introduction, I take the freedom to save me from answering the rest of what you said. If you also answered claims I did not make, it would be an useless effort anyway. it's the preferred way of us homophobic [quote]"chauvinists"[end of quote] to avoid tough arguments we cannot bear from clever minds like you, you know.

What I said in reality, remains to be untouched by your remarks. ;) You also learned some historic facts about how long people remained together in not so far away times? Do you know what a "golden marriage" means, and an "iron marriage", how many years? And that was the norm still until and short after WWI. I people change partners quicker today than the ebb and flow are changing , this only shows again that the institution of "family" is under attack from many sides, massively. Couples breaking up so easily like it is often oday show me only that they never should have married and raise children at all. There comes the first wave, and away with the water the castles in the sand are. Often (not always) paying for the social consequences - must the community, and the children themselves, often in lacking future chances. the sexual revolution and emanizpation in the last century was not a bad thing in pricinple, but it both has caused serious distortions in social structures that came as the price for it, and that to compensate for and to reapir the damages it created nobody so far have found a blueprint-recipe valid for all, even for most cases.

Now you finally made me saying something on divorce finally, afterwards, retrospectively. Must be a self-fulfilling prophecy of yours. :88)

[Skybird]

Being a follower of Jesus Christ...
Wasn't he gay?
And his 12 apostles?:hmm:

:p

Can't resist... can't help myself... :lol:

Was Jesus gay?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReYfDlIa-Z8


Fish (in the main, but also anyone feeling concerned),
I could imagine that you appreciate this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDHJ4ztnldQ&feature=related

[FIREWALL]

Being a follower of Jesus Christ...
Wasn't he gay?
And his 12 apostles?:hmm:


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Good one Fish :up: We needed to lighten this topic up a little bit.:yep:

[msalama]

Yah, a good thing, this. Consenting adults, &c. so ain't nobodies business what they do, including getting married :up:

[Zayphod]

Divorce rates increasing? Tough luck. There's a ton of things we can do to counter this without denying minority groups rights.

"Traditional marriage" is a myth. Marriage has been changing nonstop for as long as we've had it. There have been several huge changes to the "institution of marriage" in this century alone.


Add this:

The Religious Right wants to "save the institution of marriage". Last time I checked, the divorce rate in the USA was around the 50% range, and those are your traditional (supposedly) $DIETY-fearing man/woman types getting them.

To the Religious Right: Want to truly protect and save the insitituion of marriage? Do this:

MAKE DIVORCE ILLEGAL EVERYWHERE

Watch the fun.

[August]

Yah, a good thing, this. Consenting adults, &c. so ain't nobodies business what they do, including getting married :up:

Well wait a minute. Getting married entails certain tax benefits so it IS our business.

[SUBMAN1]

Being a follower of Jesus Christ... Wasn't he gay?
And his 12 apostles?:hmm:You only wish he were so as to justify your lifestyle.

-S

[AVGWarhawk]

Being a follower of Jesus Christ...
Wasn't he gay?
And his 12 apostles?:hmm:

Boy, what movies have you been watching? There was a movie out about that.

[AVGWarhawk]

Divorce rates increasing? Tough luck. There's a ton of things we can do to counter this without denying minority groups rights.

"Traditional marriage" is a myth. Marriage has been changing nonstop for as long as we've had it. There have been several huge changes to the "institution of marriage" in this century alone.


Add this:

The Religious Right wants to "save the institution of marriage". Last time I checked, the divorce rate in the USA was around the 50% range, and those are your traditional (supposedly) $DIETY-fearing man/woman types getting them.

To the Religious Right: Want to truly protect and save the insitituion of marriage? Do this:

MAKE DIVORCE ILLEGAL EVERYWHERE

Watch the fun.

You have a point here. It is just to easy to file for divorce and have it granted. Not long ago, divorce was looked down upon and you would receive the scarlet letter "D" on your chest. Not anymore, you can pick up the divorce papers at the local Walmart for .69 cents and be done with it in a week. Alas, marriage between men and women are ar 50%, we can now started adding same sex marriages to this statistic as well. Nothing in the cards say this type of relationship is every lasting. Just more to fill the courtrooms.

[AVGWarhawk]

Yah, a good thing, this. Consenting adults, &c. so ain't nobodies business what they do, including getting married :up:

Well wait a minute. Getting married entails certain tax benefits so it IS our business.

Actually, married couple incur a tax penalty.

[August]

Yah, a good thing, this. Consenting adults, &c. so ain't nobodies business what they do, including getting married :up:
Well wait a minute. Getting married entails certain tax benefits so it IS our business.
Actually, married couple incur a tax penalty.

At least until 2003 they did...

[LtCmdrRat]

I repeat it again and again" Political correctness nowadays is killing ( or messing with) common sense".
I dont have any problem with gays or lesbians, but why minorities became majorities in modern mass media?
If you re a gay, be proud of that, but dont make a commercial from it or propaganda of gay way of life !!!!!!
Sincerely Me.
Still Straight.
Caucasian American

[Ducimus]

Random thoughts in no particular order:

- Marriage is not what it used to be, like back in our grandparents day. Divorce's are common, and vows are subject to being null and void if the wind blows the wrong way.

- In my time, i have seen alot of abuses of marriage such as
a.) Single women looking for a daddy to support them and their kid, and for no other reason, and ive seen them reel in a love sick fool as their patsy.

b.) Contract marriages. Common enough in the military. Here's how it works. You find a member of the opposite sex that you can put up with, get married, and then you get paid extra money for offbase housing, and food. Its quite the scam, you can substantially increase your monthy pay and live in much better quarters then the barracks doing this. I knew of at least two contract marrages, and both "partners" were actively dating. (and why not, its not like they really loved each other :roll: )

c.) Cheating spouses.


When i think of the sanctity of marriage, i think of a little word play on "Victory's Secrets" In sum, just Victoria doesn't have a whole lot of secrets left, neither does marriage have a whole lot of sancity. Gays have had absolutley nothing to do with any of this.

Times change, and these days marriage is more of a legal thing then anything else. Thats the truth. I won't marry my girlfriend of 6-7 years because she can't manage her finances for ****. Oh yes, ill call her my wife, becaus spiritually she is, but legally she isn't. And so long as we dont "legally" tie the knot (IE, get married), her creditor's cant touch me. Which is probably the only thing that has saved our relationship.

Now about this whole gay marriage thing. Im reminded of a little line from a document called "The Declaration of Independence". "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Ok.. well, if thats what makes them happy, fine, whatever, just keep me out of it. I would never be so presumptious as to try and dictate what people can or cannnot do with their private lives. I don't agree with their lifestyle, frankly im repulsed by it, BUT, it is their life, and they should be free to live it however they deem. They certainly can't do any damage to "institution of marriage", that hit rock bottom years ago. Marriage is what it is in this modern day and age, and the victorian ideal of it has come and gone years ago.

[Doolan]

c.) Cheating spouses.

I still believe the plural of "spouse" should be "spice". I know it isn't, but it would sound way cooler and I'm going to use it from now on anyway :hmm:

All in all, it's normal for institutions such as marriage to lose their meaning with time. Many of them were created in a completely different context to point immature / unruly societies in the right direction when there were no other means. Women's rights and a rather convoluted and elaborate legal system have turned it into little more than a mere clause that just keeps the name.

At least English-speaking countries don't have the problem we have here. In English, the word "marriage" comes from Latin "maritare", literally "to give a husband to", while in Spanish the word is "matrimonio" which comes from "matrem" and "monium", the "competence of a mother".

While this seems irrelevant, there was a rather heated discussion among politicians here because they claimed that gay marriage should never receive the name "matrimonio" as no mothers were involved.

Funny how a deep social issue became, once again, a matter of mere semantics.

In any case, the issue becomes clearer for me when I see that in certain countries homosexuality is actively prosecuted and, in a selected few, punished with death.

This leads me to think that:

a) This brutal behavior makes complete sense to them in their social context.

b) Banning gay marriage makes complete sense for some in our (western) social context, so it's my belief that we're just a few steps ahead from the haters but still drag prejudice of the same unforgivable kind that leads men to kill other men just because they love other men.

c) Whenever I find somebody who shows this prejudice but also justifies beating certain countries over the head arguing that they are backwards societies of barbaric nature, I feel that something doesn't quite fit. Same goes for the typical European (or at least Spanish) case of people becoming champions of gay marriage, democracy and women's rights while at the same time defending autoritarian countries because they are "just a different culture".

I honestly see no reason to be against gay marriage if we look at the issue with some perspective, that is, trying to remember how our own society was fifty years ago or how other societies are right now. You have to remember that less than half a century ago it was perfectly understood and accepted by most that black people were inferior, a thought that nowadays we find revolting. We're only beginning to accept this new phenomenon and we have a long way to go. It's just a matter of time, the argument is lost already (or won, depending on where you lie).

[Platapus]

They way I look at it

If you don't want a gay marriage, don't marry a homosexual! :up:

If two people love each other and want to form a legal/moral commitment I say let em.:up:

A happy married couple can't be bad for society.

Gay marriage aint for me, but then I ain't the moral compass of society either.

[Doolan]

Pretty much...

In fact, I have harder feelings against certain men marrying certain women and vice versa :lol:

Gay people can't marry, and yet many politicians are allowed to reproduce!

Crazy world... :nope:

[Iceman]

why we need to see it of the same importance and meaning as mixed relations and heterosexuality, is beyond me.

Why you don't get it is because you stumble around in the same darkness as those who claim such things are ok.It is the nature for a child to try to justify doing wrong.It is grasping at straws...in attempt to bring others down into the same depths of unrighteosness to make oneself feel ok with doing something one knows in his or her heart is wrong.

Again, I cast my pearls before the swine...enjoy.

Reap it!

[AVGWarhawk]

Yah, a good thing, this. Consenting adults, &c. so ain't nobodies business what they do, including getting married :up:
Well wait a minute. Getting married entails certain tax benefits so it IS our business.
Actually, married couple incur a tax penalty.

At least until 2003 they did...

It will return in 2011.

[Doolan]

(...)still until and short after WWI. I people change partners quicker today than the ebb and flow are changing , this only shows again that the institution of "family" is under attack from many sides, massively. Couples breaking up so easily like it is often oday show me only that they never should have married and raise children at all.(...)

Now, this is just a theory, but I don't think the institutions of "family" and "marriage" are losing points in the ranking of hot stuff because of a multi-sided conspiracy.

"Short after WWI", national women's suffrage became a reality in the US. A bit later in the UK. This alone is probably the factor that changed reality the most, with women taking an officially-recognized publicly-active role in society and being put, at least on paper, on the same level as men.

You know what this leads to because we're seeing it today. Women work, often in the same positions as men and with the same responsibilities. Men undergo the difficult process of becoming "house animals" to compensate or keep working and wait until dinner cooks itself. Plus, if a woman is now tired of her husband she can just tell him to sod off and law will be on her side.

In fact, "no-fault divorce" didn't even exist as such in the US until the second decade of the 20th century.

All I'm saying is that, while I don't deny that certain political groups, or any other pressure groups, might be interested in undermining a traditional structure that is often held as a flag by other political (and religious) groups, I think the fact that divorce wasn't even allowed without charges and that women didn't have the option to access it might have something to do with it.

"Couples breaking up so easily like it is often oday show me only that they never should have married and raise children at all."

I suppose you don't believe that people instantly became reckless about marrying after WWI. Couples that weren't meant to be have always existed, and in fact they existed more before WWI than after. Just take a look at the average age for marriages and you'll see that most took place when the girls didn't have a clue, even less so a choice.

The difference is that today if a couple doesn't work you break it, you don't just pretend it works.

[August]

The difference is that today if a couple doesn't work you break it, you don't just pretend it works.


Naw i think the difference is today nobody has any incentive to even try to make it work so even the littlest thing has the potential to destroy a relationship.

I believe that a relationship, like anything else worthwhile, takes effort.

[darius359au]

Why you don't get it is because you stumble around in the same darkness as those who claim such things are ok.It is the nature for a child to try to justify doing wrong.It is grasping at straws...in attempt to bring others down into the same depths of unrighteosness to make oneself feel ok with doing something one knows in his or her heart is wrong.

Again, I cast my pearls before the swine...enjoy.

Reap it!

It must be wonderful to live in your intolerant world :nope: , and to consider anyone that doesn't have your beliefs to be children is pure arrogance , its the 21st century now not the dark ages.

[antikristuseke]

why we need to see it of the same importance and meaning as mixed relations and heterosexuality, is beyond me.

Why you don't get it is because you stumble around in the same darkness as those who claim such things are ok.It is the nature for a child to try to justify doing wrong.It is grasping at straws...in attempt to bring others down into the same depths of unrighteosness to make oneself feel ok with doing something one knows in his or her heart is wrong.

Again, I cast my pearls before the swine...enjoy.

Reap it!

Not pearls, just pure arrogance.


It must be wonderful to live in your intolerant world :nope: , and to consider anyone that doesn't have your beliefs to be children is pure arrogance , its the 21st century now not the dark ages.
I'd like to think so, yet some people seem stuck in the 11th century.

[bradclark1]

Again, I cast my pearls before the swine...enjoy.

Iceman, you are one ignorant bible thumper.

[Skybird]

(...)still until and short after WWI. I people change partners quicker today than the ebb and flow are changing , this only shows again that the institution of "family" is under attack from many sides, massively. Couples breaking up so easily like it is often oday show me only that they never should have married and raise children at all.(...)

Now, this is just a theory, but I don't think the institutions of "family" and "marriage" are losing points in the ranking of hot stuff because of a multi-sided conspiracy.

"Short after WWI", national women's suffrage became a reality in the US. A bit later in the UK. This alone is probably the factor that changed reality the most, with women taking an officially-recognized publicly-active role in society and being put, at least on paper, on the same level as men.

You know what this leads to because we're seeing it today. Women work, often in the same positions as men and with the same responsibilities. Men undergo the difficult process of becoming "house animals" to compensate or keep working and wait until dinner cooks itself. Plus, if a woman is now tired of her husband she can just tell him to sod off and law will be on her side.

In fact, "no-fault divorce" didn't even exist as such in the US until the second decade of the 20th century.

All I'm saying is that, while I don't deny that certain political groups, or any other pressure groups, might be interested in undermining a traditional structure that is often held as a flag by other political (and religious) groups, I think the fact that divorce wasn't even allowed without charges and that women didn't have the option to access it might have something to do with it.

"Couples breaking up so easily like it is often oday show me only that they never should have married and raise children at all."

I suppose you don't believe that people instantly became reckless about marrying after WWI. Couples that weren't meant to be have always existed, and in fact they existed more before WWI than after. Just take a look at the average age for marriages and you'll see that most took place when the girls didn't have a clue, even less so a choice.

The difference is that today if a couple doesn't work you break it, you don't just pretend it works.

It is a sociocultural fact that marriages let'S say 150 years ago,. held longer, even between the word wars. people simply stood together bad times, and did not talk of "you hinder me to unfold my personality", "I can'r rwlaise myself with you bein g so near", and all that other egopist stuff of today that for the most simply expresses a dramtically drop in stress tolerance - the kind of stress, or testing and crisis that probably inevitably becomes part of a partnership sooner or later. What couple do you knw, who never underwent a crisis, prbolems, challanges? I never met a single one, never. But today, the many selfish egoist our world and western lifestyle has created simply run away when the first such challenge shows up, plus today the social conventions are no longer doing their part of keeping people together. All this is being sold as "realisation of pernal freedom", but the more you claim for yourself, inevitably the more you reject to invest into the other - it simply is the other side of the medal. with the liberasation of such social conventions, women gained more freedoms, both sexes gained a greater degree of freedom in living and interpreting their sexual role, but it went at the cost of stress-tolerance of partnerships. Just 100 years ago, you had great bfamilies, several generation eventually lived under the same roof. That had pros and cons. then came the chnaged working environment, the dcemand of industry for mobile workers, the growing of the cities. families got reduced to core families: just parents and children anymore.

Today, political ideologists and 68er-revoluzzer and super-pedagogues want children being taken out of the traditional family environment as early as possible, and introduce them to other social relations and collectives, and get them under stronger influence from state-wanted (left-wanted) ideologies, I see that att he younger and younger ages at which they are being send to mkindergarten, and tzhe dramatic detoriation of the schools competence in Germany over that past 20 years. The woman not only hgas the right to work in an independant job anymore, today for many it is a must that she does, else the family is threateend on an existential level. the number of singles raising offsprings is climbing, more and more children are being born in a inter-human constealltion that is not strong enough to form and supoort a family constealltion : the partnership breaks, and the children are the loosers. That is again the other face of the medal of the secual revolution: you got rid of the prudence of the 50s and 60s, but you also saw the pendullum to the extreme of the other side of the swing.

It al has two faces, and nothing you gain ever comes for free. That's why it is so important to find a dynamic instead of a static balance.
but when I say the classical family constellation (deriving from a classical man-woman relation with future and perspective and enough investement by both to keep together even if the sea gets heavy) is constantly being pushed further back, and is declining, I am totally right, it is a selfish priority shift deriving from tyopical Wetsern consumer-mentality, it is a decline in stress resistance, an excess in sexual freedom, job and indust6ry demanding family to stay back, left idologies taking kids more towars the state and more away from the family home, and now - we are at the topic - it's specially protected status, in Germany guaranteed by the constitution ("The family stands under the special protection of the state) - is again being pushed back another bit more by relativising the importance of intact hetero-sexual relation within the frame of a family by allowing the same terms of social acceptance for non-hetero-relation outside the classical family-environment. families are not seen as something overly valuable and important anymore, in ourwestern culture, they are not hipp, and economy does not like the reduced flexibility of parents to, and the result of all these different trends and factos, from sociologicy of industrial developemednt to greater egocentrim of modern lifestyles is: wetsern population are in decline.

I leave it to this, becasue it is the core point of why I do not tolerate home-marriages. It is against the idea of what a marriage originally meant (=raisjng a family), and is thus a (indirectly working) harm towards most vital interests of the scoial community. Mammals know the pohenomenon of homosexuality. But that does not mean that it is the norm, it remains to be the deviation from the design, and only the original design is self-suppoorting and survivable in a natural (=designed by nature) way. there is nothing wrong in alolowing and tolerating homosexual people. but the trouble starts when claiming they are as well-suited to biologically support and fund a communty than heterosexual people are. As species and evolutionary design study, homo sapiens is not a homosexual but a heterosexual design, and more there is not to say.

[Platapus]

" It is against the idea of what a marriage originally meant (=raisjng a family), and is thus a (indirectly working) harm towards most vital interests of the scoial community. "

so are you saying that men and women who are sterile should not get married?

"but the trouble starts when claiming they are as well-suited to biologically support and fund a communty than heterosexual people are."

You don't think that homosexual couples are capable of raising a child? I am not quite sure I understand what you meant by "fund a community". Last time I checked with my gay and lesbian friends, they pay the same taxes as the rest of us?

Just trying to understand your viewpoint.

[Skybird]

" It is against the idea of what a marriage originally meant (=raisjng a family), and is thus a (indirectly working) harm towards most vital interests of the scoial community. "

so are you saying that men and women who are sterile should not get married?

"but the trouble starts when claiming they are as well-suited to biologically support and fund a communty than heterosexual people are."

You don't think that homosexual couples are capable of raising a child? I am not quite sure I understand what you meant by "fund a community". Last time I checked with my gay and lesbian friends, they pay the same taxes as the rest of us?

Just trying to understand your viewpoint.

I have made that clear in an earlier debate on all this, but why not doing it again.

If a hetero couple is what necessarily is needed to form a family and have children, and when states should have a protecting role regarding this entity (and I think so), then you have to formalize it, and make it a mandatory rule, a set of rules and laws that regulate the details. In other words, you must generalize if you do not wish to end up with a plethorra of appendices, special permission, exceptions from the rule - all the wonder and mistery bureaucracy produces so willingly.

from that I justify it to define a relation male-female as the exemplary relation to which further rulings regarding family for the most get used on, and start with. The motivation to get babies starts even before the baby actually has arrived, and it must become more accepted again and more welocmed and being understood to be more special again to have babies. And right like this it is the case: hetereo marriages are a legal entity the laws refers to, some laws refer to them and protect marriages, as well as they specially refer to families, and protect this even more. However, the law realises that it makes a difference wether there are children or not, in Germany you do not get financial aid i named "Kindergeld" if you do not have children. You maybe conclude from that that not the fact of marriage is the deciding criterion, but wether or not there are children. But as I see it, if you want to encourage more families being build, and encouraging couples to have more babies, then you must include the social constallation that is precondition for any baby-getting and familybulding - heterosexual couples. And thus, I start here, and accept that as a basis in the understanding of what I said you need to generalise if forming a universal law for all community, you cannot afford to have a different law for every different partnership constellation - then you end up with as many laws as there are couples in the community/nation. that why at court, a marriage is a marriage - they do not difgfer between young and old people being married.

Do damage already on this scale and relativise the value (for the commnity) of established social relations between a man and a women, and it is like a seed for future family life, and babies being born or not, and being raised with engagement, or without. don't forget that the institution family is undert attack from many directions, as I explained, and has seen a longer hostory of decline over the past more than 100 years. The better childrenr social health in their home that they experience with their sisters and brothers and parents, the better chances they have that they can escape to become just another neurotic in this neurotic modern world, of which the streets are already so full of. And yes, I consider to be most of us being damaged to varying degrees by modern city life and civilisation, and being neurotic to varying degrees. In German, I call it the "Cityritis Modernicus" ;) Workingplaces in the modern market, IT and stockmarket offices, and schools are primary focusses of this infectius epidemic. I personally think one must be already crazy to hold out in any city with more than a 300-400 thousand residents :lol:

[Doolan]

It is a sociocultural fact that marriages let'S say 150 years ago,. held longer

I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. It's the view of the cause for this that I don't quite share.

"Selfishness" and "lack of stress tolerance" are rather vague characteristics of contemporary society to refer to.

In the U.S, the most dramatic increase of divorce rates (divorces per 1000 population) according to the 2003 Statistical Abstract was from 2.5 to 3.5 between in ten years (1960 - 1970) and is attributed to what they call "no-fault revolution", that is, the possibility to divorce without having to (as it was required before) argue adultery, felony or other behaviors of this kind exhibited by your partner.

This form of "friendly divorce" was seen as an advance in two grounds: first, it allowed the breaking of couples with less stress to the family (without the need of open litigation) and second (considered even more important by contemporary sociologists) it allowed the breaking of convenience marriages or misinformed marriages brought together by direct or indirect coercion of one of the two sides, generally (from a statistical point of view) a younger woman. I think it is no coincidence that, according to the same statistics by the US Bureau of Census, the median age for marriage began raising sharply and steadily exactly at this date (1969) from 20.8 to 25.9 years.

This works alongside the new professional reality of women after the 60s, who (again, in the US) became roughly equal to men in job opportunities (I say roughly because even today reality is not as pretty and women still have a long way to go to become truly equal).

What in its origin was a patriarchal union in which the woman explicitly swore (as it remains in marriage vows in some countries to this day) to care for her husband and family in the strict atmosphere of the household and to provide offspring (a much needed clause when christian marriage came about), is now largely obsolete in the sense that many women today will tell you to sod off if you ask them to clean the house or cook dinner, arguing that they have as much work to do as you if not more and that you're equally capable of making a sandwich.

Modern society does not need as many children, does not have as much time to look after them (I've seen this firsthand, as a teacher) and does not have a determined member of the couple to embrace such obligations unless he or she agrees to do it. Also gone are the legal barriers if either side considers the marriage to be faulty, and gone is the pressure to embrace the marriage no matter what. In fact, after the first wave of increase in divorce rates, they have been going down *steadily* since 1985, simply because less and less "out of place" marriages have occurred (going with your wish that such people "should not marry in the first place", sounds like society listens to you)

A fair tradeoff in my opinion, as this has made it possible for me to be living with a true woman and not a maid.

In any case, arguing whether this is positive or not is a lost cause. It's a change in the way society works, and it has happened in the past. It's an institution that couldn't stand unchanged after the *drastic* changes in everything else that took place after the 50s.

In the particular case of gay marriage, it is assumed that both parties involved are, well, gay, and therefore would have not engaged in heterosexual marriage OR would have done so in a fraudulent way (as we know has happened before). It does not affect heterosexual marriage statistics and I see absolutely NO reason to favor a fraudulent heterosexual marriage over a legit same-sex one or lack of any marriage at all.

The "destruction of marriage and family" if we were to embrace such a big and opinionated term is a direct and logical consequence of the new work and gender realities, not a consequence of two men getting married. At best, by banning gay marriage we would be forcing gay people to pay for what we heterosexuals already *beep!* up years ago.

[Doolan]

so are you saying that men and women who are sterile should not get married?

I was amused when the priests that gave me my education when I was a child, people who had vowed not to marry or have children, argued to me that same-sex marriages were a sin because they could not produce offspring.

In my absolute innocence as an infant I asked why they didn't have children, and only got punished for my curiosity... :-?

One of my classmates gifted me with what back then seemed to be like a damn fine joke...

What do a priest and a Christmas tree have in common? The balls are just for decoration :|\\

[Skybird]

It is a sociocultural fact that marriages let'S say 150 years ago,. held longer

I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. It's the view of the cause for this that I don't quite share.

Plural please: causes. I referred to several fields of causes.

As you explained yourself, I also said that the economical, socioological and other changes of the past 150, 200 years, always had two faces, had their gains, but also prices had to be payed for winning the first. Some earlier extremie conditions, like a pendulum after letting it go turned into the other extreme. Militant feminism being one example. Extreme sexual shamelessness and the sexualisation of all and everything in the present being an other.

If modern societies currently and in the forseeable future run so well with lesser chuodren, I dare to question. That is true for prudction processes themselves. But the social security systems did not keep up with these ever accelerating chnages, and depend on the numerical relation between young and old not chnaging beyond a certain space of freedom. But this is the case today. Here it is where you nevertheless depend of a stable, dynmic balanc ebetween young and old if you do not wish to give up the concept of communal solidarity between generations. Goiving it up means to sacrifice 1-2 generation of old people and let them fall through all scoial security nets - the old traditional ones are no longer there, and the new, modern ones get actively desconstructed. Since you cannot restore the old multi-generation families under one roof, I wonder what you would do. saying it in all neutrality, I cannot consider the american example to be the way of choice - too many people pay the social price for the wellbeeing of to few, the system knows too many loosers and to few winners. Also, the societies in Northamerica and Europe do not compare by mentality and individual's orientation, it seems to me.

In china, decades of one-chuild policy have created demographial havoc: the population is overaged, and massively so. artifically changing population levels their way -obviously does not work. Uncontrolled exploisve population growth like you have in the third world, also does nothing good, but causes the future misery. So, althizg job world and industry and economy patterns are changing, the social coimmunities iof nations nevertheless depend on a reliable dnymaic baapüönce beween the young and the old. Provbelm is, that the industries and economy ni longer are being tied in their policies to the nations that one gavce birth to them, but have broken free and more and more do not feel bound to the social responsibility for their "parents", the population of a given nation that is. the economy since long has turned workers and employees into "human capital", and treats their socities like you and me give and take small change at the baker. From a capitalistic viewpoint, social security and national states are expandable today - the coirportation will repakce the power of nations. They already have started and driven the effort very far. No western nation today can make policies against the multis anymore, and can afford not to win their acceptance on issues. In return, key decision making of the economy finds massive fallout in political agenda forming and basic paradigms of inner and outer policy forging. that even leads as far as to unleash wars, as we have seen, tnat cost the nation that hosts these corporations a fortune. Bills for that are being payed - again by the affordable citizens, and the decline of the civil sector in general.

[SUBMAN1]

It must be wonderful to live in your intolerant world :nope: , and to consider anyone that doesn't have your beliefs to be children is pure arrogance , its the 21st century now not the dark ages.I don't hink its arrogant at all. It is simply a belief that anything that breaks up the strength of family unity ultimately results in the downfall of the people. Happened in the past, will happen again in our future it would seem. The end of morality always preceeds the end of great peoples. Why don't you think that morality becomes a big deal in the dark ages? They figured out what brought them down to that level - the lack of morality.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

You made me piss my pants S, great one :DGlad I could be of service! :up:

They have things for that ya know - www.depends.com :D

-S

[Iceman]

Again, I cast my pearls before the swine...enjoy.

Iceman, you are one ignorant bible thumper.

Struck a nerve huh?

"Originally Posted by darius359au
It must be wonderful to live in your intolerant world :nope: , and to consider anyone that doesn't have your beliefs to be children is pure arrogance , its the 21st century now not the dark ages."

I bet people from Soddom and Gommorah said the same thing....too funny.

Reap it.

[PeriscopeDepth]

I've heard homosexuals are Islamo-communists bent on infiltrating the western world through programming on Bravo and TLC. Make no mistake, being able to choose incredibly flowing outfits and feng-shui rooms like second nature is a clear and present danger to the family system of the United States. The CIA is working hard to confirm whether appletinis are part of the vast homosexual conspiracy.

PD

[THE_MASK]

I can be civil and not believe in homosexuality at the same time :yep:

[Overboard]

I can be civil and not believe in homosexuality at the same time :yep:

Me and my wife would say yes to that. :up:

[bradclark1]

Again, I cast my pearls before the swine...enjoy.

Iceman, you are one ignorant bible thumper.

Struck a nerve huh?

"Originally Posted by darius359au
It must be wonderful to live in your intolerant world :nope: , and to consider anyone that doesn't have your beliefs to be children is pure arrogance , its the 21st century now not the dark ages."

I bet people from Soddom and Gommorah said the same thing....too funny.

Reap it.
What struck me is how someone can be so ignorant that they are a living breathing copy of the bible. When you can't speak without quoting the bible or even speak without a biblical slant and ones is so troubled that their life revolves around a book and incapable or too scared to have their own thought they are............ Ignorant was probably the wrong word. Its a mixture sorrow and anger. Sorrow for someone who depends on a book for life and being and anger that someone allows themselves to get that way and intolerant of those who don't follow in your footsteps.
We speak on this board about Islamic fanatics living in the 16th century and how they have to rise up above it. I see little difference between them and you. The difference is you live in the west and they live in the middle east.
I try and hide my feeling on that kind of stuff but when someone of your kind gets so bazaar or insulting I find myself speaking out.

[Skybird]

Some people practice circumcision between their legs - while others use to do it between their ears. Ouch!

[Iceman]

Again, I cast my pearls before the swine...enjoy.

Iceman, you are one ignorant bible thumper.

Struck a nerve huh?

"Originally Posted by darius359au
It must be wonderful to live in your intolerant world :nope: , and to consider anyone that doesn't have your beliefs to be children is pure arrogance , its the 21st century now not the dark ages."

I bet people from Soddom and Gommorah said the same thing....too funny.

Reap it.
What struck me is how someone can be so ignorant that they are a living breathing copy of the bible. When you can't speak without quoting the bible or even speak without a biblical slant and ones is so troubled that their life revolves around a book and incapable or too scared to have their own thought they are............ Ignorant was probably the wrong word. Its a mixture sorrow and anger. Sorrow for someone who depends on a book for life and being and anger that someone allows themselves to get that way and intolerant of those who don't follow in your footsteps.
We speak on this board about Islamic fanatics living in the 16th century and how they have to rise up above it. I see little difference between them and you. The difference is you live in the west and they live in the middle east.
I try and hide my feeling on that kind of stuff but when someone of your kind gets so bazaar or insulting I find myself speaking out.

I'm not a bit sorry if your offended by my cold approach ..the truth ain't easy is it....The "Book" is not even a neccessity to know right and wrong....

Let me help you out here Bradclark...Sticking your cock up another man's ******* ,which is what is being discussed here...is wrong.I does not matter how much you try to justify it or hide your head in the sand...if they don't bother me it's ok attitude...it is not ok..it is wrong.

You will reap what you sow.

This isn't Bible stuff it is common sense,moral,truth stuff...some things are wrong.

[Iceman]

Iceman, you only say that because you're affraid of trying something new :D

People get me all wrong...I am not throwing stones by any means and believe everyone is free to make they're own decisions about the way they want to live...A God given right in my belief..only thing I try to point out is for every action there is a reaction,or consequence...this again is my belief and refuse to sugar coat dog crap.

[bradclark1]

Let me help you out here Bradclark...Sticking your cock up another man's ******* ,which is what is being discussed here...is wrong.I does not matter how much you try to justify it or hide your head in the sand...if they don't bother me it's ok attitude...it is not ok..it is wrong.

You will reap what you sow.

This isn't Bible stuff it is common sense,moral,truth stuff...some things are wrong.
If you don't see it, aren't part of it or being hurt by it what business is it of you or me? It's okay with you if a guy does the hershey highway with a woman?
What does common sense or truth have to do with it? Morality comes in all different flavors. I believe that homosexuals aren't that way by choice. I don't think they woke one day and say "Gee I think I'll be a fag from now on". It suites your truth that they 'pretend' they are heterosexual? Unless you do have your head in the sand some gays you can spot from a mile away just by their mannerism, walk, feminism, etc. I don't believe they practice in the mirror at home. Not hard to see at all. Should they stay behind closed doors or do the right thing and blow their head off? What are they supposed to do? What is your truth?

[bradclark1]

only thing I try to point out is for every action there is a reaction,or consequence
One of my favorite sayings, specially so when I was army. Anyway. What do you think the consequences are?

[Iceman]

I cannot express myself any better than this and in light of how many times I have seen countless long winded posts by some I post this and end my discussion in this particular thread lest some be more offended.

What do I think the consequences are?


J. Gresham Machen



Machen (1881-1937) was Professor of New Testament, first at Princeton Theological Seminary, and afterwards at Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia. Published in God Transcendent (1949).

"For the wages of sin is death; but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom. 6:23).

Some time ago I heard a sermon on this text by a preacher who has now retired. The sermon was not one that I agreed with altogether, but the beginning of it, I thought, was interesting. The preacher said that during the preceding summer he had met in a chance sort of way, on one of the steamers of the Great Lakes, a gentleman who turned out to be a man of large affairs, but a man who had little to do with the church. Incidentally the conversation turned to religious matters, and the man of business gave to the preacher the benefit of a little criticism. The criticism was perhaps not unworthy of attention. "You preachers," the outsider said, "don't preach hell enough."

Usually the criticism which is leveled at the church by men who know nothing about it is as valueless as ignorant criticism is in other spheres. But in this case I am inclined to think that the critic was right. We preachers do not preach hell enough, and we do not say enough about sin. We talk about the gospel and wonder why people are not interested in what we say. Of course they are not interested. No man is interested in a piece of good news unless he has the consciousness of needing it; no man is interested in an offer of salvation unless he knows that there is something from which he needs to be saved. It is quite useless to ask a man to adopt the Christian view of the gospel unless he first has the Christian view of sin.

But a man will never adopt the Christian view of sin if he considers merely the sin of the world or the sins of other people. Consideration of the sins of other people is the deadliest of moral anodynes; it relieves the pain of conscience but it also destroys moral life. Many persons gloat over denunciations of that to which they are not tempted; or they even gloat over denunciations, in the case of other people, of sins which are also really theirs. King David was very severe when the prophet Nathan narrated to him his sordid tale of greed. "As the Lord liveth," said David, "the man that hath done this thing shall surely die." But Nathan was a disconcerting prophet. "And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man." (II Samuel 12:5, 7) That was for David the beginning of a real sense of his sin. So it will also be with us.

Of course it seems quite preposterous that we should be sinners. It was preposterous also for King David seated on his throne in the majesty of his royal robes. It was preposterous, but it was true. So also it is preposterous for us. It seems to be a strange notion to treat respectable people as sinners. In the case of college men, it seems particularly absurd. College men look so pleasant; it seems preposterous to connect them with the dreadful fact of sin. Some time ago I was reading, I think in a journal published in London, a review of a book that dealt with religious conditions among university men or young people. The author of the book spoke of the moral ideals of the young men of the present day as being summed up in the notion of being a good sport. The young men of the present day, it was said in effect, may not use the old terminology of guilt and retribution, but they dislike the man who does not know how to play fairly a match of lawn tennis and does not know how to take defeat like a gentleman. The remark of the reviewer, I thought, was eminently just. Surely, he said, with regard to this very common lawn tennis view of sin — surely, he said, among university men "there are grimmer facts than these." He was right, and we know he was right. He was right about university men in England; he was right about college men in America; and he was right about the rest of us as well. There are grimmer facts than poor lawn tennis and poor sport, regrettable though that no doubt is. There is, in general, in a thousand ugly forms, the grim fact of sin.

So when I speak of sin I am not talking to you about the sin of other people, but I am talking to you about your sin, and I am talking to myself about my sin. I am talking about that particular battle ground where you come to grips with the power of evil and where you meet your God.

Suppose that on that battle ground we have met defeat. What is the result? The answer of the text and the answer of the whole Bible is short and plain. "The wages of sin," says the Bible, "is death" (Romans 6:23). I shall not pause just now to consider in detail what Paul means by "death" — except just to point out this interesting fact that if you want to find the most terrible descriptions of this eternal death you will find them not in Paul but in Jesus. It is the custom nowadays to appeal from the supposedly gloomy theology of Paul to the supposedly sunny philosophy of Jesus; but the strange things is that it is Jesus, not Paul, who speaks of the outer darkness and the everlasting fire and of the sin that shall not be forgiven either in this world or in that which is to come. Paul is content in his Epistles to treat of the punishment of sin with some reserve — a reserve very impressive and very terrifying, it is true — but Jesus is more explicit. Jesus makes abundantly plain that the offender against God's law is facing something far more dreadful, to say the least, than mere annihilation would be. The teaching of Jesus has at the very center of it the fear of God and the fear of hell. No human law without sanction is complete; a law without a penalty is an altogether worthless and pitiful thing. Are God's laws of this pitiful kind?

There are some people who seem to think that they are. But as a matter of fact God's laws have attached to them sanctions compared with which all human penalties are as nothing.

The fact appears even in the course of this world. There is a deadly inexorableness about the laws of nature. Offend against the laws of health, and the result follows with a terrible certainty; no excuses will avail; crying and tears will count nothing; the retribution, however deferred, is sure. In the sphere of the physical life, it is certainly clear that the wages of sin is death. But many people think that the paymaster can be cheated, that after a life of sin we can present ourselves hopefully at the cashier's window and be paid in some different coin from that which we have earned. Do you really agree with them? Do you really think that in this accounting you can cheat? Do you really think that by care in the physical sphere you can avoid the consequences of sin? There is something within us that tells us that such is not the case; there is something within us that reveals the abyss over which we are standing, that brushes aside our petty excuses, that reveals in the inner, moral sphere, as in the physical realm, the same terrible inexorableness of law. God grant that we may not deceive ourselves! God grant that we may not hope to cheat! God grant that we may learn in time that the wages of sin is death!

There is a definiteness and certainty about wages. Wages are different from a spontaneous gift; wages, unlike a gift, are fixed. A man has done his week's work; he presents himself at the paymaster's desk, and is paid off; the matter is not discussed; the employee does not try then to strike a bargain with the cashier. The amount of the payment has been determined beforehand, and the payment itself is a purely formal, impersonal affair. So it is, somewhat, with the wages of sin. The wages have been fixed already. I do not mean that all sins are punished alike; no doubt at God's judgment seat there is a delicacy of discrimination quite impossible under human laws. And I do not mean that the penalty of sin follows merely by a natural law that is independent of God. But however the law has been established, it is, when once established, inexorable. It is quite useless for a man to argue about the penalty of his sin; it is useless in the physical sphere of the laws of health, and it will be useless when we appear at last before Him who knows the secrets of the heart. Let us not deceive ourselves, my friends. The moral constitution of the universe is a very terrible thing. Let us not think that we can trifle with it. The world is governed by inexorable law. And that law establishes by an immutable decree the dreadful consequences of sin. The wages of sin is death.

At that point some preachers stop. Here stopped, for example, the noted preacher whose sermon gave us our text and our subject today. The terribleness of sin and the inexorableness of law — it is writ large in the physical organism of man and in the whole course of nature. It is also writ large in the Bible. But the Bible, unlike nature, does not stop here. "The wages of sin is death" — it is a great truth, but it is not the end of our text. The wages of sin is death — that is the law. But the Bible contains more than the law; it contains also the gospel. "The wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 6:23).

The free gift is contrasted with wages. Yet men persist in dragging it down to the wage level; they persist in trying to make the gift of God a product of some law. They persist in regarding salvation as proceeding by some natural process from faith or from some other quality of men. They regard Christianity as founded upon permanent principles of religion instead of being founded upon an unexpected piece of news. When will the vain effort be abandoned? Salvation is nothing, or it is a free gift; it is not a principle that has been discovered but an event that has happened.

The trouble is that we are unwilling to take God at His word. We persist in endeavoring to save ourselves. If we have learned to any degree that lesson of the law, if we have come to have a horror of sin, we persist in thinking that it depends upon us to get rid of it. We try to make use of our own moral resources in this struggle, and we fall yet deeper and deeper into the mire. When shall we take God at His word? When shall we simply accept, in faith, the gift of salvation which He has offered?

It is certainly worth accepting. It consists in "eternal life." We need not now ask in detail what that means. But certainly it is as glorious as the "death" with which it is contrasted is terrible. It is certainly happiness as contrasted with woe, but it is far more than happiness. It involves service, and it involves the presence of God.

The free gift of God is an absolutely unaccountable event in the life of every man who accepts it. It is not the natural working out of a principle, but it is a thing that happens. But that happening in the soul is the result of a happening in the sphere of external history. The free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. There we have the central characteristic of our religion; the central characteristic of Christianity is that it is not founded merely upon what always was true but primarily upon something that happened — something that took place near Jerusalem at a definite time in the world's history. In other words, it is founded not merely upon permanent truths of religion, but upon a "gospel," a piece of news.

The Christian preacher, be he ever so humble, is entrusted with that gospel. We could not hope to be listened to if we had merely our own thoughts; there are so many others in the world wiser and more learned than we. But in a time of peril in a beleaguered city the humblest of day-laborers is more worth listening to than the greatest of orators, if he has news. So it is with the Christian preacher in this deadly peril of the soul. The wages of sin is death — that is the law. But at the decisive point Christ has taken the wages upon Himself — that is the gospel. Inexorable is the moral law of God. But God's mercy has used, and triumphed over, His law. We deserved eternal death; but Christ died instead of us on the cross. Shall we accept the gift? The result will be a fresh start in God's favor and then a winning battle against sin. "The wages of sin is death; but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

[SUBMAN1]

...Let me help you out here Bradclark...Sticking your cock up another man's ******* ,which is what is being discussed here...is wrong....Help Bradclark a little more here. It is all summed up in this - the reason their are gay pride marches is because there is 'GAY SHAME' from sticking ones cock into another mans sh*t. Hence they even know it wrong because it is programmed into the deepest parts of your brain this way. Instinct tells you it is wrong, and you know it.

Does that help add a little graphic reality here? Glad I could be of service. :D

-S

[PeriscopeDepth]

I don't know about that subman. I think the whole gay rights movement rode the coat tails of the civil rights movement, of which the pride thing was a pretty critical part (IMO). If they were truely ashamed of it, would that many people keep on doing it?

PD

[Foxtrot]

Something just for some fun.
Since no one posted it so let me take some credit :smug:

Copy & Paste job:

• The median age of death of homosexual men is 42 (only 9% live past age 65). This drops to 39 if the cause of death is AIDS. The median age of death of a married heterosexual man is 75 (8).

• The median age of death of lesbians is 45 (only 24% live past age 65). The median age of death of a married heterosexual woman is 79 (8).

• On April 25, 2001, the CDC reported that “We are seeing substantial increases in sexually transmitted diseases among men who have sex with men in multiple locations across this country.” (31, 32).

• Homosexual men are responsible for the “first sexually transmitted outbreak of typhoid fever” in the history of the United States.This disease is caused by ingesting human feces (32).

• More than 10% of homosexual men in major U.S. urban areas are infected with HIV.To this day, they still make up more than 50% of reported AIDS cases in the United States (30, 31).

• Homosexual men fellate almost 100% of their sexual contacts and ingest semen from about half of those. Semen contains virtually every germ carried in the blood stream, so this is about equivalent to ingesting raw human blood (6).

• One study reports 70% of homosexual men admitting to having sex only one time with over 50% of their partners (3).

• One study reports that the average homosexual man has between 20 and 106 partners per year (6). The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime.

• Sperm readily penetrates the anal wall (which is only one cell thick) and gains direct access to the blood stream. This causes massive immunological damage to the body’s T- and B-cell defensive systems (14).

• 50% of male syphilis is carried by homosexual men as a rectal infection and can enter through the urethra of another homosexual man during anal sex (7).

• Around 67-80% of homosexual men lick and/or insert their tongues into the anuses of their partners (called “rimming”, anilingus, fecal sex, etc.) and ingest biologically significant amounts of feces (7), which is the chief cause of hepatitis and parasitic infections among homosexual men (8). This practice is called the “prime taste treat in sex” in the bestseller The Joy of Gay Sex.

• 33% of homosexual men admit to fisting (inserting the hand, sometimes part of the arm, into the rectum of his partner) (7).

• Urinating on each other (”golden showers”) and torture has doubled among homosexual men since the 1980s, and fisting has increased astronomically (7).

• 17% of homosexual men eat and/or rub the feces of their partners on themselves (4).

• 12% of homosexual men give/receive enemas as part of sexual pleasure (4).

• In one study, the average homosexual man fellated somewhere between 20 and 106 men, swallowed 50 seminal discharges, had 72 penile penetrations of the anus, and ingested feces of 23 different men EVERY YEAR (6).

• Homosexual men got homosexuality removed from the list of mental illnesses in the early 70s by storming the annual American Psychiatric Association (APA) conference on successive years. “Guerrilla theater tactics and more straight-forward shouting matches characterized their presence” (2). Since homosexuality has been removed from the APA list of mental illnesses, so has pedophilia (except when the adult feels “subjective distress”) (27).

• Homosexual men account for 3-4% of all gonorrhea cases, 60% of all syphilis cases, and 17% of all hospital admissions (other than for STDs) in the United States (5). They make less than 10% of the population.

• Homosexual men live unhealthy lifestyles, and have historically accounted for the bulk of syphilis, gonorrhea, Hepatitis B, the “gay bowel syndrome” (which attacks the intestinal tract), tuberculosis and cytomegalovirus (27).

• 73% of psychiatrists say homosexual men are less happy than the average person, and of those psychiatrists, 70% say that the unhappiness is NOT due to social stigmatization (13).

• 25-33% of homosexual men and lesbians are alcoholics (11).

• Of homosexual men questioned in one study, 43% admitted to 500 or more partners in a lifetime, 28% admitted to 1000 or more in a lifetime, and of these people, 79% said that half of those partners were total strangers, and 70% of those sexual contacts were one night stands (or, as one homosexual man admits in the film “The Castro,” one minute stands) (3). Also, it is a favorite past-time of many homosexual men to go to “cruisy areas” and have anonymous sex. See www.cruisingforsex.com

• 78% of homosexual men are affected by STDs (20).

• Judge John Martaugh, chief magistrate of the New York City Criminal Court has said, “Homosexuals account for half the murders in large cities” (10).

• Captain William Riddle of the Los Angeles Police says, “30,000 sexually abused children in Los Angeles were victims of homosexuals” (10).

• 50% of suicides can be attributed to homosexual men (10).

• One study reports that 90% of homosexual men have engaged in anal sex, and 66% engage in anal sex regularly (6).

• Homosexual men were responsible for spreading AIDS in the United States, and then
• 10% of homosexual men admit to eating feces and/or drinking contaminated enema water (8).

• 29% of homosexual men engage in urine sex (”golden showers”) (8).

• 37% of homosexual men engage in sadomasochism, which accounts for many accidental deaths. In San Francisco, classes were held to teach homosexual men how to not kill their partners during sadomasochism (8).

• In large cities, hospitals are often called on to remove objects from the rectums of homosexual men. Sometimes, the homosexual men do so much damage that they have to wear colostomy bags for the rest of their lives (8).

• 41% of homosexual men say they have had sex with strangers in public restrooms, 60% say they have had sex with strangers in bathhouses, and 64% of these encounters have involved the use of illegal drugs (8).

• Depending on the city, 39-59% of homosexual men are infected with intestinal parasites like worms, flukes and amoebae, which is common in filthy third world countries (8).

• Homosexual men are 100 times more likely to be murdered (usually by another homosexual man) than the average person and 25 times more likely to commit suicide (8).

• 21% of lesbians die of murder, suicide or traffic accident, which is at a rate of 534 times higher than the number of white heterosexual females aged 25-44 who die of these things(8).

• About 50% of the women on death row are lesbians (12).


REFERENCES
(2) Bayer, R. Homosexuality and American Psychiatry.
(3) Bell, A. and Weinberg, M. Homosexualities: a Study of Diversity Among Men and Women. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978.
(4) Cameron et. al. ISIS National Random Sexuality Survey. Nebraska Med. Journal, 1985, 70, pp. 292-299.
(5) “Changes in Sexual Behavior and Incidence of Gonorrhea.” Lancet, April 25, 1987.
(6) Corey, L. and Holmes, K. “Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men.” New England J. Med., 1980, pp. 435-38.
(7) Family Research Institute, Lincoln, NE.
(8) Fields, Dr. E. “Is Homosexual Activity Normal?” Marietta, GA.
(9) Jay and Young. The Gay Report. Summit Books, 1979, p. 275.
(10) Kaifetz, J. “Homosexual Rights Are Concern for Some,” Post-Tribune, 18 December 1992.
(11) Kus, R. “Alcoholics Anonymous and Gay America.” Medical Journal of Homosexuality, 1987, 14(2), p. 254.
(12) Lesbian News, January 1994.
(13) Lief, H. Sexual Survey Number 4: Current Thinking on Homosexuality, Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, 1977, pp. 110-11.
(14) Manlight, G. et. al. “Chronic Immune Stimulation By Sperm Alloantigens.” J. American Med. Assn., 1984, 251(2), pp. 237-438.
(15) Morton-Hunt Study for Playboy
(16) MsKusick, L. et. al. “AIDS and Sexual Behavior Reported By Gay Men in San Francisco.” Am. J. Pub. Health, 1985, 75, pp. 493-96.
(17) Newsweek, February 1993.
(18) Newsweek, 4 October 1993.
(19) Psychological Reports, 1986, 58, pp. 327-37.
(20) Rueda, E. “The Homosexual Network.” Old Greenwich, Conn., The Devin Adair Company, 1982, p. 53.
(21) San Francisco AIDS Foundation, “Can We Talk.”
(22) San Francisco Sentinel, 27 March 1992.
(23) Science Magazine, 18 July 1993, p. 322.
(24) Statistical Abstract of the U.S., 1990.
(25) “The Overhauling of Straight America.” Guide Magazine. November, 1987.
(26) United States Census Bureau
(27) United States Congressional Record, June 29, 1989.
(28) University of Chicago’s Nation Research Corp.
(29) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition, American Psychiatric Association, 1994.
(30) Reuters, Feb. 5, 2001
(31) Center for Disease Control
(32) Associated Press, April 25, 2001

[Skybird]

That list of statistics is for the most pretty much questionable if not useless since the claim's content can be interpreted in two directions, or the data simply are questionable in some other claims.

Just a few examples, I doubt that so many suicides are attributed to gays, but that the rate amongst gays may be higher indeed is no surprise - considering the immense social pressure and discrimination they are being put under in many local regions of this world. It's like saying the rate of men in the death cell who die from violant force implemented on them is close to 100%. Or "On April 25, 2001, the CDC reported that “We are seeing substantial increases in sexually transmitted diseases among men who have sex with men in multiple locations across this country.” Well, that answers it - the problem more likely is polygamy and too diverse and too many sexual contacts. Surprisignly, the suxually transmitted deseasaes amongst heterosexual people increase too the more often they chnage their sexual partners - wowh! "• 41% of homosexual men say they have had sex with strangers in public restrooms, 60% say they have had sex with strangers in bathhouses, and 64% of these encounters have involved the use of illegal drugs (8). " Well, heterocouples and one-night-stands surely do not do that. "• 25-33% of homosexual men and lesbians are alcoholics (11)." The rate amongst doctors and top managers is estimated to be even higher. the use of cocain is widespread amongst these. " Sperm readily penetrates the anal wall (which is only one cell thick) and gains direct access to the blood stream. This causes massive immunological damage to the body’s T- and B-cell defensive systems (14). " That is true, but then you must crusade against hetero couples practcing it as well. And condoms seem to be a good idea anyway, no matter your sexual orientation "• Homosexual men got homosexuality removed from the list of mental illnesses in the early 70s by storming the annual American Psychiatric Association (APA) conference on successive years. “Guerrilla theater tactics and more straight-forward shouting matches characterized their presence” (2). Since homosexuality has been removed from the APA list of mental illnesses, so has pedophilia (except when the adult feels “subjective distress”) (27)." Well, that one I know from my former psychological profession, and the twist the author tries to give it here is absurd. In america, many things make people yell and shout hysterically, especi8ally relgious demosntrations pro or against abortion, death penalty, gunlaws, missionising, and sexual prudery. The social pressure and voices to abandon this idea of homosexuality being mental desease came from ALL levels and camps of society, amybe exceopt the relgious right, and followed a trend that doctors and psychiatrists on an international level already had formed.

But it is too long a list as if i would bother to do it one by one with all items now. Lists like this exist by the hundreds on the internet, many of them in blogs and forums of websites that have heavily biased (= attached to the Christian right and/or political right) tendencies. Uncritically pasteing and copying them without ever questiuoning their content and background and the way the supposed scientific data they pretend to give in shining glory has been won and created, is not really helpful.

Gays are like they are, and if they do not bother others with their characteristics, others must not bother about them. Just this talk of gay marriages and "gay pride" annoys me, like some stupid gay parade as well. there is as much reason to be proud to be gay as there is reason to be proud to be heterosexual. Else, what's next? People like me getting hanged in the streets for the sacrileg of wearing classes, for only gods are allowed to wear glasses in some man-caring mind's sick imagination?

[Skybird]

Fact remains homosexuals are NOT 95% of the population, they are not the norm and by genetic design (to be found in the blueprint for the homo sapiens) they never have been meant to be. They are a deviation that happens by genetical accident, probably, for in his early developement cycles, a human shows characteristics that are the same for both sexes, and not before some time later these split into male and female and then undergo different further developement. Other sexual deviations like transsexuality, or a female psyche trapped inside a male body, also may be caused this way. So, such deviations can affect the psyche, the body, or both.

So, homosexuality is neither a reason to discriminate somebody, not more reason then to discirminate somebody for being born with just one arm, maybe, but it also is no reason to talk of "pride" or to reject the fact that heterosexuality nevertheless was the way our species biologically has been designed, and has been meant to be, biologically. As long as the exception does not demand to be seen as the norm, there is no need for clashing. A blond-haired Han-Chinese must not be discriminated - but he wopuld learn laughter when claiming that he is representative for the Han race, where in fact he is a mutation. My impression is that some people here (and those kind of minds putting together such statoistical lists designed to create utmost disgust) have principal problems with other people's sexual habits and behaviors, but that is these people's problem, and theirs alone, as long as the object of their disgust does not try to impose it's manners and characteristics on the (biologically normal) majority, or demands to be seen as of equal quality to serve as a social norm for the community of a species that - you cannot avoid it - has been designed to be split into two sexes, and deal with that heterosexuality and all the social and cultural consequences.

If nature can happily exist and run on with homosexuality to be seen in many animal specieds as well, I do not see why man must be so haughty to take it upon himself to see it different (means: "better") than nature itself.

Have you ever looked at ancient Greek art? :lol: I admit that kind of social acceptance you find in ancient Greece is leading a bit too far, for my taste, but nevertheless! Now think what would be left of europe and it'S culture, without our old ancient Greek heritage!

Nothing!

[Tchocky]

Let me help you out here Bradclark...Sticking your cock up another man's ******* ,which is what is being discussed here...is wrong.I does not matter how much you try to justify it or hide your head in the sand...if they don't bother me it's ok attitude...it is not ok..it is wrong.

You will reap what you sow.

This isn't Bible stuff it is common sense,moral,truth stuff...some things are wrong.
What's being discussed here is marraige, not sex. Of course there is an obvious overlap, but would you argue that hetero marraige is based entirely on sex?

Saying "this is wrong" does not make it so.

So, homosexuality is neither a reason to discriminate somebody, not more reason then to discirminate somebody for being born with just one arm, maybe, but it also is no reason to talk of "pride" That's different, and Newton gives us the answer. Gay pride exists because gay shame exists. Equal and opposite reaction

[bradclark1]

I cannot express myself any better than this and in light of how many times I have seen countless long winded posts by some I post this and end my discussion in this particular thread lest some be more offended.

What do I think the consequences are?

I'll pass on reading your story. Thats not an answer.
I don't see any negative consequences. I think they should be able to have civil unions and get the same benefits as an heterosexual couple. There is a lesbian couple behind us that have a daughter. They are a normal family that does normal family things but the nine years old daughter has two moms. Very nice young lady, well mannered and doesn't seem traumatized over the situation.

Edit: Let me expand a little. If one of my kids came home one day and said "Hey mom and dad I'm gay" I would be somewhat upset but I wouldn't fly off in a rage. I would accept it because I don't believe it's a choice. The main thing is that they are happy with their life and not live a life in shame and sorrow just because it wouldn't look right. I won't cast him or her out and disown and I would accept the partner. You have kids and that could be a reality one day.

[ReallyDedPoet]

...Let me help you out here Bradclark...Sticking your cock up another man's ******* ,which is what is being discussed here...is wrong....Help Bradclark a little more here. It is all summed up in this - the reason their are gay pride marches is because there is 'GAY SHAME' from sticking ones cock into another mans sh*t. Hence they even know it wrong because it is programmed into the deepest parts of your brain this way. Instinct tells you it is wrong, and you know it.

Does that help add a little graphic reality here? Glad I could be of service. :D

-S
Would you limit heterosexual relations to "sticking ones cock into a woman's p*ss & sh*t" ?
If gays were 95% of the population we can imagine they would say that this is wrong. Does a lie really become true when spoken out as such by a vast majority ?
Guys for the most part this has been an interesting discussion, but can we not get into graphic details ^^^^ here please.
Let's keep it above bar. Thanks :yep:


RDP

[Platapus]

Gay pride exists because gay shame exists. Equal and opposite reaction


So American pride exists because American shame exists?

So pride in your church/religion exists because church/religion shame exists?

So the pride I have in my children exists because of the shame of my children?

Jus trying to understand this

[SUBMAN1]

So American pride exists because American shame exists?

So pride in your church/religion exists because church/religion shame exists?

So the pride I have in my children exists because of the shame of my children?

Jus trying to understand thisYou're coming form a different context. Gay people have always been down on themselves for their different and often viewed as weird lifestyle.

Pride in America or your church or your religion stems from different underpinnings.

-S

[FIREWALL]

So American pride exists because American shame exists?

So pride in your church/religion exists because church/religion shame exists?

So the pride I have in my children exists because of the shame of my children?

Jus trying to understand thisYou're coming form a different context. Gay people have always been down on themselves for their different and often viewed as weird lifestyle.

Pride in America or your church or your religion stems from different underpinnings.

-S

So your the forum expert on Gays huh ? :p

[SUBMAN1]

So your the forum expert on Gays huh ? :pNice try! :lol: No.

Maybe - Only on the ones trying to change my views over to theirs. :down: I prefer the don't ask don't tell idea. These idiots that want to change my views, and the childrens views into this as an acceptable normal every day thing just have to go. I guess if you have a don't ask don't tell policy, then you are already advocating it, and you will eventually be met by those that want to change your views over to theirs.

To advocate it is a no win situation for all involved. Sad. Welcome to our screwed up world.

-S

[August]

Only on the ones trying to change my views over to theirs.
-S

So what you're saying Subman is that a lot of gay men seem to find you attractive?

[FIREWALL]

So your the forum expert on Gays huh ? :pNice try! :lol: No.

Maybe - Only on the ones trying to change my views over to theirs. :down: I prefer the don't ask don't tell idea. These idiots that want to change my views, and the childrens views into this as an acceptable normal every day thing just have to go. I guess if you have a don't ask don't tell policy, then you are already advocating it, and you will eventually be met by those that want to change your views over to theirs.

To advocate it is a no win situation for all involved. Sad. Welcome to our screwed up world.

-S:up:

[SUBMAN1]

So what you're saying Subman is that a lot of gay men seem to find you attractive?You want me to answer that honestly? :D I will matter of fact - Yes they do. I have been picked up by guys almost as often as women (which happens frequently too). It ticks me off to. I won't get into it, but the best peice of advice I can offer if you want to avoid the same - when the wife is shopping in the super market, avoid the magazine racks. I learned to avoid them myself. Seems to be a popular place for gays to pick up gays. :down:

-S

[FIREWALL]

Has anyone seen the latest Jack in the Box commercial.

While i could care less if gays get married I found that ad offending and way over the line.

My 8yo nephew was over to visit my wife and me and saw that ad on tv and asked if those to men were going to have sex.

After I got over being stunned by the ad and what the kid asked us.

I said no, the one sitting down is going to pullout a gun and kill the other one.

[Kapt Z]

Good for them. :up:

[SUBMAN1]

Good for them. :up:Sicko

[Tchocky]

Gay pride exists because gay shame exists. Equal and opposite reaction

So American pride exists because American shame exists?

So pride in your church/religion exists because church/religion shame exists?

So the pride I have in my children exists because of the shame of my children?

Jus trying to understand this
In many countries homosexuality is illegal, in many others there is a significant cultural bias against homosexuals. Homosexual pride functions as a way to combat discrimination and hatred. It functions as a signal that mistreatment won't be tolerated, and a hopeful broadcast to closeted homosexuals not to be afraid.

The pride you have in your children would be analogous to this if there was a day-to-day message that you should be ashamed of them. There's no Hetero Pride parades because society has never been ashamed of heterosexuals.
Pride in your country could be a reaction to criticism, same as pride in your church.
Or, they could be genuine expressions of basic pride in accomplishments/ideals/etc.

[Doolan]

I said no, the one sitting down is going to pullout a gun and kill the other one.

I honestly don't know whether this is a joke or not...

I take it killing a man is better from a moral perspective and for the education of our children than gay marriage?

If one of my sons turns out to be gay, I guess I should tell him I wish he'd been a serial killer instead.

[Tchocky]

The new threat to America, eight-year-olds.

[SUBMAN1]

In many countries homosexuality is illegal, in many others there is a significant cultural bias against homosexuals....That's because sane people know its wrong instinctively, as do gays as well.

-S

[antikristuseke]

Yes, it's usualy the sane nations that have laws against homosexuality...:roll:

[SUBMAN1]

Yes, it's usualy the sane nations that have laws against homosexuality...:roll:Not neccesarily, but that is not the point. Nice twist on the facts. :D Of course, its pure spin.

-S

[Letum]

Wich 'fact' did he twist?

[SUBMAN1]

Wich 'fact' did he twist?He turned it into a subject about sane nations instead of what we are talking about. Figured I'd help you out since you are a little slow as always.

Lets analyze a country with such laws in another thread please. If you want a country to start with, let me help you - India. They house a major portion of the worlds population, so they would be a good place to start.

-S

[antikristuseke]

Yes, it's usualy the sane nations that have laws against homosexuality...:roll:Not neccesarily, but that is not the point. Nice twist on the facts. :D Of course, its pure spin.

-S

What is the point?
That homosexuality is wrong because bronze age myth says so? Or was it because people unconfortable with their sexuality say so? Or because people afraid of those different to themselves say so? Or is it wrong because they cant reproduce cant reproduce, because if some low precentage of humanity are in relationships where they can not reproduce it will surely be the end of us all, humans being a greatly endangered species and all that?

Or were you saying that people who are not biggoted towards homosexuals are insane?

[SUBMAN1]

What is the point?It is growing and it is telling our children that it is OK, and yes, they are reproducing through medical advances, so don't kid yourself there.

I feel like the last person on the planet practically that cares for the health of ones nation. It has been proven more times than people can count that strong heterosexual families are required for the strength of ones nation and for advancement as a society. We seem to be going backwards

For clues to where this leads, go study up on the Roman Empire. History has much to teach us.

-S

[PeriscopeDepth]

Yes, it's usualy the sane nations that have laws against homosexuality...:roll:

Good point. I looked it up, and the list of countries that enforce laws against homosexuality tend to be those that are "stuck in the dark ages". Surprisingly enough. I guess anywhere you go, religious fundamentalism is alive well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_laws_of_the_world

PD

[Letum]

Wich 'fact' did he twist?He turned it into a subject about sane nations instead of what we are talking about. Figured I'd help you out since you are a little slow as always.

Perhaps I am a little slow or perhaps I am a little too pragmatic.

Thats more changeing the subject than twisting facts. no?

[PeriscopeDepth]

What is the point?It is growing and it is telling our children that it is OK, and yes, they are reproducing through medical advances, so don't kid yourself there.

I feel like the last person on the planet practically that cares for the health of ones nation. It has been proven more times than people can count that strong heterosexual families are required for the strength of ones nation and for advancement as a society. We seem to be going backwards

For clues to where this leads, go study up on the Roman Empire. History has much to teach us.

-S

I agree with you that heterosexual families are the building block of most societies that work. But letting gays marry, have the same legal rights/privileges, and raise a family if they so choose is NOT the same as a drunken Roman orgy. I don't think they could screw up children any more than the divorce rate in this country already does.

PD

[SUBMAN1]

Perhaps I am a little slow or perhaps I am a little too pragmatic.

Thats more changeing the subject than twisting facts. no?Maybe we should say, twisting the subject, twisting the discussion, or maybe thread hijacking. Does that make you happy? Basically, it is not what we are talking about.

As i said though, since you seem to agree with him, so start a new thread on India. Continue what interests you there.

-S

[antikristuseke]

What is the point?It is growing and it is telling our children that it is OK, and yes, they are reproducing through medical advances, so don't kid yourself there.

I feel like the last person on the planet practically that cares for the health of ones nation. It has been proven more times than people can count that strong heterosexual families are required for the strength of ones nation and for advancement as a society. We seem to be going backwards

For clues to where this leads, go study up on the Roman Empire. History has much to teach us.

-S

Yes, history does have a lot to teach us. It shows us that empires rise and fall and where institusionalized intolerance leads, to name just two.

I go by live and let live myself, so if two men or women are happy together, who am I to stop them? Leaving them be is not going to destroy heterosexual lifestyles.

Edit: The post about nations from me was due to the fact that Tchoky mentioned countries.

[SUBMAN1]

I don't think they could screw up children any more than the divorce rate in this country already does.

PDI beg to differ! This is even worse for them! Might as well advocate marriage of humans and goats! :D There is no difference from a reproductive standpoint!

The point is, we need to get back what is healthy for us as a people so that we can stop the slide and back to growth. Probably a pipe dream since as they say, for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. We have a world these days of good men doing nothing.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Yes, history does have a lot to teach us. It shows us that empires rise and fall and where institusionalized intolerance leads, to name just two.

I go by live and let live myself, so if two men or women are happy together, who am I to stop them? Leaving them be is not going to destroy heterosexual lifestyles.Its the strength of the people and the health, especially mentally, of the people that I worry about.

Edit: The post about nations from me was due to the fact that Tchoky mentioned countries.Well, i apologize then since I thought it started with you.

-S

[Letum]

What is the point?It is growing and it is telling our children that it is OK, and yes, they are reproducing through medical advances, so don't kid yourself there.

I feel like the last person on the planet practically that cares for the health of ones nation. It has been proven more times than people can count that strong heterosexual families are required for the strength of ones nation and for advancement as a society. We seem to be going backwards

For clues to where this leads, go study up on the Roman Empire. History has much to teach us.

-S

Homosexuality braught down the Roman empire?! :doh:
The Romans banned homosexuality in the 5th centuary at the end of the empire!

There is also almost no evidence that homosexuality, in the modern sense, was at all
common in the Roman empire. Few, if any had sexual relations or attraction solely to
members of their own sex or long-term, commited relations with their own sex.

Sexual desire may have been governgoverned mmore by social roles than gender, but
the same did not apply for what was considerd 'family'.

The Romans where very much against Lesbianism.

Might as well advocate marriage of humans and goats! :D There is no difference from a reproductive standpoint!


There is no difference from a reproductive standpoint between marrying goats and a woman marrying a sterile man.

[PeriscopeDepth]

I don't think they could screw up children any more than the divorce rate in this country already does.

PDI beg to differ! This is even worse for them! Might as well advocate marriage of humans and goats! :D There is no difference from a reproductive standpoint!
-S
I don't look at this from a reproductive standpoint. There is no threat of human extinction from lack of population, but from overpopulation.

And these aren't goats, these are people. And we tend to let people do what they want in this country, within reason. Pursuit of happiness and all that. Gays are apparently "safe and normal" enough to risk their lives in the service of this country, but not have the same rights the rest of us do?

PD

[PeriscopeDepth]

Its the strength of the people and the health, especially mentally, of the people that I worry about.
-S

Me too SUBMAN, me too.

PD

[SUBMAN1]

Homosexuality braught down the Roman empire?! :doh:
The Romans banned homosexuality in the 5th centuary at the end of the empire! Both after the realized what it did to them and after they switched to Christianity. But of course, you failed to mention both of these.

There is also almost no evidence that homosexuality, in the modern sense, was at all
common in the Roman empire. Few, if any had sexual relations or attraction solely to
members of their own sex or long-term, commited relations with their own sex.Wrong - started with the Spartans, ended with the Romans.

The Romans where very much against Lesbianism.Of course, it was a society about men. Women were simply women.

Might as well advocate marriage of humans and goats! :D There is no difference from a reproductive standpoint!


There is no difference from a reproductive standpoint between marrying goats and a woman marrying a sterile man.But this is what you are calling for. Soon we will have something along the lines of "Hi, I am Letum, and here is my wife... er.. I mean goat! :D Way better than a wife because she hardly talks back! We've been married for 2 years!"

Hahahahaha!

-S

[Letum]

There is also almost no evidence that homosexuality, in the modern sense, was at all
common in the Roman empire. Few, if any had sexual relations or attraction solely to
members of their own sex or long-term, commited relations with their own sex.Wrong - started with the Spartans, ended with the Romans.

Source?

Homosexual acts where the norm in the Roman empire, but they allways involved men
from contrasting social groups and/or ages and never formed long term family units.
They where allways seen as an addition, rather than an alternative to hetrosexual
relationships. There where no homosexual marriages in the Roman empire.

[SUBMAN1]

Source?
Try taking a history class. You need it.

-S

PS. You like Wikipedia. I looked it up special for you on it! :D http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_militaries_of_ancient_Greece

[Doolan]

Might as well advocate marriage of humans and goats! :D There is no difference from a reproductive standpoint!

Ok, look, to anyone his opinion. I might or might not agree with you, but I respect and value your arguments. Still, the "There's no difference from a reproductive standpoint" argument is weak as heck and has no place here.

Last I checked babies did not fly into houses hanging from the beak of a stork the moment two people got married. There is no difference from a reproductive standpoint between marriage and adultery, marriage and unprotected sex with prostitutes or marriage and unprotected sex with your mother or sister. There is also no difference between two gay men or a hetero couple using contraceptive measures or engaging into any form of sex that is not vaginal penetration. There is also no difference from a reproductive standpoint if the Pope or a priest choose celibacy. And there is also no difference from a reproductive standpoint if somebody is sterile.

Or if somebody is brutally unattractive or unlucky and doesn't score in his entire life, as heterosexual and morally perfect that person can be under any scope.

[SUBMAN1]

Ok, look, to anyone his opinion. I might or might not agree with you, but I respect and value your arguments. Still, the "There's no difference from a reproductive standpoint" argument is weak as heck and has no place here.

Last I checked babies did not fly into houses hanging from the beak of a stork the moment two people got married. There is no difference from a reproductive standpoint between marriage and adultery, marriage and unprotected sex with prostitutes or marriage and unprotected sex with your mother or sister. There is also no difference between two gay men or a hetero couple using contraceptive measures or engaging into any form of sex that is not vaginal penetration. There is also no difference from a reproductive standpoint if the Pope or a priest choose celibacy. And there is also no difference from a reproductive standpoint if somebody is sterile.

Or if somebody is brutally unattractive or unlucky and doesn't score in his entire life, as heterosexual and morally perfect that person can be under any scope.Maybe i should have described it - from a moral standpoint. Is that better? Sorry. Should think out logical conclusions before I post.

-S

[Letum]

Source?
Try taking a history class. You need it.

-S

PS. You like Wikipedia. I looked it up special for you on it! :D http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_militaries_of_ancient_Greece

Read what I have written very carefully.

If you still disagree: find a source that shows that Homosexual families, marriages
and relationships where common in the Roman Empire in the same way that they are
common now and it was not the case they "always involved men from contrasting
social groups and/or ages and never formed long term family units. They
where always seen as an addition, rather than an alternative to heterosexual
relationships."

The source you have given is neither about the Roman Empire, nor about
Homosexuality as an alternative to Heterosexuality. i.e. as both a sexual and family
based relationship typically comprising of two people of roughly the same age and
social standing.

[Doolan]

I'm ok with that :D

Different people have different morality, and I am not really one to judge somebody else's, so I won't fight your beliefs. I'm sure you have reasons for your opinions and they are not more or less valid than mine or anyone else's in moral grounds until time proves either side wrong or right.

I would be careful with long-term historical examples though. I've taken a history class. In fact, I've taken almost nine years worth of them and my PhD will come as soon as my thesis is complete, and I can tell you that examples from the Ancient World to describe contemporary society are only used in corridors to give anecdotes some color or to sound heck of smart (hey, that counts too!), but you would be eaten alive if you tried to hold them in a scientific debate. The structure and circumstances of ancient societies are too different and there are too many "buts" to go anywhere with far-fetched analogies.

If we were to refer to largely unmodifiable (at least so far) conditions, such as "a man and a rock cannot produce offspring", had homosexuality (or sex with rocks for that matter) been "the norm" I doubt any ancient society would have lasted more than three generations :D

For what I have read on the subject (not Wikipedia), "ludic" homosexual relationships were fairly normal among the warrior caste of Greece and the (incredibly minoritarian) privileged circles of society as a form of tutoring, but reproduction was known to be a necessity and was, of course, practiced with women, with or without a strong family bond.

On a funny note, Roman satiric literature (Catullus being one of the most relevant examples) seems to show that "you like hairy men" was an insult in Rome. Pedophilia was not at all unheard of, but having sex with an adult man of defined sexual features (in this case, lots of hair) was asking for ridicule.

And yes, with all the academic content of that, I laughed real hard when I first read "you like hairy men!" in a Latin text :lol:

[Letum]

^ What Doolan said, although I believe time has already proved one side right or wrong.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Doolan makes too much sense.

PD

[SUBMAN1]

Yes he does make sense. And Doolan, I have to disagree with you on how you can't translate ancient societies or make analogies to modern ones. Yes there is a lot of if, ands, or buts, but to not be able to learn from the past is a grave mistake as has been shown time and time again. It's not simply about color, or to make one sound smart, it's to learn and learn what you can for the future, otherwise studying the past becomes simply a curiosity.

To stand up to ridicule by ones peers makes me remember the story about the quest of neutrinos. Two scientists looked right, but the theory made it with one giving a socially unacceptable answer since he had to be wrong. Turns out, the theory was the thing that was wrong, and both scientists were right.

And as time has shown again and again, it makes this case closed. Homosexuality is simply wrong on many scales including society, morally, and health wise.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

I'm gonna make a t-shirt "I saw SUBMAN1 agreeing with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad" :DI don't deal with terrorists. Try "I saw Subman1 agreeing with Dr. Manmohan Singh"

-S

[Letum]

You don't really get more ridiculous than claiming that the Roman empire was brought
down by homosexuality.

For starters it was far more common at the beginning of the Roman empire when it was
became large and prosperous.

The to imply that it might bring down countries where it is accepted under the
premise that Roman homosexuality was similar to modern homosexuality!

It's beyond ridiculous! How can you take your self seriously? :rotfl:
I feel daft for taking you seriously in my previous replies.

*edit* Tell me, is it something you came up with your self of did you hear it else where?

[SUBMAN1]

You don't really get more ridiculous than claiming that the Roman empire was brought
down by homosexuality.

For starters it was far more common at the beginning of the Roman empire when it was
became large and prosperous.

The to imply that it might bring down countries where it is accepted under the
premise that Roman homosexuality was similar to modern homosexuality!

It's beyond ridiculous! How can you take your self seriously? :rotfl:
I feel daft for taking you seriously in my previous replies.Quit picking little details and leaving out the whole story. Read up on Constantine and the conversion to Christianity. You will figure out why you won't find homosexuality later on in its history. Get back to me when you understand more.

Until then, and until you offer up information on why you think the way you do unstead of putting up strawmen, then the discussion is over. An example - what exactly have you contributed to this discussion? Nothing, like always. Just opinion. :down:

-S

[Letum]

So....what exsactly did you mean when you said:
For clues to where this leads, go study up on the Roman Empire. History has much to teach us.?

[SUBMAN1]

So....what exsactly did you mean when you said:
For clues to where this leads, go study up on the Roman Empire. History has much to teach us.?Let me explain something to you. Do you know what the definition of someone that sits back and picks other peoples posts apart on a forum while offering nothing in return? It's called trolling. You haven't contributed to a discussion for as long as I can remember. you simply troll day in and day out.

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.
That defines you perfectly. This is why I won't bother to engage you in a discussion unless you offer something substantial in return. Can you even remember the last time you 'contributed' to a discussion without baiting someone? I can't!

So get with the program, or go find another forum to troll on. How about offering your ideas on the subject for once as a starter, and back it up with a link to relevant supporting information. That is if you can handle it.

-S

[antikristuseke]

...and back it up with a link to relevant supporting information.

-S

...and off in the distance the sound of exploding irony meters can be heard

[SUBMAN1]

...and off in the distance the sound of exploding irony meters can be heardHardly - I give my thoughts on the subject, and I back up data all the time. I cannot remember the last time Letum did so. irony my *ss.

-S

[Letum]

A dubble whammy of unintentional irony there.

First you accuse me of "picking apart other peoples posts" which is exactly what you
have done through out this topic! See post #107 or #122 for a good example.
I prefer to call it discussion.


Then you tell me to "back it up with a link to relevant supporting information." which is
exactly what you have failed to do. (see #119 #120 #112 #109)


*edit* antikristuseke beat me to it. ;)

[SUBMAN1]

A dubble whammy of unintentional irony there.

First you accuse me of "picking apart other peoples posts" which is exactly what you
have done through out this topic! See post #107 or #122 for a good example.
I prefer to call it discussion.


Then you tell me to "back it up with a link to relevant supporting information." which is
exactly what you have failed to do. (see #119 #120 #112 #109)


*edit* antikristuseke beat me to it. ;)I'm giving my opinion fully. Where is yours? Nodda. You pick apart my post with little details and attack me on it instead of giving you full complete views. Trolling at its finest.

-S

[Letum]

That's kinda how it works SM.

1) If person A disagrees with something person B says, then person A tries to show the
weakness of person B's argument with a counter argument.

2) If person B disagrees with person A's counter argument then person B may chose to
make a counter-counter argument.
Or person B might concede.

3) ad infinum

The way it does not work is thus:

1) Person A disagrees with something person B says, then person A tries to show the
weakness of person A's argument with a counter argument.

2) Person B calls person A a troll.


:shifty:

[SUBMAN1]

That's kinda how it works SM.

1) If person A disagrees with something person B says, then person A tries to show the
weakness of person B's argument with a counter argument.

2) If person B disagrees with person A's counter argument then person B may chose to
make a counter-counter argument.
Or person B might concede.

3) ad infinum

The way it does not work is thus:

1) Person A disagrees with something person B says, then person A tries to show the
weakness of person A's argument with a counter argument.

2) Person B calls person A a troll.


:shifty:Wrong - try your constant attacks, this thread and others? And how about the baiting? That is all I ever get from you - ever! As you can tell, I've got a bit hostile too it lately. Maybe one day we can have a normal conversation.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Lets just grab a couple and analyze your typical post in response to me in a thread:


http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=137643

How is that not trolling?


http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=137733

And this?


This is what I'm talking about. I didn't start it. There are hundreds like this at Subsim. And you wonder why i'm tired of putting up with it. :roll:

-S

[Reece]

Sorry, but the thought of 2 men touching each other just makes me want to pewk!:dead:

[Kapt Z]

Good for them. :up:Sicko

You think I am a 'sicko' because I support gay marriage???

ok.

I can live with that.

[McBeck]

Subman & Letum - take it offline please....

[ReallyDedPoet]

We got much bigger issues in this world to think about than whether two consenting adults be it male or female, get married. For the record Gay Marriage is legal in Canada.

Fine by me, I may not agree with it as far as my own lifestyle, but I do respect it.


RDP

[Letum]

Talking about submarines and homosexuality....
The course of the Battle for the Atlantic may have been very, very different if it was
not for the efforts of a homosexual codebreaker, mathematician and natural
philosopher who cracked the naval enigma codes, provided the basis, in theory and
practical design, for all computers like the one I am useing to type this and later
committed suicide when faced with prison or hormone injections for his sexuality.

One of England's worst betrayals of a hero whom so many owe their lives to.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/Alan_Turing_Memorial_Closer.jpg/450px-Alan_Turing_Memorial_Closer.jpg

[mookiemookie]

I loved the "12 Reasons that Gay Marriage Will Ruin Society"


Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.
Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.
Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.
Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.
Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.
Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America.
Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.
Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.
Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.
Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.

[Tchocky]

Nice, mookie :)

Love #8

[Platapus]

I sure hope some of these comments posted on this thread don't offend the gay and lesbian members of this site.

Some of the comments seemed a bit harsh at times.

[Doolan]

Yes there is a lot of if, ands, or buts, but to not be able to learn from the past is a grave mistake as has been shown time and time again. It's not simply about color, or to make one sound smart, it's to learn and learn what you can for the future, otherwise studying the past becomes simply a curiosity.

The "simple curiosity" line surprised me, it's in fact a pretty good summary of the labor of a historian as a "vehicle" of the evolution of collective mentality. Kudos for it.

I didn't say we can't learn from the past, not at all. I'm just trying to draw a line between "food for thought" and syllogism. The reason why I believe that all opinions are not only valid but even welcome is that it's up to the maturity of the reader, not the writer, to extract valid conclusions from it. I can't remember who said that "everyone can be useful, if only as a bad example". Same applies to analogies.

Examples from past societies are really useful in the sense that they are the only thing remotely similar to a laboratory experiment a historian can have. A biologist can come up with a theory and wonder how it will work experimentally. A historian has to think how it has worked. Alas, the conditions of the "experiment" are already determined and never ideal, so as useful as it might be it can never be held as a necessary relationship of cause and effect.

That known, it's all good to do it, specially in an informal level, because you never know what or who will give you the key to make a debate progress. It might be an erudite essay, it might be a new book or it might be an innocent and simplistic comment from a child that simply "makes you wonder".

Geez, I talk too much!

In short, the example is useful, illustrative and can bring something to the discussion, sorry if it seemed that I was trivializing it. It is not, however, final until a satisfactory chain of causal relations can be created between a bored and randy Greek hoplite and, just to use Letum's example, a person like Alan Turing who came from a completely different set of circumstances.

As for Turing's particular case, it's also very illustrative and I thank Letum for posting it. Even though I'm not really certain of the positive or negative consequences of gay marriage (I don't know enough gay couples and I don't understand modern society well enough to judge there yet, gut feelings aside), even if we were to accept (remember, just hypothetically, this is not a judgement) that gay rights could have a negative impact in family structure and education, ordeals like the one Turing had to endure really make you think how much damage a "good" decision can make. I know it's just one example of one person and we can't really know how many more like him there were, but it hardly seems worth it to torture a man so, no matter what we claim to be defending.

Gay or not, he was absolutely ace at what he did and it's pretty unfair that he should end up that way...

[ReallyDedPoet]

I sure hope some of these comments posted on this thread don't offend the gay and lesbian members of this site.

Some of the comments seemed a bit harsh at times.
I could not agree more with you more. The late Dave Bunnell " leovampire ", creator of ROW ( Reflections on Water ) and other great mods for SH4 and a great friend of mine and others here ( he was, and still is held in the highest esteem here at SUBSIM ), was gay, I wonder what he would think of some of this discussion. As most folks know here, along with modding, Dave would help anybody that asked or needed it, anybody.


RDP

[Doolan]

We got much bigger issues in this world to think about than whether two consenting adults be it male or female, get married.

I have to say that another worry I have is "what comes next".

As a heterosexual, it is tempting for me, and many like me, to ignore the issue as it does not seem to affect me directly.

However, a legal action against it would, ultimately, be a legal action based on a relative moral system (if it wasn't relative, I suppose all cultures would either be pro or against) and that attempts to control a matter as private as sexual orientation.

Call me a paranoid, but that sets the ground for other laws that could affect me eventually.

Western governments lack power by design. This is, I think, a double-edged blade. It means they rarely if ever will have the power to enforce a "responsible" measure if it's unpopular. But it also means they rarely if ever will have the power to enforce an "arbitrary" measure if it's unpopular. They lack the backbone to do good AND bad.

The old debate between freedom and authority arises, but as of now I'd rather have a gay neighbor now than a government official watching me while I have sex ten years from now :lol:

[Doolan]

The late Dave Bunnell " leovampire ", creator of ROW ( Reflections on Water ) and other great mods for SH4 and a great friend of mine and others here ( he was, and still is held in the highest esteem here at SUBSIM ), was gay, I wonder what he would think of some of this discussion.

Another fine example.

My belief in family union as the base of society is there, much as it was in Aristotle (his "Politics" are a crazy awesome book that I recommend! It's boring as heck, but it has interesting conclusions), but, at least in me, that belief is not strong enough to discriminate on great people like Leo, or Turing, or anyone, for their preference.

Firm beliefs, and the will to defend them, are a gift, but that gift can be used without offending anyone...

P.S: sorry for the brief hijacking, but I take this chance to warn everyone that so far I have kept my famous acid, reckless and immature sense of humor away from most threads :D If I ever write anything that sounds offensive, rest assured that it's a joke and that I don't mind being scolded bigtime for it. :rotfl:

Subsim, you have been warned

[Hakahura]

Talking about submarines and homosexuality....
The course of the Battle for the Atlantic may have been very, very different if it was
not for the efforts of a homosexual codebreaker, mathematician and natural
philosopher who cracked the naval enigma codes, provided the basis, in theory and
practical design, for all computers like the one I am useing to type this and later
committed suicide when faced with prison or hormone injections for his sexuality.

One of England's worst betrayals of a hero whom so many owe their lives to.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/Alan_Turing_Memorial_Closer.jpg/450px-Alan_Turing_Memorial_Closer.jpg

Excellent Letum.

I've followed this thread for a couple of days now and was thinking about mentioning Turing myself.

How would his life have turned out in a society different to the one of the time?
A society that doesn't punish or discriminate against someone because of the way they are.
Would he have taken his life?
What other contributions might a mind like his made to the world?
Shameful that someone who directly shortened WWII should be treated like a criminal.

[Hakahura]

Also I'm not quite sure what the homophobics are worried about.

It's not as if the oppertunity to get married is suddenly going to turn everyone gay.

I doubt many people would wake up, read the newspaper to find the law had changed and suddenly decide that now was the time to pursue a different lifestyle.

You either want to sleep with people of the same sex or you don't. No law is going to change that. If homosexual or lesbian couples want to get married let them I say.

[Hakahura]

• One study reports that the average homosexual man has between 20 and 106 partners per year (6). The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime.

Sounds like they're having a lot of fun to me.

Shouldn't imagine that many are in a rush to get hitched!

[Hakahura]

End transmission.
Return to original depth.

[ReallyDedPoet]

Talking about submarines and homosexuality....
The course of the Battle for the Atlantic may have been very, very different if it was
not for the efforts of a homosexual codebreaker, mathematician and natural
philosopher who cracked the naval enigma codes, provided the basis, in theory and
practical design, for all computers like the one I am useing to type this and later
committed suicide when faced with prison or hormone injections for his sexuality.

One of England's worst betrayals of a hero whom so many owe their lives to.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/Alan_Turing_Memorial_Closer.jpg/450px-Alan_Turing_Memorial_Closer.jpg
Excellent Letum.

I've followed this thread for a couple of days now and was thinking about mentioning Turing myself.

How would his life have turned out in a society different to the one of the time?
A society that doesn't punish or discriminate against someone because of the way they are.
Would he have taken his life?
What other contributions might a mind like his made to the world?
Shameful that someone who directly shortened WWII should be treated like a criminal.
Well said :yep:


RDP

[joegrundman]

Also I'm not quite sure what the homophobics are worried about.



mostly they are worried that they might themselves actually be gay:lol: