# End of civilization or gay marriage in CA



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

I'm celebrating, dancing in the streets, singing out loud, and wearing my brightest pink oxford cloth shirt. Same sex marriage is now allowed in California, making two states where this is legal (Massachusetts being the other state). Hmmm heterosexual marriage seems to have survived in MA, maybe it will in CA too. Maybe it's not the end of civilization after all.

Anybody else celebrating?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Indeed. I'm trying to get in the spirit today myself, by calling my dog a cat.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Dog/Cat*

Pedantic Turkey

Very funny.
Congrats to the older lesbians that got married. In their 90.
Big step. NY is on its way as well.

Nice day gents


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Sure. I took "mittens" for a walk and told everyone about his "orientation," but they just laughed.

You know what that means--lawsuit!


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Indeed. I'm trying to get in the spirit today myself, by calling my dog a cat.


Actually you can call it an "elephant in the living room": you may try to ignore it or pretend it's not there, but it is.


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

DukeGrad said:


> Pedantic Turkey
> 
> Very funny.
> Congrats to the older lesbians that got married. In their 90.
> ...


NJ will probably follow in 2009. So the tally is:

NJ - civil union
VT - civil union
NH - civil union
CT - civil union
MA - marriage
CA - marriage

That's 12% of the union that gives full legal rights to same-sex couples. A very long way to go indeed, but Tolkien said that the rolling of small pebbles begins an avalanche.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

*worldwide*

The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Norway have full marriage rights. A number of other countries including England and Denmark have civil unions - who else?


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

mpcsb said:


> I'm celebrating, dancing in the streets, singing out loud, and wearing my brightest pink oxford cloth shirt. Same sex marriage is now allowed in California, making two states where this is legal (Massachusetts being the other state). Hmmm heterosexual marriage seems to have survived in MA, maybe it will in CA too. Maybe it's not the end of civilization after all.
> 
> Anybody else celebrating?


Pink!? Not lavender!? Surrender your gay card NOW!!!  

Hey, didn't you get the agenda?

3:30 p.m. Assume complete control of the U.S., state, and local governments (in addition to other nations' governments); destroy all healthy Christian marriages; recruit all children grades Kindergarten through 12 into our amoral, filthy lifestyle (because we can't reproduce); secure complete control of the media, starting with sitcoms; host a pornographic "art" exhibit at the local art museum; and turn people away from Jesus, causing them to burn forever in Hell.

4:10 p.m. Time permitting, bring about the general decline of Western Civilization and look like we are having way too much fun doing it.

4:30 p.m. Take a disco-nap to prevent facial wrinkles from the stress of world conquest and being so terribly witty.

Btw, that's 3:30 pm GST, Gay Standard Time which is actually 11:30pm HST, Heterosexual Standard Time.

You know we're also going to drug the coffee of straight men (only the hot hunky ones, of course), and seduce them into a lifestyle of raging and rampant homosexuality. They'll find all women unattractive, of course won't be able to reproduce with other men, and we'll use another drug on the fat ugly men so they can't reproduce.

Voila'! No more humanity... we've achieved our goal!

(I know I'm not helping our cause )


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

mpcsb said:


> The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Norway have full marriage rights. A number of other countries including England and Denmark have civil unions - who else?


Not to mention Spain producing some of the finest looking men! Ay Dios mio! Spain gave us Antonio Banderas, Placido Domingo (and his son, of course)... I have an internet pen-pal in Spain who is a hot husky little muscle bear...

Oh I can't go on... I'm all verklempt and getting the vapours.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> (I know I'm not helping our cause )


Oh Frank - I don't know - I think humor combined with our exquisite good taste in everything from fashion to home decor are our best assets.
:icon_smile_wink:

PS can I keep my gay card, along with the pink oxford cloth shirt I am wearing lavender trousers and rainbow flip-flops - :devil:

oh and the boa is magenta - LOL


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Frank, aren't you afraid you're going to get kicked out for revealing the secret plan?

As for me, I was celebrating when the Vermont Supreme Court decided on the requirement of full equal rights, and also when our legislature adopted civil unions.

I'm not celebrating the redefinition of the word "marriage" to mean something that it doesn't mean.

I'm also troubled by the fact that at least some supporters of same-sex marriage seem to be making the dishonest argument that calling the relationship "civil union" is preventing access to full equal rights. In fact, as long as there is no requirement for the federal government to provide full equal rights to same-sex couples, whether they are called civil unions, marriages, or anything else, they won't have them. No state law that provides marriage rights will expand the federal rights that same-sex couples have, or require other states to recognize those unions. 

Whatever happens, I think those steps are still in the distant future, even under a Democratic President and Congress. In fact, I suspect that calling these unions "marriages" may make it harder to accomplish federal recognition.


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

mpcsb said:


> Oh Frank - I don't know - I think humor combined with our exquisite good taste in everything from fashion to home decor are our best assets.
> :icon_smile_wink:


Too true, too true.



> PS can I keep my gay card, along with the pink oxford cloth shirt I am wearing lavender trousers and rainbow flip-flops - :devil:
> 
> oh and the boa is magenta - LOL


Oh absolutely. Total redemption.

Now, is the pink oxford shirt sleeveless? It has to be sleeveless, you know, especially for those important club appearances.


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

I just don't understand why gay people are so keen to get married instead of being happy with a civil union when so many heterosexual people are so keen to turn their backs on marriage. Now I wonder if the institution of marriage will be saved by homosexual people?


----------



## 13eastie (Jun 1, 2008)

This gives homosexual people the right to have messy and expensive break-ups and to kill each other for the life insurance, just like heterosexuals do. Everyone gets equality in the eyes of the law.

Or do they?

If marriage is merely a legal definition and has no basis in the biological urge to reproduce (and I'm guessing this is the case for folk in question) then perhaps not...

What about the people for whom three, or seven, is the correct number of constituents to a partnership?

Or the folk who want to form a legal union with their cat (that is trapped in a dog's body)?

If its just a legal definition, why not these guys too?

Until gets justice, we must keep marching!


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

jackmccullough said:


> Frank, aren't you afraid you're going to get kicked out for revealing the secret plan?


Well, I think the genie IS out of the bottle. It was Mrs. Betty Bowers who has been instrumental in forming the plan, uniting us and publicizing it. It's far too big a project to rely on the secret handshake.



> As for me, I was celebrating when the Vermont Supreme Court decided on the requirement of full equal rights, and also when our legislature adopted civil unions.
> 
> I'm not celebrating the redefinition of the word "marriage" to mean something that it doesn't mean.
> 
> ...


Separate but equal is not. Until DOMA is overturned, the FF&C clause is honored, and the 14th Amendment is enforced, there is no equality. I don't think civil unions should be called marriage if they are not marriage. My partner uses the terms wedding (for our c/u ceremony), husband, married. But it is not any of those things. Not yet. But to a lot of people I know, gay and straight, it _is_ all the same to them. However, I know the distinction exists.

Years ago when I first met my partner, and he became disabled (accident at work), he applied for Social Security Disability. The examiner asked who I was, because my company offers domestic partner benefits, even before NJ had a registry, and my partner was on my policy. The examiner said that it would be my responsibility to support my partner and he would not be eligble for SSI. No, no, no, no, no... there is that little thing called DOMA and the fact that the federal government, which Social Security is part of, does not recognize our relationship. So, Mr. Social Security Examiner, you cannot have it both ways. You can't recognize us when it suits your purposes, yet not recognize us other times (federal tax returns, anyone?). He got his benefits.

I flipped out on some people on another forum over the use of the word "marriage". People on both sides of the issue are fighting over a word. It's a _word_, for f**ksakes. Words change, language changes. It's not sacrosanct, written in a holy liturgical language, especially considering what "marriage" has been over the milennia. Not to mention the rate of marriage dissolutions in the US and elsewhere. That's how important "marriage" is.

Having said that, however, I really don't care if the union is called "marriage", "civil union" or "Spaghetti". As long as there is no distinction in legalities, one application for the license is used and it's a civil matter, call it anything. If it makes people feel better that "marriage" is a religious issue, so be it. We are still free to use whatever terms we want.

If the opponents of same sex "marriage" want to protect and preserve it and "the family", outlaw divorce and single parent adoptions. Make it illegal to raise a child as a single parent. I can make arguments that are just as stupid. 

I have a nephew who is an ATF agent in DC. He told me the climate and attitude is one of "meh, it's going to happen in 10-12 years".

So I strongly suggest that people who are opposed to same-sex "marriage" man up and get used to the idea. It's coming. Change is a fact of life. If one wants to live in the past do like the inhabitants of The Village did, or what the Amish do.


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

Leather man said:


> I just don't understand why gay people are so keen to get married instead of being happy with a civil union when so many heterosexual people are so keen to turn their backs on marriage. Now I wonder if the institution of marriage will be saved by homosexual people?


Because separate but equal is not. Full legal rights and benefits by the states, the federal government, and honoring of the FF&C clause of the US Constitution. No distinction in rights and benefits from civil marriage. That's all it really is. Simple, isn't it? Painless, isn't it?


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

13eastie said:


> This gives homosexual people the right to have messy and expensive break-ups and to kill each other for the life insurance, just like heterosexuals do. Everyone gets equality in the eyes of the law.
> 
> Or do they?
> 
> ...


A marriage in the US is a contract requiring two consenting parties. To dissolve it requires a judge in a court of law. Cats, dogs, goldfish, sheep, children, cannot enter into a legal contract with informed consent.

Why not 7 partners? Beats the hell out of me. If polygamy supporters want to lobby for legalizing polygamy and polyandry, go for it. It affects me not.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Polygamy and Polyandry have a lot of consequences when children and relationships become involved. 

These issues are about a lot more than how you derive your sexual excitement and do have consequences to the community at large. I have no problem with civil unions.

If you want to call it marriage - - oh well, just as long as you don't force religions to accept the marriage in their internal church affairs and interfere with people's practice of religion. Religious people have the right to their beliefs as long as they don't actively discriminate in commerce. I fear that would be the next step.

I have no problem with equal rights.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I am pleased another state will allow gay people to have legally recognized unions. I am laughing my arse off over the blatant discrimination being shown to plural marriage. 

The irony is almost too much for me. :teacha:


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> If you want to call it marriage - - oh well, just as long as you don't force religions to accept the marriage in their internal church affairs and interfere with people's practice of religion. Religious people have the right to their beliefs as long as they don't actively discriminate in commerce. I fear that would be the next step.


That's the fear-mongering that religious people are pushing... that will never, nor can it happen in the US. There are congregations that are accepting and welcoming and will perform same sex union blessings. But no one is going to bring a suit against the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Churches to force them to perform a same sex wedding.

But also keep in mind that no religious wedding is valid without a civil license. That a clergyperson signs and validates a marriage license is a courtesy granted to him/her by the state so he/she is licensed to do so. A couple can have a perfectly valid and legal civil marriage with their license signed and validated by a judge, mayor, justice of the peace, etc. and then have a religious ceremony. The license is already signed, so the ceremony is strictly symbolic and ritualistic.

I don't know when people are going to learn the distinction.


----------



## 13eastie (Jun 1, 2008)

Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> the ceremony is strictly symbolic and ritualistic.


Yes. As long as you don't actually believe in God any of the words used in the ceremony, you can pretty much reduce it to the level of accompanying the issue of a new driving licence with organ music.


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

13eastie said:


> Yes. As long as you don't actually believe in God any of the words used in the ceremony, you can pretty much reduce it to the level of accompanying the issue of a new driving licence with organ music.


A same sex couple can believe in God and have a wedding in a church or synagogue willing to perform such a wedding. There are many that do. The clergyperson is still authorized to validate the license. In a purely civil ceremony, God is not mentioned.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Frank, It's telling how your own ignorance of another 'lifestyle' prejudices your worldview. The Amish do not live in the past. Most of my Amish friends, via the horse industry live in 2008. The Amazon tribe recently observed via Helicopter would probably find an Amish farm a marvel of magic.The Amish, themselves a splinter group from the Mennonites, chose a lifestyle that was contempory with the world then at large. The world changed, and expecting an amish man to change too is just as prejudiced as asking a gay man to date women.I am happy for the temporal relief from persecution and discrimination on a civil level this brings for gays. I will continue my adherence to Eastern Orthodox spiritual values, and, as you said so far nobody is going to persecute us for hate crimes- so far. Just remember this; when the champagne glasses from George Takei's ceremony go into the dishwasher they will have spots just like all us other leopards with our ferocities and hatreds. I've seen my share of spotted gays. So congratulations. Now you have equal opportunities to be either good people or join the swollen ranks of assholes.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

As long as religious people are not told by law what is and isn't sinful, I have no problems. I have no problem with civil marriages. I just don't want religious people forced to accept things against their will.

I probably should have stated more clearly that I don't believe gay people should be discriminated against legally or economically. I simply can't believe this is a person's choice to be gay; almost no one would choose to be in a minority that faces the discrimination gays do.

To discriminate against gays that way is to punish them for being who they are and it is wrong. However, I think religious people in their private matters need to be respected, too. This frequently is not part of the discussion. It is OK by me to believe that religious people have the right to consider relationships outside of the man/woman relationship as sinful. It is not OK for them to impose these beliefs about sexuality, abortion, etc. on others by law. It is also not right for people on the left to do this.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I'm wearing my usual - a pink OCBD with Bills - today and no one thinks I'm celebrating same-sex marriage. There might be other reasons for that. :devil:

FWIW, My favorite shirt is a lavendar royal oxford button down from B2 Select. It gets a lot of attention from women, but I'm old and married It's a *safe* and cheap thrill though. :icon_smile_wink:

I'm ambivalent about what happens in peoples' bedrooms or in California in general. I don't begrudge anyone being happy. I haven't figured out why they keep asking me. Just don't ask and I won't vote no. I won't march in the streets or do anything else stupid, but if it's on my ballot I have to vote my own opinion.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

ksinc said:


> I'm ambivalent about what happens in peoples' bedrooms or in California in general. I don't begrudge anyone being happy. I haven't figured out why they keep asking me. Just don't ask and I won't vote no. I won't march in the streets or do anything else stupid, but if it's on my ballot I have to vote my own opinion.


I think this is about more than bedrooms and I agree everyone should vote their own opinion - I sure do. I guess I don't agree that civil rights should be put up for a vote - tyranny of the majority and all that. Still, it's a day of celebration for a good number of people - so best wishes to all the newlyweds in California!!!!


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Indeed. I'm trying to get in the spirit today myself, by calling my dog a cat.


How interesting. Listening to the news in California on NPR this morning, I just announced to my wife I wanted to marry our cat. Not sure how she's taking it.


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

Kav said:


> Frank, It's telling how your own ignorance of another 'lifestyle' prejudices your worldview. The Amish do not live in the past. Most of my Amish friends, via the horse industry live in 2008. The Amazon tribe recently observed via Helicopter would probably find an Amish farm a marvel of magic.The Amish, themselves a splinter group from the Mennonites, chose a lifestyle that was contempory with the world then at large. The world changed, and expecting an amish man to change too is just as prejudiced as asking a gay man to date women.I am happy for the temporal relief from persecution and discrimination on a civil level this brings for gays. I will continue my adherence to Eastern Orthodox spiritual values, and, as you said so far nobody is going to persecute us for hate crimes- so far. Just remember this; when the champagne glasses from George Takei's ceremony go into the dishwasher they will have spots just like all us other leopards with our ferocities and hatreds. I've seen my share of spotted gays. So congratulations. Now you have equal opportunities to be either good people or join the swollen ranks of assholes.


I do not consider myself ignorant, and I have so far refrained from ad hominems, and shall keep attempting to do so. Your connection with the Amish may be just as ignorant as you claim mine to be: you are seeing a cross-section of their societies, as I may very well be. But it's just as ignorant to believe that they are NOT living in the past. But maybe my choice of phrase "in the past" is less accurate than "insular".

As far as the Eastern Orthodox Church, I abandoned that wholly after the comments made by the late Archbishop Christodoulos and Patriarch Alexei. Better examples of ignorance and intolerance one cannot find, especially when they speak as "spiritual leaders". I wonder what Jesus would say.


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

Beresford said:


> How interesting. Listening to the news in California on NPR this morning, I just announced to my wife I wanted to marry our cat. Not sure how she's taking it.


See, the drug is taking effect. Starbucks and Dunkin Donuts are playing right into our hands. bwahahaha :devil:


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> I am pleased another state will allow gay people to have legally recognized unions. I am laughing my arse off over the blatant discrimination being shown to plural marriage.
> 
> The irony is almost too much for me. :teacha:


I agree. I have never understood how you can distinguish gay marriage from polygamy, and say one is good and the other bad. In fact, I think the stronger legal case can be made for polygamy. Certainly it would strengthen society by encouraging men to support all those multiple women they father children with and then don't take responsibility for.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Beresford said:


> I agree. I have never understood how you can distinguish gay marriage from polygamy, and say one is good and the other bad. In fact, I think the stronger legal case can be made for polygamy. Certainly it would strengthen society by encouraging men to support all those multiple women they father children with and then don't take responsibility for.


One would gather from watching the news that polygamy is alive and well in the US - or at least Utah and Texas. Seems like the 'compounds' are in no danger of having anyone pry into their bedrooms, or outlaw their marriages, or if polygamy is illegal to prosecute them for breaking the law. Remember the children in Texas we not removed from their homes because of polygamy but suspected abuse.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

mpcsb said:


> One would gather from watching the news that polygamy is alive and well in the US - or at least Utah and Texas. Seems like the 'compounds' are in no danger of having anyone pry into their bedrooms, or outlaw their marriages, or if polygamy is illegal to prosecute them for breaking the law. Remember the children in Texas we not removed from their homes because of polygamy but suspected abuse.


Wonder how long before the Mormons and the State of Utah demand reparations from the U.S. for violation of their civil rights.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Since I live in Northern California, I may have to just close our office and take the rest of the week off, not to mention get very cozy with my cleaners and see if I can repeatedly drop off my best suit after hours and have it ready the next day before lunch. 

Can one continue to wear the same suit to so many weddings? :icon_smile:

I've been invited to seven marriage ceremonies this week, all of same-sex couples. The shortest time one of the seven couples has been together is 23 years, the longest 45. 

I see this as a great day for civil rights and equal protection, not to mention marriage. The energy, enthusiasm and commitment shown by these couples brings tears to my eyes and is very inspiring. 

Cordially,
Adrian Quay


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Quay said:


> Can one continue to wear the same suit to so many weddings? :icon_smile:
> 
> I see this as a great day for civil rights and equal protection, not to mention marriage. The energy, enthusiasm and commitment shown by these couples brings tears to my eyes and is very inspiring.
> 
> ...


If you change shirts and ties yes - wear the same suit - :icon_smile_wink:

Lucky you - though you may have to take out a loan to cover all those wedding presents - LOL

(if your friends are like my spouse and me - 13 years - married in Ottawa - we did a 'no gifts please' request to all our friends.

Cheers and thanks for sharing such happy news.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

mpcsb said:


> If you change shirts and ties yes - wear the same suit - :icon_smile_wink:


Fortunately it seems only two of the ceremonies are "formal" and suit events. One is a Japanese Buddhist event and traditional kimonos are suggested. I had a great deal of fun shopping for that!



> Lucky you - though you may have to take out a loan to cover all those wedding presents - LOL
> 
> (if your friends are like my spouse and me - 13 years - married in Ottawa - we did a 'no gifts please' request to all our friends.


Most, most fortunately the folks are all very aware of how many weddings are taking place and have made similar requests. Whew! Otherwise I'd be not simply closing the office but contemplating having to sell it. 

Although I'm going to honor one request, from the handsome couple of 45 years. They suggest guests donate a few hours of their time at a community service organization, like a shelter or other program that helps the needy.



> Cheers and thanks for sharing such happy news.


Your quite welcome and thank you, too. I'm not sure how all this happened to me as I don't drink coffee or get anything from Starbucks. Although I did go to a boarding school and one can speculate what happens at these places. 

Cordially and off to dress,
A.Q.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I have to say I was shocked they had a "Jewish" ceremony. I didn't know anything about that. Still don't, but it seemed surprising.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Frank I bring to your attention the internal dailog of George C. Scott as Patton recalling the roman triumphs and the slave holding a laurel and whispering a reminder it was all short lived. So, while everyone else toses rice and confetti hear my whispers. If you found a 2000 year old institution lacking you should have read the brochure more carefully. And, if some 'Bud Light' version of that church accepts you fine, just don't expect Orthodoxy to reprint the brochure for your convenience. Insularity of culture does not exclude San Francisco bathhouses or talk show comedianes who use their sexual orientation as a soapbox one minute and bar the door of criticism with it's nails and wood the next. I told you I was happy for the extension of earthly rights to gays. That I held up a laurel of reminder you are also fallible is hardly an ad hominum attack.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

^ Worshiping a desert God in the forest brings on all sorts of issues.

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

Kav said:


> If you found a 2000 year old institution lacking you should have read the brochure more carefully. And, if some 'Bud Light' version of that church accepts you fine, just don't expect Orthodoxy to reprint the brochure for your convenience.


Let me help dispel the ignorance you have of me...

I joined the Orthodox Church long before I accepted being gay; in fact it was in the days I was closeted and in denial. I was a member of the parish council, and a reader. When I worked nights I participated in funeral and holy days Divine Liturgies when it was just the priest and one other parishioner who was a choir member.

So don't you dare lecture me about what I should have done or known before joining the Church. I find the Church _unwelcoming_. To that end I made my choice of abandoning it. I've not set foot in an Orthodox church in over 14 years, and my life has been none the worse for it. You can expect to see Disney On Ice performed in an open arena in Saudi Arabia before I do again. I know where I am not welcome.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

ksinc said:


> I have to say I was shocked they had a "Jewish" ceremony. I didn't know anything about that. Still don't, but it seemed surprising.


Well, if you don't know "anything" about something, when knowledge does arrive one of the many possibilities is to be shocked by what you learn. :icon_smile:

Reform and Conservative Judaism in general have long been supportive of such things. As a Rabbi once said to some Jewish gay friends of mine when they asked if he had any hesitation about blessing their union, "What? You think there is some limit on the love God can bless? He doesn't limit His Love and neither can I. And neither will you!" It was a great ceremony. :icon_smile:

Cordially,
Adrian Quay


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

Re: Churches/Synagogues/Religious establishments - They can choose to marry or not marry whomever they like

Re: Secular arraignments - I don't think the government has the authority to decide what criteria two consenting adults must meet in order to marry

Re: Gay marriage - I could care less, more power to them


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

jbmcb said:


> Re: Churches/Synagogues/Religious establishments - They can choose to marry or not marry whomever they like....


It should be reiterated what the California Supreme Court decision in this matter says not only as a matter of California law but what effect it may have on other states who cite this ruling:

_"Finally, affording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the 
designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any 
religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs." _(Page 117 of the published ruling.)

It's a civil matter and many say quite civilized. :icon_smile:

Cordially,
Adrian Quay


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Frank*

Gentlemen, Frank

I have been following gentlemen. Frank, am sorry about that issue regarding disabled partner. These and many like this should not happen. And also regarding the church.
Many have found all religions, unwelcoming so to say.
The Roman Catholic Church still, has a long way to go.
Anyway my friends, am happy this has happened. and it is more than 12 percent of the country.
Enjoy, have a nice day my friends


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

Thanks Jimmy, very kind of you. 

I should have added that he is doing a lot better now and is able to get around, and is even working a part time job as an optometric assistant. I have to thank Bill Clinton for signing the bill that allows people on SSI to work a certain amount. One's mental state is vastly improved. 

I've found my relationship with the One; it's a deeply personal one that doesn't require gathering in a building, nor following what other people say or think or do. "Not that there's anything wrong with that" (that phrase seems appropriate in this thread :icon_smile_big: ).


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> Years ago when I first met my partner, and he became disabled (accident at work), he applied for Social Security Disability. The examiner asked who I was, because my company offers domestic partner benefits, even before NJ had a registry, and my partner was on my policy. The examiner said that it would be my responsibility to support my partner and he would not be eligble for SSI. No, no, no, no, no... there is that little thing called DOMA and the fact that the federal government, which Social Security is part of, does not recognize our relationship. So, Mr. Social Security Examiner, you cannot have it both ways. You can't recognize us when it suits your purposes, yet not recognize us other times (federal tax returns, anyone?). He got his benefits.
> QUOTE]
> 
> That's encouraging. I would have been worried that they'd hit him with the one-third reduction rule for living in the houshold of another. Of course, it's been a long time since I've done a lot of SSI work.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Quay said:


> Well, if you don't know "anything" about something, when knowledge does arrive one of the many possibilities is to be shocked by what you learn. :icon_smile:
> 
> Cordially,
> Adrian Quay


Why would I have previously known anything about two lesbians' wedding ceremony in California?

It's not my fault they invited reporters and printed it in the paper.

I think you assume too much. Sorry.


----------



## 13eastie (Jun 1, 2008)

Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> A same sex couple can believe in God...


Of course.



Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> ...and have a wedding in a church or synagogue willing to perform such a wedding. There are many that do.


There are not: this is a church wedding.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Jack*

Gentlemen,

That is true, and a good point. I am glad that worked out for you.

Nice day my friends.
Am trying to get together my pulled pork cookout!
Need to buy beer, lots of this.
Later


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

13eastie said:


> There are not: this is a church wedding.


Different churches use different prayers, different prayer books. You gave only one example of many for a 'church' wedding - there are others.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

mpcsb said:


> Different churches use different prayers, different prayer books. You gave only one example of many for a 'church' wedding - there are others.


The poster is apparently from England, where for many a year there was little mention of anything else but King Henry's creation. For instance, on WWI military conscription forms under "Religion" there were only two choices to check:

[ ] Church of England
[ ] Other

:icon_smile_big:

The unintentional humor of bureaucracy is often good stuff.

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

ksinc said:


> Why would I have previously known anything about two lesbians' wedding ceremony in California?
> 
> It's not my fault they invited reporters and printed it in the paper.
> 
> I think you assume too much. Sorry.


Perhaps feeling bit touchy today? :icon_smile:

I made an extremely general comment about any person coming from a state of not knowing something to knowing something. One of the many possible reactions to that transition is shock.

No assumptions about anyone intended, implied or included.

Cordially,
Adrian Quay


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Unfortunately, what the state churches (including King Henry's church - in another thread, we could discuss the irony of Henry VIII creating a church - - -) in Europe have produced is Christianity that is lukewarm at best. I wish some of the people trying to use laws to force others to live by their religious beliefs would see that.

There is room for compromise if people would be open to it. (Or we can tear or society apart over it.)


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> So, Mr. Social Security Examiner, you cannot have it both ways. You can't recognize us when it suits your purposes, yet not recognize us other times (federal tax returns, anyone?). He got his benefits.


Awesome - good going! I love it when bureaucrats get smacked down, especially over silly rules.


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

jackmccullough said:


> That's encouraging. I would have been worried that they'd hit him with the one-third reduction rule for living in the houshold of another. Of course, it's been a long time since I've done a lot of SSI work.


Maybe part of what was in his favor was that the lease was in his name also, as were the bills. Actually I'm the one who doesn't exist. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

jbmcb said:


> Awesome - good going! I love it when bureaucrats get smacked down, especially over silly rules.


Happens all too infrequently though. :devil:


----------



## obiwan (Feb 2, 2007)

Quay said:


> It's a civil matter and many say quite civilized. :icon_smile:
> 
> Cordially,
> Adrian Quay


Just wait until they go to court to get divorced, we shall then see how civilized it is.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

You have to be amused at the people preaching tolerance while simultaneously mocking your religion.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Beresford said:


> How interesting. Listening to the news in California on NPR this morning, I just announced to my wife I wanted to marry our cat. Not sure how she's taking it.


It doesn't matter how she takes it-- what matters is what five out of nine justices think of it.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Beresford said:


> I agree. I have never understood how you can distinguish gay marriage from polygamy, and say one is good and the other bad. In fact, I think the stronger legal case can be made for polygamy. Certainly it would strengthen society by encouraging men to support all those multiple women they father children with and then don't take responsibility for.


Actually, the courts are doing a masterful job of distinguishing the two, despite a certain Court's assurance a few years back that its homosexual activism would not affect "an institution the law protects."


----------



## 13eastie (Jun 1, 2008)

mpcsb said:


> Different churches use different prayers, different prayer books. You gave only one example of many for a 'church' wedding - there are others.


I'm sure finding more would be relatively straightforward, but I'm not that hopeful I would find one that does not specify "man" and "woman", or mention offspring.

You might be able to find a priest that will conduct some sort of ceremony, but a wedding...



Quay said:


> The poster is apparently from England, where for many a year there was little mention of anything else but King Henry's creation.


Ha! I think we may have found a few other things to discuss from time to time over the last half a millennium...

The C of E might be a fairly revolutionary and novel creation in the grand scheme of things, but they've been doing weddings the same way using the same text for rather longer than there have been US citizens trying to create a different definition of "marriage" for every city in California!


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

obiwan said:


> Just wait until they go to court to get divorced, we shall then see how civilized it is.


Happening already in Massachusetts and some of it is as uncivil as can be. Just like everyone else.

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

13eastie said:


> ...The C of E might be a fairly revolutionary and novel creation in the grand scheme of things, but they've been doing weddings the same way using the same text for rather longer than there have been US citizens trying to create a different definition of "marriage" for every city in California!


Oh don't go getting all old-Empire, Rule Britannia on me. :icon_smile_wink: Besides, tradition and consistency in the face of change can be as much a bulwark against foolishness as a dangerously isolated rampart.

But as a matter of fact, we republicans don't do these things by cities in the Former Colonies but by States and it is no longer a matter of "trying" in California. It's the law.

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

13eastie said:


> I'm sure finding more would be relatively straightforward, but I'm not that hopeful I would find one that does not specify "man" and "woman", or mention offspring.
> 
> You might be able to find a priest that will conduct some sort of ceremony, but a wedding...


The book was written once by a man, another book can be written by another man. And neither carries any legal weight. They are just tradition and ritual.

It seems you are not familiar with US law, in that no wedding performed in any religious context is valid without a civil license. So you see, the book can have all the "thees" and "thou arts" and "thys" and blessing you want but it means nothing without a civil license.


----------



## Bishop of Briggs (Sep 7, 2007)

Beresford said:


> How interesting. Listening to the news in California on NPR this morning, I just announced to my wife I wanted to marry our cat. Not sure how she's taking it.


Your wife or the cat?


----------



## Bishop of Briggs (Sep 7, 2007)

What about the rights of the original lesbians -

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/greece/2105052/******-islanders-want-to-stop-homosexual-women-calling-themselves-Lesbians.html


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Again Frank, No where in my posts have I opposed qay union's legal recognition. If I walk into a LDS stake with a Red Label Mountain Dew and Camel in my mouth odds are I'd feel unwelcome too. 14 years should have given you some minor clue to the church's position. Did you talk to your priest? It seems your closet door was more impassable than the one between narthex and sanctuary . No, your obvious anger is because a world with multiple values and cultures will not unilateraly embrace the values of the gay culture and let you light Camel instead of candle. You are free to wear your pride beads. Just extend the same courtesy to those with Chotki.


----------



## Graft (Apr 7, 2008)

So that's the Velvet Mafia's Master Plan. Pretty clever. Did you guys really have to tie up the streets this morning near city hall in Beverly Hills? I was almost late for a meeting.



Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> Pink!? Not lavender!? Surrender your gay card NOW!!!
> 
> Hey, didn't you get the agenda?
> 
> ...


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Kav said:


> ... the values of the gay culture....


This apparently monolithic set gets talked about a lot but I've never seen it defined or codified. Does anyone know what it means, "the values of the gay culture?" In the context of the quoted post it sounds as if it's a set of things in opposition to Orthodox Christianity or at least something that seems to favor smoking in public.

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Well Quay, maybe you can spend summers in North Dakota and Teacher can teach you to read. Is there a 'Gay Culture?' Yes, and probably multiple cultures just like the many ethnic and national autocephalous churches beyond the 5 patriarchs of Orthodoxy. Is 'Gay Culture' better or worse than Amish? Or is it just different ? If it's merely different, must we go through this painting of signs in francais like Quebec- even on kosher shops? The gay activists in California urged people to maintain a reserved dignity today. There is a vote in November on this yet again. So when Frank let loose his vindictive anger he created the potential for one earthly sympathetic voter to feel equally angry. Frank did not show a reserved dignity in his post, or the foregivness Jesus- his Jesus, my Jesus uttered on the cross to God for his persecutors.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Kav said:


> Well Quay, maybe you can spend summers in North Dakota and Teacher can teach you to read.


What an uncalled-for and rude suggestion.



> Is there a 'Gay Culture?' Yes, and probably multiple cultures just like the many ethnic and national autocephalous churches beyond the 5 patriarchs of Orthodoxy.


Which is why I asked about what others have said and you just posted, *THE* gay culture not (as you now write) *A* gay culture. As I'm sure you know, the vast gulf between definite and indefinite articles in English is something to pay careful attention to when you leave reading behind and start to write. :icon_smile: The difference between The Light and a light is inconceivable.

_Of course_ there are many cultures as you've now noted, some defined as Gay most not. In this instance for instance Log Cabin Republicans certainly don't often cotton to Radical Faeries.

Again, my query was about the continuing references to *THE* gay culture, a seemingly solid but actually phantom shibboleth which I've yet to find codified anywhere. I am asking if anyone else has, specifically today because I'd like to win a 10$ bet I have with a colleague.



> So when Frank let loose his vindictive anger he created the potential for one earthly sympathetic voter to feel equally angry. Frank did not show a reserved dignity in his post, or the foregivness Jesus- his Jesus, my Jesus uttered on the cross to God for his persecutors.


Frank is human with faults as have we all. As far as I know, the basic role of any believer is to offer forgiveness for such a perceived trespass and let God judge matters of his heart and his actions. To let such an apparent trespass be the cause of anger and sin entering into your own life would be a great and unnecessary shame. It is not easy in the face of anger to remain possessed of the peace that passes all understanding and yet it is a call.

Cordially,
A. Quay


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

Kav said:


> 14 years should have given you some minor clue to the church's position. Did you talk to your priest? It seems your closet door was more impassable than the one between narthex and sanctuary . No, your obvious anger is because a world with multiple values and cultures will not unilateraly embrace the values of the gay culture and let you light Camel instead of candle. You are free to wear your pride beads. Just extend the same courtesy to those with Chotki.


I said I haven't been to church in over 14 years. It's really only in the past few years that I've discovered the writings of the hierarchs and the official position, and that I'd have a dilemma. Until then I really considered returning to church.

Before all that, however, as a member of the church I suppressed my homosexual feelings... you know, what we are supposed to do. Even worse than just suppressing it I denied it and refused to accept what I knew was the truth. What was my priest going to say or do? Tell me to accept my "burden" from God? Tell me I have to live a single celibate life? Am I supposed to belong to a club that denies me full membership because I don't leave my partner of 12 years?

The Orthodox Church can do whatever it pleases. It doesn't need to account to me, nor I to it. The Church is not going to change for me, nor I for it. Something had to give, and I gave (it up). If I felt the need to belong to a congregation there are plenty of Episcopal and Anglican congregations that are fully welcoming.


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

Kav said:


> So when Frank let loose his vindictive anger he created the potential for one earthly sympathetic voter to feel equally angry. Frank did not show a reserved dignity in his post, or the foregivness Jesus- his Jesus, my Jesus uttered on the cross to God for his persecutors.


Because I made an opinion and criticism of something close to you? Well how does it feel? This is the garbage we hear day in and day out. I've been forgiving for a long time. Well, you know what? I'm not Jesus, and to quote so many others, I can't possibly be a Christian and gay. So I guess that exempts me from that obligation to forgive, now doesn't it?


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> to quote so many others, I can't possibly be a Christian and gay.


I agree with everything you've written, Frank, except this. Not to be argumentative -- and maybe this isn't even the right place to say so -- but there are many who are both. Maybe they aren't Orthodox, but I know from experience there are a lot of openly gay Protestants who are also quite religious. The churches are slowly coming around, in their own ways. So maybe you could give it another go...if you want, of course.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I've been watching the news and specificaly the protests. Curious, not one black cassock behind the " God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" signs. Nor has the news interviewed any Orthodox priests, mentioned participation in the November vote like other politicaly active sects or uncovered mass emailings to members of the various churches. The impass of Homosexuality and Christianity is sad, but again, if you don't like the rules don't play the game or join the club. I'm sure you will find a episcopalian church to your liking. I was baptised into a high church anglican one myself. I only left when the new vicar announced she was also a Wiccan. If your going to be anything; gay, christian, vegetarian be 100% or don't bother. Anything less is just crossdressing, the next group in line for emancipation.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Kav said:


> ... I was baptised into a high church anglican one myself. I only left when the new vicar announced she was also a Wiccan....


LOL

Ahem! That is very funny by itself but I'd suspect quite a shock of the distressing kind for an Anglican congregation. Good grief.

Cordially,
Adrian Quay


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

No, the real shock came when I insisted on speaking the gaelic to her, the official language of all born again( but self described hereditary going back to some babylonian temple priestess) wiccans- a word itself of Saxon root meaning 'to twist.' Father Murphy, God rest his Orangeman soul would have been right proud of 'his little republican.' Only person truly distressed was this octagenarian WW1 war bride suffering what we now recognise as Alzhiemers. Poor lady thought I was speaking latin and 'a papist' and the new priest rather effeminate. The first Orthodox immigrants to America were instructed to attend Anglican services until a generation of priests and churches could be built: The C of E being Liturgical and not roman. From this american orthodoxy gained a long standing mutual dialog, choirs, pews and children's sunday school.


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

A query, Kav: have you ever had a coherent thought in your head? I'm just wondering.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Teacher said:


> Originally Posted by *Frank aka The Minotaur* https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=775176#post775176
> _to quote so many others, I can't possibly be a Christian and gay._
> 
> I agree with everything you've written, Frank, except this. Not to be argumentative -- and maybe this isn't even the right place to say so -- but there are many who are both. Maybe they aren't Orthodox, but I know from experience there are a lot of openly gay Protestants who are also quite religious. The churches are slowly coming around, in their own ways. So maybe you could give it another go...if you want, of course.


Indeed. After all, Jesus said that he who is without sin should cast the first stone, right?

Then he said something like, "and just keep on sinnin', sister." Right?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

V: Please rise out of respect for the Gospel.

V: A reading from the Gospel of St. Matthew:

_Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me remove the speck from your eye'; and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye._
_-Matthew 7:1-5_

V: This is the Gospel of the Lord.

R: Praise to You, Oh Christ.


----------



## 13eastie (Jun 1, 2008)

Quay said:


> The poster is apparently from England, where for many a year there was little mention of anything else but King Henry's creation.





Quay said:


> Oh don't go getting all old-Empire, Rule Britannia on me.


Erm, it was you who decided to bring nationality into it with a perfectly silly, facetious comment. It's no good getting in a shirty now if someone calls you out for it!



Quay said:


> But as a matter of fact, we republicans don't do these things by cities in the Former Colonies but by States


Someone should have told Gavin Newsom about this, and spared him from a public hiding!


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Laxplayer said:


> V: Please rise out of respect for the Gospel.
> 
> V: A reading from the Gospel of St. Matthew:
> 
> ...


Indeed. Take it a step farther-perhaps you should not judge those who judge others! I guess that would make political correctness the ultimate sin.

Or maybe we could take the passage to mean what it says, that you should not use others' sins to make yourself feel righteous.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

I don't believe there can be any gay marriages; even if the government says so; or, anybody wants it to be. 

What is marriage? A spiritual oneness that truely has some connection between two people and only people (no nonhumans) that only works between a man and a woman. Man and man or woman and woman is like water and oil- they never really mix. They might be great friends and truely love each other (not meaning sexual love), but always that water and oil seperation. Woman and man are like two types of water, such as blue water and pink water, but freely mix in a marriage.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

WA said:


> I don't believe there can be any gay marriages; even if the government says so; or, anybody wants it to be.


Do you believe there can be mixed race marriages? I only ask because at one time people believed such a thing was immoral, wrong, sinful and simply just couldn't work. Those ideas thankfully fell by the wayside, I think the opposition to gay marriages will go the same way.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Marriage*

WA

I totally disagree with you. How can you say there is no spiritual connection between a man and another man, or vice/ versa?
And that they cant freely mix in marriage, or share spiritual "oneness"?
It is this simple thought, that prevents this happening. And I firmly believe we all have to open our eyes, once and for all. And accept this great thing that happened in Ca.
Just my simple opinion.

Nice day gentlemen


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

Teacher said:


> I agree with everything you've written, Frank, except this. Not to be argumentative -- and maybe this isn't even the right place to say so -- but there are many who are both. Maybe they aren't Orthodox, but I know from experience there are a lot of openly gay Protestants who are also quite religious. The churches are slowly coming around, in their own ways. So maybe you could give it another go...if you want, of course.


Thanks. 

I was being sarcastic and bitter. I am sorry I gave the wrong impression.  I know there are _many_ welcoming churches. My partner's counselor is an Episcopal priest and is dying for us to come to a service. And the thought does rear it's (not really ugly) head periodically. :icon_smile_big:

The reason for my sarcasm is that when I've said I am nominally Christian: I believe in Jesus' words and _try_ to live by his teachings. I've been told that being gay and "unrepentent" I cannot be Christian because Lev. 18:22 

So this is the source of my sarcasm, bitterness and anger. Maybe the best thing for me is to visit this congregation. The Episcopal Church has the best of both worlds... acceptance and welcoming, and all the neat trappings. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

Kav said:


> If your going to be anything; gay, christian, vegetarian be 100% or don't bother. Anything less is just crossdressing, the next group in line for emancipation.


I'll say it only once more... I don't need you to lecture me. I told you I made my choice wrt the Orthodox Church.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_view_of_sin#Homosexuality



> Prominent clerics such as the leading bishop of the Church of Greece, Archbishop Christodoulos of Athens, have described being gay as a "handicap,"[citation needed] leading to a series of reactions from the gay community and human rights activists.[citation needed]





> The influential Greek Orthodox Church officially frowns upon same-sex relations, with its late head Archbishop Christodoulos famously condemning homosexuality as a "defect."
> 
> "The leader of the Church of Greece, archbishop Christodoulos of Athens has described gay people as "handicaps". https://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/christianity.htm





> "When persistent attempts were made to hold a homosexual parade in Moscow, we believed that that meant propaganda and advertisement of sin," Alexy replied before the Council. The Patriarch compared homosexual sex acts to kleptomania and asked, "Why then (does) no one advertise kleptomania while homosexuality gets advertised via gay parades?" https://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/oct/07100308.html





> Persons struggling with homosexuality who accept the Orthodox faith and strive to fulfill the Orthodox way of life may be communicants of the Church with everyone else who believes and struggles."[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_view_of_sin#Homosexuality


Translation: if you are celibate you can receive communion. So I should break the heart of a man who loves me more than anything else, because of some mistranslations and retranslations of a book written between 3,500 and 2,000 years ago. Hey, works for me!


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Indeed. After all, Jesus said that he who is without sin should cast the first stone, right?
> 
> Then he said something like, "and just keep on sinnin', sister." Right?


Where did Jesus say that same sex love is a sin?

Oh yes, Paul said it. Do we really know what Paul said and why he said it? Short answer: _nooooo_. Did you know that the modern translations of Paul's writings don't jive with the original NT Greek? And that words used in modern translations didn't exist in Paul's Greek? Or that words Paul used in Greek don't have a translation into modern language? Did you know that? No, I didn't think so.

You fail.


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

WA said:


> I don't believe there can be any gay marriages; even if the government says so; or, anybody wants it to be.


Just some thoughts:

What are you going to do about it? Your own words: "I don't believe..." And that, as they say, is that.

So there's that elephant in the living room again... ignore it all you want, but it's there and not going away.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

There are clothing rules: *No brown in town. *

Then there are life rules: *If you are a male, have sex with a woman.*

The first no-brown-in-town rule exists to provide a sense of formal order in the city, and to reserve brown shoes explicitly in an aesthetic sense for the green and brown outdoors of the countryside.

The man+woman rule assures that subsequent generations of human beings are going to be born, without any need of intervention of synthetic fabrics and newfangled high-tech practices, and focus a pleasurable act towards an unselfish end.

Both of these rules are based on the experience of generations, custom, and you could say, the scientific method of experimentation and feedback. In other words, they have been known to do good. Stick your Willy into something else, and it won't reproduce.

Get used to it.

:icon_smile_big::icon_smile_big::icon_smile_big:


----------



## SuitUP (Feb 8, 2008)

I am a pretty good guy most of the time. And I am fine with the whole civil union thing. However, I am not sure about gay marriage. Marriage is a biblical thing and the bible tells us marriage is between man and woman. So to me it makes no sense taking a biblical ceremony that clearly states its between man and woman and forcing it to be for man and man or woman and woman. That's what civil union is for.


----------



## 13eastie (Jun 1, 2008)

Bogdanoff said:


> There are clothing rules: *No brown in town. *
> 
> Then there are life rules: *If you are a male, have sex with a woman*


I'm not really sure this is fair on the men involved...

"with *a* woman"? If this is to be used as a rule, I think we need scope for a little more adventure...

I'd suggest just changing it to "with women" which will tolerate monogamy, but will also allow an unspecified amount of fun with multiple partners, either simultaneously or in series as befits the occasion.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

13eastie said:


> I'd suggest just changing it to "with women" which will tolerate monogamy, but will also allow an unspecified amount of fun with multiple partners, either simultaneously or in series as befits the occasion.


Unless your shotgun is dual-barreled, you can only do one shot at a time, right?

Since it is only bigamy that seems to be illegal in much of the United States, the challenge is showing up at City Hall with more than 2 partners, and demanding your rights be honored at once.

Traditionally polygamy is one of the ancient customs of most countries, *prior to the arrival of Christian-based legal systems.*


----------



## 13eastie (Jun 1, 2008)

Bogdanoff said:


> Unless your shotgun is dual-barreled, you can only do one shot at a time, right?


I fear that even certain multi-appendaged marsupials have not been able to make real the image that you have conjured up...

Even so, there is nothing wrong with having everything else in place to facilitate it...


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

SuitUP said:


> So to me it makes no sense taking a biblical ceremony that clearly states its between man and woman and forcing it to be for man and man or woman and woman. That's what civil union is for.


What about a man+woman "marriage" at town hall with no religious official, a purely civil ceremony? Are they not married?


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> What about a man+woman "marriage" at town hall with no religious official, a purely civil ceremony? Are they not married?


Marriage is defined in the law, with specific rights and legal obligations that follow. There are no legal rights from a purely religious marriage in the US. Which is why this whole fuss is taking place.

Perhaps in the future, historians will note that legislation rooted in the Christian tradition has brought about gay marriage and banned traditional polygamous marriage. An act of cultural imperialism that has been seen world wide!


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

SuitUP said:


> ... Marriage is a biblical thing and the bible tells us marriage is between man and woman. So to me it makes no sense taking a biblical ceremony that clearly states its between man and woman and forcing it to be for man and man or woman and woman. That's what civil union is for.


Since when is marriage only 'biblical' or christian. You mean Hindus and budhists and other religions don't have marriage. Did the ancients who gave us the idea of democracy, the Greek, not have marriage. Oh the Greeks, don't mention them they also approved of the gay stuff too.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Bogdanoff said:


> There are clothing rules: *No brown in town. *
> 
> Then there are life rules: *If you are a male, have sex with a woman.*
> 
> ...


Interesting set of "rules". Even setting aside those of us who would consider your first rule to be ridiculous, let's look at what you're calling your second rule.

As you describe it, the rule is purely instrumental: it exists simply to ensure the existence of future generations. Thus, even as you enunciate it, it is not a prohibition of same-sex relations, merely an injunction to carry on opposite-sex relations. Also, unless you want to condemn everyone who chooses not to reproduce as immoral, your rule doesn't establish a standard of morality.

Still, there are a couple of issues with this. First, it is clearly unnecessary for every adult male and every adult female to reproduce in order to ensure the propagation of the species. Even with large numbers of people violating this rule (e.g., homosexuals, priests, people who choose to remain celibate, people who are biologically unable to reproduce) we have been quite successful at propagating the species.

Second, there are obviously lots of people (millions, I would estimate) who simply don't want to have sex with a person of the opposite sex. Unless you would deny them the liberty that you have (to engage in sexual relations only with those you want to do it with) you must concede that they are entitled to violate your rule that males should have sex with females.

Third, there are lots of male-female couples who are not contributing to the propagation of the species, either by choice, or by getting too old to reproduce. Even in male-female couples, there are lots of people who "stick [their] Willy", as you so charmingly put it, someplace where it won't result in conception and procreation.

What this leads to is that your supposed rule is not actually a rule of behavior, but more like a rule of science; it describes what will and will not happen under certain circumstances. Still, it doesn't get you anywhere near a prohibition on same-sex relations.

So thank you, but I'm afraid you haven't advanced the discussion.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

Rules exist to provide optimal outcomes to those who follow them. Recently the government, and others, have gotten lax on holding up any standards, be they marriage, black tie, white tie, or calling bespoke, well, bespoke.

"It's an issue of semantics really." said Charlotte Brewer, marketing director at Sartoriani.

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=83730


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Bogdanoff said:


> Rules exist to provide optimal outcomes to those who follow them.


So you don't challenge my analysis that your rule "If you are male, have sex with a woman," could be rephrased, "If you are a male, and you wish to reproduce, have sex with a woman who is capable of reproducing."

Nothing to argue with there.


----------



## SuitUP (Feb 8, 2008)

Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> What about a man+woman "marriage" at town hall with no religious official, a purely civil ceremony? Are they not married?





Bogdanoff said:


> Marriage is defined in the law, with specific rights and legal obligations that follow. There are no legal rights from a purely religious marriage in the US. Which is why this whole fuss is taking place.


I guess its the word marriage here that I am not liking. Yes they are married under the governments eyes but not Gods. My mom's second marriage was infront of a justice of the peace. I believe gay couples should have the same legal rights as married straight couples. I just think if its not a religious ceremony it should have a different name whether you're straight or gay.



mpcsb said:


> Since when is marriage only 'biblical' or christian. You mean Hindus and budhists and other religions don't have marriage. Did the ancients who gave us the idea of democracy, the Greek, not have marriage. Oh the Greeks, don't mention them they also approved of the gay stuff too.


You are very right mpcsb, I should have added that I was speaking as a Christian. Although Judaism and Islam both believe marriage is between man and woman. And the greeks & their religion is dead and gone. However, if you want to get down to it, anyone can start a religion and make up rules to suit their needs. Also, if we are being honest America was founded by Christians and on Christian values.


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

SuitUP said:


> Also, if we are being honest America was founded by Christians and on Christian values.


Fallacy.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

SuitUP said:


> I guess its the word marriage here that I am not liking. Yes they are married under the governments eyes but not Gods. My mom's second marriage was infront of a justice of the peace. I believe gay couples should have the same legal rights as married straight couples. I just think if its not a religious ceremony it should have a different name whether you're straight or gay.
> 
> You are very right mpcsb, I should have added that I was speaking as a Christian. Although Judaism and Islam both believe marriage is between man and woman. And the greeks & their religion is dead and gone. However, if you want to get down to it, anyone can start a religion and make up rules to suit their needs. Also, if we are being honest America was founded by Christians and on Christian values.


So I guess the state should issue civil unions for all heterosexual couples who are not getting married in a church then. How would this effect separation of church and state? Sounds overly complicated to me. As far as America being founded on christian values - that's something that I strongly disagree with but don't wish to discuss here.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> Fallacy.


Absolutely right, Frank.

For those who don't want to follow the link, here's what the Treaty of Tripoli, unanimously ratified by the Senate in 1797, says on this topic:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.


----------



## SuitUP (Feb 8, 2008)

Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> Fallacy.


Frank I am not going to say you're wrong I'd need to do some research into this. But I would believe it a lot more if it was from a more mainstream neutral party. Also, that fact that President is sworn in on a bible and our currancy has written on it "in God we trust" lean somewhat towards me. However, for a firm unbiased decision we'd need to do some research.



mpcsb said:


> So I guess the state should issue civil unions for all heterosexual couples who are not getting married in a church then. How would this effect separation of church and state? Sounds overly complicated to me. As far as America being founded on christian values - that's something that I strongly disagree with but don't wish to discuss here.


mpcsb I am fine with that, couples whether straight or gay being issued civil unions if its not done in a church. That would seperate the religious marriage from a secular civil union, like you said seperation of church and state.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

SuitUP said:


> mpcsb I am fine with that, couples whether straight or gay being issued civil unions if its not done in a church. That would seperate the religious marriage from a secular civil union, like you said seperation of church and state.


Actually, that would be fine by me too. It's purely a practical matter to call it 'Marriage' to me. Marriage as used on tax forms, employment forms etc all refer to to a legal civil union not a religious ceremony. "Are you married?" is a question that I think refers to ones legal status not religious. Just as one can be civil unioned one can civil divorce.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Marriage Biblical?*

Gentlemen

I saw the statement that Marriage is Biblical? Can someone educate me regarding this statement. I am at a loss.On that one.
Nice day my friends


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*WA*

WA

It was your statement I addressed, and also your stating " I dont believe marriages will become legal"
This, in itself. Send the wrong message from people such yourself. Once you become accepting. Then life will be so much better. This also covers the treatment of the poor, the treatment of minorities. And so on.

Nice day my friends.
Good one here, but planning my daughters party!
Later
Nice day


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

SuitUP said:


> ...And the greeks & their religion is dead and gone. ....


The Greeks are dead and gone? Well, there goes that trip to Athens. I guess the whole place is a cemetery or series of monuments to the dead then? And here I was also looking forward to some good food, too. 

I'd say that a lot of the last few pages of discussion is all Greek to me but that'd be a cliche...if cliches can exist about the dead and gone.

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Teacher, Are you asking me as a moderator or just another poster? To you, as mere poster, Yes, I am capable of cognitive thinking. That I use a mental 'splatter vision' using some rather unorthodox ( outside of my expression of christian thought) multi cultural world views is perhaps disturbing to you. It is probably why , in 1976 while 2 MotorLifeBoats conducted a standard search pattern for some lost high school kids I raced over to the local Foster Freeze( it was senior ditch Day in Tillamook Bay Oregon) and asked if there were any beach parties in progress.Yes, there were and I went up the coast against orders and pulled 10 kids off a disappearing beach site radically altered in the last storm after their Boston Whaler was smashed up. I also discovered the same mormon Librarian of Oakland California who helped Jack London as a boy also influenced Gertrude Stein. How? I guess nobody ever picked up SAILOR ON HORSEBACK after reading all about Alice B. Toklas and her damned Brownies.I think out of hte box, and sometimes out of the whole lousy, stinking universe and talk to power forces in the pluraverse ace. Which leaves us to you. Are you just another example of those who do, do, those who can't teach? Do you have that authoritarian streak from the classroom that gives hubris to judging and commenting on everything, suspending members for flaunting your lousy rules while ignoring the equal venom of the other person waltzing? You are no Mr Chips and nobody is going to hum TO SIR WITH LOVE walking past you to the band's rendition of Pomp and Circumstance.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Minotaur, I'll say this once more to you: Nobody in the beginning of this thread did any gay bashing. The only bashing was by you, against the GOA for a 14 year old personal wound. What should have been a day of joy and happiness became one of personal anger on YOUR part. You set the thread's tone by bashing a church anybody with any intelligence would recognise as being extremely conservative. And I,despite being a longtime temporal advocate of gay rights ***** slapped you back for it . Turn around is fair play. I've met queens in Oil Can Harry's SF with more social grace.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

mpcsb said:


> Do you believe there can be mixed race marriages? I only ask because at one time people believed such a thing was immoral, wrong, sinful and simply just couldn't work. Those ideas thankfully fell by the wayside, I think the opposition to gay marriages will go the same way.


Color has nothing to do with being a human. But there is clearly much different between man and woman. Also, Mose married a black woman; so in Western Culture how can there be race marriage problems unless there is a clear departure from what guided (Bible) so much of Western Culture?

These same people didn't pick on eye color, or even hair color, when it came to marriage and race, why skin color?


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Kav said:


> I've met queens in Oil Can Harry's SF with more social grace.


Then please do us the favor of showing it here.

You been around the interchage a while and know the emotion attached with gay related topics - why throw fuel on the fire then? Any issues - pm me.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Carefully curated in a case at the SOUTHWEST MUSEUM in L.A. is a northern plains Cheyanne wedding dress. It is of clay whitened elk skin, with probably 100 odd elk teath, porcupine quill embroidery and blue pigment dyes from a now endangered flower. The thing is easilly worth a quarter Mill on the Antique Road show. There is a reason it is not on display, aside from it's value and real fears of theft. I looked at it years ago and everyone wondered at the very odd dimensions. I went to a friend in the huge ( largest off rez population of American Indians) Los Angeles community who was a Cheyanne Elder. She laughed and asked if she could see it? I arranged the examination. With white curator's gloves under soft light we took the incredibly soft, but tough dress out. My friend looked it over, noticed the heavierstitching and horrified the museum director by laying it against my archaeology business partner's broad back. " Why this is the dress of a___" ( I can't type the cheyanne word legibly) And expained in english it was a male transvestite, a culturally very desirable bride because of the increased physical ability to do camp work. So yes, marriage takes many forms in many cultures, not just christian. Poor director gave orders for it to remain in curation, busloads of L.A. children asking enough questions about where the TEEPEE's toilet was.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

deleted - didn't follow directions-censored, didn't like the truth


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

WA said:


> Color has nothing to do with being a human. But there is clearly much different between man and woman. Also, Mose married a black woman; so in Western Culture how can there be race marriage problems unless there is a clear departure from what guided (Bible) so much of Western Culture?
> 
> These same people didn't pick on eye color, or even hair color, when it came to marriage and race, why skin color?


Color has nothing do do with it_* now*_. Slavery in the U.S. and the prejudice that followed and Jim Crow laws that followed was all based on skin color? Laws that prevented mixed race marriages were only struck down 50 years ago. So the definition of marriage was redefined within my life time to include people of different races to marriage - damned activist judges again. Now marriage includes same sex couples to marry in Massachusetts and California. Looks like the courts remain consistant in changing.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

mpcsb said:


> Laws that prevented mixed race marriages were only struck down 50 years ago. So the definition of marriage was redefined within my life time to include people of different races to marriage - damned activist judges again.


I'm not so sure that's accurate. It's true that laws that _prohibited_ interracial marriages were only struck down recently, which is not quite the same as saying they were prevented, but I don't think that interracial marriages were considered not to be marriages, the way many (most?) people consider that unions, even legal ones, between two people of the same sex are not marriages.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

*Loving vs Virginia*

Jack,
To be clear, mixed race marriages were illegal, in Virginia and some other stated up to 1967. This was the landmark case of Loving vs Virginia which from then on made marriages between the races legal in all states. I may not have been clear, sorry for any confusion.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

*Gentlemen*

A little civility please from everyone would be appreciated. I apologize if I have been uncivil and hope we can get back to good discussion.


----------



## eg1 (Jan 17, 2007)

Keep on keepin' on,* Kav* -- _Strunk & White_ alone makes for thin gruel at imagination's banquet.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> ....but I don't think that interracial marriages were considered not to be marriages, the way many (most?) people consider that unions, even legal ones, between two people of the same sex are not marriages.


You'd find a lot of old white Southerners with a different memory on that subject. Sadly, interracial marriages were often considered not to be "real" marriages because one of the parties to them wasn't considered quite fully like the other. And the party that was supposed to be like the rest of "us" was also allegedly debasing themselves by marrying someone not like them. There are plenty of cases where an interracial marriage wasn't given any legal weight when the lighter colored party "came to their senses" and wanted to marry someone else of a similar lighter color. The history of all this rightly seems quite shameful and ridiculous today but to many people then it made sense simply because it had been that way for years.

The parallels between the end of interracial marriage biases and laws prohibiting them and the end of biases and discriminations against same-sex marriages were noted at length and with a lot of citations in the CA Supreme Court decision.

I for one am glad folks moved on then and are moving on now.

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

eg1 said:


> ..._Strunk & White_ alone makes for thin gruel at imagination's banquet.


Perhaps consider it again? Any banquet must start in the kitchen with the very raw basics from the food groups, a good set of cooking tools and someone who knows how to wield them all to feed the body before dreaming of ways to feed the soul.

But yes in the realm of the imagination one would want a vast variety of everything especially those things not thought possible until they are put on one's plate for pure enjoyment.

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## SuitUP (Feb 8, 2008)

mpcsb said:


> Actually, that would be fine by me too. It's purely a practical matter to call it 'Marriage' to me. Marriage as used on tax forms, employment forms etc all refer to to a legal civil union not a religious ceremony. "Are you married?" is a question that I think refers to ones legal status not religious. Just as one can be civil unioned one can civil divorce.


You are very right that it's easier/practical to call it marriage, saying "Are you civil unioned?" or for divorced calling one "ununioned" sounds a little funny.



Quay said:


> The Greeks are dead and gone? Well, there goes that trip to Athens. I guess the whole place is a cemetery or series of monuments to the dead then? And here I was also looking forward to some good food, too.


LOL you know what I meant, the ancient Greeks. If we were talking about the modern greeks my dad & sisters trip to Greece with a side trip to Rome would be in trouble also.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Stinky and White is on my bookshelf right next to Elements of Style and that monster Oxford Dictionary with the magnifying glass. This Duex ex Machina Windows 98 to the world is a piss poor competitor to a pocketknife sharpened # 2 Dixon word processor, tablet of ruled and margined paper (100% pot and post consumer recycled from a stationary store up in Big Sur) and TIME. Yes; time to edit, correct grammatical errors, typoes and mercilously winnow out the uneccessary,redundant and inartful. This medium rare cooked media does not afford that measured pace, the connected hands before face contemplation of a Spock or sideways looking comment of a Don Corleone. Sadly, I must use the advise of the old pistolero who taught me shooting with a Colt Bisley in a figtree orchard " In a gunfight, a real gunfight take your time and aim. Oh , do that as fast as possible before the other guy gets lucky and hits something you won't like."


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

DukeGrad said:


> WA
> 
> I totally disagree with you. How can you say there is no spiritual connection between a man and another man, or vice/ versa?
> And that they cant freely mix in marriage, or share spiritual "oneness"?
> ...


I didn't say men can't have spiritual connections with other men. There not wired, so to say, that allows for true marriage. Men can have spiritual connections, but it seems to me that man and woman spirits can flow into each others, whereas, man and man or woman and woman might flow with each other, but outside of each other.

In sports we see guys connecting as one, sometimes, but each guy is his own entity. With man and woman the two can become one entity, which would be a marriage, or a step toward it.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

mpcsb said:


> Color has nothing do do with it_* now*_. Slavery in the U.S. and the prejudice that followed and Jim Crow laws that followed was all based on skin color? Laws that prevented mixed race marriages were only struck down 50 years ago. So the definition of marriage was redefined within my life time to include people of different races to marriage - damned activist judges again. Now marriage includes same sex couples to marry in Massachusetts and California. Looks like the courts remain consistant in changing.


I think you are comparing apples with rocks.

Someday scientice might decide that it is not the theifs fault, so why are they in jail?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Quay said:


> You'd find a lot of old white Southerners with a different memory on that subject. Sadly, interracial marriages were often considered not to be "real" marriages because one of the parties to them wasn't considered quite fully like the other. And the party that was supposed to be like the rest of "us" was also allegedly debasing themselves by marrying someone not like them. There are plenty of cases where an interracial marriage wasn't given any legal weight when the lighter colored party "came to their senses" and wanted to marry someone else of a similar lighter color.


You may be right.

Whatever California or Massachusetts or Vermont do, I think what's most important is to change the federal law so that same-sex unions get all the same benefits--employment, tax, inheritance, the whole lot--as married couples. Until then we will have inequality, whatever you call it.


----------



## 13eastie (Jun 1, 2008)

Kav said:


> ...it was a male transvestite, a culturally very desirable bride because of the increased physical ability to do camp work.


How camp?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

13eastie said:


> How camp?


Where's the rimshot emoticon when you need it?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

WA, A thief is in jail for stealing. You may argue jailing is punishment or rehabilitation or both. There is a fundamental third reason. We jail people so they cease harming society by stealing. Societies have made, in retrospect some bad jailings; Galileo, Dreyfus, Jake and Elwood. They believed these people were harmfull to society. Those societies changed, grew, became enlightened and refined the base of their cultural construct. In a MULTICULTURAL Society We need to define areas representing the old english 'commons' where everyone had equal and unbiased access to the grazing . And we need to recognise the other english concept that a man's home ( or San Francisco fern bar, church or tailorshop) is still his castle, and what he does with that sheep 'stays in Vegas.' As far as this spirit stuff, I've seen people exchange lots of spit , but only William Shatner was invaded by other entities. George Takei wisely just navigated.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> Whatever California or Massachusetts or Vermont do, I think what's most important is to change the federal law so that same-sex unions get all the same benefits--employment, tax, inheritance, the whole lot--as married couples. Until then we will have inequality, whatever you call it.


A very reasonable, sensible and practical approach I think. :icon_smile:

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## SuitUP (Feb 8, 2008)

Kav said:


> My friend looked it over, noticed the heavierstitching and horrified the museum director by laying it against my archaeology business partner's broad back. " Why this is the dress of a___" ( I can't type the cheyanne word legibly) And expained in english it was a male transvestite, a culturally very desirable bride because of the increased physical ability to do camp work. So yes, marriage takes many forms in many cultures, not just christian. Poor director gave orders for it to remain in curation, busloads of L.A. children asking enough questions about where the TEEPEE's toilet was.


Kav you should take a look here at what you wrote. Brides dress, very desirable bride, transvestite. No were did you write that it was 2 grooms. From what you wrote I gathered that this Native American couple lived as man and woman hence the dress and hence one of them being called a bride. I thought the whole idea of being a gay man was being attracted to masculinity not femininity.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

No, I replied to a question posed about cultural norms for marriage, Christian values apparently the only litmus test in this thread. The northern plains indians had a very openminded view to differing expressions of sexuallity. Remember, they thought any deviant behavior from the norm was an expression of the Great Spirit. Incidentally, this fact overlooked by modern macho Cheyanne men was used in the Dustin Hoffman movie Little Big Man


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> Where did Jesus say that same sex love is a sin?


You're right; Jesus never said anything about sodomy or homosexual lust. He did however say plenty about adultery, fornication and lust. Do you really think there's some "homosexual exception"?



> Oh yes, Paul said it. Do we really know what Paul said and why he said it? Short answer: _nooooo_. Did you know that the modern translations of Paul's writings don't jive with the original NT Greek? And that words used in modern translations didn't exist in Paul's Greek? Or that words Paul used in Greek don't have a translation into modern language? Did you know that? No, I didn't think so.
> 
> You fail.


Do you know that "homosexuals" did not exist in Paul's time? The idea of some alternative "orientation" seems to have originated in the late 19th century, as best I can tell.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Kav said:


> Carefully curated in a case at the SOUTHWEST MUSEUM in L.A. is a northern plains Cheyanne wedding dress. It is of clay whitened elk skin, with probably 100 odd elk teath, porcupine quill embroidery and blue pigment dyes from a now endangered flower. The thing is easilly worth a quarter Mill on the Antique Road show. There is a reason it is not on display, aside from it's value and real fears of theft. I looked at it years ago and everyone wondered at the very odd dimensions. I went to a friend in the huge ( largest off rez population of American Indians) Los Angeles community who was a Cheyanne Elder. She laughed and asked if she could see it? I arranged the examination. With white curator's gloves under soft light we took the incredibly soft, but tough dress out. My friend looked it over, noticed the heavierstitching and horrified the museum director by laying it against my archaeology business partner's broad back. " Why this is the dress of a___" ( I can't type the cheyanne word legibly) And expained in english it was a male transvestite, a culturally very desirable bride because of the increased physical ability to do camp work. So yes, marriage takes many forms in many cultures, not just christian. Poor director gave orders for it to remain in curation, busloads of L.A. children asking enough questions about where the TEEPEE's toilet was.


Sounds like the social role that was referred to as "berdache" or "squaw man". While it's perilous to assume that different cultures are using the same world view, I always though it was very smart ofi them to devise an institution that we have just barely started to deal with.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Kav said:


> No, I replied to a question posed about cultural norms for marriage, Christian values apparently the only litmus test in this thread. The northern plains indians had a very openminded view to differing expressions of sexuallity. Remember, they thought any deviant behavior from the norm was an expression of the Great Spirit. Incidentally, this fact overlooked by modern macho Cheyanne men was used in the Dustin Hoffman movie Little Big Man


It's, um, interesting, that these Indians purportedly had such an open and accepting view of pedophiles.

Of course I really doubt the veracity of your claims about what this band or that band of Indians believed, considering how much information on their beliefs is pure fantasy. More often than not it seems that someone was spinning a good yarn to entertain or make a point about our society by contrast. Take everything you hear about the ____ tribe with a grain of salt.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Who brought in pedophilia before you? Nobody did. I do have this sheepskin with an M.A. in Archaeology from one of the two top American universities in that degree. And I do have this extensive network of friends from many tribal nations. And seeing as this was a 90 y/o traditional cheyanne greatgrandmother spending winters out of the winds their teepees are designed for, I think my source was credible.And again, If you could see this get up, it's definietly tailored for somebody with real broad shoulders, thin waist and at least 6' 4" I forget if it had darts or peaked lapels vs shawl, but no little cheyanne maiden wore it.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Oh, so your source is an uncorroborated, romanticized account from a 90-year-old tribeswoman. Well, that makes it all better...

And if you didn't expect the "pedophiles" response, you should reread your original post. I quoted it for you so it's right there.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I think this is the scene where an ailing Harrison Ford, faced with a sword spinning adversary pulled out a Smith and Wesson model 24 and just shot him in a much more elaborately scripted scene , a sentiment many archaeologists empathise with when faced with uneducated fools.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

You're really not doing anything for for the credibility of the field or the prestige of your degree by glorifying the distortion of history for present-day political purposes.

Well, actually, the damage is long since done.


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

PedanticTurkey said:


> You're right; Jesus never said anything about sodomy or homosexual lust. He did however say plenty about adultery, fornication and lust. Do you really think there's some "homosexual exception"?


For two committed people there is no problem. Whether gay or straight promiscuous wanton sex is wrong.



> Do you know that "homosexuals" did not exist in Paul's time? The idea of some alternative "orientation" seems to have originated in the late 19th century, as best I can tell.


I never said homosexuals didn't exist. I said there was no word for it because it wasn't viewed by them the same way we do.

https://www.otkenyer.hu/truluck/index.html
https://www.otkenyer.hu/truluck/the_bible_and_homosexuality.html


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Present political purposes? I have most of our Gay forum members ready to garrot me with a rainbow flag and I have 'Political Purposes?' The only thing holding your position up is a box of recalled Stouffers turkey stuffing.Saying a 90 y/o Cheyanne is a liar about her own culture is akin to Amadinijad's inviting scholars to reexamine the events of WW2 in Germany.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Oh, I refer you to volume 4, page 41, Plate # 2 of the Annual Report to the Smithsonian, 1889 ' Collections from the second Wind River Country survey.' You DO have this reference book? I have the whole set, and the complete 'Green books' as their successors The Bureau of American Ethnology publications were known. I believe University of Chicago, UC Berkeley,Harvard, the Smithsonian and Library of Congress possess complete sets along with perhaps 8 other public individuals who also make their collections available to researchers. I really must get my copy of the Point Barrow expedition and Notes from Arizona back from Fairbanks. This collector claims the existence of Mescalero human finger and scrotum medicine necklaces is a myth promulgated by racist newspapers.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> For two committed people there is no problem. Whether gay or straight promiscuous wanton sex is wrong.


You're welcome to your own theories on sexual morality, but you cannot call that proposition a Christian one. It clearly is not. What it is, instead, is a rationalization for not repenting your sins. I don't think I have to explain to you why that is unacceptable.



> I never said homosexuals didn't exist. I said there was no word for it because it wasn't viewed by them the same way we do.


There's no word for it because it really didn't exist. The idea of a man who exclusively sought sex from other men because of some homosexual "orientation" would be foreign to anyone prior the late 19th century. But that does not somehow make "the right kind" of same-sex lust okay.

Has the abusive character of historical same-sex relationships colored historical attitudes toward sodomy? I'm sure it has. I don't doubt that's how the homosexual identity came about, as it is much easier to just label someone a "homosexual" and assure yourself that only "those people" would do something like that.

Going a little off-topic, the fact that the homosexual orientation is a recent construct really shows how silly the "born that way" arguments are.


----------



## 13eastie (Jun 1, 2008)

Kav said:


> Saying a 90 y/o Cheyanne is a liar about her own culture is akin to Amadinijad's inviting scholars to reexamine the events of WW2 in Germany.


And saying this is "akin" to comparing a spat about gay wedding outfits to holocaust denial!

Are you serious?

A little melodramatic, perhaps?


----------



## 13eastie (Jun 1, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Going a little off-topic, the fact that the homosexual orientation is a recent construct really shows how silly the "born that way" arguments are.


A construct is just a description for something, in this case perhaps not required before people got so animated about the issue.

is tending more and more towards nature over nurture in the "born that way" discussion.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

13eastie said:


> A construct is just a description for something, in this case perhaps not required before people got so animated about the issue.


Yeah, because people weren't "animated" about the issue before the 1870s or so. You have to admit that it's strange that so many societies that had tolerance for homosexual acts never seemed to imagine that someone could be exclusively homosexual.



> is tending more and more towards nature over nurture in the "born that way" discussion.


Funny, because that study specifically says that the physiological differences they're observing aren't directly related to sexuality. It's the equivalent of saying, from a sample size of 20 or so individuals, that gays are more likely to be left-handed. Does that mean that if you're right-handed, you're not a "real" homosexual?

I imagine it says a little more about the sort of people who show up when you put an ad in the paper seeking homosexuals for "experimentation." Heh.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

To me, whether it is a choice or not is not really important. If I as a gay man I choose to be gay then you can say I can also choose to be straight. If you accept this then it follows that if you are straight - you could also choose to be gay. You can choose to love the same sex as easily as I can choose to love the opposite sex. I do not think choice is the important issue. People choose to believe in god (gods) or not and their choices are respected by law. If we respect peoples choices regarding religion - can we not also respect peoples choice regarding sexual orientation? I don't see one as more personal or important than the other.

(Actually I don't personally believe sexual orientation is a choice, but religion is.)


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I don't doubt that there are numerous "nature" factors that can may lead to a predisposition toward homosexuality. But it'll never be more than that.

If you think that somehow makes it "not a choice," then consider the comparable situation of a low IQ corresponding to a predisposition to commit crimes.


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

PedanticTurkey said:


> You're welcome to your own theories on sexual morality, but you cannot call that proposition a Christian one. It clearly is not. What it is, instead, is a rationalization for not repenting your sins. I don't think I have to explain to you why that is unacceptable.


And you're welcome to your beliefs and opinions. Your beliefs are not binding on me, nor mine on you.



> There's no word for it because it really didn't exist. The idea of a man who exclusively sought sex from other men because of some homosexual "orientation" would be foreign to anyone prior the late 19th century. But that does not somehow make "the right kind" of same-sex lust okay.


Sources? Support? Links? Documentation, literature?



> the fact that the homosexual orientation is a recent construct really shows how silly the "born that way" arguments are.


Sources? Support? Links? Documentation, literature?

Mm... didn't think so.

'Kthxbye.


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

mpcsb said:


> (Actually I don't personally believe sexual orientation is a choice, but religion is.)


Indeed. And if sexuality _were_ a choice, why _would_ I choose to be gay and endure what we're enduring? Moreover, if sexuality _were_ a choice, so what? Despite the shrieking of "the downfall of civilization" and "forcing it upon a moral and godly nation", it's none of that.

People of the same sex (words have gender, people have sex... well, not all people ) have lived together or singly for eons. Other people thought they were "maiden ladies" or confirmed bachelors. As Ann Landers (or Dear Abby? well, they _were_ identical twins) used to say "wake up and smell the coffee!" They were as gay as picnic baskets! My aunt has a sister who has lived with another woman for at least 50 years. My mother used to say "Oh, they are such good friends... " "companions" "they are inseparable". Oh stop! But those were the euphemisms used.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Beastie, Historical revisionists main tactic is to question or distort details and by default call into question the entire period. Ridicule a 90 year old Cheyanne over a transvestite ( not necessarily gay) wedding dress and you can ridicule the notion Cheyanne women and children were butchered and their flayed genitals used to decorate the triumphant militia's saddles. We all know 90 year old jewish women are probably lying about tattoos being turned into lampshades.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

(Kav apparently doesn't know that the "human lampshades" story is dubious at best and probably not true.)


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Kav also probably believes pedantic turkey sees holes in the ground and pats his rear to make sure he ain't been robbed.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I carry my wallet in my jacket pocket.


----------

