# Day Without Gays



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Anyone participating or know of someone participating? 
Thoughts on this effort?

https://www.daywithoutagay.org/


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

No plans on participating. Personally, what goes on in your own home is your own business. No need to make a scene.

Secondly, I think it will be about as effective as "don't buy gas day."


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Morning*

Gentlemen

This was interesting and I could see it shock some companies. 
I feel sad that this was not approved to allow gays to marry in California or anywhere else in this country.
So be it.

Nice day my friends


----------



## TweedyDon (Aug 31, 2007)

"A day without gays would be tragic because it would be a day without love."

I'm sorry, but this is silly--and, frankly, pretty insulting to people who aren't gay!

Maybe a bit more thought should have gone into the copywriting here.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

No I'm not interested but I think we need gays so we could have a world that would be diverse.


----------



## the law (Sep 16, 2008)

It hasn't affected work here.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I support full and equal partner rights for gays.
But while I know most just want to get on with their lives as do I.
But make no mistake that there are activists who have a very definite 'gay agenda' and would rewrite our social institutions to their worldview just as the previous 'day without immigrants' had reconquistas.
I've found the behavior of some prominent churches deplorable, especially since it has generated equally deplorable reactions in the gay community agasinst ALL churches and people who supportd prop 8, a political freedom regardless of it's viewing by myself and others.
All I remember from the latino strike is you could actually drive and walk the sidewalks without motmechanised units of the reconquista mowing you down, and identifying hte many businesses who ask for 'bilingual speakers in yob ads and toss us 'lazy americanos' applications in the round file 5 minutes after we leave.
My closest gay friend says 'I'm going to work, My partner andI have a family to feed and times are tough enough.'


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

While I don't believe in gay marriage, because of what I have read in the Bible, and even psychology suggest otherwise, doesn't mean that people won't allow something like "gay marriage" to be. Since marriage has always meant between man and woman/women. Then man and man should have a different name and woman and woman should have another name. After all, that is what words are for, to seperate this from that. So, why hasn't the proud gay comumnity come up with these new words? Are they not smart enough to invent a new word for their "needs"?

Another reason for these two new words is so that a person would know immediately what the other partner is. After all, if you are invited to dinner by a co-worker and bring some flowers for his wife in thanks for the fine dinner you would look rather stupid handing them to the other man. So, words have meaning and purpose to help us understand better what to think and do. And it seems like the intelligent thing to do is to add new words when it is the wise to do so to prevent any confusion or misunderstandings.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Marriage, as defined as religious union between one male and one female may be common, but it is not exclusivly the 'norm' throughout history and cultures.
The problem as I see it is gays, though homosexual are still thinking as cultural heterosexuals on some issues and demand a heterosexual accomodation for a homosexual sub culture.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Kav said:


> Marriage, as defined as religious union between one male and one female may be common, but it is not exclusivly the 'norm' throughout history and cultures.
> The problem as I see it is gays, though homosexual are still thinking as cultural heterosexuals on some issues and demand a heterosexual accomodation for a homosexual sub culture.


That is interesting. New words would certianly help them develop the differences and clear up communications.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

WA said:


> While I don't believe in gay marriage, because of what I have read in the Bible, and even psychology suggest otherwise, doesn't mean that people won't allow something like "gay marriage" to be. Since marriage has always meant between man and woman/women. Then man and man should have a different name and woman and woman should have another name. After all, that is what words are for, to seperate this from that. So, why hasn't the proud gay comumnity come up with these new words? Are they not smart enough to invent a new word for their "needs"?
> 
> Another reason for these two new words is so that a person would know immediately what the other partner is. After all, if you are invited to dinner by a co-worker and bring some flowers for his wife in thanks for the fine dinner you would look rather stupid handing them to the other man. So, words have meaning and purpose to help us understand better what to think and do. And it seems like the intelligent thing to do is to add new words when it is the wise to do so to prevent any confusion or misunderstandings.


I don't think that would be totally helpful. Might even be insulting. A lot of those men and women in marriages don't necessarily have a butch/femme dynamic. It may be confusing or different, but I'm sure you could accommodate just fine.

For example: Why not give them _both_ a small gift of some kind in return for dinner? After all, it's not always the wife who cooks in a heterosexual marriage anyways and you're guests in _their_ house. I'm pretty sure they'd appreciate the gesture.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I didn't notice any of the gay people I work with absenting themselves today, so I would say it hasn't affected me.

On the marriage thing, I think Vermont got it right by establishing civil unions. I think words mean something, and a union of two same-sex people is not what the word "marriage" means. While supporters of same-sex marriage object to the use of a different word to refer to what they consider the same relationship, I don't agree. For instance, I have eight siblings, seven of whom are male and one of whom is female. I don't think I'm denigrating or discriminating against my female sibling by referring to her as a "sister", whereas all my male siblings are referred to as "brothers".

I also think that civil unions should be a universal law across the whole country, and civil union partners should be entitled to all the same benefits, including federal benefits, that spouses have. This would address the specious argument that they won't have the same rights until the states adopt gay marriage; in fact, they won't have the same rights as long as the federal government is allowed to deny them equal rights, and the terminology is not the impediment.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

^ Doesn't this perfectly logical and compelling arrangement for a federal civil union standard tread on the "separate but equal" is not equal legal rulings of the past half-century? Or could it, in some kind of challenge at the federal level, run counter to the establishment of something that is "marriage in everything but name"?

For my part here, I've made several calls to other businesses here in California and gotten voicemail instead of people. I know some folks that are participating in this protest but as Kav noted many are not because times are tough and the loss of at least a day's pay just isn't practical for a lot of people.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

It's all about terminology, Jack. Don't you remember Brown v. Board of Education? Separate treatment imposes some nebulous "psychological" harm on minorities. So if two homosexuals want to pretend to be married, the state has to recognize it as a real marriage. Right?


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> I didn't notice any of the gay people I work with absenting themselves today, so I would say it hasn't affected me.
> 
> On the marriage thing, I think Vermont got it right by establishing civil unions. I think words mean something, and a union of two same-sex people is not what the word "marriage" means. While supporters of same-sex marriage object to the use of a different word to refer to what they consider the same relationship, I don't agree. For instance, I have eight siblings, seven of whom are male and one of whom is female. I don't think I'm denigrating or discriminating against my female sibling by referring to her as a "sister", whereas all my male siblings are referred to as "brothers".
> 
> I also think that civil unions should be a universal law across the whole country, and civil union partners should be entitled to all the same benefits, including federal benefits, that spouses have. This would address the specious argument that they won't have the same rights until the states adopt gay marriage; in fact, they won't have the same rights as long as the federal government is allowed to deny them equal rights, and the terminology is not the impediment.


I think a more accurate analogy would be instead of your sister being a "sibling" she gets a special name like "almost-family."

All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

I don't see marriage as something religious at all, therefore I support gay marriage. However, I do understand where some come from by saying to them marriage is a religious experience, and because the bible "forbids" it, it shouldn't be allowed.

However, some go too far and try to ban even civil unions for same sex couples. Thats just bigoted thinking in my mind, and should have no part in a cultured, civilized society like ours (tongue in cheek a bit here as our level of civility is hotly contested by many).

As far as what goes on inside should stay inside, and not making a scene, I wonder if Brokencycle would do the same for his "Holiday" decorations? Maybe I read it wrong(ly)?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

The simplest solution would be for ALL civil marriages to be renamed civil unions, and let the marriages be recognised in church sacraments of the couple's faith.
There are some churches, ie the now fragmented american and canadian episcopate who perform gay marriages, and I know many reformed rebis do also.

Perhaps what gays need to do is START a religion of their own. It could be loosely based on the Lizard people conspiracy theory about our being selectively bred for 500 years by aliens from the star system draco. It makes about as much sense as anything.
The present religions by and large have to old, fundamental and theologically VERY difficult hurdles to overcome the issue either by acceptance, or a unsatisfactory option of abstinance. And given that the rest of us break every damn commandment daily and on a mass social level with warfare and plain rude manners, I doubt gays would find this acceptable, or very fair.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Newsweek/ Religion*

KAV, Jack very good points.
And I believe that gay couples are looking for this union. So they can use medical insurance. Buy a home together.

Great article on the bible in Newsweek. It points out how much the bible is not understood clearly. IMO.
I also believe it is used by those to justify their own thoughts and feelings. And not being fair to gay couples for that matter. 
I feel these people should have a better understanding of the bible. Before they address these issues.

Nice day gentlemen


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

From my old, orthodox christian worldview.
We hate the 'sin' and not the 'sinner.'
Making life difficult for gays is punishing the 'sinner.' and is unchristian.
This leaves only the sad inability for gays to fully partake in the liturgical life of my church, and that of many others.
And that is something that truly saddens me, with no authority or clear answer to offer.
Life isn't fair, and it isn't fair that it isn't fair.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

A Day without Gay?

I went to work and was effectual.
Is that because I'm heterosexual?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Kav said:


> From my old, orthodox christian worldview.
> We hate the 'sin' and not the 'sinner.'
> Making life difficult for gays is punishing the 'sinner.' and is unchristian.
> This leaves only the sad inability for gays to fully partake in the liturgical life of my church, and that of many others.
> ...


What a strange thing to say. Either homosexuality is sin, or it isn't. Do you think your church should pretend that unrepentant sin is okay, so as not to make anyone feel uncomfortable?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

No, the world orthodox church holds practised homosexuallity a sin. Deliberate persecution of ANYONE is the greater sin.The discomforture goes both ways; christians by definition a religion based on forgiveness.
The empire of Rome held homosexuallity a capital offense, with crucifixion the punishment. And not so long ago, a young gay died after being tied to a fence in the winter after being roughed up.Many young gays are driven to suicide unable to come to terms with their sexuality and deep religious convictions.I'd argue that exceeds being made to feel 'uncomfortable.' Proposition 8 was moral cruficixion.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Excluding unrepentant sinners from full membership in your church is "persecution"?

Forgiveness of sin is one thing, but tolerance of it is another. Even Jesus seemed mighty intolerant of the worst sinners, that is, the ones who didn't think they were sinners at all.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Turkey, I really don't know what your religious persuasion is, it's secret handshakes or position on gays. And, I don't intend to lose much sleep over it either.
I could spend all night dragging up anthropological theories as to the prohibition of behaviors in numerous societies,or their real impact on the modern world global market and 'culture.'
And I don't much care for the genetic studies, sociological theories or theological rationals for what 'causes' homosexuality anymore than what 'causes' heterosexuality.
That is a value tainted argument no less useless than the evolution/creative design/creationism dead end nonsense .
Should a gay person embrace eastern orthodoxy, they face a severe presonal test and choice. I will not, cannot by belief in the gospel wear two yardsticks taped into a cross by which to judge them anymore than someone taking communion with a Big Mac on their breath.
Thats on church property.
Taking a step off said property, I have an even greater moral obligation to share the gospel and refrain from judgement, hate the 'sin' but not the 'sinner.'


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Sin has to be called what it is and condemned, and doing so is not judgment. And spare me the relativist crap. Homosexuality might be frowned upon for a thousand reasons or a million, all with their own neat little story, but that's irrelevant.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Kav said:


> hate the 'sin' but not the 'sinner.'


New or Old Testament where does it say condone sin? I also don't see where God forgives anybody unless they repent. If God is so forgiving then how could He even think of Hell? So much of the Bible is warning us against sin- if it doesn't matter then these warnings are worthless. If those who refuse grace then what is at the end of grace? The Old Testament clearly speaks of what governments roll is to do with murders and etc. You are in a lot of denial, Kav.

PedanticTurkey- Kavs view of the Bible is from agnostics and athiest. Non of his beliefs are from believers. Sodom and gomorrah means nothing to him, because it is really nothing to him. Kav explains everything away in the Bible, so he is clearly no believer.


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

Back to the original topic...

There was a column about this on the Atlanta Journal-Constitution web site. After weeding through the "homosexuality is a sin" comments, most of the replies were from gay people who thought the whole idea was a horrible idea.

The general theme was, "this would be a lousy career move for anyone who actually _had_ a career, and people who don't would be losing a day's pay and possibly get written up for frivolous use of sick leave."


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

With thousands of people losing their jobs and houses and cars and whatever and not knowing if one will be without a job before the end of the month, who would be taking a day off? All most every night on the news they tell of job lays offs. So many people don't know if they are going to get the pink slip tomorrow, so every penny counts. And charities are hurting more than ever with so many people layed off.

I hope the economy is done crashing.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Now that you've sat in judgement (what WAS that obscure bibilical admonition?) of me WA, I assume this means no Christmas car by January 7?
Thats O.K. I never understood why a bunch of brave protestants would go along with a papal change in the liturgical calender anyway. But then, your entire 'christian' ethos is based on antagonism with that church, and by root anyone else who fails to march to the beat of every converted laundromat itinerate preacher who failed selling life insurance.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

Sorry Kav but Turkey and WA are correct on this one. When it comes to God you don't get to question him.

Gay = bad
Earth = flat and created in 7 days
Kav, Turkey, and WA = related to Adam and Eve

It is the word of God and it is truth. Please do not question an all knowing, vengeful, grumpy God. 

Either the Bible is the word of God (and who would question God) or it is not the world of God in which case it is bull **** written by inarticulate men (and who would follow inarticulate men).


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

There is a difference between a gay orientation and acting out on it. Acting out on it is a sin just like any sex outside a sanctioned marriage. However, we live in a secular society.

I believe in civil unions; I also believe that churches should not be forced to accept that which they consider sinful. 

There is room for everyone here if no one decides that they have to cram their beliefs down anyone's throat. There is no need for anti-religionists or religious people to dominate the lives of other folks.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> There is room for everyone here if no one decides that they have to cram their beliefs down anyone's throat. There is no need for anti-religionists or religious people to dominate the lives of other folks.


Nicely put.

Cruiser


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

The Bible, and different people have various translations further subject to human error; is a work of Man and God, of value but not the sole tool in a christian life of faith, prayer and meditation,keeping the liturgical calender, and most important; striving toward the perfection of Jesus, knowing it is unatainable but our goal.
Getting into a pissant hissy fit because WA's former laundromat preacher teaches something different than 2000 years of apostolic succession is really low on my morning priorities; somewhere below cleaning the cat's liter box and checking my lottery ticket before hitting the job(less) market.
And if I encounter any gay people on my day's journey,I will say good morning, Jesus loves you and so do I.
Their sin, my sins are between us and God.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

WA said:


> New or Old Testament where does it say condone sin? I also don't see where God forgives anybody unless they repent. If God is so forgiving then how could He even think of Hell? So much of the Bible is warning us against sin- if it doesn't matter then these warnings are worthless. If those who refuse grace then what is at the end of grace? The Old Testament clearly speaks of what governments roll is to do with murders and etc. You are in a lot of denial, Kav.
> 
> PedanticTurkey- Kavs view of the Bible is from agnostics and athiest. Non of his beliefs are from believers. Sodom and gomorrah means nothing to him, because it is really nothing to him. Kav explains everything away in the Bible, so he is clearly no believer.


To bring this back to fashion, Wa, in the Bible (Leviticus 19:19) God forbids us to wear clothing of two fibers mixed together. To do so is a sin. I hope you are not committing any such sin. If you have worn clothing of two fibers you must atone by slaughtering a ram. Ram slaughter isn't as easy as it sounds if you expect to do it right and receive expiation. In any case, if you have ever worn a garment of two fibres mixed and you did not ritually sacrafice a ram then you are doomed. Sorry, Wa, I hope you enjoy eternity and that you are not damned to hell for your fashion errors.

Buzz


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

Kav said:


> The Bible, and different people have various translations further subject to human error; is a work of Man and God,


Which is the God written part and which is the man written part?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I can't imagine anything more hateful than aiding and abetting another's sin.

Better that they wait until they face judgment than be made uncomfortable for sinning, right, Kav?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Kav said:


> The Bible, and different people have various translations further subject to human error; is a work of Man and God, of value but not the sole tool in a christian life of faith, prayer and meditation,keeping the liturgical calender, and most important; striving toward the perfection of Jesus, knowing it is unatainable but our goal.
> Getting into a pissant hissy fit because WA's former laundromat preacher teaches something different than 2000 years of apostolic succession is really low on my morning priorities; somewhere below cleaning the cat's liter box and checking my lottery ticket before hitting the job(less) market.
> And if I encounter any gay people on my day's journey,I will say good morning, Jesus loves you and so do I.
> Their sin, my sins are between us and God.


Idiot! Your the one that brought in the anti-christain stuff. As far as this 2000 years of apostolic succession there is no mention of any of that garbage in the New Testament, being it is all man made by the Godless conniving men and the brainwashed.

As I said before three words would seperate man/woman, woman/woman, and man/man relationships for the very reasons words exist- to prevent confusion. To call all three marriage creates confusion, and in away stealing the word marriage as the word gay was stold. Nobody uses the important old word gay anymore and it hasn't help the world at all (I believe the media stold the word gay, which is another subject for another thread). Is mankind to dumb to add two more words?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

M6Classic said:


> To bring this back to fashion, Wa, in the Bible (Leviticus 19:19) God forbids us to wear clothing of two fibers mixed together. To do so is a sin. I hope you are not committing any such sin. If you have worn clothing of two fibers you must atone by slaughtering a ram. Ram slaughter isn't as easy as it sounds if you expect to do it right and receive expiation. In any case, if you have ever worn a garment of two fibres mixed and you did not ritually sacrafice a ram then you are doomed. Sorry, Wa, I hope you enjoy eternity and that you are not damned to hell for your fashion errors.
> 
> Buzz


This hell you mention must be a heavenly place. Will you be enjoy it or not? Maybe I should say - Will you be enjoy it or be over hot?

Ah hmmm, circumcision went out in the New Testament, too.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

M6Classic said:


> To bring this back to fashion, Wa, in the Bible (Leviticus 19:19) God forbids us to wear clothing of two fibers mixed together. To do so is a sin. I hope you are not committing any such sin. If you have worn clothing of two fibers you must atone by slaughtering a ram. Ram slaughter isn't as easy as it sounds if you expect to do it right and receive expiation. In any case, if you have ever worn a garment of two fibres mixed and you did not ritually sacrafice a ram then you are doomed. Sorry, Wa, I hope you enjoy eternity and that you are not damned to hell for your fashion errors.
> 
> Buzz


Christ freed Christians from many of the old Testament Laws. One of the most obvious is that Christians are permitted to eat pork. I'm not a theologian, but I'm 99% sure that most Christian religions would no longer observe this prohibition.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

WA said:


> As I said before three words would seperate man/woman, woman/woman, and man/man relationships for the very reasons words exist- to prevent confusion. To call all three marriage creates confusion, and in away stealing the word marriage as the word gay was stold. Nobody uses the important old word gay anymore and it hasn't help the world at all (I believe the media stold the word gay, which is another subject for another thread). Is mankind to dumb to add two more words?


I addressed your post about this on the previous page: Basically, anyone with a bit of imagination can get through those awkward moments and inconveniences! It's not that hard. I don't think more words than husband and wife are necessary or the gay community would even want it. Husband and husband, wife and wife seems to be good enough for them and I can't really see how any awkward moments wouldn't be avoided if you use common sense. Giving a gift to both partners would be an appreciated gesture in the situation you mention, and I'm sure they wouldn't mind that you had to think it through first.

As for marriage, let them call it what they want to. I don't think it's a huge inconvenience to say that they're married unless it _really_ disgusts you to say so, and I doubt it does. I realise you don't see it as a marriage in your view, but you don't have to agree necessarily. Just extend the same courtesy you would other people who are married or have domestic partnerships. Calling them their "partner" seems to work fine.

Just my two cents on that.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

WA said:


> This hell you mention must be a heavenly place. Will you be enjoy it or not? Maybe I should say - Will you be enjoy it or be over hot?
> 
> Ah hmmm, circumcision went out in the New Testament, too.


So, you imply that you get to pick and choose the sins that will be punished. Well, that's awfully convenient for you and your religion! If you maintain that the bible is THE BIBLE, it seems to me that you should treat all Biblical injunctions equally.

Buzz


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Christ freed Christians from many of the old Testament Laws. One of the most obvious is that Christians are permitted to eat pork. I'm not a theologian, but I'm 99% sure that most Christian religions would no longer observe this prohibition.


Gee, I wish I belonged to a religion in which we get to decide on those laws which we will observe and those laws which are just too darned inconvenient! So, you are saying that the Christians disregard the Bible? Hmmmm, I never knew that.

Buzz


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Stringfellow
Next time you drop by the public library check out a quarterly magazine called Biblical Archaeology. It is a scientific journal devoted to excavations that reveal empirical proof for events and stories in the Bible.
Obvioulsy, it doesn't prove the walls of Jericho fell down because of God's commandment to blow horns. But it does reveal they weakened the walls by tunneling and the blowing of horns likely contributed to the enemy's attention Deing diverted from hearing shovels.
Many learned rebis will explain Adam and Eve are metaphor's for the human race, not actual individuals like the genetic 'eve' we all trace to (but not the only Eve, just the surviving one in our DNA strands.) 
And many believe the Biblical Flood, a near worldwide set piece in our collective mythos, was borrowed from a Mesopotamian manuscript recounting the trials of MESES, a trader who was bound with his family on a raft during a particualry violent flood, they being a reality of that region.
Without grabbing a yellow highlighter, GOD'S word in the bible is everywhere. he is simply saying 'people, be good, love one another, be nice and worship my creation and it's beuaty, not that other guy who would have you wear jeans, backwards baseball caps and black orphaned suit topps ( fused.)
And If I say homosexuallity is a sin, reject the sin. But please, don't go out and buy a rifle in 7x61 Sharp & Hart and take shots at a pride parade.
Meanwhile, I have to go find a ram, a hated and unlooked for task, my having taken a sheep production unit for my AA in agricultural science.
I have indeed violated shatnez, though not at the orthodox( jew) wedding a attended this year.
My grandmother had a ram named Chester. I hated that animal, always knocking people over from behind.I never enjoyed a rack of lamb and mint jelly so much.
damn! Now I have to slaughter TWO rams.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

M6, you clearly just want to ridicule, and I suppose that is your right.

After Christ rose from the dead, HE let the apostles know that a lot of the old dietary laws no longer needed to be followed. I went to Missouri Synod Lutheran Education. I have no interest in spending a lot of time looking through Romans to find the exact passage for someone who only wants to ridicule the answer anyway.

Per what we were taught as Lutherans, Christ, not men, made this decision. The Old Testament binds orthodox Jews; for Christians, some of the old laws were superceded. Christians don't observe Passover, etc; tha is all the time I'm going to spend on someone who disbelieves and is only interested in ridiculing Christians anyway.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> M6, you clearly just want to ridicule, and I suppose that is your right.
> 
> After Christ rose from the dead, HE let the apostles know that a lot of the old dietary laws no longer needed to be followed. I went to Missouri Synod Lutheran Education. I have no interest in spending a lot of time looking through Romans to find the exact passage for someone who only wants to ridicule the answer anyway.
> 
> Per what we were taught as Lutherans, Christ, not men, made this decision. The Old Testament binds orthodox Jews; for Christians, some of the old laws were superceded. Christians don't observe Passover, etc; tha is all the time I'm going to spend on someone who disbelieves and is only interested in ridiculing Christians anyway.


I am not ridiculing anyone. I merely illustrate that what is and is not a sin is a subjective decision of each religion and no religion should be able to enforce its own peculiarities on the rest of civil society. Jews don't eat pork, yet we should never be permitted to demand that pork be removed from our American grocery shops and public school menus.

Buzz


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Um whatever you say.

If you'll read back, I made the same point, but allowed religious folks some dignity while making it. You accused me of basically deciding which commandments I can break at will and which ones I will observe. In our church, I promise you that is not true and it is a result of theologians starting with Martin Luther interpreting the Bible to the best of their human, not divine, ability.

I doubt you understand what you said and I further doubt that you care, so I won't post in this thread any more.

I agree that neither religious folks or non-religious folks should dominate society and force others to bow to their religion's will.

Have at me.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Um whatever you say.
> 
> If you'll read back, I made the same point, but allowed religious folks some dignity while making it. You accused me of basically deciding which commandments I can break at will and which ones I will observe. In our church, I promise you that is not true and it is a result of theologians starting with Martin Luther interpreting the Bible to the best of their human, not divine, ability.
> 
> ...


Okay.

Buzz


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Forseberg,
I think you're finding hostility in M6 that isn't there.
Be a good christian and forgive his perceived wrong, and ask his forgiveness in return. It's the christian, the gentlemanly thing to do.
You can even share a casserole recipe.

This thread has become like those adjoining italian villages that fire fireworks across the bridge or have that huge tomato fight.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Bible*

Gentlemen

According to God it is cool to be gay. KAV , I am with you here. There are a lot of bible thumpers here, who do not know the bible. Just their interpretation of the bible.
Which royally sucks IMO.

Gentlemen, nice day


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

How did this get sucked into the black hole of religion and homosexuality? I'm all for civil unions and think we should judge people by how hard they work, if they pay their taxes, or do they annoy their neighbors? But please guys, in the three Abrahamic religions? Is there any doubt about the various holy books and dogma have to say about it?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

None at all W. Word on the street is homosexuality is a sin.
Word on the street also is to love they nieghbor and forgive them their sins, and judge not, don't throw stones,yada yada yada. It's that second word on the street I figure is directed at ME, my behavior which will also be judged by God no less than a gay person's.
As I said regarding the previous 'day without immigrants.' This can go both ways. You stay home, and if people either don't notice your absence, or worse, notice how much more civil society is your in deep doo doo.
Perhaps all the 'REAL christians' aka WA should have a 'day without bible thumping, talking in tonques, bashing catholic I'm gonna get ruptured cause I accepted jazzzus and been saved 100% pastuerised Christ- ee-ans.'
Now that will really bring us to our collective knees, to pray or whatever consenting adults of all persuasions wish to do in private.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Word on the street today is that as far as the OP goes, the Day Without Gays protest was pretty much a bust (and for very good reasons.)

Link to San Francisco Chronicle article talking about it all:

https://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/11/BAUV14LPE2.DTL


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

Kav said:


> The simplest solution would be for ALL civil marriages to be renamed civil unions, and let the marriages be recognised in church sacraments of the couple's faith.
> There are some churches, ie the now fragmented american and canadian episcopate who perform gay marriages, and I know many reformed rebis do also.
> 
> Perhaps what gays need to do is START a religion of their own. It could be loosely based on the Lizard people conspiracy theory about our being selectively bred for 500 years by aliens from the star system draco. It makes about as much sense as anything.
> The present religions by and large have to old, fundamental and theologically VERY difficult hurdles to overcome the issue either by acceptance, or a unsatisfactory option of abstinance. And given that the rest of us break every damn commandment daily and on a mass social level with warfare and plain rude manners, I doubt gays would find this acceptable, or very fair.


That's what I believe as well. Marriage is a cultural thing and, thus, gvmt should not interfere. It should just issue civil unions and allow individuals to culturally/religiously recognise marriages.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

JibranK said:


> That's what I believe as well. Marriage is a cultural thing and, thus, gvmt should not interfere. It should just issue civil unions and allow individuals to culturally/religiously recognise marriages.


You are separating government from culture. You think the form of government in a country simply appears out of a vacuum? I'm not saying you are not on the correct path with what you are trying to say, but culture and government are deeply connected.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

I suppose that I phrased that too severely as I do believe that there is a connection (and an important one) between government and culture.

What I mean is that various government interpretations of marriage are troublesome; thus the ideal solution is to leave the marriage (or lack of it) up to the union in question.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Culture is the extra biological tool mankind used instead of physical evolutionary adaptations to occupy, with the rat and cockroach, every bio system on earth (including California.)
It can be very stable and ancient, like some mollusks little changed since the dawn of life on the 5th day, several zillion years ago, plus or minus, or very rapid, like the wolf to dog in as few as one or two generations.
American 'culture' like our govenment is one of ever greater diverse peoples and groups gaining equal rights, freedoms and responsibilities.
Our culture can do this.
Why, I'd even sign a petition for you to declare your bagpipes a person, just like corporations and give you a big, fat, tax break.
Ponder that on your chanter.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

M6Classic said:


> So, you imply that you get to pick and choose the sins that will be punished. Well, that's awfully convenient for you and your religion! If you maintain that the bible is THE BIBLE, it seems to me that you should treat all Biblical injunctions equally.
> 
> Buzz


You sound right, except, Testament is a legal document and old and new are two different legal documents. It is sorta like owning a house where you have the legal document of ownership. Now you sell that house and buy a new house- the old house is no longer yours. But, even if you go back to the Old Testament you will see that at one time you could eat anything and you could wear anything (including nothing), and no circumcision needed, etc. In the New Testament you see where it does away with somethings that some of the Old Testament people had to do while earlier people didn't, and some other stuff, such as sacrifices, animal sacrifices were merely substitute because an animal doesn't replace humans for the real thing. Which is why God had to come down to be human to take our place if he wanted to save us. I have no idea what Jews do today. Do they sacrific lambs, yearly?

When looking at Old and New Testament it is confusing somethings as what is expected for Christians because I don't think it is a total break. Some Old Testament prophecies are still coming to past. Plus the Old Testament shows us examples after examples of who God is and who we are and His place and our place. Enoch is one of my favorite people in the Old Testament. When thinking of what Kav comes from it seems like he is very steaped in rituals of the Old Testament Priest and Temple, whereas, what I come from, we don't see that as New Testament life, though we study it in the Old Testament to help us understand God.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Jovan said:


> I addressed your post about this on the previous page: Basically, anyone with a bit of imagination can get through those awkward moments and inconveniences! It's not that hard. I don't think more words than husband and wife are necessary or the gay community would even want it. Husband and husband, wife and wife seems to be good enough for them and I can't really see how any awkward moments wouldn't be avoided if you use common sense. Giving a gift to both partners would be an appreciated gesture in the situation you mention, and I'm sure they wouldn't mind that you had to think it through first.
> 
> As for marriage, let them call it what they want to. I don't think it's a huge inconvenience to say that they're married unless it _really_ disgusts you to say so, and I doubt it does. I realise you don't see it as a marriage in your view, but you don't have to agree necessarily. Just extend the same courtesy you would other people who are married or have domestic partnerships. Calling them their "partner" seems to work fine.
> 
> Just my two cents on that.


I can live with it. What is strange is Husband/Husband or wife/wife.

We sent man to the moon in 69 and yet we can't add two new useful words, sounds like evolution going backwards.


----------



## Arnold Gingrich fan (Aug 8, 2008)

There never has been a day (or place, or time) without gays, thank God!


----------



## deandbn (Mar 6, 2006)

Well this seems to be quite a frenetically debated thread, what with the turkey and wawa birds pontificating on subjects they dont seem to quite understand. Maybe they are biost or think they are correct. Maybe they arent and will end up in the hell of their own imaginations.

First, I dont think gay people (or "gays" as they seem to be called here) want to get "married", they want a "civil union" and it does not involve religion. "married" is what most "straights" (heterosexual people) do and it does involve religion. 

As an aside, I dont understand why most straight people are hell bent on getting married in a religious ceremony when they would never normally go to church anyway. What a bunch of hypocrites. Sad isnt it?

Second, once gay people have had a civil union (well they can and do in darkest africa where i come from anyway - they say we have a pretty good democratic constitution here), they use the term spouse to identify the relationship between each other.

Gay people use the word "marraige" generically to get the idea across to "straights" that they want equal civil rights. 

The most important of these being financial including community of property, pensions, succession and so on. 

The second is becoming "next of kin" or closest relative, specially in a medical scenario as in - who gets to decide to pull the plug - should one party (spouse) be in a coma or otherwise un-treatable, or, who gets to visit the spouse when in intensive care and only next of kin are allowed.

My point is that all people of whatever gender or other persuasion should be allowed equal rights, typically as in a civil union. Whereas should heterosexual people be religiously inclined, they can then get married in a religious ceremony afterwards.

Just my hapenny tuppenies worth.:icon_smile_wink:


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Testament*

Morning gentlemen,

One comment that bothers me is that the testament is called a legal document here . This my friends, is terribly wrong.
My friends I see some religions judging people regarding their sexual preference and using this as their guidance. This, again is hogwash.
You have no right to judge these people. Not just on the bible. At least not your interpretation of the bible. Because you are wrong in your understanding of the bible.

Nice day my friends


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

deandbn said:


> Well this seems to be quite a frenetically debated thread, what with the turkey and wawa birds pontificating on subjects they dont seem to quite understand. Maybe they are biost or think they are correct. Maybe they arent and will end up in the hell of their own imaginations.
> 
> First, I dont think gay people (or "gays" as they seem to be called here) want to get "married", they want a "civil union" and it does not involve religion. "married" is what most "straights" (heterosexual people) do and it does involve religion.
> 
> ...


"civil union" sounds nice to many. But some clearly say they want the word marriage. _As an aside, I don't understand why most straight people are hell bent on getting married in a religious ceremony when they would never normally go to church anyway. What a bunch of hypocrites. Sad isnt it? _To some people it just sounds right to them to tie the knot with a religious ceremony gay or straight.

_The most important of these being financial including community of property, pensions, succession and so on. _

_The second is becoming "next of kin" or closest relative, specially in a medical scenario as in - who gets to decide to pull the plug - should one party (spouse) be in a coma or otherwise un-treatable, or, who gets to visit the spouse when in intensive care and only next of kin are allowed. _

It seems like there should be a way to do this without it being tied to "civil union" or marriage or anything else. If you are an old bachelor your might want some of these "rights" with your friends, such as _who gets to visit when in intensive care _so friends are not excluded.

As far as religous beliefs you certainly only know a few and anything different, like kav, you refuse and then pat yourself on the back saying your smart. If you honestly look at some of the others you might change your mind.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

DukeGrad said:


> Morning gentlemen,
> 
> One comment that bothers me is that the testament is called a legal document here . This my friends, is terribly wrong.
> My friends I see some religions judging people regarding their sexual preference and using this as their guidance. This, again is hogwash.
> ...


You judge by saying don't judge. So what you are saying is you are right and everybody else should shut up if you don't like what they say? Maybe bank robbers should be the ones to speak and the rest of us shut up, and they want out of jail, of course. Well I think there is more than one person in this world. That is why we have free speech and debates. Why is it Ok for you to ridicule some peoples beliefs but not OK for them to ridicule your opposing belief? Everybody has a right to there belief, including the bank robber.

So you are saying that testament is not a legal document?


----------



## topbroker (Jul 30, 2006)

A "day without gays" would include a great number of men who post at Ask Andy.

Speaking as a gay man, and in the interests of intellectual honesty, let me say: the menswear fora, *all* the menswear fora (and blogs, too), are among the "gayest" environments I frequent regularly. They are certainly "gayer" than most overtly gay environments. The only good comparison I can think of is bodybuilding gyms, where, too, men observe and adore each other under the cover of another enthusiasm.

Of course there are some openly gay men on the fora -- not many -- but there are far more who are other-denying or self-denying bisexual or gay men. To them generically, I would say: come on. Whom are you fooling? Some of your posts and pictures send my "gaydar" into hyperdrive. The very worst cases (fortunately not in evidence at AAAC) are the "protests too much" dimwits at Style Forum who make jiggling breasts their avatars, and so on. Insert chuckle.

The British have a wonderful popular phrase: "What's that in aid of?" When you put up your posts and pictures, what's that in aid of? Seems pretty clear to me.

Let the furious denials begin!


----------



## TheGuyIsBack (Nov 6, 2008)

Laxplayer said:


> Anyone participating or know of someone participating?
> Thoughts on this effort?
> 
> https://www.daywithoutagay.org/


I don't care about gays. Alof of good fashion designers are actually gay.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

yes there are many gay people who post here at AAAC, the forum would be less without them


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

> don't care about gays. Alof of good fashion designers are actually gay.


How about Steven Cojocaru? He's gay.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

Howard said:


> How about Steven Cojocaru? He's gay.


is he a designer?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

young guy said:


> is he a designer?


He's a fashion reporter,not a designer but he has done some reporting on Entertainment Tonight and Access Hollywood.


----------



## Cardcaptor Charlie (Jul 7, 2008)

Part of this hoo-harr centers around the term 'marriage' and I have to ask for evidence and rationale of why such a word is monopolised with one religious definition of it of which only 33% of the world adheres to. As with all words, they have the ability to take on new or drop old definitions during the course of time and that is based on common usage and are not dictated from language/religious authorities. Just as 'gay' means 'to be happy' and now also 'he/she who is homosexual', etc the word 'marriage' can also assume these alledged 'new' meaning highlighted in pervious posts and only those who seem to think they have jurisdiction of the rectification and definition of words would have their feathers ruffled by such an organic and natural evolution of words. 

But of course, 'civil partnership' has more or less gained acceptance and that emcompasses both male-male, female-female and (to a lesser extent) male-female unions and there is no ruckus for how this term be barred usage by those of the male-female union by the gay community as that is frankly a ludicrious and meaningless proposition. 

In regards to the whole religious damnation of homosexuality, my view is that if you do not subscribe to said religious affiliation then all its dogmatic judical perscriptions do not apply to you and they cannot by right of common and civil law put you under their judical perscriptions save that they are allowed by common and civil law to do so otherwise (i.e. Sharia law in some of the Arab nations; in which case, best of the 36 Stratagems...)


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Cardcaptor Charlie said:


> Part of this hoo-harr centers around the term 'marriage' and I have to ask for evidence and rationale of why such a word is monopolised with one religious definition of it of which only 33% of the world adheres to.


To be honest with you I'm not sure that "evidence and rationale" is even a factor here. "Marriage" is whatever each individual community, State, Country, whatever, decides that it is for them. If that community chooses a definition that is based on a religious belief I don't know that it really matters whether the world at large adheres to that belief or not.

Keep in mind that this isn't meant as an expression of support for one viewpoint over another, but rather is merely an expression of my belief that communities should have some say so in deciding such matters, whichever way they choose to go.

Cruiser


----------



## misterdonuts (Feb 15, 2008)

Just out of curiosity, if the notion of marriage is necessarily connected to some religious contexts, then what do you call a union between a man and a woman of different faiths (or lack thereof)? I am married (or, I thought I am) to a woman of a different faith; neither convereted to the other's faith; and we did not have a religious wedding ceremony. So, do we have a marriage or a civil partnership / union?


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

misterdonuts said:


> Just out of curiosity, if the notion of marriage is necessarily connected to some religious contexts, then what do you call a union between a man and a woman of different faiths (or lack thereof)? I am married (or, I thought I am) to a woman of a different faith; neither convereted to the other's faith; and we did not have a religious wedding ceremony. So, do we have a marriage or a civil partnership / union?


do you have a legal state recognized certificate that says "marriage" on the top of it or references "marriage" anywhere in it - if so you are married in the eyes of the state and federal government. consider youself one of the lucky ones who has this right that others dont


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I think I figured out why I push your panic button WA. 
You profess, nay claim some cosmic pink slip to the very word christian, though you show little proofs of apostolic succession, theological credentials or even a rudimentary interest in spiritual debate or investigation beyond your rote 'shut up,sit down and listen' world view of 'The Good German.' But I only challenge the richness of your christianity, not it's validity.
Yet, you have the hubric hypocricy to judge mine.
I come along, openly professing Christianity as my faith, a faith tempered and enriched by both academic and participatory study in our mother religion of judaism and comparative experiences in others.
And I embrace scientific thought, not as substitute but tool, knowing such disciplines as evolution ultimately explain only the how, not the why, or why not, or even WHO cleans up when it's all done, if ever.
And if my church views homosexuality as a sin, I cannot reject that, and accept everything else as truth like a patron at a swedish smorgasborg restaurant passing over the potato soup and pileing on meatballs.
But what I can do is carry my beliefs forward"Do thy praying quietly and in private" And share the Gospel" Make a joyfull noise."
It may seem a contraditction, a hypocrisy to you. But I will not participate in the civil oppression of one group because my religious views are in conflict. We have a seperation of church and state, and if you don't want government intruding into your private and religious affairs, you better stop this nonsense of interjecting them into civil society at large " rewnder unto Caesar taht which is Caesar's, render unto God that which is God's."
And that word, civil is the key. I ask forgiveness for any hurtfull statements I make, and I forgive You the many you've made, though I am still trying to uderstand what a 'agnostic athiest' is?
Meanwhile, It is my intention to share the gospel, and many friendships with gays, knowing this difficult breach lies between us. But I would rather fail miserably, than simply cross the street and share a glass of Florida Sunshine with Anita Bryant.
I'm a Arizona grapefruit juice kind of guy myself.


----------



## cosmotoast (Oct 11, 2008)

*Gays and church*

At my bosses church there are no gays and they are not welcome because theyre "sinners". At my sisters church,they are therein the church. Her pastor says that they cant get saved on the outside looking in. Whos right and whose wrong?
Cosmo:icon_scratch:


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

cosmotoast said:


> At my bosses church there are no gays and they are not welcome because theyre "sinners". At my sisters church,they are therein the church. Her pastor says that they cant get saved on the outside looking in. Whos right and whose wrong?
> Cosmo:icon_scratch:


Hard to say, but the biblical approach is much closer to the former than the latter. Kav sounds like he wants to take "tolerance" to a bizarre extreme--that homosexuals shouldn't be made to feel uncomfortable about their sinning. I guess if you're prepared to ignore half the Bible, that's a legitimate alternative viewpoint...


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

What does the Bible show us? Jesus didn't hang with ladies that remind me of Sarah Brightman. Jesus spent his time with sinners, and sick people and the poor.
And he said he'd come back, not with a mariachi band playing bugles as back up to Tom Jones and the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders but 'as a thief in the night.

Some of the finest christians I've met were in Oakland California, circa 1977 when I was a SP on West MacArthur BLVD, then the red light district.
the was a RC monastic order that bought a small house and baked cookiesby day for income.
And by night they walked 'West Mac' quietly sahrong the Gospel and offering access to various social services to the girls, facing down armed pimps I was pulling .45s on and tossing into city of Oakland heavy wire guage trashcans headfirst with my buddy JoJo.Those monks never condemned the girls, just 'were there' for them and helped many off the streets and a sad end fromn poverty, overdose,disease , suicide or murder.
Homosexuallity is an issue churches need to show that same bravery.
It's a moral issue for Christians. It demands moral courage beyond slamming doors.
So again, when Jesus comes back, will it be Vatican City, Joel Osteen's megabox or some transgendered biker bar in New Mexico on a Friday night during happy hour?


----------



## pweller (May 21, 2008)

I think that religion is inherently irrational. I hate see our government making decisions even loosely based on what the bible says. To me, its like trying to build a house on a foundation of marshmallows.

I've found that people who believe in religion are thinking emotionally, and people that don't believe in religion are thinking rationally. I've never seen a good 'resolution' to this type of conflict, it just seems to be a never-ending disagreement. But, I think it is important for both sides to recognize this fact, otherwise arguements can escalate with no effect.

I've always wondered what percentage of homosexuals are athiests? I would guess it would be higher than heterosexual athiests if only because of what the bible says about gays. Anybody know?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Kav said:


> What does the Bible show us? Jesus didn't hang with ladies that remind me of Sarah Brightman. Jesus spent his time with sinners, and sick people and the poor.
> 
> ...
> 
> So again, when Jesus comes back, will it be Vatican City, Joel Osteen's megabox or some transgendered biker bar in New Mexico on a Friday night during happy hour?


Jesus "hung out" with _former_ sinners. And why did he choose them? Because they knew how wicked they were, unlike the hypocrites.

A homosexual who thinks homosexuality is not an abomination would not qualify.


----------



## RJman (Nov 11, 2003)

topbroker said:


> Of course there are some openly gay men on the fora -- not many -- but there are far more who are other-denying or self-denying bisexual or gay men. To them generically, I would say: come on. Whom are you fooling? *Some of your posts *and pictures* send my "gaydar" into hyperdrive.* The very worst cases (fortunately not in evidence at AAAC) are the "protests too much" dimwits at Style Forum who make jiggling breasts their avatars, and so on. Insert chuckle.


Oooh! Oooh! Do I?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Topbroker is the Janus face of Turkey and WA. 
If you've faced discrimination, you reinvent the world to one filled with latent homosexuals and claim every good looking or talented male or female as your own, oblivious to he hurt you cause in turn.
Genius and a place in our temporal society should have room for all, no discrimination or reverse discrimination.


----------



## topbroker (Jul 30, 2006)

Kav said:


> Topbroker is the Janus face of Turkey and WA.
> If you've faced discrimination, you reinvent the world to one filled with latent homosexuals and claim every good looking or talented male or female as your own, oblivious to he hurt you cause in turn.


Pfui, as Nero Wolfe would say. There are *plenty* of good-looking and talented straight men and I feel no need to claim them. But they're not posting pictures of their shoes on menswear fora.


----------



## topbroker (Jul 30, 2006)

RJman said:


> Oooh! Oooh! Do I?


"Gaydar," in case you're unfamiliar with the concept, has to do with spotting unannounced homosexuals -- not being attracted to them.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

And then there's this, trying to make other people uncomfortable by interjecting your fetishes. I think I agree with Kav, though. It's pitiable.


----------



## topbroker (Jul 30, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> And then there's this, trying to make other people uncomfortable by interjecting your fetishes. I think I agree with Kav, though. It's pitiable.


*My* fetishes? Good grief!  Have you ever *looked* at the "What Footwear Are You Wearing Today?" thread?

Pointing out the elephant in the room often makes people uncomfortable -- but there it is.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Well you big thilly! I just gave my heart and thoul to gay mawwiage wights vs the thavages and you yust twashed evewything. You brute! 
I thupose I could take refwuge in a big bucket of KFC and pway some Lena Horne, tho Babwa Strieswand is the Gay man's wole model of the pewfect woman. But you would twink I am a bwack man and pway a mean game of pickup basketwall.
And while it was a gay man who helped my early efforts at dwessing well,ethpesially modweest footwear; I pway you never tippy tap your mirror powished shoosies against mine in a westroom.
I just might wip the stall door off and ***** slap you.


----------



## topbroker (Jul 30, 2006)

What Elmer Fudd has to do with anything is beyond me.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I think what Kav is saying is that if cordovan and argyles gets you in the mood, keep it to yourself, please.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Sadly, apparently a lot of things are.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Kav said:


> Sadly, apparently a lot of things are.


Man that was a lot of work to set that up, but it's almost worth it. :icon_smile:


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Almost is correct.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Kav said:


> ... But I only challenge the richness of your christianity, not it's validity...what I can do is carry my beliefs forward"Do thy praying quietly and in private" And share the Gospel" Make a joyfull noise."...Meanwhile, It is my intention to share the gospel, and many friendships with gays, knowing this difficult breach lies between us. But I would rather fail miserably, than simply cross the street and share a glass of Florida Sunshine with Anita Bryant....


I say this sincerely that I think these to be beautiful thoughts and thank you for sharing them. I think the right thing to say is that you have made good witness.

I am fortunate to know a great many people that profess a great variety of faiths, non-faiths and no-faiths. Many of us get along because we sincerely strive to do the best we can while respecting the fact the others are doing the same. When intellectual cramps arise, born of ideological differences, humor usually dissolves them. If that doesn't work, some wine usually does. But in such matters I am always impressed by any person who brings what is central to their life and in their heart of hearts to the front of the conversation, eager to share what they know, in a spirit of respect for those who choose to listen.

_Pax vobiscum_ to those that bring peace and a double-helping of _Pax_ to those who are learning how.


----------



## RJman (Nov 11, 2003)

PedanticTurkey said:


> And then there's this, trying to make other people uncomfortable by interjecting your fetishes. I think I agree with Kav, though. It's pitiable.


Topbroker, does the Turkey remind you of Chris Carter's character in American Beauty?


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

topbroker said:


> *My* fetishes? Good grief!  Have you ever *looked* at the "What Footwear Are You Wearing Today?" thread?
> 
> Pointing out the elephant in the room often makes people uncomfortable -- but there it is.


I've never understood foot fetishes. I don't find anyone's feet particularly attractive.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Miket61 said:


> I've never understood foot fetishes. I don't find anyone's feet particularly attractive.


 The shoe fetish is tougher to understand. How were people "born that way" before there were shoes?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Thankyou Quay, I have my moments, not many, but I do.
And for the future times when I put a Park Avenue in my mouth, as I have done before;please take the other one and wack me up side of the head with it.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Kav said:


> Thankyou Quay, I have my moments, not many, but I do.
> And for the future times when I put a Park Avenue in my mouth, as I have done before;please take the other one and wack me up side of the head with it.


You are most welcome, always. :icon_smile:

But as for the handsome shoe, I confess I'm a man of non-violent tendencies so I can't promise a wack even with so nice a bit of leather. However, if you just take a picture of yourself wearing those shoes and post it here I'm sure the resulting comments will at least be worth a wack and serve a similar purpose especially if you have one shoe suggestively in your mouth. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Arnold Gingrich fan (Aug 8, 2008)

Quay said:


> Man that was a lot of work to set that up, but it's almost worth it. :icon_smile:


*You go, Miss Thang! SNAP!*


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Kav said:


> I think I figured out why I push your panic button WA....


There is so much you don't understand. And you seem to try to shut people up who have a different view point or belief. It seems to me there is room for everyone. And I would like to hear other view points from people who come from those view points (afteral, that is how we learn, because I sure don't understand many other beliefs, because I haven't hear enough of what they believe to know).


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

cosmotoast said:


> At my bosses church there are no gays and they are not welcome because theyre "sinners". At my sisters church, they are therein the church. Her pastor says that they cant get saved on the outside looking in. Whos right and whose wrong?
> Cosmo:icon_scratch:


Evangelical means preaching to the sinners. So they are always welcomed for awhile. If they don't repent after a reasonable time then they may be asked to leave.

There are always some cons who pretend to be real Christians who decieve many. It is interesting when we read about Judas the traitor. About three years and we see what happened.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Testament*

Gentlemen

WA I will start with you. You make a statement that KAV does not understand. I read you analysis, you are wrong in your opinion of KAV.
What makes the bible binding.It appears your opinion does? And this is what I do not like.

Again, from prior forums I have made it known I do not like bible thumpers at all. They make me ill. Their new light makes me nauseated.
And their new knowledge makes me that much sicker.Keep it to themselves because they are wrong.
The God I pray to tells me something so different.I keep this to myself. It is something God lets me do.
On the other hand. He lets me love all humans. No matter who they love, what they are.

Gentlemen, am gonna go to the gym.
Nice day my friends


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Jimmy, I've probably said this before, but I'm always struck by the good will embodied in your posts, even when you're disagreeing with somebody. It helps the climate around here. Thanks.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Jimmy, I've probably said this before, but I'm always struck by the good will embodied in your posts, even when you're disagreeing with somebody. It helps the climate around here. Thanks.


Yep. Maybe it's the part where he says he doesn't like Bible thumpers. Maybe the part about how they make him ill, nauseated, sick.

I don't know, but it certainly reeks of good will.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Relayer,
'let he who is without sin post the first thread reply'- NKV ( New Kavanaugh Version available 2009; in black leatherette or a mass paperback edition from Dream Garden Press, Salt lake City Utah)


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Kav said:


> Relayer,
> 'let he who is without sin post the first thread reply'- NKV ( New Kavanaugh Version available 2009; in black leatherette or a mass paperback edition from Dream Garden Press, Salt lake City Utah)


I'm feeling the love.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

All sin must be tolerated and embraced, so no one feels left out. What a world that would make...


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Miket61 said:


> I've never understood foot fetishes. I don't find anyone's feet particularly attractive.


Me too,unless it's clean,anything else is hideous.


----------



## Kingsfield (Nov 15, 2006)

"Tolerance implies no lack of commitment to one's own beliefs. Rather it condemns the oppression or persecution of others."
--John F. Kennedy


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Tolerance is for nonbelievers, not for hypocrites.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Tolerance is for nonbelievers, not for hypocrites.


I don't understand this epigram. Who do you say are the believers? Who do say are the hypocrites?

Buzz


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Back in the late 70s there was a great restaurant off Westwood Village by UCLA. It was called THE VIKING INN, and it had these great faux oak beams with runes, a huge mural of a viking ship and the gods and goddesses with blond braids and big boobies under armour and ravens and midnight suns.
Only thing, the norwegian family that ran it retired and the owner leased it out to a new tenant who opened a new restaurant. But they were chinese, practised feng Shui and believed the name was harmonious. That, and they couldn't afford to redecorate.
So people would stop by, see the Smorgasborg sign and enter, only to find a chinese menu and a hostess who looked like Susie Wong in her red silk dress with the mandarin collar.
It became a favourite of students and bohemians, and 3 guys on TAD ( training and departure) for 2 weeks studying some new navigational aid, fun for me to walk across campus in uniform with my brother looking like Conan the Barbarian.
We used to sing really bad ersatz viking drinking songs to Valhalla, blood and gore and guts and burning funeral ships,downing plum wine or chinese beer and consuming vast rice fields of produce.
And finally, satiated, half drunk,our berzerker trance over we got our fortune cookies and green tea to end the evening.
Pedantic Turkey, I must confess. Those old fortunes made a hell of a lot more sense than your last comment.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

DukeGrad said:


> Gentlemen
> 
> WA I will start with you. You make a statement that KAV does not understand. I read you analysis, you are wrong in your opinion of KAV.
> What makes the bible binding.It appears your opinion does? And this is what I do not like.
> ...


Duke, you do mean well, but you still misunderstand lots. Some of the most hell fire and brimstone preachers have spent an enormous amount of time with drug addicted and prostitutes and gangs, etc. People who spend time with those in need do so because they love them and care for them. Why else would people spend thousands of hours helping those who come from the saddest homes? When people read a little bit and fill in big lies to try and understand something- those people have problems. So, if you remove Kavs lies what is the theology that is the truth that replaces Kav lack of knowledge? I don't think you have an answer because I don't think you know anywhere near as much theology as you think you do.

_He lets me love all humans._ Why were you in the military so long when that is the business of killing people? Some things we write about comes from a religous view, whether we mention it or not, so you yourself are Bible thumping, and your version makes me ill, too. We all speak from our heart. Do I like all of your views? No! Would I expect you to like all of my veiws? No!. But, I don't go whining about your Bible thumping views, instead I put out my own. So, are you for freedom of speech or, just yours and Kavs? If it is just yours and Kavs it would be very boring here. Diversity makes interesting. And, from what you have said I don't think you have much of a clue about what I believe and, your judgeing it. So, are the trout, char and salmon biting? I think in a couple of months from now some char will be in a little creek near by (I don't think were suppose to fish them). If there is any winter fishing happy fishing.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

WA
Attacking one's antagonist in a debate via grammar is a specious and poor tactic.But in all honesty, you make my very worst stream of consciousness posts pale in envy.
Now, there seems some great confusion on your part as to my religosity. For your edification, I was formally baptised into the american episcopalian church in 1964, at Saint Martins, a high church anglican community by the right reverand, vicar father Murphy, late of Derrytown, Ulster, United Kingdom.And under his guidance for three years I read the KJV of the bible from Genesis to Revelations. And I studied basic greek and latin to enable my further studies of source materials from other traditions.
I continued my studies of comparative religion in University with a Masters degree in Archaeology awarded by UCB.
I studied christianity's mother religion, judaism with a lubavitcher chabbad Rebi, with whom I maintain a correspondence. I spent 6 months in a Soto Zendo, the Roshi understanding full well I was there to 'learn not turn.'
I maintain that ecumenical friendship also, being trusted enough to assist a refugee tibetan monk, act as docent for a newly established monastery and meeting three times his holyness the dalai lama, both in groups and once by single audience, a signal honour for anyone.
I chose for personal family considerations and the hurtfull dialog of my church to be chrismated last year in october into the eastern orthodox expression of christianity after a full year of catechism, a church with whom anglicans share a longstanding dialog. I attend liturgy, make my confession, hold the sacraments and make daily prayer under the comfort of my icons of Saint Herman of Kodiak, Saint Irene of Crysovolantu, the Theotokas and child and Saint John the baptist.
I have questions, spiritual conflicts, I pray, I talk with my priests, deacons, monks and nuns. I read spiritual books such as Saint Climactus' ladder of Divine adscent, The Philokalia and writings of the Desert Fathers to name a few.
I own, and read daily from the Septuagint, my old KJV and the Roman Catholic text.
I would hope this clarifies your accusations of my being a 'agnostic athiest.'
And now we can turn, to you.
Tell us about your church affiliation, your education.
Please
then we can review my miltary service you seem to abhor.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

I like your big list of Penetcostals and Baptish that you learned from. I believe even the Dutch Reformed think much different than what you have been taught. Like I said before different Christian religions are like different languages. You can't take one concept for all.

By the way. Did you lie again? I sure you said I'm on your ignore list. Which brings up another question - What is a lie? Some people say deliberate deception, while others say unintentional misinformation.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Actually, some of my extended family are Dutch Reform, and Presbyterian, Roman Catholic and Lutheran- all churches I have visited many times.Oh, and I've visited ethiopian Coptic, and even LDS.
But you were asked a reciprocal reply, which I am waiting for.
Take your time WA. But, this time, either put up, or shut up.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Jack/Testament*

Morning Gentlemen,

KAV I always enjoy your posts. Thank you.

Jack Mccullough, Thank you very much. Also for understanding the simplicity of this situation.
WA, I thank you for trying to understand me but you will not be able to. It already appears your mind is set as well.And this is fine.
I am not going to discuss death or life. This to me is not about that.
Again, very simple thing here. God I keep to myself WA.
I love all human beings. This includes gays. This forum is about that.
But, love all humans.
When I see a person, whether in a meeting, in my office. I see the son or daughter of someone.This tells me that there are parents who loved this person. That is how you should approach gay people. Look at the love you have for your kids and you will understand the anger I have for this very reason. There is love of a parent to this child somewhere! This person is deeply loved somewhere. You have no right dictating anything else.

I am going to the gym.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Long story short*

Car is warming up, one last comment.

WA, This group of people we are discussing. They do not need to be told they need God. They do not need to be told they are wrong.
They need to be told that they are "loved" and "wanted." Like any other human.Because they are just that.

Again, they are humans beings.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

DukeGrad said:


> Car is warming up, one last comment.
> 
> WA, This group of people we are discussing. They do not need to be told they need God. They do not need to be told they are wrong.
> They need to be told that they are "loved" and "wanted." Like any other human.Because they are just that.
> ...


Maybe I misunderstand you. I never doubted your love and good intensions. It seems like you have been say, in parrallel, that if you love bank robbers you can not say that bank robbing is wrong and if you say that bank robbing is wrong then you can not love them, but instead hate them. That is the impression I got from you about gays.

You didn't answer my question about fishing in the winter time.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Kav said:


> Actually, some of my extended family are Dutch Reform, and Presbyterian, Roman Catholic and Lutheran- all churches I have visited many times.Oh, and I've visited ethiopian Coptic, and even LDS.
> But you were asked a reciprocal reply, which I am waiting for.
> Take your time WA. But, this time, either put up, or shut up.


Columbia Baptist Conference and the Baptist General Conference, and The General Council of the Assemblies of God.

The first two and the last one have very different beliefs. They believe in salvation the same but explain them somewhat different. The first two believe once saved always saved and the last one doesn't. To understand these basically two groups it starts at salvation before you think of their other doctrines.

The Southern Baptist are in someways the same as the two Baptist mentioned above, and once I watched a debate between a Southern Baptist and Dutch Reform each saying their version of salvation is right- two very different ideas of what salvation is. I can only imagine what other denominations believe, such as Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox and so on.

If you go back to the three I come from the "Baptism of the Holy Ghost (Spirit)" Has a very different meaning between Baptist and Pentecostals. Even charismatic is different than the Pentecostals I have been around. One guy from another Baptist group had very different beliefs than I had ever heard a Baptist believe. They believe in a form of predestination that says we don't even think. God puts all the thoughts in our head and we don't even choose which thoughts we do. I don't know if this Baptist group consider themseleves fundamentalist or not, I can't imagine them being fundamentalist. I would say Christianity is very diverse in beliefs.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

*with respect*

no matter what the bible says and whether you believe men loving men or women loving women is wrong you cannot deny the fact that this has been going on since the beginning of time and will continue in the future. it happens in all cultures around the world where the bible is preached or not. there is no right and wrong about it - it just is. you may choose to make it wrong or immoral but that is your choice. i for one do not feel bad about myself nor do i feel like i need to be saved or told god loves me. i feel this way because i do not believe in god and therefore cannot feel condemned or controlled by something i do not believes exists. preach you bible and believe all you want - you will not make me feel bad. that is what i love about America. the only thing i want - is the same freedom and rights you enjoy - i dont have them now but i will someday. and in the future - i may not see it - but in the future people will see the arguments against gays as foolish as the arguments against blacks or women or any the handicapped etc.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Now that Wa has come out the protestant denomination closet we can have an open discussion.
Lets start with Orthodoxy. Greek, russian etc are merely national churches, reflecting ethnicities. I can freely attend any one of the churches and receive all sacraments. The language may be different, but the same Liturgy of Saint John Crysostum or Saint Basil are the same.
Othodoxy WAS the church that held the great councils that fought back heresies and spread the gospell until the unfortunate schism with Rome.It wasn't even called orthodox, it was 'the church.'
There was no other , save the copts who began developing some different expressions, but are still in dialog until the Reformation and King Henry's creation of a National CATHOLIC church over as much temporal politics as any theological rift, and who also maintain dialog with orthodoxy.
That's an awfull big chunk of church history to be ignorant of, and in orthodoxy the reformation of Luther is studied to understand it's cause and theological implications.You can't have dialog unless you know the other participants
So, unless you take on the positionof the LDS,that all church history is corrupt until the coming of Smith, you have some homework to do.
Start with Bishop Kallistos Ware ( he's english, so the language is a bit different) two books; The Orthodox Way first and The Orthodox Church second for a spiritual explanation and historical examination.
I'll let my RC, Lutheran and other Christian brothers and sisters offer introductory texts to their denominations.
Then, maybe we can examine the whole issue over gays in the church, which is better than gays OUT of the church, in my opinion.


----------



## cosmotoast (Oct 11, 2008)

*Dads church*

At my dads church, there are 2 sets of gays and 1 set of lesbions.No one has ever said anything cross to them. There is a straight married man in the church and choir that owns a adult novelty store.( you know dolls,toys,dirty books,filthy movies)The preacher and elders stayed on him constantly about selling the store because it wasnt in a christian like lifestyle.The kicked him out of the church.My dad sked what was the difference in him and the gays.The preacher said the man knew he was doing wrong and could stop. He said the gays dont know any better because its not a choice,they were born gay.
Hmmm....
Cosmo:drunken_smilie:


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

cosmotoast said:


> At my dads church, there are 2 sets of gays and 1 set of lesbions.No one has ever said anything cross to them. There is a straight married man in the church and choir that owns a adult novelty store.( you know dolls,toys,dirty books,filthy movies)The preacher and elders stayed on him constantly about selling the store because it wasnt in a christian like lifestyle.The kicked him out of the church.My dad sked what was the difference in him and the gays.The preacher said the man knew he was doing wrong and could stop. He said the gays dont know any better because its not a choice,they were born gay.
> Hmmm....
> Cosmo:drunken_smilie:


Gays come in sets? Like those porcelain dogs you put on the mantle? 

I like Cynthia Tucker's line - "if black preachers spent as much time railing against infidelity as they do against homosexuality, there wouldn't be anyone left in the church."


----------



## cosmotoast (Oct 11, 2008)

Miket61 said:


> Gays come in sets? Like those porcelain dogs you put on the mantle?
> 
> I like Cynthia Tucker's line - "if black preachers spent as much time railing against infidelity as they do against homosexuality, there wouldn't be anyone left in the church."


 Aww come on now, you know what I mean. It is not like they roll around in the hay in multiples. The usually do have a "partner"
Cosmo:drunken_smilie:


----------

