The religious bigots march onward in their futile fight against gay marriage (Page 3)

davesdatahut: Sorry. Shadowline, if you do not like the term bigot when used in reference to people who would deny someone rights simply because of who they love and how they have sex. But the shoe fits like a glove in this case. Just like it did for people who denied blacks their rights, and still would if given the chance.
And this that you wrote...
"The point is that a man who is incapable of relating to a woman, and whose incapacity that way has devolved into the pathetic willingness to indulge that lack of manhood, is simply a failure as a man. The same thing is true of a woman who is incapable of relating to a man. Being a failure isn't a crime, but, when a society is producing as much of that failure as ours is, that society is in receipt of a warning sign that something is seriously wrong. "Let's treat it as if it were a race, and pretend that failure is success" is about as unwise a response as can be imagined."
You really believe that? Really??? What exactly about this represents failure...in your view, of course?
Ok, more later to discuss more of these Dark Ages musings, but I am going to have lunch with the gay guy here at work, who laughed until he snorted when I told him that he might not be completely individuated. That unindividuated liitle queer! How dare he screw - i mean, have relations with - a man!

pyroclastic flo: "The point is that a man who is incapable of relating to a woman, and whose incapacity that way has devolved into the pathetic willingness to indulge that lack of manhood, is simply a failure as a man. "

sounds like a case of "psychological projection" to me since you can get it up and in and not relate at all to the person with whom you are engaging. from a woman's point of view, macho men can be selfish in bed and don't have a clue (and often dont care) what gives a woman pleasure. iow, a failure as a man. i've had many Gay friends who related just fine to me as a woman. they just didn't find me sexually appealing.

that having been said ... what bedroom autonomy has to do with civil rights remains a mystery. lol

sprocket girl:
treeating sexualality equal to a race is disrespectful to those who faught for racial equality. sexuality even if ever proven to not be nurtured and instead to be nature is still a choice. no one is forced to have sexual relations excluding rape. acting on sexuality either hedrosexual or homosexual is a choice. one is born a race one can not chose to act upon this it simply is. not suggesting homosexuals need not act upon it nor saying they should keep it hidden but they do have a choice if it is acted upon or publically displayed. it is not even slightly compareable to race! a better comparability is religious freedom. religion is chosen then chosen as to if shared with others and acted upon just like sexuality. race is not chosen nor is it chosen if revealed publically. this whole thread is becoming a disgrace to those who faught for ratial equality. to compare sexual preferance and acting upon it to being born a certain ethnic background is ridiculous.

I could care less who anyone sleeps with and their ability to do so or other wise. Beyond that marriage is just an agreement between two people that currently is only followed about 45% of the time. as for religious marriage it lost all sanctity when divorcees and people who had prior to marriage had sexual relations were premitted to enter unto it. so, religious folks your sacred ceremony of matrimony was lost so long ago when you dismissed your own ancient scripts and decided public opinion of morality had more weight than the texts claimed to being followed. also according to your own texts what the state establishes is not for certain established before God. thus, a government accepting a marriage has no weight on if it is recognized by God, regardless of sexuality or who is married. just as the actual sanctifying of matromony before God does not mean the state recognizes the marriage.

it is absolute ignorance to think homosexual sexual promiscuity leads to more disease than hedrosexual. do some study into disease and realise it is a cultural issue of the acceptance of promiscuity that has lead to an increase in std's not the gender choice. plus, even if you buy the bull that homosexaul promiscuity is more likely to lead to std's then you should be pro gay marriage after all the very idea of marriage is to stop promiscuity and random sexual partners.

davesdatahut: Sprocket, I agree fully with what you say about sexuality. If the anti-gay crowd seriously cares about STD's, they should advocate for gay marriage, not oppose it, given that marriage promotes less of the kind of promiscuity that can lead to STD's.
On the matter of equating gay rights with racial rights, I totally disagree. Sexuality is not the same as race, of course. But that's not the point. The point is a matter of equal protection under the law. Advocating for gay rights is directly comparable to advocating for all races to have the same rights under the law. It's not a matter of saying sex is like race. It's a matter of saying all law abiding adults must have the same rights under the law.
As an aside, it's heterosexual, not hedrosexual.

davesdatahut: As Flo correctly notes, what in the world does acting like a man or not acting like man have to do with equal protection under the law. Shadow, can you explain?

chronology: davedata. Most Americans I have listened to are not intolerant at all to Gays. There most common response to Gay Rights talk is 'well I do not agree with the lifestyle, but I could not care less what Gays do or who they do it with'. The argument you have is not with Americans, it is with the Bible which outlaws homosexualism and issues threats to burn and torture endlessly people who do practice such acts.

davesdatahut: No, Chron, my argument is with people who oppose equal rights for all law-abiding adults. A lot of them do it for faith-based reasons. But my beef is with people who want to selectively apply the law.

sprocket girl:
Dave, thanks for the assitance with spelling. it is my greatest foe in this world, sadly it often gaining upper edge. also thank you for clarifying what I clearly missed as the connection between race and sexuality. it has to do with law and rights not the actual state of sexuality vs state of race. wow, that was a long way to say, I get your point and understand better.

forgive me being British we do not have a Bill of Rights like the USA. but I do get how underthe law human rights are human rights. just like me being a lass can wear trousers now, not the same as race equality but the same law principles should apply and thankfully in my society and yours do.

what the not legalizing gay marriage group is missing is that it is not religious belief we battle. it is inequality of law. hey, if the Quran governs society I can not wear my trousers anymore. some conservative followers of The Bible would even say wearing my trousers is sinful and disrespectful to God.

now despite the apparent issues of which religious group gets to set the laws of a nation I shall briefly delve then move along. let us actually use The Bible. well The Old Yolk Amish would end this debate because if how they interpret The Bible is used then we have to hand over our computers and we can not even discuss this. of course they do not intend to govern all people but hopefully my point is clear.

I will not dispute that in The Bible homosexuality is a sin. but if law is based on The Bible, why can divorcees remarry? why can anyone not accepting God marry? The Bible has clear rules to marriage in both OT and NT currently Americas marriage laws violate what is permitted in both OT and NT. why is a group protesting gay marriage but not protesting divorced people being married?

who gets to chose which Biblical Canon Laws are inforced by the government?
why are pagans not arrested, is it not sin to worship idols?
or does only The Bible need be law setting when it comes to homosexuality?

I will fight to defend anyones religious freedom but can see in no way how it can be justified to being forced on another. if The Bible should set laws of nations thus so should the Quran be permitted.

no sane white girl would ever promote Sharia Law! so how can I with intelectual honesty promote Biblical Law being the law of a nation. also, if homesexuals can not marry according to any government based on what The Bible teaches, as someone who actually reads and understands The Bible, I insist the marriage of divorcees and widowers be made illegal! excluding the one acception stated in scripture.

Homosexuality is no more a sin than Adultery according to The Bible. Adulterers are married all the time without even a hesitation and never have I heard outside The Roman Catholic Church a stand taken against this let alone a public protest and attempt to stop it.

chay chayi: When you see someones language is insult language, means that he's evil, and adding about thin skin, is another dirty insult, not that its harming, not even slightly, its about the insulter that is evil and corrupted

davesdatahut: Chayii, what was that about insult language and someone who is evil? Can you elaborate?

chay chayi: All the words and reasoning you'll try to use, is only adding stupidity on stupidity, sex is only made for marriage, any sex out of marriage is evil and corrupted

Same sex, is not marriage, marriage is a Man and a women, and they have a children, and even they wont have children, only a man and a women is marriage

Any wording or reasoning otherwise, is corrupted and evil

chay chayi: I meant Pyroclastic flo

davesdatahut: Sprocket, it now sounds like we agree totally. To put it simply, a democracy allows all religions to flourish, no matter how staid, no matter how wacky, no matter how pleasing or revolting they are to others - as long as they don't UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES hurt others, infringe on people's civil rights or be sanctioned as the law of the land.
Any religion can refuse to acknowledge or accept gay marriage, or let you wear your trousers, for that matter. it's their clubs and their house rules. But they can't impose those rules on others who aren't in their club.
ps - Glad to clarify on the spelling. And, whatever spelling you use, it is nice to see a young person like yourself have something thoughtful and perceptive to say about importing things.

davesdatahut: Chayi, I disagree with you across the board about everything you said regarding sex, marriage and stupidity. But you have every right to hold those views, no matter how repulsive or evil I may find them - and let it be known that I find these views quite odious.
What you cannot do, is impose those rules on civil law. In a democracy, no religious group or club may impose the rules of their group or club on others. The equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution forbids the government from allowing that or imposing one set of rules for one class of law abiding citizens and different set for another.
Otherwise, we march backward in time and your rights are threatened as much as mine. And as much as those of gay people.

chay chayi: Everyone has a choice, and God gave choice, but every choice has its price, choosing sin is the way of the worst

davesdatahut: I cannot agree more. So stop advocating the sins of bigotry and oppression.

chay chayi: The end of everything proves the truth, anyone messing sexual ends fatal

davesdatahut: Anyone messing sexual ends fatal? Can you try that again?

pyroclastic flo: chayii = . just fyi.

give it a go tho if you need a new hobby. the dude makes up his own definitions for words and makes up his own special kind of "science" too.

shadowline: I wonder why davesdatahut has to edit so many of his postings after he has posted them?

shadowline: "Homosexuality is no more a sin than Adultery according to The Bible." Apart from the fact that you are contradicting yourself (sprocket girl), I will just point out two things: this is an incorrect statement, and, what the Bible says has nothing to do with objections to the legalization of marriage between people who have never developed the maturity to relate to the opposite sex, and whose idea of marital relations (which are where life comes from in real marriage) is a lifetime of mutual handjobs.

sprocket girl:
shadow,

please explain how I contradicted myself... I clearly have stated that while homosexuality is a sin against God's Law in The Bible I just personally do not believe that should influence Civil Law. I fail to see the contradiction.

also please by all means show me in The Bible where homosexuality is listed seperate to adultry. they are both sins of the flesh and something according to the Apostle Paul the sort of abomination God turns his back on because it is so bad. I guess the only difference is ifwe go based on number of times mentioned as sin adultry could by some be deemed worse. since, after all it is mentioned way more! but that would be against what The Bible says to rate one sin of the flesh over another. they are simply both sins of the flesh. So, if a religious objection outlawing gay marriage should be followed with outlawing adultress marriage. niether law would first hand affect me... so others have to decide.

I will take your word that it is not religious objection to homosexuality though and just say in that case it seems you wish police what is done in bedrooms. being opposed to living in a police state I still would vote against that!
do you care what traditional couples do in their bedroom or just what gays do?

keeping gay marriage illegal will not stop gay sex.... ummm hope that is not the goal because this law will not get it done.

again based if based on religion and God's Law according to The Bible I am not the hypocrite here. those who allow adulterers to be married but not gays would be the hypocrites.

The13th: Let's take a 10 min recess, met me at my chamber.

The13th: And chayii you continue to stay out of the chamber and deliver god's word to the unsuspecting crowd. Help yourself to the coffee at the pantry, if that helps.

davesdatahut: A bit hostile toward gays, eh Shadowline, with that sanctimonious mumbo jumbo about how they can't relate to the opposite sex? Why so dogmatic? Are you threatened by them on some level? Do you not trust them? Do you think they are stinky little perverts out to ruin society? Or do you just object to their wholesale lack of complete individuation, combined with a distinct lack of actualization within the gestaltic realm of maturational psychosexuality?
(i will try not to edit this post....but no promises. i might find a typo, which could indicate an inability of my fingers to relate to the keyboard.)