posted June 09, 2006 02:33 AM              

Lialei and Mannu!

Jwhop, your comments show that you do not understand, on this matter:

quote:

---

Okay, here's the plan:

Back off and let those men who want to marry men, marry men.

Allow those women who want to marry women, marry women.

Allow those folks who want to abort their babies, abort their babies.

In three generations, there will be NO Democrats!!!

Damn, I love it when a real plan comes together!!!

---

You use wording which illustrates no compassion in regards to this subject matter. These people are seeking acceptance.

Love is the master key that opens the gates of happiness.
~Oliver Wendell Holmes

As the ocean is never full of water, so is the heart never full of love.
~author unknown

posted June 09, 2006 11:33 AM              

Geez girl! With over 6 billion folks on the planet so what if some do not breed?
Around here some folks are breeding like rats to stay on the welfare and free meal tickets!
Not everyone is going to stop procreating!

Lia!
Yes! Gay folks often adopt instead of adding to the excess burden upon this planet. And they will adopt a sickly child long before most straight folks will! I have seen this personally myself! UNlike one of the most vocal Right to Lifers here in my area.....when asked if she would adopt one of those unwanted babies she said...Why would I want a crack head's bast-ard baby? And most of them are ni-gers!
Yeah..real nice loving right to life good Bible thumping woman! Blecch!

jwhop...
Well sir, I know of many gay Republicans and know more good little Reublican Christian girls getting abortions than I do Democrats or Non Christians!
The Good little RCs get boinked by the football captain, get knocked up and "do away" with the "problem"...often in secret.
The other girls, the often Democratic/non Christian ones are using birth control and disease protection. Of course there are exceptions but I have seen the above to be far more common.

Mannu, AG, Mirandee, Lia, Silverstone

And in a slightly off topic I want to say this about rights and separation of Church and State:

When my Husband and I sought to be joined in legal marriage, we were told by our Courthouse that we were not allowed to be married in our State without the judge performing a Christian Ceremony!
All we wanted was the Marriage Certificate to be signed by a judge or Justice of the Peace so we would be legally married!
But no they said!
I said so what about non Christians? Buddhist? Pagan? Athesist...etcetera? Several persons at the Courthouse said..."Well they can get married by their "own kind" but it will not be legal in this State without the Christian Ceremony.
HUH??????
I said we want to get married!
They said...Well you can't in this state!
So...
A non Christian cannot get legally married at the county seat?
A Man & a Woman?
Nope!
Well we finally got a Spiritualist Lady who had a legal minister's licesne to do it!

So...there you have it!
Even a Man and a Woman get the crap tossed at them by the idiots who refuse to separate church and state!

posted June 09, 2006 12:08 PM              

The Laws and God that we walked away from..in the beginning..of this last Creation. ...

posted June 09, 2006 12:21 PM              

Petron
Quote:
a real conservative (like myself) would tell the govt'ment to butt out and mind their own business.....and get out of the marriage issue alltogether.....
the issue should be between two or more people who can legally enter into such a contract.....

this would automatically exclude minors, animals, and lawn ornaments......

>>>>Petron...That was funny!
But at this time not everyone can legally enter into such a contract! And I am talking adults here not "minors, animals, and lawn ornaments...... "

Azalaksh, Johnny,TINK

And MS Lotus.....
Just how many planets in the universe have you been on to say that it is a universal law of male/female?
Even the animal kingdom has its wide variables!

posted June 09, 2006 01:08 PM              

So all you totally heterosexual folks...EXACTLY what is it you really are afraid of?

AND..What the Hell does it matter to the government?
Sheesh! Divorce lawyers and Wedding planners would aquire an entire new list of clients as would marriage counselors, and more!

HEY!
Just the thing to boost the economy!

posted June 09, 2006 01:22 PM              

MOther Earth is going to wobble..we are out of balance..

posted June 09, 2006 03:38 PM            

Think, bible says human made from mud, latest science reveals our genetic makeup to be 99 percent or more close to chimps.

This planet was destined only for animals, and suddenly humans appears here. What do you think it is for?

Sex is pure animal instinct and throw in human love there and it is such a powerful energy that breaks all shackles. And love has no boundary.

Did you watch Da Vinci? If you are anti gay and believe in Jesus, why won't you appreciate the movie since it proves Jesus the man wasn't gay? That is assuming Mary M is indeed the mirror image of Jesus. If you are pro gay and hate the movie, one would be amazed at the kingdom of God that Jesus speaks of which is indeed beyond this world. Is it a kingdom of bisexual Gods?

Anyway, I am a pot stirrer too and just enjoy stirring pots than hanging on to beliefs.

posted June 10, 2006 12:36 AM              

quote:

---

Yes some in the conversation are not gay. But the concensus of all is the reason so many heterosexuals are against gay anything.....is because if it were to become socially acceptable...
Surprise!...your heterosexual mate/lover might leave you for a same sex partner!
Or if it were acceptable more then so called straight folk would come out of the closet and admit to being bi-sexual or gay!
Virtually any person who is gay or gay friendly, has noticed an awful lot of so called heterosexuals cruising about and sneaking about in gay affairs and trysts. Both men and women. Often married ones!
So is that really the issue then? A blow to a woman's ego that a man would leave her and reject her womanly charms, for a man!
A blow to a man's ego when a woman leaves him for a phallusless woman?
What is really funny is an awful lot of straight men get their jollies out of seeing two women together!
Well dude...if those ladies are really into each other you are not going to get into the action!
Even the straight men who are into that and accept bi-women(in those cases they can get in on the action!)...are sadly some of the ugliest homophobes!
So all you totally heterosexual folks...EXACTLY what is it you really are afraid of?
AND..What the Hell does it matter to the government?
Sheesh! Divorce lawyers and Wedding planners would aquire an entire new list of clients as would marriage counselors, and more!
HEY!

---

Fayte, I have to give it to you: This is so true, I can't stop laughing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

posted June 10, 2006 01:04 AM              

An interesting bit of food for thought.....

1 Samuel 18

1When David had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was bound to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.2Saul took him [David] that day and would not let him return to his father's house.3Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. 4Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that he was wearing, and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his belt.

1 Samuel 20

17Thus Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, "May the LORD seek out the enemies of David." 18 Jonathan made David swear again by his love for him; for he loved him as he loved his own life. ... 41As soon as the boy had gone, David rose from beside the stone heap and prostrated himself with his face to the ground. He bowed three times, and they kissed each other, and wept with each other; David wept the more.

2 Samuel 1

25How the mighty have fallen in the midst of the battle! Jonathan lies slain upon your high places.26I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; greatly beloved were you to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.

David's relationship with Jonathan was clearly a very special and close relationship. In fact, this is one of the greatest love stories in the Bible. 2 Samuel 1:26 explicitly compares the love David had for Jonathan with the love between a man and a woman. Although nothing is said about whether this love was expressed in sexually explicit ways, it is clear that there was an intimacy and an emotional investment between the two that went beyond typical friendship. They loved each other so much that they made a "covenant" with each other (1Sam. 18:3). Jonathan even did what was common to most eastern Mediterranean love affairs: he gave David gifts (1 Sam. 18:4). As The Message puts it, "Jonathan, out of his deep love for David, made a covenant with him. He formalized it with solemn gifts: his own royal robe and weapons—armor, sword, bow, and belt." When Jonathan died, David not only called Jonathan's love more wonderful than the love of women, he also called Jonathan "beloved" (twice) and "lovely" (2 Sam. 1:23, 26). If modern readers do not see "sexual relationship" in this story, it is because they cannot accept the plain implications of the story itself.
That David and Jonathan's relationship was sexual may explain Saul's words when he reacted in outrage, “You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness?” (1 Sam. 20:30). Nowhere in the Bible do we find such strong language celebrating the love between persons of the same gender.
We are sexual beings. Thus, this relationship had sexual overtones even if David and Jonathan did not engage in certain kinds of sexual activity with each other. Nevertheless, "sexual activity" is not important here; what is important is that David and Jonathan had a deeply satisfying and intimate love for each other that is explicitly compared to the love experienced between a man and a woman. At no point does the text imply that this love was improper or that God disapproved of it.

Essay credited to:
Loren L. Johns
Academic dean at Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary in Elkhart, Indiana

posted June 10, 2006 01:15 AM              

quote:

---

All we wanted was the Marriage Certificate to be signed by a judge or Justice of the Peace so we would be legally married!
But no they said!
I said so what about non Christians? Buddhist? Pagan? Athesist...etcetera? Several persons at the Courthouse said..."Well they can get married by their "own kind" but it will not be legal in this State without the Christian Ceremony.
HUH??????
I said we want to get married!
They said...Well you can't in this state!
So...
A non Christian cannot get legally married at the county seat?A Man & a Woman?
Nope!

---

What a bunch of **** ... I would have lost it and probably told them something not nice!

quote:

---

Well we finally got a Spiritualist Lady who had a legal minister's licesne to do it!

---

WAY TO GO, FAYTE! I AM HAPPY YOU FULFILLED YOUR DREAM AND THAT YOU AND YOUR HUSBAND GOT MARRIED BY A SPIRITUALIST

posted June 10, 2006 07:32 AM              

God and The Universal Laws are simple..
Man makes mistakes..

posted June 10, 2006 09:17 AM              

Thanks Silverstone!
Yes we were upset!
But we finally were able to get married!
Being we are more Spiritists than Spiritualists made it even more difficult.
But the lady was willing to alter the ceremony to a neutral type without religious tones. We stood in the still waters of the lake and said our own vows to each other. She then performed a brief ceremony and signed our marriage certificate and license.
By the way,
It was just me and my husband, her and our "party" as witnesses. A gay couple!, both Male

Thanks Silverstone!

Mannu! !
Thank you too my friend!

posted June 10, 2006 09:42 AM              

That was LONG BEFORE the Christian "church"!

HISTORY:

First and Second Books of Kings
(Also know as the FIRST AND SECOND BOOKS OF SAMUEL.

AUTHOR AND DATE

The Talmud attributes to Samuel the whole work bearing his name; this strange opinion was later adopted by St. Gregory the Great, who naïvely persuaded himself that Samuel wrote the events which occurred after his death by prophetic revelation. Rabbinical tradition and most of the older Christian writers ascribe to this prophet the part referring to his time (I, i-xxiv), the rest to the Prophets Gad and Nathan. This view is evidently based on I Par., xxix, 29, "Now the acts of king David first and last are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer." But the wording of the text indicates that there is question of three distinct works. Besides, the unity of plan and the close connection between the different parts exclude composite authorship; we must at least admit a redactor who combined the three narratives. This redactor, according to Hummelauer, is the prophet Nathan; the work, however, can hardly be placed so early. Others attribute it to Isaias, Jeremias, Ezechias, or Esdras. None of these opinions rests on any solid ground, and we can only say that the author is unknown.

The same diversity of opinion exists as to the date of composition. Hummelauer assigns it to the last days of David. Vigouroux, Cornely, Lesêtre, and Thenius place it under Roboam; Kaulen, under Abiam the son of Roboam; Haevernick, not long after David, Ewald, some thirty years after Solomon; Clair, between the death of David and the destruction of the Kingdom of Juda. According to recent critics it belongs to the seventh century BCE, but received retouches as late as the fifth or even the fourth century BCE. No sufficient data are at hand to fix a precise date. We can, however, assign cedrtain limits of time within which the work must have been composed. The explanation concerning the dress of the king's daughters in David's time (II, xiii, 18) supposes that a considerable period had elapsed in the interval, and points to a date later than Solomon, during whose reign a change in the style of dress was most likely introduced by his foreign wives. How much later is indicated by the remark: "For which reason Siceleg belongeth to the kings of Juda unto this day." (I, xxvii, 6). The expression kings of Juda implies that at the time of writing the Kingdom of Israel had been divided, and that at least two or three kings had reigned over Juda alone. The earliest date cannot, therefore, be placed berfore the reign of Abiam. The latest date, on the other hand, must be assigned to a time prior to Josias's reform (621 B.C.). As has been remarked, the author repeatedly records without censure or comment violations of the Pentateuchal law regarding sacrifices. Now it is not likely that he would have acted thus if he had written after these practices had been abolished and their unlawfulness impressed on the people, since at this time his readers would have taken scandal at the violation of the Law by such a person as Samuel, and at the toleration of unlawful rites by a king like David. The force of this reason will be seen if we consider how the author of II-IV Kings, who wrote after Josias's reform, censures every departure from the Law in this respect or, as in III, iii, 2, explains it. The purity of language speaks for an early rather than a late date within the above limits.

posted June 10, 2006 10:06 AM              

quote:

---

The Universe always seems to find a way to balance the scales. And in this particular case, in quite a beautifully poetic way.

---

Very beautifully said, Tink.
Yes, the Universe does seem to naturally balance the scales, doesn't it? It's the forceful interferrence of humanity that causes problems, where otherwise none might be.

Interesting thoughts, Fayte.
And beautiful wedding! ~ lovely that it turned out for the better for you both in the end. Although I can't believe such a law can even exist in this day and age...in this country. Seems every other day, I'm shocked by something once again.

I'm not sure which is the more harmful thing: forceful interferrence, or accomodating apathy.

posted June 10, 2006 01:00 PM              

750 And then their parents; and above all men
Do they respect the lawful marriage-bed;
And they have not base intercourse with boys,
As do Phoenicians, Latins, and Egyptians
And spacious Greece, and nations many more

written 300 B.C.

------------------------------------------

thanks for your judgements..my loyalty..is to
God MOther and Father..
I seek not your approval. ...but their's..

posted June 10, 2006 01:51 PM              

And cultural differences have always abounded. You want to better understand what exactly it is you are condemning?

Then read:

Homosexuality and Civilization
by Louis Crompton

The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln by C.A. Tripp
Gay Warriors: A Documentary History from the Ancient World to the Present by B. R. Burg
Stonewall : The Riots That Sparked the Gay Revolution by David Carter
Homosexuality in Greece and Rome: A Sourcebook of Basic Documents by Thomas K. Hubbard
The Line of Beauty by Alan Hollinghurst

Islamic Homosexualities: Culture, History, and Literature by Stephen O. Murray

Greek Homosexuality : Updated and with a new Postscript by K. J. Dover

A Natural History of Homosexuality by Francis Mark Mondimore

A Queer World: The Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader by City University of New York. Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies