posted June 12, 2006 08:11 PM            

Well silverstone, you've just expressed your heterosexualness...so are you sure you're not a closet lesbian?

If any group needs to get out of peoples faces and get on with their lives, it's homosexual activists.

I profess not one inclination to prevent homosexuals from living together, signing formal contracts about property, medical authorizations and all the other parts of contract law which would fall under a domestic partnership agreement.

However, leave marriage alone. Marriage is a heterosexual institution and in my opinion, it's going to remain so.

posted June 12, 2006 08:25 PM            

Continuing later "If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body thrown into Gehenna."

Now how many are willing to do that? Are you. Its only a metaphor.

Also St Matthew is writing to convert the Jewish souls into Christians. Hence he is emphasizing it in Mt 5:18. Jesus says "I came to fulfil the law and not abolish 'em". And he did so well. Did he condemn the prostitute who was being stoned? He only said go and do not sin anymore. If Jesus did not come to abolish the law , do you think he will be happy because these so called christians are following sunday as their 'sabbath' day and not starting from 'friday' evening.

I like the way you think.

I really believe you must not lead your lives based on some books. You are more than the books. Do not limit yourselves. Scriptures are excellent source to get started but they do not have all the answers in them. Or if they do its obscured and you must really see to understand them.

posted June 12, 2006 08:58 PM              

quote:

---

Well silverstone, you've just expressed your heterosexualness

---

Your funny. Are you sure?
Are you sure you are not being MR. MACHO! I do not think I have expressed myself heterosexualness; I have rather expressed myself open to the discussion without being defensive about it.

that is only your "EGO" and now you flip the card ( that is a metaphor) and put it on me,I told you I was not. But I have respect for those who are! so going forward, I ask you again, why are you so upset and defensive about this subject matter, if you are comfortable with your yourself?

posted June 12, 2006 08:59 PM              

quote:

---

You have no Constitutional right to privacy. It's nowhere to be found.

---

So the Constitutioon doesn't see fit to award me the right to privacy, huh?

Jwhop, I'm shocked. Lets review basic American political philosophy, shall we?

"to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men ... "

You'll notice it reads to sercure, NOT to grant.

When certain elements of society are understood to infringe on the inherent rights of others, we then protect the attacked with an Amendment. In fact, with a few recent exceptions (the 22nd and 27th for instance), the Amendments are almost exclusivly that - a means to protect what is agreed upon as an inherent and God-given right. The famous 13th and 19th, for instance. In short, Big Daddy, the Constitution spends its time protecting the rights of citizens and limiting the power of the federal government.

Finally, lets have a look-see at that pesky 9th Ammendment ...

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Humor me now and allow me to repeat that juicy "retained by the people" part. mmmmm. Tasty stuff. Thanks Jimmy, where ever you are.

No doubt a learned man such as yourself is familiar with Madison's address to the House of Reps when proposing those Blessed first Amendments and his often stated feelings concerning the Bill of Rights. I suggest you give them a general reread and in particular in regards to the 9th. Bork and Scalia may say what they will, but Madison's views mean more to me. An inkblot indeed.

All of that taken into consideration, if present powers continue down the slippery slope of privacy invasion, perhaps the good Mr Bush might set his sights on an Amendment specifically designed to protect my God-given right to privacy from meddlesome governments.

PS I'm a Christian, you can't attack me there, with a hard won but healthy respect for Mosaic Law. And I have my own private viewpoint on homosexuality. Nevertheless, my own personal religious assessment is irrelevant to this discussion. And so is yours. And so is George W. Bush's.

PPS would loooove to discuss the Old vs New Testament with you someday and in a more appropriate location.

posted June 12, 2006 10:01 PM              

Way to lead by example:

Ronald Reagan - divorced the mother of two of his children to marry
Nancy Reagan, who bore him a daughter only 7 months after the marriage.

Bob Dole - divorced the mother of his child, who had nursed him
through the long recovery from his war wounds.

Newt Gingrich - divorced his wife who was dying of cancer.

Dick Armey - House Majority Leader - divorced

Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas - divorced

Gov. John Engler of Michigan - divorced

Gov. Pete Wilson of California - divorced

George Will - divorced

Sen. Lauch Faircloth - divorced

Rush Limbaugh - Rush and his current wife Marta have six marriages and
four divorces between them.

Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia - Barr, not yet 50 years old, has been
married three times. Barr had the audacity to author and push the
"Defense of Marriage Act." The current joke making the rounds on
Capitol Hill is "Bob Barr...WHICH marriage are you defending?!?

Sen. Alfonse D'Amato of New York - divorced

Sen. John Warner of Virginia - divorced (once married to Liz Taylor.)

Gov. George Allen of Virginia - divorced

Henry Kissinger - divorced

Rep. Helen Chenoweth of Idaho - divorced

Sen. John McCain of Arizonia - divorced

Rep. John Kasich of Ohio - divorced

Rep. Susan Molinari of New York - Republican National Convention
Keynote Speaker - divorced

posted June 12, 2006 10:07 PM              

Male and Female..that's it!

yes..karma..form other lifetimes..

it is not right for a women to be with women..and it is not right..for a man to be with man..
that's it..that's the Truth
from MOther and Father God..

sex with animal's is wrong..
an adult having sex with a child is wrong..

what is so hard to Understand?

it's so simple..make whatever excuses you like..you get what you give..and that is it!

Love and Respect for ALL. ...

posted June 12, 2006 10:42 PM              

quote:

---

Jesus was tired teaching the truth to those blinded jews in his time and we have to fight these close minded individuals whose behaviour only stems from that of fear rather than seeing things objectively as they are.

I think we said enough to these people and let them go figure out themselves in their own future. I believe the universe has its own way of making people come to a realization.

---

posted June 12, 2006 10:59 PM            

The states or a state could enact a right to privacy under the 10th Amendment...so long as it didn't involve interstate commerce...as telephone calls, emails, faxes etc do..all carried across state lines by commercial business.

And you're right, someone could assert a 9th Amendment right under the Unenumerated Rights understanding of the 9th. But don't you think lots of people have already tried that...in regard to abortion and lots of other issues not covered by the enumerated rights of other Amendments?

I'm for privacy, I'm for expanded rights and for a smaller and less powerful federal government. But you must know, it's democrats who are always attempting to expand the role and scope of the federal government and it's power to regulate every action of citizens...one way or the other.

You already know, because I've told you, I would reduce the size, scope and power of the federal government by half...just as a good start, and then get serious about cutting it back within it's Constitutional limits.

16th Amendment....gone
17th Amendmant....gone
Federal Reserve Act...gone
EPA....gone
Hud....gone
OSHA...gone
Education Dept...gone
HHS....gone
NEA....gone
DEA....gone
And the federal taxes to run those agencies and Depts.

Interstate Commerce Clause whacked back to it's original intent..which was to prevent states from restricting the flow of commerce and business between the states or granting in state businesses a monopoly in an area of commerce.

Those, just for starters

I haven't attacked anyones religion. Why would I attack yours?

So, if you would like to see the issue of gay marriage left up to the states, I'd be for that. Massachusetts would sink under the additional weight because those gay marriages would only be recognized there.

Most states already have either banned gay marriage by legislation or have state Constitutional amendments which do.

I don't know what a more appropriate location to discuss Old and New Testament teachings means

posted June 12, 2006 11:13 PM            

quote:

---

or anyone at all...have you come up with even one past civilization where homosexual marriage was sanctioned by the civil law of that society?

---

I'm quite interested in reading that myself.

Personally, I have yet to form my own definite opinion in regards to homosexual "marriage". Not civil unions, mind you, but marriages. I'm going to assume I still have the right to form my own opinions based on my own beliefs, feelings and thoughts. It would just be nice if people on either side of the fence would stop trying to force their own views down everybody else's throats. I'm not saying that we shouldn't express our opinions ... I'm saying that it is futile to try to force other people to see things just our way and thus grant our ego (collective or individual) the satisfaction of being "right". In the end, all one accomplishes in that manner is to degrade whatever issue was originally at hand with rude, insulting and inflammatory remarks.

My concern is with applying the term "marriage" to a state that has never, in the history of mankind, been regarded as marriage. Let me clarify what I am not saying with that statement. I'm not saying homosexuals never existed before 2006. I'm not saying that homosexuals have never lived together as a union. I'm not saying that homosexual unions never received support from anyone besides homosexuals. Etc.
I am saying that homosexual relationships (or unions) are not the same as heterosexual relationships. In fact, it is very obvious that there are indeed differences between one relationship and another. It is very easy to try and pretend that basic physiological differences do not exist between men and women but they do. And thus, we have established that there are, indeed, some differences to take into consideration. Stop for a moment before you automatically decide that those differences "don't matter". In every aspect of our lives, those differences matter. If you don't understand that basic concept ... the basic differences between a man and a woman ... you may as well stop reading this. Men and women are designed, whether by God or by evolution or whatever it is you believe in, to be different. There is no more obvious difference than the physical differences so we'll stick to those. How can we say that those differences are irrelevant? If they were irrelevant, they wouldn't exist. It's very easy to ignore the fact that men and women (two different sexes of human beings) were created (at least in a Christian sense) in the image of God. Do you really believe that there was no purpose to that distinction? Seriously? Did God (or whatever you believe in) accidentally create two different sexes? One might be quick to answer yes but look around you. As above, so below ... on earth as it is in heaven ... the relationship between the microcosm and the macrocosm ...
Differences between what we simply term "sex" abound in ALL life in this Universe. We're talking about polarities. Man and Woman. Dark and Light. Positive and Negative. Electric and Magnetic. Hot and Cold. Dry and Wet. Mind and Soul. And on and on and on. And all life on this planet (arguably in any planet and all life at all) is due to the subtle interplay of those two opposing forces. Just observe the world around you and you will see it. When we discuss that heterosexual marriages create life we are only speaking about the most basic expression of the two polar potentials. The true force behind all things in existence is the CREATIVE principle. That does not relate only to the procreation of children. It relates to all creative processes. And that is the subtle message behind the symbol for Mercury ... more modernly the medical caduceus ...
To ignore the fact that these forces exist as opposites ... as different ... is to ignore Life itself for that is what comprises it.
That all being said in as small a nutshell as my verbose self can manage ...
All human relationships are, in simplest terms, a relationship between the different creative forces behind Life itself. To make this more clear we can use the simple example of magnets. It is quite obvious that the only way to bring two magnets together to form a "unit" is by bringing together the opposite poles of positive and negative. Yes, you can try to bring together both positive ends or both negative ends and amuse yourself to no end. There is a curious tension that is created by this interplay. Some may find it fascinating. Some may even prefer trying to bring these same poles together instead of creating a "unit" of opposites as they normally do under the basic, natural laws of magnetic attraction. To each their own, as many would say.
However, there is no logical or reasonable way for anyone to suggest that the kind of relationship that exists between two positive (or two negative) ends of a set of magnets is in no way different from the kind of relationship that exists between the two opposite ends of a set of magnets. And it would be a ludicrous stretch of the imagination to suggest that those differences are utterly meaningless and worth overlooking. The differences exist for obvious reasons if one is willing to see them.
Now, again, I have no problem with people exercising their Free Will. You can play with your magnets any way you'd like. But if bringing together two opposite poles of our magnets has been named "marriage" for thousands of years without EVER having included in that definition the bringing together of two similar poles of our magnets then I see no reason why we should change the definition of the word. That two people who prefer to bring their magnets together from the same ends refuse to accept the basic differences between their endeavor and that of the attraction between polar opposites is the basic issue at hand and, in essence, it is something for them to resolve within themselves. For those who are afraid of discrimination by the use of a separate term for their relationship we must remember that one of the meanings of the word disciminate is "to make a clear distinction" between things. And, frankly, there is a VERY clear distinction between the relationship of a man and a woman and the relationship of a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
I have no problem, really, with civil union laws and ceremonies for homosexuals. None at all. But let's not call a bowl of apples a fruit salad.

Just my Onion. Please know that I didn't begin to peel it here to offend anyone. And please remember that when we peel an onion, ours or anyone else's, we are in many cases bound to start crying. And that is completely normal.

posted June 12, 2006 11:23 PM              

pieces of a puzzle..
what fits together. ...

I have alot of compassion..for people..who have to deal with these feelings..there's lots to work out..sex changes..plastic surgery..go against the Universal Laws..we are the way we are..because of all our incarnations..and what we have done..we must accept things..and grow and learn and evolve..

posted June 12, 2006 11:30 PM            

quote:

---

I am also not gay....silverstone

---

quote:

---

I do not think I have expressed myself heterosexualness...silverstone

---

So, are you suggesting you're covered by some heretofore undiscussed sexual preference?

Nothing macho about it. Nothing defensive about it. Nothing homophobic about it.

You're reaching for all the stereotypes as people do when they're attempting to force an untenable and insupportable argument on others. Especially in the argument for gay marriage.

There's nothing in historical civilizations to support gay marriage and there's nothing in the law to support gay marriage.

The overwhelming opinion of Americans is that they are not in favor of granting gay couples the right to call their partnerships, marriage.

That's a lot of people silverstone and they're not all or even most, homophobes, intolerant, ignorant, defensive or closet gays.

posted June 12, 2006 11:35 PM              

Ggodnight EveryOne....

posted June 13, 2006 12:20 AM              

quote:

---

You're reaching for all the stereotypes as people do when they're attempting to force an untenable and insupportable argument on others. Especially in the argument for gay marriage.

---

Huh? Jwhop, I don't attempt to "force" my
theories to others "as you do!" But I will leave it at that.

Again, I do not understand what you are so defensive about this. Now, yes, "frankly, there is a VERY clear distinction between the relationship of a man and a woman and the relationship of a man and a man or a woman and a woman." as Eleanore said. if that is what you want to hear! All I am saying is and having trying to say is that these people are going to be together while we like it or not!

quote:

---

That's a lot of people silverstone and they're not all or even most, homophobes, intolerant, ignorant, defensive or closet gays.

---

I never said "all" I said "many people"

quote:

---

Hahaha, jwhop the gay blade

---

so going forward, I ask you again (3rd time), why are you so upset and defensive about this subject matter, if you are comfortable with your yourself?

I think I got my answer already, though!

posted June 13, 2006 01:26 AM            

I'm a heterosexual man with no desire to see the cornerstone of stable civilized societies overthrown in an effort to grant homosexuals...or anyone else "Special Rights".

Homosexuals don't threaten me and I'm in no way defensive as you continue to assert.

I'm against a lot of things silverstone and that doesn't make me defensive on those issues either.

You seem to be the one who is defensive about your own position, a position you cannot defend on any logical, reasonable or intellectual level.

So silverstone, enough already with the broken record routine.

If you can't answer arguments against homosexual marriage from a historical or legal perspective, then you can't respond logically in support of your position and indeed, history and the law are against your argument for gay marriage.

posted June 13, 2006 04:05 PM              

Bob Morris, a volunteer with Hawaii's same sex marriage project, wrote a review for project volunteers of John Boswell's lecture to Integrity, Inc., General Convention of the Episcopal Church, July 6, 1988. John Boswell is Professor of European History at Yale and author of ``Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality'' (University of Chicago Press, 1980). The lecture was an early preview of Professor Boswell's forthcoming book on the long history of Roman Catholic blessing of a variety of same-sex unions among which continues to be marriage. Please contact your local chapters of Integrity or of Dignity (Roman Catholics) to find a video-taped copy of the 1988 lecture (or visit the marriage project in Honolulu!). Here's a paraphrase of Morris' review:

For almost 1,500 years, starting as early as the 4th century, the sacrament of same-sex marriage was recognized and celebrated by the Catholic Church. In fact, such marriages were performed in churches according to a written liturgy LONG BEFORE opposite-sex marriages were performed in churches, and are still performed today in some areas.
******************************************************************************************
History of Marriage

[EXCERPT]

In 1967, the United States Supreme Court struck down the remaining interracial marriage laws across the country and declared that the "freedom to marry" belongs to all Americans. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967). The Court described marriage as one of our "vital personal rights" which is "essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by a free people". Click here for the Loving v. Virginia decision.

Zablocki v. Redhail

In 1978, the United States Supreme Court declared marriage to be "of fundamental importance to all individuals". The court described marriage as "one of the 'basic civil rights of man'" and "the most important relation in life." The court also noted that "the right to marry is part of the fundamental 'right to privacy'" in the U.S. Constitution.
******************************************************************************************
On Marriage in "Recorded History"

An Open Letter to Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney

By Gary Leupp, Weekend Edition, December 13 / 14, 2003

[excerpt]

But this is just not true, Governor. You invoke "History" as though it's some source of authority, but you really don't know much about it, do you? "No investigation, no right to speak," I always say, and if you want to talk about homosexual unions in recorded history you should do some study first. First I recommend you read John Boswell's fine book Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (University of Chicago Press, 1980), in which he documents legally recognized homosexual marriage in ancient Rome extending into the Christian period, and his Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe (Villard Books, 1994), in which he discusses Church-blessed same-sex unions and even an ancient Christian same-sex nuptial liturgy. Then check out my Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan (University of California Press, 1995) in which I describe the "brotherhood-bonds" between samurai males, involving written contracts and sometimes severe punishments for infidelity, in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Check out the literature on the Azande of the southern Sudan, where for centuries warriors bonded, in all legitimacy, with "boy-wives." Or read Marjorie Topley's study of lesbian marriages in Guangdong, China into the early twentieth century. Check out Yale law professor William Eskridge's The Case for Same-Sex Marriage (1996), and other of this scholar's works, replete with many historical examples.

What the study of world history will really tell you, Governor, is that pretty much any kind of sexual behavior can become institutionalized somewhere, sometime. You know that polygamy remains normal and legal in many nations, as it was among your Mormon forebears in Utah. In Tibet, polyandry has a long history, and modern Chinese law seems powerless to prevent marriages between one women and two or three men. Getting back to same-sex issues, the Sambia of New Guinea have traditionally believed that for an adolescent boy to grow into a man, he absolutely must fellate an adult male and chug the semen down. I'm not making this up; see Gilbert H. Herdt, Guardians of the Flutes (Columbia University Press, 1981). Now you and I would see that as a kind of child abuse, but to the Sambians, it's just common sense. It's been that way for well over 3,000 years of their history. (You might want to ask yourself: does that 3,000 year record make it right?) Some ancient Greek tribes had a similar notion of the necessary reception of semen to make a boy a man, only with them it was an anal-routed process. (See works by Jan Bremmer, for starters, on this practice as an "initiation rite" among various Indo-European peoples.)
http://www.enotalone.com/article/4358.html
http://www.neo-tech.com/history/

posted June 13, 2006 10:23 PM              

Eleanore ~ as always you make sense and, for what it's worth, I agree with a good portion of your post. Although, I have encountered a few long term homosexual relationships and they were remarkably like the hetero ones I have known. One story comes to mind ... the brother of a friend was in a gay relationship for around ten years. Lived together etc etc. His partner's family strongly disapproved of their son's homosexuality. Sadly, the partner died young and my friends brother was completely ostracized by the dying man's family. He was not allowed in the hospital room, not allowed to attend the funeral, no mention of him in the obit, etc etc. Of course the financal stuff was a whole other nasty business. So, you see, stories like this , and they are very common, seem to speak in strong favor of legal protection for gay relaionships should the participants desire it.
A wedge of my stinky onion.

jwhop, jwhop, jwhop ... what to say?

quote:

---

Well TINK, we are discussing the federal Constitution...and no right to privacy is found there.

---

The right does not need to be explicitly stated in the Constitution, jwhop. That's the whole damn point of the 9th. It exists. But if it continues to endure attack then, yes, we need to start thinking about having it explicitly stated. A woman's right to vote - to participate in her own government for pity's sake! - always was and always will be a God given right. It existed before the 19th. The 19th only came into being because that right was being attacked and withheld from my great-grandmothers. The attack necesitated the protective talisman of the Amendment.

quote:

---

But don't you think lots of people have already tried that...in regard to abortion and lots of other issues not covered by the enumerated rights of other Amendments?

---

Yes, I think lots of ... how does pid say? ... wacknuts have tried. But I'm not the crazed leftist you sometimes seem to think I am. I've no illusions that I might invoke the 9th willy-nilly to defend all manner of things I might see fit. I understand that it is no simple get-out-of-jail-free card. In fact, it really isn't an Amendment at all. At least not like the others. What judge was it that said "It is a way to read all the other Amendments"? I don't remember his name. Please don't make me look it up. You know I hate that.

quote:

---

I haven't attacked anyones religion. Why would I attack yours?

---

No, you misunderstand. I mean to say that I'm not some New Age type Christian and certainly not an atheist. So you can't attack my opinions on those grounds.

quote:

---

So, if you would like to see the issue of gay marriage left up to the states, I'd be for that.

---

I'd like to see it left up to states in the same manner and to the same extent that hetero marriages are. Marriage license fees, waiting periods, that sort of thing can most certainly be left up to the states.

quote:

---

I don't know what a more appropriate location to discuss Old and New Testament teachings means

---

Possibly not a GU thread. But I rarely notice you anywhere else.

Stay safe down there, Big Daddy.

posted June 13, 2006 10:55 PM            

I understand what you mean about legal benefits and such. I'm completely okay with that.
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/c/civil_union

"A civil union is one of several terms for a civil status similar to marriage typically created for the purposes of allowing homosexual couples access to the benefits enjoyed by heterosexuals .... Many different types of civil unions exist. Some are identical to marriage in nearly every respect except name; some have many but not all of the rights accorded to married couples (sometimes called Registered Partnerships); some are simple registries (also called domestic partnerships)."

(Bold is mine.) That I think I'd be pretty okay with so long as everyone knew up front what was included in those provisions, you know?

Have no time to write more ... haven't slept in days. I'm going to try to now, lol.

posted June 13, 2006 11:17 PM            

My mention of Sabbath seems to have struck the bad chord in you. Thats why I say do not believe in tradition, break free from it. The reason the Romans choose sunday as the day of worship could have been to go along with the Pagan religions and not turn away some of them. The same reason they choose December 25 as Jesus's birthday. Well I really do not like to disturb you, because the truth is so strong it cud blow the carpet under your feet

Anyway, would respect your decision and stop going too deep in to certain topics and certainly not in GU.

TINK

You said, "I can't for a minute imagine Alexander desiring such a marriage. What would be the point? Nothing could be gained from it."

You are right , the marriage may not have served a purpose. He must have had reasoned thru.

They say the recent movie starring Colin Farrel was really close to history. In it when Alexander's Mom asks him to Marry someone in his own kind, he comments that he loves Hephaestion.

I am not sure either if sex was involved between the two in reality, but Alexander dearly loved him. So much that he is believed to have laid on Hephaesteon's dead body for couple or more days.