posted June 14, 2006 12:02 AM              

1869 Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony organize the National Woman Suffrage Association to fight for women's rights and the right to vote.

1903 Mary Harris Jones, nicknamed "Mother Jones," leads a 125-mile march of child workers to bring the evils of child labor to the attention of the President and the national press.

1910 Washington State is the first state to grant women the right to vote.

1920 After 72 years of struggle, women win the right to vote with the passage of the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

1955 Rosa Parks refuses to give up her seat on a bus for a white passenger, launching the bus boycott in Montgomery, Alabama.

1994 The Violence Against Women Act becomes law, changing the criminal justice system's response to violence against women.

So....
Just because something is traditional and a law does not mean is was/is right.
The way of thinking that is against gay marriage is not progressive or fair.
So in that vein....
Lets ban a woman's right to vote.
Lets bring back slavery.
Lets promote racial discrimination.
Lets bring back cheap child labor.
Lets bring back the Biblical rights to have slaves, beat our wives, our children and own them.
To go take another's land because your god said it was ok.
To kill others who are not of your people because your god said it was ok..even commanded it.
Bring back the lynch mobs.
The stonings(even for gathering wood on the wrong day)
Times change.
Going backwards is wrong, morally wrong.
The old laws and the Biblical laws are not absolutes.
Some of those old laws need struck down.
As far as the "Laws of Moses"...note..NOT God's laws....
A few pages later in the OT, after the 10(there were more) commandments were listed, the "Thou Shall Not Kill" law was blatantly broken, in the killing of 10s of thousands of people, but that was ok because it was not killing, it was slaying, putting to the sword, and all kinds of other lovely things.
I did not make these things up. And no twisting is required to show how evil actions were justified then, and often still are, as good. It does not take a genius to see the evil promoted by old ways of thinking forced upon others.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible3.htm
The law was circumvented just because those "others" were different or not of their race or religion. Funny, since they were all supposedly from the same family originally.
So yeah...pick the Bible bits that promote one's own views. But if one does that, then what about the bits they do not like?
It is all a matter of opinion isn't it?
It does not say much for the validity of the Bible as a good book of law does it?
What good is it as a law book when it has laws, that by modern thinking are abhorrent?

If the laws against seers and the occult were kept......
There would be no Lindaland, nor new Age thinking or anything of the kind. It would have been the stake or hangings and other tortures and murders for anyone who tried. As it was before by the old laws.

Outdated bigoted discrimination laws need changed.
I have yet to see a single valid logical reason to prohibit gay marriage. All I have seen is biogotry and the quoting of old laws and moralities that were practiced by folks who had slaves, concubines, owned women and children, killed anyone different, put their handicapped out to die, beat their families, and more atrocities. And we as modern 21st. century people are supposed to follow their warped narrow views on homosexuality?
The old laws were not limited to those biblical folks either. Many cultures had laws we would find as modern people very revolting.
I could go on and on.
And I ask again.....
Without quoting any old code or law.....
What harm is there to a society to the allowing of same sex marriages?
It would not hurt opposite sex marriages.
How could it? Why would it?
The parades and marches and in one's face protests and promotions would die down in time. Nothing left to yell or march about.
So why prohibit same sex marriage?

posted June 14, 2006 02:09 AM              

Moment of truth indeed!

posted June 14, 2006 04:10 AM            

Pidaua...boy, if I'd have known that one quote from the bible would garner such a long response, I wouldn't have said it.

posted June 14, 2006 07:03 AM              

anyway..think whatever you want. ...

Love and Respect for ALL..

posted June 14, 2006 07:41 AM              

To new laws made Logically not emotionally, or based on outdated bigoted discriminatory thought!

posted June 14, 2006 09:42 AM              

I do not, however, always trust my own. (At least not at this stage ) And I most certainly do not trust the average modern man's ability to comprehend the sacred truths within ancient books such as the Old Testament.

Both the spiritually conservative, who take things literally, and the spiritually liberal, who judge by current standards of humanism, have failed.

posted June 14, 2006 09:56 AM              

Yes, at first glance the civil union stuff sounds like a most reasonable compromise.

But the very act of giving a gay marriage a different name than a straight marriage reeks of a sort of segregation. A civil union sounds more like business partnership. (Yeah, I know, I'm proving your theory here ) Of course, the legal ramifications of a marriage license are what's important to a gay couple and a civil union would solve that pressing problem, but I can't imagine that's the end all and be all of it. Maybe they just want their choice of life's companion to be acknowleged the same way mine and yours are. Having grown up with the words "wife" and "husband" and everything they stand for, what would I do if tommorow I was told I could no longer call my husband "my husband". Instead I must refer to him as "companion" or "civil union partner"? I'd feel slighted. I'd feel judged. I'd feel excluded.

posted June 14, 2006 12:38 PM              

man and a woman fit together..simply..made for one another..the pieces fit

hmmm..I wonder why that is???

posted June 14, 2006 01:41 PM              

stop with your chaos and confusion..go within..and find your Truth..

posted June 14, 2006 02:06 PM              

In many traditions the gods and goddesses who comprise the divine couple are not seen as being separate or distinct entities, but rather as differing aspects of one another, or even emanations of one another. In this we see traces of an even more ancient tradition, God as the primordial androgyne. Such a notion has been part of many theologies, although the idea has largely been forgotten or (perhaps) ignored. Traces of it can even be found in Judeo-Christianity. For instance, we are told that the name of Jehovah is comprised of Hebrew characters representing the four elements: air, fire, earth, and water. But read slightly differently, the same characters spell “He She.” And the word Elohim, usually translated as “gods”, or “the angels” is actually a composite of “Eloh”, the feminine plural of god, and “Im”, the masculine plural of god. Even straightforwardly Christian sources concede that this is no doubt indicative of the belief, anciently held, that God was primordially possessed of both sexes. This idea has been central to certain occult traditions, and experienced a kind of revival in the 19th century, influencing the Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor, the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, and the Free Love movement. It developed into the doctrine that the entirety of creation flows from the differentiation of the unmanifested divine into male and female. To those who followed this doctrine, the reunification of the divine duad represented the means of achieving union with God.

Some interesting bits:
"Then the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon Adam: and when he was fast asleep, he took one of ribs, and filled up flesh for it. And the Lord God built the rib which he took from Adam into a woman: and bought her to Adam." Genesis 2:21-22 When the Lord God fashions Eve from Adam’s rib He weakened the Androgynous form and divided it into a separate male and female.

The Hermaphrodite had a twelve stranded helix of a highly evolved species, not as we are led to believe the limited double helix discovered by Crick and Watson at Cambridge University in the 50’s.

It would appear that we were already too highly evolved for the new gods to control. The most powerful way to induce a conquered race to worship them as God is to rearrange the genetic codes.

The Earl of Glencarty wrote a book in the 1950’s called "The Sky People" in which observed that there are, in fact, two creation stories in Genesis. In Genesis 1:27, "And god, being Hermes and Aphrodite in one form, created man to his own image; to the image of God he created them. This means that a wiser, purer, more spiritual man/woman is created as one Hermaphrodite and placed in a joyous garden full of flowers and singing birds.

In the Book of Enoch Adam Kadmon is the first divine androgyne, JAH-HEVA, male and female in one form, or race, and Cain and Abel ( male and female) in its other form or race—the double sexed Jehovah.

A Hermaphrodite combined male (will) and female(wisdom), the double-sexed Hermaphrodites are male and female in one body until separated by Jehovah/Zeus and the new gods to reduce their powers. The gods did not realize that what they had set in motion would limit them in the future.

posted June 14, 2006 02:25 PM              

Love and Respect for ALL..

posted June 14, 2006 02:36 PM              

do you claim now that not only do you have divine access to truth by going within yourself, but by going within others as well? how can you know what is within the hearts of others? do you not even give father and mother credit for what they created and express in people other than yourself?

it sounds as if you consider yourself both god's authority and spokesperson....

i'm astounded and amazed at your arrogance and illusions of grandeur...

if your arguments and statements held just a smidgen more logic, i might guess that your new job consists of writing under the pen name ann coulter...

posted June 14, 2006 05:49 PM            

I do respect your opinion as the balancer. My question to people such as you were "How could less than 1 percent consisting of gay population be a threat to the other 99 percent family structure?"

Fayte
I am convinced by your supporting statements. Its great!!! I am not convinced by Anti-gay group's evidences so far.

Hope that clears the confusion.

posted June 14, 2006 06:21 PM            

quote:

---

Matthew 19:12

Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage(9) for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it."

(9): Incapable of marriage: literally, "eunuchs." Three classes are mentioned, eunuchs from birth, eunuchs by castration, and those who have voluntarily renounced marriage (literally, "have made themselves eunuchs") for the sake of the kingdom, i.e., to devote themselves entirely to its service. Some scholars take the last class to be those who have been divorced by their spouses and have refused to enter another marriage. But it is more likely that it is rather those who have chosen never to marry, since that suits better the optional nature of the decision: whoever can . . . ought to accept it.

---

quote:

---

Acts 8
26 Then the angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, "Get up and head south on the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza, the desert route."
27 So he got up and set out. Now there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of the Candace, 8 that is, the queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of her entire treasury, who had come to Jerusalem to worship,
28 and was returning home. Seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah.
29 The Spirit said to Philip, "Go and join up with that chariot."
30 9 Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, "Do you understand what you are reading?"
31 He replied, "How can I, unless someone instructs me?" So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him.
32 This was the scripture passage he was reading: "Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter, and as a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he opened not his mouth.
33 In (his) humiliation justice was denied him. Who will tell of his posterity? For his life is taken from the earth."
34 Then the eunuch said to Philip in reply, "I beg you, about whom is the prophet saying this? About himself, or about someone else?"
35 Then Philip opened his mouth and, beginning with this scripture passage, he proclaimed Jesus to him.
36 As they traveled along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, "Look, there is water. What is to prevent my being baptized?"
[37] 10
38 Then he ordered the chariot to stop, and Philip and the eunuch both went down into the water, and he baptized him.
39 When they came out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, but continued on his way rejoicing.

Notes:7 [26-40] In the account of the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch, Luke adduces additional evidence to show that the spread of Christianity outside the confines of Judaism itself was in accord with the plan of God. He does not make clear whether the Ethiopian was originally a convert to Judaism or, as is more probable, a "God-fearer" (Acts 10:1), i.e., one who accepted Jewish monotheism and ethic and attended the synagogue but did not consider himself bound by other regulations such as circumcision and observance of the dietary laws. The story of his conversion to Christianity is given a strong supernatural cast by the introduction of an angel (Acts 8:26), instruction from the holy Spirit (Acts 8:29), and the strange removal of Philip from the scene (39).

8 [27] The Candace: Candace is not a proper name here but the title of a Nubian queen.

9 [30-34] Philip is brought alongside the carriage at the very moment when the Ethiopian is pondering the meaning of Isaiah 53:7-8, a passage that Christianity, from its earliest origins, has applied to Jesus; cf the note on Acts 3:13.

10 [37] The oldest and best manuscripts of Acts omit this verse, which is a Western text reading: "And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may.' And he said in reply, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.' "

---

posted June 14, 2006 07:06 PM            

Don't even pretend to know what is in my heart as a Christian. I have never picked and chosen parts of the Bible that apply to me. I also don't pick one small quote and then say all should live along those lines do I?

I don't believe the Old Testament is a stand alone and with the birth and subsequent death / resurrection of Christ things changed. Do I believe we should stone a woman for commiting adultry or that Gentiles are chattel?

Do I believe that I cannot eat pork or shellfish because the Old Testament said not to (and there is a big health reason for that as well) or do I believe that both are okay as indicating in the New Testament?

Do I believe that I am a born sinner (yes), do I believe my life is continuously evolving (yes) am I perfect (no), will I always sin (yes) will I put out one verse without an explantion in order to justify my own agenda? No...

So, you can cull through my posts if that makes you feel morally sound. You'll find examples of me saying not-so nice things about people, I have tattoos, I drink, I sometimes don't work as hard as I should have, I even had PRE-MARITAL sex.

Anything else you'd like to throw my way? I know you probably took great pleasure in that post and had one you thought was one of those "gotcha" moments, but you don't know what's in my heart and I would never dare to question your level of Christianity in your heart. Then again, it is a bit hypocritical that you post one of the "judge not" verses yet you couldn't wait to list my "sins".

LMAO.. nice try, but if your intention was to try to hurt my feelings your way off. First one has to matter in my life more than just throwing out a jab or two anytime she feels fit.

posted June 14, 2006 07:49 PM              

Matthew 19:12

Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage(9) for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it."

>>>>To be sterile, or to not bear children for any reason, was one of the greatest curses a Hebrew male could suffer. It cut him off from the covenant of God. A man like this was a sexual and societal outcast and was even worthless to their God.<<<<<

******************************************************************************************
Some interesting bits from:
The Gospel of Thomas

22. Jesus saw some babies nursing. He said to his disciples, "These nursing babies are like those who enter the (Father's) kingdom."

They said to him, "Then shall we enter the (Father's) kingdom as babies?"

Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom]."

37. His disciples said, "When will you appear to us, and when will we see you?"

Jesus said, "When you strip without being ashamed, and you take your clothes and put them under your feet like little children and trample then, then [you] will see the son of the living one and you will not be afraid."

53. His disciples said to him, "Is circumcision useful or not?"

He said to them, "If it were useful, their father would produce children already circumcised from their mother. Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has become profitable in every respect."
******************************************************************************************
More interesting bits:
The Bible does not speak of gays. Nor does it speak of the earth orbiting the sun. Sexual identity was not a concept of biblical times.
It speaks of homosexual acts only when they are part of sacred prostitution, idolatry, promiscuity, seducing children, rape, or violating hospitality. It condemns all such acts, whether heterosexual, homosexual, or having nothing to do with sex.
Of the thousands and hundreds of words, pages, stories, laws, and commandments in the Bible, very few deal with homosexual acts. A little study of history reveals these references are fewer than we have come to believe.

******************************************************************************************
Since Old Testament times did not equate the Sodom story with homosexual acts, what was the crime of Sodom - a crime worth the destruction of five thriving, wealthy cities on the fertile plains?
The crime was pride. And it was inhospitality.

Throughout the Old Testament, Sodom is held up as a lesson in wickedness that deserves utter destruction for reasons other than homosexual acts. Examples: Ezekiel 16:49 - 50, "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good." Isaiah tells of lack of justice. Jeremiah emphasizes moral and ethical laxity. The Deuterocanonical books identify the sin as pride and inhospitality; in Wisdom 19:13-14, we read "...whereas the men of Sodom received not the strangers when they came among them." In Ecclesiasticus 16:8 the sin is recognized as pride: "He did not spare the people among whom Lot was living, whom he detested for their pride."

As the Hebrews settled Canaan, their leaders worked to keep the identity of Israel separate from that of the Canaanites. A principle way to do that was to emphasize the Canaanites' practice of idolatry. The Yahwist and Priestly authors of Genesis, Leviticus and Deuteronomy equated sacred prostitution (an important part of Canaan's worship of fertility with idolatry. Prostitution - and "any sex act not contributing to procreation - came to be equated with idolatry."
When the Old Testament mentions homosexual acts it is usually in the context of male worshipers using male prostitutes in temples.

In Deuteronomy 23:17 we find the main concern of the Hebrews toward homosexual acts: "None of the Israelite women shall become a temple-prostitute, nor shall any of the Israelite men become a temple-prostitute.
******************************************************************************************
To be sterile, or to not bear children for any reason, was one of the greatest curses a Hebrew male could suffer. It cut him off from the covenant of God.
******************************************************************************************
The gods of these societies are always male, while agricultural, settled societies often have female as well as male gods. Also, the Hebrews understood procreation as being purely the doing of the male. The visible semen was the entire baby - the fertile seed. Females were understood only as incubators for this seed

While the above is not soley concerning homosexuality it serves to illustrate how times have changed and ways of seeing things.

posted June 14, 2006 08:05 PM            

There were times , mostly during the war when a man who had ejaculation in sleep was asked to sleep outside the tent. How much does a coach advice his star footballer to stay away from sex one night before the match

quote:

---

The world around is indeed changing and some people do not.

---

quote:

---

Between what the world is today and what the world could be is a deep chasm which most people do not fathom.

---

posted June 14, 2006 08:06 PM            

I went within as you recommended