Pete McCutchen <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 22:45:42 GMT, "David P" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >So I look at it like this....
> >
> >You don't believe or have faith that there is a God and I do.
> >
> >If you are right and I am wrong, we die, turn to dust, and our
consciousness
> >vanishes - poof - no big deal for either of us.
> >If I am right and you are wrong, we die, I go to Heaven and you burn in
Hell
> >for eternity.
> >
> >So forget about the logical argument and just think about...what if
you're
> >wrong?
>
> You do know, don't you, that you're not the first one to think of
> this. It's called "Pascal's Wager," and it's a classic argument for
> brainwashing yourself into believing that there is a God.
>
> The problems with the argument are legion, and also classic. You're
> assuming that this God of yours rewards belief and worship. But maybe
> it's skepticism that's rewarded. Maybe there is a God, but he's a
> contrary fellow who punishes everybody who believes in him.
> Unbelievers get eternal life, in a paradise in which they can
> photograph beautiful models in black and white or color, using Leica
> equipment. With a divine assistant to load the cameras. Or maybe God
> rewards a certain sort of integrity. Perhaps everybody who believes
> in this God for the wrong reason -- fear of punishment being such a
> reason -- is in fact punished.
>
> Having given into temptation, let me add that I'm not going to discuss
> this issue at any greater length, since the original post is off-topic
> for nearly all the newsgroups to which it was posted. (Note, though,
> that I'm reading this in rec.photo.equipment.35mm, and that I
> mentioned the type of camera equipment likely used in heaven, which
> makes my post at least partially on-topic for that group.)
> --
>
> Pete McCutchen
Yes.......Using this philosophy, I would have to believe any crazy story tha
t anyone could think up, as long as they said, (after explaining it to me)
"If you do believe, then you are safe, but if you do not, then you will be
punished."
The very idea that I could live an exemplatory life, and be kind to every
living thing, but be punished for all eternity just because I didn't mumble
some proper words in some pagan ritual in the correct stained-glass building
is ludicrous, and an affront to my intelligence.....Besides, which of the
thousand sects' rituals should I conform to? - They all claim to be the,
"Only true religion". - My answer to anyone that gave me the above argument
is, "How do you know that yours is the only true God? - If you guess wrong,
then you too will be punished forever."
"Lisa Horton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Jeremy wrote:
> >
> > x-no-archive: yes
> >
> > "Ninure Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:RainbowChristiannohate-
> >
> > > I don't know, how did thoe curches that embraced, blessed, condoned,
> > > justified anti-semitism, slavery, segregation, apatheid, etc, explain
> > > things when they supposdly "stoppped"?
> > >
> > > Makes one wonder , in light of your opening statememts why YOU care?
> > >
> >
> > I "care," as you put it, because this proposed appointment is another
chink
> > in the armor by the homosexuals against the dignity of marriage, the
> > foundation of the family and the stabilization of society.
> >
> > Let us, for sake of this discussion, separate the *private practice of
> > homosexual acts* from the impact upon society that would result if we
> > *institutionalized this behavior.*
> >
> > Virtually every culture, from time immemorial, has considered
homosexuality
> > as a serious depravity, that went against the natural moral law. So,
before
> > you try to marginalize those of us that oppose your agenda, don't think
that
> > we are all going to sit back while you try to cast us in the roles of
> > brainless Neanderthals. History is on my side--not yours.
>
> Wrong. The ancient greeks and romans had no problems with
> homosexuality. Considering the profound influence these two cultures
> have had on modern western culture, it's hard to see how you can justify
> your "virtually every culture" statement. Or do you conveniently
> exclude, via your "virtually", any culture that doesn't fit your agenda?
There are thousands of citations in ancient Greek and Roman literature that
make if very clear that homosexual conduct was NOT considered the norm for
those cultures until the very end of their decline. The fact that you are
only aware of the minority of examples that support homosexuality reflect
your own unbalanced perception of the reality of the matter.
>
> >
> > The homosexual inclination is objectively disordered. That has been
> > believed by "all of the people, all of the time." In some cultures,
> > anti-homosexual sentiment has run so high that homosexuals were
oppressed or
> > even put to death. There is no evidence to suggest that any society of
any
> > signifigance ever embraced the homosexual lifestyle. In the West,
> > homosexuals have been typically referred to as "Queers," "Fags" or
> > "Homos"--all words of contempt. That is simply historical fact.
> > Homosexuals were not liked.
>
> Again, your "all of the people all of the time" is obviously and
> patently false. Again we come back to the greeks and romans. Unless
> you consider the greeks and romans not to be "any society of any
> significance".
>
> Note that "in the west", black people have been typically referred to as
> "niggers" and worse, that "in the west" jewish people have been
> typically referred to as "kikes" and worse. I could go on and on, wops,
> dagos, beaners, wetbacks, etc. etc. etc. Few people today would call
> those sorts of designations acceptable.
>
> Not that "in the west", it wasn't that long ago that white and black
> people were barred from marrying by law. It wasn't that long ago that
> black people weren't allowed to vote.
>
> Just because SOME people didn't like some other people does not make it
> right.
>
> >
> > That has softened in recent years, as we have tried to find ways to
become
> > more accomodating toward homosexual acts. This change in attitude has
> > manifested itself as tolerating homosexual behavior, without actually
> > approving of it.
>
> Speak for yourself. Many non homosexuals today really don't care what
> other people do in their bedrooms.
>
> >
> > It is one thing for our society to *tolerate* private homosexual
> > behavior--its deviant nature notwithstanding. It is quite another thing
to
> > expect society to *codify* that behavior as forseen and approved by
law, to
> > the point where it becomes one of society's institutions in the legal
> > structure.
>
> And why is it different? How is it different than regulating what you
> and your wife/girlfriend can do in your bedroom? Religious objections
> don't count, as we're talking about laws here, and there is still, at
> least theoretically, a separation of church and state in the USA.
>
>
> >
> > To allow children to be adopted by homosexual couples would be doing
grave
> > violence to them.
>
> What an absurd statement. Do you have any evidence that homosexual
> parents are any more likely to inflict violence on their children? Do
> you know that children of homosexual parents are, statistically, no more
> likely to be homosexuals themselves than children of heterosexual
> parents?
>
>
> >
> > This has nothing to do with "discrimination." It has to do with common
> > sense. Right reason tells us that to change the law would be harmful to
the
> > common good, and would be gravely immoral.
>
> Well, actually it has everything to do with discrimination, and has
> nothing to do with common sense. "right reason"? What the hell is
> "right reason"? And exactly how would changing the law be harmful to
> the common good? Be specific, please. And finally morality is an
> individual thing. As for morality, I personally do not lie, cheat or
> steal. Ever. I help those in need, I am kind to strangers. Our
> household charitable contributions often come to five figures in a
> year. Many veterans in veterans hospitals, often wounded defending our
> country, amuse themselves with products donated by our business. Poor
> children get nice Christmas presents, again, our donations. We even give
> to the Salvation Army, not exactly a homo friendly organization. Why?
> Because of the good things they do for poor children.
>
> Don't talk to me about morality Jeremy, until you can match the strict
> moral code that I live by, until you do as much as I do for those less
> fortunate.
>
>
> >
> > If the Episcopal church moves forward with this appointment, it will
have
> > lost its moral high-ground, and probably will drive many of its
adherents to
> > other denominations. The latter is not my business, but the former is
an
> > issue that impacts us all.
>
> If you are not a member of the Episcopal church, then Episcopal church
> business is none of yours.
>
>
> >
> > While I bear no ill will against individuals with a homosexual
inclination,
> > I hold to the belief that homosexuality is is disordered, and can never
be
> > on equal footing with marriage.
>
> On what do you base your belief that homosexuality is disordered? The
> Psychiatric profession has determined that homosexuality is not a
> disorder.
> >
> > According to the polls I've seen, I am in the majority with respect to
my
> > beliefs.j
>
> Recent polls show that around half of all Americans support (mostly)
> equal rights for homosexuals. Support for homosexual marriage is
> somewhat lower though.
>
> So tell me Jeremy, do you eat shellfish? Do you ever touch leather made
> from pigskin, for example a football? Do you know that according to
> Leviticus,these are sins of the same level as homosexuality? How about
> this one: "And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided,
> does not chew the cud, it is unclean for you." Geez, eating bacon is as
> bad as rogering another man! Or this one: "do not wear clothing woven
> of two kinds of material" I always knew that polyester was a fashion
> sin, but who would have thought that combining it with rayon was a grave
> religious sin? So Jeremy, if your underwear has an elastic band at the
> waist, I guess you're a sinner too! Do you cut the hair at the side of
> your head? Uh oh, another sin. One I particularly like is "Do not go
> about spreading slander among your people" Particularly apropos in this
> discussion :)
>
> Now, if you feel like your bacon eating, underwear wearing, polyester
> sinning is ok because you didn't know, well, Leviticus addresses that as
> well: "If a member of the community sins unintentionally and does what
> is forbidden in any of the Lord's commands, he is guilty"
>
> Jeremy, what I'm trying to tell you here is that morality is relative to
> it's time and place. There was a time in the USA when it was considered
> morally acceptable to own slaves. Allegedly Christian people owned
> other people as property and considered it moral. Could you honestly
> consider that moral today?
>
> The rules expressed in Leviticus,or even the entire old testament, were
> rules of their time. Pigs and shellfish often had parasites, eating
> them could be risky to one's health. Thus the rules about not eating
> them, they are rules to increase the group's chances of survival.
> Homosexuality is counter productive when a groups survival is at risk,
> as having children enhances the group's chances of survival. This is
> the norm in a primitive agrarian society. We no longer live in an
> agrarian society, so having lots of children, or having children at all,
> is no longer a viable strategy for increasing a person, family or
> group's chances of survival.
>
> Now, if you personally don't like the idea of homosexuality, that's
> fine, you're entitled to your opinion. I personally find some sexual
> activities practiced by heterosexuals to be somewhat disgusting. Like
> Pony Play, that's pretty kinky. Or S&M and B&D, I find it
> incomprehensible that people would associate pain with sexual pleasure.
> Or pedophiles who use chat rooms to attempt to lure young girls, that's
> just sick. And anal intercourse is just gross no matter who is doing it.
>
> Lisa
"Jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> That faulty argument could be used equally well by other disordered
groups.
> Take N.A.M.B.L.A. ("The North American Man-Boy Love Association") whose
> slogan is "Sex by 8 or it's too late." Ask they how they justify their
> grave violence against children, and how do they answer? "We are not
> hurting them. We are pleasuring them."
I thought that was the Vatican's slogan.
-- Ernie
Al Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
> How do you feel about these issues?
>
> Do you think an open gay man who admits to having anal and oral sex
> with another man is qualified to be a regional church leader of the
> Episcopal church?
Thank you for posting.
This issue is addressed in general by 1 Corinthians 5. This chapter
reprimanded the Corinthian church for being proud that some of its
members were practicing sexual immorality as opposed to being ashamed of
it. The bottom line is that the sexual offender of this example was to
be kicked out of the congregation. Indeed, Jesus taught us not to
associate with unrepentant church members in Matthew 18:15-17. 2
Corinthians 6:14-17 also reflects this.
The bottom line is that given 1 Corinthians 15:33 warns christians not
to associate with people of bad character, give the bad apples the boot!
>
> Would you trust him with your children?
>
> Do you think gays should be allowed to marry each other?
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 shows that those who practice sexual immorality
including same-sex sex are not going to inherit the kingdom of God
anyway. So a true christian church shouldn't recognize or condone gay
marriages, plain and simple.
Homosexuals should keep in mind that the good news of the gospel is not
about how God despises homosexuality. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, in fact,
shows that certain members of that early church had formerly been
involved in same-sex sexual relationships but had been cleansed in the
name of Jesus.
Indeed, return to God, believing in his Son Jesus in faith, and have
eternal life.
M. Clark
Paul M Davis <[email protected]> wrote:
> I have a genetic propensity to drive on the left hand side of the road.
> However, my government has made it a state issue by requiring that drivers
> drive on the right hand side. This is blatant and unfair discrimination. I
> believe that those of us who prefer to drive on the left should be given the
> same rights as the right side drivers. Anything else is blatant
> discrimination. Ask any left side driver. There was a time when they were
> just learning to drive when driving on the left would have seemed just as
> comfortable as driving on the right. Europe is far ahead of the United
> States in these matters.
Thank you for posting.
Scientists have only recently completed the human gene map database and
predict it will be years before they know how we work. So any attempt
to justify homosexuality from a genetic point of view at this time is
premature as scientists don't even know for sure.
The bottom line is that you are not heeding the warning of 1 Corinthians
6:9 to not deceive yourself about sexual immorality.
Homosexuals should keep in mind that the good news of the gospel is not
about how God despises homosexuality. 1 Corinthian 6:9-11, in fact,
shows that certain members of that early church had formerly been
involved in same-sex sexual relationships but had been cleansed in the
name of Jesus.
Indeed, return to God, believing in his Son Jesus in faith, and have
eternal life.
M. Clark
>
>
>
>
> "William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:pWnYa.85483$Ho3.11892@sccrnsc03...
> >
> > Al Browne <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > How do you feel about these issues?
> >
> > > Do you think gays should be allowed to marry each other?
> >
> > If marriage were just a religious ritual, which is how it started, I would
> > say it was up to the individual church. But, my government has made it a
> > state issue, by charging married people according to a different income
> tax
> > table than the one that single people get to use.....So, I believe that
> gay
> > people should have the same right to marry their partners as do opposite
> sex
> > couples. Anything else is blatent discrimination against people for their
> > sexual orientation.....Ask most any gay person....He/she will tell you
> that
> > they were gay as far back as they can remember. There never was a time
> when
> > they actually had a choice in the matter.....So being gay is not a matter
> of
> > choice. Like skin color, it is something one is born with, and cannot
> > change. Therefore, the government shouldn't discriminate either for or
> > against it.
> >
> >
> >
Priscilla Ballou <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Thore Schmechtig" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > The Golden Rule? You mean the part where one is to love God with all
> > > their heart, and their neighbor as themselves?
> >
> > Indeed.
>
> Actually, the Golden Rule is "do unto others as you would have others do
> unto you." What you're looking for, I think, is the Great Commandment,
> "Love God and love your neighbor as yourself."
>
> Priscilla
Thank you for posting.
Some people would have everybody believe that God is all about love,
hugs and kisses. But Jesus teaches us in Matthew 18:15-17 to have
anything to do with unrepentant sinners. Indeed, 1 Corinthians 5:11
tells us not to even eat with unrepentant sinners.
Homosexuals should keep in mind, however, that the good news of the
gospel is not about how God despises homosexuality. 1 Corinthians
6:9-11, in fact, shows that certain members of that early church had
formerly been involved in same-sex sexual relationships but had been
cleansed in the name of Jesus.
Indeed, return to God, believing in his Son Jesus in faith, and have
eternal life.
M. Clark
Thore Schmechtig <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Some people would have everybody believe that God is all about love,
> > hugs and kisses.
>
> You have shown that you are able to cut-and-paste text from one reply
> to another. That's easy. Now show that you can use your brain.
Thank you for at least reading my post.
M. Clark
Priscilla Ballou <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "David P" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > So I look at it like this....
> >
> > You don't believe or have faith that there is a God and I do.
> >
> > If you are right and I am wrong, we die, turn to dust, and our consciousness
> > vanishes - poof - no big deal for either of us.
> > If I am right and you are wrong, we die, I go to Heaven and you burn in Hell
> > for eternity.
> >
> > So forget about the logical argument and just think about...what if you're
> > wrong?
>
> The existence of God does not mean that there is necessarily a Hell or
> that anyone burns in it involuntarily.
>
> Priscilla
Please pardon me for interrupting.
In my opinion, such a statement in based on reasoning devoid of any
faith. Your statement indicates that you can imagine God, anybody can,
not that you have accepted Jesus Christ into your spiritual heart.
Indeed, return to God, believing in his Son Jesus in faith, and have
eternal life.
M. Clark
Priscilla H Ballou <[email protected]> wrote:
> In alt.religion.christian.episcopal M. Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Priscilla Ballou <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> "David P" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > So I look at it like this....
> >> >
> >> > You don't believe or have faith that there is a God and I do.
> >> >
> >> > If you are right and I am wrong, we die, turn to dust, and our
> >> > consciousness vanishes - poof - no big deal for either of us. If I am
> >> > right and you are wrong, we die, I go to Heaven and you burn in Hell
> >> > for eternity.
> >> >
> >> > So forget about the logical argument and just think about...what if
> >> > you're wrong?
> >>
> >> The existence of God does not mean that there is necessarily a Hell or
> >> that anyone burns in it involuntarily.
>
> >Please pardon me for interrupting.
>
> >In my opinion, such a statement in based on reasoning devoid of any
> >faith. Your statement indicates that you can imagine God, anybody can,
> >not that you have accepted Jesus Christ into your spiritual heart.
>
> So anyone who questions the existence of Hell is necessarily not a
> Christian? A little narrow-minded, aren't you?
Thank you for replying.
People who question the existance of hell are either not christian or a
very weak-faithed christian in my opinion.
Verses which indicate the existance of hell:
Luke 16:23-24
Matthew 5:29
Galatians 1:8-9
Revelation 14:11
Matthew 5:22
Again, return to God, believing in his Son Jesus in faith, and have
eternal life.
M. Clark
>
> >Indeed, return to God, believing in his Son Jesus in faith, and have
> >eternal life.
>
> Your assumptions are erroneous.
>
> Priscilla
Charles P <[email protected]> wrote:
> "M. Clark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > Please pardon me for interrupting.
>
> This is Usenet! You don't have to ask anyone's pardon, you can
> butt in anywhere, anytime you like, as long as it's on topic.
>
> > It doesn't surprise me that they always went to their same-sex parents
> > for comfort. This is because love isn't always hugs and kisses as
> > Proverbs 13:24 indicates. The children may not have understood at the
> > time if their real parents had been disciplining them in love. Gay
> > parents may not have had the love that expresses itself
> > in properly disciplining children.
^^^^^^^^
>
> That's right, gay parents may not know how to properly beat their
> kids with a rod, thus "spoiling" them!
Thank you for replying.
I clearly indicated _proper_ discipline, not excessive discipline.
M. Clark
Al Browne asks:
>How do you feel about these issues?
>
Who cares?
There was a Victorian lady who was quoted as saying, "I don't care what they
do, as long as they don't do it in the street and scare the horses." Wasn't
about gays, but suffices.
Charlie Self
"The California crunch really is the result of not enough power-generating
plants and then not enough power to power the power of generating plants."
George W. Bush
In article
<[email protected]>, Jerome
Delaney <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Perverts are, and let me see if I can explain this to you, people who engage
> in anal copulation with persons of the same sex, or oral copulation with the
> person of the same sex. the consuming of fluids such as another man's urine,
> the wash out of an enema, the ejaculate from the man's orgasm, the
> employment of pain inflicting devices, and bondage. I may not have covered
> it all, but I think you will get the idea.
>
>
> As a member of a Choir, I have known several male organist who were married,
> and not perverted. You will notice that I do not use the word gay, because
> that word has a meaning to me that means "happy, or joyous" which perverts
> do not seem to be as far as I know. I am sure there are men and/or women who
> play the organ that are perverted, but as long as they keep it to
> themselves, who knows about it, or who cares?
>
> Does that answer your questions? If not, then I suggest that you seek your
> answers elsewhere.
>
>
> --
> Jerry Delaney QMC
> U.S. Navy (Retired)
>
> "I would rather be a footstool in Heaven than a prince in hell."
>
>
Oh Jerry Jerry Jerry...You must stop being so fascinated with such
things. It tells so much about your interior life. ribbit ribbit
M. Clark <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1fzfgva.8ba5fadzdt8qN%[email protected]...
> > Wrong. The ancient greeks and romans had no problems with
> > homosexuality.
>
> Please pardon me for interrupting.
>
> What do you mean the ancient greeks and romans had no problems with
> homosexuality - where are these cultures now?
>]
Greece is located on the Western edge of the Aegean Sea, and just South of
Albania, Macedonia, and Bulgaria. Rome is located in West-central Italy, on
the Eastern edge of the Tyrrhenian Sea.
"Ernie Jurick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "David P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > So I look at it like this....
> >
> > You don't believe or have faith that there is a God and I do.
> >
> > If you are right and I am wrong, we die, turn to dust, and our
> consciousness
> > vanishes - poof - no big deal for either of us.
> > If I am right and you are wrong, we die, I go to Heaven and you burn in
> Hell
> > for eternity.
> >
> > So forget about the logical argument and just think about...what if
you're
> > wrong?
>
> Pascal's Wager-- been there done that. The counter-argument is "How do you
> know you've picked the *right* religion?" There are 20+ major ones and
> 1,800+ spinoffs, sects and cults. None is any more provable than any
other.
> So what if, after a lifetime of prayers and genuflecting, you die only to
> discover that the Witchety Grub Cult of the Australian aborigines is the
One
> True Religion and you have to spend eternity buried up to the neck in an
> anthill in the Outback?
> -- Ernie
>
>
Al Browne wrote:
> How do you feel about these issues?
>
> Do you think an open gay man who admits to having anal and oral sex
> with another man is qualified to be a regional church leader of the
> Episcopal church?
>
> Would you trust him with your children?
>
> Do you think gays should be allowed to marry each other?
If gays want to marry, they can have such ceremony performed by civil
authorities thus complying with civil laws and requirements that are
allowed for married couples. The intent to partake of a marriage
ceremony in a church is to is to imply that God has blessed the
marriage. Those who opt to support such actions merely make a mockery
of christian church principles.
It is not true that God loves everyone. If that were the case, the
scriptures would not be filled with death and destruction that are
supposed to have the support of God; starting with the story of Samson
killing of a thousand with a jaw bone of an ass and later destroying
the Philistine temple, killing thousands more.
Since I'm not a church goer, it means little to nothing to me to see
the churches, catering to various religious beliefs, destroy
themselves. That's one accomplishment gays and supporters of gay
marriages seeking religious blessings through churches rites can be
proud of accomplishing.
Nick
Jeremy wrote:
>
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> "Ninure Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:RainbowChristiannohate-
>
> > I don't know, how did thoe curches that embraced, blessed, condoned,
> > justified anti-semitism, slavery, segregation, apatheid, etc, explain
> > things when they supposdly "stoppped"?
> >
> > Makes one wonder , in light of your opening statememts why YOU care?
> >
>
> I "care," as you put it, because this proposed appointment is another chink
> in the armor by the homosexuals against the dignity of marriage, the
> foundation of the family and the stabilization of society.
>
> Let us, for sake of this discussion, separate the *private practice of
> homosexual acts* from the impact upon society that would result if we
> *institutionalized this behavior.*
>
> Virtually every culture, from time immemorial, has considered homosexuality
> as a serious depravity, that went against the natural moral law. So, before
> you try to marginalize those of us that oppose your agenda, don't think that
> we are all going to sit back while you try to cast us in the roles of
> brainless Neanderthals. History is on my side--not yours.
>
Jeremy,
I find it interesting that you would dismiss the classic Greek culture,
or is that culture responsible for the "virtually" in the paragraph
above?
Although I resisted for a long time, wanting to give you the benefit of
the doubt, this little missive proves beyond a doubt that your
detractors are correct, you're apparently incapable of making sense,
using logic, or understanding the world around you and it's history.
Lisa
Jeremy wrote:
>
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> "Ninure Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:RainbowChristiannohate-
>
> > I don't know, how did thoe curches that embraced, blessed, condoned,
> > justified anti-semitism, slavery, segregation, apatheid, etc, explain
> > things when they supposdly "stoppped"?
> >
> > Makes one wonder , in light of your opening statememts why YOU care?
> >
>
> I "care," as you put it, because this proposed appointment is another chink
> in the armor by the homosexuals against the dignity of marriage, the
> foundation of the family and the stabilization of society.
>
> Let us, for sake of this discussion, separate the *private practice of
> homosexual acts* from the impact upon society that would result if we
> *institutionalized this behavior.*
>
> Virtually every culture, from time immemorial, has considered homosexuality
> as a serious depravity, that went against the natural moral law. So, before
> you try to marginalize those of us that oppose your agenda, don't think that
> we are all going to sit back while you try to cast us in the roles of
> brainless Neanderthals. History is on my side--not yours.
Wrong. The ancient greeks and romans had no problems with
homosexuality. Considering the profound influence these two cultures
have had on modern western culture, it's hard to see how you can justify
your "virtually every culture" statement. Or do you conveniently
exclude, via your "virtually", any culture that doesn't fit your agenda?
>
> The homosexual inclination is objectively disordered. That has been
> believed by "all of the people, all of the time." In some cultures,
> anti-homosexual sentiment has run so high that homosexuals were oppressed or
> even put to death. There is no evidence to suggest that any society of any
> signifigance ever embraced the homosexual lifestyle. In the West,
> homosexuals have been typically referred to as "Queers," "Fags" or
> "Homos"--all words of contempt. That is simply historical fact.
> Homosexuals were not liked.
Again, your "all of the people all of the time" is obviously and
patently false. Again we come back to the greeks and romans. Unless
you consider the greeks and romans not to be "any society of any
significance".
Note that "in the west", black people have been typically referred to as
"niggers" and worse, that "in the west" jewish people have been
typically referred to as "kikes" and worse. I could go on and on, wops,
dagos, beaners, wetbacks, etc. etc. etc. Few people today would call
those sorts of designations acceptable.
Not that "in the west", it wasn't that long ago that white and black
people were barred from marrying by law. It wasn't that long ago that
black people weren't allowed to vote.
Just because SOME people didn't like some other people does not make it
right.
>
> That has softened in recent years, as we have tried to find ways to become
> more accomodating toward homosexual acts. This change in attitude has
> manifested itself as tolerating homosexual behavior, without actually
> approving of it.
Speak for yourself. Many non homosexuals today really don't care what
other people do in their bedrooms.
>
> It is one thing for our society to *tolerate* private homosexual
> behavior--its deviant nature notwithstanding. It is quite another thing to
> expect society to *codify* that behavior as forseen and approved by law, to
> the point where it becomes one of society's institutions in the legal
> structure.
And why is it different? How is it different than regulating what you
and your wife/girlfriend can do in your bedroom? Religious objections
don't count, as we're talking about laws here, and there is still, at
least theoretically, a separation of church and state in the USA.
>
> To allow children to be adopted by homosexual couples would be doing grave
> violence to them.
What an absurd statement. Do you have any evidence that homosexual
parents are any more likely to inflict violence on their children? Do
you know that children of homosexual parents are, statistically, no more
likely to be homosexuals themselves than children of heterosexual
parents?
>
> This has nothing to do with "discrimination." It has to do with common
> sense. Right reason tells us that to change the law would be harmful to the
> common good, and would be gravely immoral.
Well, actually it has everything to do with discrimination, and has
nothing to do with common sense. "right reason"? What the hell is
"right reason"? And exactly how would changing the law be harmful to
the common good? Be specific, please. And finally morality is an
individual thing. As for morality, I personally do not lie, cheat or
steal. Ever. I help those in need, I am kind to strangers. Our
household charitable contributions often come to five figures in a
year. Many veterans in veterans hospitals, often wounded defending our
country, amuse themselves with products donated by our business. Poor
children get nice Christmas presents, again, our donations. We even give
to the Salvation Army, not exactly a homo friendly organization. Why?
Because of the good things they do for poor children.
Don't talk to me about morality Jeremy, until you can match the strict
moral code that I live by, until you do as much as I do for those less
fortunate.
>
> If the Episcopal church moves forward with this appointment, it will have
> lost its moral high-ground, and probably will drive many of its adherents to
> other denominations. The latter is not my business, but the former is an
> issue that impacts us all.
If you are not a member of the Episcopal church, then Episcopal church
business is none of yours.
>
> While I bear no ill will against individuals with a homosexual inclination,
> I hold to the belief that homosexuality is is disordered, and can never be
> on equal footing with marriage.
On what do you base your belief that homosexuality is disordered? The
Psychiatric profession has determined that homosexuality is not a
disorder.
>
> According to the polls I've seen, I am in the majority with respect to my
> beliefs.j
Recent polls show that around half of all Americans support (mostly)
equal rights for homosexuals. Support for homosexual marriage is
somewhat lower though.
So tell me Jeremy, do you eat shellfish? Do you ever touch leather made
from pigskin, for example a football? Do you know that according to
Leviticus,these are sins of the same level as homosexuality? How about
this one: "And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided,
does not chew the cud, it is unclean for you." Geez, eating bacon is as
bad as rogering another man! Or this one: "do not wear clothing woven
of two kinds of material" I always knew that polyester was a fashion
sin, but who would have thought that combining it with rayon was a grave
religious sin? So Jeremy, if your underwear has an elastic band at the
waist, I guess you're a sinner too! Do you cut the hair at the side of
your head? Uh oh, another sin. One I particularly like is "Do not go
about spreading slander among your people" Particularly apropos in this
discussion :)
Now, if you feel like your bacon eating, underwear wearing, polyester
sinning is ok because you didn't know, well, Leviticus addresses that as
well: "If a member of the community sins unintentionally and does what
is forbidden in any of the Lord's commands, he is guilty"
Jeremy, what I'm trying to tell you here is that morality is relative to
it's time and place. There was a time in the USA when it was considered
morally acceptable to own slaves. Allegedly Christian people owned
other people as property and considered it moral. Could you honestly
consider that moral today?
The rules expressed in Leviticus,or even the entire old testament, were
rules of their time. Pigs and shellfish often had parasites, eating
them could be risky to one's health. Thus the rules about not eating
them, they are rules to increase the group's chances of survival.
Homosexuality is counter productive when a groups survival is at risk,
as having children enhances the group's chances of survival. This is
the norm in a primitive agrarian society. We no longer live in an
agrarian society, so having lots of children, or having children at all,
is no longer a viable strategy for increasing a person, family or
group's chances of survival.
Now, if you personally don't like the idea of homosexuality, that's
fine, you're entitled to your opinion. I personally find some sexual
activities practiced by heterosexuals to be somewhat disgusting. Like
Pony Play, that's pretty kinky. Or S&M and B&D, I find it
incomprehensible that people would associate pain with sexual pleasure.
Or pedophiles who use chat rooms to attempt to lure young girls, that's
just sick. And anal intercourse is just gross no matter who is doing it.
Lisa
Rudy Garcia wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Lisa Horton <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Jeremy wrote:
> > >
> > > x-no-archive: yes
> > >
> > > "Ninure Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:RainbowChristiannohate-
> > >
> > > > I don't know, how did thoe curches that embraced, blessed, condoned,
> > > > justified anti-semitism, slavery, segregation, apatheid, etc, explain
> > > > things when they supposdly "stoppped"?
> > > >
> > > > Makes one wonder , in light of your opening statememts why YOU care?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I "care," as you put it, because this proposed appointment is another chink
> > > in the armor by the homosexuals against the dignity of marriage, the
> > > foundation of the family and the stabilization of society.
> > >
> > > Let us, for sake of this discussion, separate the *private practice of
> > > homosexual acts* from the impact upon society that would result if we
> > > *institutionalized this behavior.*
> > >
> > > Virtually every culture, from time immemorial, has considered homosexuality
> > > as a serious depravity, that went against the natural moral law. So, before
> > > you try to marginalize those of us that oppose your agenda, don't think that
> > > we are all going to sit back while you try to cast us in the roles of
> > > brainless Neanderthals. History is on my side--not yours.
> >
> > Wrong. The ancient greeks and romans had no problems with
> > homosexuality. Considering the profound influence these two cultures
> > have had on modern western culture, it's hard to see how you can justify
> > your "virtually every culture" statement. Or do you conveniently
> > exclude, via your "virtually", any culture that doesn't fit your agenda?
> >
> > >
> > > The homosexual inclination is objectively disordered. That has been
> > > believed by "all of the people, all of the time." In some cultures,
> > > anti-homosexual sentiment has run so high that homosexuals were oppressed or
> > > even put to death. There is no evidence to suggest that any society of any
> > > signifigance ever embraced the homosexual lifestyle. In the West,
> > > homosexuals have been typically referred to as "Queers," "Fags" or
> > > "Homos"--all words of contempt. That is simply historical fact.
> > > Homosexuals were not liked.
> >
> > Again, your "all of the people all of the time" is obviously and
> > patently false. Again we come back to the greeks and romans. Unless
> > you consider the greeks and romans not to be "any society of any
> > significance".
> >
> > Note that "in the west", black people have been typically referred to as
> > "niggers" and worse, that "in the west" jewish people have been
> > typically referred to as "kikes" and worse. I could go on and on, wops,
> > dagos, beaners, wetbacks, etc. etc. etc. Few people today would call
> > those sorts of designations acceptable.
> >
> > Not that "in the west", it wasn't that long ago that white and black
> > people were barred from marrying by law. It wasn't that long ago that
> > black people weren't allowed to vote.
> >
> > Just because SOME people didn't like some other people does not make it
> > right.
> >
> > >
> > > That has softened in recent years, as we have tried to find ways to become
> > > more accomodating toward homosexual acts. This change in attitude has
> > > manifested itself as tolerating homosexual behavior, without actually
> > > approving of it.
> >
> > Speak for yourself. Many non homosexuals today really don't care what
> > other people do in their bedrooms.
> >
> > >
> > > It is one thing for our society to *tolerate* private homosexual
> > > behavior--its deviant nature notwithstanding. It is quite another thing to
> > > expect society to *codify* that behavior as forseen and approved by law, to
> > > the point where it becomes one of society's institutions in the legal
> > > structure.
> >
> > And why is it different? How is it different than regulating what you
> > and your wife/girlfriend can do in your bedroom? Religious objections
> > don't count, as we're talking about laws here, and there is still, at
> > least theoretically, a separation of church and state in the USA.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > To allow children to be adopted by homosexual couples would be doing grave
> > > violence to them.
> >
> > What an absurd statement. Do you have any evidence that homosexual
> > parents are any more likely to inflict violence on their children? Do
> > you know that children of homosexual parents are, statistically, no more
> > likely to be homosexuals themselves than children of heterosexual
> > parents?
> >
> >
> > >
> > > This has nothing to do with "discrimination." It has to do with common
> > > sense. Right reason tells us that to change the law would be harmful to the
> > > common good, and would be gravely immoral.
> >
> > Well, actually it has everything to do with discrimination, and has
> > nothing to do with common sense. "right reason"? What the hell is
> > "right reason"? And exactly how would changing the law be harmful to
> > the common good? Be specific, please. And finally morality is an
> > individual thing. As for morality, I personally do not lie, cheat or
> > steal. Ever. I help those in need, I am kind to strangers. Our
> > household charitable contributions often come to five figures in a
> > year. Many veterans in veterans hospitals, often wounded defending our
> > country, amuse themselves with products donated by our business. Poor
> > children get nice Christmas presents, again, our donations. We even give
> > to the Salvation Army, not exactly a homo friendly organization. Why?
> > Because of the good things they do for poor children.
> >
> > Don't talk to me about morality Jeremy, until you can match the strict
> > moral code that I live by, until you do as much as I do for those less
> > fortunate.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > If the Episcopal church moves forward with this appointment, it will have
> > > lost its moral high-ground, and probably will drive many of its adherents to
> > > other denominations. The latter is not my business, but the former is an
> > > issue that impacts us all.
> >
> > If you are not a member of the Episcopal church, then Episcopal church
> > business is none of yours.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > While I bear no ill will against individuals with a homosexual inclination,
> > > I hold to the belief that homosexuality is is disordered, and can never be
> > > on equal footing with marriage.
> >
> > On what do you base your belief that homosexuality is disordered? The
> > Psychiatric profession has determined that homosexuality is not a
> > disorder.
> > >
> > > According to the polls I've seen, I am in the majority with respect to my
> > > beliefs.j
> >
> > Recent polls show that around half of all Americans support (mostly)
> > equal rights for homosexuals. Support for homosexual marriage is
> > somewhat lower though.
> >
> > So tell me Jeremy, do you eat shellfish? Do you ever touch leather made
> > from pigskin, for example a football? Do you know that according to
> > Leviticus,these are sins of the same level as homosexuality? How about
> > this one: "And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided,
> > does not chew the cud, it is unclean for you." Geez, eating bacon is as
> > bad as rogering another man! Or this one: "do not wear clothing woven
> > of two kinds of material" I always knew that polyester was a fashion
> > sin, but who would have thought that combining it with rayon was a grave
> > religious sin? So Jeremy, if your underwear has an elastic band at the
> > waist, I guess you're a sinner too! Do you cut the hair at the side of
> > your head? Uh oh, another sin. One I particularly like is "Do not go
> > about spreading slander among your people" Particularly apropos in this
> > discussion :)
> >
> > Now, if you feel like your bacon eating, underwear wearing, polyester
> > sinning is ok because you didn't know, well, Leviticus addresses that as
> > well: "If a member of the community sins unintentionally and does what
> > is forbidden in any of the Lord's commands, he is guilty"
> >
> > Jeremy, what I'm trying to tell you here is that morality is relative to
> > it's time and place. There was a time in the USA when it was considered
> > morally acceptable to own slaves. Allegedly Christian people owned
> > other people as property and considered it moral. Could you honestly
> > consider that moral today?
> >
> > The rules expressed in Leviticus,or even the entire old testament, were
> > rules of their time. Pigs and shellfish often had parasites, eating
> > them could be risky to one's health. Thus the rules about not eating
> > them, they are rules to increase the group's chances of survival.
> > Homosexuality is counter productive when a groups survival is at risk,
> > as having children enhances the group's chances of survival. This is
> > the norm in a primitive agrarian society. We no longer live in an
> > agrarian society, so having lots of children, or having children at all,
> > is no longer a viable strategy for increasing a person, family or
> > group's chances of survival.
> >
> > Now, if you personally don't like the idea of homosexuality, that's
> > fine, you're entitled to your opinion. I personally find some sexual
> > activities practiced by heterosexuals to be somewhat disgusting. Like
> > Pony Play, that's pretty kinky. Or S&M and B&D, I find it
> > incomprehensible that people would associate pain with sexual pleasure.
> > Or pedophiles who use chat rooms to attempt to lure young girls, that's
> > just sick. And anal intercourse is just gross no matter who is doing it.
> >
> > Lisa
>
> WOW! You tell him Lisa :-)
>
> By the way, you left out the spilling of one's seed. That was also one
> of the strategies for group survival.
Damn! You mean this one is out too?!?
> BTW, I feel my sexual education has been deprived. What is Pony Play?
Thanks Rudy. I was going to ask that one myself, but was too embarrased
to show my lack of knowledge first. *grin*
Steve Kramer
Chiang Mai, Thailand
--
"The voyage of discovery lies not in seeking new horizons,
but in seeing with new eyes." - Marcel Proust
Lisa Horton wrote:
>
> Jeremy wrote:
> >
> > x-no-archive: yes
> >
> > "Ninure Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:RainbowChristiannohate-
> >
> > > I don't know, how did thoe curches that embraced, blessed, condoned,
> > > justified anti-semitism, slavery, segregation, apatheid, etc, explain
> > > things when they supposdly "stoppped"?
> > >
> > > Makes one wonder , in light of your opening statememts why YOU care?
> > >
> >
> > I "care," as you put it, because this proposed appointment is another chink
> > in the armor by the homosexuals against the dignity of marriage, the
> > foundation of the family and the stabilization of society.
> >
> > Let us, for sake of this discussion, separate the *private practice of
> > homosexual acts* from the impact upon society that would result if we
> > *institutionalized this behavior.*
> >
> > Virtually every culture, from time immemorial, has considered homosexuality
> > as a serious depravity, that went against the natural moral law. So, before
> > you try to marginalize those of us that oppose your agenda, don't think that
> > we are all going to sit back while you try to cast us in the roles of
> > brainless Neanderthals. History is on my side--not yours.
>
> Wrong. The ancient greeks and romans had no problems with
> homosexuality. Considering the profound influence these two cultures
> have had on modern western culture, it's hard to see how you can justify
> your "virtually every culture" statement. Or do you conveniently
> exclude, via your "virtually", any culture that doesn't fit your agenda?
>
> >
> > The homosexual inclination is objectively disordered. That has been
> > believed by "all of the people, all of the time." In some cultures,
> > anti-homosexual sentiment has run so high that homosexuals were oppressed or
> > even put to death. There is no evidence to suggest that any society of any
> > signifigance ever embraced the homosexual lifestyle. In the West,
> > homosexuals have been typically referred to as "Queers," "Fags" or
> > "Homos"--all words of contempt. That is simply historical fact.
> > Homosexuals were not liked.
>
> Again, your "all of the people all of the time" is obviously and
> patently false. Again we come back to the greeks and romans. Unless
> you consider the greeks and romans not to be "any society of any
> significance".
>
> Note that "in the west", black people have been typically referred to as
> "niggers" and worse, that "in the west" jewish people have been
> typically referred to as "kikes" and worse. I could go on and on, wops,
> dagos, beaners, wetbacks, etc. etc. etc. Few people today would call
> those sorts of designations acceptable.
>
> Not that "in the west", it wasn't that long ago that white and black
> people were barred from marrying by law. It wasn't that long ago that
> black people weren't allowed to vote.
>
> Just because SOME people didn't like some other people does not make it
> right.
>
> >
> > That has softened in recent years, as we have tried to find ways to become
> > more accomodating toward homosexual acts. This change in attitude has
> > manifested itself as tolerating homosexual behavior, without actually
> > approving of it.
>
> Speak for yourself. Many non homosexuals today really don't care what
> other people do in their bedrooms.
>
> >
> > It is one thing for our society to *tolerate* private homosexual
> > behavior--its deviant nature notwithstanding. It is quite another thing to
> > expect society to *codify* that behavior as forseen and approved by law, to
> > the point where it becomes one of society's institutions in the legal
> > structure.
>
> And why is it different? How is it different than regulating what you
> and your wife/girlfriend can do in your bedroom? Religious objections
> don't count, as we're talking about laws here, and there is still, at
> least theoretically, a separation of church and state in the USA.
>
> >
> > To allow children to be adopted by homosexual couples would be doing grave
> > violence to them.
>
> What an absurd statement. Do you have any evidence that homosexual
> parents are any more likely to inflict violence on their children? Do
> you know that children of homosexual parents are, statistically, no more
> likely to be homosexuals themselves than children of heterosexual
> parents?
>
> >
> > This has nothing to do with "discrimination." It has to do with common
> > sense. Right reason tells us that to change the law would be harmful to the
> > common good, and would be gravely immoral.
>
> Well, actually it has everything to do with discrimination, and has
> nothing to do with common sense. "right reason"? What the hell is
> "right reason"? And exactly how would changing the law be harmful to
> the common good? Be specific, please. And finally morality is an
> individual thing. As for morality, I personally do not lie, cheat or
> steal. Ever. I help those in need, I am kind to strangers. Our
> household charitable contributions often come to five figures in a
> year. Many veterans in veterans hospitals, often wounded defending our
> country, amuse themselves with products donated by our business. Poor
> children get nice Christmas presents, again, our donations. We even give
> to the Salvation Army, not exactly a homo friendly organization. Why?
> Because of the good things they do for poor children.
>
> Don't talk to me about morality Jeremy, until you can match the strict
> moral code that I live by, until you do as much as I do for those less
> fortunate.
>
> >
> > If the Episcopal church moves forward with this appointment, it will have
> > lost its moral high-ground, and probably will drive many of its adherents to
> > other denominations. The latter is not my business, but the former is an
> > issue that impacts us all.
>
> If you are not a member of the Episcopal church, then Episcopal church
> business is none of yours.
>
> >
> > While I bear no ill will against individuals with a homosexual inclination,
> > I hold to the belief that homosexuality is is disordered, and can never be
> > on equal footing with marriage.
>
> On what do you base your belief that homosexuality is disordered? The
> Psychiatric profession has determined that homosexuality is not a
> disorder.
> >
> > According to the polls I've seen, I am in the majority with respect to my
> > beliefs.j
>
> Recent polls show that around half of all Americans support (mostly)
> equal rights for homosexuals. Support for homosexual marriage is
> somewhat lower though.
>
> So tell me Jeremy, do you eat shellfish? Do you ever touch leather made
> from pigskin, for example a football? Do you know that according to
> Leviticus,these are sins of the same level as homosexuality? How about
> this one: "And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided,
> does not chew the cud, it is unclean for you." Geez, eating bacon is as
> bad as rogering another man! Or this one: "do not wear clothing woven
> of two kinds of material" I always knew that polyester was a fashion
> sin, but who would have thought that combining it with rayon was a grave
> religious sin? So Jeremy, if your underwear has an elastic band at the
> waist, I guess you're a sinner too! Do you cut the hair at the side of
> your head? Uh oh, another sin. One I particularly like is "Do not go
> about spreading slander among your people" Particularly apropos in this
> discussion :)
>
> Now, if you feel like your bacon eating, underwear wearing, polyester
> sinning is ok because you didn't know, well, Leviticus addresses that as
> well: "If a member of the community sins unintentionally and does what
> is forbidden in any of the Lord's commands, he is guilty"
>
> Jeremy, what I'm trying to tell you here is that morality is relative to
> it's time and place. There was a time in the USA when it was considered
> morally acceptable to own slaves. Allegedly Christian people owned
> other people as property and considered it moral. Could you honestly
> consider that moral today?
>
> The rules expressed in Leviticus,or even the entire old testament, were
> rules of their time. Pigs and shellfish often had parasites, eating
> them could be risky to one's health. Thus the rules about not eating
> them, they are rules to increase the group's chances of survival.
> Homosexuality is counter productive when a groups survival is at risk,
> as having children enhances the group's chances of survival. This is
> the norm in a primitive agrarian society. We no longer live in an
> agrarian society, so having lots of children, or having children at all,
> is no longer a viable strategy for increasing a person, family or
> group's chances of survival.
>
> Now, if you personally don't like the idea of homosexuality, that's
> fine, you're entitled to your opinion. I personally find some sexual
> activities practiced by heterosexuals to be somewhat disgusting. Like
> Pony Play, that's pretty kinky. Or S&M and B&D, I find it
> incomprehensible that people would associate pain with sexual pleasure.
> Or pedophiles who use chat rooms to attempt to lure young girls, that's
> just sick. And anal intercourse is just gross no matter who is doing it.
>
> Lisa
A magnificent response!
Steve Kramer
Chiang Mai, Thailand
--
"The voyage of discovery lies not in seeking new horizons,
but in seeing with new eyes." - Marcel Proust
Ernie Jurick wrote:
>
> "Steve Kramer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Lisa Horton wrote:
> > >
> > A magnificent response!
> >
> > Steve Kramer
> > Chiang Mai, Thailand
>
> Hey, Steve, tell us about how much katoeys are hated and despised in
> Thailand. :-)
I'm not quite sure how you meant this, so I'll go with the smiley and
assume that you are being facetious.
'Ladyboys,' called "katoey" in Thailand, are cross dressing gay men, and
are fully integrated into Thai society. Some, who go to the trouble to
do so, look astonishingly beautiful and are performing in Cabarets all
over The Land of Smiles. You will see them working in all venues from
the medical field, law, sales, tourism, to public service, etc., in drag
(female clothing and makeup,) and only the westerners who come here make
a big deal about them. They are just another aspect of Thai culture.
Nothing more. Nothing less.
Steve Kramer
Chiang Mai, Thailand
--
"The voyage of discovery lies not in seeking new horizons,
but in seeing with new eyes." - Marcel Proust
Jeremy wrote:
>
>
> I do not presume to think that anything I have written will change your
> mind. I just could not let your arguments go unchallenged--if only for the
> sake of those that have not yet made up their minds on this issue.
I doubt that those you have a chance to convince are intelligent enough
to operate a computer. You might try a more appropriate venue.
Lisa
Jeremy wrote:
> You once again are twisting the debate.
>
> We are rejecting the INSTITUTIONALIZATION of homosexual marriage, not
> suggesting that homosexuals not be tolerated.
>
> You perverts are free to act out your sick fantasies in private--what you do
> to each other in your homes does not concern me. When you demand that
> society undergo drastic and dangerous changes to accommodate you, that is
> where I draw the line.
Why don't you draw an other line, O Great Societal Architect, and stop
x-posting this crap to the photo NG's?
Peter wrote:
> "Jerome Delaney" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >You're not gay, you're a pervert! It is not "an alternate lifestyle," it
> >is a disgusting existence!
> >
> Disgust is a natural emotion that warns us to stay away from things
> that can harm us. So it has survival value.
>
> However, different degrees of disgust are appropriate for different
> situations.
>
> I used to feel disgust when changing a babies nappy. That may have
> been good for my survival but it was not appropriate to feel that
> about my own child. So I trained myself to feel less disgust.
>
> I used to feel uncomfortable with people who I thought were gay, eg
> when being served by an apparently gay waiter.
>
> However, little by little I realised my discomfort did not do me any
> good. All it meant was, that if I suspected someone was gay, I felt
> uncomfortable, without getting any positive advantage from feeling
> uncomfortable.
>
> So, I worked at overcoming my feeling of discomfort about gayness and
> little by little, after about 30 years, have nearly succeeded.
>
> I wonder then, does your disgust actually help you live a good life,
> or could it be hindering you like it used to hinder me?
>
> Regards,
> Peter
*If any Christian is THAT disgusted, they should do something about it.
Share their thoughts and feelings with "Gay" people, or get active in
exposing it for what it is!
Use that disgust constructively. Open people's eyes and minds to it.
Explain why some people are considered homophobes.
"Disgust is a natural emotion that warns us to stay away from things
that can harm us. So it has survival value."
That a good start! (In fact, I think I'll use it in my future posts about
Gay people)
--
*~*~*
"Signs of the Times"
"All this talk of Jesus coming back to see us." ~ Elton John/B.Taupin
http://www.angelfire.com/in2/harmony
(An unusual journey. "From the end of the world, to your town")
Dang! Now I gotta also find my cat a husband!
Fortunately, the bird's a reptile.
Renata
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 13:39:28 GMT, "Paul M Davis" <[email protected]>
wrote:
--snip--
>Because marriage is an expression of the union between the two different
>genders of mammals. --snip--
>> Tocis ([email protected])
>>
>
>
"Jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I was beginning to think that I was the only person on
>this NG that was revolted at the thought of institutionalizing homosexual
>marriage.
>
Marriage used to be based on the idea that the man is the boss.
I was perfectly happy treating a women as a wife in such a marriage,
but I would not like to see a man treating another man that way.
On the other hand, these days with feminism, marriage seems to be
becoming more democratic.
That means that the difference between husband and wife is
disappearing.
If we get to the stage where the role of husband and wife become more
or less the same, then I don't see why two men can't get married.
All it would mean is that they provide life long companionship to each
other, take turns cooking etc.
Sex does not need to come into it.
Lots of married couples don't have sex.
In middle age only 33% of women are interested.
It would seem to me, the kind of men that would want to get married
would be the sensitive kind, probably more interested in romance than
sex.
My impression is that "gay marriage" would mainly be to do with
companionship rather than sex. I don't see anything wrong with that.
"Homosexual marriage" would be a bit pointless. Because if two guys
only wanted sex, why would they bother to get married?
Regards,
Peter
"Jerome Delaney" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>You're not gay, you're a pervert! It is not "an alternate lifestyle," it
>is a disgusting existence!
>
Disgust is a natural emotion that warns us to stay away from things
that can harm us. So it has survival value.
However, different degrees of disgust are appropriate for different
situations.
I used to feel disgust when changing a babies nappy. That may have
been good for my survival but it was not appropriate to feel that
about my own child. So I trained myself to feel less disgust.
I used to feel uncomfortable with people who I thought were gay, eg
when being served by an apparently gay waiter.
However, little by little I realised my discomfort did not do me any
good. All it meant was, that if I suspected someone was gay, I felt
uncomfortable, without getting any positive advantage from feeling
uncomfortable.
So, I worked at overcoming my feeling of discomfort about gayness and
little by little, after about 30 years, have nearly succeeded.
I wonder then, does your disgust actually help you live a good life,
or could it be hindering you like it used to hinder me?
Regards,
Peter
Harmony <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>*If any Christian is THAT disgusted, they should do something about it.
>
Jesus asked us to love God, our fellow man and even our enemies.
Feeling disgust about gayness is simply not Christian.
Here is Jesus with a man lying on his breast.
John 13:23-25
Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus
loved.
Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it
should be of whom he spake.
He then lying on Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?
Regards,
Peter
"Jerome Delaney" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Harmony; have you ever tried to reason with someone who is a pervert.
>
If you didn't label people as perverts, they wouldn't be perverts.
[snip]
>
>I will let God take care of the whole thing. Like He did in Sodom and Gomorrah.
>
Those places were destroyed because some angels of God were sexually
harrassed.
Thats very different from private acts between consenting adults.
>
>That is what is going to happen to this society that we live in.
>
September 11 showed that religious intolerance can destroy society
without help from God.
In peace,
Peter
"Al Browne" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> How do you feel about these issues?
Do you think an openly heterosexual man who admits to having vaginal, anal
and oral sex
with a woman qualified to be a regional church leader of the Episcopal
church?
Would you trust him with your children?
Do you think these perverts should be allowed to marry each other?
-- Ernie
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 19:34:41 +0000 (UTC), Priscilla H Ballou
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In alt.religion.christian.episcopal maf 1029 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On the other hand, if the laity hates gays and lesbians worse than
>>they want staff and volunteers to run their churches, then the laity
>>should get exactly what they want.
>
>We have met the laity, and they are us. ;-)
>
>Priscilla
Former laity/ex-RCC employee here.
"Jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> x-no-archive: yes
> Those are highly-charged words to use against someone that has expressed
> what the majority of human beings have felt from time immemorial!
Only in your mind, Jeremy. Gays have always been with us, sometimes openly
as in classical Greece, sometimes closeted as in the Catholic Church. You
can't use your prejudices to change history.
-- Ernie
"Jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> "Charles P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > I've always wondered why most of us are heterosexual. Now I understand.
> > It's becuase society has *institutionalized* heterosexuality!
> We just don't like having to look at you queers with beards wearing
dresses
> and high heels. UGH!
Well, I'm not gay, but I defend gay rights, as I defend the other rights of
free people everywhere. If one minority group is denied their rights,
then there's also a chance that someday, my rights my be infringed upon
for other, equally bogus reasons.
And if you wish to complain about queers wearing dresses, consider the
very bizarre apparel of the top RCC hierarchy.
> > There is no "natural moral law."
> Sure there is--just watch the bystanders watching the Gay Prode
Parade--they
> all turn away in disgust whenever the marchers embrace.
Quite frankly, I would probably not enjoy a Gay Parade either, so I'd
never go to one. However, I still support their right to do their thing,
I just don't have to go watch it.
> > People in the US once also hated and despised black people.
> Stop comparing apples and oranges--you aren't fooling anyone. I know a
> number of black people that despise men that wear lipstick.
Not all black people like Little Richard or Dennis Rodman? Shame!
> > Yeah. Much better that gays remain in their promiscuous life style.
> Much better if they stopped acting up in public! I remember an interview
> with the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, where it came out that most of
> their undercover liquor agents refused to enter gay bars--they were just
too
> sickened by what went on there!
So? Don't go to a gay bar! Duh! A lot of folks are sickened by one of my
hobbies
and the thought of doing it horrifies them. I'm a cave explorer and I crawl
around in muddy and tight passages way underground. I would never advocate
that everyone participate in that.
> > Reason doesn't tell you that. Bigotry does.
> You gays are such deviants that you can't reason--you are ruled entirely
by
> your disordered passions. What you do is disgusting! And you all talk
> funny, too :-)
I'm not gay, you moron! And if I was, I'd not hestitate to speak up
anyway.
> I remember seeing one of you sickos crawling around the floor of a mens
room
> in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, peeking under the stalls! You call that
normal?
If somebody peeks under my stall, I'll do everything I can to piss on 'em.
> And, here in Philadelphia, a guy can't even walk into the Gallery
(Shopping
> Center) men's room without seeing homosexuals performing oral sex on each
> other--who wants to use a rest room with THAT going on inside?
Quite frankly, that's where I draw the line. If I was in a situation like
that, I'd
pick up my cell phone and complain to security immediately. I'd contact the
business owner(s) and tell them they've just lost a customer.
> Say what you want, I know that you are sick.
Say what you want, I know you're an asshole.
> This has nothing to do with
> religion (although I think that religious beliefs about homosexuality have
> mirrored society's feelings toward you). Every man I know gets equally
> sick when he sees homosexuals performing on one another--and it matters
not
> whether they are religious or not.
I don't look at gay porn, I'm straight, and nobody has ever forced me
to look at it. If I see anybody, gay or straight, performing sex acts in
public
where it's not appropriate, I'd be inclined to use my cell phone and
complain to authorities and/or the property/business owners. I'm fairly
certain most people feel that way.
Now fuck off, bigot!
> "Marriage" for homos? Please--get real! No, get help! You're sick pups.
>
>
>
>
>
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 18:21:39 -0600, [email protected] (M. Clark)
wrote:
Thank you again for proving the "unrepentant" part.
M. CLARK HAS UNREPENTENTLY LIED ABOUT THE FOLLOWING VERSES:
THE FIRST COMMANDMENT
Romans 14 (entire chapter)
Galatians 4:21-31 (especially v 24)
1 Corinthians 5 multiple times (entire chapter)
Romans 12:3
1 Corinthians 6: 9-11
Leviticus 18:22
Romans 1:25-27
Romans 1:28-32
Leviticus 26: 36-37
Genesis 1: 3-5, 14-19, 21-27
Genesis 2: 4-9, 7-19
1 Timothy 5: 6-7
1 Corinthians 7:21
Revelation 14:11
Matthew 8:29
Matthew 5:22
Luke 16: 22-24
maf and dog, AA #1954, EAC Cruise Director and Lounge Pianist,
respectively
"Russell Williams" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Al Browne" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > How do you feel about these issues?
> I feel they have nothing to do with rec.photo.equipment.35mm or
> rec.woodworking.
>
> > Do you think an open gay man who admits to having anal and oral sex
> > with another man is qualified to be a regional church leader of the
> > Episcopal church?
>
> I think that a person who blatantly ignores the charters of
> newsgroups and newsgroup etiquette is unqualified to post
> to usenet.
More to the point, what equipment would you use to take a 35mm photo
of a lathe-turned, exquisitely carved mahogany statue representing a
gay bishop?
Mike.
x-no-archive: yes
"Pete McCutchen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Unbelievers get eternal life, in a paradise in which they can
> photograph beautiful models in black and white or color, using Leica
> equipment.
Has anyone checked to see if Leica employs any homosexuals? Maybe they're
Lutherans, not Episcopalians . . .
Next thing you know, you'll have Gay Presbyterians. This is starting to
become a problem.
keilimon burundai <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:GmzYa.91421$YN5.64902@sccrnsc01:
>
> > Sorry.....But I couldn't disagree with you more......My gay friends
> > tell me that from their earliest memories, they preferred their same
> > sex parents over there other parents, and when frightened or confused,
> > always went to their same-sex parents for comfort.....Even when only 2
> > years old.....Sodom & Gomorrah have nothing to do with the way a 2
> > year old feels.
>
> Illogical - women are most often the comforters in the family. Your
> statement would have all girl children potential lesbians.
At two or less, everyone is potentially gay......And there is nothing
illogical in what I said at all.....To a two year old, either parent is
comforting..........
Yes it does, it clearly states this in the New Testament. The gay
Bishop should be condemned!
Priscilla Ballou <[email protected]> wrote
>
> The existence of God does not mean that there is necessarily a Hell or
> that anyone burns in it involuntarily.
>
> Priscilla
I'll TAKE Him, thank you very much.
"Matt Clara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> What could one ever do here on earth that would merit eternal torture? If
> that's God, you can have him.
>
>
In answer to your insidious remark, Rum was discontinued in the United
States Navy during the tenure of Josephus Daniels as Secretary of the Navy,
Sodomy has always been against the law in the Navy, and lashing was
discontinued in the U. S, and Royal Navies long, long ago.
Perverted behavior was not tolerated under the Uniform Code of Military
Justice until the presidency of Bill Clinton and his "don't ask don't tell"
policy. It is still not tolerated, but the question had to be removed from
the enlistment application regarding a person's sexual orientation.
--
Jerry Delaney QMC
U.S. Navy (Retired)
"Rudy Garcia" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>Snip.
> > >
> > > The liturgical scholars of that time immediately started about writing
> > > the Bible and collecting the sermons for posterity, as the word of
God.
> > > In this job they were very careful as to what they put in writing and
> > > what to include or exclude (lets see,....shall we include any sermons
> > > from Mary Magdalene or should we not?...Nehh, we'll use her in a
> > > different role).
> >
> > "Immediately started" ? That's a good on to try on for size. The
Christian
> > scriptures are composed of 66 books that took 1,600 years (as I recall
> > learning in my days of biblical interest) of research and compilation to
> > complete.
> >
> > Nick
>
> Starting and completing are two different terminus where I come from.
Acknowledged, as it would be elsewhere too. Still, the writers referenced in
the Greek scriptures known as the new testament (who were not biblical
scholars) did not immediately start gathering data, as you jovial alluded.
Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John were started long after the death of Christ.
Mathew, I believe was the first of the four to start his writings and he
started years after Christ died, covering a period of time from about 2 BCE
to about 33 CE. While the others started at different intervals of many
years later. One of the remaining three who started writing long after
Mathew did, finished his text in 98 CE. I can't readily recall which of the
three that was. Even where you come from, I don't think their actions would
qualify as being seen as scholars immediately collecting sermons for
posterity.
I would agree that the writers in those times would especially be careful as
to what they put in writing. Though you were sarcastic in your post. That
can be seen in the writings of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John. Each without
consultation or reference of the other were able to document events of the
times, with different views, yet accurately describing known occurrences.
Quite different than the humorous notions that you described as might have
happened.
Even the lineage (the "Begot's" as I call them) are accurately listed in the
Hebrew text. Yes indeed, writing accuracy had to be the prime consideration
in compiling the book we call the bible, though word meanings may have been
slightly altered to suit translations and evolved to have a different
meaning.
Words like "Torment" does not have the same meaning now as it did then. In
biblical times "Torment" meant being jailed and a "Tormentor" was the jailer
who did the dastardly deeds to those who were in "Torment," jailed.
In any event, I don't believe there exists a Christian religious sect that
can qualify as being followers of Christ, try as they may to be seen as
such. Churches (in general) are much too rich to be seen as practicing the
teachings of Christ. Moreover, I have no use for priests. I don't disrespect
priests, I just don't have any use for them.
Nick
>
>Snip
Ric; do not try playing the race card with me. Interracial marriage has
nothing to do with a persons sexual orientation. You folks have been trying
to identify with the prejudice conferred upon black people for quite some
time now and it does not take a genius to see the difference between bigotry
because of a man's skin color and the distaste for a disgusting sexual
practice.
Perverts are, and let me see if I can explain this to you, people who engage
in anal copulation with persons of the same sex, or oral copulation with the
person of the same sex. the consuming of fluids such as another man's urine,
the wash out of an enema, the ejaculate from the man's orgasm, the
employment of pain inflicting devices, and bondage. I may not have covered
it all, but I think you will get the idea.
Now; anywhere in that paragraph did I mention skin color, or national
origin, or religious preference? No!
Bigotry is an action directed at people for skin color, which they have no
control over; God decides that and woe be to him that offends God in that
respect.
But as I have indicated, the sexual preferences of a perverted person
disgust me. I don't care if you engage in that type of sexual pleasure. What
you do behind closed doors is really no concern of mine or anyone else for
that matter. All I ask of you is "do not try to validate it by having a
church condone it." When that happens the church becomes a liar and
therefore can no longer be an instrument of teaching God's Word.
As a member of a Choir, I have known several male organist who were married,
and not perverted. You will notice that I do not use the word gay, because
that word has a meaning to me that means "happy, or joyous" which perverts
do not seem to be as far as I know. I am sure there are men and/or women who
play the organ that are perverted, but as long as they keep it to
themselves, who knows about it, or who cares?
Does that answer your questions? If not, then I suggest that you seek your
answers elsewhere.
--
Jerry Delaney QMC
U.S. Navy (Retired)
"I would rather be a footstool in Heaven than a prince in hell."
x-no-archive: yes
"Ric" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Og%[email protected]...
> Maybe the Episcopal Church have simply opened their eyes and decided to
> acknowledge what already exists. Robinson surely isn't the first gay
bishop,
> just the first openly gay bishop. Should churches of all demoninations
root
> out all suspected gay clergy? What about organists? Be prepared to sing
a
> cappella because there sure are a lot of them.
No, you don't go on a witch hunt. But you DON'T INSTITUTIONALIZE IT,
EITHER!
The vocal homosexuals want to have their perverted activities declared to be
"normal" and this is what must be opposed. They are not normal, they have
never been considered normal, and this notion that they should be able to
marry and raise children is absurd.
If they want property rights or visitation rights, that can be handled in
other ways. But not marriage. Marriage is a unique institution, afforded
with unique benefits, and it has ALWAYS been between a man and a woman.
The impact upon society, if homosexual unions were raised on a par with
marriage, would be devastating. And, please, don'r ask me to submit
"scientific proof" as a condidion of barring homosexual marriage--that
argument presumes that anyone can have anything, absent "scientific proof"
being provided by the opposition. Let's use common sense.
They're disordered perverts, NOT respectable pillars of society.
"Priscilla Ballou" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "David P" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > So I look at it like this....
> >
> > You don't believe or have faith that there is a God and I do.
> >
> > If you are right and I am wrong, we die, turn to dust, and our
consciousness
> > vanishes - poof - no big deal for either of us.
> > If I am right and you are wrong, we die, I go to Heaven and you burn in
Hell
> > for eternity.
> >
> > So forget about the logical argument and just think about...what if
you're
> > wrong?
>
> The existence of God does not mean that there is necessarily a Hell or
> that anyone burns in it involuntarily.
>
> Priscilla
Thanks Priscilla. I never said I don't believe, nor that I do. If there is
a god, I'm quite certain that it is absolutely nothing like the Christian
idealized version of a white haired old man sitting above us and passing
judgement.
What could one ever do here on earth that would merit eternal torture? If
that's God, you can have him.
"David P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> So I look at it like this....
>
> You don't believe or have faith that there is a God and I do.
>
> If you are right and I am wrong, we die, turn to dust, and our
consciousness
> vanishes - poof - no big deal for either of us.
> If I am right and you are wrong, we die, I go to Heaven and you burn in
Hell
> for eternity.
>
> So forget about the logical argument and just think about...what if you're
> wrong?
Pascal's Wager-- been there done that. The counter-argument is "How do you
know you've picked the *right* religion?" There are 20+ major ones and
1,800+ spinoffs, sects and cults. None is any more provable than any other.
So what if, after a lifetime of prayers and genuflecting, you die only to
discover that the Witchety Grub Cult of the Australian aborigines is the One
True Religion and you have to spend eternity buried up to the neck in an
anthill in the Outback?
-- Ernie
Befuddled <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> "William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:pWnYa.85483$Ho3.11892@sccrnsc03...
> >
> > Al Browne <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > How do you feel about these issues?
> >
> > > Do you think gays should be allowed to marry each other?
> >
> > If marriage were just a religious ritual, which is how it started, I
would
> > say it was up to the individual church. But, my government has made it a
> > state issue, by charging married people according to a different income
> tax
> > table than the one that single people get to use.....So, I believe that
> gay
> > people should have the same right to marry their partners as do opposite
> sex
> > couples. Anything else is blatent discrimination against people for
their
> > sexual orientation.....Ask most any gay person....He/she will tell you
> that
> > they were gay as far back as they can remember. There never was a time
> when
> > they actually had a choice in the matter.....So being gay is not a
matter
> of
> > choice. Like skin color, it is something one is born with, and cannot
> > change. Therefore, the government shouldn't discriminate either for or
> > against it.
> >
> >
>
> yes you are born with it, it is called sin. How you choose, yes choose
to
> let your sin grow or follow Gods commands is your choice just like
accepting
> Christ or rejecting him. I'm so tired of hearing "gay" people blame there
> sinful desires on genetics. Get off of that wagon because God isn't
stupid
> and going to say, "oops I must have made a mistake and got your gene's
mixed
> up with someone else's sexual gene. It's not going to send you to Hell
> being gay I don't think but I wonder how many other things Satan has lied
to
> you and made you believe. Perhaps he's told you that you are saved and
> don't worry about trying to better yourself or do anything else God says
> because you are ok now. I doubt with that attitude one was serious when
> they went through the motions of getting saved so therefore are you saved?
> Satan has many lies. Here's a good question. Would a true man of God do
> anything against Scripture that could cause a split in Gods church just
> because he wanted to obtain a better job position? That's what this gay
> bishop did because he bought the lie Satan told him and I think he
probably
> has some other very flexible interpretations of scriptures. God said a
man
> shouldn't lay with another man, God also destroyed Sodom and Gamora
because
> of such behavior, he also has said how he detest such behavior but your
gay
> bishop just put his approval on it and the next step for Satan will be
some
> union of gays in Gods church. Shame on you for defiling something
designed
> to honor Gods words. Yes and I'm sure when Christ turned the water to
wine
> at the wedding he didn't say sodomy was not a sin and why are you marrying
> this woman. There's no rules. This one man one wife is ridiculous lets
all
> have group sex with anybody. Does a murderer not be a murderer if we
blame
> his genetics? Sin isn't sin if we can find something else to blame? Gay
is
> ok if it's blamed on genetics? Sodomy is ok if it's monogamous?
> Lies
> lies
> lies
> lies
> we are warned Satan is a liar and the truth isn't in him. You have been
> listening to the wrong little voice my friend
>
>
Sorry.....But I couldn't disagree with you more......My gay friends tell me
that from their earliest memories, they preferred their same sex parents
over there other parents, and when frightened or confused, always went to
their same-sex parents for comfort.....Even when only 2 years old.....Sodom
& Gomorrah have nothing to do with the way a 2 year old feels. Science still
doesn't know weather homosexuality is genetic or learned, but for sure, it
is not a matter of free choice. I know of no gay person whose father said to
him, "Well, son, now that you are coming of age, you will have to choose
between being straight & gay.....So decide now weather you will choose the
path of the Devil, or the path of righteousness, and raise a family with one
of your opposite-sex friends." This is a dumb myth that the church puts out
to justify its illogical position against the gay community.......
"Jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> "Ninure Saunders" <[email protected]>
> > I don't know, how did thoe curches that embraced, blessed, condoned,
> > justified anti-semitism, slavery, segregation, apatheid, etc, explain
> > things when they supposdly "stoppped"?
> I "care," as you put it, because this proposed appointment is another
chink
> in the armor by the homosexuals against the dignity of marriage, the
> foundation of the family and the stabilization of society.
Yeah, better that the gay people continue in promiscuity rather than
threaten the "family" by having monogamous relationships.
> Let us, for sake of this discussion, separate the *private practice of
> homosexual acts* from the impact upon society that would result if we
> *institutionalized this behavior.*
I've always wondered why most of us are heterosexual. Now I understand.
It's becuase society has *institutionalized* heterosexuality!
> Virtually every culture, from time immemorial, has considered
homosexuality
> as a serious depravity, that went against the natural moral law.
There is no "natural moral law."
> So, before
> you try to marginalize those of us that oppose your agenda, don't think
that
> we are all going to sit back while you try to cast us in the roles of
> brainless Neanderthals. History is on my side--not yours.
History is also on the side of pogroms against Jews. It wasn't until
the shocking events of the Nazi era that that behavior finally stopped
in Europe, after being a tradition for many centuries.
> The homosexual inclination is objectively disordered. That has been
> believed by "all of the people, all of the time." In some cultures,
> anti-homosexual sentiment has run so high that homosexuals were oppressed
or
> even put to death. There is no evidence to suggest that any society of
any
> signifigance ever embraced the homosexual lifestyle. In the West,
> homosexuals have been typically referred to as "Queers," "Fags" or
> "Homos"--all words of contempt. That is simply historical fact.
> Homosexuals were not liked.
People in the US once also hated and despised black people.
> It is one thing for our society to *tolerate* private homosexual
> behavior--its deviant nature notwithstanding. It is quite another thing
to
> expect society to *codify* that behavior as forseen and approved by law,
to
> the point where it becomes one of society's institutions in the legal
> structure.
Yeah. Much better that gays remain in their promiscuous life style.
> To allow children to be adopted by homosexual couples would be doing grave
> violence to them.
Nonsense and uproven rubbish.
> This has nothing to do with "discrimination." It has to do with common
> sense. Right reason tells us that to change the law would be harmful to
the
> common good, and would be gravely immoral.
Reason doesn't tell you that. Bigotry does.
> If the Episcopal church moves forward with this appointment, it will have
> lost its moral high-ground, and probably will drive many of its adherents
to
> other denominations. The latter is not my business, but the former is an
> issue that impacts us all.
It sure as hell doesn't impact me.
> While I bear no ill will against individuals with a homosexual
inclination,
> I hold to the belief that homosexuality is is disordered,
What is disordered is your thinking.
> According to the polls I've seen, I am in the majority with respect to my
> beliefs.
As were once a majority people once in the southern US opposed to black
people having equal rights with whites.
"David Ruether" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > > "Jerome Delaney" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > You once again are twisting the debate.
> >
> > We are rejecting the INSTITUTIONALIZATION of homosexual marriage, not
> > suggesting that homosexuals not be tolerated.
> >
> > You perverts are free to act out your sick fantasies in private--what
you do
> > to each other in your homes does not concern me. When you demand that
> > society undergo drastic and dangerous changes to accommodate you, that
is
> > where I draw the line.
>
> Ah, so it is OK to "love the sinner, but hate the sin", huh?
> CRAP! People are what they are. Do ask yourself if homosexual
> people exist. If you say "no", then you should get out more, and
> meet people who are not just "your own kind"...;-) If you say "yes",
> how can you then justify on the basis of mere beliefs (rather than
> with truth/facts, and not your obvious prejudices...) advocating the
> limiting of basic human and legal rights (which you have done...) of
> those people who are homosexual? Ah, you say homosexuality is
> not inherent, but is just a "bad choice", and therefore to be
> condemned (or hidden...) from the moral majority? Did you ever
> ask yourself why anyone would choose to be homosexual, with
> the obvious disadvantages of this choice being so evident (the
> need to hide, the lack of legal rights associated with marriage, etc.,
> or even the silly hoopla that might surround being honest about
> yourself and also wishing to serve as a bishop) - and suffer the
> abuse of such as you? And, BTW, why do you assume that
> non-homosexual people do not engage in exactly the same sexual
> practices that you find so abhorent - or that all homosexuals do
> engage in those same practices? You assume FAR too much in
> your writings, with FAR too little real knowledge displayed about
> homosexuality. You would condemn people as a group for their
> inherent characteristics - which is the definition of bigotry...
Well then why are they becomming so vitrolic and massing together.. Yet
still putting on quite a show for us when it comes to say a public parrade,
or they parrade down the street eg. 2 guys rubbing visibly each other
buttocks... Ya get my drift...? I see it.. I don't particularly like it.. I
mean the younger folks see it as well... Not a very nice thing to behold...
I think it's shameless...
Again I actully cannot drive myselfe to 'dislike or hate' these people.. But
why should I have to tolerate that type of behavior..?
I thank God my kiddos all turned out ok..
Ed........................(Oldguyteck)
> --
> David Ruether
> [email protected]
> http://www.ferrario.com/ruether
>
>
Any man that finds sexual attraction in another man has to have something
wrong with him somewhere, be it in his head, or a hormone problem, or
whatever, but it is definitely not normal. The same applies to women.
If you look at in scientific terms, like forces repel each other, and
opposites attract. Pretty simple I would say, and see, I'm not imposing my
religion on you at all. I really don't care what perverts do to each other
in their interludes. but it certainly is not normal. Yes there is pedophilia
as far as heterosexual people are concerned, and they that engage in that
have something wrong with themselves mentally also.
I just think some church leaders in the Episcopal church chose to cop out to
pressure from a bunch of loud mouth perverts. I would never recognize an
avowed pervert as a bishop or a priest. They are living a big lie, and one
cannot serve God and be a liar at the same time. It is just impossible to do
so.
--
Jerry Delaney QMC
U.S. Navy (Retired)
"I would rather be a footstool in Heaven than be a prince in hell."
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 16:17:17 +0000 (UTC), Priscilla H Ballou
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In alt.religion.christian.episcopal Juvenaly <juvenalyGranite&[email protected]> wrote:
>>Question for you folks who hold homosexual activities to be
>>God-pleasing. Assume for a moment, for discussion's sake that there
>>really are such as "homosexuals." Assume also that we are only talking
>>about what you call "monogamous, stable" homosexual relationships. If
>>I understand you rightly, you justify this on the grounds that not all
>>homosexuals are granted the gift of celibacy, and that therefore
>>"homosexuals" should have the right of having such a "relationship" if
>>they wish.
>
>No, I "justify" it on the grounds that homosexuality is value equivalent
>to heterosexuality, that God loves us when we love each other, and that
>God delights in mutual, consensual, physical (even sexual) pleasure.
>
>Priscilla
God loves us regardless of what sins we commit, but His love does not
mean that those sins are alright in His book.
Again you are mixing up the word "hate" with tolerance. I do not wish to
have a pervert around me, but if there is one and he/she does not flaunt it,
I am not the wiser; am I?
I have a right to express my intolerance with what I think is disgusting and
when a person demonstrates that action that disgusts me, I will express my
distaste for it.
Perverts are masters of deciet, they probably have to be to convince
themselves that what they're doing is normal and right. Twisting words into
other meanings is one of those crafts, but beleive me, it does not work with
me. You're not gay, you're a pervert! It is not "an alternate lifestyle," it
is a disgusting existence!
You're not normal; you have some kind of a problem be it pshchological, or
physiological. End of story.
--
Jerry Delaney QMC
U.S. Navy (Retired)
"I would rather be a footstool in Heaven than a prince in hell."
M. Clark <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1fzcd74.1rd6cgj1xyqaioN%[email protected]...
> William Graham <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > M. Clark <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:1fzbfml.10a6xq61qk5wzsN%[email protected]...
> > > 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 shows that those who practice sexual immorality
> > > including same-sex sex are not going to inherit the kingdom of God
> > > anyway. So a true christian church shouldn't recognize or condone gay
> > > marriages, plain and simple.
> >
> > No one is asking your cult to recognize or condone anything. But
"marriage"
> > is not your exclusive ritual. It is recognized by the government. - My
> > government. It has, therefore, left the category of religious ritual,
and
> > entered the realm of constutionality. I do not believe or want my
government
> > to discriminate against any citizen based on his or her sexual
orientation.
>
> Thank you for replying.
>
> I see what you're talking about so let me clarify my statement. A true
> christian church shouldn't recognize or condone gay marriages within the
> church. Indeed, the Episcopal Church is not a strong Christian church
> if it's a Christian church at all; it just thinks it is.
>
> Return to God, believing in his Son Jesus in faith, and have eternal
> life.
>
> M. Clark
I really don't care what a, "true christian church" recognizes. I am
concerned with what my government recognizes. Lets divide marriage into two
types. A state recognized contract between any two people, and a religious
ritual that varies in its meaning from church to church. Now, when I speak
of marriage, I am talking about the former definition, and it should be
allowed between gays as well as heteros. You, as a member of some particular
church, may disallow the marriage ritual from gays, or, for that matter,
from anyone you please. The Catholics, in fact, do disallow it from anyone
who has been previoulsy married, and is now legally divorced.
"Chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> As soon as
> you inject god, God, or religion into that discussion, you are
> disqualified from it. Sorry, game over - you lose.
>
> -Chris
Sorry, game on... who told you that you were making the rules?
Tom
"Al Browne" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> How do you feel about these issues?
I feel that whatever gay people do in the privacy of their own
bedrooms is none of my business. Why should it be, unless
they ask me to particpate. If they did, I'd certainly refurse.
So far, I've never been asked.
> Do you think an open gay man who admits to having anal and oral sex
> with another man is qualified to be a regional church leader of the
> Episcopal church?
I don't understand how management skills relate to one's sexual orientation.
I know that there are gay persons out there successfully running businesses
or conducting their careers in business management positions. What would
be so different about a leadership position in a church?
> Would you trust him with your children?
First, I'd have to see a statistical link with pedophilia and homosexuality.
I'd certainly have my reservations about allowing my children to be
unsupervised with a Roman Catholic priest. It seems an established fact
that 2 out of a hundred of them are pedophiles.
> Do you think gays should be allowed to marry each other?
I think that whatever gays to is none of my business. I've enough
problems of my own to worry about what gay people are doing.
x-no-archive: yes
"Lisa Horton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I doubt that those you have a chance to convince are intelligent enough
> to operate a computer. You might try a more appropriate venue.
>
> Lisa
I KNEW that was coming!
Anyone that is not enlightened like you must be just a brainless
Neanderthal!
Typical of the Gay agenda--make themselves look to be Avant Garde, and the
rest of us mere mortals to liik like our minds are still back in the Stone
Age.
People will see through your tactics, regardless of what side of the issue
they are on.
I can understand why you keep shifting the discussion away from the issue,
and instead try to attack me, and the majority of decent people that share
my views--that way you don't have to confront the absurdity of the position
that you have taken, trying to codify and institutionalize deviant behavior.
Homosexual marriage would tear our culture apart and polarize people like no
other issue ever has. Why not stop making personal attacks on me and
consider the consequences of what you and your cohorts are proposing?
Juvenaly" wrote in message
> Question for you folks who hold homosexual activities to be
> God-pleasing. Assume for a moment, for discussion's sake that there
> really are such ( LONG SNIP) engages in long-term
> fornication (in other words, lives in sin), this is OK in the sight of
> God?
> Juvenaly
Based on the length of the statement and the context, my simple reply would
be "who cares"... unfortunately those who believe they are closer to God
then the rest of us will now belch forth some mumbo jumbo ( their opinion,
well saturated with quotes) proclaiming to have God's answer.
Paul M Davis <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I have a genetic propensity to drive on the left hand side of the road.
> However, my government has made it a state issue by requiring that drivers
> drive on the right hand side. This is blatant and unfair discrimination.
I
> believe that those of us who prefer to drive on the left should be given
the
> same rights as the right side drivers. Anything else is blatant
> discrimination. Ask any left side driver. There was a time when they
were
> just learning to drive when driving on the left would have seemed just as
> comfortable as driving on the right. Europe is far ahead of the United
> States in these matters.
>
Poor analogy.....Being gay, and cohabiting with a same sex partner, will not
cause a head-on crash that takes your life and the lives of innocents in the
other car......Driving rules are necessary, and not moral issues. Gayness,
and the gay life style, is a moral, and political issue......
The Dave© <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "William Graham" wrote
> > > Yet another good argument for a true flat tax.
> > >
> > Yes.....I have heard a rumor that the IRS has gotten rid of the marriage
> > penalty......I will know by next April......If they have, that's a very
> good
> > thing, and high time, too. I have been bitching about it for years.....
>
> To me, tax fairness is no deductions or loopholes at all. No nothing.
You
> make money, you pay a certain percentage and be done with it. Everybody
> pays the same percentage. Then, it wouldn't matter if you're married, or
> single, or whatever. Same would go for corporations.
This wouldn't work.....It is too simplistic for the following reason. The
purpose of the form 1040 is to help you separate your net profits from your
gross profits. After you do this, then you get to pay taxes on your net
profits. If you take away all the "deductions and loopholes" then there are
people who would go broke immediately. Everyone who has a lot of money pass
through their hands every year, but who gets to keep very little of it would
go out of business immediately. These deductions and loopholes are
legitimate business expenses that have to be discounted, Consider the guy
thet buys a million dollar apartment building, and then turns around and
sells it a month or two later for a million 2 hundred thousand. He spends
one hundred thou fixing it up, and paying back taxes on it in the interim.
How would you tax him? - If you do not let him take the expenses off of his
profit before taxes, then you would have him paying taxes on 1.2 million
dollars, and of course, he couldn't do that, so he would be out of business.
Of course you have to let him write off the cost of the building and the 100
K he spent fixing it up and selling it, and just pay taxes on his net
profit, the 100 K he made. The beauty of the 1040 form is that, together
with its schedules, it allows everyone to find out their net profit and
separate it from their gross, weather they are farmers, small business
owners, IBM executives, coal miners, UPS drivers, or whatever they are. - A
wonderful document, that has evolved slowly over the years, and you couldn't
improve on it if you worked at it for twenty years, believe me.
>
> > Now,
> > if they could just take, "In God we Trust" off of my money.........I am
> > tired of being insulted.....
>
> Wow. I hope my life is that cushy when I'm 70 that I have the luxury of
> being "insulted" by something so trivial.
That isn't the point. - If the religious scream and bitch over any little
thing that they detect as being discriminatory, why should I have to put up
with being insulted by my government for 67 years? Do you think its OK to
step on my toes? Why do I have to carry pieces of paper around with me that
have, "In God we Trust" printed on them, when I am certain that no such
being exists? Suppose they said, "The Dave's mother is a whore" on
them.....Would that be OK with you? Why can't our money be non political,
and non religious. Its purpose is to allow us to trade freely, not to make
some stupid political statement. You can hang whatever plack you want on
your mantle, that says whatever the hell you want it to say.....Is it asking
too much for you to just keep your damn dumb slogans off of the pieces of
paper in my pocket?!
"Al Browne" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> How do you feel about these issues?
I feel they have nothing to do with rec.photo.equipment.35mm or
rec.woodworking.
> Do you think an open gay man who admits to having anal and oral sex
> with another man is qualified to be a regional church leader of the
> Episcopal church?
I think that a person who blatantly ignores the charters of
newsgroups and newsgroup etiquette is unqualified to post
to usenet.
"Paul Skelcher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "William Graham" wrote....
> > I'm not sure how marriage started.....
>
> The need for recognition of a formal union between a man and woman has
> always existed.
> Pretty much a biological/societal necessity given the time and energy
> involved in bringing up children to be self-sufficient and reproductive.
> IIRC, in Europe, the Church got into the marriage business around the
> 12th-13th century.
You have a source for this statement I presume?
Mekon
>Just another way to exercise fear and control.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Does the Bible specifically speak of,
> > "Marriage" in so many words? - As in its present meaning, I
mean.......At
> > any rate, for sure today, it is not only a religious ritual, but also a
> > state-sanctioned (and recorded) contractual agreement. It's the state
> > recognition that is the crux of my argument. Since the state recognizes
> it,
> > and treats a person or persons differently because of it, I believe that
> to
> > only recognize it if it were an agreement between opposite sex couples
is
> an
> > example of sexual discrimination. Since it is wrong to discriminate
> > against/for people based on sex, to disallow marriage between same sex
> > couples is sexual discrimination. (IMO)
> >
> >
>
>
x-no-archive: yes
> The need for recognition of a formal union between a man and woman has
> always existed.
It is for the Episcopaleans to decide if this appointment of a bishop who is
openly gay is acceptable. People that are not members of their communion
have no standing in this.
My only observation is that, if they confirm this appointment, how are they
going to explain how their church has opposed homosexuality for the past
half-millennium?
How is it that it was a sin before, but is now a sacrament? What has
changed? Have they been handing down false doctrine all these many years?
What other teachings will they change in the future? How about polygamy?
After all, marriage to the same person for an entire lifetime can get boring
. . . People are living longer these days, and who is to say that one
person can't successfully commit to more than one partner?
Makes one wonder if they have any genuine claim to being a true church . . .
?
I he Marrying Kind
Why social conservatives should support same-sex marriage
by Jonathan Rauch
.....
Last year the Census Bureau reported a statistic that deserved wider
notice than it received: during the 1990s the number of
unmarried-partner households in the United States increased by 72
percent. Cohabitation has actually been on the rise for decades, but
it started from a small base. Now the numbers (more than five
million cohabiting couples) are beginning to look impressive.
Marriage, meanwhile, is headed in the other direction. The annual
number of weddings per 1,000 eligible women fell by more than a
third from 1970 to 1996. A lot of factors are at work herefor
example, people are marrying laterbut it seems clear that one of
them is the rise in cohabitation. Couples are simply more willing to
live together without tying the knot.
Whether this is a bad thing is a contentious question, but it is
almost certainly not a good thing. Cohabitation tends to be both
less stable and less happy than marriage, and this appears to be
true even after accounting for the possibility that the cohabiting
type of person may often be different from the marrying type.
Research suggests that marriage itself brings something beneficial
to the table. Add the fact that a growing share of cohabiting
householdsnow more than a third of themcontain children, and it is
hard to be enthusiastic about the trend.
Whom to blame? In part, homosexual couples like me and my partner.
Cohabitation used to be stigmatized. "Living in sin" it has been
called in recent memory, even among the educated classes. Today
cohabitation is often viewed as a different-but-equal alternative to
wedlock. Although the drift toward cohabitation would no doubt have
happened anyway, the growing visibility and acceptance of same-sex
couples probably speeded the change. As one gay activist told the
Los Angeles Times last year, "Just the term 'unmarried partner' gave
it a dignity and social category."
So (conservatives say) it's true! Homosexuals undermine marriage! To
the contrary. The culprit is not the presence of same-sex couples;
it is the absence of same-sex marriage.
The emergence into the open of same-sex relationships is an
irreversible fact in this country. Traditionalists may not like it,
but they cannot change it, so they will have to decide how to deal
with it. The far right's plantry to push homosexuals back into the
closetis not going to work; the majority of Americans are too
openhearted for that. Indeed, the currents of public opinion are
running the other way. An annual survey of college freshmen found
that last year 58 percenta record high, and up from 51 percent in
1997thought that same-sex couples should be able to marry.
Seeing those numbers and others like them, conservatives are
desperate to stave off same-sex marriage. For that matter, many
moderates remain queasy about legalizing gay marriage; they are
sympathetic to homosexuals, but not that sympathetic.
Liberation-minded leftists, who spent the 1970s telling us that our
parents' marriages were outdated and stuffy, were never crazy about
matrimony to begin with. As for gays, the vast majority want the
right to marry, but most agree that domestic-partner benefits and
other "marriage-lite" arrangements are a lot better than nothing.
The result is the ABM Pact: Anything But Marriage. Enroll same-sex
partners in the company health plan, give them some of the legal
prerogatives of spousehood, attend their commitment ceremonies, let
them register at city hall as partnersjust DON'T CALL IT MARRIAGE.
In America, and in Europe, too, ABM is rapidly establishing itself
as the compromise of choice. Gay partnerships get some social and
legal recognition, marriage remains the union of man and woman, and
everybody moves on. A shrewd social bargain, no?
No. The last thing supporters of marriage should be doing is setting
up an assortment of alternatives, but that is exactly what the ABM
Pact does, and not only for gays. Every year more companies and
governments (at the state and local level) grant marriagelike
benefits to cohabiting partners: "concessions fought for and won
mostly by gay groups," as the Los Angeles Times notes, "but enjoyed
as well by the much larger population of heterosexual unmarried
couples." To which might be added what I think of as the Will &
Grace effect: homosexuals are here, we're queer, and nowadays we're
kind of cool. ABM, perversely, turns one of the country's more
culturally visible minorities into an advertisement for just how
cool and successful life outside of wedlock can be.
I doubt that most homosexuals would take their marital vows less
seriously than heterosexuals do, as some conservatives insist. Even
if I'm wrong, however, surely the exemplary power of failed or
unfaithful gay marriages would pale next to the example currently
being set by a whole groupan increasingly fashionable groupamong
whom love and romance and sex and commitment flourish entirely
outside of marriage. And can you imagine social conservatives
telling any other group to cohabit rather than marry? Can you
imagine them saying, "The young men of America's inner cities won't
take marriage as seriously as they should, so let's encourage them
to shack up with their girlfriends"?
Those who worry about the example gays would set by marrying should
be much more worried about the example gays are already setting by
not marrying. In getting this backward the advocates of ABM make a
mistake that is both ironic and sad. At a time when marriage needs
all the support and participation it can get, homosexuals are
pleading to move beyond cohabitation. We want the licenses, the
vows, the rings, the honeymoons, the anniversaries, the benefits,
and, yes, the responsibilities and the routines. And who is telling
us to just shack up instead? Self-styled friends of matrimony.
Someday conservatives will look back and wonder why they undermined
marriage in an effort to keep homosexuals out.
Source: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/05/rauch.htm
Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
http://Rainbow-Christian.tk
The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
http://Ninure-Saunders.tk
My Yahoo Group
http://Ninure.tk
My Online Diary
http://www.ninure.deardiary.net
-
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.MCCchurch.org
To send e-mail, remove nohate from address
In article <[email protected]>, "Paul M
Davis" <[email protected]> wrote:
-"Thore Schmechtig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
-news:[email protected]...
-> Hi,
->
-> > How do you feel about these issues?
->
-> No problems.
->
-> > Do you think an open gay man who admits to having anal and oral sex
-> > with another man is qualified to be a regional church leader of the
-> > Episcopal church?
->
-> Is there any reason why this man should be less able / unable to follow
-> the Golden Rule and care for the believers under his authority?
->
-
-The Golden Rule? You mean the part where one is to love God with all their
-heart, and their neighbor as themselves? Do you really believe that
-splitting a denomination by flaunting it's prior administrative decisions
-(to not ordain homosexuals) that had been administered with a certain
-degree of harmony is loving?
Yes...
In the same way as those Christians who lovingly broke from their
slave-holding "brothers" in the4 USA.
Is this the God who created us "male and
-female, male and female created he them?". No, apparently this is some
-other "god".
No, it is the same God who made Whites, and non-Whites, Jews and Gentiles.
You DO recall how so many "followers of Jesus" have justified their
racism, ethn ic hatreds, and anti-Semitism using Scripture?
And fo you recall how Catholics burned Protestants, and Protestants burned
Catholics using Scroptures?
For that matter, do yu recall how Jesus was was handed over to be executed
by the "conservativer religious leaders" of His time, because he went
against their understanding of Scropture? "It is better for one man to die
than for a nation to perish, they said.
-
-> > Would you trust him with your children?
->
-> Of course.
->
-
-Would he be a good example? Would he honor and uphold the family unit by
-his teaching and example. Apparently not. NO.
Then neither, by your logic, would be a celibate Catholic.Angligan priest.
- I would not want him to be
-giving spiritual direction to members of my family.
Then don't go to him.
And while you are at, corcern yourself with the housebeam in your eye.
-
-> > Do you think gays should be allowed to marry each other?
->
-> As long as they really know that they are doing (just as hetero
-> couples), why not?
->
-
-Because marriage is an expression of the union between the two different
-genders of mammals. That union has a specific spiritual character that is
-lacking when both members are of the same gender. Scripture uses the
-analogy of marriage in many places to describe the relationship between God
-and the Church.
What gender is the church?
- Any church that presumes to change biology is pursuing a failed effort
from the beginning.
Anyone marrying only for biological reasons certainly shows utter comtempt
for their spouse.
You, for ecample seem to only see your wife as someone t sate yor lust,
and bear your children...at least according to your defintion of marriage.
It's funny, how when conservatives discuss marriage, they rarey if ever
mention LOVE, companionship, or caring for others in their defintion
Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
http://Rainbow-Christian.tk
The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
http://Ninure-Saunders.tk
My Yahoo Group
http://Ninure.tk
My Online Diary
http://www.ninure.deardiary.net
-
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.MCCchurch.org
To send e-mail, remove nohate from address
In article <[email protected]>, RDKirk
<[email protected]> wrote:
-In article <[email protected]>, no.spam@please says...
-> >Virtually every culture, from time immemorial, has considered
-> >homosexuality as a serious depravity.
->
-> It was accepted as natural in ancient Greece and Rome.
->
-
-However, they did not entertain homosexual marriages. In fact, they
-were rather conservative about marriages. Aristotle would have been
-shocked at what we consider tolerable today in that respect.
-
--Aristoltle also wold gave been appaled at the American system of
democracy, transplants, and equal rights for women.
So your point is?
Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
http://Rainbow-Christian.tk
The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
http://Ninure-Saunders.tk
My Yahoo Group
http://Ninure.tk
My Online Diary
http://www.ninure.deardiary.net
-
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.MCCchurch.org
To send e-mail, remove nohate from address
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Johan Lexington) wrote:
-Yes it does, it clearly states this in the New Testament.
-
No, it dos not.
Really.
Have you yourelf ever actually read the NT?
And if you have, how much of it do you actually take literally?
Do you obey Jesus' commands regarding aquiring material things?
Gow about his commands about forgiving your enemies ot anyone doing you wrong?
Why is it, with you people, that the only time you claim the Bible means
what it says, is when you can use it to "condemn" others
-The gay Bishop should be condemned!
If he should, it's not YOUR place to so.
James 4:12 There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to
save and destroy. But you who are you to judge your neighbor?
Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
http://Rainbow-Christian.tk
The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
http://Ninure-Saunders.tk
My Yahoo Group
http://Ninure.tk
My Online Diary
http://www.ninure.deardiary.net
-
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.MCCchurch.org
To send e-mail, remove nohate from address
In article <[email protected]>,
"Jerome Delaney" <[email protected]> wrote:
-Ric; do not try playing the race card with me. Interracial marriage has
-nothing to do with a persons sexual orientation. You folks have been trying
-to identify with the prejudice conferred upon black people for quite some
-time now and it does not take a genius to see the difference between bigotry
-because of a man's skin color and the distaste for a disgusting sexual
-practice.
-
-Perverts are, and let me see if I can explain this to you, people who engage
-in anal copulation with persons of the same sex, or oral copulation with the
-person of the same sex. the consuming of fluids such as another man's urine,
-the wash out of an enema, the ejaculate from the man's orgasm, the
-employment of pain inflicting devices, and bondage. I may not have covered
-it all, but I think you will get the idea.
-
So if two people of the opposite genders engage in those same acts, are
they also perverts?
(I'll admit that I find much of what you wrote about repulsuve, but I
know, if the spam that gets dumped in my e-amil is any indication, these
are things "you straight folks" do too. I wouldn't do any of them, just
like I don't eat liver, or kindeys pf cows, which I find equally
repulsive, but eems to a very common practice.)
Should the church ask what the heterosexual couple plan to do sexually
before they can have that behavior condoned by allowing them to marry?
Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
http://Rainbow-Christian.tk
The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
http://Ninure-Saunders.tk
My Yahoo Group
http://Ninure.tk
My Online Diary
http://www.ninure.deardiary.net
-
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.MCCchurch.org
To send e-mail, remove nohate from address
In article <v_E1b.174900$cF.60574@rwcrnsc53>, "OldguyTeck"
<[email protected]> wrote:
-"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
-news:Uih1b.168172$cF.58805@rwcrnsc53...
->
-> "David Ruether" <[email protected]> wrote in message
-> news:[email protected]...
-> >
-> > Perhaps you are unaware that the American Psychiatric Association
-> > long ago stopped classifying homosexuality as
->
-> Perhaps you are unaware that the general public long ago stopped
-classifying
-> psychiatrists as normal?
->
-> Perhaps you
-> > are unaware that homosexuality occurs "naturally" in about all mammals
-> > in significant percentages?
->
-> Yes. No matter what you do, birth defects happen.
->
->
-
-I fear the old question must be brought up again..
-WHAT next... BEASTEALITY ?
Whay part of non-related CONSENTING adults don't you understand?
-
-Where does it end... Where is the line drawn...?
The line is drawn when the other living human being is unable to, or
refuses to give informed, non-coerced consent.
Gee rthat was easy, wasn' t it?
Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
http://Rainbow-Christian.tk
The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
http://Ninure-Saunders.tk
My Yahoo Group
http://Ninure.tk
My Online Diary
http://www.ninure.deardiary.net
-
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.MCCchurch.org
To send e-mail, remove nohate from address
Lisa Horton wrote:
>
>
> Jeremy wrote:
>>
>>
>> I do not presume to think that anything I have written will change your
>> mind. I just could not let your arguments go unchallenged--if only for
>> the sake of those that have not yet made up their minds on this issue.
>
> I doubt that those you have a chance to convince are intelligent enough
> to operate a computer. You might try a more appropriate venue.
>
> Lisa
Lisa, I've been using a computer for many years now. I've been torn by this
issue and been prayerfully considering it for almost as long. It was just
before the GC's decision that I've made up my mind. It was Swan's openess
that finally made the difference in my views. This was during her
interchange with Harmony. See the thread "Thank You Swan".
--
You can't catch breath in a bottle; and you can't pin it down with paper and
ink; God's living Word dances behind the words of the writers.
-- Joe (Zayton) in alt.bible
"billfrogg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:220820031814208157%[email protected]...
> In article
> <[email protected]>, Jerome
> Delaney <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Perverts are, and let me see if I can explain this to you, people who
engage
> > in anal copulation with persons of the same sex, or oral copulation with
the
> > person of the same sex. the consuming of fluids such as another man's
urine,
> > the wash out of an enema, the ejaculate from the man's orgasm, the
> > employment of pain inflicting devices, and bondage. I may not have
covered
> > it all, but I think you will get the idea.
> >
> >
> > As a member of a Choir, I have known several male organist who were
married,
> > and not perverted. You will notice that I do not use the word gay,
because
> > that word has a meaning to me that means "happy, or joyous" which
perverts
> > do not seem to be as far as I know. I am sure there are men and/or women
who
> > play the organ that are perverted, but as long as they keep it to
> > themselves, who knows about it, or who cares?
> >
> > Does that answer your questions? If not, then I suggest that you seek
your
> > answers elsewhere.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jerry Delaney QMC
> > U.S. Navy (Retired)
> >
> > "I would rather be a footstool in Heaven than a prince in hell."
> >
> >
> Oh Jerry Jerry Jerry...You must stop being so fascinated with such
> things. It tells so much about your interior life. ribbit ribbit
Well now! croaker--LOL Just where were you heading with this last response ?
Ed...........................(Oldguyteck)
"Befuddled" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> "William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:pWnYa.85483$Ho3.11892@sccrnsc03...
> >
> > Al Browne <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > How do you feel about these issues?
> >
> > > Do you think gays should be allowed to marry each other?
> >
> > If marriage were just a religious ritual, which is how it started, I
would
> > say it was up to the individual church. But, my government has made it a
> > state issue, by charging married people according to a different income
> tax
> > table than the one that single people get to use.....So, I believe that
> gay
> > people should have the same right to marry their partners as do opposite
> sex
> > couples. Anything else is blatent discrimination against people for
their
> > sexual orientation.....Ask most any gay person....He/she will tell you
> that
> > they were gay as far back as they can remember. There never was a time
> when
> > they actually had a choice in the matter.....So being gay is not a
matter
> of
> > choice. Like skin color, it is something one is born with, and cannot
> > change. Therefore, the government shouldn't discriminate either for or
> > against it.
> >
> >
>
> yes you are born with it, it is called sin. How you choose, yes choose
to
> let your sin grow or follow Gods commands is your choice just like
accepting
> Christ or rejecting him.
All of this presumes one premise that has yet to be proven, that there is a
god. Take God out of the picture, and your argument doesn't have a leg to
stand on. Since there is no way to get to any god, except through a
rationalized leap of faith, there is no reason to prima facie accept the
notion of a god.
Your argument is illogical and just an excuse to hate some people.
Real nice.
"M. Clark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1fzcct9.5izjlv2gt7auN%[email protected]...
> It doesn't surprise me that they always went to their same-sex parents
> for comfort. This is because love isn't always hugs and kisses as
> Proverbs 13:24 indicates. The children may not have understood at the
> time if their real parents had been disciplining them in love. Gay
> parents may not have had the love that expresses itself in properly
> disciplining children.
Scratch a fundamentalist and find a child abuser. Sheesh!
-- Ernie
"David Ruether" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Perhaps you are unaware that the American Psychiatric Association
> long ago stopped classifying homosexuality as
Perhaps you are unaware that the general public long ago stopped classifying
psychiatrists as normal?
Perhaps you
> are unaware that homosexuality occurs "naturally" in about all mammals
> in significant percentages?
Yes. No matter what you do, birth defects happen.
"Ernie Jurick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "David P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > So I look at it like this....
> >
> > You don't believe or have faith that there is a God and I do.
> >
> > If you are right and I am wrong, we die, turn to dust, and our
> consciousness
> > vanishes - poof - no big deal for either of us.
> > If I am right and you are wrong, we die, I go to Heaven and you burn in
> Hell
> > for eternity.
> >
> > So forget about the logical argument and just think about...what if
you're
> > wrong?
>
> Pascal's Wager-- been there done that. The counter-argument is "How do you
> know you've picked the *right* religion?" There are 20+ major ones and
> 1,800+ spinoffs, sects and cults. None is any more provable than any
other.
> So what if, after a lifetime of prayers and genuflecting, you die only to
> discover that the Witchety Grub Cult of the Australian aborigines is the
One
> True Religion and you have to spend eternity buried up to the neck in an
> anthill in the Outback?
> -- Ernie
>
>
"maf 1029" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 19:34:41 +0000 (UTC), Priscilla H Ballou
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In alt.religion.christian.episcopal maf 1029 <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >
> >>On the other hand, if the laity hates gays and lesbians worse than
> >>they want staff and volunteers to run their churches, then the laity
> >>should get exactly what they want.
> >
> >We have met the laity, and they are us. ;-)
> >
> >Priscilla
>
> Former laity/ex-RCC employee here.
>
>
It's been showing !
Not enough pay ?
Ed...................(Oldguyteck)
x-no-archive: yes
"David Ruether" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Perhaps you are unaware that the American Psychiatric Association
> long ago stopped classifying homosexuality as abnormal?
On the contrary, I am aware of that fact. I am also aware of the fact that
homosexual activists got their own people into that organization, in order
to accomplish that about-face.
> Perhaps you are unaware that homosexuality occurs "naturally" in about
all mammals
> in significant percentages?
Murderous traits also occur in a significant percentage of human beings, yet
you would not legalize killing, would you? The urge to steal occurs to some
degree in 90% of people, but that does not mean that we legalize theft.
Perhaps you are unaware that those who most
> vociferously rant against homosexuality are often "in hiding"
themselves...?
Says whom? Is that your opinion, or is it based on facts? Even if it true,
does that mean that society legalizes homosexual marriage?
> (It has been "fun" over the years seeing how many right-wing religious
> leaders [and a Supreme Court nominee or two...;-], who rant about "sins"
> on Sunday, get caught having sex in public johns during the week.)
What does this have to do with the question of whether to institutionalize
homosexual unions? So there are hypocrites out there--do we simply dispose
of our traditional institutions because of a few closet homosexuals?
> Hypocracy is the sin, and truth avoids the need to hide...
I am arguing for only one thing: that the United States NOT turn its back on
thousands of years of human experience by legalizing, codifying and
institutionalizing marriage between same-sex persons. Your twisting the
argument serves no purpose. I really don't care how many hypocrites you can
identify--that does not affect the argument under discussion. Using your
logic, we could legalize every kind of perverse or criminal behavior.
In the history of the world, homosexuals have not been afforded the rights
of married persons. There is a good reason for that. People intuitively
understood that such people were abnormal. The homosexual agenda has simply
turned the tables on the rest of us, by repeatedly asserting that it is *we*
who are abnormal. They throw out the word *homophobia* at every
opportunity--even though the American Psychological Association--the same
group that you mentioned earlier--admists of NO such mental illness!
The fact that I consider homosexuals to be disordered does NOT make me a
"homophobic" person. The fact that I choose to want to keep our social
institutions the way that they have ALWAYS been does not make me a bigot.
The homosexuals' twisted logic and empty arguments just don't work with
me--and millions of other Americans. When we reject their agenda, they
resort to name-calling, or to trying to associate us with unpopular ideas
(like slave-owners), or they try to assume a role of being better-educated
or more enlightened than the rest of us brainless Neanderthals, or they just
try to heckle us.
It isn't going to work. Their lifestyle is disordered, and humanity has so
recognized it for thoudands of years, the American Psychological Association
notwithstanding. They can have all the "Gay Pride" parades they want--they
are just loudmouthed perverts, who should stop acting like a big bunch of
spoiled children.
They can whine all they want--they'll never be allowed to marry persons of
the same sex.
>
> > If they want property rights or visitation rights, that can be handled
in
> > other ways. But not marriage. Marriage is a unique institution,
afforded
> > with unique benefits, and it has ALWAYS been between a man and a woman.
>
> But not always freely permitted. Remember the fate of slaves, even
> in our own country. Denying the right of mariage is one way to "keep
> people in their places"...
>
> > The impact upon society, if homosexual unions were raised on a par with
> > marriage, would be devastating.
>
> And this would be why...? ;-) "'Cuz then everyone would do it, and
> where would children come from?" (This absurd reason is commonly given,
> but it reveals more about the claimant than about actual consequences...).
> Oh, BTW, in my county and city we have gay anti-discrimination laws, and
> do respect gay marriages, though they do not yet have legal sanction - and
> nothing "devastating" that the ignorant ranted about before these laws
were
> passed has come to pass... Our community is a good, very prosperous
> one - possibly because it is so accepting of people who are "different".
>
> >And, please, don'r ask me to submit
> > "scientific proof" as a condidion of barring homosexual marriage--that
> > argument presumes that anyone can have anything, absent "scientific
proof"
> > being provided by the opposition. Let's use common sense.
>
> Yes, let's... Suppose you had black hair, and there was a superstition
> (derived from religion and social custom) about the evil nature of
> those with black hair that prevented you from having reasonable job
> security, expectations of safety, and freedom from being summarily
> ejected from your housing for no reason other than your hair color.
> More: you could not enter some vocations, could not legally join
> in marriage with anyone else "of your kind", and could not exercise
> the basic rights of inheritance, etc. from your "partner" of perhaps
> several decades of a loving relationship. Stupid, huh? So you say,
> "Well, I would dye my hair another color!" - but this is easy;
> sexuality is inherent, and cannot be changed (in/for the honest...;-).
>
> > They're disordered perverts, NOT respectable pillars of society.
>
> You just might be surprised how many well-known, wonderful, and
> respected "pillars of society" are in fact homosexual - but irrational
> hatred such as yours makes it uncomfortable for many to be honest
> about their sexuality. Would that all such as you honestly questioned
> your hateful beliefs before attempting to limit others based on them...;-)
> --
> David Ruether
> [email protected]
> http://www.ferrario.com/ruether
>
>
"Alan Browne" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Jeremy wrote:
>
> > You once again are twisting the debate.
> >
> > We are rejecting the INSTITUTIONALIZATION of homosexual marriage, not
> > suggesting that homosexuals not be tolerated.
> >
> > You perverts are free to act out your sick fantasies in private--what
you do
> > to each other in your homes does not concern me. When you demand that
> > society undergo drastic and dangerous changes to accommodate you, that
is
> > where I draw the line.
>
>
> Why don't you draw an other line, O Great Societal Architect, and stop
> x-posting this crap to the photo NG's?
>
What do ya have for photos over there Al?
Nice scenerios ya ?
Ed....................(Oldguyteck)
"Steve Kramer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lisa Horton wrote:
> >
> A magnificent response!
>
> Steve Kramer
> Chiang Mai, Thailand
Hey, Steve, tell us about how much katoeys are hated and despised in
Thailand. :-)
-- Ernie
"Ernie Jurick" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Do you think an openly heterosexual man who admits to having vaginal,
> anal and oral sex
> with a woman qualified to be a regional church leader of the Episcopal
> church?
>
> Would you trust him with your children?
>
> Do you think these perverts should be allowed to marry each other?
>
> -- Ernie
>
>
If it is done outside the sacrament of marriage, he is not qualified.
Priscilla Ballou <[email protected]> wrote in news:vze23t8n-
[email protected]:
> Actually, the Golden Rule is "do unto others as you would have others do
> unto you." What you're looking for, I think, is the Great Commandment,
> "Love God and love your neighbor as yourself."
>
> Priscilla
Before the changes in the BCP, the great commandment referred to God alone:
Hear what our Lord Jesus Christ saith: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God
with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is
the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it: Thou
shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the
Law and the Prophets.
I am not familiar with the newest prayer books used by the ECUSA - have the
two great commandments really been morphed into one?
"William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:GmzYa.91421$YN5.64902@sccrnsc01:
> Sorry.....But I couldn't disagree with you more......My gay friends
> tell me that from their earliest memories, they preferred their same
> sex parents over there other parents, and when frightened or confused,
> always went to their same-sex parents for comfort.....Even when only 2
> years old.....Sodom & Gomorrah have nothing to do with the way a 2
> year old feels.
Illogical - women are most often the comforters in the family. Your
statement would have all girl children potential lesbians.
> Science still doesn't know weather homosexuality is
> genetic or learned, but for sure, it is not a matter of free choice. I
> know of no gay person whose father said to him, "Well, son, now that
> you are coming of age, you will have to choose between being straight
> & gay.....So decide now weather you will choose the path of the Devil,
> or the path of righteousness, and raise a family with one of your
> opposite-sex friends." This is a dumb myth that the church puts out
> to justify its illogical position against the gay community.......
>
2000 years of religious tradition deesigned to persecute 21st Century
homosexuals. Wow, the Church really planned ahead!
"William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:q3AYa.90775$Ho3.11507@sccrnsc03:
> If he said, "Find a partner whom you can love, honor, and obey, and
> marry that partner, and spend your life in happiness with that
> partner." Would you think that was giving your children improper
> spiritual direction? - If your children are gay, then how would you
> want them to spend their lives? Being miserable, hiding a secret that
> they hide just for your benefit? If it were me, I would want my kids
> to live in happiness with their gay partner, adopt some parentless
> child, (or two) and live a life of happiness......But then, I don't
> let some old, out-of-date book dictate my morality.....I was taught
> to think for myself.
This begs the real issue. I am less concerned that the Bishop is a
practising homosexual (although unrepentant sin should be a disqualifying
factor) than that the Bishop rejected the sacred vows he took before God
and man by dumping his wife and children to pursue worldly pleasures. How
can this man effectively counsel others who are tempted? Will his answer
be "Honor your wife/husband till death do you part"? "What God has joined
together, let no man put asunder"? "Go and sin no more"? Not with any
credibility. He is in a position of being unable to lead people to
righteousness.
Depends - what kind of shop does he have? You should always try to marry up
you know!
Bill Pounds
"Al Browne" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> How do you feel about these issues?
>
> Do you think an open gay man who admits to having anal and oral sex
> with another man is qualified to be a regional church leader of the
> Episcopal church?
>
> Would you trust him with your children?
>
> Do you think gays should be allowed to marry each other?
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 08:17:25 GMT in
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, William Graham ("William
Graham" <[email protected]>) said, directing the reply to
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
>
>Al Browne <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> How do you feel about these issues?
>
>> Do you think gays should be allowed to marry each other?
>
>If marriage were just a religious ritual, which is how it started,
Just as a matter of interest, is that true? I'd always been under the
impression originally marriage was originally more of a contractual
arrangement. Anyone know of any good books on the subject?[1]
>I would
>say it was up to the individual church. But, my government has made it a
>state issue, by charging married people according to a different income tax
>table than the one that single people get to use.....So, I believe that gay
>people should have the same right to marry their partners as do opposite sex
>couples. Anything else is blatent discrimination against people for their
>sexual orientation.....Ask most any gay person....He/she will tell you that
>they were gay as far back as they can remember. There never was a time when
>they actually had a choice in the matter.....So being gay is not a matter of
>choice. Like skin color, it is something one is born with, and cannot
>change. Therefore, the government shouldn't discriminate either for or
>against it.
>
[1]. Naq vg'f nobhg urer fbzr tvg fnlf "Gur Ovoyr".
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 **
> Do you think an open gay man who admits to having anal and oral sex
> with another man is qualified to be a regional church leader of the
> Episcopal church?
Since the Anglican communion doesn't impose celibacy on its clergy,
why would a cleric having sex with a lifelong partner be an issue?
> Would you trust him with your children?
Isn't this a non-sequitur? You defined his relationship in the
previous paragraph as having sex with another man. This does not imply
that he would therefore seek sex with children. If a married bishop
has sex with a woman (his wife) would you trust him with your
daughter?
> Do you think gays should be allowed to marry each other?
Absolutely. Oh, it is up to each religious community whether to offer
sacramental marriage to any particular combination of its members. The
Roman Catholic communion does not, for example, offer that sacrament
to members who have civil divorces but not annulments.
However, a civilly recognized marriage between two free citizens
should be open to any couple willing to accept its responsibilities.
There are some opponents of same-sex unions who use something of a
Catch-22 in their arguments: gay couples should not have access to
marriage to legally formalize a committed union, but gay couples who
live together without being married are obviously immoral. I believe
it was the late Raymond Chandler who described one tough villain in
one of his novels as someone who would bash your teeth in and then
shoot you for bleeding on his shoes.
Paul
"William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:pWnYa.85483$Ho3.11892@sccrnsc03...
>
> Al Browne <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > How do you feel about these issues?
>
> > Do you think gays should be allowed to marry each other?
>
> If marriage were just a religious ritual, which is how it started, I would
> say it was up to the individual church. But, my government has made it a
> state issue, by charging married people according to a different income
tax
> table than the one that single people get to use.....So, I believe that
gay
> people should have the same right to marry their partners as do opposite
sex
> couples. Anything else is blatent discrimination against people for their
> sexual orientation.....Ask most any gay person....He/she will tell you
that
> they were gay as far back as they can remember. There never was a time
when
> they actually had a choice in the matter.....So being gay is not a matter
of
> choice. Like skin color, it is something one is born with, and cannot
> change. Therefore, the government shouldn't discriminate either for or
> against it.
>
>
yes you are born with it, it is called sin. How you choose, yes choose to
let your sin grow or follow Gods commands is your choice just like accepting
Christ or rejecting him. I'm so tired of hearing "gay" people blame there
sinful desires on genetics. Get off of that wagon because God isn't stupid
and going to say, "oops I must have made a mistake and got your gene's mixed
up with someone else's sexual gene. It's not going to send you to Hell
being gay I don't think but I wonder how many other things Satan has lied to
you and made you believe. Perhaps he's told you that you are saved and
don't worry about trying to better yourself or do anything else God says
because you are ok now. I doubt with that attitude one was serious when
they went through the motions of getting saved so therefore are you saved?
Satan has many lies. Here's a good question. Would a true man of God do
anything against Scripture that could cause a split in Gods church just
because he wanted to obtain a better job position? That's what this gay
bishop did because he bought the lie Satan told him and I think he probably
has some other very flexible interpretations of scriptures. God said a man
shouldn't lay with another man, God also destroyed Sodom and Gamora because
of such behavior, he also has said how he detest such behavior but your gay
bishop just put his approval on it and the next step for Satan will be some
union of gays in Gods church. Shame on you for defiling something designed
to honor Gods words. Yes and I'm sure when Christ turned the water to wine
at the wedding he didn't say sodomy was not a sin and why are you marrying
this woman. There's no rules. This one man one wife is ridiculous lets all
have group sex with anybody. Does a murderer not be a murderer if we blame
his genetics? Sin isn't sin if we can find something else to blame? Gay is
ok if it's blamed on genetics? Sodomy is ok if it's monogamous?
Lies
lies
lies
lies
we are warned Satan is a liar and the truth isn't in him. You have been
listening to the wrong little voice my friend
Befuddled gabbles on:
> yes you are born with it, it is called sin. How you choose, yes choose to
>let your sin grow or follow Gods commands is your choice just like accepting
>Christ or rejecting him. I'm so tired of hearing "gay" people blame there
>sinful desires on genetics. Get off of that wagon because God isn't stupid
>and going to say, "oops I must have made a mistake and got your gene's mixed
>up with someone else's sexual gene.
You mean like kids with Down's syndrome?
Your name says it all.
Charlie Self
"The California crunch really is the result of not enough power-generating
plants and then not enough power to power the power of generating plants."
George W. Bush
x-no-archive: yes
"William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:k2VYa.99980$o%2.43657@sccrnsc02...
> Besides, at one time, 95% of the worlds population believed that the earth
> was flat, and if you sailed too far out to sea, you would fall off the
edge
> and be eaten by dragons. - That didn't make it any truer than the belief
> that homosexuality is a sin.
My argument was based on the natural moral law, not on religion. Why are
you clouding the issue? One does not have to be religious in order to
reject the homosexual agenda as disordered.
The fact that virtually every religion has denounced homosexuality merely
underscores the deep-seated hostility that mankind has had against
homosexuals since the beginning of known history.
This aversion to homosexuality runs too deep for you to dismiss it offhand.
The thought of institutionalizing this depravity, as opposed to merely
tolerating it, makes me sick. And my assessment is based, not on any
religious teaching, but simply on reason and human experience going back
thousands of years.
RDKirk <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I like the proposal of the governor of Hawaii: The government should
> get out of the "marriage" business entirely and be only in the business
> of enforcing contracts under law.
Exactly what I believe....And the IRS should not place any premium on the
signing of said contracts.......
Question for you folks who hold homosexual activities to be
God-pleasing. Assume for a moment, for discussion's sake that there
really are such as "homosexuals." Assume also that we are only talking
about what you call "monogamous, stable" homosexual relationships. If
I understand you rightly, you justify this on the grounds that not all
homosexuals are granted the gift of celibacy, and that therefore
"homosexuals" should have the right of having such a "relationship" if
they wish.
My question to you: does it follow then that "monogamous, stable"
heterosexual relationships between people who are unmarried (i.e.
concubinage, or long-term fornication), are justified on the same
basis -- that is, that not everyone has the gift of continence
(celibacy) and not everyone has been granted the gift of a spouse? So
if such a person -- an unmarried, heterosexual who is incontinent and
who has not found himself / herself a spouse -- engages in long-term
fornication (in other words, lives in sin), this is OK in the sight of
God?
Juvenaly
The Dave© <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:yLDYa.30426$3%[email protected]...
> "William Graham" wrote
> > This may be the, "bottom line" to you, but to an atheist like me, it has
> > absolutely nothing to do with the reason why I check the, "single head
of
> > household" line on my 1040 form. My "wife" and I save a lot of money
that
> > way every year. We are pushing 70, and still haven't gotten married
> because
> > of these dumb IRS laws. The government loses a lot of money every year
> > because it has these laws on the books, and even more because of the
laws
> > that prevent gays from getting married. Here are a huge group of people
> who,
> > in spite of the fact that it would cost them more money, want to marry
and
> > receive that kind of legitimacy. You bible thumpers are paying extra tax
> > dollars because of your untenable position....
>
> Yet another good argument for a true flat tax.
>
>
Yes.....I have heard a rumor that the IRS has gotten rid of the marriage
penalty......I will know by next April......If they have, that's a very good
thing, and high time, too. I have been bitching about it for years.....Now,
if they could just take, "In God we Trust" off of my money.........I am
tired of being insulted.....
[email protected] (Al Browne) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> How do you feel about these issues?
>
> Do you think an open gay man who admits to having anal and oral sex
> with another man is qualified to be a regional church leader of the
> Episcopal church?
>
> Would you trust him with your children?
>
> Do you think gays should be allowed to marry each other?
What does Jesus say about marriage?
Matthew 19:3-5... "Haven't you read the Scriptures?" Jesus replied.
"They record that from the beginning 'God made them MALE AND FEMALE.'
5 And he said, 'This explains why a man leaves his father and mother
and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one".
Mark 10:6-9... Jesus answered them saying "But God's plan was seen
from the beginning of creation, for 'He made them MALE AND FEMALE.' 7
'This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to
his wife, 8 and the two are united into one.' Since they are no longer
two but one, 9 let no one separate them, for God has joined them
together".
What does Jesus say about homosexuality?
Luke 10:12... "The truth is, even wicked Sodom will be better off than
such a town on the judgment day".
Matthew 10:15... "I assure you, the wicked cities of Sodom and
Gomorrah will
be better off on the judgment day than that place will be".
Matthew 11:24... "I assure you, Sodom will be better off on the
judgment day
than you".
And what does He say about the biblical laws that condemn it....?
Matthew 5:17-18....17 "Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not
come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No,
I came to fulfill them. 18 I assure you, until heaven and earth
disappear, even the smallest detail of God's law will remain until its
purpose is achieved".
Looks cut and dried to me.
"OldguyTeck" <[email protected]> wrote: ...
>
>"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:Uih1b.168172$cF.58805@rwcrnsc53...
>>
>> "David Ruether" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> > Perhaps you are unaware that the American Psychiatric Association
>> > long ago stopped classifying homosexuality as
>>
>> Perhaps you are unaware that the general public long ago stopped
>classifying
>> psychiatrists as normal?
>>
>> Perhaps you
>> > are unaware that homosexuality occurs "naturally" in about all mammals
>> > in significant percentages?
>>
>> Yes. No matter what you do, birth defects happen.
>>
>>
>
>I fear the old question must be brought up again..
>WHAT next... BEASTEALITY ?
Oh dear, Neddy is remembering fondly his time on the farm.
Hi,
> How do you feel about these issues?
No problems.
> Do you think an open gay man who admits to having anal and oral sex
> with another man is qualified to be a regional church leader of the
> Episcopal church?
Is there any reason why this man should be less able / unable to follow
the Golden Rule and care for the believers under his authority?
> Would you trust him with your children?
Of course.
> Do you think gays should be allowed to marry each other?
As long as they really know that they are doing (just as hetero
couples), why not?
--
Bye
Tocis ([email protected])
> The Golden Rule? You mean the part where one is to love God with all their
> heart, and their neighbor as themselves?
Indeed.
> Do you really believe that
> splitting a denomination by flaunting it's prior administrative decisions
> (to not ordain homosexuals) that had been administered with a certain
> degree of harmony is loving?
If a law that once had been created for a good reason now completely
lacks this reason, the law is useless and nothing but an unnecessary
cause of suffering. The judaic/christian doctrine against homosexuality
is such a law without a reason.
> > > Would you trust him with your children?
> > Of course.
> Would he be a good example? Would he honor and uphold the family unit by
> his teaching and example. Apparently not.
Tell me why. State a rational, plausible reason.
> NO. I would not want him to be
> giving spiritual direction to members of my family.
Sexual orientation has nothing whatsoever to do with faith. I have met
gay men who were much more christian than most "straight" people.
> > > Do you think gays should be allowed to marry each other?
> > As long as they really know that they are doing (just as hetero
> > couples), why not?
> Because marriage is an expression of the union between the two different
> genders of mammals. That union has a specific spiritual character that is
> lacking when both members are of the same gender.
Strange, strange... everyone I know, no matter what faith, agrees that
marriage is an expression of love, not of procreation. Thus, no need to
link marriage to gender difference.
<cynism>
Of course I'm not surprised if a religion with a long tradition of
sowing hatred in the name of the "love" of their god opposes this point
of view.
</cynism>
> Scripture uses the
> analogy of marriage in many places to describe the relationship between God
> and the Church. Any church that presumes to change biology is pursuing a
> failed effort from the beginning.
Thank you very much for proving your own position to be unjustified!
Banning homosexuality equals an attempt, by the church, to change
biology... as homosexuality is _NOT_ a phenomenon found exclusively
with homo sapiens. By the way, for that reason homosexuality is also
_NOT_ a question of deliberate choice, unless you want to claim that
all animals are just as sentient as we are.
Like it or not, you lose.
Hi,
> Actually, the Golden Rule is "do unto others as you would have others do
> unto you." What you're looking for, I think, is the Great Commandment,
> "Love God and love your neighbor as yourself."
Thanks for the correction - I'd know exactly how to call it in German,
but all those translation problems... one can easily confuse some terms
:)
--
Bye
Tocis ([email protected])
In alt.religion.christian.episcopal M. Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
>Priscilla Ballou <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "David P" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > So I look at it like this....
>> >
>> > You don't believe or have faith that there is a God and I do.
>> >
>> > If you are right and I am wrong, we die, turn to dust, and our consciousness
>> > vanishes - poof - no big deal for either of us.
>> > If I am right and you are wrong, we die, I go to Heaven and you burn in Hell
>> > for eternity.
>> >
>> > So forget about the logical argument and just think about...what if you're
>> > wrong?
>>
>> The existence of God does not mean that there is necessarily a Hell or
>> that anyone burns in it involuntarily.
>Please pardon me for interrupting.
>In my opinion, such a statement in based on reasoning devoid of any
>faith. Your statement indicates that you can imagine God, anybody can,
>not that you have accepted Jesus Christ into your spiritual heart.
So anyone who questions the existence of Hell is necessarily not a
Christian? A little narrow-minded, aren't you?
>Indeed, return to God, believing in his Son Jesus in faith, and have
>eternal life.
Your assumptions are erroneous.
Priscilla
In alt.religion.christian.episcopal Ernie Jurick <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> x-no-archive: yes
>> > There is no "natural moral law."
>> Sure there is--just watch the bystanders watching the Gay Prode
>Parade--they
>> all turn away in disgust whenever the marchers embrace.
>Never been to San Francisco or Seattle, have you, Jeremy?
Or Boston.
Priscilla
"Jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> x-no-archive: yes
> "Ric" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:Og%[email protected]...
> > Maybe the Episcopal Church have simply opened their eyes and decided to
> > acknowledge what already exists. Robinson surely isn't the first gay
> bishop,
> > just the first openly gay bishop. Should churches of all demoninations
> root
> > out all suspected gay clergy? What about organists? Be prepared to sing
> a
> > cappella because there sure are a lot of them.
> No, you don't go on a witch hunt. But you DON'T INSTITUTIONALIZE IT,
> EITHER!
>
> The vocal homosexuals want to have their perverted activities declared to be
> "normal" and this is what must be opposed. They are not normal, they have
> never been considered normal, and this notion that they should be able to
> marry and raise children is absurd.
Perhaps you are unaware that the American Psychiatric Association
long ago stopped classifying homosexuality as abnormal? Perhaps you
are unaware that homosexuality occurs "naturally" in about all mammals
in significant percentages? Perhaps you are unaware that those who most
vociferously rant against homosexuality are often "in hiding" themselves...?
(It has been "fun" over the years seeing how many right-wing religious
leaders [and a Supreme Court nominee or two...;-], who rant about "sins"
on Sunday, get caught having sex in public johns during the week.)
Hypocracy is the sin, and truth avoids the need to hide...
> If they want property rights or visitation rights, that can be handled in
> other ways. But not marriage. Marriage is a unique institution, afforded
> with unique benefits, and it has ALWAYS been between a man and a woman.
But not always freely permitted. Remember the fate of slaves, even
in our own country. Denying the right of mariage is one way to "keep
people in their places"...
> The impact upon society, if homosexual unions were raised on a par with
> marriage, would be devastating.
And this would be why...? ;-) "'Cuz then everyone would do it, and
where would children come from?" (This absurd reason is commonly given,
but it reveals more about the claimant than about actual consequences...).
Oh, BTW, in my county and city we have gay anti-discrimination laws, and
do respect gay marriages, though they do not yet have legal sanction - and
nothing "devastating" that the ignorant ranted about before these laws were
passed has come to pass... Our community is a good, very prosperous
one - possibly because it is so accepting of people who are "different".
>And, please, don'r ask me to submit
> "scientific proof" as a condidion of barring homosexual marriage--that
> argument presumes that anyone can have anything, absent "scientific proof"
> being provided by the opposition. Let's use common sense.
Yes, let's... Suppose you had black hair, and there was a superstition
(derived from religion and social custom) about the evil nature of
those with black hair that prevented you from having reasonable job
security, expectations of safety, and freedom from being summarily
ejected from your housing for no reason other than your hair color.
More: you could not enter some vocations, could not legally join
in marriage with anyone else "of your kind", and could not exercise
the basic rights of inheritance, etc. from your "partner" of perhaps
several decades of a loving relationship. Stupid, huh? So you say,
"Well, I would dye my hair another color!" - but this is easy;
sexuality is inherent, and cannot be changed (in/for the honest...;-).
> They're disordered perverts, NOT respectable pillars of society.
You just might be surprised how many well-known, wonderful, and
respected "pillars of society" are in fact homosexual - but irrational
hatred such as yours makes it uncomfortable for many to be honest
about their sexuality. Would that all such as you honestly questioned
your hateful beliefs before attempting to limit others based on them...;-)
--
David Ruether
[email protected]
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether
"Jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> x-no-archive: yes
> "David Ruether" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
[most deleted, but a few bits remain...;-]
> > Perhaps you are unaware that the American Psychiatric Association
> > long ago stopped classifying homosexuality as abnormal?
> On the contrary, I am aware of that fact. I am also aware of the fact that
> homosexual activists got their own people into that organization, in order
> to accomplish that about-face.
Ah, so you are into conspiracy theories, too, I see...;-)
Let's see - a bunch o' perverts go through the extensive education
and experience necessary to become psychiatrists for the sole
purpose of outnumbering the "sane" members of that profession
and overthrowing the prevailing view on homosexuality.
This seems so likely...!;-)
> The fact that I consider homosexuals to be disordered does NOT make me a
> "homophobic" person. The fact that I choose to want to keep our social
> institutions the way that they have ALWAYS been does not make me a bigot.
> The homosexuals' twisted logic and empty arguments just don't work with
> me--and millions of other Americans. When we reject their agenda, they
> resort to name-calling, or to trying to associate us with unpopular ideas
> (like slave-owners), or they try to assume a role of being better-educated
> or more enlightened than the rest of us brainless Neanderthals, or they just
> try to heckle us.
Yes. I think you have a point. Substitute the word "Black" or "Jew"
in what you say, and turn the clock back a couple of decades, and it
all makes perfect sense! ;-)
--
David Ruether
[email protected]
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether
"Gabby" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "Jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > It would be a cold day in hell before I would take religious or moral
> > instruction from a homosexual. And I believe that millions of other
> > Christians share that viewpoint. I wonder how many Episcopalians will
> > decide that they must come out of that church as a result of this scandal?
>
> A homosexual priest presided at my wedding, baptized my first two kids and
> presided at my brother's wedding. Not a problem. I could see past the
> person.
>
> Suzanne
But, perhaps, the "person" was very nice, and honorable...
--
David Ruether
[email protected]
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether
> > "Jerome Delaney" <[email protected]> wrote:
> You once again are twisting the debate.
>
> We are rejecting the INSTITUTIONALIZATION of homosexual marriage, not
> suggesting that homosexuals not be tolerated.
>
> You perverts are free to act out your sick fantasies in private--what you do
> to each other in your homes does not concern me. When you demand that
> society undergo drastic and dangerous changes to accommodate you, that is
> where I draw the line.
Ah, so it is OK to "love the sinner, but hate the sin", huh?
CRAP! People are what they are. Do ask yourself if homosexual
people exist. If you say "no", then you should get out more, and
meet people who are not just "your own kind"...;-) If you say "yes",
how can you then justify on the basis of mere beliefs (rather than
with truth/facts, and not your obvious prejudices...) advocating the
limiting of basic human and legal rights (which you have done...) of
those people who are homosexual? Ah, you say homosexuality is
not inherent, but is just a "bad choice", and therefore to be
condemned (or hidden...) from the moral majority? Did you ever
ask yourself why anyone would choose to be homosexual, with
the obvious disadvantages of this choice being so evident (the
need to hide, the lack of legal rights associated with marriage, etc.,
or even the silly hoopla that might surround being honest about
yourself and also wishing to serve as a bishop) - and suffer the
abuse of such as you? And, BTW, why do you assume that
non-homosexual people do not engage in exactly the same sexual
practices that you find so abhorent - or that all homosexuals do
engage in those same practices? You assume FAR too much in
your writings, with FAR too little real knowledge displayed about
homosexuality. You would condemn people as a group for their
inherent characteristics - which is the definition of bigotry...
--
David Ruether
[email protected]
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether
In rec.woodworking Al Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
: How do you feel about these issues?
: Do you think an open gay man who admits to having anal and oral sex
: with another man is qualified to be a regional church leader of the
: Episcopal church?
Yes.
: Would you trust him with your children?
Yes. Unless he, like any heterosexual, had something amiss about him.
: Do you think gays should be allowed to marry each other?
Yes.
- Andy Barss
Paul M Davis <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:q3AYa.90775$Ho3.11507@sccrnsc03...
> >
> > Paul M Davis <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Would he be a good example? Would he honor and uphold the family unit
> by
> > > his teaching and example. Apparently not. NO. I would not want him
to
> > be
> > > giving spiritual direction to members of my family.
> >
> > If he said, "Find a partner whom you can love, honor, and obey, and
marry
> > that partner, and spend your life in happiness with that partner." Would
> you
> > think that was giving your children improper spiritual direction? - If
> your
> > children are gay, then how would you want them to spend their lives?
Being
> > miserable, hiding a secret that they hide just for your benefit? If it
> were
> > me, I would want my kids to live in happiness with their gay partner,
> adopt
> > some parentless child, (or two) and live a life of happiness......But
> then,
> > I don't let some old, out-of-date book dictate my morality.....I was
> taught
> > to think for myself.
> >
> >
> >
>
> If that "partner" was not of opposite gender, and his teachings are
directly
> contrary to the plain sense of scripture then I would consider him to be
> giving improper spiritual direction.
>
> I raised my own children with a realistic appraisal of their own gender.
My
> grandchildren are being raised with the same values, thank God (and my
> kids).
>
Spoken like a true heterosexual.........Try the following thought
experiment. Mentally turn all the women you have ever met into men, and all
the men you have ever known into women. Then live in this world for 40 or 50
years. Now, while you are teaching your, "flock" what will you tell them
about tolerance of the views of others?
"OldguyTeck" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "David Ruether" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > > > "Jerome Delaney" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > You once again are twisting the debate.
> > >
> > > We are rejecting the INSTITUTIONALIZATION of homosexual marriage, not
> > > suggesting that homosexuals not be tolerated.
> > >
> > > You perverts are free to act out your sick fantasies in private--what
> you do
> > > to each other in your homes does not concern me. When you demand that
> > > society undergo drastic and dangerous changes to accommodate you, that
> is
> > > where I draw the line.
> > Ah, so it is OK to "love the sinner, but hate the sin", huh?
> > CRAP! People are what they are. Do ask yourself if homosexual
> > people exist. If you say "no", then you should get out more, and
> > meet people who are not just "your own kind"...;-) If you say "yes",
> > how can you then justify on the basis of mere beliefs (rather than
> > with truth/facts, and not your obvious prejudices...) advocating the
> > limiting of basic human and legal rights (which you have done...) of
> > those people who are homosexual? Ah, you say homosexuality is
> > not inherent, but is just a "bad choice", and therefore to be
> > condemned (or hidden...) from the moral majority? Did you ever
> > ask yourself why anyone would choose to be homosexual, with
> > the obvious disadvantages of this choice being so evident (the
> > need to hide, the lack of legal rights associated with marriage, etc.,
> > or even the silly hoopla that might surround being honest about
> > yourself and also wishing to serve as a bishop) - and suffer the
> > abuse of such as you? And, BTW, why do you assume that
> > non-homosexual people do not engage in exactly the same sexual
> > practices that you find so abhorent - or that all homosexuals do
> > engage in those same practices? You assume FAR too much in
> > your writings, with FAR too little real knowledge displayed about
> > homosexuality. You would condemn people as a group for their
> > inherent characteristics - which is the definition of bigotry...
> Well then why are they becomming so vitrolic and massing together..
Well, gosh, it is not very hard to guess! Other groups, like Blacks,
women, underpaid-workers, etc. have done the same. How long
do you think it takes to gain basic rights that have been denied
if one just hides and remains quiet...?!
>Yet
> still putting on quite a show for us when it comes to say a public parrade,
> or they parrade down the street eg. 2 guys rubbing visibly each other
> buttocks... Ya get my drift...?
Uh, yes I do... It is OK if you are non-homosexual couples to do this,
though? ;-) Some things are/are-not normally appropriate behavior in
public for either heterosexual or homosexual people - but sometimes
a point needs to be made...
>I see it.. I don't particularly like it.. I
> mean the younger folks see it as well... Not a very nice thing to behold...
> I think it's shameless...
So is prejudice - and so is speaking/acting on it without learning
more about what you denounce...
> Again I actully cannot drive myselfe to 'dislike or hate' these people.. But
> why should I have to tolerate that type of behavior..?
Looking the other way works for me, whether those doing it
are gay or straight... ;-)
> I thank God my kiddos all turned out ok..
Thank god (who ever that is...;-) that your kids were not
homosexual - and so escaped your prejudices and the
resulting conflicts. One hopes, though, that they did not learn
your prejudices (or were bright/wise/caring enough to
take the time and effort to unlearn them...). BTW, I grew up
in a small rural northern-US town (as in "lily white"), and
fortunately realized early on that *I* had a problem with
Blacks and my prejudices about them. It took me a long
time to work through my irrational feelings (and I still suffer
bits-o'-nonsense feelings occasionally), but it was/is a
VERY necessary effort, given what I knew...
Now, image one of your kids is Black (assuming you
are not...;-). I trust he/she would receive the same treatment
and love as the others. Now, imagine one of your kids
is homosexual - and also turned out OK...
> Ed........................(Oldguyteck)
--
David Ruether
[email protected]
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether
In alt.religion.christian.episcopal Juvenaly <juvenalyGranite&[email protected]> wrote:
>Question for you folks who hold homosexual activities to be
>God-pleasing. Assume for a moment, for discussion's sake that there
>really are such as "homosexuals." Assume also that we are only talking
>about what you call "monogamous, stable" homosexual relationships. If
>I understand you rightly, you justify this on the grounds that not all
>homosexuals are granted the gift of celibacy, and that therefore
>"homosexuals" should have the right of having such a "relationship" if
>they wish.
No, I "justify" it on the grounds that homosexuality is value equivalent
to heterosexuality, that God loves us when we love each other, and that
God delights in mutual, consensual, physical (even sexual) pleasure.
Priscilla
"David P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:IQBYa.60944$cF.19956@rwcrnsc53...
>
> If you don't have faith, you have welcomed and become an instrument of the
> Devil whether you believe it or not.
*Only* if you believe it. :-)
> You still have a chance, may God save
> your soul.
The Witchety Grub Cult does not believe in any such thing.
-- Ernie
Ninure Saunders <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:RainbowChristiannohate-0708030820480001@h-68-164-10-40.chcgilgm.covad.n
et...
> I he Marrying Kind
>
> Why social conservatives should support same-sex marriage
>
> by Jonathan Rauch
>
> .....
>
>
> Last year the Census Bureau reported a statistic that deserved wider
> notice than it received: during the 1990s the number of
> unmarried-partner households in the United States increased by 72
> percent. Cohabitation has actually been on the rise for decades, but
> it started from a small base. Now the numbers (more than five
> million cohabiting couples) are beginning to look impressive.
>
> Marriage, meanwhile, is headed in the other direction. The annual
> number of weddings per 1,000 eligible women fell by more than a
> third from 1970 to 1996. A lot of factors are at work here-for
> example, people are marrying later-but it seems clear that one of
> them is the rise in cohabitation. Couples are simply more willing to
> live together without tying the knot.
>
> Whether this is a bad thing is a contentious question, but it is
> almost certainly not a good thing. Cohabitation tends to be both
> less stable and less happy than marriage, and this appears to be
> true even after accounting for the possibility that the cohabiting
> type of person may often be different from the marrying type.
> Research suggests that marriage itself brings something beneficial
> to the table. Add the fact that a growing share of cohabiting
> households-now more than a third of them-contain children, and it is
> hard to be enthusiastic about the trend.
>
> Whom to blame? In part, homosexual couples like me and my partner.
> Cohabitation used to be stigmatized. "Living in sin" it has been
> called in recent memory, even among the educated classes. Today
> cohabitation is often viewed as a different-but-equal alternative to
> wedlock. Although the drift toward cohabitation would no doubt have
> happened anyway, the growing visibility and acceptance of same-sex
> couples probably speeded the change. As one gay activist told the
> Los Angeles Times last year, "Just the term 'unmarried partner' gave
> it a dignity and social category."
>
> So (conservatives say) it's true! Homosexuals undermine marriage! To
> the contrary. The culprit is not the presence of same-sex couples;
> it is the absence of same-sex marriage.
>
> The emergence into the open of same-sex relationships is an
> irreversible fact in this country. Traditionalists may not like it,
> but they cannot change it, so they will have to decide how to deal
> with it. The far right's plan-try to push homosexuals back into the
> closet-is not going to work; the majority of Americans are too
> openhearted for that. Indeed, the currents of public opinion are
> running the other way. An annual survey of college freshmen found
> that last year 58 percent-a record high, and up from 51 percent in
> 1997-thought that same-sex couples should be able to marry.
>
> Seeing those numbers and others like them, conservatives are
> desperate to stave off same-sex marriage. For that matter, many
> moderates remain queasy about legalizing gay marriage; they are
> sympathetic to homosexuals, but not that sympathetic.
> Liberation-minded leftists, who spent the 1970s telling us that our
> parents' marriages were outdated and stuffy, were never crazy about
> matrimony to begin with. As for gays, the vast majority want the
> right to marry, but most agree that domestic-partner benefits and
> other "marriage-lite" arrangements are a lot better than nothing.
>
> The result is the ABM Pact: Anything But Marriage. Enroll same-sex
> partners in the company health plan, give them some of the legal
> prerogatives of spousehood, attend their commitment ceremonies, let
> them register at city hall as partners-just DON'T CALL IT MARRIAGE.
> In America, and in Europe, too, ABM is rapidly establishing itself
> as the compromise of choice. Gay partnerships get some social and
> legal recognition, marriage remains the union of man and woman, and
> everybody moves on. A shrewd social bargain, no?
>
> No. The last thing supporters of marriage should be doing is setting
> up an assortment of alternatives, but that is exactly what the ABM
> Pact does, and not only for gays. Every year more companies and
> governments (at the state and local level) grant marriagelike
> benefits to cohabiting partners: "concessions fought for and won
> mostly by gay groups," as the Los Angeles Times notes, "but enjoyed
> as well by the much larger population of heterosexual unmarried
> couples." To which might be added what I think of as the Will &
> Grace effect: homosexuals are here, we're queer, and nowadays we're
> kind of cool. ABM, perversely, turns one of the country's more
> culturally visible minorities into an advertisement for just how
> cool and successful life outside of wedlock can be.
>
> I doubt that most homosexuals would take their marital vows less
> seriously than heterosexuals do, as some conservatives insist. Even
> if I'm wrong, however, surely the exemplary power of failed or
> unfaithful gay marriages would pale next to the example currently
> being set by a whole group-an increasingly fashionable group-among
> whom love and romance and sex and commitment flourish entirely
> outside of marriage. And can you imagine social conservatives
> telling any other group to cohabit rather than marry? Can you
> imagine them saying, "The young men of America's inner cities won't
> take marriage as seriously as they should, so let's encourage them
> to shack up with their girlfriends"?
>
> Those who worry about the example gays would set by marrying should
> be much more worried about the example gays are already setting by
> not marrying. In getting this backward the advocates of ABM make a
> mistake that is both ironic and sad. At a time when marriage needs
> all the support and participation it can get, homosexuals are
> pleading to move beyond cohabitation. We want the licenses, the
> vows, the rings, the honeymoons, the anniversaries, the benefits,
> and, yes, the responsibilities and the routines. And who is telling
> us to just shack up instead? Self-styled friends of matrimony.
> Someday conservatives will look back and wonder why they undermined
> marriage in an effort to keep homosexuals out.
>
> Source: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/05/rauch.htm
>
> Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
> http://Rainbow-Christian.tk
>
> The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
> http://Ninure-Saunders.tk
>
> My Yahoo Group
> http://Ninure.tk
>
> My Online Diary
> http://www.ninure.deardiary.net
> -
> Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
> http://www.MCCchurch.org
My only objection to the above is his tendency (all too often among
liberals) to say that "conservatives" are all anti-gay. I am a conservative,
and an atheist, and not anti-gay in the least. I think that presidents
should stay out of discussions like this. It is not their consern. It is a
states-rights issue, and the Federal government should not get involved. I
don't give a Damn weather G. Bush is anti gay or not. As long as he's anti
Saddam, that's good enough for me......
M. Clark <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1fzbgkg.5dls4h44i8v4N%[email protected]...
> Paul M Davis <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I have a genetic propensity to drive on the left hand side of the road.
> > However, my government has made it a state issue by requiring that
drivers
> > drive on the right hand side. This is blatant and unfair
discrimination. I
> > believe that those of us who prefer to drive on the left should be given
the
> > same rights as the right side drivers. Anything else is blatant
> > discrimination. Ask any left side driver. There was a time when they
were
> > just learning to drive when driving on the left would have seemed just
as
> > comfortable as driving on the right. Europe is far ahead of the United
> > States in these matters.
>
> Thank you for posting.
>
> Scientists have only recently completed the human gene map database and
> predict it will be years before they know how we work. So any attempt
> to justify homosexuality from a genetic point of view at this time is
> premature as scientists don't even know for sure.
>
> The bottom line is that you are not heeding the warning of 1 Corinthians
> 6:9 to not deceive yourself about sexual immorality.
This may be the, "bottom line" to you, but to an atheist like me, it has
absolutely nothing to do with the reason why I check the, "single head of
household" line on my 1040 form. My "wife" and I save a lot of money that
way every year. We are pushing 70, and still haven't gotten married because
of these dumb IRS laws. The government loses a lot of money every year
because it has these laws on the books, and even more because of the laws
that prevent gays from getting married. Here are a huge group of people who,
in spite of the fact that it would cost them more money, want to marry and
receive that kind of legitimacy. You bible thumpers are paying extra tax
dollars because of your untenable position....
x-no-archive: yes
"Charles P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I've always wondered why most of us are heterosexual. Now I understand.
> It's becuase society has *institutionalized* heterosexuality!
We just don't like having to look at you queers with beards wearing dresses
and high heels. UGH!
>
> > Virtually every culture, from time immemorial, has considered
> homosexuality
> > as a serious depravity, that went against the natural moral law.
>
> There is no "natural moral law."
Sure there is--just watch the bystanders watching the Gay Prode Parade--they
all turn away in disgust whenever the marchers embrace.
>
> People in the US once also hated and despised black people.
>
Stop comparing apples and oranges--you aren't fooling anyone. I know a
number of black people that despise men that wear lipstick.
> Yeah. Much better that gays remain in their promiscuous life style.
Much better if they stopped acting up in public! I remember an interview
with the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, where it came out that most of
their undercover liquor agents refused to enter gay bars--they were just too
sickened by what went on there!
>
> Reason doesn't tell you that. Bigotry does.
You gays are such deviants that you can't reason--you are ruled entirely by
your disordered passions. What you do is disgusting! And you all talk
funny, too :-)
I remember seeing one of you sickos crawling around the floor of a mens room
in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, peeking under the stalls! You call that normal?
And, here in Philadelphia, a guy can't even walk into the Gallery (Shopping
Center) men's room without seeing homosexuals performing oral sex on each
other--who wants to use a rest room with THAT going on inside?
Say what you want, I know that you are sick. This has nothing to do with
religion (although I think that religious beliefs about homosexuality have
mirrored society's feelings toward you). Every man I know gets equally
sick when he sees homosexuals performing on one another--and it matters not
whether they are religious or not.
"Marriage" for homos? Please--get real! No, get help! You're sick pups.
"Jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> >
> > There is no "natural moral law."
>
> Sure there is--just watch the bystanders watching the Gay Prode
Parade--they
> all turn away in disgust whenever the marchers embrace.
Never been to San Francisco or Seattle, have you, Jeremy?
-- Ernie
x-no-archive: yes
"Ninure Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:RainbowChristiannohate-
> I don't know, how did thoe curches that embraced, blessed, condoned,
> justified anti-semitism, slavery, segregation, apatheid, etc, explain
> things when they supposdly "stoppped"?
>
> Makes one wonder , in light of your opening statememts why YOU care?
>
I "care," as you put it, because this proposed appointment is another chink
in the armor by the homosexuals against the dignity of marriage, the
foundation of the family and the stabilization of society.
Let us, for sake of this discussion, separate the *private practice of
homosexual acts* from the impact upon society that would result if we
*institutionalized this behavior.*
Virtually every culture, from time immemorial, has considered homosexuality
as a serious depravity, that went against the natural moral law. So, before
you try to marginalize those of us that oppose your agenda, don't think that
we are all going to sit back while you try to cast us in the roles of
brainless Neanderthals. History is on my side--not yours.
The homosexual inclination is objectively disordered. That has been
believed by "all of the people, all of the time." In some cultures,
anti-homosexual sentiment has run so high that homosexuals were oppressed or
even put to death. There is no evidence to suggest that any society of any
signifigance ever embraced the homosexual lifestyle. In the West,
homosexuals have been typically referred to as "Queers," "Fags" or
"Homos"--all words of contempt. That is simply historical fact.
Homosexuals were not liked.
That has softened in recent years, as we have tried to find ways to become
more accomodating toward homosexual acts. This change in attitude has
manifested itself as tolerating homosexual behavior, without actually
approving of it.
It is one thing for our society to *tolerate* private homosexual
behavior--its deviant nature notwithstanding. It is quite another thing to
expect society to *codify* that behavior as forseen and approved by law, to
the point where it becomes one of society's institutions in the legal
structure.
To allow children to be adopted by homosexual couples would be doing grave
violence to them.
This has nothing to do with "discrimination." It has to do with common
sense. Right reason tells us that to change the law would be harmful to the
common good, and would be gravely immoral.
If the Episcopal church moves forward with this appointment, it will have
lost its moral high-ground, and probably will drive many of its adherents to
other denominations. The latter is not my business, but the former is an
issue that impacts us all.
While I bear no ill will against individuals with a homosexual inclination,
I hold to the belief that homosexuality is is disordered, and can never be
on equal footing with marriage.
According to the polls I've seen, I am in the majority with respect to my
beliefs.
"Befuddled" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> yes you are born with it, it is called sin. SNIP
Wow!
Thanks for that post. I think it is helpful so that the rest of us
can remember that there are still as close-minded as you around. Also
assures me that although I have a long way to go, I could be much
worse.
Anyways... Original poster asked what we thought about the issue.
However William, who was the poster you responded to, was speaking
about the issue as it concerns our laws and government. As soon as
you inject god, God, or religion into that discussion, you are
disqualified from it. Sorry, game over - you lose.
-Chris
Therion Ware <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >If marriage were just a religious ritual, which is how it started,
>
> Just as a matter of interest, is that true? I'd always been under the
> impression originally marriage was originally more of a contractual
> arrangement. Anyone know of any good books on the subject?[1]
>
Don't know too much about it, but you might start your search with the
Russian Orthodox church. I have taken part in a wedding (boy did my
arm hurt!) and a baptism in a Russian Orthodox church and I remember
the priest saying that they were the two oldest rituals in modern
times.
-Chris
x-no-archive: yes
"Paul M Davis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>That can't be the way that it is. It would be unenlightened
> and non-progressive.
>
How has the Gay agenda so distorted the discussion of this issue (not just
on this NG, but throughout the media) to make themselves look "Progressive"
and those of us who reject their preverse lifestyle as "unenlightened?"
This is not a religious issue, although they are attempting to make it one.
By so doing, they marginalize all of us that reject their demands to
legalize gay marriage. Because, as we all know, we are a secular country,
and we have no right to impose our religious values on others.
The argument sounds good on the surface, but it does not hold up under
scrutiny.
We reject sexual abuse of children, don't we? It is a crime to even POSSESS
images of children in sexual acts. Virtually no one challenges this as
being criminal. Yet, major religions have condemned these very crimes as
being "sins," and they were condemned long before we had much of a Western
culture.
Why don't we hear anyone coming forward and demanding that we repeal chile
sexual abuse laws, because they are an attempt to impose religious values on
others? If someone WERE to make that statement, we would reject it as being
absurd. And rightly so.
BUT, let someone make the same argument against homosexuality, and he is
immediately dismissed as irrelevent, because he is trying to impose his
values on the rest of us.
I, too, reject the notion of having someone else's religious values imposed
on me. But let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
Our society has the right and obligation to set values--especially as they
relate to fundamental institutions such as marriage. Just as we can reject
murder, stealing, child abuse and a host of other acts as undesirable, so
can we decide to reject homosexual marriage, NOT because the Bible condemns
it, but because WE reject it, out of a sense of revulsion.
The folks that continue to post religious messages are really hurting the
debate, because they give the gay agenda a weapon they can use against us:
namely marginalizing us as religious fanatics, that are irrelevent to the
secular debate.
The thought of same-sex couples being able to adopt children, raise families
and push their deviant lifestyle upon us, as a protected class, is
repulsive. I don't need the Bible, the Koran or any other sacred text to
tell me that.
Sick is sick. And please don't try to convince me that, what was sick
yesterday is considered to be perfectly normal today!
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 00:03:46 GMT in
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, Jerome Delaney ("Jerome
Delaney" <[email protected]>) said, directing the reply to
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
>In answer to your insidious remark, Rum was discontinued in the United
>States Navy during the tenure of Josephus Daniels as Secretary of the Navy,
>Sodomy has always been against the law in the Navy, and lashing was
>discontinued in the U. S, and Royal Navies long, long ago.
>
>Perverted behavior was not tolerated under the Uniform Code of Military
>Justice until the presidency of Bill Clinton and his "don't ask don't tell"
>policy. It is still not tolerated, but the question had to be removed from
>the enlistment application regarding a person's sexual orientation.
The full quotation is "Don't talk to me about Naval tradition. It's
nothing but rum, sodomy, and the lash," and it was originally said by
Winston Churchill, of whom you have no doubt heard.
And now I suppose the next question up for debate is:
"is a lack of toleration of others inversely proportional to ones
sense of humour?"
What do you think?
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 **
x-no-archive: yes
"Therion Ware" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> And now I suppose the next question up for debate is:
>
> "is a lack of toleration of others inversely proportional to ones
> sense of humour?"
>
> What do you think?
Actually, you we have tolerated homosexuals plenty! Maybe we have gone too
far. We have given those perverts an inch, and now they want a foot.
Time for a constitutional amendment, before the homosexual agenda tries to
legislate this perversion into law through some court case . . .
If it were ever put to a vote, it would fail miserably.
Paul M Davis <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:NLzYa.91555$YN5.64730@sccrnsc01...
> >
> > Paul M Davis <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > I have a genetic propensity to drive on the left hand side of the
road.
> > > However, my government has made it a state issue by requiring that
> drivers
> > > drive on the right hand side. This is blatant and unfair
> discrimination.
> > I
> > > believe that those of us who prefer to drive on the left should be
given
> > the
> > > same rights as the right side drivers. Anything else is blatant
> > > discrimination. Ask any left side driver. There was a time when they
> > were
> > > just learning to drive when driving on the left would have seemed just
> as
> > > comfortable as driving on the right. Europe is far ahead of the
United
> > > States in these matters.
> > >
> > Poor analogy.....Being gay, and cohabiting with a same sex partner, will
> not
> > cause a head-on crash that takes your life and the lives of innocents in
> the
> > other car......Driving rules are necessary, and not moral issues.
Gayness,
> > and the gay life style, is a moral, and political issue......
> >
> >
> >
>
> It is also a social and religious issue. Aside from the spread of
HIV/AIDS
> through willing participants in a gay lifestyle, a church that operates in
a
> manner that is clearly contrary to scripture, the universal consensus of
all
> civilized societies through the ages, and basic realities of the biology
of
> sexual reproduction risks it's ethos and it's credibility to speak out on
> any moral issue of any topic.
>
>
Sexually transmitted diseases affect both hetero as well as homo
sexuals.....And homosexuality is only a religious issue because some
religious people want it that way. You can't define something as being,
"bad", and then justify condeming it as bad on the basis of your original
definition. - This is, "bootstrap logic". Like it or not, the bible was
written by men, not by God. It's a pity that none of these men were
homosexuals. Had they been, your religion would surely be a lot different
than it is today. But like any book, it is no more correct than it's
author/authors were capable of making it. To call it, "the true word of God"
is ridiculous.
On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 14:17:55 -0600, [email protected] (M. Clark)
wrote:
Thank you again for proving the "unrepentant" part.
M. CLARK HAS UNREPENTENTLY LIED ABOUT THE FOLLOWING VERSES:
THE FIRST COMMANDMENT
Romans 14 (entire chapter)
Galatians 4:21-31 (especially v 24)
1 Corinthians 5 multiple times (entire chapter)
Romans 12:3
1 Corinthians 6: 9-11
Leviticus 18:22
Romans 1:25-27
Romans 1:28-32
Leviticus 26: 36-37
Genesis 1: 3-5, 14-19, 21-27
Genesis 2: 4-9, 7-19
1 Timothy 5: 6-7
1 Corinthians 7:21
Revelation 14:11
Matthew 8:29
Matthew 5:22
Luke 16: 22-24
maf and dog, AA #1954, EAC Cruise Director and Lounge Pianist,
respectively
[email protected] (Al Browne) wrote: ...
>How do you feel about these issues?
>
>Do you think an open gay man who admits to having anal and oral sex
>with another man is qualified to be a regional church leader of the
>Episcopal church?
Yes.
>Would you trust him with your children?
Provided he has a police clearance and, like any other unrelated
adult, is NEVER left alone with ANY child.
>Do you think gays should be allowed to marry each other?
Yes.
I have a genetic propensity to drive on the left hand side of the road.
However, my government has made it a state issue by requiring that drivers
drive on the right hand side. This is blatant and unfair discrimination. I
believe that those of us who prefer to drive on the left should be given the
same rights as the right side drivers. Anything else is blatant
discrimination. Ask any left side driver. There was a time when they were
just learning to drive when driving on the left would have seemed just as
comfortable as driving on the right. Europe is far ahead of the United
States in these matters.
"William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:pWnYa.85483$Ho3.11892@sccrnsc03...
>
> Al Browne <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > How do you feel about these issues?
>
> > Do you think gays should be allowed to marry each other?
>
> If marriage were just a religious ritual, which is how it started, I would
> say it was up to the individual church. But, my government has made it a
> state issue, by charging married people according to a different income
tax
> table than the one that single people get to use.....So, I believe that
gay
> people should have the same right to marry their partners as do opposite
sex
> couples. Anything else is blatent discrimination against people for their
> sexual orientation.....Ask most any gay person....He/she will tell you
that
> they were gay as far back as they can remember. There never was a time
when
> they actually had a choice in the matter.....So being gay is not a matter
of
> choice. Like skin color, it is something one is born with, and cannot
> change. Therefore, the government shouldn't discriminate either for or
> against it.
>
>
>
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 10:57:38 -0600, [email protected] (M. Clark)
wrote:
Thank you again for proving the "unrepentant" part.
M. CLARK HAS UNREPENTENTLY LIED ABOUT THE FOLLOWING VERSES:
THE FIRST COMMANDMENT
Romans 14 (entire chapter)
Galatians 4:21-31 (especially v 24)
1 Corinthians 5 multiple times (entire chapter)
Romans 12:3
1 Corinthians 6: 9-11
Leviticus 18:22
Romans 1:25-27
Romans 1:28-32
Leviticus 26: 36-37
Genesis 1: 3-5, 14-19, 21-27
Genesis 2: 4-9, 7-19
1 Timothy 5: 6-7
1 Corinthians 7:21
Revelation 14:11
Matthew 8:29
Matthew 5:22
Luke 16: 22-24
maf and dog, AA #1954, EAC Cruise Director and Lounge Pianist,
respectively
"David Ruether" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> "Jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > x-no-archive: yes
> > "David Ruether" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
>
> [most deleted, but a few bits remain...;-]
>
> > > Perhaps you are unaware that the American Psychiatric Association
> > > long ago stopped classifying homosexuality as abnormal?
>
> > On the contrary, I am aware of that fact. I am also aware of the fact
that
> > homosexual activists got their own people into that organization, in
order
> > to accomplish that about-face.
>
> Ah, so you are into conspiracy theories, too, I see...;-)
> Let's see - a bunch o' perverts go through the extensive education
> and experience necessary to become psychiatrists for the sole
> purpose of outnumbering the "sane" members of that profession
> and overthrowing the prevailing view on homosexuality.
> This seems so likely...!;-)
>
> > The fact that I consider homosexuals to be disordered does NOT make me a
> > "homophobic" person. The fact that I choose to want to keep our social
> > institutions the way that they have ALWAYS been does not make me a
bigot.
> > The homosexuals' twisted logic and empty arguments just don't work with
> > me--and millions of other Americans. When we reject their agenda, they
> > resort to name-calling, or to trying to associate us with unpopular
ideas
> > (like slave-owners), or they try to assume a role of being
better-educated
> > or more enlightened than the rest of us brainless Neanderthals, or they
just
> > try to heckle us.
>
> Yes. I think you have a point. Substitute the word "Black" or "Jew"
> in what you say, and turn the clock back a couple of decades, and it
> all makes perfect sense! ;-)
> --
> David Ruether
> [email protected]
> http://www.ferrario.com/ruether
>
>
Dave, this rebut is typical of injecting obfuscation into a debate. The
subject is recognition of gay marriages and gay practitioners of a Christian
religion based upon time worn recognized religious scriptures that
specifically states who will not be the inheritors of Gods kingdom. Read
derivative documents used by sects of the Christian faith and there will be
words that imply the same meaning. This issue deals with belief in the
practices of a religious faith which one either supports in accordance with
the faiths beliefs or chooses to ignore. Religious beliefs of any nature
have the tendency to transcend any laws and/or what some may consider should
be socially accepted practices.
You have stated your views and Jeremy has stated his.
Nick
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 15:46:39 -0600, [email protected] (M. Clark)
wrote:
M. CLARK HAS UNREPENTENTLY LIED ABOUT THE FOLLOWING VERSES:
THE FIRST COMMANDMENT
Romans 14 (entire chapter)
Galatians 4:21-31 (especially v 24)
1 Corinthians 5 multiple times (entire chapter)
Romans 12:3
1 Corinthians 6: 9-11
Leviticus 18:22
Romans 1:25-27
Romans 1:28-32
Leviticus 26: 36-37
Genesis 1: 3-5, 14-19, 21-27
Genesis 2: 4-9, 7-19
1 Timothy 5: 6-7
1 Corinthians 7:21
Revelation 14:11
Matthew 8:29
Matthew 5:22
Luke 16: 22-24
maf and dog, AA #1954, EAC Cruise Director and Lounge Pianist,
respectively
Therion Ware <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 08:17:25 GMT in
> alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, William Graham ("William
> Graham" <[email protected]>) said, directing the reply to
> alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
>
>
>
> >
> >Al Browne <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> How do you feel about these issues?
> >
> >> Do you think gays should be allowed to marry each other?
> >
> >If marriage were just a religious ritual, which is how it started,
>
> Just as a matter of interest, is that true? I'd always been under the
> impression originally marriage was originally more of a contractual
> arrangement. Anyone know of any good books on the subject?[1]
I'm not sure how marriage started.....Does the Bible specifically speak of,
"Marriage" in so many words? - As in its present meaning, I mean.......At
any rate, for sure today, it is not only a religious ritual, but also a
state-sanctioned (and recorded) contractual agreement. It's the state
recognition that is the crux of my argument. Since the state recognizes it,
and treats a person or persons differently because of it, I believe that to
only recognize it if it were an agreement between opposite sex couples is an
example of sexual discrimination. Since it is wrong to discriminate
against/for people based on sex, to disallow marriage between same sex
couples is sexual discrimination. (IMO)
Lisa Horton <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Jeremy wrote:
> >
> > x-no-archive: yes
> >
> > "Ninure Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:RainbowChristiannohate-
> >
> > > I don't know, how did thoe curches that embraced, blessed, condoned,
> > > justified anti-semitism, slavery, segregation, apatheid, etc, explain
> > > things when they supposdly "stoppped"?
> > >
> > > Makes one wonder , in light of your opening statememts why YOU care?
> > >
> >
> > I "care," as you put it, because this proposed appointment is another
chink
> > in the armor by the homosexuals against the dignity of marriage, the
> > foundation of the family and the stabilization of society.
> >
> > Let us, for sake of this discussion, separate the *private practice of
> > homosexual acts* from the impact upon society that would result if we
> > *institutionalized this behavior.*
> >
> > Virtually every culture, from time immemorial, has considered
homosexuality
> > as a serious depravity, that went against the natural moral law. So,
before
> > you try to marginalize those of us that oppose your agenda, don't think
that
> > we are all going to sit back while you try to cast us in the roles of
> > brainless Neanderthals. History is on my side--not yours.
> >
>
> Jeremy,
>
> I find it interesting that you would dismiss the classic Greek culture,
> or is that culture responsible for the "virtually" in the paragraph
> above?
>
> Although I resisted for a long time, wanting to give you the benefit of
> the doubt, this little missive proves beyond a doubt that your
> detractors are correct, you're apparently incapable of making sense,
> using logic, or understanding the world around you and it's history.
>
> Lisa
Besides, at one time, 95% of the worlds population believed that the earth
was flat, and if you sailed too far out to sea, you would fall off the edge
and be eaten by dragons. - That didn't make it any truer than the belief
that homosexuality is a sin. Any behavior that differs significantly from
the societal norm is considered a sin, or is vilified by the majority, so
it's not surprising that that's the way most societies have treated
homosexuality. The fact is, Jeremy, that gay people do not choose to be gay.
It is, (for lack of a better explanation) the way God made them. If you
don't like them and their life style, then blame your God, not the poor
bastards that have to live with themselves. And, while your at it, as long
as your blaming God for things that are f***ed up, I happen to have this
long, long list...........
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 08:19:58 GMT, [email protected] (Ric) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, "Jerome Delaney" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Any man that finds sexual attraction in another man has to have something
>>wrong with him somewhere, be it in his head, or a hormone problem, or
>>whatever, but it is definitely not normal. The same applies to women.
>>
>Does t his explain why so many white women are attracted to black men? Does
>this make the rest, the "homo-racial" couples, all perverts?
>
>>If you look at in scientific terms, like forces repel each other, and
>>opposites attract. Pretty simple I would say, and see, I'm not imposing my
>>religion on you at all. I really don't care what perverts do to each other
>>in their interludes. but it certainly is not normal. Yes there is pedophilia
>>as far as heterosexual people are concerned, and they that engage in that
>>have something wrong with themselves mentally also.
>>
>>I just think some church leaders in the Episcopal church chose to cop out to
>>pressure from a bunch of loud mouth perverts. I would never recognize an
>>avowed pervert as a bishop or a priest. They are living a big lie, and one
>>cannot serve God and be a liar at the same time. It is just impossible to do
>>so.
>Maybe the Episcopal Church have simply opened their eyes and decided to
>acknowledge what already exists. Robinson surely isn't the first gay bishop,
>just the first openly gay bishop. Should churches of all demoninations root
>out all suspected gay clergy? What about organists? Be prepared to sing a
>cappella because there sure are a lot of them.
Ya know --- I was at a wedding last weekend, and I just happened to
notice something:
If the RCC were to "weed out" gay people, then at this wedding, there
would have been:
no music (organist/pianist, cantor, flutist -- all gay men)
no readings (both lectors -- both gay men)
and
no preist.
On the other hand, if the laity hates gays and lesbians worse than
they want staff and volunteers to run their churches, then the laity
should get exactly what they want.
"Thore Schmechtig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hi,
>
> > How do you feel about these issues?
>
> No problems.
>
> > Do you think an open gay man who admits to having anal and oral sex
> > with another man is qualified to be a regional church leader of the
> > Episcopal church?
>
> Is there any reason why this man should be less able / unable to follow
> the Golden Rule and care for the believers under his authority?
>
The Golden Rule? You mean the part where one is to love God with all their
heart, and their neighbor as themselves? Do you really believe that
splitting a denomination by flaunting it's prior administrative decisions
(to not ordain homosexuals) that had been administered with a certain
degree of harmony is loving? Is this the God who created us "male and
female, male and female created he them?". No, apparently this is some
other "god".
> > Would you trust him with your children?
>
> Of course.
>
Would he be a good example? Would he honor and uphold the family unit by
his teaching and example. Apparently not. NO. I would not want him to be
giving spiritual direction to members of my family.
> > Do you think gays should be allowed to marry each other?
>
> As long as they really know that they are doing (just as hetero
> couples), why not?
>
Because marriage is an expression of the union between the two different
genders of mammals. That union has a specific spiritual character that is
lacking when both members are of the same gender. Scripture uses the
analogy of marriage in many places to describe the relationship between God
and the Church. Any church that presumes to change biology is pursuing a
failed effort from the beginning.
>
> --
> Bye
>
> Tocis ([email protected])
>
x-no-archive: yes
"Priscilla H Ballou" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> We have met the laity, and they are us. ;-)
>
There is a great deal of opposition to this appointment, even among
Anglicans throughout the world.
It just makes me more convinced than ever that this is not a true church.
Although we all sin, it is one thing to sin privately and quite another for
a church to promote a public sinner to the rank of bishop.
I wonder what his ex-wife thinks about all of this?
More important, are Episcopalians naive enough to believe that such a man
can possibly retain moral authority over his entire flock? His appointment
is scandalous--and if he really was concerned about the welfare of his
communion, he would have declined the appointment so as not to create
scandal.
This is for Episcopalians to ponder--I have no standing in their internal
arguments, as I am not of that faith. Still it hurts to see someone divide
Christians.
It would be a cold day in hell before I would take religious or moral
instruction from a homosexual. And I believe that millions of other
Christians share that viewpoint. I wonder how many Episcopalians will
decide that they must come out of that church as a result of this scandal?
It is strange that there can be such disagreement on such a fundamental
matter of faith.
"M. Clark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Please pardon me for interrupting.
This is Usenet! You don't have to ask anyone's pardon, you can
butt in anywhere, anytime you like, as long as it's on topic.
> It doesn't surprise me that they always went to their same-sex parents
> for comfort. This is because love isn't always hugs and kisses as
> Proverbs 13:24 indicates. The children may not have understood at the
> time if their real parents had been disciplining them in love. Gay
> parents may not have had the love that expresses itself in properly
> disciplining children.
That's right, gay parents may not know how to properly beat their
kids with a rod, thus "spoiling" them!
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 18:21:40 -0600, [email protected] (M. Clark)
wrote:
M. CLARK HAS UNREPENTENTLY LIED ABOUT THE FOLLOWING VERSES:
THE FIRST COMMANDMENT
Romans 14 (entire chapter)
Galatians 4:21-31 (especially v 24)
1 Corinthians 5 multiple times (entire chapter)
Romans 12:3
1 Corinthians 6: 9-11
Leviticus 18:22
Romans 1:25-27
Romans 1:28-32
Leviticus 26: 36-37
Genesis 1: 3-5, 14-19, 21-27
Genesis 2: 4-9, 7-19
1 Timothy 5: 6-7
1 Corinthians 7:21
Revelation 14:11
Matthew 8:29
Matthew 5:22
Luke 16: 22-24
maf and dog, AA #1954, EAC Cruise Director and Lounge Pianist,
respectively
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 18:35:07 -0600, [email protected] (M. Clark)
wrote:
Thank you again for proving the "unrepentant" part.
M. CLARK HAS UNREPENTENTLY LIED ABOUT THE FOLLOWING VERSES:
THE FIRST COMMANDMENT
Romans 14 (entire chapter)
Galatians 4:21-31 (especially v 24)
1 Corinthians 5 multiple times (entire chapter)
Romans 12:3
1 Corinthians 6: 9-11
Leviticus 18:22
Romans 1:25-27
Romans 1:28-32
Leviticus 26: 36-37
Genesis 1: 3-5, 14-19, 21-27
Genesis 2: 4-9, 7-19
1 Timothy 5: 6-7
1 Corinthians 7:21
Revelation 14:11
Matthew 8:29
Matthew 5:22
Luke 16: 22-24
maf and dog, AA #1954, EAC Cruise Director and Lounge Pianist,
respectively
In article <[email protected]>, "Jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Why don't we hear anyone coming forward and demanding that we repeal chile
>sexual abuse laws, because they are an attempt to impose religious values on
>others? If someone WERE to make that statement, we would reject it as being
>absurd. And rightly so.
>
>BUT, let someone make the same argument against homosexuality, and he is
>immediately dismissed as irrelevent, because he is trying to impose his
>values on the rest of us.
>
I think we're discussing homosexual relationships between consenting adults.
Children cannot give legal consent. This separates child porn and
child molestation from the topic of homosexual relationships.
I also detect here an instance of the common and not-so-subtle attempt to
associate homosexuality with child porn and molestation. Pedophilia is a
heterosexual problem as well.
>Our society has the right and obligation to set values--especially as they
>relate to fundamental institutions such as marriage. Just as we can reject
>murder, stealing, child abuse and a host of other acts as undesirable, so
>can we decide to reject homosexual marriage, NOT because the Bible condemns
>it, but because WE reject it, out of a sense of revulsion.
>
More accurately, YOUR revulsion. Given the chance I'm sure we could find
something revolting about you, as well.
>Sick is sick. And please don't try to convince me that, what was sick
>yesterday is considered to be perfectly normal today!
So is it sick, or merely revolting? If you're using "Sick" in the
psychological sense then I believe you are incorrect.
I think that heterosexuals who are in lifelong, monagamous
"relationships" should ask for the church's blessing. And I would call
this "blessing" Holy Matrimony.
Next question?
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 23:17:31 -0000, "Juvenaly"
<juvenalyGranite&[email protected]> wrote:
>Question for you folks who hold homosexual activities to be
>God-pleasing. Assume for a moment, for discussion's sake that there
>really are such as "homosexuals." Assume also that we are only talking
>about what you call "monogamous, stable" homosexual relationships. If
>I understand you rightly, you justify this on the grounds that not all
>homosexuals are granted the gift of celibacy, and that therefore
>"homosexuals" should have the right of having such a "relationship" if
>they wish.
>
>My question to you: does it follow then that "monogamous, stable"
>heterosexual relationships between people who are unmarried (i.e.
>concubinage, or long-term fornication), are justified on the same
>basis -- that is, that not everyone has the gift of continence
>(celibacy) and not everyone has been granted the gift of a spouse? So
>if such a person -- an unmarried, heterosexual who is incontinent and
>who has not found himself / herself a spouse -- engages in long-term
>fornication (in other words, lives in sin), this is OK in the sight of
>God?
>
>Juvenaly
>
>
>
>
"OldguyTeck" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Therion Ware" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 13:34:08 GMT in
> > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, Jeremy ("Jeremy"
> > <[email protected]>) said, directing the reply to
> > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
> >
> >
> >
> > >x-no-archive: yes - no iI don't think so
> > >
> > >"Therion Ware" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >news:[email protected]...
> > >> And now I suppose the next question up for debate is:
> > >>
> > >> "is a lack of toleration of others inversely proportional to ones
> > >> sense of humour?"
Tolorance is one thing but now we are being force fed gay tv shows
(queer eye guy).IMO gays should not openly teach our/my children,be in
a possition of authority over young people (as in a church or
boyscouts).
I have`nt spent alot of time in the past thinking about geys. But
seeing they
are forcing the issue I find myself dissagreeing with the whole
concept.
Even kick a gey dog in the ass?
Geys and children do not mix well,it is not ok to tell my child being
gey
is ok. It isn`t nature makes us hetero sexuals.
> > >>
> > >> What do you think?
> > >
> > >Actually, you we have tolerated homosexuals plenty! Maybe we have gone
> too
> > >far. We have given those perverts an inch, and now they want a foot.
> > >
> > >Time for a constitutional amendment, before the homosexual agenda tries
> to
> > >legislate this perversion into law through some court case . . .
> > >
> > >If it were ever put to a vote, it would fail miserably.
> >
> > But not, I think, in civilised countries.
>
> You equate civility with 'looseness'?
> A strange one you are..indeed !
>
> Ed.....................(Oldguyteck)
> > --
> > "Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
> > - Attrib: Pauline Reage.
> > Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
> > See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
> > all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being
> read.
> > ** atheist poster child #1 **
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 01:48:10 UTC, Darren Miner
<[email protected]> declaimed:
> I think that heterosexuals who are in lifelong, monagamous
> "relationships" should ask for the church's blessing. And I would call
> this "blessing" Holy Matrimony.
>
> Next question?
I'm glad you agree that it is not right for a heterosexual couple to
live together without the Church's blessing.
But obviously, if that is wrong for heterosexuals, it cannot be right
for homosexuals either.
Both types of "couple" should separate and live chastely.
Moreover, the fact that the church asks and expects the heterosexual
couple to do so, shows that the church holds the opinion that to live
chastely is not burdensome. It follows that homosexual persons also
are capable of this, and that it is something that is perfectly
possible to do for ordinary Christians.
Juvenaly
PS sorry for the cross-posting. I didn't realize my earlier post was
going to other newgroups. But in order that what I wrote in the
earlier post will not be misunderstood, I need to also post this
follow-up to clarify my views.
"Juvenaly" <juvenalyGranite&[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 01:48:10 UTC, Darren Miner
> <[email protected]> declaimed:
> > I think that heterosexuals who are in lifelong, monagamous
> > "relationships" should ask for the church's blessing. And I would call
> > this "blessing" Holy Matrimony.
> >
> > Next question?
> I'm glad you agree that it is not right for a heterosexual couple to
> live together without the Church's blessing.
>
> But obviously, if that is wrong for heterosexuals, it cannot be right
> for homosexuals either.
>
> Both types of "couple" should separate and live chastely.
Ah, but one has the choice of being married or not; the other
doesn't. This is a basic injustice, in the name of religion...
> Moreover, the fact that the church asks and expects the heterosexual
> couple to do so, shows that the church holds the opinion that to live
> chastely is not burdensome. It follows that homosexual persons also
> are capable of this, and that it is something that is perfectly
> possible to do for ordinary Christians.
This is very bad logic, based on assumptions that are obviously
incorrect... There is always a problem when people value beliefs
about what is true over reality (as in, what is really true...;-), and
it shows, above. The religions have often held incorrect beliefs
about human nature (and the Catholic Church is paying the price
for this now...).
"Therion Ware" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 13:34:08 GMT in
> alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, Jeremy ("Jeremy"
> <[email protected]>) said, directing the reply to
> alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
>
>
>
> >x-no-archive: yes - no iI don't think so
> >
> >"Therion Ware" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> And now I suppose the next question up for debate is:
> >>
> >> "is a lack of toleration of others inversely proportional to ones
> >> sense of humour?"
> >>
> >> What do you think?
> >
> >Actually, you we have tolerated homosexuals plenty! Maybe we have gone
too
> >far. We have given those perverts an inch, and now they want a foot.
> >
> >Time for a constitutional amendment, before the homosexual agenda tries
to
> >legislate this perversion into law through some court case . . .
> >
> >If it were ever put to a vote, it would fail miserably.
>
> But not, I think, in civilised countries.
You equate civility with 'looseness'?
A strange one you are..indeed !
Ed.....................(Oldguyteck)
> --
> "Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
> - Attrib: Pauline Reage.
> Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
> See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
> all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being
read.
> ** atheist poster child #1 **
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 10:57:36 -0600, [email protected] (M. Clark)
wrote:
Thank you again for proving the "unrepentant" part.
M. CLARK HAS UNREPENTENTLY LIED ABOUT THE FOLLOWING VERSES:
THE FIRST COMMANDMENT
Romans 14 (entire chapter)
Galatians 4:21-31 (especially v 24)
1 Corinthians 5 multiple times (entire chapter)
Romans 12:3
1 Corinthians 6: 9-11
Leviticus 18:22
Romans 1:25-27
Romans 1:28-32
Leviticus 26: 36-37
Genesis 1: 3-5, 14-19, 21-27
Genesis 2: 4-9, 7-19
1 Timothy 5: 6-7
1 Corinthians 7:21
Revelation 14:11
Matthew 8:29
Matthew 5:22
Luke 16: 22-24
maf and dog, AA #1954, EAC Cruise Director and Lounge Pianist,
respectively
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Al Browne asks:
>
> >How do you feel about these issues?
> >
>
> Who cares?
>
> There was a Victorian lady who was quoted as saying, "I don't care what
they
> do, as long as they don't do it in the street and scare the horses."
Wasn't
> about gays, but suffices.
>
> Charlie Self
>
Mrs Patrick Campbell (Beatrice Stella Tanner) 1865-1940
English actress
It doesn't matter what you do in the bedroom as long as you don't do
it in the street and frighten the horses.
(In Daphne Fielding "The Duchess of Jermyn Street" (1964) ch.2)
[The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, Revised 4th edition, 1996, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, ISBN 0-19-860058-5 p 176]
Mekon
Paul M Davis <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I have a genetic propensity to drive on the left hand side of the road.
Which side of the road you drive on is not genetic. - You have no,
"propensity" to favor one side or the other. You simply do what is both safe
and legal. People who are gay have been gay for as far back as they can
remember.....With many, the propensity to like same sex partners stems from
a time before they were even two years old. They followed no law. And no
societal convention at such a tender age. For all practical purposes, it is
a genetic tendency........
Al Browne <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> How do you feel about these issues?
> Do you think gays should be allowed to marry each other?
If marriage were just a religious ritual, which is how it started, I would
say it was up to the individual church. But, my government has made it a
state issue, by charging married people according to a different income tax
table than the one that single people get to use.....So, I believe that gay
people should have the same right to marry their partners as do opposite sex
couples. Anything else is blatent discrimination against people for their
sexual orientation.....Ask most any gay person....He/she will tell you that
they were gay as far back as they can remember. There never was a time when
they actually had a choice in the matter.....So being gay is not a matter of
choice. Like skin color, it is something one is born with, and cannot
change. Therefore, the government shouldn't discriminate either for or
against it.
Juvenaly wrote:
> My question to you: does it follow then that "monogamous, stable"
> heterosexual relationships between people who are unmarried (i.e.
> concubinage, or long-term fornication), are justified on the same
> basis -- that is, that not everyone has the gift of continence
> (celibacy) and not everyone has been granted the gift of a spouse?
Does that make them incontinent?
On 6 Aug 2003 23:12:01 -0700, [email protected] (Al Browne) wrote:
>How do you feel about these issues?
>
>Do you think an open gay man who admits to having anal and oral sex
>with another man is qualified to be a regional church leader of the
>Episcopal church?
>
>Would you trust him with your children?
>
>Do you think gays should be allowed to marry each other?
Is this a woodworking site or current events discussion?
remove "**" from e-mail
Paul M Davis <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Would he be a good example? Would he honor and uphold the family unit by
> his teaching and example. Apparently not. NO. I would not want him to
be
> giving spiritual direction to members of my family.
If he said, "Find a partner whom you can love, honor, and obey, and marry
that partner, and spend your life in happiness with that partner." Would you
think that was giving your children improper spiritual direction? - If your
children are gay, then how would you want them to spend their lives? Being
miserable, hiding a secret that they hide just for your benefit? If it were
me, I would want my kids to live in happiness with their gay partner, adopt
some parentless child, (or two) and live a life of happiness......But then,
I don't let some old, out-of-date book dictate my morality.....I was taught
to think for myself.
So I look at it like this....
You don't believe or have faith that there is a God and I do.
If you are right and I am wrong, we die, turn to dust, and our consciousness
vanishes - poof - no big deal for either of us.
If I am right and you are wrong, we die, I go to Heaven and you burn in Hell
for eternity.
So forget about the logical argument and just think about...what if you're
wrong?
David
"Matt Clara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> All of this presumes one premise that has yet to be proven, that there is
a
> god. Take God out of the picture, and your argument doesn't have a leg to
> stand on. Since there is no way to get to any god, except through a
> rationalized leap of faith, there is no reason to prima facie accept the
> notion of a god.
> Your argument is illogical and just an excuse to hate some people.
> Real nice.
In article <[email protected]>,
"Jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
> "Rudy Garcia" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > x-no-archive: yes
> > >
> > > "Priscilla H Ballou" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > > We have met the laity, and they are us. ;-)
> > > >
> > >
> > > There is a great deal of opposition to this appointment, even among
> > > Anglicans throughout the world.
> > >
> > > It just makes me more convinced than ever that this is not a true
> church.
> > > Although we all sin, it is one thing to sin privately and quite another
> for
> > > a church to promote a public sinner to the rank of bishop.
> >
> >
> > So what is a "true" church? One whom you agree with?
> >
> > > I wonder what his ex-wife thinks about all of this?
> > >
> > > More important, are Episcopalians naive enough to believe that such a
> man
> > > can possibly retain moral authority over his entire flock? His
> appointment
> > > is scandalous--and if he really was concerned about the welfare of his
> > > communion, he would have declined the appointment so as not to create
> > > scandal.
> > >
> > > This is for Episcopalians to ponder--I have no standing in their
> internal
> > > arguments, as I am not of that faith. Still it hurts to see someone
> divide
> > > Christians.
> > >
> > > It would be a cold day in hell before I would take religious or moral
> > > instruction from a homosexual. And I believe that millions of other
> > > Christians share that viewpoint. I wonder how many Episcopalians will
> > > decide that they must come out of that church as a result of this
> scandal?
> > >
> > > It is strange that there can be such disagreement on such a fundamental
> > > matter of faith.
> >
> > Why are you so surprised that there is disagreement? Are you being
> > naive on purpose?
> >
> > (RANT)
> >
> > If you are christian, a logical case can be made for the one "true"
> > church to be the catholic chruch. After all, Peter, the first pope and
> > Christ's main man, was told by Jesus himself to build him a church.
> >
> > The liturgical scholars of that time immediately started about writing
> > the Bible and collecting the sermons for posterity, as the word of God.
> > In this job they were very careful as to what they put in writing and
> > what to include or exclude (lets see,....shall we include any sermons
> > from Mary Magdalene or should we not?...Nehh, we'll use her in a
> > different role).
> >
> > The catholic church, after going through a period where it became clear
> > to the reigning pope that maintaining a standing army and going around
> > making war on other states,in the end, was not a good return on
> > investment. It was decided that there would be more wealth --that could
> > be spent in works of art and impressive structures-- if instead of
> > fighting, they backed the reigning kings and claimed that the king had a
> > god given divine right to reign and opress its humble citizens. Good
> > gig!! the king was happy because the serfs, being religious folks,
> > respected the king, an appointee from god, the church was happy because
> > they ruled in matters of religion and could collect their tithe to
> > maintain their hierarchy in a manner they were acustomed to. Somehow
> > they never had to explain the inconsistency of two neighboring kingdoms,
> > both ruled by kings whose power derived from god, going to war agains
> > each other. Hmmm god's representative fighting against another
> > representative.
> >
> > Anyway, a few years later, there came a schism and we wound up with two
> > simultaneously reigning popes. One could assume that, in the end the
> > one "true" pope prevailed, but it is an assumption. The Greeks came to
> > disagreement over the interpretation of the trinity and off they went
> > and formed the Greek Orthodox church (they also didn't like answering to
> > Rome, but that is the political angle). Of course, they had to re-write
> > some of the passages in the Bible, which itself by that time had already
> > had some major edits. Somewhere around that era, the catholic clergy
> > voted that the pope was infallible. It seems that prior to that time
> > the pope could make mistakes, but not after he was voted infallible! Oh
> > no sir, from now on he couldn't be wrong in any matter of religious
> > priciple. We (rather they) voted on it.
> >
> > Then, the church found that there was good money to be made by literally
> > selling salvation to the rich. Hey, it didn't matter if you were a
> > debauched, amoral pr**k, if you paid your money, the Vatican would send
> > you a certificate declaring that you would go to heaven. Guaranteed
> > first class seating and all.
> >
> > [As an aside, centuries later, the Parker Brothers evolved this concept
> > into the "get out of jail free" Monopoly card]
> >
> > So much crap was going on that Martin Luther hung his protests on the
> > church door and founded the protestant movement. The Bible was again
> > due for some editing (the King James version) and now we have the Greek
> > Orthodox version, the protestant version and the catholic version, all
> > have gone through multiple revisions, all claiming to be the word of
> > god. Oh, lets not forget that the original protestant movement also
> > evolved into multiple factions, including the Episcopalean.
> >
> > We have priests that must remain celibate, because an infallible pope
> > said they should be (if you take a detailed look into their lifes, some
> > of the popes didn't think that celibacy applied to them (e.g. the
> > Borgias)), we have pastors that can be married --nee-- encouraged by
> > their church to be married and everything in between. After all this
> > you wonder why there is disagreement?
> >
> > (/RANT)
> >
> > --
> > Rudy Garcia
> >
>
> You are entitled to your opinion. But that is ALL it is: "Your Opinion."
>
> Many scholars would disagree with you factual analysis.
>
> I hand down no judgment upon the Anglican communion, except to say that it
> is not for me. I have stated my reasons, which are certainly valid ones, as
> they are being expressed by many within the Episcopal/Anglican communions
> now.
>
> You would do better to focus upon the message, rather than condemning the
> messenger. That tactic doesn't work any more. It has been used so often in
> the past that people see through it immediately.
>" Many scholars would disagree with you factual analysis."
Ask your friendly scholar if he/she ever heard of the concept of
Filioque. Filioque led to the great schism between the Eastern church
and Rome.
Go visit Avignon in France and tour the palace where several popes lived
during the XIV and XV century, while other popes reigned in Rome at the
same time. Have your scholar explain how (just to name two of them)
Popes Urban VI and Clement VII could have been popes during overlapping
time periods if popes are chosen for life? It really got weird when
both popes started excommunication proceedings against each other.
You might also ask your scholarly friend to check into Martin Luther's
letter, dated 1517, to the Archbishop of Mainz, wherein he complains
about the selling of indulgences by the church.
>"You would do better to focus upon the message"
How can one focus on the message if it has no factual content at its
core? You make a bunch of inflamatory assertions and offer no proof. I
at least gave you some factual evidence which you dismiss off-hand
saying many scholars would dismiss it. You are obviously ignorant of
the historical facts that have shaped the evolution of christian
religion. Do yourself a favor and broaden your knowledge base beyond
the simple catechism and what is written in the current edition of your
bible of choice.
--
Rudy Garcia
In article <[email protected]>,
"Jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> "Priscilla H Ballou" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > We have met the laity, and they are us. ;-)
> >
>
> There is a great deal of opposition to this appointment, even among
> Anglicans throughout the world.
>
> It just makes me more convinced than ever that this is not a true church.
> Although we all sin, it is one thing to sin privately and quite another for
> a church to promote a public sinner to the rank of bishop.
So what is a "true" church? One whom you agree with?
> I wonder what his ex-wife thinks about all of this?
>
> More important, are Episcopalians naive enough to believe that such a man
> can possibly retain moral authority over his entire flock? His appointment
> is scandalous--and if he really was concerned about the welfare of his
> communion, he would have declined the appointment so as not to create
> scandal.
>
> This is for Episcopalians to ponder--I have no standing in their internal
> arguments, as I am not of that faith. Still it hurts to see someone divide
> Christians.
>
> It would be a cold day in hell before I would take religious or moral
> instruction from a homosexual. And I believe that millions of other
> Christians share that viewpoint. I wonder how many Episcopalians will
> decide that they must come out of that church as a result of this scandal?
>
> It is strange that there can be such disagreement on such a fundamental
> matter of faith.
Why are you so surprised that there is disagreement? Are you being
naive on purpose?
(RANT)
If you are christian, a logical case can be made for the one "true"
church to be the catholic chruch. After all, Peter, the first pope and
Christ's main man, was told by Jesus himself to build him a church.
The liturgical scholars of that time immediately started about writing
the Bible and collecting the sermons for posterity, as the word of God.
In this job they were very careful as to what they put in writing and
what to include or exclude (lets see,....shall we include any sermons
from Mary Magdalene or should we not?...Nehh, we'll use her in a
different role).
The catholic church, after going through a period where it became clear
to the reigning pope that maintaining a standing army and going around
making war on other states,in the end, was not a good return on
investment. It was decided that there would be more wealth --that could
be spent in works of art and impressive structures-- if instead of
fighting, they backed the reigning kings and claimed that the king had a
god given divine right to reign and opress its humble citizens. Good
gig!! the king was happy because the serfs, being religious folks,
respected the king, an appointee from god, the church was happy because
they ruled in matters of religion and could collect their tithe to
maintain their hierarchy in a manner they were acustomed to. Somehow
they never had to explain the inconsistency of two neighboring kingdoms,
both ruled by kings whose power derived from god, going to war agains
each other. Hmmm god's representative fighting against another
representative.
Anyway, a few years later, there came a schism and we wound up with two
simultaneously reigning popes. One could assume that, in the end the
one "true" pope prevailed, but it is an assumption. The Greeks came to
disagreement over the interpretation of the trinity and off they went
and formed the Greek Orthodox church (they also didn't like answering to
Rome, but that is the political angle). Of course, they had to re-write
some of the passages in the Bible, which itself by that time had already
had some major edits. Somewhere around that era, the catholic clergy
voted that the pope was infallible. It seems that prior to that time
the pope could make mistakes, but not after he was voted infallible! Oh
no sir, from now on he couldn't be wrong in any matter of religious
priciple. We (rather they) voted on it.
Then, the church found that there was good money to be made by literally
selling salvation to the rich. Hey, it didn't matter if you were a
debauched, amoral pr**k, if you paid your money, the Vatican would send
you a certificate declaring that you would go to heaven. Guaranteed
first class seating and all.
[As an aside, centuries later, the Parker Brothers evolved this concept
into the "get out of jail free" Monopoly card]
So much crap was going on that Martin Luther hung his protests on the
church door and founded the protestant movement. The Bible was again
due for some editing (the King James version) and now we have the Greek
Orthodox version, the protestant version and the catholic version, all
have gone through multiple revisions, all claiming to be the word of
god. Oh, lets not forget that the original protestant movement also
evolved into multiple factions, including the Episcopalean.
We have priests that must remain celibate, because an infallible pope
said they should be (if you take a detailed look into their lifes, some
of the popes didn't think that celibacy applied to them (e.g. the
Borgias)), we have pastors that can be married --nee-- encouraged by
their church to be married and everything in between. After all this
you wonder why there is disagreement?
(/RANT)
--
Rudy Garcia
In article <[email protected]>,
"Jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> "Ric" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:Og%[email protected]...
>
> > Maybe the Episcopal Church have simply opened their eyes and decided to
> > acknowledge what already exists. Robinson surely isn't the first gay
> bishop,
> > just the first openly gay bishop. Should churches of all demoninations
> root
> > out all suspected gay clergy? What about organists? Be prepared to sing
> a
> > cappella because there sure are a lot of them.
>
> No, you don't go on a witch hunt. But you DON'T INSTITUTIONALIZE IT,
> EITHER!
Jeremy, are you talking about religious or secular institutionalizing?
I can undertsand that out of your religious principles you oppose them
having the blessed sacrament of marriage. Is that what you are not
clearly saying?
Or, are you opposed to them being able to marry in the secular sense?
> The vocal homosexuals want to have their perverted activities declared to be
> "normal" and this is what must be opposed. They are not normal, they have
> never been considered normal, and this notion that they should be able to
> marry and raise children is absurd.
To them, it is normal. You are saying that normality is an absolute
standard (yours). It is a stretch. By that reasoning, cross racial
marriages are not normal either.
> If they want property rights or visitation rights, that can be handled in
> other ways. But not marriage. Marriage is a unique institution, afforded
> with unique benefits, and it has ALWAYS been between a man and a woman.
Marriage allows spousal inheritance, sharing a last name, survivor
pension benefits,... Is that the uniqueness you are talking about?
> The impact upon society, if homosexual unions were raised on a par with
> marriage, would be devastating.
Why, because you say so?
> And, please, don'r ask me to submit
> "scientific proof" as a condidion of barring homosexual marriage--that
> argument presumes that anyone can have anything, absent "scientific proof"
> being provided by the opposition. Let's use common sense.
I fully agree with your last sentence. Why not follow your own advice?
> They're disordered perverts, NOT respectable pillars of society.
Are you homophobic?
--
Rudy Garcia
In article <[email protected]>,
"Nick C" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Rudy Garcia" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > x-no-archive: yes
> > >
> > > "Priscilla H Ballou" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > > We have met the laity, and they are us. ;-)
> > > >
> > >
> > > There is a great deal of opposition to this appointment, even among
> > > Anglicans throughout the world.
> > >
> > > It just makes me more convinced than ever that this is not a true
> church.
> > > Although we all sin, it is one thing to sin privately and quite another
> for
> > > a church to promote a public sinner to the rank of bishop.
> >
> >
> > So what is a "true" church? One whom you agree with?
> >
> > > I wonder what his ex-wife thinks about all of this?
> > >
> > > More important, are Episcopalians naive enough to believe that such a
> man
> > > can possibly retain moral authority over his entire flock? His
> appointment
> > > is scandalous--and if he really was concerned about the welfare of his
> > > communion, he would have declined the appointment so as not to create
> > > scandal.
> > >
> > > This is for Episcopalians to ponder--I have no standing in their
> internal
> > > arguments, as I am not of that faith. Still it hurts to see someone
> divide
> > > Christians.
> > >
> > > It would be a cold day in hell before I would take religious or moral
> > > instruction from a homosexual. And I believe that millions of other
> > > Christians share that viewpoint. I wonder how many Episcopalians will
> > > decide that they must come out of that church as a result of this
> scandal?
> > >
> > > It is strange that there can be such disagreement on such a fundamental
> > > matter of faith.
> >
> > Why are you so surprised that there is disagreement? Are you being
> > naive on purpose?
> >
> > (RANT)
> >
> > If you are christian, a logical case can be made for the one "true"
> > church to be the catholic chruch. After all, Peter, the first pope and
> > Christ's main man, was told by Jesus himself to build him a church.
> >
> > The liturgical scholars of that time immediately started about writing
> > the Bible and collecting the sermons for posterity, as the word of God.
> > In this job they were very careful as to what they put in writing and
> > what to include or exclude (lets see,....shall we include any sermons
> > from Mary Magdalene or should we not?...Nehh, we'll use her in a
> > different role).
>
> "Immediately started" ? That's a good on to try on for size. The Christian
> scriptures are composed of 66 books that took 1,600 years (as I recall
> learning in my days of biblical interest) of research and compilation to
> complete.
>
> Nick
Starting and completing are two different terminus where I come from.
> > The catholic church, after going through a period where it became clear
> > to the reigning pope that maintaining a standing army and going around
> > making war on other states,in the end, was not a good return on
> > investment. It was decided that there would be more wealth --that could
> > be spent in works of art and impressive structures-- if instead of
> > fighting, they backed the reigning kings and claimed that the king had a
> > god given divine right to reign and opress its humble citizens. Good
> > gig!! the king was happy because the serfs, being religious folks,
> > respected the king, an appointee from god, the church was happy because
> > they ruled in matters of religion and could collect their tithe to
> > maintain their hierarchy in a manner they were acustomed to. Somehow
> > they never had to explain the inconsistency of two neighboring kingdoms,
> > both ruled by kings whose power derived from god, going to war agains
> > each other. Hmmm god's representative fighting against another
> > representative.
> >
> > Anyway, a few years later, there came a schism and we wound up with two
> > simultaneously reigning popes. One could assume that, in the end the
> > one "true" pope prevailed, but it is an assumption. The Greeks came to
> > disagreement over the interpretation of the trinity and off they went
> > and formed the Greek Orthodox church (they also didn't like answering to
> > Rome, but that is the political angle). Of course, they had to re-write
> > some of the passages in the Bible, which itself by that time had already
> > had some major edits. Somewhere around that era, the catholic clergy
> > voted that the pope was infallible. It seems that prior to that time
> > the pope could make mistakes, but not after he was voted infallible! Oh
> > no sir, from now on he couldn't be wrong in any matter of religious
> > priciple. We (rather they) voted on it.
> >
> > Then, the church found that there was good money to be made by literally
> > selling salvation to the rich. Hey, it didn't matter if you were a
> > debauched, amoral pr**k, if you paid your money, the Vatican would send
> > you a certificate declaring that you would go to heaven. Guaranteed
> > first class seating and all.
> >
> > [As an aside, centuries later, the Parker Brothers evolved this concept
> > into the "get out of jail free" Monopoly card]
> >
> > So much crap was going on that Martin Luther hung his protests on the
> > church door and founded the protestant movement. The Bible was again
> > due for some editing (the King James version) and now we have the Greek
> > Orthodox version, the protestant version and the catholic version, all
> > have gone through multiple revisions, all claiming to be the word of
> > god. Oh, lets not forget that the original protestant movement also
> > evolved into multiple factions, including the Episcopalean.
> >
> > We have priests that must remain celibate, because an infallible pope
> > said they should be (if you take a detailed look into their lifes, some
> > of the popes didn't think that celibacy applied to them (e.g. the
> > Borgias)), we have pastors that can be married --nee-- encouraged by
> > their church to be married and everything in between. After all this
> > you wonder why there is disagreement?
> >
> > (/RANT)
> >
> > --
> > Rudy Garcia
> >
>
>
--
Rudy Garcia
In article
<[email protected]>,
"Jerome Delaney" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Any man that finds sexual attraction in another man has to have something
> wrong with him somewhere, be it in his head, or a hormone problem, or
> whatever, but it is definitely not normal. The same applies to women.
>
> If you look at in scientific terms, like forces repel each other, and
> opposites attract. Pretty simple I would say, and see, I'm not imposing my
> religion on you at all. I really don't care what perverts do to each other
> in their interludes. but it certainly is not normal. Yes there is pedophilia
> as far as heterosexual people are concerned, and they that engage in that
> have something wrong with themselves mentally also.
>
> I just think some church leaders in the Episcopal church chose to cop out to
> pressure from a bunch of loud mouth perverts. I would never recognize an
> avowed pervert as a bishop or a priest. They are living a big lie, and one
> cannot serve God and be a liar at the same time. It is just impossible to do
> so.
>
>
> --
> Jerry Delaney QMC
> U.S. Navy (Retired)
>
> "I would rather be a footstool in Heaven than be a prince in hell."
>
>
I don't disagree with your beliefs, but I disagree with your science.
You covered electrostatic and magnetic forces, but how about
gravitational forces? Try as much as you like, two masses always atract
each other.
--
Rudy Garcia
In article <[email protected]>,
Steve Kramer <[email protected]> wrote:
> Rudy Garcia wrote:
> >
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Lisa Horton <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Jeremy wrote:
> > > >
> > > > x-no-archive: yes
> > > >
> > > > "Ninure Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > news:RainbowChristiannohate-
> > > >
> > > > > I don't know, how did thoe curches that embraced, blessed, condoned,
> > > > > justified anti-semitism, slavery, segregation, apatheid, etc, explain
> > > > > things when they supposdly "stoppped"?
> > > > >
> > > > > Makes one wonder , in light of your opening statememts why YOU care?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I "care," as you put it, because this proposed appointment is another
> > > > chink
> > > > in the armor by the homosexuals against the dignity of marriage, the
> > > > foundation of the family and the stabilization of society.
> > > >
> > > > Let us, for sake of this discussion, separate the *private practice of
> > > > homosexual acts* from the impact upon society that would result if we
> > > > *institutionalized this behavior.*
> > > >
> > > > Virtually every culture, from time immemorial, has considered
> > > > homosexuality
> > > > as a serious depravity, that went against the natural moral law. So,
> > > > before
> > > > you try to marginalize those of us that oppose your agenda, don't think
> > > > that
> > > > we are all going to sit back while you try to cast us in the roles of
> > > > brainless Neanderthals. History is on my side--not yours.
> > >
> > > Wrong. The ancient greeks and romans had no problems with
> > > homosexuality. Considering the profound influence these two cultures
> > > have had on modern western culture, it's hard to see how you can justify
> > > your "virtually every culture" statement. Or do you conveniently
> > > exclude, via your "virtually", any culture that doesn't fit your agenda?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The homosexual inclination is objectively disordered. That has been
> > > > believed by "all of the people, all of the time." In some cultures,
> > > > anti-homosexual sentiment has run so high that homosexuals were
> > > > oppressed or
> > > > even put to death. There is no evidence to suggest that any society of
> > > > any
> > > > signifigance ever embraced the homosexual lifestyle. In the West,
> > > > homosexuals have been typically referred to as "Queers," "Fags" or
> > > > "Homos"--all words of contempt. That is simply historical fact.
> > > > Homosexuals were not liked.
> > >
> > > Again, your "all of the people all of the time" is obviously and
> > > patently false. Again we come back to the greeks and romans. Unless
> > > you consider the greeks and romans not to be "any society of any
> > > significance".
> > >
> > > Note that "in the west", black people have been typically referred to as
> > > "niggers" and worse, that "in the west" jewish people have been
> > > typically referred to as "kikes" and worse. I could go on and on, wops,
> > > dagos, beaners, wetbacks, etc. etc. etc. Few people today would call
> > > those sorts of designations acceptable.
> > >
> > > Not that "in the west", it wasn't that long ago that white and black
> > > people were barred from marrying by law. It wasn't that long ago that
> > > black people weren't allowed to vote.
> > >
> > > Just because SOME people didn't like some other people does not make it
> > > right.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > That has softened in recent years, as we have tried to find ways to
> > > > become
> > > > more accomodating toward homosexual acts. This change in attitude has
> > > > manifested itself as tolerating homosexual behavior, without actually
> > > > approving of it.
> > >
> > > Speak for yourself. Many non homosexuals today really don't care what
> > > other people do in their bedrooms.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > It is one thing for our society to *tolerate* private homosexual
> > > > behavior--its deviant nature notwithstanding. It is quite another
> > > > thing to
> > > > expect society to *codify* that behavior as forseen and approved by
> > > > law, to
> > > > the point where it becomes one of society's institutions in the legal
> > > > structure.
> > >
> > > And why is it different? How is it different than regulating what you
> > > and your wife/girlfriend can do in your bedroom? Religious objections
> > > don't count, as we're talking about laws here, and there is still, at
> > > least theoretically, a separation of church and state in the USA.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > To allow children to be adopted by homosexual couples would be doing
> > > > grave
> > > > violence to them.
> > >
> > > What an absurd statement. Do you have any evidence that homosexual
> > > parents are any more likely to inflict violence on their children? Do
> > > you know that children of homosexual parents are, statistically, no more
> > > likely to be homosexuals themselves than children of heterosexual
> > > parents?
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > This has nothing to do with "discrimination." It has to do with common
> > > > sense. Right reason tells us that to change the law would be harmful
> > > > to the
> > > > common good, and would be gravely immoral.
> > >
> > > Well, actually it has everything to do with discrimination, and has
> > > nothing to do with common sense. "right reason"? What the hell is
> > > "right reason"? And exactly how would changing the law be harmful to
> > > the common good? Be specific, please. And finally morality is an
> > > individual thing. As for morality, I personally do not lie, cheat or
> > > steal. Ever. I help those in need, I am kind to strangers. Our
> > > household charitable contributions often come to five figures in a
> > > year. Many veterans in veterans hospitals, often wounded defending our
> > > country, amuse themselves with products donated by our business. Poor
> > > children get nice Christmas presents, again, our donations. We even give
> > > to the Salvation Army, not exactly a homo friendly organization. Why?
> > > Because of the good things they do for poor children.
> > >
> > > Don't talk to me about morality Jeremy, until you can match the strict
> > > moral code that I live by, until you do as much as I do for those less
> > > fortunate.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > If the Episcopal church moves forward with this appointment, it will
> > > > have
> > > > lost its moral high-ground, and probably will drive many of its
> > > > adherents to
> > > > other denominations. The latter is not my business, but the former is
> > > > an
> > > > issue that impacts us all.
> > >
> > > If you are not a member of the Episcopal church, then Episcopal church
> > > business is none of yours.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > While I bear no ill will against individuals with a homosexual
> > > > inclination,
> > > > I hold to the belief that homosexuality is is disordered, and can never
> > > > be
> > > > on equal footing with marriage.
> > >
> > > On what do you base your belief that homosexuality is disordered? The
> > > Psychiatric profession has determined that homosexuality is not a
> > > disorder.
> > > >
> > > > According to the polls I've seen, I am in the majority with respect to
> > > > my
> > > > beliefs.j
> > >
> > > Recent polls show that around half of all Americans support (mostly)
> > > equal rights for homosexuals. Support for homosexual marriage is
> > > somewhat lower though.
> > >
> > > So tell me Jeremy, do you eat shellfish? Do you ever touch leather made
> > > from pigskin, for example a football? Do you know that according to
> > > Leviticus,these are sins of the same level as homosexuality? How about
> > > this one: "And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided,
> > > does not chew the cud, it is unclean for you." Geez, eating bacon is as
> > > bad as rogering another man! Or this one: "do not wear clothing woven
> > > of two kinds of material" I always knew that polyester was a fashion
> > > sin, but who would have thought that combining it with rayon was a grave
> > > religious sin? So Jeremy, if your underwear has an elastic band at the
> > > waist, I guess you're a sinner too! Do you cut the hair at the side of
> > > your head? Uh oh, another sin. One I particularly like is "Do not go
> > > about spreading slander among your people" Particularly apropos in this
> > > discussion :)
> > >
> > > Now, if you feel like your bacon eating, underwear wearing, polyester
> > > sinning is ok because you didn't know, well, Leviticus addresses that as
> > > well: "If a member of the community sins unintentionally and does what
> > > is forbidden in any of the Lord's commands, he is guilty"
> > >
> > > Jeremy, what I'm trying to tell you here is that morality is relative to
> > > it's time and place. There was a time in the USA when it was considered
> > > morally acceptable to own slaves. Allegedly Christian people owned
> > > other people as property and considered it moral. Could you honestly
> > > consider that moral today?
> > >
> > > The rules expressed in Leviticus,or even the entire old testament, were
> > > rules of their time. Pigs and shellfish often had parasites, eating
> > > them could be risky to one's health. Thus the rules about not eating
> > > them, they are rules to increase the group's chances of survival.
> > > Homosexuality is counter productive when a groups survival is at risk,
> > > as having children enhances the group's chances of survival. This is
> > > the norm in a primitive agrarian society. We no longer live in an
> > > agrarian society, so having lots of children, or having children at all,
> > > is no longer a viable strategy for increasing a person, family or
> > > group's chances of survival.
> > >
> > > Now, if you personally don't like the idea of homosexuality, that's
> > > fine, you're entitled to your opinion. I personally find some sexual
> > > activities practiced by heterosexuals to be somewhat disgusting. Like
> > > Pony Play, that's pretty kinky. Or S&M and B&D, I find it
> > > incomprehensible that people would associate pain with sexual pleasure.
> > > Or pedophiles who use chat rooms to attempt to lure young girls, that's
> > > just sick. And anal intercourse is just gross no matter who is doing it.
> > >
> > > Lisa
> >
> > WOW! You tell him Lisa :-)
> >
> > By the way, you left out the spilling of one's seed. That was also one
> > of the strategies for group survival.
>
> Damn! You mean this one is out too?!?
>
> > BTW, I feel my sexual education has been deprived. What is Pony Play?
>
> Thanks Rudy. I was going to ask that one myself, but was too embarrased
> to show my lack of knowledge first. *grin*
>
> Steve Kramer
> Chiang Mai, Thailand
Yes Steve, I am afraid that seed spilling is out too. It seems that
religious beliefs hold that there is only one proper place for it. It'd
be all right I guess, ....except for all the damn headaches.
Lisa continues to amaze me with her knowledge. Maybe she'll let us know
about Pony Playing. Somehow I don't think it has anything to do with the
racetrack.
--
Rudy Garcia
Jeremy wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> "Pete McCutchen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>> Unbelievers get eternal life, in a paradise in which they can
>> photograph beautiful models in black and white or color, using Leica
>> equipment.
>
> Has anyone checked to see if Leica employs any homosexuals? Maybe they're
> Lutherans, not Episcopalians . . .
>
> Next thing you know, you'll have Gay Presbyterians. This is starting to
> become a problem.
I don't see your point here. He was talking about a hypothetical paradise
for Atheists.
--
You can't catch breath in a bottle; and you can't pin it down with paper and
ink; God's living Word dances behind the words of the writers.
-- Joe (Zayton) in alt.bible
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 21:34:34 GMT in
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, Jerome Delaney ("Jerome
Delaney" <[email protected]>) said, directing the reply to
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
>Again you are mixing up the word "hate" with tolerance. I do not wish to
>have a pervert around me, but if there is one and he/she does not flaunt it,
>I am not the wiser; am I?
>
>I have a right to express my intolerance with what I think is disgusting and
>when a person demonstrates that action that disgusts me, I will express my
>distaste for it.
>
>Perverts are masters of deciet, they probably have to be to convince
>themselves that what they're doing is normal and right. Twisting words into
>other meanings is one of those crafts, but beleive me, it does not work with
>me. You're not gay, you're a pervert! It is not "an alternate lifestyle," it
>is a disgusting existence!
>You're not normal; you have some kind of a problem be it pshchological, or
>physiological. End of story.
>
>
>--
>Jerry Delaney QMC
>U.S. Navy (Retired)
Jeeez, whatever happened to rum, sodomy and the lash?
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 **
"Jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> "Jerome Delaney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Ric; do not try playing the race card with me. Interracial marriage has
> > nothing to do with a persons sexual orientation. You folks have been
> trying
> > to identify with the prejudice conferred upon black people for quite
some
> > time now and it does not take a genius to see the difference between
> bigotry
> > because of a man's skin color and the distaste for a disgusting sexual
> > practice.
> >
> > Perverts are, and let me see if I can explain this to you, people who
> engage
> > in anal copulation with persons of the same sex, or oral copulation with
> the
> > person of the same sex. the consuming of fluids such as another man's
> urine,
> > the wash out of an enema, the ejaculate from the man's orgasm, the
> > employment of pain inflicting devices, and bondage. I may not have
covered
> > it all, but I think you will get the idea.
> >
> > Now; anywhere in that paragraph did I mention skin color, or national
> > origin, or religious preference? No!
> >
> > Bigotry is an action directed at people for skin color, which they have
no
> > control over; God decides that and woe be to him that offends God in
that
> > respect.
> >
> > But as I have indicated, the sexual preferences of a perverted person
> > disgust me. I don't care if you engage in that type of sexual pleasure.
> What
> > you do behind closed doors is really no concern of mine or anyone else
for
> > that matter. All I ask of you is "do not try to validate it by having a
> > church condone it." When that happens the church becomes a liar and
> > therefore can no longer be an instrument of teaching God's Word.
> >
> > As a member of a Choir, I have known several male organist who were
> married,
> > and not perverted. You will notice that I do not use the word gay,
because
> > that word has a meaning to me that means "happy, or joyous" which
perverts
> > do not seem to be as far as I know. I am sure there are men and/or women
> who
> > play the organ that are perverted, but as long as they keep it to
> > themselves, who knows about it, or who cares?
> >
> > Does that answer your questions? If not, then I suggest that you seek
your
> > answers elsewhere.
> >
>
>
> Excellent response! I was beginning to think that I was the only person
on
> this NG that was revolted at the thought of institutionalizing homosexual
> marriage.
>
I also have to voice my staunch opinion that I thoroughly find discusting
those above mentioned acts...
I'm considerably elderly and have been diagnoised with pan. cancer.. Not
that , that has any bearing on my feelings.. I held these for the better
part of my life..
Good will and prayers go out to all.
Pray for peace.
Ed........................(OldguyTeck)
"William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:NLzYa.91555$YN5.64730@sccrnsc01...
>
> Paul M Davis <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I have a genetic propensity to drive on the left hand side of the road.
> > However, my government has made it a state issue by requiring that
drivers
> > drive on the right hand side. This is blatant and unfair
discrimination.
> I
> > believe that those of us who prefer to drive on the left should be given
> the
> > same rights as the right side drivers. Anything else is blatant
> > discrimination. Ask any left side driver. There was a time when they
> were
> > just learning to drive when driving on the left would have seemed just
as
> > comfortable as driving on the right. Europe is far ahead of the United
> > States in these matters.
> >
> Poor analogy.....Being gay, and cohabiting with a same sex partner, will
not
> cause a head-on crash that takes your life and the lives of innocents in
the
> other car......Driving rules are necessary, and not moral issues. Gayness,
> and the gay life style, is a moral, and political issue......
>
>
>
It is also a social and religious issue. Aside from the spread of HIV/AIDS
through willing participants in a gay lifestyle, a church that operates in a
manner that is clearly contrary to scripture, the universal consensus of all
civilized societies through the ages, and basic realities of the biology of
sexual reproduction risks it's ethos and it's credibility to speak out on
any moral issue of any topic.
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Uih1b.168172$cF.58805@rwcrnsc53...
>
> "David Ruether" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Perhaps you are unaware that the American Psychiatric Association
> > long ago stopped classifying homosexuality as
>
> Perhaps you are unaware that the general public long ago stopped
classifying
> psychiatrists as normal?
>
> Perhaps you
> > are unaware that homosexuality occurs "naturally" in about all mammals
> > in significant percentages?
>
> Yes. No matter what you do, birth defects happen.
>
>
I fear the old question must be brought up again..
WHAT next... BEASTEALITY ?
Where does it end... Where is the line drawn...?
Ed.........................(Oldguyteck)
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 10:57:41 -0600, [email protected] (M. Clark)
wrote:
M. CLARK HAS UNREPENTENTLY LIED ABOUT THE FOLLOWING VERSES:
THE FIRST COMMANDMENT
Romans 14 (entire chapter)
Galatians 4:21-31 (especially v 24)
1 Corinthians 5 multiple times (entire chapter)
Romans 12:3
1 Corinthians 6: 9-11
Leviticus 18:22
Romans 1:25-27
Romans 1:28-32
Leviticus 26: 36-37
Genesis 1: 3-5, 14-19, 21-27
Genesis 2: 4-9, 7-19
1 Timothy 5: 6-7
1 Corinthians 7:21
Revelation 14:11
Matthew 8:29
Matthew 5:22
Luke 16: 22-24
maf and dog, AA #1954, EAC Cruise Director and Lounge Pianist,
respectively
"Jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> It would be a cold day in hell before I would take religious or moral
> instruction from a homosexual. And I believe that millions of other
> Christians share that viewpoint. I wonder how many Episcopalians will
> decide that they must come out of that church as a result of this scandal?
A homosexual priest presided at my wedding, baptized my first two kids and
presided at my brother's wedding. Not a problem. I could see past the
person.
Suzanne
"David Ruether" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> "Gabby" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > It would be a cold day in hell before I would take religious or moral
> > > instruction from a homosexual. And I believe that millions of other
> > > Christians share that viewpoint. I wonder how many Episcopalians will
> > > decide that they must come out of that church as a result of this
scandal?
> >
> > A homosexual priest presided at my wedding, baptized my first two kids
and
> > presided at my brother's wedding. Not a problem. I could see past the
> > person.
> >
> > Suzanne
>
> But, perhaps, the "person" was very nice, and honorable...
Very nice, definitely. But very troubled by his sexuality and definitely
not celibate.
Suzanne
In article <[email protected]>,
"David P" <[email protected]> wrote:
> So I look at it like this....
>
> You don't believe or have faith that there is a God and I do.
>
> If you are right and I am wrong, we die, turn to dust, and our consciousness
> vanishes - poof - no big deal for either of us.
> If I am right and you are wrong, we die, I go to Heaven and you burn in Hell
> for eternity.
>
> So forget about the logical argument and just think about...what if you're
> wrong?
The existence of God does not mean that there is necessarily a Hell or
that anyone burns in it involuntarily.
Priscilla
--
Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum,
minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
(thanks be to topfive.com)
In article <[email protected]>,
"Thore Schmechtig" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The Golden Rule? You mean the part where one is to love God with all their
> > heart, and their neighbor as themselves?
>
> Indeed.
Actually, the Golden Rule is "do unto others as you would have others do
unto you." What you're looking for, I think, is the Great Commandment,
"Love God and love your neighbor as yourself."
Priscilla
--
Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum,
minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
(thanks be to topfive.com)
Harmony; have you ever tried to reason with someone who is a pervert. For
one thing, if you offer anything Christian to the discussion they become
defensive. Christianity must be on a basis of "Rainbow Christian" or it is
the end of the discussion.
Names like "Homophobe" make very little sense to me for the simple reason
that homo in Greek means same, or mix as in a research experiment, thus
"homogenized."
Homo in Latin means man, or mankind depending on the discussion.
Phobia is from the Greek word for fear of and when you tie the two words
together, it is inplying that I am either afraid of research experiments,
homogenized milk, or men or mankind which includes women (homo sapiens). So
which is it that I have a great fear of?
None that I know of!
With that I will sign off from this conversation because I feel that it is a
waste of time and effort. I will let God take care of the whole thing. Like
He did in Sodom and Gomorrah. That is what is going to happen to this
society that we live in. One of these days He is just going to say, "I have
had enough, time to call in My sheep and rid My pastures of the Goats." Mark
my words on that, and all the buzz words, and twisting of language in the
world will not do anyong any good.
--
Jerry Delaney QMC
U.S. Navy (Retired)
"I would rather be a footstool in Heaven than be a prince in hell"
"William Graham" wrote
> This may be the, "bottom line" to you, but to an atheist like me, it has
> absolutely nothing to do with the reason why I check the, "single head of
> household" line on my 1040 form. My "wife" and I save a lot of money that
> way every year. We are pushing 70, and still haven't gotten married
because
> of these dumb IRS laws. The government loses a lot of money every year
> because it has these laws on the books, and even more because of the laws
> that prevent gays from getting married. Here are a huge group of people
who,
> in spite of the fact that it would cost them more money, want to marry and
> receive that kind of legitimacy. You bible thumpers are paying extra tax
> dollars because of your untenable position....
Yet another good argument for a true flat tax.
"William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:q3AYa.90775$Ho3.11507@sccrnsc03...
>
> Paul M Davis <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Would he be a good example? Would he honor and uphold the family unit
by
> > his teaching and example. Apparently not. NO. I would not want him to
> be
> > giving spiritual direction to members of my family.
>
> If he said, "Find a partner whom you can love, honor, and obey, and marry
> that partner, and spend your life in happiness with that partner." Would
you
> think that was giving your children improper spiritual direction? - If
your
> children are gay, then how would you want them to spend their lives? Being
> miserable, hiding a secret that they hide just for your benefit? If it
were
> me, I would want my kids to live in happiness with their gay partner,
adopt
> some parentless child, (or two) and live a life of happiness......But
then,
> I don't let some old, out-of-date book dictate my morality.....I was
taught
> to think for myself.
>
>
>
If that "partner" was not of opposite gender, and his teachings are directly
contrary to the plain sense of scripture then I would consider him to be
giving improper spiritual direction.
I raised my own children with a realistic appraisal of their own gender. My
grandchildren are being raised with the same values, thank God (and my
kids).
"Steve Kramer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ernie Jurick wrote:
> >
> > "Steve Kramer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Lisa Horton wrote:
> > > >
> > > A magnificent response!
> > >
> > > Steve Kramer
> > > Chiang Mai, Thailand
> >
> > Hey, Steve, tell us about how much katoeys are hated and despised in
> > Thailand. :-)
>
> I'm not quite sure how you meant this, so I'll go with the smiley and
> assume that you are being facetious.
>
> 'Ladyboys,' called "katoey" in Thailand, are cross dressing gay men, and
> are fully integrated into Thai society. Some, who go to the trouble to
> do so, look astonishingly beautiful and are performing in Cabarets all
> over The Land of Smiles. You will see them working in all venues from
> the medical field, law, sales, tourism, to public service, etc., in drag
> (female clothing and makeup,) and only the westerners who come here make
> a big deal about them. They are just another aspect of Thai culture.
> Nothing more. Nothing less.
Thanks! Another refutation of the claim that gays are "universally
despised." It all depends on the society.
-- Ernie
x-no-archive: yes
"Lisa Horton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jeremy,
>
> I find it interesting that you would dismiss the classic Greek culture,
> or is that culture responsible for the "virtually" in the paragraph
> above?
>
> Although I resisted for a long time, wanting to give you the benefit of
> the doubt, this little missive proves beyond a doubt that your
> detractors are correct, you're apparently incapable of making sense,
> using logic, or understanding the world around you and it's history.
So, my assessment of the issue is so faulty and marginal that I am
"apparently incapable of making sense, using logic, or understanding the
world around [me] or its history?"
Those are highly-charged words to use against someone that has expressed
what the majority of human beings have felt from time immemorial! But they
are typical of the strategy of a radical agenda: shout the opposition down,
call them names, associate them with unpopular ideas, and paint them as
being behind the times or stupid.
If you want to take issue with my statements, you are welcome to do so.
But, please cut the crap about dismissing it by calling me, essentially, a
jerk. Thoughtful people, regardless of their position on the matter under
discussion, will quickly see through that.
I am quite capable of "making sense, using logic, or understanding the world
around [me] or its history." The fact that you disagree with me in no way
invalidates what I've said.
Nice try, though.
"William Graham" wrote
> > Yet another good argument for a true flat tax.
> >
> Yes.....I have heard a rumor that the IRS has gotten rid of the marriage
> penalty......I will know by next April......If they have, that's a very
good
> thing, and high time, too. I have been bitching about it for years.....
To me, tax fairness is no deductions or loopholes at all. No nothing. You
make money, you pay a certain percentage and be done with it. Everybody
pays the same percentage. Then, it wouldn't matter if you're married, or
single, or whatever. Same would go for corporations.
> Now,
> if they could just take, "In God we Trust" off of my money.........I am
> tired of being insulted.....
Wow. I hope my life is that cushy when I'm 70 that I have the luxury of
being "insulted" by something so trivial.