I’ve only been married for seven months, but without your help, it could be over.
The problem is those gay people. And I mean that in the best possible way. If not for the bold pronouncements of President Bush and the Pope, it might already be too late. But now, thanks to them, we might be able to save it.
President Bush wants to make a move to “protect the sanctity” of marriage, defining it as between a man and a woman. Legislate sanctity now, in other words, or lose it forever. That’s true in my case, and I suspect I’m not alone.
See, what makes our marriage so special to me and my wife is that our government recognizes it as a sacred union that gay people can’t have. I mean, sure, we love each other and everything, but the real glue that holds us together is that we’ve joined an exclusive club that gay people aren’t allowed to join.
Now don’t start thinking that we’re anti-gay or anything. We have lots and lots of gay friends. And we love them and want the best for them.
But not this. Because when our gay friends start getting married, it will cheapen and destroy what we have. Not in a religious way (No. Legislating on those grounds would be illegal, for heaven’s sake!). It’s more of a general thing. Like, generally, gays getting married will undercut everything Jeanne and I have tried to build because… because… it will make our union less special. It will. We’ll lose interest. We’ll probably just start thinking, “What’s so important about our vows? After all, even gay people can make them.”
And that’s not a knock on gay people. No no no. America loves its gays. Look at the TV, with all those funny gay people on “Will and Grace,” and “Queer as Folk,” and “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.” They’re funny! Funny, colorful people - they’re nature’s clowns, really. Like penguins.
I’m not sure if legalizing penguin marriages would have any effect on my own marriage. I’d have to think about that. And obviously, gay people are people, not penguins. It’s just a metaphor. But I think you all probably know what I mean.
Straight people are good with marriage, too. Jeanne and I can look around at other married couples - at least the ones that aren’t currently dealing with serial infidelity, divorce, spousal abuse, or bigamy - and think to ourselves, “Yes, that’s what we’re striving for. That kind of sanctity.” I’m not sure that gays would show the same universal respect for the institution that comes so easily to us straight people.
Anyway, these are dark times in my household. My wife and I look at each other with haunted, suspicious eyes, feeling like we’ve bought a whole bunch of shares in a stock that is about to be devalued. Suddenly, the eternal, personal vows that we swore to each other will mean very little. How could they, when gay people are out there making similar vows? We’ll basically become roommates who happen to wear matching rings, while meanwhile out our window we’ll see gays and penguins feeding each other wedding cake willy-nilly on our very own street corner.
Don’t let that happen. Save my marriage. Call your congressman or your clergyman, whichever, and tell ‘em that to stop this madness before it’s too late. It’s only good sense. And you may just save my marriage.





255 comments
Murray
July 31, 2003 at 5:27 pm
1First we legislate scanctity, then morality, and eventually we can legislate what religeous demomination everyone should be.
It’s a good thing that we can fool God so easily. As long as we have laws to set people on the straight and narrow, God won’t show his displeasure as he did on 9/11. Just ask Pat Robertson.
tim
July 31, 2003 at 6:02 pm
2Maybe it’s just me, but all this talk of gay people and penguins keeps reminding me of Catholic school.
brooke
July 31, 2003 at 7:35 pm
3I was just talking to God and after He got done lecturing me on my God-given penchant for women, He told me to tell you that Episcopalians suck.
So I told him that I would promise never to have sex or enjoy anything ever again, so long as he arranged to have the church bells down the street (which ring too loud, too early, too often) rust into silence. He wasn’t happy, but He relented. I’m very persuasive.
Don
July 31, 2003 at 7:39 pm
4Adam advocates penguin marriage??
Next thing we know he’ll come out in penguins marrying people! Who can tell where it will all end?
This may not be a good way to start a presidential campaign, Adam. Unless you’re trying to get a corner on the penguin voting bloc.
Ya know, that could be as good as anything the Democrats have come up with so far. And even the penguins would have to work hard to do worse than Bush et al have accomplished
Erik
July 31, 2003 at 8:13 pm
5Legalizing penguin marriage would destroy the unique penguin culture in a marginalizing human institution of marriage, destroying the penguin identity.
Murray
July 31, 2003 at 8:55 pm
6A good Calvinist knows that others, not like us, are having fun and God commands us to stop it. As soon as all others are miserable, we and God are happy.
Farberwear
July 31, 2003 at 9:33 pm
7Nice entry Mr. Lileks!
t.a.
July 31, 2003 at 11:54 pm
8the president said they were looking at “codifying” marriage between men & women. among that which was left unsaid is the possibility of mandatory marriage. it could be that to combat all possibility of gayness (gaiety?), men & women will be required to marry someone of the opposite gender. clearly, this will resolve most problems as we know that life is automatically & immediately wonderful when a man & a woman are together.
one possible benefit for straight losers like me: it could allow me to offer myself to cute lesbians who would appreciate my feminine side, as opposed to being stuck with someone as butch & manly as adam. god knows i need some help in finding chicks.
Bob
August 1, 2003 at 1:40 am
9So here’s what we do: pass a Constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriages and civil unions. And to further protect marriage, the same amendment can outlaw divorce, which has got to be as big a threat to marriage as the gay stuff.
Whoa, I’m feeling more secure already.
Elusis
August 1, 2003 at 2:18 am
10You’d better do something about those infertile and “childfree” people too. Because as our President and the Pope made clear, the biological rationale for marriage is at the heart of their arguments, not some “prejudice.” So those people who aren’t having children are probably polluting your marriage almost as badly.
Dee
August 1, 2003 at 8:32 am
11Adam– this distresses me greatly. I hate to think of you and Jeannie, alone in that apartment, with nothing to do while all those gay people and penguins are out registering at Bloomie’s and poring over brochures from the Poconos.
I realize this is just a temporary measure, but perhaps the two of you could spend your time watching television, something morally uplifting that affirms the sanctity of marriage and the superiority of heterosexual relationships. Something like “The Bachelor” or “Who Wants to Marry my Dad?” or “For Love or Money” or “Temptation Island” or…oh.
Never mind.
mellobear
August 1, 2003 at 9:41 am
12As a colorful, funny, gay penguin, all I can say to this is to quote Margaret Cho:
“Any government that would deny a gay man’s right to bridal registry is a facist state.”
Chicory
August 1, 2003 at 10:00 am
13I feel your pain, Adam.
That’s the problem with belonging to an exclusive club. All the non-members get hypersensitive, pouty and start demanding the right to join. Hello! We are an exclusive club. Not everyone can join. That’s what exclusive means- Duh!
And it doesn’t mean one is anti-gay just because one wants to belong to a club that excludes them. It just means we want to have a “special” club of our own. One that lets us feel superior to them. Hey- they’ve got all the good clothes, music and taste. Why can’t we have something?
John isbell
August 1, 2003 at 10:04 am
14Who are bis supposed to marry?
abby
August 1, 2003 at 10:57 am
15Well, if you don’t let the gays marry each OTHER, that frees them up to marry poor single mothers who really NEED husbands!
Dugrless
August 1, 2003 at 10:59 am
16With this, the infamous marriage tax penalty, and stopping us from forcing school children to pledge their allegiance “under God”, it has become obvious that the American government exists only to oppress Christian heterosexuals. I say: Enough! It’s time for us to rise up!
Perhaps we should strengthen our numbers by joining with the group brought low by reverse-discrimination, that insidious institution that keeps rich white men out of the remaining 2% of top CEO positions. We could form a coalition! (What’s the opposite of “rainbow”?)
Power to the already-powerful!!
ralph
August 1, 2003 at 11:52 am
17What’s the opposite of “rainbow”?
White sheets and hoods?
phil
August 1, 2003 at 4:35 pm
18Bison
drprocter
August 1, 2003 at 4:38 pm
19In the future, please refrain from talking about, or even “implying” penguin marriage. It gets Senator Rick Santorum all hot and bothered. Pretty soon he’s talking about “hot man-on-penguin” action” and phoning Justice Clarence Thomas for more of those weird Phillipino DVDs.
gttim
August 1, 2003 at 5:55 pm
20If penguins gets married, does the groom have to wear a tux?
the talking dog
August 1, 2003 at 5:58 pm
21Enough! If penguins were meant to be flyboys, God would have given them wings… oh wait…
Erica
August 1, 2003 at 9:41 pm
22What we need is more Ben Affleck movies so all the lesbians can turn straight. And then the gay boys will all die of AIDS and the problem will be solved.
EV
August 2, 2003 at 12:58 am
23See now I’ve been trying to tell the very nice but quite conservative penguin couple across the street that they are just being plain hypocrytical.
Jules
August 2, 2003 at 1:56 am
24If you were here now you’d witness my standing ovation. Since you’re not, I just feel silly.
Doug
August 2, 2003 at 4:42 pm
25Well, you do know that several species of penguin have invented prostitution…
Loved the post, and will refer to it often. Good job.
pericat
August 3, 2003 at 12:08 am
26Several penguins have just come round to my door, with a petition demanding that all the GLBT businesses in the area begin listing themselves as GLBTP.
I signed. I’m a leftie, after all. Still, I was wondering if there was anywhere we could buy a vowel before the Pride parade tomorrow?
Sharoney
August 3, 2003 at 12:45 am
27“Legalizing same-sex marriage… would signal that we no longer attach unique importance to the union of married opposite-sex couples. It would affirm that same-sex unions are as valuable in every way as conventional marriage. Teach children by example that traditional marriage is nothing special, and many of them will grow up unwilling to marry. My foreboding is that a generation after same-sex marriage is legalized, families will be even less stable than they are today, the divorce rate will be even higher, and children will be even less safe.”–columnist Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe, 7/6/03 (”Gay Marriage Would Change Society’s Ideal”)
Sounds remarkably like Mr. Felber’s column, doesn’t it? Only Jeff wasn’t kidding.
Temble
August 3, 2003 at 1:37 am
28I have to ask, all jokes aside. Was the combination of penguins, homosexuality and marriage intentional or accidental? Because penguin species do form long term, exclusive partnerships, and do engage in homosexuality.
Elric
August 3, 2003 at 10:33 am
29Wait just a cotton-pickin’ minute. While we’re at it, we want to keep our club of married straight people distinctly better than all those other clubs, right?
Well, then, it’s certainly past time to get the Department of Fatherland (oops, Homeland) Security forces out there to take care of all those fornicators who live together and act as though they were just like married people. Yep, we’ve got to get the police and national guard and NRA and other right-thinking groups out there, inspecting for marriage licenses. No tickee, no nookie!
Split them up, and send them back to their parents’ places, where they belong if they’re not married.
How about it Adam, won’t that help all us good, card-carrying, straight married couples know that we’ve got the best club on the block?
And, while we’re at it, we’d better send all those danged penguins back to Argentina or Antarctica or wherever it is they came from. After all, if we allow them to marry each other, next thing you know they’ll be wanting to marry us, and then where will we be?
bd
August 3, 2003 at 2:04 pm
30You people are all amazingly stupid, especially Adam. It doesn’t cheapen what you have when people marry for love, it should make what you have even more valuable. Maybe it threatens you because you’re got some tendencies…
Dee
August 3, 2003 at 2:33 pm
31Kaiser-chan
August 3, 2003 at 3:14 pm
32This is just great. Really. The sarcasm is loaded so thickly that I’m having trouble telling what you all really think of the matter, but I can say I’m laughing. Very hard, really. The part on how straight people are good with marraige… gays may do as poorly at it as straights - that’d just show us how deep human nature goes, ne? - but in a situation where there are likely less people to cheat on their spouses with, and extremelyheavy disaproval of such a thing (After all, “those damned gays” have no right to foul the institution of marraige the way straight people already do!) ^^;;
I’m still praying for those people who say such things as this without any sarcasm at all, or those who are unsure of the very existance of sarcasm in Adam’s statement, but the penguins really were a nice touch. Because, for all we know, penguins are treating marriage with far more dignity, love, and intellegence than we humans. And thus the comparison with them to gays…
I think I’ll leave this on that note. Have a nice day, ya’ll. And please, please do keep a sense of humour.
Bob
August 3, 2003 at 5:09 pm
33Dave Barry once wrote a column on the subject of the humor-impaired. He said that the most distressing reader feedback was not from people who thought he wasn’t funny–hey, tastes vary–but from people who didn’t even know he was joking.
bd, please take into account the fact that the sarcasm level here is, well, stratospheric. Unless, of course, *you* were being sarcastic, in which case, all I can say is, “Whoops.”
Tim H
August 3, 2003 at 10:26 pm
34Has it escaped everyone’s attention that President Bush has admitted to being a sinner? And in the same week that the Pope proudly claimed to be tolerating evil.
Neither has announced their stance on penguins.
craig
August 3, 2003 at 11:28 pm
35Does anyone in the administration (or the CIA) realize that the Taliban is against Gay Marriage? Therefore, being for Gay Marriage is a strike against terrorism. If we outlaw gay marriage, then the terrorists have won.
PS The Taliban has no known official stance on penguin marriage as long as it is performed in the muslim tradition.
Boozy
August 3, 2003 at 11:43 pm
36Craig makes an excellent point:”If we outlaw gay marriage, then the terrorists have won.” Does this mean that married gay penguins could now be considered “America’s Heroes”?
katie
August 4, 2003 at 12:33 am
37“If we outlaw gay marriage, then the terrorists have won.” Does this mean that married gay penguins could now be considered “America’s Heroes”?
HOOAH!!
Dan
August 4, 2003 at 9:47 am
38That was GREAT!
And the comments after were even better.
If a penguin couple married, then both bride and groom wear the tux, and that is really wrong. Just WRONG. It cheapens my wearing of a tux.
Kathy Howe
August 4, 2003 at 10:41 am
39Well said Adam!
Now…get away from your computer and figure out how you are going to win the next presidential election.
aussieintn
August 4, 2003 at 12:51 pm
40Very funny and well written!
Robert G
August 4, 2003 at 1:10 pm
41Adam,
Come on, you know darn well that if gay marriage is permitted, the chances of you being spirited away by one of those Chelsea boys and ending your nice hetero union prematurely (as a number of things end in your hetero) increases exponentially. Instead of going off to join the military like all good American lads, our boys will instead want to run off to New York and become cast members in the next big broadway musical!
The nation must be preserved.
Sincerely yours…
micheal knight
August 4, 2003 at 1:14 pm
42dont forget to outlaw marraige of old people who are past the point of procreation. how dare they marry for love!
Shannon
August 5, 2003 at 9:17 am
43LOL!!!
Here’s an easy solution! Have parents start arranging their children’s marriages, again. Then there won’t be any possible room for mistaking which gender to walk the aisle with . . .
Nivbed
August 6, 2003 at 2:11 am
44This was quite a hilarious read!
It made my day.
Don
August 7, 2003 at 11:01 am
45(BTW. there’s an unclosed blink tag above)
I am so glad that Bush feels so strongly in his convictions as to attempt to defend our marriages. Hopefully we can bring the troops back home for this action. We’re not safe in our homes with these homosexuals, elderly couples and penguins running around.
Amanda
August 8, 2003 at 9:39 am
46Poor bd is so sheltered and confused….
This post totally made my morning–thanks!
Shag from Brookline
August 8, 2003 at 5:26 pm
47Garrison Keillor tells this story on a Prairie Home Companion joke show:
I ran into some penguins and said that you penguins look like you’re wearing tuxedos. After a pause, one of them responds: How do you we’re not?
Let’s leave the penguins out of this. They have enough problems with the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica. Also, aren’t they protected by the Monroe Doctrine?
Shag from Brookline
August 8, 2003 at 5:27 pm
48Correction: “How do you know we’re not?”
James Green
August 8, 2003 at 8:38 pm
49I would like your permission to repost your great essay on my webzine at http://www.otternaut.org.
James Green, Editor
xmaggiex
August 10, 2003 at 3:49 pm
50actually, my biggest fear here, is as an unmarried young lady, if gay marriages become legal, therefore completely decimating the entire heterosexual institution of love, i may get confused, and accidentally marry a woman. gay marriage will turn us all gay. fight the power. god speed, all of you.
Lisa
August 10, 2003 at 4:40 pm
51What with gay people and penguins pushing for the right to get married and thereby devaluing heterosexual marriage, at least it takes the pressure off me. Maybe now my mother will stop bugging me and asking me when I’m going to find a nice boy, girl, penguin, what have you, and settle down already.
asha
August 11, 2003 at 1:05 am
52i can’t believe you compare a person, a human being, in complete serriousness to a PENGUIN and expect us to take you serriously…
i noticed you didn’t refer to the word love at all in your little rant. so it doesn’t matter is someone loves someone with their whole being and will be with them through sickness and health, since god determined they should both be of the same sex they should automatically not have the respect of their society. what bullshit. a partner is a partner, a lover is a lover and a husband/wife is a husband/wife no matter what your traditional narrowminded definition says.
now if only you’d pull your head out of the sand and start recognizing the humanity in everyone around you instead of looking only for a human’s stock value.
nota bene
August 11, 2003 at 2:15 am
53asha–I’m thinking you missed something….like the sarcasm.
G
August 11, 2003 at 1:20 pm
54When you have rocket scientists like Asha and BD around, it’s no wonder Dick Cheney has a higher approval rating than Nelson Mandela.
Opus
August 11, 2003 at 5:16 pm
55Penguin lust is NOT “Immoral and wicked”, and anybody who says so is just an old prude. It’s beautiful! And natural! And I for one fully support penguin lust!
Phil
August 11, 2003 at 5:17 pm
56Great. But today’s topic is “Nun Beating”
Opus
August 11, 2003 at 5:18 pm
57Good Lord, man…I can’t support THAT.
adam
August 12, 2003 at 2:13 pm
58James - go right ahead. Just make sure you link back to here.
Asha… oh, Asha…
Mikey
August 12, 2003 at 7:03 pm
59OPUS!!! So good to hear from you again!!!
PS: is that “Asha” as in “Brim full of Asha on the 45″???
Bill S
August 13, 2003 at 6:28 am
60The “Opus/Phil”(as in “the Penguin” and “Donahue”) exchange is lifted directly from an old “Bloom County” comic strip.
But you KNEW that, right?
:P
August 13, 2003 at 6:18 pm
61i ated the purple berry
katja
August 13, 2003 at 7:51 pm
62quality stuff, made my day.
does “James - go right ahead. Just make sure you link back to here.” hold true for all who would link up to the site?
Bridgid
August 14, 2003 at 1:10 am
63Unlike most of the heterosexuals we now see on such “reality” television shows - penguins mate for life and are monogamous.
But then if you think about it… All penguins look alike. It’s not like Mr.Penguin is going to leave Mrs. Penguin for a better looking penguin.
adam
August 14, 2003 at 3:35 pm
64katja -
Sure. Attaching my name n’ link would be nice, but help yerself.
Casey
August 14, 2003 at 5:12 pm
65As Lyle Lovett once sang, “Penguins are so sensitive to my needs.”
Erik
August 14, 2003 at 10:53 pm
66Any bets when the comments here die out? I say never, but I’m not good at this “betting” thing.
Bill S
August 15, 2003 at 6:21 pm
67I say, let’s try and set a record and see how many months worth of comments we can keep posting.
I’ll add a new each day myuself.
there, i just did. that’s it for today…
Bill S
August 17, 2003 at 8:13 am
68Darn. I missed Saturday! Oh well…in re Erica’s August 1 comment: How would I get AIDS from watching a Ben Affleck movie?
Anonymous
August 24, 2003 at 9:50 am
69you poeple are all homo-phobes- grow up! Why can’t people just mind their own damn business and butt out of other peoples lives
Tottal Long
August 25, 2003 at 7:44 pm
70For a good penguin time visit me at http://www.mondodev.net/
tyson
August 25, 2003 at 11:18 pm
71Okay, i’ll enjoy your penguin time…
and i’ll bring my mum
Bill S
August 30, 2003 at 10:40 am
72August 24th-what an unusual name! Whoever you are, you failed to grasp that Mr. Felber’s column was intended to mock homophobes, and you have also probably failed to grasp that most (perhaps all) of the people posting comments here are in agreement with Adam. Sad for you, really. Still it’s always worth holding out hope for the humour impaired.
Anon
September 18, 2003 at 11:39 am
73It’s funny how the only constant in the ever-changing social definition of marriage has been “between a man and a woman”. In the 1800’s and latter, it was acceptible for a man to marry a young girl. I doubt conservos would want to include that in their tidy definition. I sure the hell wouldn’t. Also, before the women’s rights movement (and to a very minor extent still present), marriage was essentially a man owning a woman: she was basically the husband’s property, free to do anything he wished to.
So, we have gone from a definition of marriage as a system of control that a man has over his wife (which may be quite young), to one that is basically extablishing husband and wife as one economic unit. To say that redefining civil unions and the like is unprecidented is flat-out wrong. Even adultery has been redefined: it used to be a system to establish paternity (men could fork whatever chick they wanted too, but women could only fork her husband so she knows who’s child pops out of her), and now it is considered wrong for men and women alike to commit it.
/rant
Anyways, the author of that shit is more of a selfish bitch than anything else. “Waaah! Waah! I’m angry because other people want the same freedoms and benefits I have!” sums up her thinking.
matt
September 26, 2003 at 12:21 am
74i bleive gay marrige shuould be if your gay your gay, why should they not be allowed notto get marrige just beucse it the same sex the want to marrie.
Addriene
September 27, 2003 at 2:00 pm
75Dood, this is the greatest thing I’ve seen all day XD
I want to hear Bush’s stance on Penguin Marriage.
I mean, what if I want to marry a penguin?
If he’s going to make penguin marriage illegal, I want to know, so that I can get married before he does.
I mean, if my penguin was a good, Christian Penguin, it would be okay, wouldn’t it?
He could join the army, like a good boy.
I mean, really, how many terrorists are going to expect to be pecked in the knee by an American Penguin?
He has the element of surprise!
Dan
September 29, 2003 at 5:20 pm
76Who knows? Maybe one day God will become so impressed with all the straw man arguments against Him that He will change His mind.
For now, I find it interesting that most of the time we come out against God and use hypocrites to mock those who really serve God, it’s mostly because we cannot find a way to rule over God and get Him to submit to our will. But, that’s just normal human nature.
We want to come to God when we need Him, and then we want to dump Him the moment we don’t get what we want from Him. We say we love people when we want something from them or when they please us somehow, but in truth we mostly just love the pleasure or comfort or protection we get from people.
At the root of human nature is a deep seated infantile self-centeredness that has a concept of this universe that says, “It’s all for me and to hell with everyone else who bugs me.”
We redefine God to our pleasure creating Him in our own image instead of conforming to His. We call Jesus Lord, Lord, but we do not treat Him like a King. We don’t trust Him. When something in our flesh tells us to disobey, we’re on that road in an instant.
Our God can be a million headed God or a non-existant God or a gay God or a baby slaughtering God or anything we want Him to be as long as we close our eyes to any God who would be rightfully entitled to any position higher than ours.
When we are wronged, we appeal to God’s laws as reasons for our anger, but when it comes to obeying those same laws, we’ll violate them the very minute that’s convenient or pleasing to us. We stand on the very foundation we break.
Will our straw men be believed in heaven or hell?
Will God just say, “Oh, well, I see where you were coming from–my bad–come on into heaven and I’ll get back to work and straighten things up to your liking?”
We want our smorgasboard of religions. Some worship Vishnu, some Krishna, some Baal, some Athena, some Jesus, some Budda, some worship a tree, a stone, whatever. If I buy a new Ford and pay the Chevy dealer, that seems crazy, but when God gives us life and we pay someone else our worship, somehow people seem to think that is our right.
That’s intolerance. So? That’s biggotry. No it isn’t. Biggotry is hatred for people, and this is not hatred for people. This is hatred for bad behavior–bad behavior that hurts people. To accuse a person of biggotry for this is to accuse God of biggotry.
And, yet, there is a reasonable sense that people come to different conclusions based on the evidence they are exposed to and the reasoning they do with that evidence. So, in a sense, it is arrogant for someone like me to go around acting as though I am more qualified to present my conclusions than someone else. After all, the Moslems, Hindus, Budhidst, and others have an equal right to be respected for their belief’s, too. I’m not entitled to some sense of superiority just because in my eyes, I’m “me”.
But, I think Ghandi gave the best reason I know why more people are not Christians when he said he would become a Christian if it were not for Christians.
The problem is, we have the right “religion”, but we don’t live by it. We apply it to everyone else and we say Jesus is Lord, but we do not make Him Lord of our lives in practice. Our divorce rates are as high as the rest of the world, and perhaps some would say that’s just because worldly people live together outside marriage instead of marrying, but I think it’s because many Christians are not really Christians; Jesus is not Lord of their lives.
How do I know this? Because there are two aspects of God’s Lordship. There is one aspect which makes Him to be a physically controlling God able to manage every quark in a universe of perhaps a hundred billion galaxies or so. And, then there is the Lordship that is by free will–that is, God gives us freedom and authority over our own domain and allows us the choice whether we will use our blessings selfishly even hurting others if necessary, or whether we will surrender ourselves and every part of our lives to His Lordship, trust Him, and obey Him.
If there is something in my life that would lead me to disobey Christ, then Christ is not my Lord. That thing that made me obey is my lord.
For most Christians, their Lord is their flesh. Religion is their aparatus for getting what they want. God is a big Santa in the sky giving them what they want and a set of morals they can appeal to when browbeating someone else into submission. They really don’t care if others submit to Christ–they only want others to submit to whatever it is that will bring themselves pleasure.
Why do some Christians cheat on their spouses? Because Jesus is not Lord in their lives. Why do they lie and cheat in business? Because Jesus is not Lord of their lives. The fish symbol and cross become nothing but business generating tools.
Why do Christians pray and not get answers? Because many pray just to get something they want. They’re not interested in a relationship with God. They don’t have time. Other things are more important. Jesus is not their Lord. God would like them to come around and spend a little time in prayer just adoring God and enjoying His presense. God would like to be loved for who He is and not just for what people can get from Him.
Why else do prayers go unanswered? Well, some pray for their marriages to be saved but would not pray for 30 seconds to help save another couple’s marriage. Some pray for help but refuse to give it when they have the chance. Perhaps they think the only prayers worth answering are those who belong to them personally. It isn’t as though God doesn’t have enough power and ability to answer many people’s prayers at once, but He would like us to care for others, too and not just for ourselves.
Wow. It sounds like I’m harder on Christians than non-Christians are. I am. And, the reason for that is that I think Christianity starts with us–not with someone else. We have to live the life and walk the walk. We have to accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior before we can expect anyone else to do so. And, if we think someone is going to believe us if we are insincere, then we’re just being stupid, and God isn’t going to believe us either.
We Christians need to get our act straight so that when we are the brunt of straw man jokes, at least we will not have to feel guilt for living lives worthy of those jokes.
Thank you for putting up with my rant!
Dan
Cerys
October 16, 2003 at 6:44 am
77I really think you have your ideas about marriage screwed up. “A club gay people cannot join”?! Marriage is not a club, it is an expression of love and if two men feel that love to one another then they should be able to express it in whatever way they wish. I am actually shocked by this. Your marriage is about you and your wife, not about the rest of society. You are NOT in a club. You are in a RELATIONSHIP. With these attitudes I wouldn’t be surprised if your marriage was over pretty soon anyway. Get your head out of the clouds and show your new wife what she means to you.
Megan Bailey
October 16, 2003 at 6:00 pm
78I dont understand where anyone gets the right to undermine anothers happiness. Im not gay but I will always speak strongly for anyone persecuted over anything they have thier own personal beiliefs about. Where in the bible does it speak to persecute thoses who have not done anything on to you! Or to voice your opininion on a matter that in no way affects anyone but those people. How does that better your lives. do you feel more in control. get over it, everyone is different, that’s what makes this country great we are supposed to look on to no one above or below us, we are ALL EQUAL!!!! We all deserve the same privileges as the next! so why try to undermine anothers life when they have done no wrong to you. If you ask me you all are going to hell for judging others because you think you are holyier than thou.
pierre
October 26, 2003 at 1:10 am
79Excellent!
I look forward to more of your writing.
Seems like some of the folks posting
want a little levity.
I once knew a penguin, didn’t like humans much.
Said all they wanted was all they wanted.
I thought about it and became enlightened.
(for that moment of course)
pierre
November 9, 2003 at 11:49 am
80In his novel above, Dan, (posted Sept. 29)surprises me by telling us what we think. (Um.. does he know me?) He continues on to tell the readers what we all think, and what we are all trying to do. (If we are not christians that is.) Then assuming the Doctoral robes of Psychology, Antrhopology, and
Sociology; proclaims that he knows the root of all problems. (If only that were true.) I wish Dan, you would render the above in the stew pot of your mind for a while, and in 50 words or less tell us what you trying to say.
Dan
November 12, 2003 at 8:11 pm
81Pierre, am I supposed to find content or support somewhere in your criticism?
Dan
November 12, 2003 at 8:32 pm
82On the subject of telling people what they believe, is that sort of like the way some people accuse others of “hate” simply because they express concern that their chosen behavior may be dangerous healthwise, socially, and eternally?
Some of us believe that to love someone, you have to hate what destroys them.
J
November 16, 2003 at 1:19 am
83I fail to see the reason why it matters if it’s man or woman, man-man, woman-woman, other genders with …. what ever.. (excuse my ignorance please. ) (transvestites? what cattagory of sexual orentation do they fall under? gay or strait? Do you know what I mean? )
Maybe it’s my lack of religious sight but still; all it is, is gender. And it rather angers me to the fact how you actually do degrade to an extent about gay people getting married. Gay people have the same mind as you, not some “lets get married” crazed people, they actually care for each other like you do for your partner. CHARISHING the fact they got married. Like YOU do.
Zephyr
November 28, 2003 at 10:48 am
84Actually, transvestism isn’t a gender-orientation in and of itself. It’s practiced by hets, gays and trans…I suppose it would even be practiced by penguins if they wore different clothes, but what fun is transvestism if you’re just changing into the same outfit….HEY, maybe the penguins are -all- transvestites, and they’re just -hiding- it by all wearing the same thing so nobody can tell! But anyway, back to the issue of gender-specific marriage…transvestism doesn’t matter, but here in Texas, if you’re a trans-sexual, you can marry someone who’s the same sex as you, as long as you were the opposite sex when you were born, cause really, in keeping with the Thanksgiving spirit, maybe it’s all a safety thing…something about making sure that guys are ready for -real- marriage because when they were born, the male’s “done” timer had popped up.
Eden
November 28, 2003 at 6:57 pm
85is Dan for or against gay marriage? that’s what I’d like to know.
J - It. Is. A. Joke. So lighten up, eh?
I miss my penguin lover. She was so good to me.
S. Edward
November 30, 2003 at 10:29 pm
86What would happen to a married couple if one or the other got a sex change. Whould this new constitutional ammendment deem the marriage null & void? I imagine this has already been the case throughout the country in some fashion, but am unaware of the result.
It’s amazing to me that a group of ( supposedly ) intelligent people could get together and make a decision ( that in No Way affects them ) to change the founding document of this nation to single out and re-classify a group of people to the status of a second class citizen. The amendment goes on to codify that gays and lesbians and/or bisexuals won’t even be appropriated the civil benefits of a vowed relationship.
This, of course undermines the whole notion of Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness, for the basic tenents of the Constitution is that We are ALL afforded the same basic equal right to Life, Liberty & Pursuit…so long as in doing so doesnt’ infringe on someone else’s right to Life, Liberty and Pursuit..
All these issues regarding equal rights for gays cannot ( and will not ) be properly addressed until we get to the cruxt of the situation..the 64 million dollar question?? Why do gays exist..Where DO they come from…why have they been around for as long as man and animal has walked the planet. Why have nations and religions and politicians come and gone and we still have about ten% or so the planet being “homosexual?..Perhaps homosexuality is simply part and parcel of God’s nature. For it existed before there was even consciousness of God. ( Actually, I believe we are part of God’s consciousness, but that thought’s best left to another dissertation.) But more simply put, gays are part of Gods nature.
Of course the arguments will be strong. They will be unable to keep the argument focused on 2 consenting human being adult citizens of a ‘free’ country. It will extrapilate into beastiality, polygamy and bigomy. All things, by the way that heterosexuals have been known to engage in, whether within or without the sacred sacrament of their now threatened marital existance. And for an institution that everyone thinks is so suddenly sacred, why do over have of new marriages end up in divorce,…or seperation. And the less than 50% that stay the course, I wonder how many are cheating incessantly on each other. Or simply can’t stand each other. Yes, marriage certainly is in big trouble and it has not one thing to do with Homosexuality.
But we really should listen to the polls, for these polls are on average with polls against “mixed marriages” in the 1950’s & 60’s and even against the right of women to vote during the suffrage movement. Why then didn’t we Rush to a constitutional amendmnet to stop this ‘destruction’ to the moral fabric our country then?
It seems this will truly be the dividing issue in this country in the very near future and this country has so many Real things to concern itself with. It’s too bad that a country of intentionally dumbed down misfits and calculating bureaucrats will wedge this country apart based on the genitals that happens to be parked between someones legs.
This will all be touted as part of the Gay Agenda, as if going to work, eating lunch, paying taxes, seeing a movie and being with the person you love is some new strange venture in the arena of humanity.
I wish the conservatives would leave me alone to my God given right to the pursuit of Life, Liberty and Pursuit of happiness. And Leave my constitution alone too!! Since it’s obviously not broke, don’t fix it and in the end, reduce an entire class of tax paying citizenry to second class citizens.
The end..for now
Charlene
December 6, 2003 at 12:08 pm
87Are homosexuals 2nd class citizens? No, they are not. Why do Gay’s exist and are they part of God’s nature? Homosexuality has it’s root in sin (so do marital problems). Yes, homosexuality has been around along time. We can thank Adam and Eve for introducing sin to God’s perfect creation. Homosexuality IS part of a nature; however, it is not part of God’s nature. God hates sin and homosexuality is an abomination to Him according to His Word; therefore, it is part of sin nature. Marriage is in trouble; however, not due to homosexuality. Marriage is in trouble because of (big surprise) sin. Dan is right. Too many say one thing and live another. That is not Christianity. The Word of God stands true and unrevokable no matter how intolerant humans are to God’s commandments.
Yes, rest assured, homosexual marriage WILL eventually be nationally recognized as an appropriate and lawful union. Yes, you will feel the pride of victory and feel you have finally won. However, these things must be because time is short. Those who have stood in open rebellion and sin against God will soon account for that.
That in mind, why are people like me (and I presume from the post, Dan) often called intolerant? It is not because I hate any homosexual. I have a good friend who just gave his heart to God and turned from homosexuality (Praise to God) after much prayer & witnessing. I have a God given duty as a Christian to try to take as many as I can to heaven with me. That means warning of the consequences of sin. Does that mean I hate homo’s? No. It means I hate sin and how it separates man and woman from God. Do I believe homosexual partner’s truly love each other? Yes, so far as anyone is able to love when walking in sin and just as much as most heterosexual partner’s love each other before gett married. Most use love and lust interchangably and don’t know the difference. True love takes three. God is the third in true love. That kind of counts out more than just homosexual marriages, doesn’t it? It counts out the majority of relationships today. It’s time we get back to the biblical aspect of love and marriage. But that will never be. Because the world is destined to become worse because it is controlled by sin. That saddens me and makes me happy at the same time. Saddens because so many will die lost and make hell their home. Makes me happy because soon My Lord will call His people home. God help your people to work while there is still time and help us to work in love not in hate to save sinners.
S. Edward
December 7, 2003 at 12:42 am
88Charlene, It would seem to me that you are confusing my comment on the reduction of homosexuals to 2nd class citizens in a “free” country with a particular religious viewpoint ( in your case, Christianity). I would never expect a particular religion or church to be Forced to marry two homosexuals as strongly as I don’t believe the government to Deny the Civil union of two consenting adults to marry based upon religious viewpoints and arguments. Religions, afterall, have the same right to operate without government intrusion as do consenting United States tax-paying citizens. I was arguing more on the basic tenets outlined on our founding document( the Constitution ) while you were relating to the biblical version of creation ( Adam & Eve ).
Adam & Eve was a nice story for an ignorant ( & I don’t mean that maliciously) and illiterate mass of people to give them a simple, dumbed-down story that they can grasp onto for answers to a question that is so much more profound ( that is, where do we all come from & how did the whole thing get started). Not get off on a diatribe here, but the Adam & Eve story basically makes no sense logically. Why would God create all the animals mature ( both male and female ) and then put Adam out there in charge of them all but still alone..then, almost as an afterthought ( not very Godlike), decided that Adam needed a female counterpart. That would mean that God would have initially created Adam without his male reproductive parts ( i.e. a penis and testicles ) as the only thing he would have needed would have been a urinary aperture ( pisshole for short). These reproductive apperatus would have then been supplied to Adam after God put him to sleep to steal a rib ( really now..) to create Eve..and the story just keeps getting better as Adam and Eve had three sons..so who did they marry?? Well their sisters of course ( I thought that was incest?). While I do believe that aspects of the bible were divinely inspired, it is a series of books, written over time, by man. The story of Adam & Eve is SO written from a man’s perspective that I’m surprized so many women accept the plot so graciously. Afterall, God initially only Creates Man, ( men-1, women-0), Then He decides to create Woman, but not independently from the same earth-dust he created Adam but From Adam himself, The Rib…( men-2, women-0), then of course we have the Sin Factor, and just who would you expect the first offender to be..( remember, Men Wrote the Bible)..Well, it’s the Woman of course..it’s all her damn fault for eating that stupid apple..(men-3, women-0)..and in All Gods Creativity and Wisdom and Mercy (not to mention omniscience)..all future civilizations would all be condemmned to Hell over a stupid apple..( My God is acutally smarter than that..) So men Then and men Now (and all men in the future) can be comforted in knowing that it was all originally the Woman’s fault…( I guess it’s nice to have someone to blame when you’re men controlling most governances through-out the world)..Couple All this with the pure simplicity and logic behind the evolutionalry theory as well as Darwin’s realization of the process of ’survival of the fittest’. We see animals adapt themselves to their enviroment over time consistantly..it’s not some secular belief system designed to undermine religion, it’s simply scientists understanding of how nature works here on earth in a logical and methodical sequence having to do largely with environmental factors. I never meant to get off on a religious tangent here when we were talking about civil unions in a democratic republic, but if a person is going to argue against civil unons based on Adam and Eve, then the opposite viewpoint must be heard as all citizens don’t necessarily ‘buy in’ to a particular religious veiwpoint and should not have their Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness be thwarted because someone likes a simple story ( or worse, they have not the mental agility to understand the nature of reality or of God)..You mention that when Gays are finally allowed to marry, that we will feel like we finally “won”. That would imply that you ‘lost’..I don’t know what it is you will lose..perhaps you will not cook your husbands eggs the same ever again..I suspect however that when homosexuals do marry in this country (several other countries allow it already with no disruption to the heterosexual marriages), you will find that affects your married life not one bit..( personally, I think it will be the best thing for marriages straight and gay as people will take the union more seriously with all this heightened awareness on the sanctity of such a committment. As far as your freind that you think you converted back to being straight..I hate to tell you the news..we have a name for people that are drawn to both sexes ( and they can hide in the Light very easily witout suspicion)..we call them Bisexuals ( people who are sexually appreciative of both sexes)..Actually, bisexuals FAR outnumber Gays by a wide margin..and can seamlessly hide their bi-sexual condition because of their ability to engage with the opposite sex..( I would put the number at about 50%…and I thinks that’s a beautiful thing).. Understand that I too believe in God ( as do most homosexuals I suspect)..Let’s also remember what Jesus had to say regarding Homosexuality……..NOTHING…I know many Christians wish they could wake up one morning and see the Bible transformed with new quotes on Jesus’s disdain for the homosexual..or at least secretly wish he addressed the issue directly to their liking..unfortunatly, you will have to rely on an ‘Old Testament God’ that is far more intolerant, judgemental and merciless than the “new Testament God” that Jesus tried to convey to his followers…In Fact..Jesus gave a new commandment to all above all others…to Love one another..Charlene, you have a surpisingly open and gracious mind..I hope you continually seek a truer understanding through time and at the very least, are not thwarted to want ‘better’ answers to lifes most difficult questions..God Bless
cayde brown
December 16, 2003 at 3:22 pm
89this is so stupid why would anyone want to do this someone should be sued
zjwillie
December 22, 2003 at 8:59 am
90Get over yourself moron and be open minded…
zjwillie
December 22, 2003 at 9:06 am
91S. Edward, beautifully said by the way, my earlier comment was for the writer of the original post.
K
December 23, 2003 at 7:45 pm
92Jesus sucks my cock and loves it.
Kirk
December 27, 2003 at 4:29 pm
93I do not want a constitutional amendment making me a second class citizen in this county. The United States was built on the premise that we would not have a cast system and that all citizens would be treated equally under the law.
With a constitutional amendment banning Gay marriage and or civil unions to be recognized under the law does just that.
The United States government must not and cannot support a religious institution. Our own constitution says there will be a separation of Church and State. Then why would the government allow a religious institution other than a house of worship special tax benefits under the law?
You may ask how this is happing and the there is no such distinction. Well here are some examples of what I am talking about.
I cover my domestic my partner via my employer’s health care benefits granted to all domestic partnerships including those of straight couples. Under IRS rules my partners premiums and that portion paid my employer for my partner are considered income. You say well that is the same for straight couples as well. This is true, if they marry the tax implications STOP. I am not allowed to marry or have a civil union recognized by the government so I continue to pay more taxes. This is not right.
Capitol gains are another one. If we sell our home that we own together and the home sale is $250,000.00 or more we are subject to capitol gains taxes. The married couple would get double that amount up to
$ 500,000.00 before taxes are imposed on them.
.
If a spouse dies a non-working spouse can collect his/her social security benefit. I can’t. The government is telling me that since we are not married my partner’s life is meaningless. That to me is incomprehensible. If I give my partner more then 10,000.00 we must claim it as a gift, and are subject to a gift tax. The same is not true for married couples it is considered marital assets and there is no tax implications.
The list goes on and on. If you think the country is not ready for gay marriages, I wonder what they will think now. If you hit the citizens in the pocketbook by taking away all of the tax benefits for being married I am sure that the view would change. I understand it takes time to accept people’s differences. After all the African-American community has been fighting for civil rights and equality since the 50’s and is still waiting, I guess I can be more patient.
However, the government cannot subsidize a religious institution period. These subsides must stop. So I guess we are in for a long battle. Unless the government stops treating all of gay America like second class citizens that pay more taxes than anyone else we will have to continue to fight for gay marriages. You have given us no choice.
As for the peguins. I think they are cute .
Brenda
December 30, 2003 at 9:01 am
94You are forgetting something. Traditional marriage involves not just love, not just sex, but the survival of humanity. Only a man and a woman can make a baby and ensure the survival of humanity. It’s easy to forget this because 1. there are so many of us (some would say too many), 2. in industrial nations, survival is no longer a daily issue for most people and 3. modern science and a lot of money enables us to go beyond biology. Survival, however, is the real reason why society finds traditional marriage so valuable and is willing to subsidize it.
Now, if Joe cares for John, that’s fine with me, but why should I pay for it? Advocates of civil unions want me to help subsidize the romantic lives of these people through tax breaks, and I do not feel obligated to do so. I don’t hate them, not at all, but I don’t see why they should get tax breaks at my, and everybody else’s, expense. I am happy to pay for somebody else’s children, however, because they are the future. When I am elderly, they may be caring for me in a nursing home. I want them to turn out well. It’s survival, folks.
I understand that John and Joe want to feel valued by society, and homosexuals and lesbians have indeed made tremendous contributions in the world of work. We need to award benefits for practical reasons, however, i.e., insuring our future.
What has happened to the concept of Mom and Dad? Prison inmates most frequently have two things in common. They are male, and they grew up without a father. Children need fathers. They need mothers. Something I find remarkable about the sexual revolution is that the needs of children seem are treated as if they are secondary to the desires of adults. Why is it that the kids have to accept substitute or part-time parents when we do not require adults to have substitute or part-time partners?
In third world countries like India, traditional marriage initially at least doesn’t have much to do with love at all. Marriages are still frequently arranged, and not between John and Joe. Western ideas have become far more prevalent in such places, but don’t expect our ideas to take hold there any time soon. The Anglicans of Africa are not too thrilled at the prospect of a gay bishop. These people don’t think much of homosexual and lesbian marriages because they are more in tune with daily survival issues.
Kirk
December 30, 2003 at 9:57 am
95Brenda;
I respect your views but you have a few things wrong.
You don’t want to subsudize the romantic lives of joe and john. Well, then why should I subsizde the romantic lives of john and jane????? I do everyday thru unfair tax laws aimed at you.
Also hello have you heard of a womens prison. Did they grow up with out a Mother. It would seem that the prison system has nothing to do with what is right and wrong with this argument. That is a whole other issue.
The Straight community says the Gays have the gay adgenda. Well being gay I don’t know what that is other than being treated like everyone else. If that is an adgenda then I am for it.
And by the way. My gay tax dollars will be paying for your nursing home care not your kids. They will be divorced and not paying child support
Kim
December 30, 2003 at 12:32 pm
96Also, Brenda, please note that numerous studies have shown it is NOT true that children need a mother and a father. Loving parents, yes — and preferably more than one; it’s obvious why that would make for a more stable household, although many fine people have been raised by a single parent/guardian. But visit http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html for the American Pyschological Association’s documentation that children raised by same-sex parents fare as well as those raised by opposite-sex parents.
Murray
December 31, 2003 at 10:46 am
97I think that it is always a bit presumptuous to speak for God.
Charlene says that a gay marriage is against God’s laws. (Sin)
OK, Then where does God stand on slavery, polygamy, racism, genocide, rape, and punishing one’s own children? Well, according to the bible, he condones all of these.
No where in the bible does God either condemn, or indicate his displeasure with slavery, and it is even condoned in Leviticus. The south used the bible to defend slavery.
Polygamy? Abraham- 2 wives, Jacob -2 wives, -2maids, David, lots, Solomon, 700 with 1400 concubines. (no problem)
Racism? I was told (in a Christian grade school) that blacks were the descendants of Ham who was cursed by his father Noah so that he and his descendants would serve his brothers, (we good white folks) after laughing at Noah’s drunken nakedness. “A slave to a slave shall he be to his brothers” (Genesis 9:25) (Drunken naked Noah, didn’t even get a reprimand)
The bible also teaches us to stone our own children outside the city walls if they disobey us. (Not that I wasn’t tempted occasionally).
Remember Israel’s first king, Saul? Remember why God took the kingdom away from him? Seems that God commanded Saul to kill all of the Amalekites; men, women, children and animals. Saul only killed the men, women, and children, sparing the animals. This really angered God, forcing him to give the kingdom to David. (1 Samuel 15). Genocide was not only condoned it was mandatory!
Rape is no big problem as long as you do it to a slave, the punishment is a ram guilt offering. (The cost of a movie and dinner) (Leviticus 19:21)
So the same God who says that eating shrimp, and homosexuality are an abominations, still gives slavery, killing women and children (genocide), racism, raping slaves, and marrying as many women (not men) as you want, a pass.
This is the God you are speaking for?
Or are you just willing to pick out the passages that fit your social agenda and demand that everyone else follow them?
You may try to take a completely literal understanding of the bible but all you need to do is re-read the first 6 or 7 books to see what a bad idea that is. Then you are left with taking some parts literally and some metaphorically, Once you do that, then You are acting like God.
The great thing about the bible is how wonderfully ambiguous it is. Everyone reading it comes away with a different interpretation. (All exclusively right).
So who gets to determine what God is really saying?
You? John Ashcroft? Pat Robertson? Jesse Jackson? Louis Farrakhan? L. Ron Hubbard? White Supremists?
The president wishes to change the constitution to enforce his understanding of the bible.
This is why religion and legislation need to be separated. You and our president have a right to believe what ever you want.
But so do I. When you take the step of enforcing your beliefs through the laws of the land, you are infringing on my beliefs.
I personally don’t have a dog in this fight. I have been happily married to my wife for 15 years and having gays around me married or just living together won’t affect that. (And any one who thinks that it could affect their marriage, is just making excuses).
But someone needs to stand up for our constitution.
Katie
December 31, 2003 at 11:47 pm
98Murray,
HUZZAH!!!
Well stated, and great source quoting.
However, where does eating SHRIMP show up in the bible?!! Must have missed that week in catechism class…..
Murray
January 1, 2004 at 11:25 am
99Katie
Leviticus (I don’t have my bible at my shop to look up the exact verse) says in its dietary restrictions that only fish with scales and fins may be eaten, all else are an abomination. So eels, lobster, and shrimp etc are out.
Katie, feel free to take 100.
Kirk
January 1, 2004 at 4:55 pm
100Murray;
Thanks for that.. We need more like you out there.
By the way. Happy New Year all.
And Damn. I love shellfish..
Murray
January 1, 2004 at 5:31 pm
101Kirk
I wonder how God would react if a gay Penguin ate shrimp on Sunday?
Happy New Year all!
Keep up the Good Work Adam.
Katie
January 1, 2004 at 11:49 pm
102dammit! dammit! dammit! I MISSED it!!!!!!
Thanks for offering it, Murray!! Now we have to try for 200!!
hmmmmmm… so only fins and scales, huh? Interesting. Darn, I guess that blows my New Year’s resolution to go on the “Eels, Penguins, and Jellyfish” diet.
Murray
January 2, 2004 at 5:14 pm
103Katie
God may frown, but you have my blessing for your E P and J diet. It can’t be worse than vegemite.
Kind of reminds me of a band I wanted to start. A bugle, banjo, bagpipe band. But we couldn’t settle on what type of music we should play. That, and none of us could play a bugle, banjo or bagpipe. But it sure seemed like it might sound cool.
Katie
January 2, 2004 at 7:47 pm
104Murray,
HEY! Maybe I could market it as the “Northern Tundra Diet” and make my fortune!
B-cubed, huh?
I’m trying to decide whether I like the aural image created by those 3, or if I want to bludgeon the bagpiper with the banjo, and signal the bugler to play taps. (or retreat.)
Murray
January 3, 2004 at 12:15 pm
105Katie
My wife is of Scottish ancestory and very protective of the catterwallering sound of the bagpipes. I always point out that they were used as weapons of war, played as the highlanders marched into battle. They would strike terror in the hearts of the enemy (or any one with pitch).
Katie
January 3, 2004 at 11:20 pm
106Murray,
Having been a clarinetist in various Army Bands for the last 17 years, I understand full well the weapon of “Halt or I’ll PLAY!” (gets ‘em every time)
With all due respect to your wife, about 98% of the people who play the bagpipes, SHOULDN’T. Now, I concede the point that well-played bagpipes are actually rather hauntingly beautiful; however, I will quickly point out that they are also as rare as Thicket’s teeth.
Murray
January 4, 2004 at 11:51 am
107Katie
I joke about bagpipes, but what most people don’t know is that they work on a different scale than almost all other instruments. They play a pentatonic scale with a drone, (haarrrng). This is the same scale as using only the black keys on a piano. The good thing is that each note works with another, the bad thing is that most songs can’t be played using only these notes. So songs like “Amazing Grace’ which does use this scale, sound great, but “Mc Arthur’s Park” sounds really bad. OK, really, really bad.
Thicket’s teeth?
That’s strange. I’ve never heard of that but I do have an Owl (kept on an educational permit) named Thicket. Or did you go to my web site and see him there?
I assume that some time in Sept you will get to be the 200th commentator
Katie
January 4, 2004 at 3:30 pm
108Murray,
Yes, I was indeed referring to your sweet owl. (I figured hen’s teeth, owl’s teeth, same difference) Michael and I both want to meet him (Michael being my intrepid 6 yr old). Michael also thinks the mountain biking looks awesome…. I am more of the wide, padded, comfy-seat frame of mind….. I followed your link the other nigfht when I was lurking on the Forum.
YEAH! My first goal of 2004! 200 posts by September.
(It is truly sad how little it takes to make me supremely happy these days….)
Katie
p.s. Pentatonic - Pentagram - Satanic - coincidence? I think not.
Murray
January 5, 2004 at 12:20 pm
109Katie
Yes, at times the bagpipe can be the tool of the devil.
As much as I would like to tout my business on Adams site, I’ll just contact you privately.
Murray
Dave
January 7, 2004 at 12:11 pm
110All this is fine and good, but we seem to be talking only about the symptoms (gays, penguins, politicians, etc), and ignoring the base cause (PEOPLE). The problem is people not “perfect” and are different. If all people were “perfect” (that is making no mistakes) and exactly the same, then we would have no problems, right? Well I can think of only one way to accomplish this, and it is so simple I am amazed it has taken so long for someone to suggest it. KILL EVERYONE! Then we would all be the same (worm food) and no one could possibly make any mistakes. Why do PEOPLE insist on making things so dificult?
Thanks for the post Adam!
Katie
January 7, 2004 at 1:22 pm
111You are invited to: A Kool-Aid Party
Date: February 30,2004
Time: 6 p.m.
Dress: Casual
RSVP: wisemommy@hotmail.com
Murray
January 12, 2004 at 5:28 pm
112Oooh oooh, oooh, can I come? Can I come? I missed out on the last one. Just my luck to pick that one day to visit my inlaws.
On a sort of different track. To commerate the coming mass of 17 year locusts, later this year.
In a rap style
They got big orange eyes that can barely focus,
Some folks call them 17 year locust,
But that’s the wrong data,
The name is cicada
And they’re here now but they won’t be here later.
They got 4 wings but aint supposed to fly
Just come out the ground, have sex and die.
I can dig their ridge, I like their style,
They may go quick, but they go with a smile.
Check it out, Cicada serenade,
Check it out Cicada serenade,
There’s Cicadas on the sidewalk, cicadas on the ground
Place look like a little tiny Jones Town,
I always hate to see a thing go to waste,
And was wondering how a cicada might taste.
Cicada, Potata, They sound the same,
To let em go to waste would be a crying shame.
So I got a couple of hundred of em, took em in side,
Got some catsup and ate em french fried.
I ate every one with out hesitatin
Next thing you know I’m halusinatin
Freaking out, Cicada serenade
Freaking out, Cicada serenade
I was out of my mind, my head was in a fog
Next thing you know I’m sick as a dog.
My friends came over they said “lets get high”
I said “no way” and they said “by-by”
I don’t need no lovely, no reefer, no cocaine
Cause I still have cicadas buzzing round in my brain.
So eat your cicadas with every snack,
They can also help you say no to crack!
Bugs, not drugs.
The pheromones on “So Far, So What”.
Peter
January 21, 2004 at 1:24 pm
113Your marriage is already over, your wife sucks my dick.
Enriquez Brandon
January 21, 2004 at 10:29 pm
114‘Of course’ is cyanide of the mind.
Big Mo
January 22, 2004 at 2:52 pm
115I blame the gay community for spreading AIDS.
Murray
January 22, 2004 at 5:51 pm
116Trolls begone!
Big Mo
January 23, 2004 at 12:43 pm
117Who’s a troll?
Kirk
January 25, 2004 at 6:28 pm
118Big Mo;
Well you need an education. AIDS was started by MONKEYS.. And is more prevalent Heterosexuals worldwide then in GAYS. So you need to read and get your facts correct before you make statements that are not factual.
Big Mo
January 26, 2004 at 2:32 pm
119Kirk,
The spread of AIDS may have been started by monkies, but it has been predominantly continued by homosexuals and bisexuals. Had it not been for those idiots, we wouldn’t have this discussion, now would we?
Murray
January 26, 2004 at 7:27 pm
120Big Mo
To start with, most of the spread of AIDS happened in the gay community prior to the discovery of the disease and knowledge of how it is spread. Once the gay community discovered what we all know now, they took the proper protections and have cut their spread of the disease drastically.
Or do you also believe that AIDS is God’s punishment for being gay?
Big Mo
January 27, 2004 at 12:51 pm
121With all due respect to the gay community, I do believe that if you stick your hand in the fire, you’re going to get burned. AIDS is an unfortunate consequence of sexual immorality. that includes homosexuality, premarital sex, and animalistic sex. As for God’s punishment, I think that one needs to be fully aware of God’s law before they can make any kind of statement about what God does and doesn’t do. I apologize for the initial statement that I made, but I wanted to get the ball rolling.
Murray
January 27, 2004 at 6:15 pm
122Big Mo
To see my reply go up to my comment on Dec. 31
Kirk
January 28, 2004 at 11:12 am
123Thanks again Murray;
Here we are again with someone who thinks they know what god is saying and wanting. I just don’t get it. Why do those who speak for god not act like god and love everyone. If you are going to speak for god then act like god.
But to love everyone is not what they want.
Remember what Jesus said. Judge not lest thee be judged.
Well as for all of them, I am not worried what THEY think the only one I answer to the the one and only god. The one who loves everyone.
Big Mo
January 28, 2004 at 1:02 pm
124Murray,
I find it interesting that you have only told us what the Old Testament is saying. I beg you to take a look at the New Testament. You’re right when you said that someone can’t take something out of context to “fit your social agenda”. Believe me when I say that the Bible will never contradict itself.
If I thought that I should not speak openly about what I believe, then what kind of person would I be? While I will tell people what I believe, I will also support their right to express themselves. While I do not agree with some people’s actions, I will also fight for their right to express themselves. God loves us so much that He gave us FREE WILL. Why shouldn’t we do the same? What kind of a god would God be if he forced us to be His slaves?
I, in no means, attempt to offend anyone by what I write on this comments page. By the way, congratulations on your marriage, Murray. I wish you the best that God can give you.
Zach
February 2, 2004 at 6:25 pm
125Uhh, God may be loving, but there is such a thing as Gods Rath…
and, I’m all for gay marraige, woot woot
Karl
February 3, 2004 at 12:55 am
126Do what’s right for you. Simply, you have to live your life, no one else.
Karl
http://www.deciding-on-divorce.com
ed
February 6, 2004 at 12:46 pm
127george bush is doing the right thing gay men don’t belong on a BRIDLE registry.the american family and society as a whole are under attack by the idea that an abomination like gay marrige should be accepted as normal, whats next pedifiles get to marry.where does it all end
S. Edward
February 6, 2004 at 11:12 pm
128RE: Ed… It’s always curious to me how the attemped rational discussion of gay marriage always seems to extrapolate into beastiality, polygamy, pedophilia or perhaps even a candle, toaster or a penguin. That’s because there’s no rational argument for the denial of a mutually consenting marriage contract between two consenting adults. If conservatives are truly worried about what marriage might Extrapolate into without an amendment, then have the amendment simply state that marriage will be between two consenting adults. Period ..End of story..no messy sideline laws, no creation of a whole new set of rules for gays who are not worthy of the same rights to Life liberty and pursuit of happiness as ’straights’ are… and no worry that it would create an enviroment where people are marrying penguins…just a fair, equal across the board proclamation that all consenting adult tax paying citizens are treated the same.
Murray
February 7, 2004 at 1:03 am
129Ed
Are you married? Do you feel your marriage is threatened? Any one you know?
Come on, just admit it. You hate gays and feel threatened by them. This is just a polite way to gay bash.
By the way, pedophiles are allowed to marry. Or do you think that only gays are pedophiles?
Big Mo
When Bible thumpers say that homosexuality is an abomination they are quoting Leviticus. Why can’t I?
As far as the bible never contradicting it self, you might try reading the Bible for your self.
How about, “,Judge not that you also not be judged?” “Take the beam out of your own eye so that you can see to take the splinter out of your brother’s eye” and “If you brother sins, point out the error of his ways so that he may return to the Lord” So Judge, and don’t judge. To me they are contradictory. So is the idea of God’s controlling everything (not a hair shall fall from your head with out your father knowing it) and free will.
The answer I’ve always gotten is that “we can’t know the mind of God” and “with God everything is possible”. These ideas are always used as a trump card when ever a believer is backed logically against a wall.
This is what makes the bible so successful. It embraces contradictory ideas and gives it the sanction of God. So every believer gets to choose what he wants, has his own interpretation (which of course is the only TRUE one) and then can fight the good fight knowing that God is on his side.
Bill S
February 7, 2004 at 12:27 pm
130I’m not convinced the Bible is the absolute, inerrant word of God-too many factual errors, narrative contradictions and dubious moral positions, all lead me to believe it was written by humans, some of whom were probably stoned.
I am of the opinion that God is loving, all-powerful and perfect. I therefore dismiss anything that might conflict with such an image. A God who is truly loving wouldn’t even create a place like Hell, much less want to send anybody there. A perfect God would be capable of understanding the views of all persons, not just one denomination of Christianity who believe in one particular translation of the Bible. A perfect God would also be incapable of cruelty or vengeance-He’d usher an atheist into Heaven, chuckling, “Bet you weren’t expecting to see ME!”
Question for those who accept the Heaven/Hell idea: If Hell (a place in infinate torment) exists, how can Heaven (a place of infinate happiness) exist? Could you really be happy, knowing there are people suffering eternal torment? What’s your attitude-”Oh, well, better them than me.” Your ideology is based on the notion of “acceptable losses”. A perfect, all-powerful, all-loving God would not only WANT to spare everybody, He’d find a way to actually DO it! Expecting everyone to agree on the exact same ideology isn’t a realistic way to achieve that.
Bill S
February 7, 2004 at 6:16 pm
131“BRIDLE registy”? What do harnesses have to do with gay marriages?
Bill S
February 8, 2004 at 3:58 pm
132Oops!”infinite”, not “infinate”. Kinda makes me look stupid for mocking the spelling in a previous comment. {Although, I still think it’s funny to confuse “bridle” and “bridal”)
Jake
February 8, 2004 at 10:53 pm
133I’m just curious if you are serious. If you are serious, you’re sick. Gay people are people too and have the right to be married whenever and however they want, and if you and your wife think that some gay people getting married is going to destroy your marriage, your marriage is already in trouble. If you’re JOKING, and all this is sarcastic, then carry on! and I applaud you. But if you’re serious, then I don’t know what is wrong with you.
The Penguin Lord
February 8, 2004 at 10:55 pm
134We are marrying in droves, despite you humans trying to stop us. We will be taking over your nation shortly, and our first act will be to legalize penguin/human marriages, because there is no love without penguin love.
PS-Your mom loves penguin pie. Oh yeah.
Big Mo
February 9, 2004 at 12:50 pm
135Bill,
While God is a loving God, He is also a JUST God. If you are going to believe that some parts of the Bible aren’t accurate, then you have to believe that none of it is accurate because it was all WRITTEN by humans and INSPIRED by God. All or nothing. I dare you to do your research and actually PROVE the Bible wrong. No, expecting everyone to agree on the exact same ideology is not realistic, but God is not worried about that. Is parting the Red Sea realistic? Is the flood realistic? Is bringing a man that’s been dead for three days back to life realistic? I think you see my point.
Murray,
Notice that homosexuality is also mentioned in Exodus, The gospels, Romans, and that’s not even the whole story, but the one thing they ALL have in common is that homosexuality is an abomination. When you judge someone, are you not going to make sure that you are blameless before you do so? “Judge not, lest you should also be judged in the same manner.” Stop what you’re doing that’s wrong before you tell somebody else likewise. “Take the beam out of your own eye so that you can see to take the splinter out of your brother’s eye.” God doesn’t like hypocrites. Nobody does.
Bill S
February 9, 2004 at 7:28 pm
136First of all, I find it ironic that someone identified as “Big Mo” can be so homophobic.
As for “all or nothing”-don’t be ridiculous. It IS possible to believe “thou shalt not kill” without believing that snakes can talk. Which reminds me: Leviticus says homosexual men should be executed. That’s BULLSHIT, and I don’t have to respect anybody who feels that way. In fact, it’s stuff like that which undermines the credibility of the Bible, and proves that it’s NOT the word of God. As for your argument that “God is not worried about it”-well, I’d like to know when He mentioned that to you.
And I stand by my earlier comment: A perfect, loving God wouldn’t have any desire to create a special place to torture people forever. And, if you believe even one person you love has been sent to such a place, you’d have to be one sick fuck to want to spend eternity with the deity inflicting it.
Technically, all babies are atheists. If a baby dies, where does he go?
S. Edward
February 9, 2004 at 11:00 pm
137Elegant Bill, just elegant. your keen sense insight is very refreshing. I think we need to cut, copy and paste some of these well thought out comments from these postings to the radical christian right sites ( and perhaps a few congressmen). I love to watch them waffle for an illogical, irrational defense of their positions on matters such as these. Especially when you consider that two people getting married ( of the same sex) doesn’t ( and Can’t) affect a heterosexual marriage at all. The purpose of a marriage amendment to simply deny the right to a newly catagorized section of society that renders them second class citizens, unable to participate in contractual agreements, simply because they were created by God as homosexuals. If an Amendment like that were to go through, I think I would lose all faith in what this country truly stands for ( and would worry what cavalier amendments to peoples civil liberties were up for debate next) Constitutional Ameendments are supposed to Enumerate rights, Not narrow them for the Visceral Pleasure of an Ignorant Majority. I might have to start country shopping soon. Does the North pole have penguins??
Murray
February 10, 2004 at 12:34 pm
138Big Mo,
It is impossible to read the bible and not make judgments as to what to take literally and what needs to be taken metaphorically.
The bible talks about the 4 corners of the earth, it talks about the firmaments above the earth. I think that even the most rabid fundamentalist believes that the earth is round and that rain condenses from clouds not falling out of windows built into the arched shaped firmament. The bible, being written when it was, incorporates the general knowledge of the time. This is also why the bible never condemns slavery or polygamy.
Mo, I ask you, which is worse? A gay couple next door or owning a person’s body and soul?
Mo, do the women in your family wear a head scarf while in church? Paul says that you need to.
What about Jesus saying that it is harder for a rich man to get into heaven than a camel through the eye of a needle? Or didn’t he mean it? How about getting all 15 million species of animals onto the ark? How can water flood the entire world to a depth greater then Mt. Ararat? Where did it drain to? Or is your answer the trump card of “God can do anything”. That would require believing in the same God that you do.
If you take everything in the Bible literally, you can’t believe in anything else, including basic science, archeology, or physics. Once you start picking and choosing you are making your interpretation. Why should yours be any more valid than the next person?
Let’s assume that you think that God abhors homosexuality. Should you have the right to dictate how others live their lives? Do you believe in legislating morality? Who should determine that? How are you hurt by gay marriages?
So you hate gays with a perfect hatred, (I believe that Jonah said something similar). Why should YOUR interpretation of the bible be the basis for our laws?
bob
February 11, 2004 at 2:37 pm
139the refeerances in the bible were in the proportions claimed, but the world was a smaller place. it is possible to fuse secular beliefs with religion through intelligent design. It is also a fact that in this world religion dictates how everyone lives. this country was founded on the principle of religion. and every day wars are fought and people are killed all in the name of religion. it is impossible to escape the global religious influence, even though you choose to be a homosexual. your life will forever be influenced by religion. all the laws we make will be influenced by religion.
S. Edward
February 11, 2004 at 11:09 pm
140Bob… Choose to be a homosexual??? Are you a Heterosexual…and if you are, at what moment did you make the decision to become one?? Perhaps it was while you were shopping at Macy’s.. If everyone makes the choice of their sexuality, then it makes everyone a Bisexual “at heart”..And I do mean that literally…Actually I happen to believe that most people are bisexual, they can easily disguise it by going with opposite sex excusively ( well, most of the time) Look at it as a sliding graph from absolutely homosexual to absolutely heterosexual…and of course varying degrees between the two..I have heard of anomales in nature..they are no less a part of nature, simply an anomaly.I have known many straight men that have either dabbled with the same sex or talked about their appreciation of the male body..(same with women).. To even appreciate a well sculpted body of the same sex puts the ‘inner demon ‘ to work. I know straight men wonder “how far can I truley appreciate this guy’s butt without feeling like a total homey. Perhaps that is why so many are soooo upset with the notion of marriage amonst all adults. Subconciously they know that many more “consenting adults will form relationships with other consenting adults and their pretty little line will be blurred.I personally don’t mind being gay, in fact I’m proud to represent that aspect of Gods Nature..If I follow the heart of my God, to thine own self be true, I gladly accept the “gift” as I have no choice in the constitution of my being.
Murray
February 12, 2004 at 9:31 am
141Bob
Look at your fingers.
If you put your hands flat on a table, look at your index and ring finger. Is you index finger shorter or the same size as your ring finger? A study showed that males have smaller index fingers; women have fingers of the same size. Gay men tend to have same sized fingers, lesbians have shorter index fingers.
When would they have chosen that?
This is just one more piece of evidence that homosexuality is born into a person.
The gays that I know had no more choice in their orientation than I did.
A friend of mine said that all people were on a sliding scale and most were bi. This never made sense to me because I never had any attraction to other males. But the more I learn the more I see that a section of population fits there.
I also think that the fear of someone in the middle has that he can be swayed to being gay is where the fear of gays originates.
Big Mo
February 12, 2004 at 2:22 pm
142Bill,
Like I said before, God is not only loving, but also RIGHTEOUS and JUST. Therefore, He cannot allow sin to enter into Heaven, which is holy and pure. If you pour some vinegar into distilled water, is the water pure anymore?
Murray,
You ask some very valid and understandable questions. It is harder for a rich man to get into Heaven because of the faith that he has in his wealth, not in Jesus. It is on faith that I believe in The Lord because He has shown me so many unexplainable things. I understand that having a realistic view of things and having a Christian view of things differ greatly sometimes. I also realize that to ban homosexual marriages would be unrealistic and unconstitutional. I do not hate gay people; it is the act of homosexuality that I hate.
But where will it all end? Will we as humans stop at nothing in our pursuit for personal happiness and individual freedom? (Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that we should all be the exact same. God created us each with our own unique differences.) There will come a point when the human race will lose all sight of morality, goodness, and decency if we do not do something now.
Murray
February 12, 2004 at 5:44 pm
143Mo
I believe that you have every right to think the way you do.
I believe that I have every right to think the way I do.
My issue is that it appears that you want to legislate how I work out my morality.
What if I decided that “God says that you should do as Murray tell you to”, and made laws that suit my ideas. That would be as wrong to you as your wanting to legislate your ideas on me.
Mo, see my response at the very top of this comment column.
Bill S
February 12, 2004 at 7:14 pm
144Big Mo:
THERE IS NOTHING JUST AND RIGHTEOUS ABOUT TORTURING PEOPLE FOR ALL ETERNITY! IT’S CRUEL AND BARBARIC AND POINTLESS!
I guess that doesn’t matter to you, because you’re pure enough and holy enough to enter Heaven…you hope. Have you ever noticed that people who warn you about Hell, never expect to be going there themselves? And you keep avoiding the point I’ve raised, not once, but twice: You cannot be happy is Paradise when you know others are suffering eternal torment unless you’re a freaking sadist!
Kirk
February 14, 2004 at 11:07 am
145Where does it end?
This guy has got some good questions… Maybe Big Mo and Ed can answer them.
Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a U.S. radio personality who dispenses advice to
people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to
Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a U.S. resident, which
was posted on the Internet. It’s funny, as well as informative:
Dear Dr. Laura: Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example,
I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22
clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:
1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify?
Why can’t I own Canadians?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my
vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)?
To quote the bible and just the parts that make you feel all warm and fuzzy is just plain crazy. All persons should have the rights to be happy and marry.
Kirk
Bill S
February 15, 2004 at 10:20 am
146Plus, Kirk, if believing the Bible really is an “all or nothing” thing, I’m kinda screwed according to Lev 21:20, since I happen to be completely blind (since birth) in my left eye.
Big Mo
February 17, 2004 at 1:01 pm
147Kirk,
Doesn’t it “make you feel all warm and fuzzy” to know that you just qouted parts of the Bible to fit your social agenda?
As far as your questions:
1: If you do not believe in part or whole the Bible, then don’t worry about what people say because you’re not going to listen to them anyway, so stop complaining.
2: Everything you qouted was meant for Jews before the death of Christ. When Jesus came to Earth, He abolished the old law and gave poeple a new one. You can find the new law in the New Testament and applies to everybody while the old law was meant for the Jews.
Does that answer your questions?
Big Mo
February 17, 2004 at 2:19 pm
148Murray,
I do not believe that homosexuals should be discriminated against just because of their preferences. What I do believe is that homosexuality is wrong. I do not hate gays and am not a homophobe. It is possible to disapprove of someone’s actions without being discriminatory.
Big Mo
February 17, 2004 at 2:34 pm
149Bill,
The Bible says that Hell will be a place of “weeping and gnashing of teeth”. It will be a place of physical and emotional pain. God does not want to send people to Hell, but He cannot allow impurities into a pure place(Heaven). It hurts God to send people to Hell.
Look at it this way; a child acts up in school. The teacher has to discipline the child in order to maintain a safe classroom.
God also provides a way for people to escape eternal damnation; Jesus Christ. People can choose to accept Him or reject Him. This way people have no excuse. What happens to babies? There is an age of accountability that every person reaches where they are intelligent enough to choose between right and wrong.
Big Mo
February 19, 2004 at 11:23 am
150Kirk,
My bad. Jesus did not abolish the old law; He simply fulfilled it. We no longer have to sacrifice for our sins because Jesus was the sacrifice. Levitical law was meant for the safety and protection of the Jews. Today we have practices in place by the gov’t that are blessed by God to ensure our safety.
Murray
February 19, 2004 at 6:52 pm
151Big Mo,
It’s a shame that your God creates gay people and then denies them their sexuality. It’s a good thing that only about 10% of the population is forced to be celibate. Think how difficult it would be if God turned the tables and all heterosexual activity was an abomination and only gay sex was OK.
I don’t know about you but I’d get sort of bitter.
Big Mo
February 23, 2004 at 11:14 am
152I would argue that homosexuality is a choice. Nobody can be FORCED to do anything. Even God will not force us to do things that we don’t want to. He only suggests things to us, and we have to decide whether or not to ignore those suggestions. The suggestions that He does give us are only fin our best interest.
God is more concerned about character than comfort. If the opposite were true, we could live any lifestyle we wanted to, and God would bless us beyond our wildest imaginations. God wants us to love Him like any loving and caring father would. He wants us to show Him that we love Him by doing what He says. I don’t know if you have children, but don’t you wnat them to obey you? If they don’t obey you, then aren’t they disciplined so they won’t do it again? It’s the same way with God.
S. Edward
February 23, 2004 at 11:20 pm
153Big Mo..if, as you said, sexuality is a choice, then at what precise moment did you decide to be straight..you write as though gay people ( some christians would refer to these people as God’s children) are devoid of any content of character. What you fail to realize is that Everyone and Everything are inextricably connected and part and parcel of God and his creation. We are all acting out a symphony of experiences, personalities and realities ( on many levels including the 3D Time inclusive as well as Quantum ).
Also, you say say you are against homosexuality ( for Christian reasons, I guess??) yet confirm that Jesus came to both fulfill and nullify the Old Laws of the Old testament..Yet the New testament says nothing about homosexuality.. Jesus said NOTHING on the subject…so , My question to you is are you against it because of the Old Testament of just against it because you’re not thinking clearly??
Murray
February 24, 2004 at 6:16 pm
154Mo
You are arguing in circles.
Yes I wanted my children to obey me, but when they did not, I didn’t send them to hell, or stone them outside the city gates. Even when they were recalcitrant I still loved them. I guess that my love for my children must be greater than God’s is for his children.
But now we are back to using your interpretation of what God wants and says as if it came directly from God. Don’t you remember that “God says to do as Murray tells you”? Why can you say that and not me? I find it very insulting when someone acts as if his interpretation of God is the only truth.
So quit telling me what God wants and loves and needs, etc.
Mo, I guarantee you, I have read the Bible at least as many times as you have.
Mo here is a question.
Say a member of your church, (a true Christian) who is gay but not practicing, (you know, love the sinner hate the sin). You don’t have any problem with this guy, do you? What if he met another non practicing gay in your church? What if they wanted to spend their lives together even if they never had sex? No abomination, just two caring and loving people living together. What if they needed to be married in order to give the other social security benefits, or pension benefits? What if they wanted to adopt children and give them a stable, loving home? They only wish to share a fulfilling relationship and be able to say to the world that they love each other. No sex, just love.
This presents a problem doesn’t it. Your argument is that God hates homosexuality, not the homosexual. If no sex is involved, then you shouldn’t have any argument against their union. Why not call it marriage? Aren’t you for stable loving relationships? If you say you still oppose this union then you must be against homosexuals and not homosexuality.
Feel free to be honest and admit that you are just anti-gay.
Big Mo
February 25, 2004 at 12:58 pm
155Murray,
God’s love for His children is so great that He sent Jesus to die for us. Is your love greater than that?
There have been members of my church who are gay. Nobody had any problem with them, but they couldn’t live with themselves because they knew that what they were doing was wrong. Even if no sex is involved, it doesn’t change their beliefs, does it? God is not concerned about the action, but the thought as well. That’s why Jesus said that even if a man looks on a woman with lust in his heart, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Furthermore, I doubt that they would remain virgins the entire time they were married.
One more thing. If we were to quote any part of the Bible without using it for using it for our social agenda, we would have to quote the entire Bible as to not be hypocritical.
Kirk
February 25, 2004 at 4:49 pm
156The constitution of the United States of America was written to
protect people from religious persecution. It was also written to protect people’s inalienable right to pursue happiness.
The proposed amendment would absolutely deny this protection to gay
AMERICANS. That is right we are AMERICANS. As much as the President and others wish we were not, we are and will stand up and fight for our rights. Just as others have in the past. Not special rights mind you just the rights that all AMERICANS enjoy.
The denial for the right to be married is solely based on religious
conviction and a very shaky one at that. It would simply mean that
gay people don’t have the right to pursue lifelong happiness under the
law the same way straight people can.
Therefore it CANNOT be written into the constitution because it would
simply make that document obsolete.
Should the President and Congress get such an amendment passed and sent to the states for ratification, then they should not stop there. If they are going to desecrate the document our country is founded on then, they should keep going and delete the First amendment that separates church and state. Since that is what they are going to do by adding this anti-marriage amendment to the constitution. Since they keep saying it is rooted in religious traditions.
This President that lied to the American public CANNOT be allowed to change the constitution based on his own beliefs. Granted everyone is entitled to have there believes that is freedom of speech. Oh I forgot that might be taken way when the constitution is changed based on HATE.
And Big Mo the question again tell me the exact moment you decided to become a heterosexual and I will tell you the same time I decided to become a homosexual. You can’t and neither can I. And don’t try to tell me you know when because you know you don’t know.
I also have a question to ponder. Why does it matter to you and the others in the straight world what I do with my life? I have no effect on your marriage. So then HATE must involved somehow? You all say you don’t hate gays. Well then of what conscience does my life and partner have on you? You give me that answer. Not the bibles or what GOD has told you personally. I have been told the GOD only talks to the ones who continually quote from the bible. What does my being married have to do with the way you live your life? The answer NOTHING.. Then what the fight about?
There are more important issues to be worried about, Like the Economy and Terrorism, then who I sleep with or am married to. Let’s fight to get everyone back to work and make our homeland safe for ALL AMERICANS. When that is done and we have no budget deficit that will never be paid down. And we can feed our homeless and house them. And ALL Senior citizens can have affordable heath care and prescription medicines. Then and only then should we be squabbling over an issue like this one. One that does nothing but divide a nation over of all things LOVE.
Murray
February 25, 2004 at 7:23 pm
157OK Mo;
“God’s love for His children is so great that He sent Jesus to die for us. Is your love greater than that?”
So if I sacrifice myself for one of my children and kill the other two, I’m acting like God?
“There have been members of my church who are gay. Nobody had any problem with them, but they couldn’t live with themselves because they knew that what they were doing was wrong. Even if no sex is involved, it doesn’t change their beliefs, does it?”
Huh? Why was it wrong? Two heterosexual men not having sex, living together is OK; but two homosexual men, not having sex, living together is wrong? Says who?
“God is not concerned about the action, but the thought as well. That’s why Jesus said that even if a man looks on a woman with lust in his heart, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
OK, maybe you are different than I am, but after 15 years of marriage, I have plenty of lust in my heart. My wife is fine with that. Should I not be married because I have had thoughts about other women? Should my marriage be dissolved for my “unfaithfulness”? If you think so, my wife would be very upset, she is also happy with our marriage.
“Furthermore, I doubt that they would remain virgins the entire time they were married.”
So you are saying that it would be wrong to live together because they would just sin anyways. (You know how those homos are). What if they both had prostate operations that left them impotent?
Mo, Once again you have no reasons for even non- sexual gays being together. Oh, and if they DID have sex, what’s it to you? How does it hurt you? How does it hurt your marriage?
Neither you or any of the other pious defenders of marriage has yet to answer that question?
I’m willing to put up a $100 reward to the first person who can answer that question with out laughing.
It all comes down to homophobia.
Kirk
February 25, 2004 at 7:31 pm
158Murray;
You are so right….
Murray
February 25, 2004 at 7:54 pm
159Kirk
I hope that you live in an enlightened place that makes your life as easy as possible. Having to live with a stigma that is not of your choosing is a burden that must be difficult to bear.
I can’t imagine how hard it is to have every thing in your life judged because of one small aspect of your life over which you have no control.
I always wondered how it would be if one of my children were gay. How much it would hurt me to see the hatred directed to my wonderful child.
I own a mountain bike touring company and have had a number of lesbian couples here to take mountain bike lessons and go on tours. These women have been wonderful, one couple even had the parents of one of them come along, and refer to her partner as their other daughter. Love and commitment were the key ingredients. I would take a million of these people to a single gay hater.
It’s ironic how homophobes can beat you to a pulp with their bibles and say that their loving god sent them.
God bless and protect you Kirk. (Don’t let the bastards get you done)
Murray
February 25, 2004 at 11:17 pm
160Down,
don’t let the bastards get you down.
Sorry it’s late.
Kirk
February 26, 2004 at 10:01 am
161Thanks for that.
Down I will not let them, The funny thing is I know they know and love people who are GAY. And they just don’t know it.
We have to remember just one thing. LOVE one another. no matter how much hate they thow at us, in the end. I know who will be my judge. And HE LOVES ME VERY MUCH.
No matter who I sleep with.
Al
February 27, 2004 at 12:15 pm
162Mo
A few questions for you, you state that God has given us free will. Well why are you trying to deny my free will. You state that you are not anti-gay but your statements contradict this. How do you justify this conflict? You have never answered the question “at what point did you decide to become heterosexual.
Don’t you find it ironic that Mr. Bush claims to going to war with Iraq to liberate its people? But would propose and amendment to the constitution that will restrict the desires of a minority?
I know you believe that by quoting the bible that you think you are speaking god’s word. However in this country there is a clear separation of church and state. I have made my peace with god and I know he has with me. I pray and ask for guidance regularly. And I know he has been there for me. I can give you an example.
Back in August of last year I was to have surgery on my shoulder. I was very nervous about it. One day driving home from work I noticed a lady on the side of the road with a flat tire. This was a very busy street and I was traveling the opposite direction. I thought about turning around to help, I was very fearful that she could be hurt. Needless to say I didn’t and felt vary badly for not. As I drove home I made a promise to god that if I should encounter this again I would stop. Two weeks later and four days before my surgery I again was driving home from work. At the time my partner and I were living with my mother while we were having our home built. I didn’t want to go home right a way. My mother is a saint and I knew she would want to talk about the surgery; I just wasn’t up for it. So I took a different route home, “the long way”. As I was making my way home, on a road I never travel, I noticed a lady and her daughter on the side of road with a flat tire. I remembered my promise and pulled over. As I walked up to the car I noticed a bumper sticker “Got Jesus”. Put a smile on my face. I assessed the situation and again we were on a very busy road. So for safety reasons I asked the lady to pull into a driveway just up the road and I’d change her tire. As we pulled into the driveway there was a big sign stating this was a private drive for a convent. Do you think god was trying to tell me something? Send chills through me every time I think about.
Mo I live my life to be good to others, pay my taxes, don’t steal and try to be a good person. I help out my neighbors and live by a set of ethics that I believe will benefit the good of man.
This is all that god asks of me. He created me and I am gay. I don’t think god would hate something he has created. So quote the bible all you want. I know my place in heaven. So how you feel and what you believe will not affect me. But you should think long and hard about your place in the afterlife. It appears to me to be in question. I’ll say a prayer for you tonight. To quote Jesus “forgive them father for they no not what the do”.
Big Mo
February 27, 2004 at 12:50 pm
163Al,
I can see why you have an argument against me. Like I have said before, there is a difference between loving the person and loving the act. If you are a committed believer and have accepted Gods’ gracious gift, then you will someday have conviction. I’m not saying that I’m perfect (believe me, I should be the last person to enter into God’s Kingdom), but I have been forgiven. From what you tell me, you have been forgiven as well.
At what point do people decide to become heterosexual? Tell me at what point you were FORCED to become homosexual.
Al
February 27, 2004 at 2:02 pm
164Mo you seem to be missing the point. You answer my question with a question. Which means you don’t have an answer. It’s not about being forced into anything. I am what I am as your are. How and why I decided to accept my homosexuality is between my god and me. I doubt you would understand. But let me try to enlighten you. You see I have a strong attraction to Men. I also have a strong love for children and would love to be and would be a great father. Why not marry and have children, you see I would be living a lie, how could I possibly marry a women and look her in the eyes and lie. This would be wrong, hurtful and deceitful. So I went with the lesser of two evils, so to speak and went with my heart. You see “free will” working here. As for being forgiven when it comes to being a homosexual there is nothing for god to forgive, he created me this way!!
The points I am trying to make to you are, who gave you the right to judge me or anyone for that matter. Why create laws that divide people that have no effect on your life or anyone else for that matter. To do so is out of pure hate, you may deny this but it’s a fact. To say you love all gods’ children but turn around and support laws of hate is hypocritical.
What if I say let’s create an amendment to take away medical benefits for fat people? Doesn’t the bible teach us about over indulgence? Can’t you see the lunacy?
This country was founded on the belief of free will. Our founding fathers made sure of it. Anyone supporting laws that effect other people’s lives and DO NOT effect thiers are destroying this goal. Granted laws are need to protect, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Anything other then that is repression of free will.
So if you remove your interpretation of the bible and your hatred for gays. Where does that leave you? Perhaps you can find a country that supports what you believe, the U.S isn’t it. But if you were to find such a country? What laws could they possibly pass that may effect you personally? I know this wouldn’t be a country I would want to live in. Get my point, you have a right to your opinion, but I wouldn’t try to pass laws to oppress it.
Murray
March 1, 2004 at 8:37 pm
165Say Mo,
You haven’t answered ANY of my questions?
My guess is that you can’t.
It leaves you in a position of cognitive dissonance to defend your faith, which says that homosexuality is an abomination, even though homosexuality is not a decision any more than heterosexuality is, and yet God created everyone as they are.
Why would he create something he would have to condemn?
I bet it doesn’t make any sense to you either, or are we back to “God can do any thing he wants”
Big Mo
March 4, 2004 at 12:37 pm
166Murray,
You are trying to justify sin with sin. Rape, genocide, and racism are never “condoned in the Bible. They are used to point out the wrong.
Al,
How can you say that you’re a Christian and still claim to be homosexual? If certain verses in the Bible offend you, then why don’t you tear them out? By claiming to be a Christian and at the same time practicing homosexuality, you are making yourself a hypocrite.
I think that homosexuals should have the right to get married, but it is the homosexual that claims to be a Christian that angers me. It’s a slap in God’s face to call yourself a Christian and a homosexual at the same time. If you really love God, then you will realize your wrong and change to please Him.
Murray
March 4, 2004 at 5:49 pm
167Mo, Wow.
To start with. If God commands Saul to kill every Amalekite, man, woman, child, and, animal, sparing none, wouldn’t you have to call that genocide?
What would you call it?
If genocide is OK, how is homosexuality a problem?
Once again you seem very willing to assume the mantle of God.
Who are you to call Al a Hypocrite because he doesn’t believe the same way you do? Who are you to know how deep his faith is? Is God talking directly to you again?
How do you know what pisses off God more? Al’s sins or your sins? Whose self righteousness is creating his own hypocrisy?
Your reading of the bible has a lot of absolutes that you can’t justify other than to say that “God says so”.
You have, what I consider, a faulty interpretation of the Bible, and you insist on using that to make legislation on those who don’t believe what you do.
Again. Why can’t I and my interpretation of the Bible get to make the laws?
My first law would be to jail any one who claims to have the only truth.
By the way Mo, you have yet to answer ANY of the questions that I have posed.
Big Mo
March 8, 2004 at 12:53 pm
168Murray,
Hold on to those horses there. When Saul was told to kill all the Amalekites, it was an act of war, not genocide. Would it be considered genocide to declare war on a foreign country? I call Al a hypocrite because he claims to follow the very thing (the Bible) that he disobeys. If my reading of the Bible has absolutes, it is because God “says so” because that’s all the entire Bible is. GOD’S WORD! What part of “You shall not lie with a man as one lies with a woman.” do you not understand?
If every one is to receive their own interpretation of the Bible, then we what are pastors, ministers, reverends, priests, bishops, deacons, and the Pope for? Why should we go to church? Why do we need churches for that matter?
If you would like to give me those questions, I‘d be glad to answer them.
Al
March 8, 2004 at 10:51 pm
169Well Big Mo, there you go again, as I said before I know my place with God. All I need to know is in my heart and soul. Not on how you interpret the bible for hatred.
Here’s a new question for you. Do you know the difference with being religious and being spiritual?
As for churches, why is it you need a building to speak to God or worship him. I walk in God’s kingdom every day. Every time I touch a flower, every time I take a breath, every time I look in the sky, gaze at a mountain range, every time I feel a rain drop on my skin. I can go on and on, I see the love of God everywhere. I cherish everything he has created, even me, if you ask me that’s the difference.
AL
March 8, 2004 at 10:56 pm
170Oh as for war, yes it would be genocide, Thou shall not kill!!
Murray
March 10, 2004 at 10:15 am
171Mo
If you can’t tell the difference between a war, which is between armies and genocide which seeks to destroy the population, then there is not much point in arguing with you. Hitler’s killing the Jews was genocide. If the US had killed every German, man, woman, and child along with their animals during the second WW, that would have been the greatest war crime in history. It is shocking that you could claim that killing children is just war.
OK Mo, What part of “Thou shalt not eat shell fish” don’t you understand? That was also an abomination. Or have you never eaten shrimp, lobster, clams, etc.?
Why do you focus on one and not the other?
Why are there ministers, priests, etc.?
Mo, if everyone reading the bible came up with the right interpretation there would be no need for them.
Mo, of all the ministers priests etc. how many do you think agree with you in every aspect? Probably not that many.
Why would you think that you know more than they do?
My father was a minister, with a doctorate in theology. He would not have agreed with your homophobic stance.
But I guess that he didn’t have your TRUE religion.
S. Edward
March 10, 2004 at 11:52 pm
172I really don’t see why everyone Labors so hard to get Ol’ Big Mo to shift his thinking.. At this point, it’s almost a waste of energy..The man will never enter this forum one day saying..”Ya know..I was wrong about the whole thing..I finally understand that people are the way they are because God created them that way”. The man has his head vised between Bible covers..Homosexuality has been around for as long as man has walked the planet..I know it ..Big Mo knows it..EVERYONE knows it..It’s simply a part of God’s nature that many can never get themselves to admit. To that end I say ” to Thine Own self Be True”…to do otherwise is an Abomination before God.
Murray
March 11, 2004 at 9:02 am
173S. Edwards
Of course Mo won’t change his mind. I’ve only been playing around with him to point out the glaring internal inconsistencies in his arguments. It’s obvious that he can’t defend his position, even using HIS version of the Bible, and all that is left is homophobia.
If he would admit to homophobia, I can understand that, and would respect it more than his circular and faulty self justification using the Bible.
robert
March 11, 2004 at 12:14 pm
174bush is doing the right thing by not trivializing the family the way it has been since marrige was concieved. marrage is a religious institution simply because some judge says your married, his rulings only apply when they are sanctioned by the ideals of the church. i.e. between a man and a woman. marrige is a religious intstitution, despite the fact that judges “have the ability to marry people”
S. Edward
March 11, 2004 at 9:58 pm
175Murray, I understand what you mean when you say that we are “playing around” with Big Mo to point out his inconsistencies. Playing around is all you can generally do with someone who has the mental agility of a nine year old. (Personally I find the postings informative, amusing, sarcastically educational and a great way for people to continually articulate a position, however wrong Big Mo’s may be.) I would hate for anyone to feel subconsciously censored into ending this debate simply because HE’s a lost cause. This chat room reflects the very ideals of what makes this country Great.
>>Robert>>> Bush is trivializing the family; at least those he doesn’t wanted included in the American Dream. You are half right when you say that marriage is a function of religious institutions. I would never want to ‘force’ any religion into recognizing same body type unions ( as opposed to different body type humans). But when the state issues Civil Marriage certificates to, uh, humans, it’s use of the word Marriage is simply a term it borrowed from religions. What the states are currently issuing are Civil Union certificates. The fact that the word marriage is in there is simply because it has become part of the lexicon.
S. Edward
March 11, 2004 at 11:07 pm
176I can’t help myself, I must keep yapping. It seems another batch of souls were lost in a tragic terrorist train attack in Spain. I understand it was a calculated series of detonations that caused so much tragedy. I can only imagine that this kind of ‘horseplay’ will find it’s way to our soil. and to think of all the radio-active material missing from russia ( and elsewhere)..I guess the point I’m trying to make is that if everyone ( including our Red-Herring politicians) were to be as outraged about this kind of mass genocide from these lunatics instead of clammering to find a way to stop the union two american souls who, through the quagmire of horse-shit we have to go through in life, find themselves inexorably in love and only wish to unite in a life long commitment, we might just be a safer nation and planet. Instead we have nation with borders as porous as a sponge, and a nation of boobs that think Janet Jackson is the real problem ( boobs in a different sense) or that Bill & Ted getting hitched in San Francisco somehow is what’s affecting their own life in Kansas. ( Boy, where’s Toto when you need him, he always seemed to come to the rescue)
S. Edward
March 11, 2004 at 11:26 pm
177By the way, has anyone checked out that Super Vocano that’s ready to POP out in Wyoming. It turns out that Yellowstone is a GIANT Caldera ( the after effect of a supervolcano) If and when it goes, we’ll all be toast in less than a month. I’m not real sure if we have anything to worry about, but it seems it erupts every 600 million years…like clock work… It’s been 640 million years since the last eruption so we are a bit overdue. Of some comfort is that the bulge beneath one of the lakes has displaced so much water that the surrounding tree trunks are now In The Lake. On a more humorous note yet is that WHEN it blows, ( and not IF) it will cause a mass extinction worldwide. God will be a busy little camper that day. But really, I wouldn’t worry.. Sleep tight…I always do..
robert
March 12, 2004 at 10:42 am
178>>s. edward
but one could aurgue that it is impossible to have a totally secular state religion is still the main idea that drives every major facet of an even modern society. especially in america were religion is still taken very serious. it is impossible for most people to put aside there religious convictions even if it is in the name of secular democracy. the fact that religion is deeply woven into who most people are creates a issue in that lawmakers and the voting public would vote with identity to their religion before they vote as an american. so marrige borrowed or not still carries religious strings. civil unions are fine but the talk of same-sex marriage in this the most religious industrialized nation on earth may-be a dead end.
Big Mo
March 12, 2004 at 11:09 am
179Murray,
Hold on to those horses there. When Saul was told to kill all the Amalekites, it was an act of war, not genocide. Would it be considered genocide today to declare war on Iraq? I call al a hypocrite because he claims to follow the very thing (the Bible) that he disobeys. If my reading of the Bible has absolutes, it is because God “says so” because that’s all the entire Bible is. GOD’S WORD! How many interpretations of “A man shall not lie with another man.” can you make?
Anyway, I’ll be going to Colorado next week, so email me at this address:
Lil_kid31@hotmail.com God bless.
S. Edward
March 12, 2004 at 11:17 pm
180Robert, Your right in saying that religion is steeply entrenched with-in the people who run this democracy. That doesn’t make the denial of equal rights any more pallatable in a country where individual freedom is sovergn and where people can ( and Should ) engage in all sorts of beneficial mutual contracts. To date, I haven;t heard ONE LOGICAL argument for the denial of equality. If Bush truly wants to protect the snctity of marriage, he should constitutionally ban divorce. But you see Robert, that won’t happen because then they would be passing an amendment that actually affects them.. Make no mistake about, this amendment reclassifying homosexuals as second class citizens, is strickly designed to punish the homosexual for being homosexual. In essence, if your gay, you won’t be able to partake in all the benefits of Life Liberty and pursuit of happiness because half the nation has some misguided visceral hated within them that needs to control others. So…Now we have a constitution that allows any two adults to engage in private sexual acts, gay parents readily adopting childern all the time ( and raising them better than many straight couples, I might add) but not allowed to do it within the contract of a mutually recognized union. What kind of Bastardized Message does That Send??
It’s true that we have an extremely puritanical outlook in this country, especially when it comes to the (dare I say it) the naked body…There are over a half a dozen civilized western nations that eithe allow same sex marriage or civil unions. So there is a track record here about just how horrible it will be when the Free Country we call America finally matures to the point of allowing them. Except for one thing..There’s no Horrible track record..everything is running just fine without having some demonstrators hand sign quoting Chapter and Verse from a book they themselves REFUSE to follow Chapter and Verse. When it comes to the Bible, you must take the WHOLE THING Literally or come to the realization that the bible we read today is far shorter and re-interpreted than the original. Trust me when I tell you that the New Book is being Written as we speak. Religions Rise and religions fall..History tells us this..at least that part of history that hasn’t been lost..( There’s Loads of History and information that we will never recapture so we will be forced to re-enact and relearn many lessons over the next millenium of generations that we could have read about and learned from).
Our constitution is not a perfect Document..It knows this..It’s very message implies that we always seek a ‘More Perfect Union”.
Murray
March 14, 2004 at 10:43 am
181Mo
Hitler’s Final Solution was Genocide, not war. Milosevic’s extermination of Moslems in Kosovo was Genocide not war. (Remember ethnic cleansing)
Turkey killing millions of Armenians was Genocide not war.
Rwanda’s Hotos butchering hundreds of thousands of Tutsis was genocide not war.
It’s not that hard to understand the difference.
When you kill noncombatants (women and children) it’s called genocide. God commanded Saul to commit genocide.
Try all you want, you can’t spin around it.
You can tell when someone’s up against the wall, he refuses to address your questions and merely reiterates the same statement that has been refuted, over and over again.
God hates Gays
God hates shellfish
God says it’s ok to sell your children into slavery.
God says to stone your children if they disobey.
All of these abominations are addressed with in the same chapter of the Bible,
Mo hates Gays and ignores the rest but he is not interpreting the bible which he says has ABSOLUTES.
While calling others hypocrites he ignores the admonitions that he doesn’t like.
Robert
For the life of me I can’t understand what you are saying.
Please try re-reading what you have written, correcting the mistakes and trying to word it so that a simpleton like me can understand.
S. Edward
March 15, 2004 at 9:30 pm
182You’re so right Murray.
Admitting that I have posted some messages with typo’s, I still could have taken what he said a half dozen ways depending on where I placed the period. Would make a clever and marketable word game. Call it ” What’s my Story?”
Big Mo
March 24, 2004 at 12:59 pm
183How’s everybody doing? I had an awesome time in Colorado snowboarding with my youth group.
I wish to tell everyone this before I sign off for good. Being a high school student on a high school computer, I am not allowed to do this anymore, but I have one last thing to say. Although many people out there will persecute me for following the truth, I encourage you to pray for God’s will in this nation and in our lives; public and private. I wish for the best for everyone, and I will continue to pray for God’s blessing on your life.
bob
March 24, 2004 at 2:44 pm
184murray going back to the index and the ring finger thing. the size of someones finger has little to do with their sexual orientation. hitler used that same pseudoscience to explain the differances and the infinite pro’s of the aryan race over all other inferior races. the size of fingers or in hitlers case nose and cranium has little to do with the mental orientation of someone. sexuality is a sliding scale most people follow the genetic programing and chose to mate with the opposite sex. now every person has their own homosexual moments but for the most part chose to mate with the opposite sex. some people choose to be exclusively with the same sex. and i say genetic programming because humans are animals just like cats and dogs and monkeys and the need to propegate with the opposite sex is put there for the simple continuation and evolution of the species. Humans like othe ranimals sometimes dabble in homosexuality, but most remain focused on the opposite sex
Murray
March 24, 2004 at 6:57 pm
185Mo
If I had known that you were a high school student I wouldn’t have been so hard.
Bob,
There is a difference between phrenology and the study on finger length. Hitler had an ideology and forced his science to conform. It made it easy to do the atrocities he implemented. This is just regular science that goes where it will.
My point is that homosexuality is most likely a genetic thing. It is not a choice for most as I understand it. I know for a fact that my heterosexuality was not a choice for me. I can honestly say that I have never had a homosexual moment.
I am sure that for some it is a choice. I also think that this group probably contains the most virulent homophobes. They know in their heart that they could be swayed and, by God, that won’t happen to them. People on either end of the spectrum know that nothing on earth could change them, so why worry about it.
Bob, I’m not threatened by gays. If they want to get married, I’m all for that. As a matter of fact, I support gay civil rights.
Biton
March 26, 2004 at 6:45 pm
186I have read this debate with a great deal of interest. What I fail to understand, however, is the desperate need (implicit in the arguments and discourse of both ‘camps’) to have God on your side.
If we could only appreciate how much we’ve created God after our likeness. There’s no place for God in this debate. We are dealing with human issues and human rights.
Biton
Murray
March 26, 2004 at 7:12 pm
187Biton,
I agree 100%, but the gay bashers only have their misguided belief of the Bible, and I have been using their own arguments against them.
Biton
March 27, 2004 at 6:22 pm
188Murray,
It’s not the Bible-citing bigots that are the danger, for their arguments are easy to rebut as you and others have so eloquently shown. What really worries me is the rhetoric used by President Bush when he tries to clothe his arguments in the garb of reason. When he claims it’s ‘the job of the president […] to drive policy toward the ideal’, he too seems to believe the Truth is out there, that is: comfortably outside the bounds of human nature.
Can any ideal really be based on exclusion? In the past, many leaders thought they were working towards the realisation of an ideal world: for them it meant exterminating Jews or Catholics or Protestants etc. They too imagined they were listening to the voice of some Higher Authority.
If you really want to talk in ‘ideal’ terms: what is an ideal marriage other than the union of two persons who love (and therefore respect) each other?
But of course, I don’t need to convince you.
robert
March 31, 2004 at 2:50 pm
189s.edward
same sex couples getting married and leading productive lives seems like a great idea, when seen through secular beliefs. but your aurgument consists of reason. which is fine for a secular view. but religion is based on blind faith. a constitutional amendment would be totally against homosexuals. that is true but their reasoning is based on blind faith. watch cnn to see the power of religious conviction, every time a bus explodes in isreal it is a testement to the power of religious conviction. the two towers fell and thousands died for religious conviction. you could get an amendment FOR gay marrige here about as easy as you could get one in saudi arabia. it is such an uphill battle it; it is almost futile to push for same sex marrige. ( and i know you democrats out there are going to have a field day with me comparing al qaida to the religious right. but stripped down to the nuts and bolts religion is religion)
Murray
March 31, 2004 at 7:23 pm
190robert,
What I hear you saying is, 2 + 2= Broccoli, but only on Tuesday.
Zach
April 2, 2004 at 3:22 am
191Well, My thoughts arn’t coming from what has been recently debated above.
What I PERSONALLY THINK is.
Who “wrote” the bible? a bunch of people saying god spoke to them, so they wrote it down saying this is the word of god? Is that how it happend? That’s the impression I always get from people and prechers when I ask.
Now…look back at the times of when the bible came out, and new testimate and everything. Not until quite recently has the gay community broken out of its shell and saying, We’re here damnit, listen to us. Not at least with the magnitude that it has recently.
Before now, You weren’t “gay”. If you were, you lied and got married anyway, and had children anyway, because that’s what society was. I think the bible was writen by a bunch of guys who said god was speaking to them, when really they were just putting things together that really is just what they thought would be “best” for humans.
The only reason it’s “wrong” to be gay in the bible, is because those guys simply didn’t like homosexuals, that’s what I think….
and honestly, you can say what ever you want about what I’ve posted, I really won’t care…I find religous people to be kinda like peguins, natures clowns, cause you always get a good laugh when watching them on television, and a good laugh at all the weird things that come out of their mouth
Biton
April 2, 2004 at 6:45 am
192Zach,
Allow me to react to the final paragraph of your comment (‘you can say whatever you want about what I’ve posted, I really won’t care’).
Much of the situation ‘the gay community’ finds itself in today is exactly the result of people refusing to enter into a debate. Being dogmatic, whatever the cause, can only fuel the intolerance of your opponents. If you’re aiming at bringing about in change in mentality, surely, this is the last thing you would want?
Anyway, glad to see the penguins have resurfaced.
Zach
April 2, 2004 at 11:47 pm
193Ahh, very true, I don’t mind debating, I kinda posted that at 3 am in the morning on no sleep, LOL. so, my actual intent on my last paragraph isn’t what it seems, only my bitterness coming out in the morning, hehe.
I don’t mind debating, and actually love it, which is why I read this regularly, but never really post, cause I feel most people will make fun of my comments, lol.
What I mean about that is, you can say it’s stupid, silly, immature, without reason, I will not care, because I have reason and will debate it, that’s kinda how i ment it, sorry if it didn’t look that way
Biton
April 3, 2004 at 4:56 am
194Zach,
No need to apologize. I was just being pedantic (it was late for me too).
Murray
April 5, 2004 at 7:27 pm
195Zach
Don’t be afraid of posting. Ideas are always welcome. Just be sure that what you write is not gibberish. There is a lot of, “stream of thinking” writing that makes perfect sense to the writer, but very little to anyone else. A simple re-read prior to posting is all that is necessary.
S. Edward
April 6, 2004 at 9:36 pm
196Robert, I have to agree with Murray on the broccoli analogy. What you’re saying is that gays will never have total equality because of mass religious conviction ( and you may be unfortunately correct), but that shouldn’t stop a deliberate forward march toward equality anyway.(otherwise Rosa Parks would still be taking her place in the back of the bus, women would still be considered mens property and blacks and whites wouldn’t be able to marry) The twin towers incident demonstrates just how dangerous a ‘peace loving’ religion can be. Perhaps a few more gay weddings and few less religions parading around on the earth would do a world of good. We live under a secular governing document, created by deeply religious leaders who were smart enough to not allow this country to become a theocracy.
robert
April 7, 2004 at 10:55 am
197what i was saying is that in american same-sex couples will NEVER be able to be married. it just isn’t going to happen in america. Bush is probably going to succeed and if your lucky a weak civil union provision will be added. it just isn’t going to happen.
S. Edward
April 7, 2004 at 8:22 pm
198Robert, I wouldn’t call a Constitutional Amendment reclassifying a group of American tax paying law abiding citizens as second class a “Success” for George Bush. Georgy should concern himself with the half dozen or more soldiers getting killed everyday in Iraq just so we could continue to suck on the Oil Tit in the Middle East. The fact of the matter is that if gays are allowed to marry ANYWHERE, it should be the place we call America ( notice I capitalize America while you only capitalize the word NEVER). That’s indicative of the the attitude that continues to hold us back. Mind you, I understand what you’re trying to say, it’s just a pervasive, apathetic attitude that continues to hold this country back from Great Things. This country should celebrate equality and extend whenever we can, not write inequity into such an imortant document.
Katie
April 8, 2004 at 11:59 am
199hey….. wait a minute…
What was that about Yellowstone blowing up?!
And what ever happened to the poor penguins, dammit?!
What if gay penguins are honeymooning in Yellowstone after FINALLY being allowed to celebrate their unuion, only to be blow sky-high by a passive aggressive volcano?! WHAT THEN??!!!
This thought thread has gotten WAY off track, and is failing to recognize those items of greatest importance!
On the other hand, it has made it to 200 thoughts (and I use the term “thought” VERY loosely)! yippee! 300 here we come!
Eve
April 8, 2004 at 8:31 pm
200I heard this entry read on This American Life and thought it was so awesome that I dug around until I found your web site.
Well put.
Very. Very. Very. Well put.
Murray
April 8, 2004 at 8:51 pm
201200
Way to go Katie!
98 to go.
S. Edward
April 9, 2004 at 11:24 pm
202I’d love to get on track with Yellowstone blowing up..Long overdue you know..Ahhh, Nothing like a good ol’ fashion Mass Exinction to help humble us and put us in our place again..then the whole damn thing can start from scratch again..and 1000 years later, the topic will be whether gays should get married and ‘what’s all this ash and bone we’re digging up all about”??
S. Edward
April 9, 2004 at 11:26 pm
203OH. Make that 97…uh, ..96!
Rob
April 13, 2004 at 1:29 pm
204Hi guys my names rob
Rob
April 13, 2004 at 1:31 pm
205I love everyone who has sent in to this site
katie
April 13, 2004 at 11:52 pm
206….. and……. ????
reminds me of my son who will drop a random thought into the blue, leaving you with the questions of a. “where did that come from?” and b. “what is the rest of the thoughtline?”
S. Edward
April 14, 2004 at 10:22 pm
207Hey, thanks for the love…where ever that may have come from??…Well, I saw the press conference last night. Painful…VERY Painful..It was like watching Elmer Fudd in a designer suit. I see another state just passed a discriminatory amendment banning marriage between adults sharing the same anatomy. Further yet, they won’t allow civil unions either..A clever way to basterdize even more innocent children by disallowing them the right to have married parents.. What a shame and shambles this union has become.
S. Edward
April 16, 2004 at 9:36 pm
208#
robert
April 18, 2004 at 6:42 pm
209if the leader of the free world is elmer fudd then what does that make you…
Biton
April 18, 2004 at 6:50 pm
210Leader of the free world??? I trust we are back in sarcasm mode…
S. Edward
April 18, 2004 at 10:10 pm
211I said it was like WATCHING Elmer Fudd, I never said He WAS Elmer Fudd, although on a Bad Hair Day, he looks like Alfred E. Neuman and on a Good Hair day, he looks like Pat Robertson..Sensitive robert, you’re very sensitive..
Murray
April 20, 2004 at 10:43 pm
212S. Edward
It appears that we have been invaded by high school students.
S. Edward
April 21, 2004 at 11:07 pm
213Yes Murray, the neighborhood has really gone to pot..and unfortunately by people who can’t take a thought process to it’s logical conclusion..
jess
April 24, 2004 at 12:12 am
214Was researching same-sex marriages in the US when I came to your site during a search. Definatley broke the monotony of the research and got me laughing. Unfortunatley, when I tried to share, my roommate didn’t understand the sarcasm…
S. Edward
April 25, 2004 at 10:59 pm
215What kind of research jess? (should you happen to stop by again) … fresh opinions are always welcome..
jess
April 30, 2004 at 12:27 am
216I was just researching for a paper. For one of those general english classes…I had to research a social institution and link it to something we had read this semester. I chose homosexuality because I really enjoyed the David Sedaris stuff I read, especially the essay “I like guys,” ever read it? Chose marriage as the institution because of the current debate regarding gay marriages. Actually made for a pretty interesting paper/ presentation.
Biton
May 3, 2004 at 12:24 pm
217I’ve somehow lost the plot here. Please enlighten me as to the meaning of the previous contributions. Thanks.
S. Edward
May 3, 2004 at 10:34 pm
218jess, not real familiar with Sedaris’ work, looked for the piece you mentioned online but haven’t found it.. His other reads do look interesting though. I will have to check them out.
gavin..very true words…and appropriate..
Biton
May 4, 2004 at 11:52 am
219I’m sorry, but I really don’t understand how love can be forever. When people die, their love dies with them. True, you can still love a dead person, but that person cannot love you back. And when you die too, that love is gone.
Love is not part of some external reservoir of emotions which people can tap into as they please. Nor is it a Force that exists independently of man. Love is an integral part of a person’s mental make-up (and the result of neurological processes) and dies with this person.
You might as well say that headaches are forever.
Call me pretentious, but I consider my love to be true. It is, however, different from yours (since we are all unique). My love will not exist for ever, but then again, perhaps it is not true?
I believe in love, but I certainly don’t believe in forever. Forever reeks of totalitarianism; it lulls one into a false sense of contentment, or passive resignation.
But why should I care? Being gay, I’m forever doomed.
S. Edward
May 4, 2004 at 11:21 pm
220Biton, you are not forever doomed. Your argument that love doesn’t last forever pales in comparison to the notion that you believe that your consiousness and spirit dies along with it. Now I’m not trying to get religious here but spirits we are and spirits we shall remain. Forever is a notion that implies time, and you must remember ( or least understand) that time is simply an illusion. On a quantum level, time has no meaning. Past present and future exist simultaneously. ‘reincarnation’ is the way the soul expresses itself through a multitude of personality entities. The ‘gay man’ personality being expressed is just one aspect of your Total souls life experiences. ( and your should appreciate it for it is Thee who is experiencing the expression as well as representing that aspect of God’s Nature. So you are not Forever Gay nor are you forever Doomed….I guess I will retire from my portable pulpit now..but I say, sit back, chill out, enjoy life, do unto others and give notice to your soul to put on its’ seatbelt..your taking it for one hell of a ride.
Biton
May 6, 2004 at 2:01 pm
221S. Edward, I’m touched by your response.
Of course, when I wrote that I’m doomed forever I didn’t really mean it. The final sentence of my previous contribution was my own attempt at sarcasm.
I just wanted to show how dangerous it is to use the notion of ‘forever’ when applied to people. Unlike you, I don’t believe in God or in reincarnation. As I see it, religion, by its very nature, is based on a division that is absolute: it’s us (believers, the Elect who will be saved FOREVER) against them (non-believers, the Fallen who will be damned FOREVER). Moreover, believers must make sure to do the right thing as to acquire (read: earn) ETERNAL happiness. All ‘good deeds’ therefore become tinged with egotistic concerns about a possible reward in the afterlife. I’m not claiming that Christians, to take just one particular denomination, have no altruistic feelings, but the idea of doing something because it pleases some godhead, is simply obscene.
Likewise, is incarnation not built on the principle that the quality of your present life is linked to your previous actions during an earlier existence? Again it implies a life governed by fear (of later punishment).
So, when someone claims ‘True love is forever’, I ask myself: so what? Should I be happy now, stop fighting for my rights and sit back in comfort? At the moment, I’m treated as a second-class citizen, but hey, what the heck, true love is forever. You see: it’s a non-statement, sterile, meaningless. ‘Forever’ equals ‘stasis’ and I want change. I want a better life for myself and I want a better world. This I cannot reconcile with the notion ‘forever’.
And finally, let me assure you: I find the idea that my spirit will die with me extremely comforting.
paul
May 6, 2004 at 2:13 pm
222I invite you to view my web site www.homosexualityexplained.com
I think I present some interesting points on the subject–proving that gay marriage is wrong.
Biton
May 6, 2004 at 3:46 pm
223Paul, I’m appalled by your reasoning (no pun intended). It is simplistic to the core.
May I invite you in turn to read what has been written above? With your keen sight and unclouded judgement – a curse when so many around you are blind – these pages may very well allow you to see more clearly still.
S. Edward
May 7, 2004 at 11:46 pm
224Paul, If that is truly your website, then you are an angry little man. And to think how much time you invested in that diatribe leaves one to wonder what your true motive is. If you are married, then you must have no time for the wife and kids as you are much too busy worrying what are other tax paying citizens are doing to fulfill their rightful claim to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Please answer one question. Regardless of whether you believe marriage between consenting adults sharing the same anatomy is wrong, marriages have taken place..my question is how have these marriages damaged your fragile relationship with your wife?? Or is it your obsession against gay marriage that’s putting the strain on the relationship?
Biton, Point well taken regarding being doomed..Actually, we are only doomed as long as people like paul and his ilk continue to prescribe us to their christian gods hell. That’s because his god doesn’t dwell within him like a harmonious tuning fork, but rather hangs over him like a furious vengeful hammer waiting for the first opportunity to strike dead to hell. So be it, he shall walk on eggshells his whole life.
As a layman of quantum studies, it is realized that all objects we ‘experience’ are the condensated material construct of our own observation..the VERY ACT of observing AnyThing automatically changes the outcome..IE, we all play a role in the roll-out reality presents to us. We co-create and sustain this reality continuously. The extrasensory connection cannot be denied. Anyway, I hereby bequeath my portable pulpit to you paul ( as I feel you would be much more comfortable in the elevated pious positon you find yourself).
Murray
May 8, 2004 at 8:20 pm
225Paul,
As the happily married straight guy in this group, I can only ask; What’s it to you? What do you care? Why are you worried about what others do? As Jefferson would say “it neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg”
I could dissect your arguments easily enough but it would seem as pointless as your site itself.
BTW your knowledge of Zoology is very limited and ill-informed. Homosexuality is not only common in the animal world but very much so in the primates, both as a mater of dominance and recreation. You also seem to be ignorant of parthenogenesis where a female can, with out fertilization, give birth to offspring. Did you know that the sex of many reptiles is determined by the temperature at which the eggs develop. Some fish change sex as they age, others change sex as conditions shift. Things aren’t as cut and dried as you indicate.
There are also about 10 million animals most of which are arthropods and nematodes, not 6000.
There are plenty of plants that are not fertilized at all, no sex organs. Dandy Lions for one.
I can see that illustrating the internal inconsistencies of your writing would be fruitless. You have a mission to stamp out what you don’t understand and nothing will deter you.
It’s a shame that your efforts aren’t directed towards something more productive.
Murray
May 8, 2004 at 8:20 pm
226Paul,
As the happily married straight guy in this group, I can only ask; What’s it to you? What do you care? Why are you worried about what others do? As Jefferson would say “it neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg”
I could dissect your arguments easily enough but it would seem as pointless as your site itself.
BTW your knowledge of Zoology is very limited and ill-informed. Homosexuality is not only common in the animal world but very much so in the primates, both as a mater of dominance and recreation. You also seem to be ignorant of parthenogenesis where a female can, with out fertilization, give birth to offspring. Did you know that the sex of many reptiles is determined by the temperature at which the eggs develop. Some fish change sex as they age, others change sex as conditions shift. Things aren’t as cut and dried as you indicate.
There are also about 10 million animals most of which are arthropods and nematodes, not 6000.
There are plenty of plants that are not fertilized at all, no sex organs. Dandy Lions for one.
I can see that illustrating the internal inconsistencies of your writing would be fruitless. You have a mission to stamp out what you don’t understand and nothing will deter you.
It’s a shame that your efforts aren’t directed towards something more productive.
Biton
May 9, 2004 at 12:08 am
227It’s a big relief to see that others share my indignation, even though in this case ours may be a voice in the desert. Have you noticed that Paul’s site doesn’t include a forum, comments page or an e-mail address? Clearly, he’s not interested in dialogue.
Should he ever visit this site again, I hope he’ll read the following.
Paul, your whole theory is built on the binary opposition male – female, positive – negative. In your own words: “Positive is made to repel positive and negative is made to repel negative. This is science”.
Well, Sir, let’s do some science and consider the building blocks of all matter, shall we? Atoms consist of electrons (negative charge) and protons (positive charge). Fits with your theory, doesn’t it? But… oh no. What’s this? A third particle! Indeed: it’s called a neutron (no charge) and no matter would exist without it. And no, I do NOT suggest that this particle represents “gayness” in nature.
Actually, the whole picture is far more complex still, for all atoms are made up of quarks, leptons and bosons. So far, sixteen (16!) of such particles have been discovered. Quarks come in various guises, amongst them (and here’s some interesting terminology for you of the “male prong – female outlet” type) “top” quarks and “bottom” quarks… I refer you to S. Edward who seems to be the quantum theorist in our midst.
So please, Sir, drop the pseudo-science and take a good look again at what you’ve written. Your God must be very pleased with such a display of human kindness…
S. Edward
May 13, 2004 at 1:01 am
228Biton, great job on the ‘quark’ description. By the way ..paul DOES have a response email if you would like it..rightversuswrong@yahoo.com ..perhaps we can CC him our comments by email so he doesn’t miss a beat. Ya know, feel left out. We already know he is WAY OUT. People like him will never understand that the American Constitution is not a document that suddenly needs to be brought into Christian Compliance simply because a few fanatical radicals beleive it should be. BESIDES, CHRIST NEVER WHISPERED A WORD ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY.. so christians should worry not about it. It should not be their focus, unless they have some deep seated urgings that are scaring the living daylights out of them.
S. Edward
May 17, 2004 at 11:04 pm
229wow, all’s been quiet on this front. Well, I didn’t hear any rumblings or earthquakes yet due to the marriages taking place in Mass. I think the earth may still be in its’ proper orbit around the sun even. I guess the only thing left is to hear the fat lady sing ( and of course, all the vitriolic hatred that has yet to be spewed about what an awful decision this was..oh well, biggots can just never be happy unless their complainiing that somebody has the same rights as them…
D. Rendon
May 18, 2004 at 5:11 pm
230Why should you care what other people do? Are you followers or leaders? Why will it devalue your marriage? Is marriage a game to you? Gays love each other, save yourself. Do not try to save others for their minds cannot be changed. It is not a question of morality anymore; it is not a question whether God is for it or against it. It is a question of freedom. Our forefathers paid for the privilges we enjoy today with their blood hundreds of years ago. The law is freedom and in the end freedom will win. For we must all have equal rights, it is discrimination based on sexual preference. As for you to call gays and lesbians penguins, that is just wrong. How can you say that about some one. Did God teach hate or love? God still loves gays, homosexuality is a sin yes, but he still loves them. Read the bible once in a while before you start making assumptions.
S. Edward
May 18, 2004 at 11:28 pm
231D, you had me going there right up until the point that you said homosexuality is a sin. You obviously can’t make the distinction between the predicament and the performance. Gays are Gods creation so there are as ‘perfect’ as any one else. Homosexuality can’t be a sin anymore than being fair skinned can be a sin. Besides, SIN is just a control factor used by religions. I prefer to think of it as Karma..and just remember, My karma ran over your dogma.
Biton
May 18, 2004 at 11:36 pm
232D. Rendon, “The law is freedom” (you say) and “homosexuality is a sin”. Yet the law whose very principles “our forefathers paid for […] with their blood” has sanctioned homosexual unions. Ergo: the law is sinful? Your self-proclaimed tolerance leaves somewhat to be desired…
Moreover, if you allow this “sin” to obtain legal status, won’t you be a sinner for letting it happen? Perhaps you should have stuck to your earlier claim: “It is not a question of morality”, or indeed, “sin”.
Brian
May 19, 2004 at 11:13 am
233Wow ! I ran across this string or thread or whatever you call it yesterday while looking for arcticals on gay marriage. I laughed at some comments.I was really upset at some others.
But,I want to know what happened to the gay penguins. Did they find happiness and true love?
I’ll keep comming back to see whats next on here.
S. Edward
May 26, 2004 at 10:58 pm
234Brian, the gay penguins find true love just as the straight penguins do..However, I think a constitutional amendment might be needed to prevent them from expressing their true love thru marriage..Has anyone heard about the group ( of far out religious zealots) that want to relocate to south carolina and remove themselves from the Union to set up their own theocracy??
Biton
May 29, 2004 at 11:49 am
235An insipid piece of veritable gibberish composed with the sole intention of enticing unsuspecting Internauts with ingenious contraptions meticulously programed to drain them of their modest savings. Oh penguin lovers and valiant advocates of Uranian unions, eschew such diabolical schemes.
S. Edward
June 1, 2004 at 11:27 pm
236Boy, the neighborhood has really gone to pot…I think this forum is finally wearing thin..not much good debate and now we get gibberish nonsense..on a lighter note, you should all check out ‘christianexodus’ both the site and the yahoo group..you will surely find more gibberish nonsense. I guess they want to sesceed from the union to form a christian theocracy nation..in south carolina..it would be amusing to see it happen, only to have them hit by two back to back, catagory 5 hurricanes…
Biton
June 2, 2004 at 11:56 am
237S. Edward, as you can see, the gambling brigade remains unrelentless. My earlier response was just a skit on the automatically generated messages that try to fool anti-spam programs by using as many ‘exotic’ words as possible.
Yet your complaint still stands: at the moment there’s no real debate going on. Perhaps we should be glad: in a way, we’ve (more or less) won our cause. This forum has been running for nearly a year and I haven’t read a single rational and well-founded objection to gay marriages. This in itself is a minor victory. In the meantime, reality has caught up with us, or am I being too optimistic?
I joined in only recently, and as it happens, this was my very first Internet forum. It’s strange but I’ve grown rather fond of it. It’s good to know that there are still many well-meaning people out there (I know you’re not really serious about the hurricanes).
Take care.
Biton
June 3, 2004 at 2:56 am
238(Oops, I seem to have mixed up relentless and unrelenting.)
S Edward
June 5, 2004 at 6:14 pm
239Biton, This is also my first ‘real’ forum that I’ve been ‘active’ in so to speak. Since marriage is the main topic, it would seem a shame to let the forum expire before its’ true one year anniversary..perhaps it will even outlast most heterosexual marriages.
I think you’re right in that it is a victory..A battle has been won, though the war is not over..
As far as the hurricanes, well, I really don’t wish hard times on anybody..( live and let live)..Of course i have no control over nature ( and that’s probably a good thing)..so…keep posting !!
Biton
June 7, 2004 at 12:19 pm
240I don’t know if you people follow the gay marriage debate outside the US. There have been some interesting developments lately:
1. A few months ago, gay marriages were officially recognized by the Netherlands and Belgium.
2. This weekend (during D-Day celebrations), the first gay marriage certificate was issued in France. The French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin has started disciplinary proceedings against the Mayor who performed the ceremony (in Bègles, near Bordeaux), but at least a national debate has been started.
3. In his first parliamentary speech since winning the general election, Spanish Prime Minister José Zapatero has announced he will legalize gay marriages.
It would seem then that the move to bring about more equality is gathering worldwide momentum. I think we can take heart at this.
!Pheobe!
June 9, 2004 at 12:07 am
241Woa!!! Whoever made this site is so wrong and pathetic. Your great plan to stop gay marriages is your for you own selfishness? buddy… your an ass hole! If I read this site wrong and I’m out of line then I’m sorry.. but till then, you just want us to call everybody and go against people just like us, because of your selfish needs?? because of your marriage? man.. how about this.. If you guys are having problems so bad, go to a damn counselor! Trust me they help..
>>> ok moving on.. I would just like to know.. what exact ammendment was it in the consitution that states that gays shouldn’t be married?? please.. I really do want to know.
S. Edward
June 11, 2004 at 10:47 pm
242yo pensar alguien es loco un poco!
S. Edward
June 17, 2004 at 7:44 pm
243Well, it looks like Bush renewed his desire for the “Discrimination” Amendment to Southern (fractionated) Baptists in order to garner a few more votes..how pathetic..And Rush Limbaugh just got a divorce..someone should ask him how the Sanctity of his marriage was while it lasted..( it was probably all the gays getting married in Mass. that caused the rift)…
Murray
June 21, 2004 at 9:01 am
244Oh poor commentary post. So noble, so great, started to right a vicious wrong, now buffeted by the most vile of spam.
Oh noble comment column, may you rest in peace.
S. Edward
June 21, 2004 at 10:37 pm
245You are so right Murray. I guess nothing is allowed to stay nice forever..it eventually degrades to the lowest common denominator.
In mid-July, the Senate will take up the “discrimination amendment’ and I suspect this site might once again sprout legs ( that are hopefully attached to brains). We’re attempting to take it to it’s one year anniversary (July 31st) so it has some claim to ’sanctity’
Biton
June 22, 2004 at 12:44 am
246S. Edward, Murray — The problem is that we’re in perfect agreement with each other. How ironic, indeed. We are of one mind, and yet we aren’t satisfied!
Where are those ‘opponents’ wishing to enter into a debate? We must end this conspiracy of silence! “The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about” (Oscar Wilde).
Murray
June 23, 2004 at 6:12 pm
247I guess the problem is that the anti-gays are trying to cover naked bigotry with a flimsy argument of “destroying the sanctity of marriage” while none can explain or illustrate how it does so. There is no way they can keep up a sustained debate, and this is one of those arguments that work only if no one examines it closely, or thinks terribly hard.
S. Edward
June 23, 2004 at 10:28 pm
248So eloquently put Murray..and yet in three weeks, this is going to be all that we hear about ( barring any mass beheadings, or natural or planned disasters). And the proposed amendment contains some of the sloppiest, misguided language, leaving an entire country in doubt as to whether a state even has the right to recognize civil unions. The amendment has a slim to none chance of passing, but congress will still insert the bones in their noses and dance around the campfire, beating their drums and their chests, pretending to protect the sanctity of their multitudinous marriages.
Jessica Bessica.
June 30, 2004 at 8:03 pm
249adam writes…
“I mean, sure, we love each other and everything, but the real glue that holds us together is that we’ve joined an exclusive club that gay people aren’t allowed to join.”
dude- if whats holding your marriage together is an intangible contract with the government, you’ve got some problems. can’t you get it up or anything?
S. Edward
July 1, 2004 at 8:33 pm
250Jessica, the entire article is facetious. It was written to show the absurdity of the argument against gay marriage…please read it again SLOWLY and maybe it will come to you..
Murray
July 8, 2004 at 10:29 pm
251Here lies the greatest of all comment columns. Brought low by hated spam.
Curse you spam.
Rachel Bost
August 12, 2005 at 10:45 am
252This is the most assanine thing I have ever read in my entire 27 years of life on this planet. I have never even responded to anything I have ever read, but this has struck a major nerve.
My mother in law and her female partner, who by the way have been together for 20 years, have a love that has not only put a large majority of “straight” marriages to shame, but also represents what a marriage means. It means a love, compassion, sincerity, loyalty and companionship promised for eternity between two people. I have a failing marraige after only five years that I am striving to fix by example of their living testimant of love.
Who are you to decide that your marriage is better and more worthy of government recognition. My mother in law and her partner can not share the benefits afforded to them as a married couple such as much needed insurance because ignorance has overuled in our state government.
It is unbelieveable to me that there is actually a living, breathing human being that thinks that banning homosexual marriages will save his own floundering marriage. Here’s a thought, take your wife on a date, surprise her with flowers or her favorite dessert. Or better yet, divorce her so she has a chance of finding a man, or woman, who loves her enough to not blame the homosexual population for his shortcomings as a husband!
On a final note, have you let your “many gay friends” in on this piece of work? Just wondering.
Get real,
Rachel Leigh Bost
Murray
December 7, 2005 at 10:18 am
253Rachel,
You’re kidding, right?
Are you the only person who doesn’t know what satire is? Are you completely unaware of who Adam is and how he feels? Have you read any of the comments?
Jim
December 7, 2005 at 8:09 pm
254Murray,
Do you always have to have the last word?
Over two years later, and the thread is still going.
Thanks be to the great webmistress for defeating the spam, and Power to the Penguins!
David
December 13, 2005 at 10:43 pm
255I finally finished. This is a post for the ages. It truly covers the full spectrum from the utterly ridiculous to the wonderfully sublime, with some fascinatingly incoherent stops along the way.
Thank you once again, Murray, for the heads up.
Speaking of heads up, all you hot-to-go anatomically male types across the legitimately theorized spectrum, saddle up and ride.