|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 12 new of 150 responses total. |
jaklumen
|
|
response 139 of 150:
| 
Jul 31 03:24 UTC 2003 |
Oh shit yes. They discuss this in the Schools of Education for a
reason.
|
gull
|
|
response 140 of 150:
|
Aug 12 21:27 UTC 2003 |
Re #70: "If God exists, he has stated that such behavior is immoral and
wrong."
You mean, "if my particular God exists, and I'm interpreting his
writings correctly, such behavior is immoral and wrong."
I also think it's pretty circular to fault homosexuals for not having
stable relationships when society denies them the tools to recognize and
reinforce those relationships.
Re #119: It amazes me that you seem to somehow blame homosexuals for
everything sexually explicit in the world. Do you really think that
only lesbians buy those "Girls Gone Wild" tapes that are advertised
incessantly on TV? ;>
Re #123: Actually there are lots of legal benefits you can't get except
through marriage. If you don't believe me, try to get your employer's
health insurance to cover someone you're not married to. Also, getting
the legal benefits of marriage involves a lot of effort and lawyer time
for homosexuals, while heterosexuals don't have to go through the hassle.
Re #138: No kidding. And it's not just teachers. Given all the
high-profile cases there have been I'd never open a day care center in
today's world; it seems to almost guarantee a sexual abuse lawsuit. And
once you're accused of that, your reputation is ruined. It doesn't
matter if you're found not guilty or not.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 141 of 150:
|
Aug 12 22:54 UTC 2003 |
1-2). Once again, all sides never really come out. We have one side
saying, "They are sinners and will rot in hell for what they do," and
the other saying, "It's natural, and they are wrongly oppressed."
Nothing in between.
'recognize and reinforce'... hmmm, somehow, in my experience, and in
those many others that I have talked to, it hasn't been about love,
it's been about deep, sometimes unconscious emotional traumas that
never get satisfied by a 'relationship.' Of course others' mileage
may vary. Of course, we have to have steel balls sometimes, because
we get so much grief from the one side who still regards us as sinners
(especially when we stumble on the way) and the community that
apparently regards us as traitors.
3) is a rather poor example because if I remember right, women don't
go ga-ga that way when they happen to be lesbian. They are a much
more emotional sort from what I remember and porno usually isn't the
schtick. In general, the example doesn't hold because women in
general just aren't super big on pornography. Now men's gay
counterparts... well, I seem to remember most enjoying gay porn to a
degree. Maybe you could find a difference there.
4) last time I checked, many day care providers were considered early
childhood educators-- but I could be wrong. Some preschools are
considered day care centers as well. Maybe it's just an overlap, but
I was making that implication.
|
gull
|
|
response 142 of 150:
|
Sep 3 00:44 UTC 2003 |
Recently, with the push for civil unions and gay marriage, many people
have called for us to remain true to the Biblical definition of
marriage. Here's what remaining strictly true to that definition would
mean:
1 Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one
man and one or more women.(1) Marriage shall not impede a man's right to
take concubines in addition to his wife or wives.(2)
2 A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin.
If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed.(3) Marriage of a
believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden.(4)
3 Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the
constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed
to permit divorce.(5)
4 If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry
the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately
does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be
otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law.(6)
1: Gen. 29, 17 - 28; II Sam. 3, 2 - 5.
2: II Sam. 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21
3: Deut. 22, 13 - 21
4: Gen 24:3; Num 25 1 - 9; Ezra 9:12; Neh. 10:30
5: Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9
6: Gen. 38 6 - 10; Deut 25 5 - 10
(Source:
http://nuisance.blogspot.com/2003_08_01_nuisance_archive.html#1061273031022
29366
)
|
cross
|
|
response 143 of 150:
|
Sep 3 04:34 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
bru
|
|
response 144 of 150:
|
Sep 3 12:27 UTC 2003 |
That is your opinion, I do not know anyone anywhere who promotes such a
belief.
|
gull
|
|
response 145 of 150:
|
Sep 3 12:34 UTC 2003 |
That's kind of the point.
|
bru
|
|
response 146 of 150:
|
Sep 3 21:51 UTC 2003 |
thtas what I mean. i could sit here and say married people have to have sex
withone foot on the floor for it to be a leagal weddig. That wouldn't make
it so.
|
tod
|
|
response 147 of 150:
|
Sep 3 22:07 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 148 of 150:
|
Sep 4 02:53 UTC 2003 |
The point, to spell it out for you, is that calls to remain true to the
"Biblical definition of marriage" are irrelevent; we've already gotten
away from that long, long ago. What people currently think of as the
"Biblical definition of marriage" is really just tradition, and
relatively recent tradition at that.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 149 of 150:
|
Sep 4 05:25 UTC 2003 |
Of course, the point is, it is *some peoples'* tradition. That's fine.
But it is not *all peoples'* tradition - nor is it immutable.
|
lynne
|
|
response 150 of 150:
|
Sep 8 17:47 UTC 2003 |
re 148: Hallelujah. I wasn't looking forward to being executed. although
watching people have to pay one shoe for not marrying their brothers' widows
sounds pretty funny. if anyone needs to do that, I have a bunch of shoes
I'd be happy to donate.
|