amen
Printable View
amen
Smells like rain.
amen
amen
amen
Yes, it is raining now, feels warm on my skin.
amen
Where did I put my fudge?
As for my feelings on gays, I think ratfaced did a pretty good job.
i haven't read much of the thread, but i'm against same-sex 'marriages'
If a religion prohibits same sex marriages then they should not be married.Quote:
Originally posted by 3rd gen noob@20 September 2003 - 04:22
i haven't read much of the thread, but i'm against same-sex 'marriages'
If marraige is requested for legal reasons-property, ownership, assets, I could care less. Let them have a state bond. They will be living together anyway, why not allow them the same privledges that straight couples enjoy?
The issue of adoption is a little complicated. Two gay men with a boy might lead to local uproar even if they act as ideal parents. The child may have great parents, but will be a victim of socities' judgements.
ok as i was saying something about God...I can't remember hobbes disrupted my train of thought :D
I dont wanna get into the philosophy and the whole 9 yards but I dont think gayism came into play until the early 1930 or the early 1900s.
If you ask older generations, if you ask them what gay is, they'll tell you gay means cheerful.
So is gay the result of the late pop culture? or is it something different. I dont care. All I know is this was NOT how the entire human culture started.
and u might argue that the times have changed and whatnot and people are more open about sex, even same-sex marriages.
call me old-fashioned but it just doesn't sit right with the whole notion that a family is made of 2 men or 2 women. This is just unheard of in the past. Men are meant to be with women and have families and children.
well then some1 asked me what is "normal" marriage? well I'll say a normal marriage is the union of a man and a woman. And a happy marriage and family is when both members contribute financial means as well as spritual support into the family. so a gay couple can have a happy family, but a normal marriage? not in my religion.
thanks
In older (more recent) generations, if one was homosexual, one was a confirmed bachelor. ;)
In ancient Greece, it was such a common practice that there are at least 4 words describing the varying stages of same-sex relationships. I'd likely have more to say, but I'm pressed for time and the little ;)s are taking up the "last 10 posts" slot. ;)
:ninja:
Don't ask, don't tell!Quote:
Originally posted by MagicNakor@20 September 2003 - 05:31
In older (more recent) generations, if one was homosexual, one was a confirmed bachelor. ;)
In ancient Greece, it was such a common practice that there are at least 4 words describing the varying stages of same-sex relationships. I'd likely have more to say, but I'm pressed for time and the little ;)s are taking up the "last 10 posts" slot. ;)
:ninja:
apparently the most offensive insult in ancient greece was:
"your breath smells of your slave's semen"
:rolleyes:
mmm...ewwwQuote:
Originally posted by 3rd gen noob@20 September 2003 - 04:33
apparently the most offensive insult in ancient greece was:
"your breath smells of your slave's semen"
:rolleyes:
is this real? there were gays in ancient greece? i haven't done any research in this field
it shows...:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by james_bond_rulez@20 September 2003 - 04:37
i haven't done any research in this field
yes, it's true
infact, young men used to go on trips with older men into the forest...they did 'things'
it shows...:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by 3rd gen noob+20 September 2003 - 04:40--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3rd gen noob @ 20 September 2003 - 04:40)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-james_bond_rulez@20 September 2003 - 04:37
i haven't done any research in this field
yes, it's true
infact, young men used to go on trips with older men into the forest...they did 'things' [/b][/quote]
yeah but that's different though, isn't it?
they "do it" out of lust, not love
it's still homosexual activity, no matter the context...Quote:
Originally posted by james_bond_rulez@20 September 2003 - 04:42
yeah but that's different though, isn't it?
they "do it" out of lust, not love
Aristotle and Plato did this. Or was it Socrates.
It was considered an honor for a student to please his educator. This was a socially acceptable option for the teacher to penetrate the student.
The student was supposed to accept this as his role, but it was considered wrong for the teacher to want to be sodomized. Yes, it was considered like a jack off, not out of love.
To be homosexual you must be physically aroused by same sex, I think the Greeks practiced the "any port in a storm technique"
That is where the term "Greek style" comes from.
wow is this where all the sex with professors came from?Quote:
Originally posted by hobbes@20 September 2003 - 04:44
It was considered an honor for a student to please his educator. This was a socially acceptable option for the teacher to penetrate the student.
I had no idea...
interesting
The earliest reference I know about to homosexuality is from Ancient Egypt.
But in Ancient Greece, it was the "boy-lovers" that were most sought after - that is from the ages of 12-14. It was more between a man and a youth than two men. Young men were the Greek ideal, combining both beauty and intellect.
Then there's the long litany of European noblemen that secretly preferred other men.
At any rate, homosexuality's likely been around just about as long as heterosexuality has. ;)
:ninja:
Believers in evolution should study apes, they do it. They don't get married tho'!
:)
In a later post you mentioned something about "the facts". Where are the facts in this rant? All I see is part of some story about the shrubs and alot of generalizations.Quote:
Originally posted by dingoBaby+20 September 2003 - 02:10--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (dingoBaby @ 20 September 2003 - 02:10)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-lynx@19 September 2003 - 11:24
I, for one, am sick to death of hearing about these so called 'Gay Rights'.
Many of the 'rights' that are claimed are actually things which are denied to everyone, but the gays seem think they are a special case.
As an example, one of the squares in London had the foliage trimmed as part of normal 'tidying up'. The sexual activities of the gays who 'cruised' in this square could then be seen by the local residents, who complained. The gays then argued that the bushes should be allowed to grow back so they could continue their activities. The point is that these same activities between heterosexuals would still be illegal - why were the gays demanding special circumstances for themselves?
We don't see special interest groups being set up for heterosexuals, with millions in public money and grants being put aside, why should homosexuals expect special treatment. If they want to be treated the same as everyone else, they should start acting the same as everyone else, but instead the seem to want to continually bring attention to themselves. I think that in many cases (particularly in showbusiness) they are actually just trying to get themselves noticed.
How is demanding the right to have a legally recognized marriage the same as demanding special circumstances? Take religion and religious views out of the equation, because it doesn't apply to everyone, and what do you have left? Discrimination, plain and simple. [/b][/quote]
You didn't have the guts to quote my later post then? Or could it be that it didn't suit your agenda?
@ Dingo baby. Why is it not OK to have views on gays, but OK to have a username that trivialises the tragic death of a young child killed by a dingo?
:)
here we go again :D
why do u keep saying amen? <_<Quote:
Originally posted by james_bond_rulez@19 September 2003 - 11:55
amen
also i dont see a problem with gay ppl gettin marrid. its their life!
nah I was just refering to my last post as my point of view. my previous posts have been controversal so I modified them to say amen
I think that the issue needs to be considered in two parts.
The first would be does a religion wish to recognize a gay union as being comparable to the traditional male/female union.
The second would be does the state wish to recognize a gay union as legal and accord the couple the same benefits as the standard married couple.
I don't care about the first, that would seem to be a decision best left to the religion in question.
The second issue is where I think most of the problem lies as there is much more at stake ( not to trivialize the importance of religion ). Do insurance companies, pension plans, Social Security, etc. need to extend the same benefits to same sex partners as they do opposite sex couples?
I would say yes.
It's hardly as though the traditional form of marriage is such a rousing success these days that alternative forms shouldn't be considered. Divorce rates are high, and family stability should be the ultimate goal here. If extending the social benefits to ANY couple willing to give it a go will increase the number of two parent households, then I'm all for it.
There is a catch here, a trade off, if you will.Quote:
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@20 September 2003 - 08:19
Believers in evolution should study apes, they do it. They don't get married tho'!
:)
In ape society, ALL of the females belong to the alpha. The ultimate propagation of the fittest, strongest.
The only way the other males get nookie is to do it secretly. Hence the strongest and most clever pass on their genes. Unfortunately for the ladies these clandestine lovers must perform their act quickly lest the alpha male break their spines, hence the survival of the "premature ejaculator".
So unless you are the biggest and strongest, or you're "efficient" in your business, you might be quite lonely.
As for homosexuality in nature, animals exhibit this behavior as well, it is not a human invention.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/200...s-hbd120601.php
I have to say I can't really see this as an issue to get bent out of shape about.
Although the idea of being intimate with another man doesn't wet my sponge I can't say I really care one way or another what two other men or women get up to in their own bedroom. Cue the "I have always been a closet lesbian" jokes from the guys. :D
I am a little surprised that people seem to be unaware that homosexual behaviour is as old as human sexual behaviour (i.e. very old indeed). The term lesbian comes from Saphos of Lesbos a female poet from the Ancient Greek civilisation who lived on the island of Lesbos (which is still there and still called Lesbos).
In a free society an individual should be allowed to pass on their pension, property etc., to whomsoever they like. I do not think it is the business of Church or State to say otherwise. Consequently, I am for equality of legal rights for all regardless of race, colour, creed, or orientation. Positive discrimination is, however, silly and counter-productive and in the EU not permitted I believe. I have always held the view that the extremely earnest politically motivated types set their own causes back more than they assist them. Thatchell (can't remember his first name) being a case in point - would anyone really want to spend more than 1 minute listening to him rant no matter how right he might be.
I have never understood the "undermining marriage argument". In fact it is one of the silliest last ditch standpoints I can recall. Exactly how many people are going to say "That's it - call off our wedding, homosexuals have equal rights. The ball is burst, the game is over". I would suggest a grand total of none. Those heterosexuals who wish to marry will do so regardless of what others are doing.
The religious aspect is seperate and not relevant to legal rights. Churches of all religions are free to marry whoever they like (or not as the case may be). Some churches will not marry divorcees. This is their privilege - however, no religious body should be in position to enforce legally their view on those who do not subscribe to their particular flavour of belief.
i dont know why but i dont agree with the gay marriage thing
probably how i have been brougt up or something (no bad comments please)
i aint gonna say some long sentance about why i think this or act like i totally disagree or something cos i dont mind gay people being - umm gay :P its just i dont think they should get married
if marriage is holy matrimony.
and god doesnt agree with gays
does that mean for gay marriages to be proper they have to be evil
i believe those who have seen from both the view-points, church and state, have at least attempted to see the whole picture....there are many things [read laws, provisions, etc] where the church and state clash. example, when galileo said that the sun and not the earth is the center and that the earth is not flat, he was arrested by the church officials who declared him a heretic. however, i don't think there is a single individual today that would say the earth is flat and all those who say otherwise are heretics. if the science was thwarted right there, maybe we would still be believing that the earth is flat. the issue was spared by many from being seen from only a religious standpoint and we have that to thank for today's world of science and its rapid progress.
i believe that gay marraiges, from the state standpoint, should be made legal and carry all the perks of hetero wedlock. As for religion, well, to quote from the book, ''a brief history of time'' by stephen w. hawking
A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He
described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast
collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and
said: “What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant
tortoise.” The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, “What is the tortoise standing on.” “You’re very
clever, young man, very clever,” said the old lady. “But it’s turtles all the way down!”
That is the nature of belief, once it has become a part of you, you don't change it. So, the decision to accept or reject from a religious standpoint is best left with the individual.
I love that quote, I use it all the time.Quote:
Originally posted by jbrockz@21 September 2003 - 01:59
i believe those who have seen from both the view-points, church and state, have at least attempted to see the whole picture....there are many things [read laws, provisions, etc] where the church and state clash. example, when galileo said that the sun and not the earth is the center and that the earth is not flat, he was arrested by the church officials who declared him a heretic. however, i don't think there is a single individual today that would say the earth is flat and all those who say otherwise are heretics. if the science was thwarted right there, maybe we would still be believing that the earth is flat. the issue was spared by many from being seen from only a religious standpoint and we have that to thank for today's world of science and its rapid progress.
i believe that gay marraiges, from the state standpoint, should be made legal and carry all the perks of hetero wedlock. As for religion, well, to quote from the book, ''a brief history of time'' by stephen w. hawking
A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He
described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast
collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and
said: “What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant
tortoise.” The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, “What is the tortoise standing on.” “You’re very
clever, young man, very clever,” said the old lady. “But it’s turtles all the way down!”
That is the nature of belief, once it has become a part of you, you don't change it. So, the decision to accept or reject from a religious standpoint is best left with the individual.
It is my shorthand to my friends that the person speaking doesn't even have a clue of their own illogic, no insight whatsoever.
I just poke my friends, point to the offender, and say, "It's turtles all the way down". ;)
Just curious, what languages do you speak and which would you consider the one in which you are most comfortable.
:lol:
about the last part, i sent you a PM.
mmm interesting, so you are saying it's up to individuals to decide if it is religously, politically, and socially acceptable to have gay marriages.Quote:
Originally posted by jbrockz@21 September 2003 - 00:59
That is the nature of belief, once it has become a part of you, you don't change it. So, the decision to accept or reject from a religious standpoint is best left with the individual.
but this is not simply a matter of right and wrong, this is a matter of what you believe.
If people believe that gay marriages are not acceptable, do you label them with the lady that says "it's turtles all the way down"? NO
It's imprecise science.
i think its important to explain the context of the little old lady. i cannot speak for stephen hawking, but i can tell you what i think. during the time of galileo, a flat earth was the official church-sanctioned version of the universe. if we were somehow to be transported to that era, we would find that EVERYONE believed in it. Sailors set sail to discover the edge of the world. One would be considered the village idiot for speaking about such things as galaxies and black holes and supernovae and nebulae, terms that are commonplace and proved by modern technology in today's era. in fact, galileo existed centuries ago. even an old lady from a century ago would know the earth was round cause by then the question of the earth's shape was put to rest and newton et al were coming up with laws of motion and gravity and predicting the path of planets. i think stephen hawking used the little old lady to symbolise hard-set beliefs, the natural human tendency to resist change.Quote:
mmm interesting, so you are saying it's up to individuals to decide if it is religously, politically, and socially acceptable to have gay marriages.
but this is not simply a matter of right and wrong, this is a matter of what you believe.
If people believe that gay marriages are not acceptable, do you label them with the lady that says "it's turtles all the way down"? NO
I am not saying anyone who believes being gay is evil is wrong, i m just saying this is what religious people believe today, and i m not the one to ask them to change. I have the strength of my beliefs and they have the strength of theirs. Maybe, a century from now someone saying this would be told, ''yeah right, its turtles all the way down'', but as of today, this is the official church-santioned version and one cannot disregard it. Hence, the decision to personally accept the notion of gay wedlock is best left to the individual and his beliefs.
gay people are so gay :P
:D :lol:
Perhaps I mis-read the introduction to Brief History, but I took the quote to mean not that the little old lady really believed that the world was flat and sat upon an infinite number of turtles, but rather she was humourously demonstrating that "knowing" anything required, to a degree, a leap of faith. I took its inclusion in Stephan Hawkings book to indicate that he himself approached the subject matter with a element of humility and was not claiming to offer the whole truth (whatever that might actually mean).
:rolleyes: Anyway, everyone knows, thanks to the insights provided by Terry Pratchett, that there are four elephants between the world and the turtle.