Jump to content
RemedySpot.com

Re: re: Disurbing article

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

In a message dated 2/13/04 4:20:27 PM Eastern Standard Time,

jaltak@... writes:

> Children are impressionable. And a child (yes, a teenager is still a child)

> is very impressionable. It is much easier to hand a child a " line " than an

> adult. You can't call it consent if they were conned into it. Even if there

> was no force.

I agree to an extent, but that's not the issue. & amp;nbsp; The issue isn't

whether

in *some* cases it constitutes de facto rape, or even in *most* cases. & amp;nbsp;

The issue is whether it is " by definition " rape, which is simply preposterous,

because there is no guarantee of emotional maturity in a 20-year-old, and

there is no guarantee of a lack of emotional maturity in a teenager. & amp;nbsp;

Furthermore, by Lierre's definition, a 20 year old having sex with a 19 year old

would be necessarily rape, regardless of any circumstances. & amp;nbsp; That

doesn't

seem absurd?

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Judith Alta wrote:

> > I know a 15 year old girl that would put many adults to shame, both in

> > maturity and intelligence. But mental capacity does not guarantee

> > maturity.

Berg wrote:

> Neither does age.

True, there are age cutoffs for various laws to separate childhood and

adulthood. Some never mature, grow up in some way.

Wanita

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even though I seemed the girl here at 15, didn't feel grown up till 28, just

gotten better since.

Wanita

> True. I newer grew up until I was past 40.

>

> Judith Alta

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Berg [mailto:bberg@...]

>

> Judith Alta wrote:

> > I know a 15 year old girl that would put many adults to shame, both in

> > maturity and intelligence. But mental capacity does not guarantee

> > maturity.

>

> Neither does age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NAMBLA is political that's why you hear about them. I don't know of any

heterosexual pedophile groups that are political. But either way...it's

disgusting no matter who is doing it. How did this strain get started

anyway? Was it the gay marriage thing? It sure has taken a life of it's

own :) Both sides have valid points. That makes for a good discussion.

Re: re: Disurbing article

>> The problem is heterosexuals aren't trying to make sexual acts with young

children acceptable... <<

This is not true. There are organized pedophile organizations for men who

want to have sex with girls too. You can find some of them, as I did, by

doing a quick google search just now, listed here:

http://www.puellula.org/HFP/Links.html

There is a reason that NAMBLA gets so much attention, and that is because

anti-gay propganda keeps the spotlight on them, so it can continue to

demonize gay people. That fact is that NAMBLA is despised and outcast by

virtually all gay and lesbian people. The pathetic few sickos who comprise

NAMBLA love all the attention they get - it feeds their agenda perfectly to

be used in this way. They would have faded away long ago, otherwise.

Christie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quoting Kayte Sisler <kayte@...>:

> NAMBLA is political that's why you hear about them. I don't know of any

> heterosexual pedophile groups that are political.

The reason that you've never heard of them is that no one can figure out how

to pronounce NAMGLA.

--

Berg

bberg@...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>> NAMBLA is political that's why you hear about them. <<

I understand the point you're trying to make, but I completely disagree that

" NAMBLA is political, that's why you hear about them. " You hear about NAMBLA not

because of NAMBLA, but because they are constantly being brought up in anti-gay

propaganda. Which does three things: It makes it easy to see gay men as a

community of child molestors instead of humans with rights, it keeps a

connection between homosexuality and child molestation in people's minds, and it

keeps NAMBLA itself in existence by giving them the notoriety they crave.

>> How did this strain get started

anyway? Was it the gay marriage thing? It sure has taken a life of it's

own :) Both sides have valid points. That makes for a good discussion. <<

I don't find the " side " that says that they should be able to get married but I

shouldn't to have a valid point at all. They may find it icky, but that's hardly

a legitimate basis to create a second class of citizenship and force me into it.

I also have been finding it rather infuriating to listen to all these people on

TV debating whether or not I should have the right to do what a drunk pimp and a

hooker can run off to do on ten minutes' aquaintance after meeting in a

crackhouse. But hey, everyone's viewpoint is valid, right?

For the record I completely agree with whoever said that the government should

get out of the marriage business entirely. It's the only way to settle this. But

I still say the only real basis to objecting to giving me equal rights to

marriage is that people think it's icky. I wrote an article about this four

years ago, still rings true for me now:

Same-sex Marriage:

The Rule of Law vs. the " Ick Factor

by Christie

Tim was sick, and living in Italy, far from his family in Wisconsin or his

friends in San Francisco. He was receiving inadequate medical care and outdated

health information. He could no longer work. Why didn't he go home?

Because his Italian lover, Pietro, could not get permanent resident status in

the United States, and Tim wouldn't leave him. Tim died 7000 miles from his

friends and family because he couldn't simply marry the man he loved and come

home, as any female US citizen could have done, or as he could have done with

any female Italian citizen.

Second Class Citizens?

Although the phrase " second class citizen " has become a cliché used by many

people without really thinking about it, take this opportunity to really think

about it now. Are there two classes of citizenship? Do lesbians and gay men

belong to a category of citizenship that has a lower status, fewer rights and

protections, than a heterosexual citizen?

A woman and a man have the right to marry legally. That right brings with its

exercise the protection of over 1000 federal laws and hundreds of state laws. It

brings with it the right to visit your spouse in the hospital or prison, to make

medical decisions for your spouse, to file joint tax returns and claim

money-saving exemptions, to inherit from intestate spouses. If a US citizen

marries a person from another country, the foreign spouse gains the right to

reside in this country. Pensions, social security, health insurance, and death

benefits all automatically kick in when legal marriage takes place. Married

couples enjoy the benefits of marital life estate trusts, estate tax marital

deductions, family partnership tax income, damages from injuries to a spouse,

bereavement leave and benefits, unemployment benefits for quitting a job to move

with a spouse to a new job, burial determination, property rights, child

custody, crime victim recovery benefits, domestic violence intervention, divorce

protection, exemption from property tax when a spouse dies, protection from

being forced to testify against your spouse in court. This list goes on and on,

but it adds up to just one thing: Second class citizenship for lesbians and gay

men.

" Call It Something Else "

In promoting the " civil union " or " domestic partnership " alternative, some

people suggest, " Can't you just call it something else? " They don't really want

to deny the equal protection of the law to anyone, but feel personally

uncomfortable with using the term " marriage " to define same-sex unions. Is it

compatible with the ideals on which this country was built to have one group of

citizens live under a form of marriage apartheid, a sexual-orientation Jim Crow

system? As long as there are two water fountains, does it matter if one is

marked " gay " and one is marked " straight " ?

For the Bible Tells Me So

There's no doubt that much opposition to same-sex marriage is based on religious

belief. Religious opposition to same-sex marriage is perfectly valid. No law

could ever force a religion to perform same-sex marriages, but is it compatible

with the Constitution for legal marriage to be denied to couples of the same

gender based on the religious beliefs of other citizens?

Civil Rights

Same-sex marriage is fundamentally about civil rights, and the law doesn't have

to ask if those rights make one group uncomfortable. It doesn't matter that

large groups of people, even a majority, might oppose those rights; civil rights

don't vest by " majority rule " or popular opinion.

And perhaps the most pertinent question of all: Is personal repugnance. the

" ick " factor. sufficient to allow a powerful majority to oppose the rights of a

despised minority, while holding onto those rights for itself?

Christie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a message dated 2/14/04 12:08:40 AM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> Actually, I'd go a step further and allow " civil unions " for any group that

> wants to make them -- it would be a set of rights etc. that are now found

> for " marriage " , but you could form such a union with your sister or anyone

else

> that you might be living with long term ... it would not say anything about

> sexual activity or lack thereof, just that you are sharing your financial and

> emotional lives.

I agree that that is a better system than what we have now. It think the

idea that gay's have a " right " to be " married " is just stupid. Marriage is a

religious ceremony, and whether you have a right to one depends on the rules of

the religion you choose to adhere to. If no religion will marry you, start

your own. That goes for hetersexuals, polygamists, and anyone-- you can't have

a

" right " endowed by the state to acquire something from a private institution.

However, I really don't see the point of state-sanctioned civil unions. Of

course you should be able to share your finances or share anything you want.

As to rights at hospitals, you should designate in your contract with the

hospital who can and cannot be involved in what situations. Just like you do

for

who can use your bank account, credit card, or video rental card.

People should be able to eat carrots, sheep, or love whoever they want. But

they don't need an official recognition from the State to do so.

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I know you can get married...only we are all limited on who we can

marry. I can only marry a non-relative man. Like you I am limited.

But this issue won't be settled here or anywhere else to all our

satisfaction. /

Re: re: Disurbing article

>> NAMBLA is political that's why you hear about them. <<

I understand the point you're trying to make, but I completely disagree that

" NAMBLA is political, that's why you hear about them. " You hear about NAMBLA

not because of NAMBLA, but because they are constantly being brought up in

anti-gay propaganda. Which does three things: It makes it easy to see gay

men as a community of child molestors instead of humans with rights, it

keeps a connection between homosexuality and child molestation in people's

minds, and it keeps NAMBLA itself in existence by giving them the notoriety

they crave.

>> How did this strain get started

anyway? Was it the gay marriage thing? It sure has taken a life of it's

own :) Both sides have valid points. That makes for a good discussion. <<

I don't find the " side " that says that they should be able to get married

but I shouldn't to have a valid point at all. They may find it icky, but

that's hardly a legitimate basis to create a second class of citizenship and

force me into it.

I also have been finding it rather infuriating to listen to all these people

on TV debating whether or not I should have the right to do what a drunk

pimp and a hooker can run off to do on ten minutes' aquaintance after

meeting in a crackhouse. But hey, everyone's viewpoint is valid, right?

For the record I completely agree with whoever said that the government

should get out of the marriage business entirely. It's the only way to

settle this. But I still say the only real basis to objecting to giving me

equal rights to marriage is that people think it's icky. I wrote an article

about this four years ago, still rings true for me now:

Same-sex Marriage:

The Rule of Law vs. the " Ick Factor

by Christie

Tim was sick, and living in Italy, far from his family in Wisconsin or his

friends in San Francisco. He was receiving inadequate medical care and

outdated health information. He could no longer work. Why didn't he go home?

Because his Italian lover, Pietro, could not get permanent resident status

in the United States, and Tim wouldn't leave him. Tim died 7000 miles from

his friends and family because he couldn't simply marry the man he loved and

come home, as any female US citizen could have done, or as he could have

done with any female Italian citizen.

Second Class Citizens?

Although the phrase " second class citizen " has become a cliché used by many

people without really thinking about it, take this opportunity to really

think about it now. Are there two classes of citizenship? Do lesbians and

gay men belong to a category of citizenship that has a lower status, fewer

rights and protections, than a heterosexual citizen?

A woman and a man have the right to marry legally. That right brings with

its exercise the protection of over 1000 federal laws and hundreds of state

laws. It brings with it the right to visit your spouse in the hospital or

prison, to make medical decisions for your spouse, to file joint tax returns

and claim money-saving exemptions, to inherit from intestate spouses. If a

US citizen marries a person from another country, the foreign spouse gains

the right to reside in this country. Pensions, social security, health

insurance, and death benefits all automatically kick in when legal marriage

takes place. Married couples enjoy the benefits of marital life estate

trusts, estate tax marital deductions, family partnership tax income,

damages from injuries to a spouse, bereavement leave and benefits,

unemployment benefits for quitting a job to move with a spouse to a new job,

burial determination, property rights, child custody, crime victim recovery

benefits, domestic violence intervention, divorce protection, exemption from

property tax when a spouse dies, protection from being forced to testify

against your spouse in court. This list goes on and on, but it adds up to

just one thing: Second class citizenship for lesbians and gay men.

" Call It Something Else "

In promoting the " civil union " or " domestic partnership " alternative, some

people suggest, " Can't you just call it something else? " They don't really

want to deny the equal protection of the law to anyone, but feel personally

uncomfortable with using the term " marriage " to define same-sex unions. Is

it compatible with the ideals on which this country was built to have one

group of citizens live under a form of marriage apartheid, a

sexual-orientation Jim Crow system? As long as there are two water

fountains, does it matter if one is marked " gay " and one is marked

" straight " ?

For the Bible Tells Me So

There's no doubt that much opposition to same-sex marriage is based on

religious belief. Religious opposition to same-sex marriage is perfectly

valid. No law could ever force a religion to perform same-sex marriages, but

is it compatible with the Constitution for legal marriage to be denied to

couples of the same gender based on the religious beliefs of other citizens?

Civil Rights

Same-sex marriage is fundamentally about civil rights, and the law doesn't

have to ask if those rights make one group uncomfortable. It doesn't matter

that large groups of people, even a majority, might oppose those rights;

civil rights don't vest by " majority rule " or popular opinion.

And perhaps the most pertinent question of all: Is personal repugnance. the

" ick " factor. sufficient to allow a powerful majority to oppose the rights

of a despised minority, while holding onto those rights for itself?

Christie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quoting Christie <christiekeith@...>:

> I don't find the " side " that says that they should be able to get married

> but I shouldn't to have a valid point at all. They may find it icky, but

> that's hardly a legitimate basis to create a second class of citizenship

> and force me into it.

>

> I also have been finding it rather infuriating to listen to all these

> people on TV debating whether or not I should have the right to do what a

> drunk pimp and a hooker can run off to do on ten minutes' aquaintance

> after meeting in a crackhouse. But hey, everyone's viewpoint is valid,

> right?

It's not really true that the state's refusal to recognize homosexual

marriage amounts to creating second-class citizens. You have as much right

as anyone else to get married, subject to exactly the same restrictions as

anyone else--namely that you may marry at most one person, and that that

person must be of the opposite sex.

This isn't about whether homosexuals have the right to do what any

heterosexual person can do--rather, it's about whether they have the right

to do what no heterosexual person can do. The fact that you would prefer to

marry another woman does not make you a second-class citizen any more than

the desire to marry two men would make you a second-class citizen.

Actually, this isn't about rights at all. It's about whether or not the

state is obligated to provide legal recognition and sanction to a class of

relationships to which it currently does not extend those privileges.

In case anyone is tempted to read anything into the above. I'm just trying

to frame the issue properly. I'm not offering an opinion.

I would, however, like to point out that this wouldn't even be an issue in a

free society.

> For the record I completely agree with whoever said that the government

> should get out of the marriage business entirely. It's the only way to

> settle this. But I still say the only real basis to objecting to giving

> me equal rights to marriage is that people think it's icky.

I don't think that's it. I think it's icky (unless we're talking about

young, attractive women, of course), but that doesn't affect anything

beyond my choice not to engage in it myself. From what I've seen, those who

are leading the fight against state recognition of homosexual marriage are

doing so more out of deep religious conviction than out of simple distaste

for it.

--

Berg

bberg@...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>> As far as I know you can get married...only we are all limited on who we can

marry. I can only marry a non-relative man. Like you I am limited. <<

ROFL... like I said, Jim Crow... marriage apartheid. I can marry anyone except

anyone I'd ever marry. We both can get a drink of water from a fountain, just

not the same fountain. Do you honestly not get it? Or do you just not want to

share?

Do you have any idea how mean-spirited this is?

This isn't a theoretical issue, it's people's hearts and lives.

Christie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>> This isn't about whether homosexuals have the right to do what any

heterosexual person can do--rather, it's about whether they have the right

to do what no heterosexual person can do. The fact that you would prefer to

marry another woman does not make you a second-class citizen any more than

the desire to marry two men would make you a second-class citizen.<<

I find this to be utterly unconvincing as an argument for reasons I've already

outlined. It's Jim Crow. My brother can marry the woman he loves, I cannot.

Ergo, I do not have the same right as my brother does. Ergo, I am in a second

class of citizenship.

To suggest that I'm " equal " to you because I could marry a man or because you

couldn't is just playing a word game that has no bearing on the reality of this

situation. If I were to marry, I'd want to marry a woman, because I'm a lesbian.

Anything else is just LESS. I don't want LESS. I want exactly what you and my

brother have.

>> From what I've seen, those who

are leading the fight against state recognition of homosexual marriage are

doing so more out of deep religious conviction than out of simple distaste

for it. <<

Even if that were completely true (and I think it's only partly true), I wasn't

talking about the leaders. I was talking about all the people who say they

support equal rights for lesbians and gay men but don't feel that same sex

couples should get MARRIED or call it " marriage. " Like Bill Clinton or Arnold

Schwartzenegger or Dean or whoever, who say they dont' support gay

marriage but do support civil unions. What else is that but " the ick factor " ?

Sure, televangelists and the pope don't want my country letting me get married

due to their religious beliefs. They are entitled to believe whatever they want,

but I don't think my rights should be conditioned on fitting in with someone's

religious beliefs. And they wouldn't be, IMO, if not for the " ick factor. "

Christie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, I have been reading some of the posts regarding gay marriage and I wanted to

know what civil union is. Isn't that the same as being married by a Justice of

the Peace? I thought the reason a lot of politians don't support gay marriage is

they want to keep separate, religion and state. Can any church marry gay couples

if they want? Sorry about my ignorance but I thought this was taken care of in

the sixties.

I can't imagine government not allowing marriage between anybody (except of

course children) except not wanting to interfer with church.

SheilaN

Re: re: Disurbing article

>> This isn't about whether homosexuals have the right to do what any

heterosexual person can do--rather, it's about whether they have the right

to do what no heterosexual person can do. The fact that you would prefer to

marry another woman does not make you a second-class citizen any more than

the desire to marry two men would make you a second-class citizen.<<

I find this to be utterly unconvincing as an argument for reasons I've already

outlined. It's Jim Crow. My brother can marry the woman he loves, I cannot.

Ergo, I do not have the same right as my brother does. Ergo, I am in a second

class of citizenship.

To suggest that I'm " equal " to you because I could marry a man or because you

couldn't is just playing a word game that has no bearing on the reality of this

situation. If I were to marry, I'd want to marry a woman, because I'm a lesbian.

Anything else is just LESS. I don't want LESS. I want exactly what you and my

brother have.

>> From what I've seen, those who

are leading the fight against state recognition of homosexual marriage are

doing so more out of deep religious conviction than out of simple distaste

for it. <<

Even if that were completely true (and I think it's only partly true), I

wasn't talking about the leaders. I was talking about all the people who say

they support equal rights for lesbians and gay men but don't feel that same sex

couples should get MARRIED or call it " marriage. " Like Bill Clinton or Arnold

Schwartzenegger or Dean or whoever, who say they dont' support gay

marriage but do support civil unions. What else is that but " the ick factor " ?

Sure, televangelists and the pope don't want my country letting me get married

due to their religious beliefs. They are entitled to believe whatever they want,

but I don't think my rights should be conditioned on fitting in with someone's

religious beliefs. And they wouldn't be, IMO, if not for the " ick factor. "

Christie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was on my own at 16, so I did gain an incredible amount of maturity that

year, but it was not complete until I was 20. I had adult sexual partners as

a teenager, and, though techinically " statuotory rape " , for anyone who

actually has been raped(sex without consent) there is no comparison between

the two. I cannot comprehend how adults found me attractive, as even 20 year

olds are " kids " to me now, at the grand ole age of 25 :), but as I was fully

aware of wha I was doing, I do not resent them or believe I was " raped " or

corrupted. I was experimenting and it was my choice, much like smoking and

drinking and many other not so healthy things.

I don't think IQ has much to do with it because sometimes the smartest

people make the dumbest decisions. Also, smart kids are often emotionally

immature in comparison to their intellect.

I think the age/sexual maturity issue is cultural as well as physical.

take care. still scattered

Michele

>From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

>Reply-

>

>Subject: Re: re: Disurbing article

>Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 15:50:03 EST

>

>In a message dated 2/13/04 3:38:40 PM Eastern Standard Time,

>jaltak@... writes:

>

> > Maybe not at the 20th birthday, but definitely between the 16th and 17th

> > birthdays.

>

>No, quite definitely not. Even if this change were punctuated rather than

>gradual, it is not even possible to occur within the same year for every

>individual.

>

> >

> > I work at the Job Corps Center in Grand Rapids, MI for nearly seven

>years.

> > The youngest a teenager was allowed in was 16. It was too young. But we

>had

> > to take them as that is the age they are allowed to drop out of school.

> >

> > The mental difference between a 16 year old and a 17 year old is

> > unbelievable! In that one year they gain a tremendous amount of

>maturity.

>

>Since it is established and accepted that such a thing as an intelligence

>quotient exists, it is simply impossible that every 16 year old has

>equivalent

>mental capacity.

>

>A 16 year old with an IQ of 150 clearly has a higher mental capacity than a

>17 year old with an IQ of 100, or a 20 year old with an IQ of 100, for that

>matter.

>

>Chris

>

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>> Hi, I have been reading some of the posts regarding gay marriage and I wanted

to know what civil union is. Isn't that the same as being married by a Justice

of the Peace? <<

A " civil union " or " domestic partnership " is a specific set of STATE (or perhaps

even city or county) rights being given to the couple. No federal rights

accompany it, and it is not legally the same as marriage. It is not the same as

being married by a Justice of the Peace. Personally, I think that all unions

should be civil unions, and marriages should be religious ceremonies. I used to

live in Italy, and couples had to be married twice, once at City Hall and once

by a priest. That sounds fine to me. I don't quite understand what the

government is doing in the marriage business anyway.

>> I thought the reason a lot of politians don't support gay marriage is they

want to keep separate, religion and state. Can any church marry gay couples if

they want? <<

Yes, but it's not legally recognized, whereas marriages churches performs for

heterosexual couples are. And that legal recognition brings with it the force of

over a thousand federal, and hundreds of state, laws, including the right to

visit your spouse in the hospital, the right to make medical decisions, and the

right to inherit from them if they die intestate.

Christie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I for one am against any discrimination towards a person because they are gay. I

really thought that this was changed in the past. I get so disturbed by what is

going on in the country I don't listen to the news much. I run screaming when

Bush gives a speech. Sorry to those of you who are Republicans.

SheilaN

Maybe there should be some kind of place that people could click on and send a

letter to their Congressman or whatever to state their desires to have this law

changed.

SheilaN

Re: re: Disurbing article

>> Hi, I have been reading some of the posts regarding gay marriage and I

wanted to know what civil union is. Isn't that the same as being married by a

Justice of the Peace? <<

A " civil union " or " domestic partnership " is a specific set of STATE (or

perhaps even city or county) rights being given to the couple. No federal rights

accompany it, and it is not legally the same as marriage. It is not the same as

being married by a Justice of the Peace. Personally, I think that all unions

should be civil unions, and marriages should be religious ceremonies. I used to

live in Italy, and couples had to be married twice, once at City Hall and once

by a priest. That sounds fine to me. I don't quite understand what the

government is doing in the marriage business anyway.

>> I thought the reason a lot of politians don't support gay marriage is they

want to keep separate, religion and state. Can any church marry gay couples if

they want? <<

Yes, but it's not legally recognized, whereas marriages churches performs for

heterosexual couples are. And that legal recognition brings with it the force of

over a thousand federal, and hundreds of state, laws, including the right to

visit your spouse in the hospital, the right to make medical decisions, and the

right to inherit from them if they die intestate.

Christie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

--- < Re: re: Disurbing article

>

> >> NAMBLA is political that's why you hear about them. <<

>

> > For the Bible Tells Me So

>

> <><>><><><><><>><Homosexuality is just a sin. We're all sinners.

Turn away from the sin, ask God's forgiveness, believe in Christ's

birth, death and resurrection and know Jesus as saviour. Live in

eternity forever. It isn't necessarily easy on planet earth, But with

God all things are possible. Dennis>

There's no doubt that much opposition to same-sex marriage is based on

> religious belief. Religious opposition to same-sex marriage is

perfectly

> valid. No law could ever force a religion to perform same-sex

marriages, but

> is it compatible with the Constitution for legal marriage to be

denied to

> couples of the same gender based on the religious beliefs of other

citizens?

>

>

>

>

> Civil Rights

>

>

>

> Same-sex marriage is fundamentally about civil rights, and the law

doesn't

> have to ask if those rights make one group uncomfortable. It

doesn't matter

> that large groups of people, even a majority, might oppose those

rights;

> civil rights don't vest by " majority rule " or popular opinion.

>

>

>

> And perhaps the most pertinent question of all: Is personal

repugnance. the

> " ick " factor. sufficient to allow a powerful majority to oppose the

rights

> of a despised minority, while holding onto those rights for itself?

>

> Christie

>

>

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that's exactly the reason I no longer walk a Bible-based path.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

From: dkemnitz2000 [mailto:dkemnitz2000@...]

> > For the Bible Tells Me So

>

> <><>><><><><><>><Homosexuality is just a sin. We're all sinners.

Turn away from the sin, ask God's forgiveness, believe in Christ's

birth, death and resurrection and know Jesus as saviour. Live in

eternity forever. It isn't necessarily easy on planet earth, But with

God all things are possible. Dennis>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

---Someone mentioned the 60's in this thread and it seems there was

an appropriate saying then: Keep the faith, baby! Dennis

In , " Judith Alta " <jaltak@v...>

wrote:

> And that's exactly the reason I no longer walk a Bible-based path.

>

> Judith Alta

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: dkemnitz2000 [mailto:dkemnitz2000@y...]

>

> > > For the Bible Tells Me So

> >

> > <><>><><><><><>><Homosexuality is just a sin. We're all sinners.

> Turn away from the sin, ask God's forgiveness, believe in Christ's

> birth, death and resurrection and know Jesus as saviour. Live in

> eternity forever. It isn't necessarily easy on planet earth, But

with

> God all things are possible. Dennis>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-

>It's not really true that the state's refusal to recognize homosexual

>marriage amounts to creating second-class citizens. You have as much right

>as anyone else to get married, subject to exactly the same restrictions as

>anyone else--namely that you may marry at most one person, and that that

>person must be of the opposite sex.

>

>This isn't about whether homosexuals have the right to do what any

>heterosexual person can do--rather, it's about whether they have the right

>to do what no heterosexual person can do. The fact that you would prefer to

>marry another woman does not make you a second-class citizen any more than

>the desire to marry two men would make you a second-class citizen.

This is a classic example of a conclusion depending entirely on the

definitions used in an argument.

Say for the sake of illustration that you have a society of two species,

rabbits and wolves. For simplicity's sake, say each species requires and

can only eat one food, carrots for the rabbits and sheep for the

wolves. Since plant-eaters tend to outnumber animal-eaters, the rabbits

might try to democratically establish a law sanctifying the consumption of

carrots and banning the killing and eating of sheep, and they could use

exactly your logic, saying to the wolves, " You have as much right as any

other citizen of our society to eat, subject to exactly the same

restriction as anyone else, including all of us rabbits -- namely that you

eat only carrots, and never sheep " . The rabbits might further argue that

" This isn't about the right of wolves to do what any citizen can do --

rather, it's about whether they have the right to do what no citizen can do " .

Technically, of course, those arguments are correct, but they are not

accurate in any meaningful sense. The much more meaningful definition of

rights equivalency would be the right of each individual to eat nourishing,

necessary food -- the nature and source of which is dependent on the

physiology of the individual. Getting back to gay marriage, your three-way

example is not relevant. Straight people have the right to enter into

monogamous marriages with members of the sexes they desire. Genuine,

meaningful equivalency for gay people would entail allowing them too to

enter into monogamous marriages with members of the sexes they desire.

-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And exactly why I never walked it. I believe there is energy which gives

life and keeps it all going. I believe that energy is inherently positive,

love energy, if you will. Love is unconditional, so all that judgement going

on in many organized religions is human to human, nothing more. I don't

believe in heaven, hell, or that there is a plan. I make my own decisions,

live my life according to a basic sense of right and wrong.

Saying " we're all sinners " is just an excuse to screw up, IMO. I don't need

a saviour, if need be, I'll save myself. With belief in love, my own

strength, and a confident, positive outlook on life, alll things are

possible. When I know what I want, the path clears for me. I don't need a

book to give me direction.

Love is right. Punishing or denying rights to people based on who they love

is wrong.

Best wishes to all,

Michele

>From: " Judith Alta " <jaltak@...>

>Reply-

>< >

>Subject: RE: re: Disurbing article

>Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 23:19:23 -0500

>

>And that's exactly the reason I no longer walk a Bible-based path.

>

>Judith Alta

>

>-----Original Message-----

>From: dkemnitz2000 [mailto:dkemnitz2000@...]

>

> > > For the Bible Tells Me So

> >

> > <><>><><><><><>><Homosexuality is just a sin. We're all sinners.

>Turn away from the sin, ask God's forgiveness, believe in Christ's

>birth, death and resurrection and know Jesus as saviour. Live in

>eternity forever. It isn't necessarily easy on planet earth, But with

>God all things are possible. Dennis>

>

>

>

_________________________________________________________________

Plan your next US getaway to one of the super destinations here.

http://special.msn.com/local/hotdestinations.armx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What isn't to say someone on jesus's table was not gay?

Todays religion imho is just a much filtered version of something that

happened A long time ago.

Kinda like you know when you whisper something in some ones ear and by time

it gets back to you its changed to the way people on the line wanted to

alter it themselves.

Perhaps someone somewhere in the bible timeline was a homophobe?

Like GW bush?

_____

From: dkemnitz2000 [mailto:dkemnitz2000@...]

Sent: Saturday, 14 February 2004 2:13 PM

Subject: Re: re: Disurbing article

--- < Re: re: Disurbing article

>

> >> NAMBLA is political that's why you hear about them. <<

>

> > For the Bible Tells Me So

>

> <><>><><><><><>><Homosexuality is just a sin. We're all sinners.

Turn away from the sin, ask God's forgiveness, believe in Christ's

birth, death and resurrection and know Jesus as saviour. Live in

eternity forever. It isn't necessarily easy on planet earth, But with

God all things are possible. Dennis>

There's no doubt that much opposition to same-sex marriage is based on

> religious belief. Religious opposition to same-sex marriage is

perfectly

> valid. No law could ever force a religion to perform same-sex

marriages, but

> is it compatible with the Constitution for legal marriage to be

denied to

> couples of the same gender based on the religious beliefs of other

citizens?

>

>

>

>

> Civil Rights

>

>

>

> Same-sex marriage is fundamentally about civil rights, and the law

doesn't

> have to ask if those rights make one group uncomfortable. It

doesn't matter

> that large groups of people, even a majority, might oppose those

rights;

> civil rights don't vest by " majority rule " or popular opinion.

>

>

>

> And perhaps the most pertinent question of all: Is personal

repugnance. the

> " ick " factor. sufficient to allow a powerful majority to oppose the

rights

> of a despised minority, while holding onto those rights for itself?

>

> Christie

>

>

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not religious on any level.

What I do believe is if there is a god he would not want us spending so much

time " worshiping him "

eating fake crackers at church and red cordial ( WINE )

He would want us to make the most of the time and LIVE.

But ppl think im a nut so hey :-)

_____

From: the scorpio [mailto:rawbabymama@...]

Sent: Saturday, 14 February 2004 2:46 PM

Subject: RE: re: Disurbing article

And exactly why I never walked it. I believe there is energy which gives

life and keeps it all going. I believe that energy is inherently positive,

love energy, if you will. Love is unconditional, so all that judgement going

on in many organized religions is human to human, nothing more. I don't

believe in heaven, hell, or that there is a plan. I make my own decisions,

live my life according to a basic sense of right and wrong.

Saying " we're all sinners " is just an excuse to screw up, IMO. I don't need

a saviour, if need be, I'll save myself. With belief in love, my own

strength, and a confident, positive outlook on life, alll things are

possible. When I know what I want, the path clears for me. I don't need a

book to give me direction.

Love is right. Punishing or denying rights to people based on who they love

is wrong.

Best wishes to all,

Michele

>From: " Judith Alta " <jaltak@...>

>Reply-

>< >

>Subject: RE: re: Disurbing article

>Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 23:19:23 -0500

>

>And that's exactly the reason I no longer walk a Bible-based path.

>

>Judith Alta

>

>-----Original Message-----

>From: dkemnitz2000 [mailto:dkemnitz2000@...]

>

> > > For the Bible Tells Me So

> >

> > <><>><><><><><>><Homosexuality is just a sin. We're all sinners.

>Turn away from the sin, ask God's forgiveness, believe in Christ's

>birth, death and resurrection and know Jesus as saviour. Live in

>eternity forever. It isn't necessarily easy on planet earth, But with

>God all things are possible. Dennis>

>

>

>

_________________________________________________________________

Plan your next US getaway to one of the super destinations here.

http://special.msn.com/local/hotdestinations.armx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>I'm not religious on any level.

>What I do believe is if there is a god he would not want us spending so

>much

>time " worshiping him "

>eating fake crackers at church and red cordial ( WINE )

>He would want us to make the most of the time and LIVE.

Very well said!

>But ppl think im a nut so hey :-)

Sometimes you feel like a nut.

:)

Michele

>

_________________________________________________________________

Check out the great features of the new MSN 9 Dial-up, with the MSN Dial-up

Accelerator. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>I'm not religious on any level.

>What I do believe is if there is a god he would not want us spending so

>much

>time " worshiping him "

>eating fake crackers at church and red cordial ( WINE )

>He would want us to make the most of the time and LIVE.

Very well said!

>But ppl think im a nut so hey :-)

Sometimes you feel like a nut.

:)

Michele

>

_________________________________________________________________

Check out the great features of the new MSN 9 Dial-up, with the MSN Dial-up

Accelerator. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>It is not the same as being married by a Justice of the Peace. Personally, I

think that all unions should be civil unions, and marriages should be religious

ceremonies.

Actually, I'd go a step further and allow " civil unions " for any group that

wants to make them -- it would be a set of rights etc. that are now found for

" marriage " , but you could form such a union with your sister or anyone else that

you might be living with long term ... it would not say anything about sexual

activity or lack thereof, just that you are sharing your financial and emotional

lives.

-- Heidi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...