Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » World Watch » Will same sex marriage really hurt anybody? (Page 8)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   
Author Topic: Will same sex marriage really hurt anybody?
stayne
Member
Member # 1944

 - posted      Profile for stayne   Email stayne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
(chuckle) Ok, fair enough. But let's suppose for the moment that the person answering the question doesn't believe in God.
Posts: 594 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
roper66
Member
Member # 2694

 - posted      Profile for roper66   Email roper66   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Part of the Abrahamic covenant is that Abraham's posterity would be numbered as the stars of the heavens or the sands of the sea. Any practice contrary to that (homosexual union--not producing posterity) would be in direct conflict. Societies that allowed homosexuality (Sodom and Gomorrah in the Hebrew bible) were worthy of destruction lest they intermingled with the posterity of Abraham.

That's one possible answer. I'm sure there are others.

It's also the biblical justification for polygamy--wives and concubines--to "raise up seed unto the Lord."

Posts: 173 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kuato
Member
Member # 6445

 - posted      Profile for Kuato   Email Kuato       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
roper,

I've re-read the S/G text, and I'm convinced that the sin in question was rape. In fact, I think it was Rape Of Strangers.

Christ himself was never so cruel to anyone- prostitutes or serial adulteresses- and so I tend to think the texts on homosexuality are mostly Law-Of-Moses-Civil-Law-Comingling and Paul-Has-A-Problem derived.

Posts: 1038 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
IRRC, the position of the Anglican church on S/G is the Rape deal, specifically concerned with the violation of guest rights.

A Unitarian suggested that the ban on sex between men was actually purely focused at eliminating dominance rapes after instances of conflict, but I'm in no position to evaluate that claim.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Noble Hunter/Kuato expresses my understanding of why the Sodom event was frowned on.

And Lord did Paul ever have a problem.

But then, JC checked out to do that magical salvation deal, leaving it to Paul, a known (if brilliant) lunatic.

Sidetrack: I ponder how the early Xtians had no Bible, and how modern Xtians profess that the Bible (with or without additions like the Book of Mormon and a bit of prophecy tossed in) are all they truly have.

What did the early Xtians have?

best we can tell, a few very simple messages and... voila! : EACH OTHER

When modern Xtians figure this out, they might resume some kind of happy pilgrim's progress toward their natural and supernatural goals.

But so long as they stress Duh Beyeball, they will grow increasingly lunatic.

Thus sayeth Mammoth Priest.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sky
Member
Member # 6452

 - posted      Profile for Sky   Email Sky       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Enigma:

PM Brown is calling for the elimination of royal agnatic primogeniture (thus the 1st born of William would become heir regardless of sex).(I know a Swedish guy who actually fled Sweden when a similar law went into effect there.)

A gay group in UK wants to formalize the right of a gay heir in Britain to have a same-sex consort with all the rights and dignities attending a consort.

Is this the end of the monarchy as we've known and loved it since 1776? or should we ask Athelstane?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1165589/Rights-group-wants-deal-allow-Royal-gay-couple-civil-partnership.html

Posts: 72 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kuato
Member
Member # 6445

 - posted      Profile for Kuato   Email Kuato       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*lost*

does this mean William's gay?

Posts: 1038 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Till he got married, I would have suspected Prince Edward.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scouser1
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
REVOLUTION REVOLUION REVOLUTION!!!!

All they do is sponge of our taxes to keep them in Palaces, they are USELESS!
Plus all the best ones are dead. We're left with her and her dogs (and the corgi's ;)keke)
She thinks she has control, but they've just been telling her that she has for years, she aint really.

[ May 06, 2009, 01:17 PM: Message edited by: scouser1 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kuato
Member
Member # 6445

 - posted      Profile for Kuato   Email Kuato       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Is anyone smiling a little today, just because.... with the latest announcement from Maine isn't it amusing to thing that....

.....God has interesting plans?

Think: the narrow-er minded Mormon leadership opposed same sex marriage in CA on the basis that if a stand was not taken there, "it" (the word was deliberately vague, in my opinion) would, "spread across the country."

Now, I see many more states on the side of providing equal protection for all....

I can't help but notice that "good" is winning, in spite of the Mormons' specific intention.

If the Mormons hadn't manipulated the system with their influence (and, who can be sure it wouldn't have passed) but the fact is, oppression of one group by another group became headlines, as well such a thing should when it ever appears.

Consciousness resulted.

Protection is spreading.

I'm pretty darn pleased.

[ May 06, 2009, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: Kuato ]

Posts: 1038 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Athelstan
Member
Member # 2566

 - posted      Profile for Athelstan   Email Athelstan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
or should we ask Athelstane
Now this is really spooky because the only other person to put an e on the end of Athelstan was Richard Dey.

God Save the Queen, whoever he may be. There is precedent for joint monarchs with the reign of William and Mary in 1689 so I see no reason against a future reign of Daffyd and Daffyd.

Posts: 715 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sky
Member
Member # 6452

 - posted      Profile for Sky   Email Sky       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I did read Ivanhoe!

And such a fitting inference: William III and Mary II -- both gay! Wm III and Bentinck, and wasn't it Mary who had a torrid affair with Sarah Churchill?

I must say, Scouser, tourism to UK would plummet w/o the monarchy. More than half of us in the colonies are cousins to those pigs in a poke -- as are all the British and 99% of the Irish. Without somebody to wear the crown, it's just another hat at Hatrack.

The only rumors of the 'presents' I know about are Philip (who was as wild and crazy as Lord Louis), and Prince Edward (who was denied a dukedom because he was a flit who lightly embarrassed the family. Otherwise, they seem shockingly bourgeois to me.

I do agree with Charley, however, on architecture -- and I think his new town (Poundbury) is a step in the right direction -- backwards! I would have preferred more underground, but it's well thought out, it is practical, it is popular with residents, and however ersatz the architecture, it isn't the eyesore that most council housing is in the UK.

As you may not remember, I support an Anglophonic union in lieu of the EU -- even to allowing a nominal monarchy just for ceremonial purposes. Moreover, I am a parliamentarian in lieu of direct democracy; I am opposed to fixed terms of representation; and I am thoroughly in favor of the threat of being sent to the block for malfeasance, infidelilty, and religiosity -- so long as it is not used as a shortcut to divorce.

In short, the British Empire gave us both Churchill and Col. Blimp, but w/o vestiges of it, we Anglophones would be treated like Frenchmen around the world -- empty suits. You know, no matter how preposterous imperialism is, it is intimidating. The tourist in India doesn't quake at the memory of Babur, Ranjit Singh, and Lord Louis (all gay btw), but one respects the power that they represented. That 'respect' (and that's not likely the right word) transfers to contemporary ambiance.

Britain would squander its imperial past when, in fact, who would bother to do business with the UK today if it weren't for the Old Lady of Threadneedle? It would just be the old crank of social democracy.

Even Yankees, who detest France, do business with it -- in part because Napoleon and Louis XIV were worthy adversaries.

Empire (and one includes the US and Canada) backs up credit (monetary, academic, even scientific credit).

What people like least about dismantling the imperium is its fugging lack of humor. Empire allows people to make fun of themselves. That was the British Empire's greatest gift to humanity. Ranjit Singh made that comment. If it took itself too seriously, he said, his own empire would crumble. It got serious, and it collapsed.

I've looked, and the tours to open-door Russia these days offer none to tour housing projects. Everybody wants to see the palaces. There's a tour of 'estate housing' in London, and you have to walk unarmed in the East End -- winding up at Canary Wharf [Razz] .

Besides! There's a great advantage to dead empires; you can obtain vaccines for arrivistism from them.

And would you be so kind as to move that horrid ferris wheel from in front of Westminster Palace? As Churchill would have put it, It's giving imperialism a bad name.

Pay your taxes, curtsey to the Queen -- and amuse the world. That's the whole purpose of Britain. Monarchy is a genre of entertainment, and don't let your monarchy fall into the trap of mere celebrity. It's tawdry.

Posts: 72 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Athelstan
Member
Member # 2566

 - posted      Profile for Athelstan   Email Athelstan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sky

I’m sure you know that Ivanhoe has nothing to do with history so I tend to ignore it. Walter Scott eat your heart out. The whole Saxon and Norman thing is plain wrong. The people that stood and fought on that ridge at Battle were English and had been for quite awhile. It is thought by some, or just me, that the Norman invaders quickly meddled into the local population albeit at the top of the social scale. Norman numbers were far too few to make any real difference to the make up of the population. In a couple of generations the nobility were trying to prove their noble English roots hence the name Hereward the Wake. There is no real proof that Hereward had any connection with the Wake family but they claimed him anyway. If I could show Hereward was gay I might stand a chance of not being booted out of this thread.

With you most of the way on your take on the Royals but would have to disagree with Napoleon and Louis XIV being worthy adversaries. I thought Americans just bought land from Napoleon and would have probably never heard of Louis XIV being so oppressed as they were.

As for that marvellous tourist attraction the London Eye all I can think is that you have never been up in it and seen the view. Definitely a better show than anything Michael Jackson may put on in London this year. Neat touch there I thought mentioning Michael Jackson in a SSM thread.

Posts: 715 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kuato
Member
Member # 6445

 - posted      Profile for Kuato   Email Kuato       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Is Gay is as Gay Does or as Gay Thinks?
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rallan
Member
Member # 1936

 - posted      Profile for Rallan   Email Rallan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kuato:
Is Gay is as Gay Does or as Gay Thinks?

Gay is as gay thinks. Otherwise half the population would be gay thanks to that one time back in college when they got reeeeeally wasted with a friend of theirs.
Posts: 2570 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
False dichotomy, munga mah luv. Same one drawn between Sartre and Nietzche, if one substitutes 'be' for "do" and 'do' for "think".

Very little, if anything, in human experience is strictly phenomenological or noumenal.

This the koan: what is the sound of one hand clapping?

It takes two, BABY Singing a song like this.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The last song segues live into this:

which I think says it all and all that must be said.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Ferris Wheel may make for a great view, but it is tacky.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
'he Ferris Wheel may make for a great view, but it is tacky."

And therefore so poetically apt...

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
larney41
New Member
Member # 2478

 - posted      Profile for larney41   Email larney41       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In my experience i find that conservatives that are so against gay marriage are pretty amusing, hypocritically. They are the sorts that are always up in arms when the government wants to know their business. But they care about 2 people of the same sex getting married. See, funny.
Posts: 4 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kuato
Member
Member # 6445

 - posted      Profile for Kuato   Email Kuato       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yep, but they *could* not possibly be inconsistent.

Just like the same people who oppose abortion, are also willing to call others "illegal."

Posts: 1038 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
'Just like the same people who oppose abortion, are also willing to call others "illegal.""

Wow. Nailed it. Awestruck, I am.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There goes the (wait for it) Neig... borhood.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The guy (the groom, I think is the term, an interestingly husbandry-ish term) calls himself Jim West, but certainly no slight is intended against Washington's former legislator and former Spokane mayor who consistently voted against many gay rights but was ousted when it was discovered he had sex w/men w/out offering goats to their father?!?
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1