gay marriage in the US

[TitoFan]

I'm against it.
Next topic...

[SlimTrae]

It is a sin to use contraception. Spreading that belief in an already over populated third world country is pretty dangerous. In the Catholic Church though you get sainted for it.

Yes, and can you imagine the impact this had on the spread of AIDs in African countries?
AIDs broke out in several countries at the same time --with different strains. HTVLI,II, III for example. Same time there- in America the strand were found in white gay men early 1970's surely they didn't infect Africa. Since it is retro active virus -this suggests that a condom cant stop it-as the molecular size and structure -would allow it to go straight through the latex- the condom is a myth- it can stop STD's but not the virus, AIDS which can succumb to HIV

These people should be strung up!

In Africa some tribes believed (through their by stopping them breading they didn't believe us about aids till it was way too late.

This comes from the teachings of the last great leader known as Queen Ndongo or Queen Ann.

She devoted her life to resettling those who fled slavery that was sweeping across the continent
She allowed women to bear girls without consequence or gender bias. As a result she fought wars with the slave captors- personally going into battle- as a result of victories -:she began settlements, trading posts, education- as she learned to read & write. Warning that this can only exist -so as long as we have no contact with these white skinned peoples.
Stay with me...close to my point!
Her greatest legacy:

Her meeting with The Portuguese governor João Correia de Sousa, who did not offer a chair to sit , instead, had placed a floor mat for her to sit on the ground, . As told today by the Italian priest Cavazzi and written in his book of 1687: unwilling to be degraded- she ordered one of her servants to get down on the ground and sat on the servant's back during negotiations. By doing this, she asserted her status was equal to the governor.

Queen of Andongo" Ndongo her name: (rainha de Andongo), was offered a chance to speak with the Portugeese leader---who didn't honor their contract (to not take their land or enslave their people)

-even though she took their Christian name (Ann & became a Christian) --( -- in 1646, Queen Ndongo went to war & defeated the Portuguese - in what they deemed as the most humiliating defeat. She devoted her efforts to resettling former slaves and allowing women to bear children. The people adored her.

Then the sharmans of one massive tribe the Zulu told the infected they could rid themselves of it by taking a virgin. Fucking dreadful chain of events for the rural area slums below Johannesburg, rape of little babies even,the place is a mess below the mess you get to see on film.

Ann aka Queen Ndongo was successful in uniting various tribes that had succumbed to fleeing their lands as to not be made captive. Her tribe not only grew in numbers, but in strength- she stated to her tribe- allowing these white men to enter our land- after I have disposed of them, will surely bring death to us. They seek to take our land, our resources, enslave our men, rape our women and then indoctrinate us into a religion that offers no peace on earth.

My point: Where she ruled- became the last solace for Africans- where they had civility aka civilized people- So as long as they kept these white skinned men away- they had peace.
She did the opposite of the natives in America: not knowing how to stop these men with sticks of thunder (guns) ..not knowing which side to take- some natives sided with France, others with Spain, others with Britian..then having their contracts not honored- was what Ann prevented in her land.

When she died, those who succeeded her- allowed whites to come in as missionaries- they were followed by centurions claiming to protect them. Followed by militia- Those who stayed would be the ones apart of the global slave trade- The ports were where there were civilized people- are the remnants of her tribal people. Contrary to Christians, Europeans, the slaves taken were civilized, not savage. It is stupid to think a savage would succumb to anything; savages are incapable of that.

Those who ran away- had no land, resources, succumbing to survival in the swamps producing the very African savages U see today.

These fleeing Africans- produced one who became known to us as Shaka Zulu- he grew up hearing how these white skinned men brought death to us- so when U type sharmans etc that it was the whites trying to take over

is the result of Ndongo's words coming to fruition. In fact today there are many tribes who wont take medicine that can cure them because they fear the vaccines also brings death-another means to wipe them out. Ndongo preached that & to this day those tribes who don't use her name, have heard her plea through their leaders aka charmins.



The taking of virgins are concepts conceived out of ignorant people who became savage due to no stable land they could maintain- nomadic, nutrition deficient, no education, only the strong survives in these predicaments. AKA Shaka.

[Andre]

The shaman in some of the poorer areas these days run on anti love. They have zero real compassion or love for their fellow men or women. They run on greed and power unfortunately the children pay the highest price.You can blame culture and history for some things but at the end of the day if you are teaching a pack of grown men to go out and rape a baby girl you are an evil cunt and drive power from it by telling payees they can be cured by following their animal instincts.

[SlimTrae]

I agree Andre. Sad, but oh, so true.

[SlimTrae]

“Once a society moves in that direction, the vitality goes out of that society.”

President Nixon on homosexuality.

Nixon on gays in history aka Ancient Greeks and Romans:

“You ever see what happened, you know what happened to the Greeks? Homosexuality destroyed them. Aristotle was a homo, we all know that. So was Socrates… Do you know what happened to the Romans? The last six Roman emperors were fags.”



Gay marriage instituted by President Obama is the downgrading of a moral society.
The powers to the left- high jacked Martin Luther King Jr's civil rights movement & has used this current POTUS to push their agenda to turn us into an Androgynous nation that proudly boasts same sex marriage.

This is not what the founder of the civil rights movement pushed: MLK Jr. fought to bring about a moral change in an America that produced and bore racism, bigotry, bias & prejudice. He didn't fight for a gay to get married, rather he fought that one wouldn't judge them by their sexuality, or by the skin color- rather if one must judge: then judge by the context of their character.

Now that gays infiltrated the movement of civility & turned it into a pro-gay agenda- America has placed herself in the same position that President Nixon pointed out in the ancient worlds. -

Where boys & men were apart of erasths and eromenos : Adolescent boys in a love relationship with an adult man. A place & time when it was a shame & insult if a young boy did not have an erasths.

Back then; such societies also practiced abortion- They called it child sacrifice- especially if a woman became pregnant & the child was not wanted by that man- they sacrificed it. Same today in America. If a woman has a baby, but feels it would interfere with her career- then she (sacrifices) the child for her, uh; Career
The Bible not only speaks on homosexuality it also addressed an unborn child - where it said (and you knit me from my mothers womb, with my unformed body)
Sounds like a fetus to me.

So this is cyclical behavior in societies on their way down...down.
From Crete, to Athens to Appolon way back to Macedonia- Homosexuality coincided with culture and education. Aborting/sacrificing babies occurred in religious rituals.

America is simply the next great nation in line to succumb to such ideas and practices: Hurts me to say President Obama is complicit with the demoralization of our society.

Gay marriage is not right. No life can come from two of the same sex. And now that we have complied- our television, cable has inundated the airwaves with ideas planted and rooted into the mind of our next generation: that homosexuality is the result of normal behavior & aborting babies is common practice.

[Andre]

I agree Andre. Sad, but oh, so true.

You should see their security and justice system at work in the rural shanty towns,they are one and the same and run from someone who has power within and has a shaman of sorts next to them. The police dont want in and don't go into those areas.They only swoop on young men when people step out of those places and try for the so called real world and passing roads,that tourism sees. Their women with handy crafts and basic produce are a touch freer to move around in that way. There is no government assistance in south Africa at all, either you work or you dont.

[Beanz]

“Once a society moves in that direction, the vitality goes out of that society.”

President Nixon on homosexuality.

Nixon on gays in history aka Ancient Greeks and Romans:

“You ever see what happened, you know what happened to the Greeks? Homosexuality destroyed them. Aristotle was a homo, we all know that. So was Socrates… Do you know what happened to the Romans? The last six Roman emperors were fags.”



Gay marriage instituted by President Obama is the downgrading of a moral society.
The powers to the left- high jacked Martin Luther King Jr's civil rights movement & has used this current POTUS to push their agenda to turn us into an Androgynous nation that proudly boasts same sex marriage.

This is not what the founder of the civil rights movement pushed: MLK Jr. fought to bring about a moral change in an America that produced and bore racism, bigotry, bias & prejudice. He didn't fight for a gay to get married, rather he fought that one wouldn't judge them by their sexuality, or by the skin color- rather if one must judge: then judge by the context of their character.

Now that gays infiltrated the movement of civility & turned it into a pro-gay agenda- America has placed herself in the same position that President Nixon pointed out in the ancient worlds. -

Where boys & men were apart of erasths and eromenos : Adolescent boys in a love relationship with an adult man. A place & time when it was a shame & insult if a young boy did not have an erasths.

Back then; such societies also practiced abortion- They called it child sacrifice- especially if a woman became pregnant & the child was not wanted by that man- they sacrificed it. Same today in America. If a woman has a baby, but feels it would interfere with her career- then she (sacrifices) the child for her, uh; Career
The Bible not only speaks on homosexuality it also addressed an unborn child - where it said (and you knit me from my mothers womb, with my unformed body)
Sounds like a fetus to me.

So this is cyclical behavior in societies on their way down...down.
From Crete, to Athens to Appolon way back to Macedonia- Homosexuality coincided with culture and education. Aborting/sacrificing babies occurred in religious rituals.

America is simply the next great nation in line to succumb to such ideas and practices: Hurts me to say President Obama is complicit with the demoralization of our society.

Gay marriage is not right. No life can come from two of the same sex. And now that we have complied- our television, cable has inundated the airwaves with ideas planted and rooted into the mind of our next generation: that homosexuality is the result of normal behavior & aborting babies is common practice.

If you are going to take President Nixon as some kind of Moral compass and his words as axioms of truth then you really are scrabbling in the dirt. Your whole argument is a ludicrous bit of self back patting dressed up as intelligent debate. I like you, and think that you have brought some great levity to debates here at the Saddo table, but this post is mostly hokum and popcorn.

"President Obama is complicit with the demoralization of our society" . As though it were somehow a paragon of virtue before ? The bloke is a fall guy like all the presidents before him and whilst I agree with your assertion that the hijacking of the civil rights agenda by those seeking to equate gay rights with those of black people is a fuzzy mess, that is not the same as forcing America to become complicit in immorality.

To over simplify abortion and insert a connection with child sacrifice, which clearly does not exist, merely cheapens your argument. If you want to pick and choose from the Bible to justify your position then you must necessarily take the whole and apply that to your life, where you will soon find it impossible to live by principles and precepts of power hungry and often ignorant men, who got to invent history on their own loony terms.


"America is simply the next great nation in line to succumb to such ideas and practices"

Really ? I can't say I am a huge fan of your culture and the nefarious way it has been imported into homes around the world via television etc, and thereby led to a dumbing down of youth and indigenous cultures, but even I would have to admit that child sacrifice is not really jumping out as the next logical step in that exposition of ideas.

You yourself being more informed and intelligent than Nixon are aware of the nature of the sexual practices of Greek culture, and so have already admitted that this is not same as homosexual relationships between consenting adults today. How you can then suggest that one follows another is curiously an extension of the same Greek thinking yourself. The slavish adherence to logical sequences in which one thing always necessarily begets the other, is how both of us in the west were taught to reason. It doesn't work backwards though and even forwards is often flawed and there lies the flaw in democracy. We can logically weigh up the options and still vote for the wrong person. Not just because of the paucity of decent candidates, but because the system supports a reinforcement of the system itself, even in a Republic like yours.

That said the right for somebody to marry is now being tied up in your confused logic with the law to procreate, and believe me as a Jew who has refused to do this, I know how strong that Biblical admonition and pressure still reverberates through Christian, and even more through Hebrew culture. It's not really very useful now though is it ? We don't need to keep the human race going and my people have plenty of offspring, books, the internet, films etc to make sure that even a nomadic tribe can remember it' s ancestors and those things that make it unique.

So if Gay people want to get married then I am quite OK with that and have no need to link it with some conspiratorial descent into moral chaos like millennium cults and religions the world over would like you to believe.

I also don't believe in a gay gene or a race of people.

[walrus]

It is better to light a candle than curse the dark.

[Beanz]

It is better to light a candle than curse the dark.

All you could always use electricity and stick the candle up your arse ?

[SlimTrae]

“Once a society moves in that direction, the vitality goes out of that society.”

.

If you are going to take President Nixon as some kind of Moral compass and his words as axioms of truth then you really are scrabbling in the dirt. Your whole argument is a ludicrous bit of self back patting dressed up as intelligent debate. I like you, and think that you have brought some great levity to debates here at the Saddo table, but this post is mostly hokum and popcorn.

"President Obama is complicit with the demoralization of our society" .


"America is simply the next great nation in line to succumb to such ideas and practices"


So if Gay people want to get married then I am quite OK with that and have no need to link it with some conspiratorial descent into moral chaos like millennium cults and religions the world over would like you to believe.

I also don't believe in a gay gene or a race of people.

My bad for late reply-4got about this thread

1. I am not using Nixon as a moral compass, rather looking at a leader stating what occurs when nation's leaders indulge, promote or acquiesce to homosexual relations- to that your answer should have retorted or cited which nations that have homosexual leaders, lifestyle and they progressed as a nation. You didn't.

2. Rather; You took the road that insults my intellect. Trivial and the norm. [scrabbling in the dirt- your argument is ludicrous] Speak your peace & let your facts prove such.

As if you were correct- does that eliminate the point I raised? A leader asks-- be it Nixon or the Grand Pooh-bah at Fred Flintstone's Water Buffalo lodge: If a nation succumbs to homosexuality as the norm: Did they progress? or did the nation falter? I agree with Nixon's assessment: They failed.

Not that it (homosexuality) is the totality of why they failed- but a sign: that they are leaning...towards failure- What society accepts gays as the norm- and becomes better for it?

3. Copied here is an example of: self back patting dressed up as intelligent debate. You state:it were somehow a paragon of virtue before ?
My point here is to question- of the many times- Obama has been derided here: this is the time to say_ well it really aint his fault? He really is just a fall guy.

4. I argue: If he allows a law to deem same sex marriage- Why? Especially when we can read his book(s) before he became president. Was there a hint that these ideas rang with him? He was a grassroots community organizer- wouldn't thinkin' a darn thing about gay rights. Now he gets elected: I am supposed to believe that was his agenda from the getgo? Or was it some one else's? And as a bloke or fall guy- he became complicit in an agenda not even Bill Clinton got down with- He said don't ask don't tell and kicked that can to the next president.

5. So when you say: forcing America to become complicit in morality- Either I failed to clarify my point or U advertantly/ inadvertently misconstrued that point. Re-read what U wrote on the (fuzzy) line; you interwove 2 different paragraphs I wrote- Civil Rights was relative to the (vehicle) that Gay rights have used. Then U state: I agree with your assertion that the hijacking of the civil rights agenda by those seeking to equate gay rights with those of black people is a fuzzy mess
But that is not the same as forcing America to become complicit in immorality.

That sir: is oversimplifying. No one single thing can do that. I am raising this point; that if Gay marriage becomes a law- which can become the norm- is it an event that lowers or raises a nation's moral compass?
No one event forces America to be anything. However: this event will do something: force you someday to sit with a child, nephew, niece who kissed someone of the same sex and explain they saw it on t.v. they heard it on a song: I kissed a girl for the first time and I like it.
Kids will eat mud cake to try somn' new...

So the bashing continues next paragraph where U accuse me of oversimplifying abortion & state
and insert a connection with child sacrifice, which clearly does not exist,
You clearly took what I said out of context. I gave what I consider to be a definition of child sacrifice from a biblical standard and current.
If a mother aborts her child because she isn't ready well mr. Teach me..if she didn't sacrifice the baby for her career- then in that instance what did she do?

And as far as mentioning it briefly- I am alluding to what occurs with societys that practice homosexuality- U can find other shit that they do that's way out there. So why do I need to write a paragraph on child sacrifice to validate my point? And yes (it) does exist. googling child sacrifice brouht this:
5,880,000 results
So find a society that practice this- and they are considered a nation of moral beings?
If you don't like my choice of words, fine, then give me a better way to say what Conservatives say about abortion. What Christians throughout America say about it -including the Repubs running for POTUS- they aren't just against it- THEY claim these actions lead to other actions- actions of a society compromised in the moral judgment. Yet you deride me for my choice of words? Fine then give me the Conservative equivalent of why Liberals in America want abortion- and God is against it -I will use it.
Or- denounce them as well as my words.

Then U state: If you want to pick and choose from the Bible to justify your position then you must necessarily take the whole
Have you found where I dismissed one part of the Bible for another? If so, break it down. Otherwise don't preach in ambiguous terms to make it seem like I use the scriptures when I feel- get to the point of how the Bible deals with this topic. Don't ignore the book's idea about homosexuality- then at the end of your diatribe- u say U are a Jew. Is that why U deride me for using the Bible- on this topic. Side note- I have issues with Christianity-, not the Bible. Continue to denounce the book, not me<<<--- oops my bad U did when U stated : ignorant men, who got to invent history on their own loony terms.

You then copy me: "America is simply the next great nation in line to succumb to such ideas and practices"

And respond really. Uh, yeah really. Then state: you are not a huge fan of your (my) culture and the nefarious ...
What do U mean (MY) culture? television isn't exclusive its inclusive- whoever watches it, listens to radio- its (their) (our) culture. The FCC deems what is allowable- that is what creates (my) culture. Then U add on child sacrifice again. For what?
Then you state:You yourself being more informed and intelligent than Nixon This IMO is U just being sarcastic as hell and not even concerned with a logical dialogue between us. Its an insult laced diatribe meant to demean me with specifics, by proving it with ambiguous examples & mixing paragraphs up like U making gumbo soup.

U state one sentence that stood out as sensible and not derogatory: We can logically weigh up the options and still vote for the wrong person.
I totally agree with this assessment.
Fore me I'll let this quote answer that: : give me control of a nations money supply & I care not who makes it laws. Rothschild.

U state: That said the right for somebody to marry is now being tied up in your confused logic with the law to procreate,
Well we will have to agree to disagree. There is nothing logical about two dudes marrying each other. If so, then express it. If two of the opposite marry- there is something they can do to keep this world moving that two of the same cant do: procreate.

U state: believe me as a Jew who has refused to do this,
That is your right. I don't need to hurl insults to disagree with you or call your words as confused logic- your words speak for themselves. Just note: I could care less. REALLY I could care less if U are a Jew, Hindu, Budhist or a one-legged Pygmie. Titles don't faze me. Religious groups either. Its not the Jew in U ..that I take issue with- Its your argument. Its shallow, offensive and unnecessary.
Is that the Jew in you? Probably not. So I have answered your response the best I can and let it be known we are polar opposites for this topic.

I cited the Bible- because the words I copied dealt with issues that I find undeniable-
1. I know-- of no society in history that condoned homosexuality & lived & history called them a morally gr8 society.
2. The Bible for all its flaws- has yet to be proven wrong that procreation is done by the act of sex. A beautiful means of expression-some creator(s) gave us. And I have no need to justify that great feeling by sharing it with someone of the same sex.
WTF am I trying to prove? I am okay with gays being gay- having civil unions. But for a gay to get married? Why? if anything its a religious ritual.

[Bill Paxtom]

IF

Son > If there was only gay marriage and gay sex, where would all the little babies come from Daddy ?

Daddy > Ask your Mother.

[Beanz]

“Once a society moves in that direction, the vitality goes out of that society.”

.

If you are going to take President Nixon as some kind of Moral compass and his words as axioms of truth then you really are scrabbling in the dirt. Your whole argument is a ludicrous bit of self back patting dressed up as intelligent debate. I like you, and think that you have brought some great levity to debates here at the Saddo table, but this post is mostly hokum and popcorn.

"President Obama is complicit with the demoralization of our society" .


"America is simply the next great nation in line to succumb to such ideas and practices"


So if Gay people want to get married then I am quite OK with that and have no need to link it with some conspiratorial descent into moral chaos like millennium cults and religions the world over would like you to believe.

I also don't believe in a gay gene or a race of people.

My bad for late reply-4got about this thread

1. I am not using Nixon as a moral compass, rather looking at a leader stating what occurs when nation's leaders indulge, promote or acquiesce to homosexual relations- to that your answer should have retorted or cited which nations that have homosexual leaders, lifestyle and they progressed as a nation. You didn't.

2. Rather; You took the road that insults my intellect. Trivial and the norm. [scrabbling in the dirt- your argument is ludicrous] Speak your peace & let your facts prove such.

As if you were correct- does that eliminate the point I raised? A leader asks-- be it Nixon or the Grand Pooh-bah at Fred Flintstone's Water Buffalo lodge: If a nation succumbs to homosexuality as the norm: Did they progress? or did the nation falter? I agree with Nixon's assessment: They failed.

Not that it (homosexuality) is the totality of why they failed- but a sign: that they are leaning...towards failure- What society accepts gays as the norm- and becomes better for it?

3. Copied here is an example of: self back patting dressed up as intelligent debate. You state:it were somehow a paragon of virtue before ?
My point here is to question- of the many times- Obama has been derided here: this is the time to say_ well it really aint his fault? He really is just a fall guy.

4. I argue: If he allows a law to deem same sex marriage- Why? Especially when we can read his book(s) before he became president. Was there a hint that these ideas rang with him? He was a grassroots community organizer- wouldn't thinkin' a darn thing about gay rights. Now he gets elected: I am supposed to believe that was his agenda from the getgo? Or was it some one else's? And as a bloke or fall guy- he became complicit in an agenda not even Bill Clinton got down with- He said don't ask don't tell and kicked that can to the next president.

5. So when you say: forcing America to become complicit in morality- Either I failed to clarify my point or U advertantly/ inadvertently misconstrued that point. Re-read what U wrote on the (fuzzy) line; you interwove 2 different paragraphs I wrote- Civil Rights was relative to the (vehicle) that Gay rights have used. Then U state: I agree with your assertion that the hijacking of the civil rights agenda by those seeking to equate gay rights with those of black people is a fuzzy mess
But that is not the same as forcing America to become complicit in immorality.

That sir: is oversimplifying. No one single thing can do that. I am raising this point; that if Gay marriage becomes a law- which can become the norm- is it an event that lowers or raises a nation's moral compass?
No one event forces America to be anything. However: this event will do something: force you someday to sit with a child, nephew, niece who kissed someone of the same sex and explain they saw it on t.v. they heard it on a song: I kissed a girl for the first time and I like it.
Kids will eat mud cake to try somn' new...

So the bashing continues next paragraph where U accuse me of oversimplifying abortion & state
and insert a connection with child sacrifice, which clearly does not exist,
You clearly took what I said out of context. I gave what I consider to be a definition of child sacrifice from a biblical standard and current.
If a mother aborts her child because she isn't ready well mr. Teach me..if she didn't sacrifice the baby for her career- then in that instance what did she do?

And as far as mentioning it briefly- I am alluding to what occurs with societys that practice homosexuality- U can find other shit that they do that's way out there. So why do I need to write a paragraph on child sacrifice to validate my point? And yes (it) does exist. googling child sacrifice brouht this:
5,880,000 results
So find a society that practice this- and they are considered a nation of moral beings?
If you don't like my choice of words, fine, then give me a better way to say what Conservatives say about abortion. What Christians throughout America say about it -including the Repubs running for POTUS- they aren't just against it- THEY claim these actions lead to other actions- actions of a society compromised in the moral judgment. Yet you deride me for my choice of words? Fine then give me the Conservative equivalent of why Liberals in America want abortion- and God is against it -I will use it.
Or- denounce them as well as my words.

Then U state: If you want to pick and choose from the Bible to justify your position then you must necessarily take the whole
Have you found where I dismissed one part of the Bible for another? If so, break it down. Otherwise don't preach in ambiguous terms to make it seem like I use the scriptures when I feel- get to the point of how the Bible deals with this topic. Don't ignore the book's idea about homosexuality- then at the end of your diatribe- u say U are a Jew. Is that why U deride me for using the Bible- on this topic. Side note- I have issues with Christianity-, not the Bible. Continue to denounce the book, not me<<<--- oops my bad U did when U stated : ignorant men, who got to invent history on their own loony terms.

You then copy me: "America is simply the next great nation in line to succumb to such ideas and practices"

And respond really. Uh, yeah really. Then state: you are not a huge fan of your (my) culture and the nefarious ...
What do U mean (MY) culture? television isn't exclusive its inclusive- whoever watches it, listens to radio- its (their) (our) culture. The FCC deems what is allowable- that is what creates (my) culture. Then U add on child sacrifice again. For what?
Then you state:You yourself being more informed and intelligent than Nixon This IMO is U just being sarcastic as hell and not even concerned with a logical dialogue between us. Its an insult laced diatribe meant to demean me with specifics, by proving it with ambiguous examples & mixing paragraphs up like U making gumbo soup.

U state one sentence that stood out as sensible and not derogatory: We can logically weigh up the options and still vote for the wrong person.
I totally agree with this assessment.
Fore me I'll let this quote answer that: : give me control of a nations money supply & I care not who makes it laws. Rothschild.

U state: That said the right for somebody to marry is now being tied up in your confused logic with the law to procreate,
Well we will have to agree to disagree. There is nothing logical about two dudes marrying each other. If so, then express it. If two of the opposite marry- there is something they can do to keep this world moving that two of the same cant do: procreate.

U state: believe me as a Jew who has refused to do this,
That is your right. I don't need to hurl insults to disagree with you or call your words as confused logic- your words speak for themselves. Just note: I could care less. REALLY I could care less if U are a Jew, Hindu, Budhist or a one-legged Pygmie. Titles don't faze me. Religious groups either. Its not the Jew in U ..that I take issue with- Its your argument. Its shallow, offensive and unnecessary.
Is that the Jew in you? Probably not. So I have answered your response the best I can and let it be known we are polar opposites for this topic.

I cited the Bible- because the words I copied dealt with issues that I find undeniable-
1. I know-- of no society in history that condoned homosexuality & lived & history called them a morally gr8 society.
2. The Bible for all its flaws- has yet to be proven wrong that procreation is done by the act of sex. A beautiful means of expression-some creator(s) gave us. And I have no need to justify that great feeling by sharing it with someone of the same sex.
WTF am I trying to prove? I am okay with gays being gay- having civil unions. But for a gay to get married? Why? if anything its a religious ritual.

Ha! I don't wish to insult your intellect but In a forum like this I will be frivilous, witty, derisory and sometimes even flippant in my tone. Please don't take it personally, it's pretty difficult to convey tone etc in words. That said you seemed to have spent a long time analysing and constructing a reply so I will try and repay the compliment when I have a bit more time to answer your points. I really am incredibly busy this weekend, but thanks for taking the time to get so offended

Also it is "could not care less" or "couldn't care less". "Could care less" is just completely loony, and stands the whole English language on it's head in an effort to make sense.

[Beanz]

Slim

I don't really want to get into a word by word analysis of your original post or your reply to my reply because I can see from the fact that we have both not posted a lot lately, we are both really busy. ( If I remember correctly you just got your HGV license and are driving across the States ?)

I Owe you an explanation and it seems an apology. I am sorry if I offended you, or your intelligence that was not my intention.

1. "I am not using Nixon as a moral compass, rather looking at a leader stating what occurs when nation's leaders indulge, promote or acquiesce to homosexual relations"

Gay people are going to exist whatever any President does. Allowing people the same rights as others is not the same as indulging them. The idea that you can promote homosexual relations is a weird one. I never thought that yourself, Miles and President Putin would ever be preaching from the same songbook but actually in reality it seems it is only those disgusted by homosexuality that seek to promote anything. Even with Sattchi and Sattchi at the helm of the most professional marketing campaign in history I really think that the idea that you can promote something that will influence somebodies sexual preference is a mute unfounded principle.

"If a nation succumbs to homosexuality as the norm: Did they progress? or did the nation falter? I agree with Nixon's assessment: They failed."

This is exactly what I meant by dressing something up as intelligent debate. When you open up a post quoting Nixon suggesting that homosexuality was the reason for the fall of the Greek and Roman Empires you are inventing a cut a dried cause and effect that is not there. Your whole post is full of post hoc/false cause, straw man fallacies, false dichotomies etc.

Your belief that homosexuality is morally wrong is surely not incompatible with an acknowledgment that civil service marriage ceremonies should cater for those that wish to use that service when they are not doing anything that is illegal ?

You claim

"this event will do something: force you someday to sit with a child, nephew, niece who kissed someone of the same sex and explain they saw it on t.v. they heard it on a song: I kissed a girl for the first time and I like it."

Again I think you are mistaken. Kids may well innocently kiss someone of the same sex without ever having seen a television but the idea that someone would have their sexual preference influenced by a scene in a film or a song on the radio just sounds like fear. People experiment sexually in various degrees but that does not make them Gay.

You then bring up abortion which has absolutely nothing to do with same sex marriage or the so called point of which, that you claim is procreation. You may think that being Jewish has nothing to do with anything but you could not be more wrong. I am not a practicing Jew but even I can not pretend that it is irrelevant. I am not judging you personally when I say it, but virtually all Christians in the west not only divorce their religion from their life but also pick and choose which parts of the Bible to follow. What you do is the whole point of being a Jew. There is no heaven at the end so you must bring it down to earth in the way you treat everybody, Jewish or not. Charity and empathy, direct action in cases of injustice is not a separate part of your life it is what you do. Even Jesus alluded to this time and again, and yet Christians had to invent sin and the idea of falling short to excuse themselves from his primary admonition to love.

If the Jews in Israel did this the world would be a better place. If the people throughout history who used Judaism, Christianity or Islam, (all derived from the words of Hebrew men) and the idea of Laws, Sin or Shame to trample on the wills of other people just exercised the first principle rather than making an idol out of their religions, again the world would be a better place.

We are evolving. The need to procreate is not important anymore. For individuals maybe but as a species, not so much. Western nations like the UK and the USA are not morally great anyway so the passing of a law that allows Gay people the chance to publicly declare their love thru reading out some marriage vows, is not about to make the whole system collapse, IMHO.

[SlimTrae]

GB: Unlike politics where I think I can bring facts to an allegorical discussion,, this topic is more or less opinion driven at least perspective at best.

Meaning: I can't really deride your comments, though I don't agree with them on whole. I'll end it like this your quote: publicly declare their love thru reading out some marriage vows, is not about to make the whole system collapse, IMHO.

You are correct, 100%. Perspective or fact wise.

I think I used too many examples and carried myself away from my original intent. In your own way- U pointed it out!

To end it like I meant: which was to make a connection of the institution of marriage & how it is recognized.
Where does marriage begin and end? Does government licensing, really make it legit?

To me:Civil marriage/union seems to meet the needs of those wanting to marry-without the sanctity of a God- that prohibits same sex relationships.

civil unions being: marriage without religious content carried out by a government institution in accordance with the marriage laws. Civil unions that allow benefits from spouse to spouse, how is that not enough?
(not looking for a response bro- just stating where I stand, rhetorically)

I can't see gays reading vows from a book called bible as anything other than slapping the God of the book in his face. He told them: laying with the same sex is detestable.
--at that point I went off subject by trying to prove that once governments intervene in such issues-its not long before that nation begins to condone/legalize other actions once considered taboo or wrong----will also become the norm.

I digressed then and now. Peace.

[TitoFan]

To me:Civil marriage/union seems to meet the needs of those wanting to marry-without the sanctity of a God- that prohibits same sex relationships.

civil unions being: marriage without religious content carried out by a government institution in accordance with the marriage laws. Civil unions that allow benefits from spouse to spouse, how is that not enough?

I can't see gays reading vows from a book called bible as anything other than slapping the God of the book in his face. He told them: laying with the same sex is detestable.

You don't need to apologize for, or justify, any of the above said.
I agree 100% with your statements.