Marriage Poll [Archive] - ClothesFree Forum

Bobx23456

08-15-2007, 09:24 AM

Marriage is the biological union that creates children and a family, biologically joins two families in the next generation. Marriage has never been about "love" nor "whom you love." Marriage is not some list of government benefits for "love."

Since our species began primitive societies and civilized modern socieites have encouraged marriage and childbearing to assure the next generation of themselves. Anyone who has raised a family understands how hugely expensive that is in terms of time, money, and emotional resources. A few small benefits and some recognition from the society helps a little to offset those huge costs.

If two people choose not to bear the monumental expense of raising a family, fine for them. In times of overpopulation we need fewer children. Nevertheless some children are always needed for the species to survive, and those children will always be a huge cost to parents.

Those who choose not to be parents, straight or homosexual, do not have a claim on the social benefits and needs of families. They have no similar expenses. Let them love whom they choose and have a good life. They have no need to attack the social support for those who do provide the next generation of our race and our society.

Blessings
Bob

Bobx23456

08-15-2007, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by Eric6420:
Hello Bin,

The reson why marriage is important, it is because it gives a lot of rights that non married people do not have.

Nope. Marriage is the biological union that produces children and bears HUGE costs in doing so. Those who bear no children have no such costs and, on average, end up with more money. They have no need or rightful demand on the few benefits provided to those who do bear the massive costs of providing the future of our society.

Love whomever you choose and have a good life.

Blessings
Bob

MJ_KC

08-15-2007, 09:35 AM

I answered that I do not care one way or the other.

I feel the same about marriage between a man and a woman. I have seen so many people get divorces because of hate filled marriages that it just doesn't seem all that appealing to me.

I do not like the idea that churches think that they have the right to impose their moral code on everybody else as well as their own members.

xgsft

08-15-2007, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by Bobx23456:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Eric6420:
Hello Bin,

The reson why marriage is important, it is because it gives a lot of rights that non married people do not have.

Nope. Marriage is the biological union that produces children and bears HUGE costs in doing so. Those who bear no children have no such costs and, on average, end up with more money. They have no need or rightful demand on the few benefits provided to those who do bear the massive costs of providing the future of our society.

Love whomever you choose and have a good life.

Blessings
Bob </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bob, you neglected the part where a gay couple could adopt and raise a child. I can think of a couple right now off the top of my head that could have used those benefits in raising thier kids. The other hole in your arguement is what about all the childless couples out there? I can think of a few who had gotten married with absolutely no intentions of having kids and sucessfully did just that.

If this was purely about raising children as you say, then why not add the tax incentives when the kid is born rather than throughout the marrage?

nacktman

08-15-2007, 09:43 AM

Before it is misunderstood let us have the true definition of "Marriage".

MARRIAGE: the ECONOMIC UNION of two or more entities to insure the pooling of resources for survival.

This should clear up any misunderstandings.
It has nothing to do with species procreation.
It has nothing to do with spirituality.
The 'rite of marriage' is just that, a rite, a recognition and announcement of the economic union, nothing more.

Also, "economic union" has nothing to do with 'finances', one must remember the coming together for common survival predates the concept of 'money' by hundreds of thousands of years.

Eric6420

08-15-2007, 09:46 AM

Eric6420

08-15-2007, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by MJ_KC:
I answered that I do not care one way or the other.

I feel the same about marriage between a man and a woman. I have seen so many people get divorces because of hate filled marriages that it just doesn't seem all that appealing to me.

I do not like the idea that churches think that they have the right to impose their moral code on everybody else as well as their own members.

If black people would not have the right to marry while whites could, would you care a little bit?

nacktman

08-15-2007, 09:53 AM

Originally posted by Eric6420:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nacktman:
Before it is misunderstood let us have the true definition of "Marriage".

MARRIAGE: the ECONOMIC UNION of two or more entities to insure the pooling of resources for survival.

This should clear up any misunderstandings.

That does not say a word about gay marriage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it doesn't.

jon71

08-15-2007, 09:55 AM

This discussion is about the legal rights and responsibilities of legal marriage. It is not about whether or not the church approves. It is not about economic viability (although that enters into it to a degree) and it's not about raising children. Lot's of single people have kids and plenty of married people don't. It's about equal treatment under the law. The supreme court has correctly decreed that marriage is a civil right. As such there is no justifiable reason to deny that based on being in a demographic group some people don't like. If that were a legitimate option I'd say let's take away the right to vote for fundies and neo-cons, they'll only use it to bring down America anyways. (p.s. I know that's not an option, just a pleasant dream).

xgsft

08-15-2007, 09:58 AM

nacktman

08-15-2007, 10:07 AM

Thus far the poll numbers show 65% either approve (45%) or don't care (20%).
While 30% disapprove.
And , the 5% 'don't bother me' people.

This is consistent with other polls over the years.
Yet the stereotypical views remain?
Why?

Bobx23456

08-15-2007, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by xgsft:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bobx23456:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Eric6420:
Hello Bin,

The reson why marriage is important, it is because it gives a lot of rights that non married people do not have.

Nope. Marriage is the biological union that produces children and bears HUGE costs in doing so. Those who bear no children have no such costs and, on average, end up with more money. They have no need or rightful demand on the few benefits provided to those who do bear the massive costs of providing the future of our society.

Love whomever you choose and have a good life.

Blessings
Bob </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bob, you neglected the part where a gay couple could adopt and raise a child. I can think of a couple right now off the top of my head that could have used those benefits in raising thier kids. The other hole in your arguement is what about all the childless couples out there? I can think of a few who had gotten married with absolutely no intentions of having kids and sucessfully did just that.

If this was purely about raising children as you say, then why not add the tax incentives when the kid is born rather than throughout the marrage? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ineed, tax incentives ARE added when a kid is born, at least in the US. If there is no kid, the marriage has never been consummated and can be annuled.

It's easy to forget what the meaning and purpose of "marriage" has always been, especially when there are so many well financed campaigns aimed at confustion, obfuscation, and denial for political reasons.

Blessings
Bob

nacktman

08-15-2007, 10:16 AM

Bobx23456

08-15-2007, 10:22 AM

Originally posted by jon71:
This discussion is about the legal rights and responsibilities of legal marriage. It is not about whether or not the church approves. It is not about economic viability (although that enters into it to a degree) and it's not about raising children. Lot's of single people have kids and plenty of married people don't. It's about equal treatment under the law.

Marriage has never been a list of "legal rights and respoinsiblities." For thousands of generations marriage has been the sexual union that produces children and creates a family. Tribal leaders, religious leaders, and social governments have supported marriage throughtout history, and have prospered. Those religons and societies which did not support marriage failed. Anyone seen a Shaker lately?

Since the 20th century marriage has been attacked from all sides. We do see far more divorces, and the children remain as the union. We see many women bearing bastard children without socially sanctioned marriage, and the children are still a kind of marriage. They suffer far more, in general, without a secure two parent family.

There is no need for anyone who doesn't intend to make children and a family to tear down the social fabric of marriage. Doing so hurts all the childen who's families struggle with the everyday social and economic expenses. It's not nice to take candy from childern, nor to claim the social benefits designed to help children and their supporting families. Doing so tears down the socieety, hurts children, and has no justifictaion.

Blessings
Bob

jon71

08-15-2007, 10:29 AM

The notion that it's only about kids is both romantic and fanciful. You can't change a few facts.

1. Marriage gives people legal rights and responsibilities that single people don't have.
2. The govt. decides who is entitled to these rights, not public opinion.
3. These rights age given whether or not the couple has children, or ever will.
4. Having children while single does not give you marriage like legal benefits.

I challenge anyone to find anything untrue about those four things. Certainly someone can WISH that it was about kids, that's fine but that still makes it wishful thinking. Btw Shakers believed in marriage. They're no longer around because they also believed in like long abstinence, even for married couples.

nacktman

08-15-2007, 10:31 AM

I see the total lack of knowledge of what marriage is, what is historically accurate, what some religious sects espouse(d) hasn't stopped the nincompoops from spouting off.

They were warned ... it is about to be 'throttling time'!

Bobx23456

08-15-2007, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by jon71:The notion that it's only about kids is both romantic and fanciful. You can't change a few facts.

1. Marriage gives people legal rights and responsibilities that single people don't have.
2. The govt. decides who is entitled to these rights, not public opinion.
3. These rights age given whether or not the couple has children, or ever will.
4. Having children while single does not give you marriage like legal benefits.

Well, most of theose are myopic at best, flat out wrong at worst.

First, "marriage" IS the creation of a child. If you create no child together, you really have no factual marriage. The civil or religious ceremony can be annulled. Over history, until very recently, many societies woudn't even hold the ceremony until the female was visibly pregnant.

1. Marriage, the bearing of a child, creates a biological family relationship that people who haven't joined biologically in a child do not have. Tribal leaders, religious leaders, and political leaders have long recognized that families and family relationships have special needs and relationships that others don't have. Modern laws, following on ancient tribal customs, recognize those needs to care for one's own family and allow family members to assist other family members in times of illness, death, etc. It is the creation of a biologcial family, and the responsibility that goes with it, which is recognized by allowing the authority to take care of one's family. It's not a list of government priviledges given out for "love."

2. The people, for thousands of generations, have recognized the creation of a child and forming of a famiy thereby as a different situation from being a single person. Governments, from the earliest tribal leaders to modern states have followed and supported the wisdom of the people. Marriage is not some arbitrary "love" blessing created by government.

3. In modern times the government presumes that the intention is to bear children and form a family. Up until recentlty many countries wouldn't hold a marriage recognition ceremony unless the female was pregnant. Those rules cross with some religious teachings that the woman should not try to get pregnant before her biological union is sanctioned by her family. Even today if the attempted marriage is barren it can be annulled because it was never consummated. Where there is no presumption of producing children it would be a fraud to claim "marriage."

4. Having a child without a sanctioned marriage does indeed give a woman benefits. She gets tax benefits, for one thing. She gets a claim on the father's (her biological husband) money to support their common child. He gets a claim on his child, and forever after, perhaps for hundreds of generations, their ancestors are "married" in future generations.

I challenge anyone to find anything untrue about those four things. Certainly someone can WISH that it was about kids, that's fine but that still makes it wishful thinking. Btw Shakers believed in marriage. They're no longer around because they also believed in like long abstinence, even for married couples.

Good example. Shakers failed to follow the ages old tradition of marriage and family to promote childern, and their society went extinct. In modern Europe a very rapid population shift is ongoing because the indiginous populations of several (liberal) countries is failing to reproduce and is rapidly being replaced by immigrants.

Marriage IS the biological union that creates a child and makes a family to go forward in future generatoins. Anyone choosing not to bear those massive social, economic, and emotional costs of bearing and raising children have no moral claim on the small benefits offered by the society to offset part of those huge costs.

If you choose not to bear and raise children, for whatever reasons, you are most welcome to have a very fine life. It doesn't make your life better to attack the marriages of those who choose to bear the massive cost of our next generation.

Blessings
Bob

Eric6420

08-15-2007, 11:22 AM

Bobx has a lot of imagination to deny equality to gay men and lesbians. I think that the fact that we exist bothers him somehow.

In other words, Bobx is trying to explain why heterosexuals are superiors to homosexuals.

In reality, nobody question the right of heterosexuals to marry even thoses who do not want children, but Bobx is so affraid to give same rights to homosexuals couples that he would prefer to say that all thoses who do not want children should not have the right to marry.

It is not new that a group of people feel that they are superior to other people. We know what the rusult was.

nacktman

08-15-2007, 11:31 AM

Get it through your thick skull MARRIAGE IS NOT ANY TYPE OF BIOLOGICAL UNION, never has been and never will be.

Procreation of the species is not what marriage is about - procreation occurs without marriage, period.

Survival of the individual entities making up the 'marriage' is what marriage is about.
The economics, and no not just about money, but the 'goods' and 'services' needed to survive in the environment of the day ... which as most of us know changes over time - what was necessary to survive yesterday may not be necessary to survival today and probably not necessary to survival tomorrow.

Myopic views, homophobia, xenophobia, religious intolerance, misogyny, misandry, ideologue dogma, racism, dementia, just plain willful ignorance and stupidity are not traits to be desired or admired. Kindly peddle your junk to an audience of fellow low-brows where it will fit in quite nicely with all the other refuse of humanity.

nimrod

08-15-2007, 11:35 AM

I do not care one way or another. If anyone wants to be married, get married, it is a personal choice.

Should "same sex" marriage be legally recognized? I think so, yes.

I do not know where one poster here came up with his defination of marriage, it may have been true at one time, but my understanding of marriage today and in this country and as far as the government is concerned, is that it is a legal acknowledgement of a couple who plans to spend the rest of their life together and are therefore entitled to certain rights not entitled to someone who is single, like some tax breaks. From a legal stand point a couple is not married just because they have a child together. I do not know of a religion today that recognizes a couple as married just because they have a child together. Some churches do not recognize a marriage if it was not done in a church before a priest.

usmc1

08-15-2007, 11:44 AM

I've come to the conclusion that giving Bob's writings any serious thought is a totally wasted activity.

For what ever it is worth, I'm in a long-term hetero marriage (oh my, I do mean loooooooong term) with adult kids, and feel not one bit worried or threatened by gays or lesbians who wish to marry and enjoy the legal, and tax recognitions which does my marriage. Childless marriages don't worry me.

At a civil level that's how it should be, and it's up to indidvidual denominations and/or churches to choose whether they wish to provide ritual and/or sanctification to those marriages.

Eric6420

08-15-2007, 11:44 AM

Myopic views, homophobia, xenophobia, religious intolerance, misogyny, misandry, ideologue dogma, racism, dementia, just plain willful ignorance and stupidity are not traits to be desired or admired. Kindly peddle your junk to an audience of fellow low-brows where it will fit in quite nicely with all the other refuse of humanity.

Very well said Nacktman.

xgsft

08-15-2007, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by Bobx23456:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
This discussion is about the legal rights and responsibilities of legal marriage. It is not about whether or not the church approves. It is not about economic viability (although that enters into it to a degree) and it's not about raising children. Lot's of single people have kids and plenty of married people don't. It's about equal treatment under the law.

Marriage has never been a list of "legal rights and respoinsiblities." For thousands of generations marriage has been the sexual union that produces children and creates a family. Tribal leaders, religious leaders, and social governments have supported marriage throughtout history, and have prospered. Those religons and societies which did not support marriage failed. Anyone seen a Shaker lately?

Since the 20th century marriage has been attacked from all sides. We do see far more divorces, and the children remain as the union. We see many women bearing bastard children without socially sanctioned marriage, and the children are still a kind of marriage. They suffer far more, in general, without a secure two parent family.

There is no need for anyone who doesn't intend to make children and a family to tear down the social fabric of marriage. Doing so hurts all the childen who's families struggle with the everyday social and economic expenses. It's not nice to take candy from childern, nor to claim the social benefits designed to help children and their supporting families. Doing so tears down the socieety, hurts children, and has no justifictaion.

Blessings
Bob </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, because we all know humans could never proliferate without marrage... http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/rolleyes2.gif

I'll pick this one appart later.

jon71

08-15-2007, 02:37 PM

With all due respect the four truths I stated still stand. Anyone is free to imagine what marriage is "really" about but we have legal definitions that establish it very clearly, it is a legal contract. Btw having a child does not prevent divorce or annulments and not having a child doesn't always make it easier to obtain, they're simply not the same. As for other times and other places that's wide open. There have been hundreds, more likely thousands of different nations, tribes, groups, clans, etc. and amongst them examples of almost anything can be found. I don't deny for one second that amongst that crowd there are examples of peoples who actually did make marriage and parenthood synonymous. I'm glad that's no longer the case, at least in first world countries.
Incidentally the fact that it's a legal contract also eliminates the rather ridiculous claims by the anti gay marriage crowd that legalizing gay marriage will open the doors for people marrying pets or children. That argument is designed to offend, not inform. Animals can't enter into a legal contract. Children can't on their own, only through a parent or legal guardian. As it turns out children can often marry obsenely young IF their parents agree to it, (the exact age differs between countries and states) but thankfully it's very rare for parents to go far outside of what's permitted to start with. My former sister-in-law married while in high school but she was just a few months short of when she legally could have anyway. Her parents allowed it once they were told that if they didn't she and my brother-in-law would just hop the border to Alabama and marry legally there. Atypically for a high school marriage she wasn't pregnant at the time although they now have two kids and are divorced.
I guess the bottom line is when it comes to marriage is will we have the same laws for everybody or will some people still have to sit on the back of the bus?

MoonShadow

08-15-2007, 03:18 PM

The old adage that we need marriage to procreate is ridiculous. We do not have any fear of our species depopulating. We have the exact opposite.

There is no need for "biological marriages". I have never, however, heard of such, but for the sake of discussion. IF that is what marriage is about then we don't need it anymore. There are too many people on this planet as it is.

Marriage today is for legal purposes and truly has nothing to do with whether the married couple procreate or adopt.

BinCo

08-15-2007, 03:36 PM

Wow, so many comments, so little time. First: I've been married for 13 years.

Bob: Marriage has not defined every culture in history. Many cultures are polyamorous and many are polygomist (sp?). Many more view the wife as "property" of the husband. Is this better than gay marriage?

My question still remains unanswered.

Why is the government in the business of defining marriage at all? Why should some people get benefits for being married while others do not? What is the purpose of doing this if not to remove 'undesirable' people from the pool? Why can't we just have a 'registry' that allows me to define who can make decisions for them in an emergancy without being married? Why does ANYONE deserve any tax break over ANYONE else? Why not a flat rate? You want kids? Have them, but do not expect me to be in a different tax bracket because I have none and you have 12.

PS: I'm all for gay marriage because I do not understand the problems with having it.

Bobx23456

08-15-2007, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by BinCo:
Wow, so many comments, so little time. First: I've been married for 13 years.

Do you deserve some kind of medal?

Bob: Marriage has not defined every culture in history. Many cultures are polyamorous and many are polygomist (sp?). Many more view the wife as "property" of the husband. Is this better than gay marriage?

Polygamy is generally practiced in societies where there aren't enough men because of wars, etc., for all the women. Polygamy genrally allows more women to have rich husbands, or to have a husband at all. Throughout much of history polygamy repopulated tribes and city states after wars decimated the male populations. Polygamy and other forms are real marriages in that they are formed to create and raise biological children. Two gays do not intend to do so, and do not make a marriage.]

My question still remains unanswered.

Why is the government in the business of defining marriage at all? Why should some people get benefits for being married while others do not?

Your question was answered even if you refuse the answere because you don't like it. The people create marriage and the government accepts it. Governments also try to encourage marriage, the creation of children and famileis, because the whole society has a very strong interest in ensuring it's future, and the future depends on bearing sufficient children.

What is the purpose of doing this if not to remove 'undesirable' people from the pool? Why can't we just have a 'registry' that allows me to define who can make decisions for them in an emergancy without being married? Why does ANYONE deserve any tax break over ANYONE else? Why not a flat rate? You want kids? Have them, but do not expect me to be in a different tax bracket because I have none and you have 12.

It's not about who is "desirable" and who is not. The whole society has a strong interest in encouraging its survival by promoting the bearing and raising of the next generation of itself. That has always been a very valid government concern of tribal chieftans to Kings, to modern Presidents. Anyone and everyone who chooses to participate in the bearing and raising of the next generation may particpate without discrimination.

PS: I'm all for gay marriage because I do not understand the problems with having it.

There is no such thing as "gay marriage." Even to use the term denies the fundamental meaning and purpose of marriage.

Blessings
Bob

MJ_KC

08-15-2007, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by Eric6420:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MJ_KC:
I answered that I do not care one way or the other.

I feel the same about marriage between a man and a woman. I have seen so many people get divorces because of hate filled marriages that it just doesn't seem all that appealing to me.

I do not like the idea that churches think that they have the right to impose their moral code on everybody else as well as their own members.

If black people would not have the right to marry while whites could, would you care a little bit? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
My position is that I do not think that the government should have any say in this. It should be neither pro nor con where it concerns this issue for anyone.

What two or more people decide to do should be strictly their business.

MJ_KC

08-15-2007, 05:15 PM

MJ_KC

08-15-2007, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by nacktman:
Get it through your thick skull MARRIAGE IS NOT ANY TYPE OF BIOLOGICAL UNION, never has been and never will be.

Procreation of the species is not what marriage is about - procreation occurs without marriage, period.

Survival of the individual entities making up the 'marriage' is what marriage is about.
The economics, and no not just about money, but the 'goods' and 'services' needed to survive in the environment of the day ... which as most of us know changes over time - what was necessary to survive yesterday may not be necessary to survival today and probably not necessary to survival tomorrow.

Myopic views, homophobia, xenophobia, religious intolerance, misogyny, misandry, ideologue dogma, racism, dementia, just plain willful ignorance and stupidity are not traits to be desired or admired. Kindly peddle your junk to an audience of fellow low-brows where it will fit in quite nicely with all the other refuse of humanity.

Where does Bob come up with this stuff? It is almost painful to wade through some of the stuff that he writes.

Eric6420

08-15-2007, 05:24 PM

What two or more people decide to do should be strictly their business.

A lot of young people thinks like that.

However, if a heterosexual couple lives together for 15 years and have 2 children, the father earning 50K a year and the mother staying at home, and then the man say to the woman "I am not interested in you anymore", If they are not married, the woman will not have a pennie and she will loose her children. If they are married and the husband want a divorce, he has to give half of his money to the women plus money for the children. That is the use of marriage in a hetero couple.

The reason for gay marriage is simply a reason of equality under the law in society.

Bobx23456

08-15-2007, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by nacktman:
Before it is misunderstood let us have the true definition of "Marriage".

MARRIAGE: the ECONOMIC UNION of two or more entities to insure the pooling of resources for survival.

This should clear up any misunderstandings.
It has nothing to do with species procreation.
It has nothing to do with spirituality.
The 'rite of marriage' is just that, a rite, a recognition and announcement of the economic union, nothing more.

Total leftist rubbish. Repeating dishonest nonsense a zillion times won't make it true.

Thousands of years of history and tradition can be denied but denial doesn't turn a sow's ear into a silk purse.

Blessings
Bob

Qikdraw

08-15-2007, 05:40 PM

It seems the meaning of marriage changes over the centuries. As society changes so does marriage.

There used to be arranged marriages, a Hebrew law stated that a man become the husband of the deceased brother's widow. 'Courting' didn't start until the 12th century.

People talking about the 'sanctity of marriage' really have no clue at all. Its not the 'homosexual agenda' (http://www.markfiore.com/animation/agenda.html) that has 'ruined' marriage, its regular everyday people that jump into marriage and at the first sign of trouble quit. The 'bible belt' has the highest divorce rate, shows how much so-called 'christians' know about the sanctity of marriage.

How about we keep our nose out of other people's business?

Qikdraw

Eric6420

08-15-2007, 05:42 PM

Repeating dishonest nonsense a zillion times won't make it true.

Like people who say that gay people were persecuted because they did not meet the need of society.

The main reason gays were persecuted in the western world is because passages in the Bible that just say to kill them. As christianity were preached almost evrywhere and islam say the same thing, life became impossible for centuries for gay people.

However, a lot of ancient societies did not persecuted gays. Old Greece and Old China among others.

MJ_KC

08-15-2007, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by Eric6420:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What two or more people decide to do should be strictly their business.

A lot of young people thinks like that.

However, if a heterosexual couple lives together for 15 years and have 2 children, the father earning 50K a year and the mother staying at home, and then the man say to the woman "I am not interested in you anymore", If they are not married, the woman will not have a pennie and she will loose her children. If they are married and the husband want a divorce, he has to give half of his money to the women plus money for the children. That is the use of marriage in a hetero couple.

The reason for gay marriage is simply a reason of equality under the law in society. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Correct. The government should not have a say at all in who wants to get married. If two people want to get married that should be all we need to know. Governments have banned inter-racial marriages and that was wrong. Banning gay marriages is also wrong. The government should not be in the business of actively endorsing religious doctrine.

Bobx23456

08-15-2007, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by MJ_KC:
What two or more people decide to do should be strictly their business.

Nope, never been that way, never will be. Two or more people could decide to rob a bank, and it's everyone's business. The economic security of everyone in the community depends on the safety of banks.

Likewise when two people decide to join two families and create a combined child it affects everyone in the community. Marriages are not now and never have been the sole business of the couple. They effect everyone.

Blessings
Bob

Eric6420

08-15-2007, 05:57 PM

Correct. The government should not have a say at all in who wants to get married. If two people want to get married that should be all we need to know. Governments have banned inter-racial marriages and that was wrong. Banning gay marriages is also wrong. The government should not be in the business of actively endorsing religious doctrine.

I agree that the government should not actively endorsing religious doctrine.

However, in a practical way, evrywhere where gay marrige is legal, it was always a government decision. Because marriage is probably the law that have the greatest influence on the legal system, and all the laws come from the government.

MJ_KC

08-15-2007, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by Bobx23456:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MJ_KC:
What two or more people decide to do should be strictly their business.

Nope, never been that way, never will be. Two or more people could decide to rob a bank, and it's everyone's business. The economic security of everyone in the community depends on the safety of banks.

Likewise when two people decide to join two families and create a combined child it affects everyone in the community. Marriages are not now and never have been the sole business of the couple. They effect everyone.

Blessings
Bob </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Are you really as obtuse as you appear to be?

Eric6420

08-15-2007, 06:02 PM

Nope, never been that way, never will be. Two or more people could decide to rob a bank, and it's everyone's business

Now comparing gay marriage to robbing a bank. What Bobx does not know, is that having such a speech is illegal not only in Canada, but in many european nations.

That is the kind of speach a minority have to suffer when they are not equal under the law.

DoctorSurferDude

08-15-2007, 06:10 PM

Touchy subject, huh?

Here are my thoughts....

Marriage in this country is undermined. How many people live together that are not married? How many people have sex with multiple partners before they find one? 50% of marriages in this country end in divorce. 64% of married couples say they are unhappy. 22% of married men have cheated. 15% of married women have cheated. SO.....as a country claiming to hold marriage on a pedestal, we are an embarassment.

Individually, I think we probably do better. It takes dedication to have a successful marriage, and that is a daily personal choice, a commitment to honoring a promise.

So....a marriage is a promise.

For those who believe in God, marriage is God's gift, and they marry in the eyes of God. For those who believe in Buddah, marriage has probably more to do with honor and commitment, but it is important nonetheless. For Hindus...wiccans....gnostics....athiests....etc. Each has their own values injected into their marriages, but what they all share in common is that it is a commitment to honor the promise they make.

I think we would all agree that on some level or another, marriage is RELIGIOUS. Therefore by the laws of our constitution our govornment has no right to interfere. Also, individual groups have no right to prosecute a different group just because they adhere to a different set of values....to do so undermines the whole tennant of free will and I'm always a little suprised to see nudists who are quick to make prosecuting remarks.

Marriage is a promise that two people make to eachother.....they need no sanction from God or govornment to make that promise. If they are of the same gender, so be it, they don't have to ask my permission or anybody elses to make that promise.

Our govornment has no right to discriminate based on sex, race or creed. Therefore any union between two persons should be treated as a legal union without any predjudices held. And the legality of the marriage is not a choice of the govornment, but rather the right to publicly bestow given to any pastor, any ship captain, any officiant.

If your govornment does not recognize human rights.....beware.

Bobx23456

08-15-2007, 06:14 PM

Originally posted by Eric6420:
Bobx has a lot of imagination to deny equality to gay men and lesbians. I think that the fact that we exist bothers him somehow.

That is insulting nonsense, but your prejudices are quite clear.

Bob has never advocated denying equality to anyone. If you're gay and having a good time, then you've got no complaint.

In other words, Bobx is trying to explain why heterosexuals are superiors to homosexuals.

Insulting balderdash!

I've known dozens of gays who chose to participate marriage and producing children. I've also known many who did not. It's up to each individual.

You can drop your insulting comments any time.

Blessings
Bob

Eric6420

08-15-2007, 06:15 PM

I think we would all agree that on some level or another, marriage is RELIGIOUS.

What you want is to give religions the bisiness of marriage. With all the laws that marriage influence, that's asking to become a theocracy.

Eric6420

08-15-2007, 06:33 PM

You can drop your insulting comments any time.

It is you who compare gay marriage to robing a bank and you think that you are fair?

To what will you compare gay marriage the next time?

Sanslines

08-15-2007, 06:41 PM

I think we would all agree that on some level or another, marriage is RELIGIOUS.

Suppose that you and your parter are atheists and go to the local court house for a civil ceremony.

R.M.GREENMAN2

08-15-2007, 06:56 PM

nacktman

08-15-2007, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by usmc1:
I've come to the conclusion that giving Bob's writings any serious thought is a totally wasted activity.

For what ever it is worth, I'm in a long-term hetero marriage (oh my, I do mean loooooooong term) with adult kids, and feel not one bit worried or threatened by gays or lesbians who wish to marry and enjoy the legal, and tax recognitions which does my marriage. Childless marriages don't worry me.

At a civil level that's how it should be, and it's up to indidvidual denominations and/or churches to choose whether they wish to provide ritual and/or sanctification to those marriages.

Well put usmc1 and I can say the same for myself verbatim.

MJ, I don't know what planet Bobx inhabits or under what dugs' influence he is to come up with the tripe he spouts ... and it is painful to wade through his offerings of offal. To quote from the jackarse's mouth itself, "Repeating dishonest nonsense a zillion times won't make it true.", funny how the dishonest ideologues are always spouting off about others dishonesty, isn't it!?!

BinCo, the government is in the business of defining 'marriage' because we allow it to be in the business, unfortunately we have not been as adept at keeping ideologue jackarses from subverting and perverting the system as we should have been - our current resident ideologue is a prime example.

Qikdraw the perceived idea of marriage may be malleable and has changed over time but the meaning has ever been the same. I am truly surprised no one has brought up the concept of 'marriage out of love' which is only a 20th century notion ... granted the concept of being in "love" with the one you marry has been around since air, but has only been considered a primary or the only reason for a marriage since the 20th century.

Doc, no, there is not any religious connotations to marriage. Spiritual connotations may come into play if those married "love" each other. Spiritual and religious are not the same thing.

To all the others who have posted here and done so with civility and decorum I thank you. Not that we all agree mind you but we have made our positions without bile and vitrol. This is how discussions should take place.

To the one who has been bucolic and vitrolic, please heed the admonishment made earlier and peddle you tripe elsewhere.

nacktman

08-15-2007, 07:06 PM

Currently the poll sits at:

66% for or don't care
29% against
5% 'don't bother me' people

Earlier numbers:

65% for or don't care
30% against
5% 'don't bother me' people

Consistent with other polls and showing a slippage in the against category as well as the constant 'don't bother me with polls' people

Bobx23456

08-15-2007, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by Sanslines:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I think we would all agree that on some level or another, marriage is RELIGIOUS.

Suppose that you and your parter are atheists and go to the local court house for a civil ceremony. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Marriage is social recognition of the biological union that creates and nurtures children, creates a family. Marriage in some small variation is far older than any current religion or government. Throughout history, and long before, tribal chieftans, city states, and new religious leaders recognized the ages old customs of their people, and supported families and children. Modern religions and most states still support the needs of families, and good for them.

Nudism used to be about family nudism. Now anyone who supports families on CFF gets flamed. My, times have changed.

Bob

Eric6420

08-15-2007, 07:16 PM

I think that it is also important to know how important this subject is.

There is still a lot of homophobia in the world. Here in Quebec, even though gay marriage is legal, the worst thing a high school student may be called is a f*got. In the last elections in Quebec, the parti québécois had the lowest votes since 30 years maybe because the head of the party (André Boisclair) was gay.

So the subject is serious and important, because it is about equality under the law. We have to talk about it quite often.

PascoDoug

08-15-2007, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by Bobx23456:
Nudism used to be about family nudism. Now anyone who supports families on CFF gets flamed. My, times have changed.

Nudism is about families, but that's not all it's about, either. And your logic is flawed as there are many nudist families consisting of same sex parents.

You are quite mistaken; no one is against families here. What we're opposed to is those who use "family" and "family values" as a front for their agenda of hate and discrimination.

xgsft

08-15-2007, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by Bobx23456:

Marriage has never been a list of "legal rights and respoinsiblities." For thousands of generations marriage has been the sexual union that produces children and creates a family. Tribal leaders, religious leaders, and social governments have supported marriage throughtout history, and have prospered. Those religons and societies which did not support marriage failed. Anyone seen a Shaker lately?

First off, the Shaker way failed because they thought it to be a sin to have any sort of sex.
Further, the earliest marriage certificate was dated 2500 BCE *See http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s204128.htm *
We did just fine populating the planet before that.

Since the 20th century marriage has been attacked from all sides. We do see far more divorces, and the children remain as the union. We see many women bearing bastard children without socially sanctioned marriage, and the children are still a kind of marriage. They suffer far more, in general, without a secure two parent family.

While I do agree with you that this is part of the problems we are encountering today, basically parents not paying attention to kids/too busy for them, as long as someone is there for them what is the problem? What does it matter if they are same sex or not? Don't try and tell me the kid would come out gay too, as isn't one can be forced into. I dated a girl whose mother was gay, it obviously didn't make her like the ladies. It would be like forcing you to have a attraction to guys.

There is no need for anyone who doesn't intend to make children and a family to tear down the social fabric of marriage. Doing so hurts all the childen who's families struggle with the everyday social and economic expenses. It's not nice to take candy from childern, nor to claim the social benefits designed to help children and their supporting families. Doing so tears down the socieety, hurts children, and has no justifictaion.

Blessings
Bob

Bull$hit!

So you are telling me that all the marriages of childless couples should be disolved?

Second, I have seen you and others define marriage and both are off. Merriam-Webster dictionary defines marriage as:

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union

In no place does it mention bearing children. Further, I would like a specific rundown on these taxbreaks you keep mentioning specifically geared to childbearing in marriage. I am talking about the ones you claim childless couples are mooching from those who deserve it. Take as long as you wish... I will be waiting.

nacktman

08-15-2007, 10:03 PM

xgsft, the Merriam-Webster 'definition' is the one that is 'off' - it is the 'legal' definition in an expanded form. The Webster Legal Dictionary gives its simpler form, to wit:

MARRIAGE - A legal contract between two or more parties to unit for life to the exclusion of all.

The definition recognized by Anthropologists/Archaeologists and the rest of the scientific community and by the legal systems around the world is that which I posted earlier. Not only does it define what marriage is - as does the short legal definition above, it also gives the reason for marriage in the definition.

You are correct in that no definition of marriage says anything about child rearing, differentiation between sexes or single parties to the union - in fact multiple parties ARE mentioned.

xgsft

08-15-2007, 10:50 PM

I was curious as to where you found that...

Thanks!

usmc1

08-16-2007, 04:21 AM

Funny how sometimes historic subtext plays out in these quarrels. Most people of post word war II birth would be unfamiliar with the discredited faux-science of Eugenics. The distilled down to teacup size explanation of this weird science project was found in Hitler's search for a master race. Strong intelligent people bred with each other to create strong intelligent people.

Undesirables; Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, Irish, the Poles and numerous others would be prohibited from child-bearing and marriage of an Aryan German to any of those categories was verboten!

The state dictated not just the rules of marriage, but who could marry whom under which conditions! And the Lutheran Church was complicit.

Here in this country, not so very long ago there were similar laws. Yes, similar "miscegenation" laws whereby certain states banned mixed race marriages existed up until a decade or so ago in several southern states. And the various Christian sects were complicit. And for all I know, might still be on the books but not enforced.

The state dictated not just the rules of marriage, but who could marry whom under which conditions!

If we yield to the state the right to determine who can marry, and to restrict marriages between certain categories, then we give the state the right to enforce "selectivity" similar to the misguided theories of eugenics and miscegenation.

The other historic subtext coming out is how the conservatives who decry government involvement in safety regulations, public services, education, and welfare so vociferously argue for government involvement in our most intimate and personal behavior and choices.

They would have the government enforce their religious beliefs.

Hypocrisy!

NudeTopher

08-16-2007, 05:47 AM

Originally posted by DoctorSurferDude:
Touchy subject, huh?

Here are my thoughts....

Marriage in this country is undermined. How many people live together that are not married? How many people have sex with multiple partners before they find one? 50% of marriages in this country end in divorce. 64% of married couples say they are unhappy. 22% of married men have cheated. 15% of married women have cheated. SO.....as a country claiming to hold marriage on a pedestal, we are an embarassment.

Individually, I think we probably do better. It takes dedication to have a successful marriage, and that is a daily personal choice, a commitment to honoring a promise.

So....a marriage is a promise.

For those who believe in God, marriage is God's gift, and they marry in the eyes of God. For those who believe in Buddah, marriage has probably more to do with honor and commitment, but it is important nonetheless. For Hindus...wiccans....gnostics....athiests....etc. Each has their own values injected into their marriages, but what they all share in common is that it is a commitment to honor the promise they make.

I think we would all agree that on some level or another, marriage is RELIGIOUS. Therefore by the laws of our constitution our govornment has no right to interfere. Also, individual groups have no right to prosecute a different group just because they adhere to a different set of values....to do so undermines the whole tennant of free will and I'm always a little suprised to see nudists who are quick to make prosecuting remarks.

Marriage is a promise that two people make to eachother.....they need no sanction from God or govornment to make that promise. If they are of the same gender, so be it, they don't have to ask my permission or anybody elses to make that promise.

Our govornment has no right to discriminate based on sex, race or creed. Therefore any union between two persons should be treated as a legal union without any predjudices held. And the legality of the marriage is not a choice of the govornment, but rather the right to publicly bestow given to any pastor, any ship captain, any officiant.

If your govornment does not recognize human rights.....beware.

Frequently I have disagreed with some of your postings. We have looked at similar situations from totally different viewpoints. Yet, I can't think of a post you have ever written with which I could agree more!

Despite what some golden-age troll with dementia posts; marriage is about the couple. Children may or may not be the product of a marriage just as children may or may not be the product of non-married relationships. His long, rambling, semi-inchoherant posts in which he denies gay marriage as even a possibility just as another vehicle in which to express his hatred of gay people. Nothing good comes from hate or haters.

NudeTopher

08-16-2007, 05:50 AM

Originally posted by Bobx23456:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Eric6420:
Bobx has a lot of imagination to deny equality to gay men and lesbians. I think that the fact that we exist bothers him somehow.

That is insulting nonsense, but your prejudices are quite clear.

Bob has never advocated denying equality to anyone. If you're gay and having a good time, then you've got no complaint.

[ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He has just started to refer to himself in the third person. Perhaps his meds are starting to wear off.

The very notion that BobX The Hateful can claim that others are prejudiced has me laughing so hard my ribs hurt!

BinCo

08-16-2007, 07:08 AM

So by Bobx's definition, people who are beyond child bearing years should not be allowed to marry again. Women specifically, since men can create children at any age.

For my wife and I marriage is a promise to be together. We are also intelligent enough to realize that one never knows what will happen in the future and we might go our seperate ways someday. My mother was divorced twice before I was out of high school. She was not happy to be single, but was happy to NOT be in a bad marriage. My wife's parents on the other hand were married in a Mormon church and fought like cats and dogs until he died. She misses him sometimes, but is overall happier without him. They never got divorced because the church said that they could not. What a shame to live your one life with someone who treats you bad because the church tells you to suffer now to be rewarded later.

I would rather the government use marriage as a registry instead of a means to discriminate.

MoonShadow

08-16-2007, 09:17 AM

Reading bobx's posts, I am about to roll out of my chair laughing. Surely, no one believes that marriage is a biological act. Sounds too Mengele-like for me.

I am in agreement that marriage is a legal act of two people committing to cohabitat as a married couple and that it is a promise between two people to remain together for however long the marriage lasts. And by this legal binding, all rights by any form are granted to them.

How they marry whether in a church, a garden, on a beach, or in a backyard is their choice to ritualized their union as a married couple.

MJ_KC

08-16-2007, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
He has just started to refer to himself in the third person. Perhaps his meds are starting to wear off.

The very notion that BobX The Hateful can claim that others are prejudiced has me laughing so hard my ribs hurt!
It doesn't have me laughing, it has me shaking my head in disbelief.

PascoDoug

08-16-2007, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by MJ_KC:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
He has just started to refer to himself in the third person. Perhaps his meds are starting to wear off.

The very notion that BobX The Hateful can claim that others are prejudiced has me laughing so hard my ribs hurt!
It doesn't have me laughing, it has me shaking my head in disbelief. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you want to get an even better idea of Bob's mentality, I suggest you read his blog:

http://bobstruth.blogspot.com/

Also, doing a Google search of his e-mail address brings up a couple of interesting posts & comments. On this site he praises OJ Simpson's murdering of his wife Nicole and Ron Goldman:

http://crimeblog.us/?p=130

(scroll down to "More from Bob Allen, blogger who loves wife-beaters and wife-killers")

MJ_KC

08-16-2007, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by PascoDoug:

If you want to get an even better idea of Bob's mentality, I suggest you read his blog:

http://bobstruth.blogspot.com/
Wow. I am not sure if I have ever seen anything that twisted that someone is passing off as their personal beliefs.

I would wonder about someone who even has random thoughts like this, but to actually express these beliefs in written words and to post them to the internet is even more amazing.

usmc1

08-16-2007, 11:15 AM

In the inimitable words of Raymond's dad, Frank, "HOLY CRAP"!

Well, it certainly substantiates my orginal thoughts about the guy. A deeply disturbed individual who probably owes a lot to Reaganism---up until then there were asylums for dangerous people such as this.

MJ_KC

08-16-2007, 11:35 AM

I agree usmc1. This goes way beyond simply expressing right wing or left wing beliefs. I thought that he has a few issues, but I had no idea that they were so numerous and severe.

walter05

08-16-2007, 11:46 AM

DoctorSurferDude posted a comment on August 15, 2007 at 06:10 PM that I totally agree with.

However, that is why I did not answer the poll. I wanted to check the box that says it is no one’s business except the two people involved, and especially not the government's business. However, I did not find that choice.

USMC1 posted a comment on August 16, 2007 at 07:21 AM. Much to my surprise, it is extremely well written and thoughtful. I agree 100%.

Bob is simply incorrect. For 3,319 years, since the giving of The Ten Commandments, and probably 3,819 years since Abraham founded the Jewish faith, Jewish marriages have always been very different.

The fundamental part of the marriage ceremony is when the groom hands the “Kesuvah” or marriage contract to the bride. The purpose of the marriage ceremony is that there are at least two legal witnesses who can testify that it took place. This way, either one can go to the court to enforce the contract.

A divorce takes place when the man gives the woman a “Get” or divorce document. This document addresses financial issues and other issues at the time of the ending of the marriage.

Therefore, for thousands of years, a people have not believed as Bob says. Marriage, as Nacktman has said is a contractual agreement between two people.

I would also prefer that none of you say that Bob has a mental illness. Mental illness is a serious problem that affects real people.

Being incorrect, no matter how frequently is not a sign of mental illness.

MoonShadow

08-16-2007, 12:53 PM

Wow, is right! Bob's blog is unbelievable. He talks of hate but writes nothing but hate. I knew from the get-go when he first came on this forum that he was anti-woman and a woman-hater. Yes, women have a place as long as man controls her in his mind.

It's sad that someone in this day and age thinks and feels as bobx does. Thankfully, for everyone who thinks like bobx there are many others who don't. His way of a perfect society will never exist again. It did, it failed. We move forward now as human beings regardless of gender.

NudeTopher

08-16-2007, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by PascoDoug:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MJ_KC:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
He has just started to refer to himself in the third person. Perhaps his meds are starting to wear off.

The very notion that BobX The Hateful can claim that others are prejudiced has me laughing so hard my ribs hurt!
It doesn't have me laughing, it has me shaking my head in disbelief. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you want to get an even better idea of Bob's mentality, I suggest you read his blog:

http://bobstruth.blogspot.com/

Also, doing a Google search of his e-mail address brings up a couple of interesting posts & comments. On this site he praises OJ Simpson's murdering of his wife Nicole and Ron Goldman:

http://crimeblog.us/?p=130

(scroll down to "More from Bob Allen, blogger who loves wife-beaters and wife-killers") </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<span class="ev_code_RED">PAGING DR. FREUD. PAGING DR. SIGMUND FREUD</span>

I just read about as much as I could of his blog. It's a good thing the cesspool company just finished pumping our system out. The sh*t he posted would overflow any rationality.

My best armchair psychoanalytic diagnosis would be: His hatred of women has to do with his emasculation either by prior experiences of being turned-down by self-respecting women and/or his perception that giving equality to women is the reason for his impotence. Of course his rants against homosexuals could only be the latent homosexuality that he tries so hard to repress.

What a candidate to take to pysch show and tell!

nudefarmer

08-16-2007, 01:25 PM

I know I would regret doing it, but I just couldn't help myself. I had to check out Bob's blog. This is the most disturbing snippet I've seen so far...

Bob said...
Note to anonymous: (July 13, 2007 5:50 P)
Most "rape" amounts to sex with the man making the decision this once instead of abbrogating all reproductive decision making power to the female. There is an evolutionary behaviorial plus for rape, it increases a man's chance of having children. And there is a strong evolutionary desire for sex, even if the female has other plans. If she really doesn't consent she can stop the "rape" but usually she only wants to be "forced."

You are very confused to equate "rape" to serious crime such as murder, robery, etc. Rape is sex with the man making a decision for once. It's not much of a crime, if a crime at all.

In addition, M/F "rape" is about sex, while lesbian gang rape is about power and control. Violent lesbian gang rapists should be caught and hung.

July 13, 2007 8:13 PM

usmc1

08-16-2007, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by walter05:
DoctorSurferDude posted a comment on August 15, 2007 at 06:10 PM that I totally agree with.

However, that is why I did not answer the poll. I wanted to check the box that says it is no one’s business except the two people involved, and especially not the government's business. However, I did not find that choice.

USMC1 posted a comment on August 16, 2007 at 07:21 AM. Much to my surprise, it is extremely well written and thoughtful. I agree 100%.

I can't decide if this is faint praise or a back-handed compliment. You'd be surprised to know that everything I post is well-thought out. You just might not agree with my thought process or conclustions---I can live with that.

As to the quality of my writing? Well, I asnwer only to my agent and editor on that score. But, from time to time, I turn a nifty phrase or two.

I would also prefer that none of you say that Bob has a mental illness. Mental illness is a serious problem that affects real people.

I, and I am assuming no one else here is qualified to diagnose mental illness. But, I just do need to say that people who call for the killing of innocents because of their status of lacking proper documentation, justify rapes, lynchings and hangings are not demonstrating well-integrated personalities and/or mental stability.

There are some age-related dementias which carry with them symptoms of outlandish and irrational violent language and/or behavior.

I appreciate your methodical and `objective approach to things, but, I really need no more evidence of this bird's troubled mind. And, I really do not require you telling me how I should respond to that.

Others might feel differently.

Being incorrect, no matter how frequently is not a sign of mental illness.

nimrod

08-16-2007, 01:40 PM

Can we all please stop talking about Bob. I wish to not have to read, or even think about how someone could be so hatefull. I am not trying to hide my head in the sand, I just do not think that this is the right forum for his evil.

walter05

08-16-2007, 02:05 PM

I am man enough to admit when I am wrong.

Bob is not just often wrong. He is a dangerous nut. He also states things that are evil.

USMC1, even you underestimated how twisted, demented and evil he is.

One post on his blog said, "Muslims... bombing things... gives me an idea. How about acts of TERRORISM against women in the community?"

This sounds like a violent threat to me.

Bob has a heading called, "Comment rules". This implies that he is accepting or rejecting posts.

Bob also posted: “Often the naked ***gots put up web sites posing as legitimate organizations. One I discovered recently is called “Clothes Free International,” (CFI), and its Clothes Free Forum (CFF). CFF pretends to be promoting “God given rights” but behind the scenes they require allegiance to the ***got agenda, ***got marriage, public sex, and thinly covered hatred for families with children. CFF is hosted by a group that calls itself “Eve Community,” a name which screams “lesbian” pervert in a loud voice. CFF posts lots of naked photos and has a daily soft porn photo. They love photos of naked men and applaud any with erections. CFF is a soft porn site as well as its pervert advocacy. CFF mambers welcome and applaud the thought of two perverts raising a child who is deprived of his natural mother or father. They are also badly misandrist.”

Eve is a website hosting organization that hosts for many including MEN’S HEALTH.

Bob has libled CFF and EVE. I strongly recommend that both organizations conslut with legal counsel. There is a strong case for damages.

This man is dangerous. I know the FBI will want to look into this.

P.S. His own avatar is a nude picture. I would agree with him that it is obscene.

walter05

08-16-2007, 02:31 PM

USMC1;

I sent a post where I cut and paste things from Bob's website. The moderators have to approve them for the post to be allowed.

I was wrong and will admit it. Bob is not just wrong. He is potentially mentally ill. He is definitely evil and dangerous.

I now think even you underestimated him.

PascoDoug

08-16-2007, 03:32 PM

Just so everyone is aware, BobX was permanently banned from CFF earlier this afternoon.

Shortly thereafter an insane, frothing at the mouth tirade against CFF and myself appeared on his blog site.

CFI Headquarters has been made aware of the situation and will decide for themselves how to handle this lunatic and his libelous statements. I am currently considering legal action as well.

DenitaLC

08-16-2007, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by PascoDoug:
Just so everyone is aware, BobX was permanently banned from CFF earlier this afternoon.

Shortly thereafter an insane, frothing at the mouth tirade against CFF and myself appeared on his blog site.

CFI Headquarters has been made aware of the situation and will decide for themselves how to handle this lunatic and his libelous statements. I am currently considering legal action as well.

Whew......THANK YOU!

MoonShadow

08-16-2007, 03:48 PM

Yes, PascoDoug, thank you!!

PascoDoug

08-16-2007, 03:53 PM

Bob doesn't seem to realize it but his little blog is in direct violation of the TOS of the blog service he is using (blogger.com)

Terms Of Service:
http://www.blogger.com/content.g

Since his tirade was basically against all of us here at CFF, I ask that you please visit the link below and report his violations to the site's administrators. Hopefully we can have his sick little hate outlet deleted.

https://www.blogger.com/problem.g?skiplogin=yes

NOTE: do NOT select "libel" as your reason for reporting his blog, as blogspot.com will send you a canned response stating they are not liable for their member's content. Select "Hate or violence" or one of the others instead.

BinCo

08-16-2007, 04:23 PM

Thanks to all for putting up with this jerk. We can hopefully breathe a collective sign of relief now that he is gone.

R.M.GREENMAN2

08-16-2007, 04:27 PM

It never ceases to amaze me.....

Journeyman

08-16-2007, 04:28 PM

Thank you, Doug, for exposing this mentally ill individual and his blog. I just hope that he didn't have many people on these Forums believing or agreeing with his hate mongering. In the 3 + years I've been on these Forums, I have never seen such vitriol.

Isn't it ironic that the Internet - such a wonderful place to promote naturism - also has to have available blogs from Bobx23456? Democracy means freedom of speech, no matter how horrible it can be sometimes. However, let's hope Google's Blogspot will feel differently if it sees what he is blogging...

usmc1

08-16-2007, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by walter05:
USMC1;

I sent a post where I cut and paste things from Bob's website. The moderators have to approve them for the post to be allowed.

I was wrong and will admit it. Bob is not just wrong. He is potentially mentally ill. He is definitely evil and dangerous.

I now think even you underestimated him.

No, I don't think I did. I know the type way, way too well. And for what you or anyone else cares to make of it...well, never mind. Let's just say that it wasn't really that hard to draw him out into the open.

Now let us , move onward through the fog!

Naturist Mark

08-16-2007, 05:18 PM

Wow. He never seemed to have a clue about nudism, and an attitude of "I'll do as I please" that would have quickly got him ejected from any nudist club. I had him pegged as a kid pretending to be 'mature adult', who had never been naked outside of his room, and probably never been in a relationship. Turns out he is soooo much more.

R.M.GREENMAN2

08-16-2007, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
Wow. He never seemed to have a clue about nudism, and an attitude of "I'll do as I please" that would have quickly got him ejected from any nudist club. I had him pegged as a kid pretending to be 'mature adult', who had never been naked outside of his room, and probably never been in a relationship. Turns out he is soooo much more.

That is how I felt about Mountain Man from years ago.

Can we change the definition of marriage to a union between two HUMANS?

BinCo

08-16-2007, 07:11 PM

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/applause.gif

+1 to Greenman Mike for that concise summary.

Sounds like a great way to close this disturbing thread and move on.

MoonShadow

08-16-2007, 07:35 PM

I submitted my complaint to blogger.com and I hope others of you do also. This person must be removed from cyberland. He has taken freedom of speech and mutilated it with his hatred to the point of encouraging and supporting violence. He libels this forum and all of us and degraded a moderator's name.

As we have all seen here on this forum and on his blog, he represents what humans should not be. He is the epitome of someone who went wrong and uses his hate to encourage others to join him in the oppression and supression of others.

Truly a sad, sad individual.

nacktman

08-16-2007, 07:38 PM

I had him pegged for a Schizo-affective, with delusional episodes and dementia coupled with violent fantasies (yes, I am a Psychologist, as some here know), almost from the beginning. I had him as a "nut-job" from the beginning, however.

Not sure I want to check out his blog after reading other's response to it, but I guess I ought to.

Oh, and Doug, yes thank you. I abhor the cessation of a voice, no matter how shrill, but here I believe I can live without this particular voice's presence.

Now, may we return to the discussion of the topic at hand.

R.M.GREENMAN2

08-16-2007, 07:43 PM

Thanks B!

As far as the Marriage Poll, I wonder if Polgamy has ever been brought up here?

A couple years ago, I was witnessed to a Polyamourous Handfasting, where 2 women and 1 man all married (handfasted) eachother. Basically all three married eachother, so there was husband and wife and wife.
The man was the husband (ofcourse) and the ladies were the wives...not just his wives , but one wife was also the wife of the other wife...Am I making sense to anyone?
This other guy standing with me during this ceremony leans over to me and says," He is either the luckiest man here...or the stupidest! I am just not sure right now!"

Has anyone ever heard of such a thing?

nacktman

08-16-2007, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by R.M.GREENMAN2:
Thanks B!

As far as the Marriage Poll, I wonder if Polgamy has ever been brought up here?

A couple years ago, I was witnessed to a Polyamourous Handfasting, where 2 women and 1 man all married (handfasted) eachother. Basically all three married eachother, so there was husband and wife and wife.
The man was the husband (ofcourse) and the ladies were the wives...not just his wives , but one wife was also the wife of the other wife...Am I making sense to anyone?
This other guy standing with me during this ceremony leans over to me and says," He is either the luckiest man here...or the stupidest! I am just not sure right now!"

Has anyone ever heard of such a thing?

Yes I have. As a Anthropologist I have studied many such 'marriages' in many cultures past and present, as a minister I have actually performed one such marriage.

And now after reading the blog of that banned person I am using my professional status as a Psychologist and placing a call to a friend and fellow Psychologist on the west coast and have her begin commitment proceedings against the individual - he is dangerous to everyone around him - and given his hate of women I find it quite fitting it will be a woman putting him in the lock-down ward at the asylum.

As to Polygamy greenman, that is a 'form' of marriage not under review with this poll - it was set up for the 'same sex' form of marriage. Another poll on various forms of marriages would be the place for a full discussion of Polygamy. I might need to break out the old anthropological texts and brush up on all the 'forms' of marriage and conduct such a poll - give me a couple of days (I have a hectic couple of days coming up) and I will see if I can get a poll up and running for just that.

R.M.GREENMAN2

08-16-2007, 07:58 PM

Nacktman- Was the word "POLYAMOUROUS" the right word for such a union?

nacktman

08-16-2007, 08:00 PM

Originally posted by R.M.GREENMAN2:
Nacktman- Was the word "POLYAMOUROUS" the right word for such a union?

Yes.

R.M.GREENMAN2

08-16-2007, 08:02 PM

Originally posted by nacktman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R.M.GREENMAN2:
Nacktman- Was the word "POLYAMOUROUS" the right word for such a union?

Yes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

WHOO HOOO! Score one for the Green guy!!! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/eusa_dance.gif

BinCo

08-16-2007, 08:11 PM

Hold up there green guy. I have pals who are polyamorous, as do you (since we spent a week with many of them). They see a difference between the two.

Mainly: Polygamy is the marriage of more than 2.
Polyamorous is sharing with more than 2. I know couples who make love and share partners with other couples, they are not polgamists, but are polyamorous. I would not being the later, but how could I afford more than one wife? http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wiseguy.gif

On Bobx: I tried to submit a complaint, but do not have or want a google e-mail.

PascoDoug

08-16-2007, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by BinCo:
On Bobx: I tried to submit a complaint, but do not have or want a google e-mail.

A Google e-mail account is not necessary. Simply click on "Skip authentication" and you will be taken straight to the complaint interface.

Once there, select "Report a Terms of Service violation" then a complaint category. DON'T select "Defamation/Libel/Slander" as the site will merely send you an automated canned e-mail stating that they legally are not responsible for content blah blah. Choose "Hate or violence" instead.

Hopefully we can take this little sicko out, if only temporarily. Unfortunately these types are like roaches. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/smash.gif

NudistMetalHead

08-16-2007, 09:50 PM

I don't see a problem with same sex marriage.

I'm not gay myself, but I have friends who are gay and I think if they want to share that kind of union in the legally binding sense, let them!

My life will not grind to a halt because gay people are getting married.

Cigol Edun

08-17-2007, 12:49 AM

I've been studying with a friend of mine about marriage from a biblical perspective for over a year. One of the difficulties we encountered was indeed how exactly it should be defined. For our purposes a legal English dictionary definition would not do. We looked for only those provably present elements which could be found in the Bible based on the original language words and contextual analysis. I'm no super expert but we really did try to do our homework on this. So far we have decided based off of only biblical texts that biblical marriage had the following 3 things:

1) a covenant/contract/agreement
2) possession/ownership
3) sex

Disclaimer:
Now I realize this is not a religious thread, but I wanted to give some background to what I plan to say next. I also realize that there will surly be people who disagree with me, and that is just fine. I respect your views also.

The ideas of marriage have evolved with time and are not the same from one culture to another. It personally doesn't matter to me what definitions you use as long as when I'm talking with you I know what you are saying and can respond appropriately.

Obviously those concerned with equal protections under the law for gay rights will most naturally "define" (meaning use the word/s to mean) marriage in a way that highlights those legal aspects that they are concerned with. Others would define marriage in a quasi-common law fashion which practically equates sex with marriage. Incidentally, I think the Bible is sort of between those extremes.

My final points are these:
I've discussed this in the past with our banned acquaintance Bob. What he had to say may not interest you but I think he is right about one thing. The purpose for marriage laws and contracts seem to have been invented as a way to protect and/or regulate the raising of children.

Now, as far as what I think about these contemporary notions of marriage, I believe politically speaking this is something for our government to stay out of as much as they reasonably can (whether gay or heterosexual), but that is a personal political view not all share. I'm also content to live peaceably with all who view things differently.
http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

nacktman

08-17-2007, 04:13 AM

The purpose for marriage laws and contracts <span class="ev_code_RED">SEEM</span> to have been invented as a way to protect and/or regulate the raising of children.

The above cited statement IS correct with the word that makes it correct highlighted.

Marriage laws and contracts were invented as a means of announcing and defining the common property of the marriage for the unit survival of the parties comprising the unit.
In many cultures children ARE property but even in such cultures they are not the reason(s) marriage 'laws' exist. As a matter of fact there are cultures in the world today (there were more in the past), where the father of a child has absolutely NO responsibility for the rearing of any children he has - it is the responsibility of the mother's brother to do so.

BinCo, technically both you and Greenman are both incorrect in you're use of the term Polygamy.
Polygamy is the term strictly for use when referring to a 'marriage' between one man and at least two women - Polygamy literally means "multiple wives".
Greeman's example was a Polyamourous, his error in use of Polygamy is that the term has been equated with "multiple marriages" in the common vernacular over time, so most would not know there was a difference.
Polyamourous is also not just the 'sharing of multiple persons' it is a term for multiple marriages but ones not necessarily to each other - in sample cited, the man was married to one woman who was in turn was married to the other woman who in turn was not married to the man but to the first woman.

NudeTopher

08-17-2007, 04:50 AM

Originally posted by NudistMetalHead:

My life will not grind to a halt because gay people are getting married.

^gasp^ And all of those neo's and rrr's stood up and said "...gay marriage will destroy traditional marriage."

usmc1

08-17-2007, 05:40 AM

We as humans see things through the eyes of our own experience hence our views today of marriage and children are tempered by the mores and traditions of today, and, we assume that it has always been this way in one form or another.

Not so. Concern with children and their well-being is a fairly recent development. Right up until our grand-parents time; for the masses, children were assets: to work the farm, to acquire more land and gather greater wealth, and as a hedge against old-age and infirmity. Children, especially girl children were not schooled and were given in marriage, at very young ages, either to get them out of the house or to acquire land.

In cities, children were cast out, indentured or bonded at an early age. The first born of the well-to-do, through primogeniture, took the lottery--the rest entered the priesthood or military or were indentured to a tradesman.

Marriage existed, but more for the landed than the unlanded. Without benefit of clergy, people on the frontier "jumped the broom" or engaged in some other locally significant signal of their "marriage".

Nacktman is right, it had much more to do with property, lineage, and familial alliances than love or the desire to to birth children.

And the church recognizing, as always, a way to score two-bits, moved in on the marriage process and claimed it as belonging to that which we call God.

But, there is absolutely no historic or scientific evidence to support the assertion that "marriage is for the purpose of creating children". None!

Marriage for all is a fairly recent development, in historic context, and in our western culture is as much, if not more, about legal rights and social, financial, and property benefits than about anything else.

Either abolish that special status, or allow all couples (or combinations of persons) who so wish to enjoy those benefits. Churches who do not care to sanctify or provide the ritual certainly are free to make that choice but not to impose their choice on society.

R.M.GREENMAN2

08-17-2007, 06:04 AM

Originally posted by nacktman: - in sample cited, the man was married to one woman who was in turn was married to the other woman who in turn was not married to the man but to the first woman.

Actually, the man was married to both women, and both women to him and as the women were married to eachother...

walter05

08-17-2007, 08:00 AM

Greenman2;

That means two sets of in-laws.

R.M.GREENMAN2

08-17-2007, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by walter05:
Greenman2;

That means two sets of in-laws.

AAAAAAAHHHHHHHEEEEEE! ***Runs screaming into the darkest recesses of the basement****

xgsft

08-17-2007, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudistMetalHead:

My life will not grind to a halt because gay people are getting married.

^gasp^ And all of those neo's and rrr's stood up and said "...gay marriage will destroy traditional marriage." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What I always tell the neo's and rrr'ers is...

If you want to fix traditional marriage, here is how you do it.

1. Just because two people inadvertantly conceive a kid doesn't mean they have to marry. Entering in a loveless marriage for the sake of the kid just isn't worth the divorce in 5-10 years.

2. End the notion that one must get married ASAP before doing anything with your mate.

3. Somehow stop the celebrities who marry, then literally 20 minutes later apply for divorce.

Those are just three simple things from my observations.

Further, I think the real problem is they find gay sex disgusting. *That or in alot of cases covering for thier own homosexuality* If this is the case, they should be coming out in droves saying "Let them marry!" It would stop all the sex! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif

nimrod

08-17-2007, 09:42 AM

Who was the comic that said, "I believe in gay marriage, they should have the same rights to be has miserable as the rest of us."?

P.J.

08-17-2007, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by nacktman:
I have been reading the thread concerning sex and nudity and have resisted mightily the urge to throttle a couple of nincompoops posting there.

However some have expressed a desire to have a poll on marriage specifically "same sex marriage".

Well here it is.
Cast your vote and tell the reasoning why.
Save the reactionary incoherent babbling as I said I have resisted mightily (oh, you don't know how mightily), throttling some already.

I don't approve of "same sex" marriage.
Contrary to any possible accusations from my critics, I'm not out to launch some hate-filled mean spirited plot to enslave the gay community nor join some religious crusade to destroy any human lives.
By the way, I don't belong to the Westboro Baptist Church either.
I do believe that homosexuality is morally wrong.
I would love to see everyone live peacefully in this life and in the eternity of the next life, live in happiness forever.
Does this point of view give religion a bad name?
Hats of to Nacktman for an interesting question.
To everyone else, let's refrain from the reactionary incoherent babbling.

nimrod

08-17-2007, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by P.J.:
I do believe that homosexuality is morally wrong.
Does this point of view give religion a bad name?

Will you please explain why you fill that homosexuality is morally wrong? I am most curious about the moral aspect of it, I hear often from people that it is morally wrong but none really explain what exactly about homosexuality is not moral.

To answer your question, yes. I believe that any religion that uses morallity as a way of feeling superior to a different idea is wrong. Are you immoral for being a nudist when certain religions say that nudity is morally wrong?

walter05

08-17-2007, 12:08 PM

PJ;

You said, "I don't approve of "same sex" marriage."

I don't approve of adultery either.

Since we are both happily married, neither one of us is going to do either.

Your opinion of what you or your family should or should not do is your opinion. You should act according to your convictions and beliefs.

As long as people don't interfere with others' lives, do you think others should act according to their convictions and beliefs?

walter05

08-17-2007, 12:11 PM

To everyone else;

I believe that since I am Jewish, PJ believes that I am also doomed to Hell. He does not approve of my rejection of Jesus.

If I thought he was correct, then I would change my mind. Since I believe he is incorrect, I am not concerned.

I don't care what he believes about me as long as he is respectful, kind, and courteous to me. I see no reason to condemn him for his beliefs or demonize him over them.

Can the rest of you who feel he disapproves of you be as respectful of his beliefs?

If you can be as respectful, then that is fine. If you can't and want to impose your views on him, you have a bigger problem than you think he does.

xgsft

08-17-2007, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by P.J.:

Does this point of view give religion a bad name?

Basically, it is just fine if you against gay people. Whatever, it is your opinion. However, there are many others who are against that opinion. Does it have a direct effect on you if they do?

There are many churches/temples who would perform these cerimonies, further the goverment could do one too. I mean, atheists get married this way too!

It's kinda like what we all face as nudists, we have a force that keeps us from being happy despite not causing any harm. However, we are branded as perverts our pasttime practically outlawed even though we are not causing any harm. All because people think what we do is disgusting/wrong.

P.J.

08-17-2007, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by walter05:
To everyone else;

I believe that since I am Jewish, PJ believes that I am also doomed to Hell. He does not approve of my rejection of Jesus.

<span class="ev_code_RED">Hold it right there...I do not, and will not ever condemn the Jewish people. Most Christians, especially the Evangelical ones, the Fundamentalists and those who are arbitrarily pegged as the RRR are probably the staunchest allies that the Jewish people have. </span>

If I thought he was correct, then I would change my mind. Since I believe he is incorrect, I am not concerned.

I don't care what he believes about me as long as he is respectful, kind, and courteous to me. I see no reason to condemn him for his beliefs or demonize him over them.

<span class="ev_code_RED">I do respect and appreciate that point of view. Those who know me know that I'm a bit outspoken, but fiercely loyal to my friends and acquantences. </span>

Can the rest of you who feel he disapproves of you be as respectful of his beliefs?

If you can be as respectful, then that is fine. If you can't and want to impose your views on him, you have a bigger problem than you think he does.

<span class="ev_code_RED">I don't wish to cause you any problems with some of the radical troublemakers, but I'm sure that we could get along with one another and maintain our differences.</span>

P.J.

08-17-2007, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by nimrod:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by P.J.:
I do believe that homosexuality is morally wrong.
Does this point of view give religion a bad name?

Will you please explain why you fill that homosexuality is morally wrong? I am most curious about the moral aspect of it, I hear often from people that it is morally wrong but none really explain what exactly about homosexuality is not moral.

To answer your question, yes. I believe that any religion that uses morallity as a way of feeling superior to a different idea is wrong. Are you immoral for being a nudist when certain religions say that nudity is morally wrong? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good Evening Nimrod.
My belief is that homosexuality is wrong. Among the reasons that I believe this are found in the Holy Bible.
Before you (and others) jump on me, I believe that this does not give anyone a free pass to act like a moral bully.
I do not believe that nudism is wrong but judging by the flack that some of my posts generate, if I announced that members of the RRR wore raincoat in the shower, some would believe it!!!
At the moment, time and space doesn't allow me to adequate answer your questions. There's no doubt that this issue won't rest, so I will have a chance to answer later. Please accept my apologies for now.

P.J.

08-17-2007, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by xgsft:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by P.J.:

Does this point of view give religion a bad name?

Basically, it is just fine if you against gay people. Whatever, it is your opinion. However, there are many others who are against that opinion. Does it have a direct effect on you if they do?

<span class="ev_code_RED">I'm not against anybody, except certain politicians. I do not approve of homosexuality and I won't condone "gay" sex. That does not mean that I would condone any sort of wrongdoing towards member of the gay community because of sexual orientation </span>

There are many churches/temples who would perform these cerimonies, further the goverment could do one too. I mean, atheists get married this way too!

It's kinda like what we all face as nudists, we have a force that keeps us from being happy despite not causing any harm. However, we are branded as perverts our pasttime practically outlawed even though we are not causing any harm. All because people think what we do is disgusting/wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

xgsft

08-17-2007, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by P.J.:

<span class="ev_code_RED">I'm not against anybody, except certain politicians. I do not approve of homosexuality and I won't condone "gay" sex. That does not mean that I would condone any sort of wrongdoing towards member of the gay community because of sexual orientation </span>

Well, that is cool but it isn't really what I was looking for.

My point is it ok to force your morality on someone when they aren't harming anyone. Sure, it is wrong by your religion, however is it causing you or others who object to it harm?

As you mentioned in the reply to nimrod, it is the moral bullies that try and write this into law is what I really have a problem with. The reason why religion came into it was that it allows those people to have support in thier agenda.

usmc1

08-17-2007, 04:38 PM

P.J. just fyi, the "peg", as you call it, radical religious right or "rrr" is not an arbitrary appellation. It is well-earned on all counts.

I wonder if you'd care to name those here you view as "radical troublemakers"?

And finally, since you're opposed to same-sex marriage, don't do it! That ought to solve it for you.

Or perhaps you believe you're required to deny that union to other people also?

MJ_KC

08-17-2007, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by usmc1:
And finally, since you're opposed to same-sex marriage, don't do it! That ought to solve it for you.

Or perhaps you believe you're required to deny that union to other people also?
My take on this is that I do not want to deny something to someone that isn't going to bother me in any way. If I were to do this, then I shouldn't have a problem when someone else turns around and denies me the right to do something that I really want to do.

There are just way too many people who are willing to intrude into someones else's business. This is not a nice way to be. People are certainly free to live by their own moral code, but they shouldn't expect everyone else to follow the same code of behavior.

nacktman

08-17-2007, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by R.M.GREENMAN2:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nacktman: - in sample cited, the man was married to one woman who was in turn was married to the other woman who in turn was not married to the man but to the first woman.

Actually, the man was married to both women, and both women to him and as the women were married to eachother... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gads! My Bad!

nacktman

08-17-2007, 09:13 PM

Folks, P.J. has strong opinions as do some others here and while he does not need any defense from me, I will offer this ... in exchanges with me he has been civil and polite and received the same from me.
He has been accused of being not so civil to others, this may be, I have been accused of the same thing - as any reader here can attest to.

This is not a rejoinder to anyone. I do not want to silence any or any opinion, I do reject incivility and will return fire from a BB Gun with a 88MM - again something that is no surprise to some I wager.

There have been other posters on this thread of the 'conservative bent' and with the very notable exception of one no longer with us the discourse has been more civil than not and I for one would like to see it remain as such.

Prompted by Greeman, I have blown the dust off my old Anthropological Texts and I am reviewing the sections on the types of marriages and will try to have a listing accompanied by a polling of what you think of each type ... if I can properly word the question(s) that is as opposed to improperly framing the questions and thus having a useless poll - you'd be surprised at how hard that is in this context with the various forms of marriage, past and present.

Currently the poll stands @

58% for or don't care
31% against
6% got the joke
6% don't bother me people

Yes, I know that adds up to more than 100%,(101%), but the software here doesn't allow for fractions, so something was rounded either up or down.