Marriage Poll

[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.

[nakedjohn]

If people are happy and content with their situation, to me, this is the most important thing.

[Eric6420]

Same sex marriage is about to give equal rights to gay people, so that thay can live freely and openly.
Hopefully, we already have this right in Canada, as well as Belgium, the Netherlands and Spain. Scandinavia also recognise gay marrige, they just call it another way, but it is the same rights.

[nudebushwalker]

"Same sex marriage" isn't recognised as such (i.e. legally or politically..) in Australia.

As with Scandinavian countries (and probably some other European countries, and maybe New Zealand?), as mentioned in Eric's post above, the legal and social standings are (largely, but not completely..) recognised down here.
It's just that the majority of Aussies would still seem to prefer that the Gay lobby didn't use the term "Same Sex Marriage" for Gay unions/partnerships...

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

[Eric6420]

But to refuse the word marriage to gay unions, looks to me like a "seperate but equal" mentality.

[BinCo]

I think the better question would be.

"Why is the government involved in condoning marraige at all?"

Seems to me that there are a lot of right wingers who go on and on about personal fortitude and personal responsibility, then ask that the government be involved at the most personal level of our lives. They get to condone who we "marry" and what laws govern our sex lives, birth choices and death choices.

[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.

It goes from imigration to heritage, to taxes, it affects hundreds of laws.

So the only way to recognise gay people as equal to heterosexuals is to recognised gay marriage with all the laws to recognised gay people as equal under the law to heterosexuals.

[MoonShadow]

I voted, yes, to same sex marriage.

Reason: why should homosexuals be denied legal bonding of two people who wish to live together as a pair. And yes, marriage gives more legal rights to a couple that single people do not get.

[Bobx23456]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. Do you support it or not?

[Eric6420]

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]

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]

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]

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. 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).

That and socialists/communists.

Throw those two in and you have yourself a deal!

[nacktman]

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]

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]

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.

[Bobx23456]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.
I agree with you. Churches should be able to decide what they want to endorse, but the government should not be allowed to make this a religious issue. A marriage at the courthouse should be allowed to anyone who wants it.

[MJ_KC]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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>

Then it is just another piece of legal documentation for tax purposes?

[nacktman]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Thanks!

[usmc1]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Yes, PascoDoug, thank you!!

[PascoDoug]

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]

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]

It never ceases to amaze me.....

[Journeyman]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[nacktman]

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

Yes.

[R.M.GREENMAN2]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Greenman2;

That means two sets of in-laws.

[R.M.GREENMAN2]

Originally posted by walter05:
Greenman2;

That means two sets of in-laws.

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

[xgsft]

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]

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.]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.]

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.]

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.]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[David77]

I don't think Polyandry has been mentioned. Polyandry is one woman being married to multiple men.

The most common form of polyandy is a woman who marries two or more brothers. This form of polyandry is called fraternal polyandry. Fraternal polyandry is found especially in certain areas of Tibet and Nepal, where polyandry is accepted as a social practice.

If I recall correctly, an American Indian tribe in Florida practiced polyandry and the female was the head of the household and dominant.

[David77]

"Tribes and their clans depend heavily on rules regarding who may and may not marry whom. Marriage in such systems is less about the linking of individuals than of groups; thus, it is also about the transmission of status, property, privilege, and responsibility. Strict rules often govern the extent to which a man or woman should marry outside a lineage (exogamy) or within it (endogamy). Prescribed and arranged marriages, often between distant cousins or in exchanges of women with other clans or tribes, tend to be the norm". Sometimes there is the practices of brideprice - whereby the man pays the bride's family.

[David77]

<center>"Definition of Marriage - Hard to Pin Down"</center>

http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/subtemplate.php?t=inTheNews&ext=news080

[nacktman]

As of this morning the poll stands @

57% approve or don't care

29% disapprove

5% got the joke

8% don't bother me with polls people.

[R.M.GREENMAN2]

Originally posted by David77:
I don't think Polyandry has been mentioned. Polyandry is one woman being married to multiple men.

The most common form of polyandy is a woman who marries two or more brothers. This form of polyandry is called fraternal polyandry. Fraternal polyandry is found especially in certain areas of Tibet and Nepal, where polyandry is accepted as a social practice.

If I recall correctly, an American Indian tribe in Florida practiced polyandry and the female was the head of the household and dominant.

I might be wrong but I was lead to believe in my old college Sociology class that POLYANDRY = MAN WITH MULTIPLE WIVES
POLYGINNY= WOMAN WITH MULTIPLE HUSBANDS

The latter is still in practice today in the countries David77 mentioned plus India.

[David77]

Greenman,
I don't think that there is such a word as "poliginny" as I could not find it in the dictionary nor in a google search.

<u>Polyandry</u> is the word for the practice of one woman marrying multiple husbands.

A man with multiple wives is <u>polygamy</u>.

There is such a word as <u>polygyny</u> which is defined as - "the condition or practice of having more than one wife or female mate at a single time".

[R.M.GREENMAN2]

Originally posted by David77:
Greenman,
I don't think that there is such a word as "poliginny" as I could not find it in the dictionary nor in a google search.

Polyandry is the word for the practice of one woman marrying multiple husbands.

I might have misspelled it or something, it has been quite a few years since I was attending that class, plus I was convinced that Sociology was a big waste of my time at that point.

Like the old saying goes: "What is the most common thing you hear a Sociology Major say?"

"Do you want fries with that?"

[R.M.GREENMAN2]

Sorry David
The word was Polygyny and it means multiple wives.
Polyandry is multiple husbands
I got everything reversed...D'OH!

[David77]

Greenman,
You probably merely spelled the word with "ginny" instead of "gyny" so you still should get an A+ after years being away from socialogy class, in my estimation. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

I can be perfectly happy if the more commonly used word of <u>polygamy</u> is given it's proper due as meaning multiple wives, which seems to be almost the same as polygyny, with the exception that polygyny can include an unmarried man living with and mating with multiple women considered his wives.

[Naturist Mark]

Properly speaking Polygamy is simply marriage with multiple partners. But it is commonly used to only mean the form of marriage where one man has multiple wives - which properly speaking is Polygyny.

[Naturist Mark]

Hilarious ... actual exchange on a Christian Chat room site, starts with Biblical basis for hating them gays, then moves on to shellfish and keepin' the womyns in their place. Gotta love them fundies ... no really, you gotta love them, but you don't gotta be one.

From the blog Not Very Bright (http://notverybright.wordpress.com/2006/02/15/what-about-lobster/) <UL TYPE=SQUARE>

(Note: Actual — meaning nonfabricated — Christian chat room chat follows. There have been no substantive edits. Just some stuff cut out of the original chat, screen names changed, and some stylistic corrections. And yeah, I need a life. I know.)

JC: Anybody in here for gay marriages???

twentythree: No, I’m not.

Marie: Nope.

Judy: Nope. Bad

Erica: No.

Jerri: No way.

Marie: It is an abomination according to the Bible.

Erica: It’s not Biblical.

JC: Good!!!!!! I was just testing!!!

NotVeryBright: I’m against shrimp too, for consistency.

Erica: My Bible says it is an abomination in God’s eyes. It’s an abomination in my eyes too.

NotVeryBright: Yeah, mine too. And shellfish. That’s why I won’t eat shrimp. Any of you eat shrimp?

JC: What’s up with the shrimp? Did I miss something?

JC: I love shrimp.

Judy: Me too.

Marie: I’m confused.

NotVeryBright: God hates shrimp.

Judy: Peel and eat cold.

Ann: What’s up with shrimp?

Judy: Yummy.

JC: Scampi is the best.

NotVeryBright: You shrimp-eating people are sinners. And scampi is the most sinful, actually.

JC: Hold up, NotVeryBright.

Marie: I’m confused about the whole shrimp thing.

Erica: Come on, isn’t there more important issues besides shrimp?

Judy: Shrimp is fine to eat.

Ann: It’s a sin to eat shrimp?

Marie: I understand we are not supposed to eat them because they are bottom dwellers.

NotVeryBright: Eating shrimp is an abomination. Leviticus says so, right next to the homo verse.

JC: Give me that scripture.

NotVeryBright: Leviticus 11:9-12.

Erica: It’s not a sin to eat shrimp.

NotVeryBright: Yes. It is. It’s right next to the homo verse.

JC: Let me look it up - hold on.

Erica: We aren’t under the law anymore though.

NotVeryBright: Well why are people quoting the homo abomination verse then?

Erica: I think that one’s still good law.

NotVeryBright: Either they’re both valid or neither one. And I for one am taking no chances. No shrimp for me.

Ann: I like shrimp.

NotVeryBright: I will pray for you, Ann. You know, love the shrimp eater, hate the shrimp eating.

Marie: He’s right. Anything that doesn’t have fins and scales you are supposed to detest and not eat their meat.

Ann: Jesus ate fish.

NotVeryBright: Fish, not shellfish. Read your Bible.

Marie: Yeah, fish have scales.

NotVeryBright: There you go, Marie. I know one woman who’s studied her scriptures. And her field guides. Bet you can bait a hook too.

JC: What about Lobster?

NotVeryBright: If homos are an abomination, then so are shrimp. You can’t have it both ways.

Erica: JC, what do you have to say about what they brought up, though, about why we quote the gay marriage verse and not that one? It’s because the gay marriages go for anytime and the whole food thing was just for then, right?

NotVeryBright: Where do you get that distinction? There’s no such thing in the verses. They’re both right there together in Leviticus.

JC: Erica it is in the New Testament about Homosexuality. We are under the law of Jesus Christ now.

NotVeryBright: So the Leviticus verses on homo abominations are no longer valid? I think you people pick and choose. Slippery slope, my friends.

JC: I think you need to focus on the New Testament.

NotVeryBright: OK. Let’s do that. By the way, I’m not listening to what the women in here have to say anyway.

Erica: Why?

NotVeryBright: You women are supposed to be silent: “As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. (NIV, 1 Corinthians 14:33-35).” That’s the New Testament, by the way.

Marie: Woman was made from man but that doesn’t mean I have to ask his permission to speak.

NotVeryBright: Either the Bible means what it says or it doesn’t. You can’t cherry pick verses.

Didymus: Women can sing in church. That verse is about women keeping silent with their husbands.

NotVeryBright: That’s not what it says. Re-read it. And, just to warn you, I may have to use the ignore function in this chat if you women keep speaking out on spiritual matters.

Marie: I’m as equal as you or anybody else in church.

NotVeryBright: God seems to think differently. Next thing you know you’ll be trying to explain away the anti-homo verses too. I say: No shrimp, no mouthy women, no homos.

NotVeryBright: And, oh yeah, JC, no lobster either.
[/list]

[usmc1]

Oh, I dunno Mark. One could do a substitution here and there in that snippet and it would read like one of those nudist site threads about unwelcome erections or shaving. Same depth of thought at work. People are people, and the vast majority really do need some sort of guidance or life-long training wheels.

I mean, after all, how many pages are we into this thread about marriage? Those idiots above aren't really a lot worse than we idiots, are they?

But, in the sight of the Lord, one really wonders just how het up He gets about shellfish eating gays? Would that be a double abomination? What about gays at a Sunday afternoon lobster boil on Fire Island? Would that be a triple abomination? Or just one helluva party?

"No, no Boudreaux darling, that is most definitely not a giant crayfish, and you certainly may not pop its head off to suck out the juice". "Well! This is positively the last time I'm dating a Cajun--I think I've learned my lesson."

[David77]

<center>Definitions in Marrian-Webster Dictionary</center>
Polygyny - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/polygyny

Polyandry - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/polyandry

Polygamy - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/polygamy

However, to my knowledge, anthropology literature uses the word "polygamy" exclusively for a male having multiple female mates, wives, at the same time.

[Journeyman]

Originally posted by usmc1:
But, in the sight of the Lord, one really wonders just how het up He gets about shellfish eating gays? Would that be a double abomination? What about gays at a Sunday afternoon lobster boil on Fire Island? Would that be a triple abomination? Or just one helluva party?


The latter. Been there, done that. *snap* http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/cool4.gif

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

[Journeyman]

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
Hilarious ... actual exchange on a Christian Chat room site, starts with Biblical basis for hating them gays, then moves on to shellfish and keepin' the womyns in their place. Gotta love them fundies ... no really, you gotta love them, but you don't gotta be one.

From the blog Not Very Bright (http://notverybright.wordpress.com/2006/02/15/what-about-lobster/) <UL TYPE=SQUARE>

(Note: Actual — meaning nonfabricated — Christian chat room chat follows. There have been no substantive edits. Just some stuff cut out of the original chat, screen names changed, and some stylistic corrections. And yeah, I need a life. I know.)

JC: Anybody in here for gay marriages???

(snip) [/list]

That was a riot. Would make an excellent Saturday Night Live* skit!

(*for non North Americans: a late night comedy show on US television)

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
Hilarious ... actual exchange on a Christian Chat room site, starts with Biblical basis for hating them gays, then moves on to shellfish and keepin' the womyns in their place. Gotta love them fundies ... no really, you gotta love them, but you don't gotta be one.




http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/laugh.gif truly ROFLMBBO

I just having the feeling that Mark was taking the role of NotVeryBright.

[nacktman]

Originally posted by David77:
<center>Definitions in Marrian-Webster Dictionary</center>
Polygyny - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/polygyny

Polyandry - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/polyandry

Polygamy - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/polygamy

However, to my knowledge, anthropology literature uses the word "polygamy" exclusively for a male having multiple female mates, wives, at the same time.


Yep, they sure do David77.
POLYGAMY is the term Anthropologists use for the marriage of a single male to multiple females.
POLYGYNY is the term Anthropologists use for a man has a 'familial relationship' with multiple females where one is the wife and the rest concubines.

[walter05]

USMC1;

You have brought this forum to a new low. How could you gone from shrimp to another shaved erection thread?

You said, "One could do a substitution here and there in that snippet and it would read like one of those nudist site threads about unwelcome erections or shaving."

[Pete Knight]

Shrimp are an abomination in the eyes of the lord, and as for gay shrimp, well!!!!!

I going to check through my book of Monty Python skits, I'm sure I've seen that one in there somewhere!!!!!!

Pete Knight

[walter05]

PJ;

First of all, I am glad you are not the sort to reject me outright. That teaches me one simple thing.

You don't require people to agree with you on everything. If that is the case, we can get along.

On the gay marriage question, I think we are close to my original point to you.

I posted: 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? "

If so then I have have no problem with you.

PM me if you want to meet since you close to me.

[walter05]

Mark is referring to the rules for keeping Kosher.

According to the Torah, most descendants of Noah can eat any animal as long of the living thing is killed first. Therefore, if most of you want to eat shrimp, that is okay according to the Torah.

The rules on not eating shrimp are included in the laws of keeping kosher and apply only to Jews. Jews who believe that the Torah is divine and obey its commandments don't eat anything that comes from the water that does not have fins and scales. Therefore, shrimp are not kosher and are excluded from consumption.

However, Mark has inadvertently raised an interesting question. The rules on keeping Kosher in Leviticus and Deuteronomy apply only to Jews. Those are also the books with clear prohibitions on men sleeping with men as women and those commandments also only apply to Jews.

I will do some research to find out of the rules on men sleeping with men as women apply to non-Jews any more than the Kosher rules. If not, then by Torah law, for non-Jews, there may be no prohibition at all.

[usmc1]

Originally posted by walter05:
USMC1;

You have brought this forum to a new low. How could you gone from shrimp to another shaved erection thread?

You said, "One could do a substitution here and there in that snippet and it would read like one of those nudist site threads about unwelcome erections or shaving."

Walt, my man. My good buddy, my ponyo. My main man. Dude, since when does "low" count around here? New or otherwise?

Hey, lighten up, and take a look at that stupid *** back and forth about shell fish, gays and Leviticus that Mark put up for our enjoyment and subsequent ridicule and see the similarities between some of the threads one sees on nudist sites about erection and shaving. Same old, same old, one dumb *** response following another. Hilarious actually, old boy, freeking hilarious. Different words, different topics but substiute erection for shell fish and gay for shaving and bingo, and there you go.

All in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. I found it a hoot and quite analogous to some of the silly *** back-and-forth we all get caught up in here, from time-to-time.

Now excuse me, I have a burnt offering to make. It seems I had some oysters on the half shell and this talk about gays has me feeling queasy! Dang little things just slide right down your throat. I think maybe I've done an abomination by proxy. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/laugh.gif

Hmmmm. Maybe a meat offering would be better. I guess, I need to check Leviticus. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/eusa_dance.gif

[Naturist Mark]

However, Mark has inadvertently raised an interesting question. The rules on keeping Kosher in Leviticus and Deuteronomy apply only to Jews. Those are also the books with clear prohibitions on men sleeping with men as women and those commandments also only apply to Jews.
LOL, that is a very interesting point.

I posted the conversation as an amusement, but also to point out how those who misuse the Bible to buttress their prejudices have to strain hard to pick and choose which 'inerrant' passages should apply in the modern world and which can be discarded as being superseded by the 'New Covenant'.

[oldbob]

Originally posted by walter05:
Mark is referring to the rules for keeping Kosher.

According to the Torah, most descendants of Noah can eat any animal as long of the living thing is killed first. Therefore, if most of you want to eat shrimp, that is okay according to the Torah.

The rules on not eating shrimp are included in the laws of keeping kosher and apply only to Jews. Jews who believe that the Torah is divine and obey its commandments don't eat anything that comes from the water that does not have fins and scales. Therefore, shrimp are not kosher and are excluded from consumption.

However, Mark has inadvertently raised an interesting question. The rules on keeping Kosher in Leviticus and Deuteronomy apply only to Jews. Those are also the books with clear prohibitions on men sleeping with men as women and those commandments also only apply to Jews.

I will do some research to find out of the rules on men sleeping with men as women apply to non-Jews any more than the Kosher rules. If not, then by Torah law, for non-Jews, there may be no prohibition at all.

Walt, I'll be interested to find out. Christian scriptures treat the Jewish dietary laws differently than they treat homosexuality. The New Testament epistles do speak against homosexual relations. There is also the passage that relates Peter's vision in which all varieties of animals, fish & fowl were laid in front of Peter who was told to kill and eat. Peter protested saying that he ate nothing unclean. He was told that nothing made by God is unclean. That is why Christians do not follow the Jewish dietary laws. If the knuckleheads in the conversation Mark posted had read the whole Bible, they would have know it's okay for Christians to eat shrimp.


Bob

[usmc1]

Christians may eat shrimp? Are you certain? With impunity, you mean? Really, really? Without going to hell, or having to do some offerings or anything? Just rear back and start scarfing?

OMIG, I am so relieved. You just don't know the peace of mind you've brought me. All these years, I thought I had committed abominations every time I dunked one of those little worms in that ketchup horseradish mix.

So do I have this right? In the old testament, one was committing an abomination if one ate shrimp. Then Jesus came along and died that horrible, excruciating death on the cross so that as a side benefit we all could slam some shrimp and oysters on the half-shell?

Riiiiight!

I just can't see how a sane, rational person can believe and give voice to all this nonsense.

Look, if a gay couple wish to marry , join in union, take vows, so what? And if they want to have oysters Rockefeller and shrimp cocktail, (hah--had to do it) at the reception, so what?

Don't like gay marriage, don't go to the ceremony, don't eat shellfish for some oddball religious reason, take a sack lunch to the reception.

Feel compelled to bang the bible, take it up to the religion section.

[MJ_KC]

Originally posted by usmc1:
So do I have this right? In the old testament, one was committing an abomination if one ate shrimp. Then Jesus came along and died that horrible, excruciating death on the cross so that as a side benefit we all could slam some shrimp and oysters on the half-shell?

Riiiiight!

I just can't see how a sane, rational person can believe and give voice to all this nonsense.
You put into words what I was thinking when I first saw this. What a bunch of complete and utter nonsense.

Who makes up this stuff? I think it might taste good to wrap a boiled shrimp in a slice of bacon. It would at least be worth a try.

[nacktman]

Interesting twist this thread has taken. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/cool4.gif

The poll currently stands @

59% for or don't care
29% against
5% got the joke
7% don't bother me with polls

[Pete Knight]

Originally posted by nacktman:
Interesting twist this thread has taken. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/cool4.gif

The poll currently stands @

59% for or don't care
29% against
5% got the joke
7% don't bother me with polls

You mean there's sex in marriage? Why wasn't I told about this, I want my money back!


Pete Knight

[MoonShadow]

LOL This has gotten funny!

Was rolling on the floor after reading Mark's posting of the chat in a christian room. SNL would have a field day doing a spoof!

Oh Pete! Better late than never! A lot of catching you have to do! LOL http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/laugh.gif

[jon71]

I assume that "notverybright" was yanking their chain. More power to him if that's the case.

[MJ_KC]

I missed Mark's message so I went back and read it. That is hilarious.

[walter05]

USMC1;

I was kidding about the new low!!!! However, if you are right, we are about to spend the next year flooded with gay shrimp.

Mark;

So far, I have found only one opinion that the laws involving a man lying with a man as a woman apply to non-Jews or ever did.

These laws fall into a category called a "Hoke" in Hebrew. {Transliteration was close since there was a sound that can't be represented in English.} A "Hoke" is by definition a law that is from the king that we don't understand and does not seem logical to us.

These laws also involve holiness and spiritual impurity. When the Temple is standing, these states can be sensed in the Temple and near it. Without the Temple, we lack that ability to sense them. As a result, no one today truly understands holiness and spiritual impurity.

If you believe our father and king has provided us these instructions then one can easily believe that one should follow them even if one does not understand them.

[nacktman]

The poll has stood at:

59% for or don't care
28% against
6% got the joke
7% don't bother me with polls

for four days know and that pretty much falls in line with more extensive polls and their results conducted by the 'big boys' in polling Gallup and Roper.

*****

On a side note: In keeping tabs on our unlamented demented banned one I see where he has not published any comments on his 'truth' blog on the insane rant about these forums that have surely been made. Now he is praising the Battleboro, Vermont, Selectboard for dropping the nudity ban ... If I was those Selectboard members I'd be not wanting his 'praise'. Still talking out of both ends, he is.

[HaroldTheNudist]

I support gay marriage. Frankly I think two brothers or sisters should be able to marry as well. Even marrying an animal should be allowed.

[Pete Knight]

HaroldTheNudist you are one of two things, a troll or mentally disturbed, either way I shall be disregarding everything you post in future.

Pete Knight

[nudebushwalker]

A mentally disturbed and perverted little troll, hey what ? We seem to get a few of them through here, don't we ?

If food has to be dead first to be kosher, what about yoghurt, cheese, oysters, wine, beer, sprouts...

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

"I'm Brian!
I'm Brian! I'm Brian !
No, I'm Brian!
I'm Brian, and so's my wife!"...
[Monty Python: The Life Of Brian]

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

[usmc1]

Originally posted by Pete Knight:
HaroldTheNudist you are one of two things, a troll or mentally disturbed, either way I shall be disregarding everything you post in future.

Pete Knight

They are amazingly like fungi, these twirps! One gets cut, banned, sent to Coventry, and lo, within days a new one pops up with a different screen name but spouting the same old crap.

On the other hand, they do make for fun sport.

Rather like that clown my little brother got for his birthday one year. Filled with air it stood about three feet high with a sand-filled bottom so that if it tipped over it always bounced right back straight up.


We pummeled the living hell out of old Rolly-Polly until he eventually sprung a leak and withered up in a pile of deflated plastic on the floor.

These twirps are like old Rolly-Polly, batter them down with facts and common sense and they bounce right back for more!

But, if they didn't come around, we might start beating on each other. LOL!

[HaroldTheNudist]

I just believe people should marry anything or anyone they want. Society should be free.

[nacktman]

Originally posted by Pete Knight:
HaroldTheNudist you are one of two things, a troll or mentally disturbed, either way I shall be disregarding everything you post in future.

Pete Knight

Pete, in this case as in the recent one involving the banned one I think it is not a case of either/or, but a case of both. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/rolleyes2.gif

[chuckincville]

I voted in favor of - marriage is made by two committed individuals! What has sexual orientation got to do with it?
For the life of me I can't understand how "same sex" anything is a threat to marriage! If we accept, sanction it, legalize it - that's going to make me want to leave my wife of 42 years? If you're looking for threats to marriage how about: divorce (serial monogomy) or decent living wages - people working 2 & 3 jobs just to get by - (financial struggles are a major cause of conflict in any relationship)
As for history -- when are we going to learn? -- gender, race, and religous persecution, have all been accepted by societies throughout history -- this is a new millenium and we haven't learned anything except more intolerance & conflict?
I thought in the sixties "a new day was dawning"!
I'm still waiting!!

Let's keep gov't out of our private lives!

[MJ_KC]

Originally posted by chuckincville:
Let's keep gov't out of our private lives!
I would like to see this happen, but there are just too many conservatives who feel that it is their job to tell everyone else how to live their life by getting restrictive laws passed.

[nacktman]

Well the poll stands at:

59% approve or don't care

28% disapprove

5% got the joke

7% don't bother me with polls

[Naturist Mark]

Some of us got the joke, but decided to vote otherwise ...

http://www.northlandposter.com/img/p817.jpg (http://www.northlandposter.com)

[chuckincville]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
Some of us got the joke, but decided to voteotherwise ...

Mark
Loved the poster! - where can I get a copy?
chuck

[Naturist Mark]

Originally posted by chuckincville:

Loved the poster! - where can I get a copy?
chuck

Click on the picture to go to the poster store.

-Mark

[Naturist Mark]

A very few of you may know of my secret life as a trekker ... discussion on a Trek board I frequent has crossed with this one (unusual since they normally eschew religion and partisan politics).

Writer David Gerrold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gerrold) (who wrote The Trouble With Tribbles and many other fine screenplays and novels) recently directed "Blood and Fire", a Star Trek New Voyages episode based on the original series (Kirk, Spock, McCoy et al) which will be released as a two parter on the internet around the end of the year. Blood and Fire was originally written and purchased as an episode of The Next Generation, but was dropped by a timid Paramount because it's storyline included an allegory of the AIDS epidemic and included some ambiguously gay characters. The new screenplay is an action adventure horror story with a minor, but important, subplot involving a romance between two young officers - who happen to be male.

Of course the prospect of a "Gay Star Trek" episode has the Trek universe abuzz, even though by all accounts the 'gay content' is very minor and thoroughly PG rated.

The usual gay vs anti gay stuff we are all familiar with is tossed about on many of the boards, but the one I am linking to stayed very much on a high plain, and afforded David Gerrold a fine soapbox to respond.

Please read David's response to the notion that "If (Jesus) (thru the Holy Spirit) inspired the bible and the bible is against that lifestyle and says that homosexuals will not enter heaven (new testament) then shouldn't everyone who claims to be a Christian follow those teachings?":

Re: Gay Trek Scenes in Blood and Fire by David Gerrold (http://www.startreknewvoyages.com/forum/index.php?topic=2660.msg44752#msg44752)

[oldbob]

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
A very few of you may know of my secret life as a trekker ... discussion on a Trek board I frequent has crossed with this one (unusual since they normally eschew religion and partisan politics).

Writer David Gerrold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gerrold) (who wrote The Trouble With Tribbles and many other fine screenplays and novels) recently directed "Blood and Fire", a Star Trek New Voyages episode based on the original series (Kirk, Spock, McCoy et al) which will be released as a two parter on the internet around the end of the year. Blood and Fire was originally written and purchased as an episode of The Next Generation, but was dropped by a timid Paramount because it's storyline included an allegory of the AIDS epidemic and included some ambiguously gay characters. The new screenplay is an action adventure horror story with a minor, but important, subplot involving a romance between two young officers - who happen to be male.

Of course the prospect of a "Gay Star Trek" episode has the Trek universe abuzz, even though by all accounts the 'gay content' is very minor and thoroughly PG rated.

The usual gay vs anti gay stuff we are all familiar with is tossed about on many of the boards, but the one I am linking to stayed very much on a high plain, and afforded David Gerrold a fine soapbox to respond.

Please read David's response to the notion that "If (Jesus) (thru the Holy Spirit) inspired the bible and the bible is against that lifestyle and says that homosexuals will not enter heaven (new testament) then shouldn't everyone who claims to be a Christian follow those teachings?":

Re: Gay Trek Scenes in Blood and Fire by David Gerrold (http://www.startreknewvoyages.com/forum/index.php?topic=2660.msg44752#msg44752)


Had to register to access the board. Waiting for my registration to be approved.

Bob

[Naturist Mark]

Originally posted by oldbob:
Had to register to access the board. Waiting for my registration to be approved.

Sorry, I hadn't realized registration was required to merely read the post. I'll repost it here, at least for a short time. David intended it to be widely read. Consider it copyright David Gerrold.

[Naturist Mark]

Re: Gay Trek Scenes in Blood and Fire by David Gerrold (http://www.startreknewvoyages.com/forum/index.php?topic=2660.msg44752#msg44752)
<UL TYPE=SQUARE> About Gay Agenda. Have you thought that some gay people have straight friends and have told them? Read the book Shadow In The Land - Homosexuality in America.

Anyway, seems as if this topic has run it's course. If a person is a Christian, that means they are a follower of Jesus Christ. Since He is the Son Of God and helped create this world and us, don't you think then that He has a better perspective on things as being the creator and us being the creature? So if He (thru the Holy Spirit) inspired the bible and the bible is against that lifestyle and says that homosexuals will not enter heaven (new testament) then shouldn't everyone who claims to be a Christian follow those teachings? Just a question for those in here who claim to be born again Christians but see nothing wrong with a lifestyle that God finds so disgusting..bible calls it an abomination.

I will make every effort to be civil in my response, but I'm also going to be blunt. What you have posted is offensive. Very offensive.

Taking your points in no specfic order -- this topic has definitely not run its course. That you have declared it is, is a very transparent way of you trying to claim the last word. It won't work. You put this on the table. That constitutes an invitation for a response. A long thoughtful response.

I invite you to take the time to listen carefully, because I am about to spend an enormous amount of time composing my reply. Take that as an acknowledgment of just how important I think this is. Now then ...

You are apparently operating out of the assumption that you have the right to speak as an authority on Christianity. Unless you are Jesus, or unless you have a power of attorney from God, you do not have the right. What you have is your own opinion, your own interpretation, your own assertions.

Please don't rush to reply by telling me that this is not your opinion, this is what the bible says, because I'm about to address that in detail.

There are a lot of people -- so-called Christians -- who are apparently unfamiliar with what the bible really says. Many of them have leapt to the very silly conclusion that Christianity and homosexuality are antithetical. That homosexuals cannot be followers of Jesus and that Christians cannot be homosexual. In fact, this particular point of view has been used by extremists to justify enormous intolerance, bigotry and discrimination here in the United States and elsewhere in the world. The bible is a self-help book, it is not a bludgeon; but time and time again, some people think it is sufficient to say, "This is what God says," as if that's the end of the discussion.

No. It isn't the end of the discussion, it's a weaselly attempt to avoid being held accountable for your own words, by passing the buck to a higher authority. Sorry, that won't work with me. I'm holding YOU accountable for what YOU posted here.

Let's start by seeing what's really in the bible.

First of all, we have to ask which bible, which denomination, which sect, which interpretation, which translation -- there are over two thousand different translations of the bible currently in print. The Catholic bible is different than the Protestant, different than the Lutheran, different than the Greek Orthodox, different than the Russian Orthodox. Many of the so-called translations are mistranslations of mistranslations, many of which were done to serve political agendas as well as religious agendas. I don't have time or space to go into detail, but cultural context has also created enormous opportunity for mistranslation as well. Medieval Europe no longer had a tradition of temple prostitution, so how were the translators (who were mostly ignorant of that particular bit of history) supposed to understand what the words "malakoi" and "arsenokoitai" really meant and what the context was they were written in? Over and over, there are large sections of the bible that can only be understood in the historical and cultural context of those who authored the passages. Much of Leviticus, for instance, is about the specific rules for being a good Hebrew and not being assimilated by neighboring tribes. The problems of translation are enormous and make every translation of the bible suspect without enormous commentary attached. (Here's a contemporary example. In Hong Kong, white foreigners are called "gwei-loh" and most people assume it means foreigner. Actually, the literal translation is "ghost face" because that's how the first white emissaries were seen.)

When we go back to the gospels, which were written 60-100 years after Christ's death, and which many scholars believe were reinterpretations of a lost "Q" document, we find enormous contradictions. The Jesus Seminar routinely meets to discuss and examine which verses of the bible represent things that Jesus actually said. There is also the problem that what we regard as the bible is actually the result of a council held centuries after Jesus' time to sort through all the different accounts of Jesus' life and decide which of those were to be deemed gospel and which were to be deemed apocrypha. Because Rome wanted/needed Jesus to be a divinity, there was a bias for those gospels which said Jesus was the son of God. Because Rome did not want to be responsible for the crucifixion of the son of God, there was another bias toward gospels which put the blame on the Jews. There was a definite political agenda at work.

But if we go to almost any current translation and look up Jesus' own words -- usually printed in red -- we find that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. Nothing at all. And in fact, the story of the Roman Centurion who comes to Jesus and asks him to heal his servant has a few scholars suggesting that the Centurion's intense commitment to his servant was that of a lover. (There are others who believe that the young man in the garden of Gethsemane who was resting his head against Jesus' chest might also have been Jesus' lover. It's certainly an interesting passage, but I'll leave that one for other scholars.)

But if Jesus said nothing at all about homosexuality, he was very aggressive in his condemnations of adultery and hypocrisy.

Homosexuality is mentioned in perhaps six passages in both the old and new testaments, but adultery is condemned over three hundred times. In fact, the prohibition against adultery is one of the Ten Commandments! It's a mortal sin. So where are all the faithful demanding that the adulterers in politics -- not just Clinton, but Dole, Hyde, Gingrich, Giuliani, Reagan, Chenowyth, Livingston, Vitter, (the list goes on and on) immediately resign because of their immoral behavior?

Where are all the faithful complaining about all the portrayals of adultery on TV and in the movies? Why so forgiving of adulterers, eh? Because anti-gay propaganda earns its promulgators tens of millions of dollars every year. People like Donald Wildmon, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, the late Jerry Falwell, and others, raise ten, twenty, thirty million dollars a year by scaring people with the "homosexual agenda". You couldn't earn that kind of money campaigning against adultery. Most people would wonder why you're obsessed with peeking into other people's bedroom windows.

But let's go back to those six passages about homosexuality. The two that get brought up the most by so-called Christians are found in Leviticus. 18:22 and 20:13. I could go on at length about how they have been mistranslated, and what biblical scholars really think was being addressed, but it's irrelevant. Leviticus is only for Orthodox Jews. When Saul of Tarsus changed his name to Paul and went to Rome he realized that Romans wouldn't convert to Christianity because they saw it as a Jewish sect and didn't want to adopt what they considered barbaric restrictions on food (no pork, no shrimp, no cheeseburgers), and really really really didn't want to get circumcized. So Paul conveniently set aside all of Leviticus, except for four very minor rules. He said Jesus had already fulfilled the law. So right there, the two most direct passages about homosexual behavior no longer apply to Christians. (In context, Leviticus says, "These things are ritually unclean. Gentiles do them. We don't." The exact phrase is "toevah ha-goyim" which means "the ritual impurity of gentiles." It does NOT mean "abomination" -- that's another mistranslation. (Because Medieval translators were stumped on how to translate "the ritual impurity of gentiles" -- because THEY WERE the gentiles.)

Now, moving on to Romans and Corinthians, those passages may also be disregarded, because they aren't Jesus' words; they're letters that Paul-The-Explainer wrote to various congregations, and as we all know, Paul was a fuddy-duddy about sex, saying silly things that it's better to burn in Hell than fornicate, but if you must have sex, go get married -- totally missing that marriage is supposed to be a supreme commitment of partnership and love. His letters to the Romans and the Corinthians were attempts to get unruly congregations to behave themselves and stop adopting pagan practices into Christianity. Didn't work. Compare the traditions of Mithra with Christianity and you'll see that Christianity coopted pagan traditions everywhere. (Have fun decorating your Mithra tree....)

Now then, coming back to the single most offensive line in your entire message -- the assertion that "homosexuals will not enter heaven (new testament)" -- I want you to recognize the enormous restraint I am exercising here....

I'll say it again, and I want you to hear this as if the quality of your life depends upon it:

You are not entitled to speak for God. You are not entitled to say who is going to heaven or not. For you to make such assertions is to commit the same kind of sanctimonious religious hypocrisy that Jesus railed against when he said, "Alas, ye scribes and pharisees, ye are like whitewashed crypts, gleaming on the outside, but full of rot and corruption within." Jesus gave us two new commandments. The first is "Love God," the second is "Love one another."

I see nothing of Jesus' love in your words. If it is your intention to convert people to Christianity, nothing you have said here has made Christianity look appealing. On the contrary, you have made Jesus seem hateful and repugnant.

Jesus told us to forgive each other, not to judge lest we be judged in turn. I see nothing of forgiveness in your words. I see only judgment of others. So I do not see Jesus in your words, I see only self-righteousness and arrogance. And it saddens and disappoints me. Particularly in a forum about Star Trek -- one of the few TV series that invited us to have humility in God's universe.

As for who's going to heaven. I expect to see Father Michael Judge -- the firefighter's priest, the first firefighter to die on 9/11. I expect Michael Bingham to be there, a gay man who fought back on flight 93. I expect to find two gay men and their little three-year old son, they died on Flight 11. I expect Alan Turing to be there, his work on decrypting Nazi codes was essential to winning WWII. I expect to find Tchaikovsky and Aaron Copland and Leonardo Da Vinci and Michelangelo there. I expect to see the two gay men in Seattle who have adopted three special needs children in heaven. And the other gay couple in Florida who adopted three more special needs children. And the gay couple in Boston who adopted a teenager nobody else wanted. And that fellow in CA who took on a kid the system had pretty much given up on. I expect to find Matthew Shepard there and Florence Nightingale and Gertrude Stein and lord knows who else. But there will be a lot of us, I'm sure.

See, over here, I believe that God judges us by what's in our hearts -- by how much we love each other, by how much we contribute to each other, by the good we create in the world, by how well we take care of our parents and our children, by how we make sure our communities are safe and nurturing for the sick, the elderly, the poor, the needy. I don't think God worries about what words we use to say our prayers or which book we use or which edifice we worship in. I don't think God cares about who we love as much as that we love unconditionally and joyously.

The view of God that your words represents is ... disappointing, sad, depressing, narrow, limited, judgmental, bitter, selfish, and hurtful. That's not any God that I prefer to do business with. I'm taking my business to the Big Guy. He knows what's in my heart, and he knows what I stand for. On the day I'm called to judgment, I'll stand unashamed of who I am, and if God asks, "Why did you love Steve?" I'll answer proudly, "Because you gave us the ability to love and the opportunity to love each other, and I am eternally grateful for the gift of joy you gave us both."

You wanna preach, kiddo. Okay, fine with me. I get to preach back. I'm better at it than you.

-David Gerrold [/list]

[Bob S.]

Mark:"Of course the prospect of a "Gay Star Trek" episode has the Trek universe abuzz, even though by all accounts the 'gay content' is very minor and thoroughly PG rated."

There was an episode of "Star Trek: TNG" meant to equate the idea of alternative sexuality and the society's condemnation of it. The episode was called "The Outcast" and was about a race of androgynous people for whom there was only one gender.

One of the scientists working with Riker, however, had a leaning toward being a woman and wanting to be with a man--Riker. There were others who were like her on her world, but in the end, she chose to undergo some procedures to androgynize her.

There was also an episode of "Star Trek: DS9" that had a kiss between two women who were once a husband and wife (the Trill race where the symbiote living inside the host humanoid can live for hundreds of years. The previous host of one was married to the other). They also had that same kind of kiss on TNG. Trill and Dr. Crusher.

Bob S.

[chuckincville]

Mark -- that David Gerrold post was awesome!!
http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/applause.gif
Thanks -
Chuck

[usmc1]

Mark, hell yeah!

[Boreas]

Mark that was wonderful. Thank you. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/applause.gif (standing)

[Boreas]

For the life of me I can't understand how "same sex" anything is a threat to marriage

Chuck, I totally agree with your statement and the rest of your post.

[hm0504]

Great stuff Mark; please keep up the cross-pollination.

[Journeyman]

Thanks to Mark for bringing this incredible post to our attention.

[Fitz1980]

There was an episode of "Star Trek: TNG" meant to equate the idea of alternative sexuality and the society's condemnation of it. The episode was called "The Outcast" and was about a race of androgynous people for whom there was only one gender.

One of the scientists working with Riker, however, had a leaning toward being a woman and wanting to be with a man--Riker. There were others who were like her on her world, but in the end, she chose to undergo some procedures to androgynize her.


I remember that episode, first saw it back when I was in middle school and just starting to get into 'Trek.' I enjoyed the show. I remember years later reading criticism from left-wingers who felt that it was a cop out. Namely because the members of that race were all played by women with androgynous haircuts/appearances and the big climax is Riker's "friend" coming out and saying that she is female and not genderless as is the norm for that society. These liberals felt that it was weak because the episode could be seen by homophobes as 'the Enterprise visits the planet of the lesbians who use social controls to put down any notion of femininity.' I've always said that if you are ticking off the radical left and the radical right you must be doing something correct.



There was also an episode of "Star Trek: DS9" that had a kiss between two women who were once a husband and wife (the Trill race where the symbiote living inside the host humanoid can live for hundreds of years. The previous host of one was married to the other). They also had that same kind of kiss on TNG. Trill and Dr. Crusher.


In the TNG episode the Trill is implanted inside of Will Riker and Crusher's delima at first is how the consciousness of this guy she's loved is implanted inside of her commanding officer who's been like a friend and brother to her. The big climax of the episode is when the new host shows up and it's a woman. Dr. Crusher decides that she can't handle the constant jumping around of consciousness between bodies.

[gentlegiantsix6]

Monday, December 15 my partner and I celebrate 35 wonderful years together. What a joyous relationship it has been. We've shared so much and our lives have been enriched beyond measure. Having been there for each other in good times and bad, we're secure in ourselves and with each other. More importantly, we're comfortable with most all people, even those who do not acknowledge our partnership.

Semantics often come into the gay marriage debate , so we're fine with a legal civil union. That would give us the same important rights as any other legally married couple.

We just read the current "Newsweek" cover story on gay marriage and learned a lot from it. It was refreshing to see another scholarly input on the subject.

John Lennon's "Imagine" often comes to mind when we think about the diversity of human beings who comprise our country and world today.

"You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one"

(Copyright: John Lennon)

Namaste