Massachusetts to allow gay marriage

“"MarkO, so you're suggesting China, the most populous and staunchly anti-religious nation on earth, bans homosexual marriage based on religion? Damn those American Christians."
Buck
11:32:49 AM

HELL, I mean, hell NO!!!

I'm telling you that China bans gay marriage because they are a paranoid and conservative nation.

Nations that allow such freedoms, and other freedoms, are liberal.......get it?”

“Mutt, think about it man, you are the one saying that in all ages past throughout civilizations, the reason homosexual marriage was banned was merely because it was bad for the species and our population rates. Now that THAT reason is gone, you blame it on Christians. If that's the case, try and make a logical case for it instead of just saying it's so "just because". If you can convince me that virtually all secular governments on all continents ban homosexual marriage merely because of Christianity or religion, then I'll give a rebuttal. But you haven't given a shred of evidence based on any logic, hence there is no need to even respond with "reason". Give me something to shoot at and we can have a legit discussion, but since I know you despise Christians I'm not just gonna go 'round and 'round in a contentless, ridiculous discussion of how you hate Christians. I don't care how you feel about Christians, that's fine, that's your decision, but blame the definition of marriage from countries like China and nearly all other non-religious governments on Christians, that's just a joke and doesn't deserve a response by itself without at least an attempt at logic.”

“Mutt, it sounds like you have a Christian-phobia. Should I be angry? Naw. So be it, no worries.”

“LOL! Good point MarkO. I think its funny how everybody blames it on the christians. Just the thought of homosexuals copulating makes me want to hurl. Fear, fears got nothing to do with it.”

“MarkO... I disagree with you saying Communism is conservative, but that's a different issue that we've discussed, so if for sake of discussion I agree with you, why in the heck would an atheistic, anti-religious conservative country like China ban homosexual marriage based on "religion"?”

“I ain't afraid of Xians, I think they're cute.

Buck, China sure as hell ain't liberal.
They are very conservative as is the Taliban, but for different reasons.

Conservative Islamic countries strictly forbid homosexuality.........but they all do it.

For one thing, the guys with all the money have all the women(old man bin Laden had 22 wives).

And for another thing, with their strict conservative social customs, the boys and men loathe females and try to control them.

Hmmmmm, that sounds like just about ANY fundaMENTAList religious sect......strict control of women sometimes even to the point of abuse.”

“Communism and religious fundaMENTALism are conservative for different reasons but with the same goal.....CONTROL.”

“MarkO, communism is about as liberal as an ideology as it gets. And big government is about as liberal an ideology as it gets. And having the government be an intregal part of society is about as liberal as it gets. And having governmnet regulate minute details of society is about as liberal as it gets. These are all traits of China. But again, that's beside the point.

The point is, what does religion have to do with China's ban on homosexual marriages? I'm not talking politics, or liberal vs. conservative (those aren't religious issues in and of themselves), I'm talking about the role of RELIGION in banning gay marriage from the athestic government of China? They are as anti-religion as it gets. They put Christians in jail every day for their faith. Yet Christians are to blame for their anti-homosexual marriage laws? I don't get it.”

“MarkO (I don't mean to change subjects) but American conservatism DOES NOT WANT GOVERNMENT CONTROL in our lives. It's the opposite. American conservatives like government out of our lives as much as possible, only providing a lawful and safe society so we can do as we please without overburdened regulation. You are getting conservatism mixed up with liberalism here. Liberals want big government, conservatives want small government. Liberals want rules and regulations and control, conservatives want independence and mind-your-own-business. Liberals want to take away from wealth and distribute it, conservatives want to reap what they sow and then share to those in need through their own good-hearted giving, not through mandated government redistribution. But it's true that conservatives, generally speaking, like to have all this freedom under the umbrella of morality as they believe that's the best way to have a good society, while liberals typically don't care about the moral issues, which we consider the basic fabric of our society in which to weave a free country.”

“"American conservatives like government out of our lives as much as possible, only providing a lawful and safe society so we can do as we please without overburdened regulation....."


YEAH YOu tell'em!

Tell'em how it not the government that want to control a womens body, or try and interfear on states rights by telling the pwoplw who can get married!

BTW - Just cuz you can find answer to the question, doen't mean that you should try and turn this around on me, you hateful, fear monger.”

“laqtis, you got it backwards, my friend. The government doesn't want to control a woman's body, they just don't wanna precious unborn babies being killed. We ALL have rights to take our first breath, no? Women should have all rights, as should all yet-to-be-born babies too.

And the feds are wanting to PROTECT individual state rights by saying another state should not HAVE TO ACCEPT the marriage definition of another state. I guess it's how you look at it, laqtis, and we are looking at it from completely different worldviews. Wait, you're looking at it through your WIFE'S worldview, I forgot. HA HA! Just keeeeding.”

“"....while liberals typically don't care about the moral issues,..."
Buck

Where in this world did you pick up that un-truth?

You're in la-la land, dude.

You have obviously bought into the right-wing propaganda that for decades has tried to portray liberal/moderate/progressive/democratic politics as entirely negative.

immoral
un-patriotic
communist
the list goes on

Go back to your planet, please.
Your way won't work with humans.”

“The government doesn't want to control a woman's body, they just don't wanna precious unborn babies being killed.

Tell that to an impregnated rape victim, Buck!”

“Laq, this guy has it all down to a 'T'. Every stereotype in the book. Makes ya sick, don't it?”

“Oh, so are you saying liberals typically are very traditional-morally sensitive and wish to retain the morals we've had for centuries? Hmmm... seems killing unborn babies is a social moral issue, and homosexual marriage is a social moral issue, etc. Last I read, liberals typically support the right to kill unborn babies and they support gay marriage, which goes against traditional morality from virtually all civilizations throughout all of time. I was out of line.

As far as liberals being typical negative and often angry, I use your very post as an example. Hi there! Remember, MarkO, Life is good®!”

“Treebeard, rape victims are a miniscule percentage of abortions. I'll even grant you rape and incest, along with endangerment to the mother, as being acceptable reasons for abortion. Now how about the other 99% of abortions performed in this country?

If you think I'm stereotypical, sheesh, you guys are completely stereotypical in reverse, ha ha! You guys have every stereotype down in the book to a "T". There ya go! Thing is, I don't even mind.”

“Buck, you spew this BS, label people with stereotypes and have no expectations of verbal reprisal? Have it your way! Enjoy your day...”

“??? I spew BS? This whole discussion started by Mutt saying how Christians are making all civilizations ban homosexual marriage! ha ha! I merely asked him to back that up, which he obviously can't because it's impossible. And then you say I'm speakin' crap, which is fine, I'm just askin' for a logical reason for his claim. Then I'm called "stereotyping", which is exactly what you're doing. Which is fine. I have no complaints, neither with you calling me that, nor with you responding as you are. Yet now you say I don't want any verbal reprisal? Huh? Say what you want, that's fine, reprise me all you want, it's cool, where did you get the idear I didn't want verbal reprisal or was complaining? Ha ha, not at all! Have it YOUR way, and I do hope you have an enjoyable day, and I mean that! Adios!”

“Testy, aren't we?”

“Ha ha! Tree, not at all, man, it's a great day and I'm all smiles! Smile!”

“This whole discussion started by Mutt saying how Christians are making all civilizations ban homosexual marriage!

Still grasping at strawmen, I see. And no forthcoming secular arguments.

I accept your intellectual surrender, Buck. Too bad, I thought you might actually think of something interesting.”

“Liberals want big government, conservatives want small government. Liberals want rules and regulations and control, conservatives want independence and mind-your-own-business. Liberals want to take away from wealth and distribute it, conservatives want to reap what they sow and then share to those in need through their own good-hearted giving, not through mandated government redistribution. But it's true that conservatives, generally speaking, like to have all this freedom under the umbrella of morality as they believe that's the best way to have a good society, while liberals typically don't care about the moral issues, which we consider the basic fabric of our society in which to weave a free country."



This is one giant stereotype. Hey, man. i am as guilty as anyone of you for using a little fuego to toss a little gas on a fire here. It's done everyday. But, one thing I have trying to be conscious of is labeling and name calling. Damn, man, the "liberal" thing is freakin' trite and overused [and given all sorts of brand new meanings, I may add] by a select few, that it's sickening already.

Try making your point without it and maybe the answer will be posed a bit differently...”

“"From the Adam and Eve story we see a patrilineal Israelite tribe
which placed women as second to men.
The earliest tribal doctrines allowed
brother/sister incestuous relations
and marriages. Cain took his sister
as a wife. All of Adam and Eve's
sons and daughters intermarried.

When the Isrealite tribe encountered
the Canaanites, some of the Canaanite

religious and sexual cult doctrines became
intermixed. However, a taboo was placed
on brother/sister marriages. Half siblings
were still allowed to marry with the same
father and a different mother, such as
Abraham and Sarah who shared the same
father. Cousin marriages were permitted
up until King David in the 10th c. BC.

Polygyny was completely allowed, but usually only rich men and leaders had many wives. For example, Esau, Isaac's son
had two wives. Jacob had two wives. Gideon had many wives and 70 sons. King David had several wives. King Solomon
had many wives. King Rehoboam had 18 wives and 60 concubines.

Among the more poor peoples, the men were allowed to have concubines, usually sexual relations and children with
their wife's handmaids. Sarah gave Abraham her handmaid when she was unable to have children. Rachel gave Jacob
her handmaid. Hannah gave her husband her handmaid and from that sexual encounter came Samuel. More often though
men would simply purchase a concubine from a girl's father.

Early Israelite tribes bought or purchased their wives with large bride prices to the woman's father. Bride
prices were reduced for cousin marriages. Purchasing wives was not looked down upon but seen with respect.
They placed a high value on the virginity and chastity of the bride that they purchased. Wives were purchased
to bear children. And the people believed that if a woman was unable to have children that "sins" such as
adultery, had caused such sterility. Israelite tribal fathers also engaged in sexual hospitality of their
daughters to house guests. When guests were in their home, they offered their own daughters sexually to them.

Prostitution did not exist in the early Israelite tribe until after they came into contact with the Canaanites.
Canaanites had fertility cults, and each Canaanite temple had its own set of prostitutes. The Israelites began
to divide prostitutes into two separate categories: the zonah, or profane prostitutes and the q'deshah, or holy
prostitutes. The actual word "q'deshah" is borrowed from the neighboring peoples who had polytheist deities, such
as the Sumerians and Canaanites. The name of the Sumerian goddess was Qadshu or Qodesh who had her own temple with
holy prostitutes called "qodshu." Prostitutes were not looked down upon until Leviticus. Prostitutes had their own
homes in which they invited guests to. For example, the prostitute Rahab had a house at the wall of Jericho. Even when
the Hebrews took over Jericho, Rahab was still allowed to be in business. By Leviticus, rabbis were forbidden from
marrying prostitutes and divorced women. And when the Israelites were exiled from Babylonia in 586 BC, the idea
of the q'deshah disappeared since it was borrowed from the other pagan cultures that they lived among.

Homosexuality is seen in completely different oppositions throughout Biblical texts. In one instance, it is
described as an abomination for a man to take another man as a wife. Yet in other instances, it was seen as
hospitable to give a son to a house guest that preferred boys instead of girls. Thus, if that were the case
the father would offer a son sexually to a house guest instead of a daughter."

Wonder what abortion traditions I can find?”

“2nd-4th Century CE

"There were three main movements within early Christianity. Two did not succeed: Jewish Christianity and Gnostic Christianity. The third, Pauline Christianity, flourished and evolved into the Christian Church. It was surrounded by a mosaic of other competing religions within the Roman Empire, including Judaism, the Greek state religion, Mithraism, the Roman state religion, and various Mystery religions. With the exception of Judaism, most or all of the competing religions allowed women to have abortions and allowed parents to strangle or expose (abandon) new-born babies as methods of population control."”

“Mutt, go ahead and make accusations against Christians for the anti-homosexual marriage laws of virtually every country on this planet and then refuse to back it up with substance. China and the secular nations of the world could care less what you or I have to say about why then ban gay marriage. It's certainly not because of American Christofacists though! Whew doggy!”

“Treebeard, of course I stereotyped for the sake of "general" discussion, I even said liberalsy "typically", etc. Where YOU fit into that, I have no clue, but I wasn't talking about YOU. You gotta stereotype for sake of general discussion becuase who wants to personally interview each and every American, hundreds of meeeellions of them, to get each view? No, that's absurd, so we generalize (stereotype) groups for sake of a bigger discussion. Liberal and conservative radio and tv shows do it all the time when they discuss issues, they have to or they wouldn't have any definition of who's representing what.”

“"Oh, so are you saying liberals typically are very traditional-morally sensitive and wish to retain the morals we've had for centuries?"

YES

I don't know anyone who calls themselves "liberal" who believes any of that crap you say they believe.

I'm not angry, just unwilling to have someone trash me, albeit with a smile on their face.

I am a father times three.
I witnessed and participated in the births of three boys.
(#3 was unintended, but appreciated non the less)
I cut the cords and weighed and measured my babies fresh into this world.
I have been with them all their lives.
I have helped to guide them to have good moral values with the help of my wife of 22+ years.
They know real love and caring and they care for others.
They have seen all three Die Hard movies, but do not cuss like Sam Jackson.....at least around women and girls.

My two oldest boys are of voting age and tell me that they plan to vote for the Two Johns.....Kerry and Edwards.

If you have an ounce of charity, Christian or otherwise, you should know better than to even entertain such vile thoughts about people you don't even know......beyond the banter here on TT.

You're ideas about "communism" sound like they are right out of the mouth of Ann Coulter, who is either mentally ill or seriously mean and nasty.

You do have some cool dogs.”

“MarkO, I have absolutely no idea what you're speaking of. Trashing you? I've never trashed you. I have vile thoughts about people I don't know? Huh? I have not one ounce of disdain for anyone here at all. I'm lost? Yes, I agree about my dogs! :^D”

“Liberal and conservative radio and tv shows do it all the time when they discuss issues, they have to or they wouldn't have any definition of who's representing what."


One of the reasons I don't listen to either, Buck. I am aware that generalities are a necessary thing at times. I guess it's when they become rampant and abused that i take exception. I wasn't really taking your post personally. More like the fact that it was a lengthy generality...”

“You've trashed liberals, my friend.....your own posts bear that out.

What's all that "baby-killin" stuff?

I was just letting you know a little about me, a typical liberal.

I've been tellin' ditto-heads to eat it since the '88 campaign when I heard a lot of what I'm hearin' for guys like you.

Oh slap, I just stereotyped you.
(shame on me)”

“If I spill my babies on the floor am I a baby killer?”

“bearmagnet, uh........what?”

“MarkO, I've trashed liberals? Hmmm... seems my gov't job here for subsidized childcare is filled with liberals and I love them... and many of my coworkers at REI are liberals and I love them. I don't trash "liberals", but I do argue against liberal "ideology". Why take it personally? When Mutt speaks against Christians, I don't take it personally at all, but I will discuss the concepts of "religion" or "ideology" in a broader sense.

As for baby-killing, to me that's exactly what it is. But liberals will turn it around and say we don't care about women's rights and we want to "control women". Wassup widdat? That's ridiculous. As for being a ditto-head, you must listen to the feller much more than me. I'm at work when Rush is on and I don't listen to the dude. But I don't mind the stereotype, because if I did listen to him, I bet I'd agree with much of what he says.

Your typical conservative,
Buck Forester”

“innuendo/sarcasm. Not that I do it a lot.

Wow! That's a loaded sentence!

Damn! I can't stop, someone hold me back!

shoot!

Darn!

Phew!

I need a smoke.”

“"But I don't mind the stereotype, because if I did listen to him, I bet I'd agree with much of what he says."

That's what I'm talkin' about.
Limbaugh tells lies about ME and some take it for the truth.
I don't listen to him either.
I've heard what he has to say.......nothing new.....same old tired lies.

I don't want to touch abortion.
That's a job for professionals, legislative, judicial and medical.

And its a smoke screen issue that conservative politicians use to rope in voters.

They use it as a bait and switch while they screw the middle and working class.

And as far as "liberal ideology" goes, I've heard what you believe to be "liberal ideology" and you are wrong.

Liberal policy is to embrace change and invest in people and is less like "ideology" than you think.”

“Conservative policy is ideology.

Like communism it is rigid and unbending.

It is about resisting change and invests in those who already control the capital and are already in power.”

“Limbaugh tells lies about ME and some take it for the truth.


Hey, he knows you personally, cool! Can you get me a coffe mug someday?

MarkO, if you take ideology personally, then no wonder it makes you feel as you do. Do you think I care one bit if Linda Ronstadt or some liberal commentator on CNN twists something I happen to personally believe in and make it seem absurd, which is a total lie or misrepresentation of my beliefs? I could care less. It's an ideology and a worldview. Some people share it, some people despise, so be it. No worries.

I don't want to touch abortion.
That's a job for professionals, legislative, judicial and medical.

I disagree, but I respect your views to leave it up to others. I think it's a vital social/moral issue that I want to have a say in, and I don't wanna leave it up to others to think for me on this one. It's too important.

They use it as a bait and switch while they screw the middle and working class.


Two things... you're lying here (ha ha!) and you're twisting ideology. Abortion is a legit concern (what if YOU thought it was murder, would be fine with it?), and the Repubs do not want to screw the middle class, they want to help the middle class by allowing businesses to run properly and provide good jobs. If you disagree with HOW they go about it, that's fine, but they do care about the middle class. I'm not financially rich and I vote Republican because I feel they have MY best financial interest in mind. Quit "stereotyping" with such language as "screwing the middle class". Ha ha! It's okay, you can do it.

Conservative ideology is the best way to help the people of America in every way and make America strong. If you say otherwise you're LYING AND IT PISSES ME OFF! DON'T MAKE ME GO OVER THERE AND OPEN A CAN.”

“and one of my best friends is a gay man. I hang out with him, his boyfriend and friends at gay bars frequently. I love him dearly.

Not all Christians hate gays or think they don't deserve equal rights.”

“Liberal policy is ideology.

Like communism, it wants government to control assets and control the populace through heavy government regulation and redistribute wealth to all citizens.

It's about everyone being equal, no one flashing individual wealth and power and independence.”

“pixie, I too have gay friends and I love them. I even had a gay roommate, he was great! And gays can do what they want in private, who cares? That's their right. But make homosexual marriage an endorsed public policy for all to accept regardless, that's where I draw the line. I have no idea why people bring up "hate" when it comes to homosexuality. Do you "hate" consenting incestual adults? Do you "hate" polygamists? Do you "hate" bisexuals who want to marry one of each sex so they have the legal right to have sex with both under the confines of marriage? It's not a matter of "hate", you can still "love" people without wanting to legally endorse their behavoir. If you also don't mind adding incestual, bisexual, polygamy, and group marriages to the definition of marriage, then fine. If you do oppose those marriages, are you a hateful, mean, rights-stealing bigot?”

“Interesting piece even though it states the neutrality of it is disputed

CBS piece about global views on same sex marrage”

“No hate involved as long as you can tell 'em how to live, Buck?”

“Treebeard, I suppose then that you support bisexual marriages, and trisexual marriages (no training wheels needed), incestual marriages, polygamy, and group marriage just the same. I'd hate to see you tell 'em how to live.”

“This is one thing I like about Buck. He states what he believes and he sticks to it. Plus he can get gangbanged by a bunch of liberals and he'll still be smiling the whole time. I don't think I've ever even seen him lose his cool once.”

“""laqtis, you got it backwards, my friend. The government doesn't want to control a woman's body, they just don't wanna precious unborn babies being killed....."


Look, spinmester Jay, the people who are in power currently want to limit the rights of what a women can do with your body. what you have listed is a Catholic ideal/religious line of thinking. The goeverment should lay no role in this subject, other than make rules that properly reflect our culture. Under this - it's your side that is in the minority in this matter, has people have overwhelming accepted this as part of our culture. Deal with it and get over it.


"And the feds are wanting to PROTECT individual state rights by saying another state should not HAVE TO ACCEPT the marriage definition of another state...."

I've heard you say some pretty uninformet tings before, but ths takes the cake.

Do you know anything about states rights? It's obvious you don't, because you would know that what the government is trying to do is smash the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. By doing this, it would upset the power between states and federal governments, as it would set a very bad prisedence and open the door for the futher stripping of states rights, as implied in article 10.


So then you are for a Constitutional amendment to prevent gay marriage? What a waste of time, as it would never get through house sides of Congress AND be ratified by the nessessary states.

So, instead of wirking on our budget for next year, Congress, as introduced by the Repubulicans, wasted valuable time trying to amend the Constitution. Yeah, they have is all RIGHT, let me tell you.”

“Y'all are no fun. Where's sacco?”

“"And the feds are wanting to PROTECT individual state rights by saying another state should not HAVE TO ACCEPT the marriage definition of another state...."

I gotta go with Q on this one Buck GASP! The federal amendment to the constitution would actually take AWAY state's rights to deside. Would it not?”

“Are most of your friends gay males, pixie?”

“"And gays can do what they want in private, who cares? That's their right....."


Just like it's your "right" to do what ever it is in private and not in public, so your Christain vaules won't be damaged, right?

It is unConstitutional to make a law that prohibits a group of people to not have rights that others have.”

“Bear M - You sound like you've been in my World Civ class. No chance you are?

Tree - I haven't been able to post cause of class and work. I hear what yer saying. I don't mind a point, but when someone like Buck spins his wheels and tried to fip it back, well...... let's just say I'm tying real hard to hold back.”