Brokeback mountain...

[airtwardo 7]

Quote

Kill Fortunetellers

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

Quote

Yeah...and Heck...they should have seen it coming!

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

only because you cannot SEE the TRUTH and KNOW what God was ACTUALLY talking ABOUT.

or something

tHAt waS aWeSOmE!!! <3 <3 <3

[mdrejhon 8]

Quote

I agree there. There are extremists in every walk of life, from skydivers to hot chicks to rednecks. But "out in the street waving their arms" might also refer to people simply marching to protest being denied certain rights - and that is NOT 'flaunting their gayness' any more than a 1950's civil rights march had people 'flaunting their blackness.'

Gay pride events are becoming more mainstreamed, at least in Canada, that it's less shocking than it used to be. More ordinary looking people. Some of the parades have a little more banal than they used to be, and more commercialized with commercial sponsors such as Starbucks, IBM and Travelocity. Sure, there are those shocking floats, but also a lot of the mainstream people that are very straight acting. In Canada, most parades are now called festivals instead ("Pride Festival") instead. One of the pride festivals in my city (www.bankfest.ca) removed Pride and has now become a mixed event (both gay and straight) see the website, it is called a "Unified Party", with the gay specific parade being a separate thing on a separate day, with mostly tamer floats than there seems to have used to be (with a couple of exceptions). Daresay that the parades are starting to become a little more boring than they used to be -- and the highlight has become the BBQ/rock concerts at the public parks instead (more of a festival thing, not as much parading in the streets showing off). Gay people in Canada no longer feel as much pressure to defend themselves, so there are not as many activists around here as they used to be. In a recent poll, 89% of Quebec population, were shown to support gay rights (plus or minus some percentage points, 19 out of 20 times). Ontario is not very far behind...

In your part of your country, things may be different... but this is a trend in Canada that it's starting to just become such an ordinary festival, often with mainstream sponsors at some of them (I've seen IBM, I've seen Starbucks, etc) and the purpose have been changed from a protest (as it was two decades ago) into a festival (as it is today in Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, and Vancouver). Not very much different from Chinatown or Mardi Gras or Blues Music "festival" type fare, and no longer shocking to the majority of these cities' populations. People aren't being activist around here as much as they used to be. Times are changing, at least in this country. Sure, there are pockets of rampantly anti-gay stuff, just as there are pockets of rampantly anti-black and other niche subgroups. There's still difficulty for each group, but people have no problem having an annual cultural festival for the various cultures, you see that stuff every month in different parts of a big city anyway.

Some of you know we are up for an election soon. The conservatives want to bring gay marriage back to a popular vote. However, it has already been said that even existing licenses would not be nullified even if the Conservatives win. However, the politics venom of our Canadian government (ugh, let's switch the TV channel), while has made a few concerned, most aren't worried, since 3 out of the 4 parties support gay marriage here in this country. We're going to have yet another minority government. (While it becomes Animal House in the government with lots more nasty political fighting, it seems more things get done for the Average Joe Q Public in a minority government due to the way Canada works.) But, nothing you Americans aren't used to -- Democrats vs Republicians is also ferocious material for you too.

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

I notice that a lot of poeple who engage in bible-bashing invariably quote Numbers, Deuteronomy, and other books of the Old Testament.

mh

Well, Bill was quoting Leviticus (and Jude and Corinthians) to gay-bash. Is Leviticus the Old Testament or the New? I forget.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1987362#1987362

Old. The order is Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy (please correct me if I'm wrong).

[Guest]

Quote

Quote

I notice that a lot of poeple who engage in bible-bashing invariably quote Numbers, Deuteronomy, and other books of the Old Testament.

mh

Well, Bill was quoting Leviticus (and Jude and Corinthians) to gay-bash. Is Leviticus the Old Testament or the New? I forget.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1987362#1987362

You're right. A lot of right-wing gay-bashers quote the Old Testament too.

That doesn't make them right, either.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[AlexCrowley 0]

it's not my place to correct you. Only God can do that.

or something.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[AlexCrowley 0]

gimme a p

gimme a s

gimme a y

gimme a ch

gimme an osis?

whats that spell?

osischysp!

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

You should catch up on the times. Stoning went out of fashion long ago....

Where in the Bible does it say that parts of it will change with the fashions?

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

Quote

You should catch up on the times. Stoning went out of fashion long ago....

Where in the Bible does it say that parts of it will change with the fashions?

The same place it says you can read it selectively and only follow the parts that support your personal biases. Duh.

[beowulf 1]

I don't understand why people think that gays are not asking for anything special, they are. Marriage has always been known to mean a union between male and female. (now this was never written down because it was never questioned) Gays now want that redefined to include male and male marriage union. That is a special request on their part. IF they wanted equality then there would be no need to change the law. Gays have just as much right to marry a woman as any hetrosexual man does.

[likearock 2]

I don't understand why people think that interracial couples are not asking for anything special, they are. Marriage has always been known to mean a union between members of the same race (now this was never written down because it was never questioned). Interracial couples now want that redefined to include a mixed race marriage union. That is a special request on their part. IF they wanted equality then there would be no need to change the law. Blacks have just as much right to marry a black woman as any white man has to marry a white woman.

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

That is a special request on their part.

Just so that I better understand your position, would you then also consider the push many moons ago to allow black men to marry white women a special request? After all, using your same logic, they had the same right as white men at the time, to marry within their own race.

EDIT: Fucking jinx.

• Quote

[RhondaLea 4]

Quote

I don't understand why people think that gays are not asking for anything special, they are. Marriage has always been known to mean a union between male and female. (now this was never written down because it was never questioned) Gays now want that redefined to include male and male marriage union. That is a special request on their part. IF they wanted equality then there would be no need to change the law. Gays have just as much right to marry a woman as any hetrosexual man does.

I guess this means that lesbian marriage is okay with you?

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[beowulf 1]

sure a lesbian has every right to marry a man if she wants. That is within the common definition of a marriage.

This has no correlation to inter racial marriages.

please don't assume that I am against inter racial marriages. If you do then you are reading into what I have written way too much.

[beowulf 1]

So you don't think that Gays are asking for a redefinition of marriage? Have you always thought that marriage was not defined as a union between male and female?

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Keith: You and Skymedic have both declared that you have no respect for me, and I couldnt care less.

I stand for what God's WORD says is right and wrong, and He emphatically says Homosexuality is WRONG, and so I must agree that it is so.

I don't know why Skymedic ever had respect for me....was it because of my jumping over 42 yrs, or was it because when I stand for something that is right, I DO NOT BEND when I believe in something as "right " before God.

It really doesnt matter if a single person on DZ.COM respects me for anything.

I am only concerned about following Christ, and adhering to the precepts of God.

If that offends anyone, too bad. I will have respect unto thy (GOD'S) statutes continually.(Psalm 119:117)

Then shall I NOT be ashamed when I have respect unto all they commandments (Psalm 119:6)

DZ.Commer Christel appears to have gotten upset as well because I do not agree with the homosexual lifestyle ( see her post) and I'm willing to state it publicly.


I dont care if she likes it either. History should tell her that when people don't stand up for what is right, they fall for anything.

I would defend any homosexual against anyone who would bash him (physically) and would be defending the man, not his lifestyle.

It is an abomination unto God....and that is a good guide to follow.

Bill Cole

Bill, being homosexual is not a "lifestyle" or something you could easely change from one day to the next.

Your post to Keith was degrading. It had nothing to do with "standing for something" - and nothing with any belief. It was bad style. That's all.

Christel

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

This has no correlation to inter racial marriages.

Can you deflect bullets, too?

• Quote

[beowulf 1]

yeah as matter of fact yes. As soon as I get home I plan on testing that out.

[beowulf 1]

The reason that I don't see any correlation between gay marriages and inter racial marriages is that the objections to inter racial marriages had nothing to do with the definition of marriage, gay marriages are redifined marriages. Gays want everyone to accept their lifestyle as being right. That is unrealistic. You can't change everyone, so they want to legislate this change and force everyone to recognize their marriages. That is wrong. Why should I have to accept their marriages just because they think it is right. They want to push their minority views on to the majority. That is wrong. I don't care what they do as long as they don't force me to have to agree with it and recognize it legally.

[Rebecca 0]

Marriage is a committment of life-long love and fidelity to another person. When recognized as a legal union, and especially when children are involved, it has legal benefits and risks.

I guess I don't see why 2 same-sex adults who love each other should be denied the legal right to marry in the US. Church and State are still supposed to be seperate (I know they're not).

I mean, objectively, bible and personal opinion aside, is there ANY reason for this? Would adding gay people to the population of married people change anything for the worse?

I don't think so.

(cynicism alert!)

And what the hell is SO wonderful about the reality of marriage anyway, that we Breeders are so keen to keep it for ourselves?? Psh. Half of ours go kaput before death anyway - why deny the misery and legal fees to a group that really wants it??
(Maybe 'cause their marriages will make ours look like shit in comparison! )

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[RhondaLea 4]

Quote

So you don't think that Gays are asking for a redefinition of marriage? Have you always thought that marriage was not defined as a union between male and female?

Gays are asking for the same legal privileges accorded to those who enter into heterosexual unions. I don't think we need to make the sticking point what we call their union.

It is discrimination of the worst sort to bar homosexuals from the health benefits and tax breaks and other legal rights I, as a heterosexual, would be permitted if I were married.

God considered polygany to be a legitimate form of marriage. Does polyganous marriage fit within your definition of what a marriage is?

Here, for your edification are several more forms of marriage approved by God:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bibl.htm

Get back to me after you've had an opportunity to review these, especially the ones that are based on rape.

Oh, I almost forgot, my flat out answer to your question--both of them, actually--is "No."

rl

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[SudsyFist 0]

I hope you realize that your very same arguments were used in the case of interracial marriages. Reread them and substitute, and you'll see the, "Whoa."

To many at the time, a black man wasn't really a man (more on par with an animal); therefore, how on Earth could we legally recognize his marriage to a good white woman? Do we also let dogs and steer marry our daughters? God wouldn't have it: it's just not right!

Seriously. Sounds way fucked up today, but that was one of the prevailing attitudes back then. And they justified it by saying that's how marriage (and man) was defined.

Can you see the parallel? Open your mind a bit, and you'll see just how amazingly closely they correlate.

EDIT: Adjective -> Adverb.

[GTAVercetti 0]

I am of the opinion that one should only be "married" privately. That is it should ONLY be an agreement between the interested parties. The government should have absolutely no say in it. No license, no tax differences from single people. Nothing. For marriage.

A civil union though, that is a government term. A civil union should be what applies to any two people who want to link together in the eyes of the goverment.

In other words, NO ONE would be married in the eyes of the government, but anyone could be in a civil union with another person.

It gets rid of any of that "redefinition" crap argument.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[billvon 2,991]

>The reason that I don't see any correlation between gay
>marriages and inter racial marriages is that the objections to inter
>racial marriages had nothing to do with the definition of marriage.

Of course it does. God himself opposed interracial marriages, just as he now 'opposes' gay marriages. From the Supreme Court of Virginia, circa 1958:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

>Gays want everyone to accept their lifestyle as being right. That is
>unrealistic.

No, gays just want to be left alone to live THEIR lives. Do you have to convince everyone skydiving is the right way to have fun, just because you like doing it? How about if it were outlawed - might you get a little more vocal?

>Why should I have to accept their marriages just because they think
>it is right.

You don't. You can ignore them if you wish. You have no right, though, to prevent them from having what you have because you dislike them.

>They want to push their minority views on to the majority. That is
> wrong.

No more wrong than allowing blacks to use the same bathrooms that you do. Sure, you are 'forced' to see black men in the bathroom sometimes. But that's part of the price you pay for living in a society that places a high value on the rights of the individual.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

That is wrong. Why should I have to accept their marriages just because they think it is right.

I love it when people want to SAVE marriage as it is... the sanctity of marriage.. or a myriad other codified ways of using thier bigotry to not let other people just be happy together and have similar survivor rights etc within the eyes of the law.

Now what was that divorce rate within our wonderful institution of marriage??