"Big difference between "many states" and "almost no legal rights whatsoever" and your vaguely citing one state's laws regarding adoption."

Well, look it up; the figures show that in the majority of America, gay couples are not offered many legal rights. (I believe that at least twenty states---nearly half the country---do not legally recognise any sort of gay union.) At the moment, only four states out of fifty offer civil unions for gay couples (and civil unions as they exist on a state level still do not provide all the legal benefits as marriage, as well as not being valid in other states).

quote:

Originally posted by embroiderer:
Doug Spaulding, there is no other way to put it: like the church in Revelation, you have lost your first love.

To the contrary, I have found it! I call it truth and I call it love.

But thanks for the judgment anyway.

I am but a passive participant now in this discussion of the correctness of CIVIL UNION, whether Gay or otherwise. There appears to be no changing the locked down, steel-doored and fundamentalist minds of those who cannot see the difference between accetance in love, and separation by hate.

I only hope that we, Man and Woman Kind, will mature in time to avoid the predicted Armageddon that so many would like to see arrive. I still believe that LOVE will conquer HATE and FEAR will be diminsihed by KNOWLEDGE.

We are on our own here on this tiny blue ball of Earth. We either get it right or it will be gone. Do what you can to increase LOVE, and what you may to decrease HATE.

patrask: in all due respect, I struggle with your inability to see this issue in terms other than love verses hate. I very good friend of mine died of AIDS. I have a direct family member who is gay. Please stop putting this in terms of the absolutes of love verses hate. I DO NOT hate gays. Your insinuation that I do is offensive and not conducive to constructive dialog. Have I characterized your position in derogatory terms?

Racial segregation was caused by fear, the whites not trusting the Blacks to behave as they do, after years of being kept as slaves, and summarily mistreated, or at best treated as second class people.

The issue here is the same, fear. Fear of thinking that what some people do might affect how others behave, in a sexual way. If not fear, then what is the reason for restricting Gays to an other, but so-called equal, legal form of union?

Hate may be too strong a term. I used it as the opposite of LOVE. I will use FEAR. It will do to justify the discrimination that has already taken place and continues to cause peaceful people much agony in the mocking of their differences from the majority. Why must it be so?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: patrask,

quote:

Originally posted by Doug Spaulding:

But thanks for the judgment anyway.

Doug Spaulding, you have fully forgotten that judgment begins in the house of God. You say you are a believer; then I, as a faithful follower of Jesus Christ, can judge you. I can not judge a non-believer. You know that. So I say you are fundamentally wrong and dangerously so in your divisive rendering of, for instance, sin. Your ideas are so far out they have nothing to do with the Lord Jesus Christ. You have been mocking Him in terms of seeming to agree with who he is, and then turn around later to say that he isn't saying what scripture says because it's all been diluted and warmed over by novices, or some such fancy group of re-writers.

I tell you right now and to all those that are reading this: you have watered down Christ to fit your own needs, and you refuse to own up to your charlatan theology. You say you must believe in the word of God, but not the Bible. This is simply double-talk. Who the heck are you trying to impress if not the sillyminded like yourself? Your spiritless mindset has spread to some others on this board, and that is a shame.

Apparently you're walking a tightrope in your efforts to characterize my beliefs and positions. Why not simply stop trying to characterize where I'm coming from--whether fear or hate, and give me the respect of NOT judging me? Have I ever tried to characterize your views? Since when did you or anyone else get appointed to that position? Let's just disagree and not characterize each other's views. I'll tell you what, you stop trying to compare me to people who owned slaves and I'll continue to avoid comparing persons who are pro-abortion to Nazis who felt they had a right to decide who should live and who should die. Is that fair enough?

quote:

Originally posted by embroiderer:
Your spiritless mindset has spread to some others on this board, and that is a shame.

You give me too much credit - it was there among others all along.

I said this twenty years+ ago: That the future need was in psychiatry and psychology. That the next generation would be absolutely wacky.

And figured it would be of an underlining sexual nature. With the onslaught of porn and early loss of innocence, I stand by my regard as to the major source of such mental disassociation and isolation. Now, will the "professionals" recognize it as such, or do most of them have the same problem?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081202/ap_on_he_me/med_men...sup2GoSiYIOtYL1a24cA

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Dark:
Apparently you're walking a tightrope in your efforts to characterize my beliefs and positions. Why not simply stop trying to characterize where I'm coming from--whether fear or hate, and give me the respect of NOT judging me? Have I ever tried to characterize your views? Since when did you or anyone else get appointed to that position? Let's just disagree and not characterize each other's views. I'll tell you what, you stop trying to compare me to people who owned slaves and I'll continue to avoid comparing persons who are pro-abortion to Nazis who felt they had a right to decide who should live and who should die. Is that fair enough?

I am sorry that you are hurt. Not my intention. My intention is to bring focus on the reason for not accepting a group of people, Gays in this case, as being of equal entitlement to recognition under the law. If you cannot see that that is a just and deserving goal, then I ask why not?

My only answer to myself is that fear is the cause of withholding a Civil right from a group of people who only want what you want and no more. Why is is so important to separate these people? What about them causes so much anxst in the Christian community. If you quote scripture back at me, I will say this is not about religion, only CIVIL law. Cast who you will from your Churches, but let us not have the majority set aside a few people who are different, not by choice, but by birth.

quote:

Originally posted by Nard Kordell:
I said this twenty years+ ago: That the future need was in psychiatry and psychology. That the next generation would be absolutely wacky.

And figured it would be of an underlining sexual nature. With the onslaught of porn and early loss of innocence, I stand by my regard as to the major source of such mental disassociation and isolation. Now, will the "professionals" recognize it as such, or do most of them have the same problem?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081202/ap_on_he_me/med_men...sup2GoSiYIOtYL1a24cA

Why is sex bad? Because a set of rules written by men to control their charges made everything bad, except under strict adherence to their rules. Next to compound interest, Orignal Sin is the most powerful of all of Man's inventions to control other men.

Sex can be the best way to experience the devine state, when two people can join as one to achieve that state of grace and wonderment that makes us feel alive as no other. The Eastern religions have known this.

Now, make it bad, and bring in guilt, or pervert sex into controlling others for your exclusive satisfaction, and that is bad. With the Golden Rule in action sex is the best thing we humans can experience.

If you are talking about Obsesive Compulsive sex, that can take over a person to the detriment of everything else, that is the same as a gambling obsession, or any other obsession, that is bad. One can become addicted to such and the usual cure is find another thing to replace the thing that is causing the addiction. Maybe that is why so many ex-addicts of one kind or another are now very religious and find solace in their practice of their religion.

quote:

Originally posted by patrask:
...Why is sex bad?...

What patrask said. Plus: because Freud said so. And, for some reason, everyone is prepared to believe in Freud, despite his work being pure pseudoscience.

(OK, Freud probably never said sex was bad, but he assumed most bad states of mind were linked to sex.)

quote:

Originally posted by patrask:

Why is sex bad? Because a set of rules written by men to control their charges made everything bad, except under strict adherence to their rules. Next to compound interest, Orignal Sin is the most powerful of all of Man's inventions to control other men.

Sex can be the best way to experience the devine state, when two people can join as one to achieve that state of grace and wonderment that makes us feel alive as no other.

___

I stick by my original posting above. I am certainly not going to go into details about why I am saying what I do. Not here, anyway. THIS is what's screwing-up the youngsters today. It is the most devastating thing to blind one's mind to truth and bring upon one the full brunt of psychological disorders. I've spent years trying to find the ultimate source of the behavior to begin with, and the best I can find is... it's already inherent in a person and doesn't need much to trigger the beginning run of the event.

Even years ago, the intent to find a solution was there, even tho in raising the red flag was all I could do at the time. If there is any indication where I was coming from, note that in early high school, for an entire summer, I hung around with Hugh Hefner, during a lawsuit he had with the city of Chicago. Got to know a number of his lawyers, and many on his magazine staff, including editor Anson Mount, and Sheldon Wax, who had been an editor of a Science Fiction magazine and later died in a tragic air crash. My distorted brain and emotions thought Hefner to be my publishing idol. What a fool I was.

Once again: you cannot find God thru sex. I speak from experience. You will get on the super high speed desperation train to seek Him, as he draws you, but you'll never find Him unless you go His way.

______________________________

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Nard Kordell,

Well, some sects of the Hindus thought you could get to God through sex.

I view sex as a gift of God provided to bring a husband and wife closer to one another (it also, of course, works for creating children). Without that context, sex gets little higher than pleasure. I do not deny the power of that pleasure, nor do I deny that it can be a powerful part of any adult relationship. But when used properly, within the confines of marriage, it is a part of God's plan for man's happiness. A bit conservative, I know, but that's my view.

quote:

Originally posted by libRArY:
Spaulding, Really, what is all this Theses krhap anyway?

What's krhap?