Very good article...everything you said is true and a damm pity.

AMEN

Confucius say man who use anus as vagina also use anus to speak.

If that was true, it would mean that Confucius was full of shit and I'm pretty sure he wasn't. But are you?

Confucius say man who put penis in asshole come out looking shitty.

You shall not sow your vineyard with a second kind of seed... 22:11 You shall not wear clothes made of wool and linen woven together.

These religious laws are connected to the creation account in Genesis 1 in which God established an order in the world that is part of creation itself. The idea of separating and setting boundaries, even among plants and animals ("each after its kind"), expresses the idea that there is a certain way God's world should work, that there are certain boundaries and limits within which creation can exist. Theologically, this was understood to mean that some things should not be mixed in order to preserve the proper working of God's world (even reflected in later Jewish restrictions concerning hybrid animals like mules).

The Israelites then applied this ethically, for example, in laws governing sexual relations that banned bestiality and homosexuality. Religiously, it was extended to things like using two different kinds of animals yoked together for plowing. It was not just a legalism, but an attempt to live out in all aspects of life what they understood to be God's purposes for his world that he had created.

If you are not a believer in God or Bible then you should refrain from using scripture to make your arguments. It clearly makes this author sound ignorant.

Now look what you've done, MBD, your entirely unoriginal pottymouth remarks are drawing loonies like flies..!

Flies are attracted to shit.

Can't avoid it.

I think that was the point I was making. ;-)

Are you suggesting that I am attracted to what you are full of?

#6: So, if you're a "believer" you can use scripture to make your arguments all you want, but if you're not a believer you're prohibited from using scripture to question, refute, debate or reason with.

Nothing like stacking the cards before you deal!

"So, if you're a "believer..."

I'm a believer.

I believe what Confucius says.

Lee has it right. It is true, I am not a biblical scholar. I have but one brief life to live, and I choose not to waste it on such inconsistent and contradictory drivel.

In a sense, wdufkin, you made my point. In a world you describe, apparently with no little awe, we wouldn't be having this little debate. We would rather still be living in caves.

Bible wielders tend to pick and choose particular passages to use against doubters, sinners and the like while ignoring direct contradictions.

I will use whatever tools I have at hand in my effort to debunk the evils promulgated by religion including the bible, koran or the damn upanishads if need be.

As to MBD, it's certainly refreshing to have comments that raise the moral level and general sophistication of the debate such as yours. You have no doubt done Confucius and pretty much all of ancient China proud. You have an apparent grasp of what it was all about.

TLS

Confucius say man who use anus as vagina also use anus to speak.

Confucius say man who put penis in asshole come out looking shitty.

Confucius say lesbian women find it not hard to screw.

Who let the potty-mouthed fourth grader on the site?

Do your parents know you're playing with their computer?

Confucius say every truth has four corners.
You have three. It is up to you to find the fourth.

Surprise, surprise!

The amendment did not make it out of committee. Its failure was not due to any support for gays. It was voted down due to the ancillary reasons I noted in my post. One of the nay voters, a middle aged woman stated through her tears that she did not want any of her constituency to think that she supported same sex unions, but that she had to vote "no" to protect divorcees among others, but certainly not gays.

But, and this is significant, the failure of this bill to come out of committee forces its proponents to start the entire process over. They are back at square one. It will take a minimum of 2 years for them to get back where they were before today's vote. Perhaps the overall climate will change over the next couple of years, after Hillary moves back into the White House.

That will either have the effect of moving the national will more to the left, or I suppose, she could succeed in polarizing the country into a boomerang effect sending us back even further to the right. Who knows?

Baritone

who gives a shit about gays pretenting to be normal...how pathetic

JOM

Who gives a shit? Confucious does.

Confucious say, "If shit has to happen, let it happen properly."

JOM,

Do yourself.

Baritone

[Entire comment deleted]

[Entire comment deleted]

I was wondering if any of our overseers would step in and stop the carnage. You will note that the last 2 comments above were deleted. They amounted to shitty personal attacks - one by JOM and one by myself directed at each other.

While I can't say that I am thrilled at having "big brother" making such decisions, I am not particularly pleased with myself either.

There are, unfortunately, a number of rather small minded, mean spirited individuals who try their best to make the world a shitty place to live. Life is tough enough without the nasty banter in which I allowed myself to take part. I can't speak for others, but in the future I will either refrain from making such comments, or make none at all.

More relevant to the posted subject, the same sex union amendment is not altogether dead. There are a few die hards attempting to find a loophole into which they can thrust this issue to revive it in the current session.

Again, I think its unfortunate that none of the legislators who voted against the amendment did so owing to any support for same sex unions.

The tenor of many of the comments herein, even to the exclusion of the name calling, indicates to me that there remains a great deal of ignorance and general homophobia. The enactment of constitutional amendments against same sex unions - whether at the state or federal level - represent a step backwards in governance.

First, it is a breach of the division between church and state. Second, such amendments target a particular group and limits their personal freedom. This is not the direction in which legislation should be moving. It should not be the business of government to inject itself into the sphere of personal relationships. Such laws represent a further chipping away at our personal freedoms. Where might it end?

Additionally, I have never quite understood just how same sex unions present any kind of danger to the supposedly hallowed institution of marriage. As I see it, the issue is in effect a loss leader, used in a larger, more comprehensive attack against gays and lesbians and their supporters who are overwhelmingly on the left of the political spectrum. Again, it is not faith based, it is hate based.

Baritone

Baritone, as I am that "big brother", I appreciate your understanding. I wish my role wasn't necessary, but then I also wish that people could abandon the childish insecurity that makes them lash out at each other in fear and anger.

CR,

Fear, anger and lashing out unfortunately account for a great deal of human behaviour. Collectively, we are often fearful which makes us angry, and we tend to lash out when angered. There is a lot to fear in this world as we all know.

Gays and lesbians should not be included in that mix, however. There is nothing immoral or amoral about homosexuality. Fundamentalists and right wing politicos demonize gays and lesbians, targeting them to galvanize the uninformed into a voting block which will, by and large march in lock step behind the conservative banner. Carl Rove made hay with this ignorance and hate.

The continued success of the anti-same sex union laws and constitutional amendments at the state level (the recent failure here in Indiana notwithstanding) will, perhaps ultimately have the effect of promulgating a federal constitutional ban. Should that occur, it may serve as a tipping point beyond which other such laws further limiting personal freedom can gain momentum. It is, as they say, a slippery slope. Just as with prohibition, it could take years to get beyond the darkness of fear and loathing and get back to some level of enlightenment.

Again, I contend that personal relationships are none of the government's business.

As to my joust with JOM, I am not particularly pleased with myself on that one. However, it's been my observation, albiet brief, that JOM does not mince words and is often personally confrontational and vulgar. Sadly, I fell into that little trap.

There are obviously some good minds and good writers here at BC who engage in a high level of discourse and debate. However, there is also a current of rather low level name calling and back stabbing which adds little or nothing to any subject at hand. I will endeavor to stay above that current in the future.

Baritone

Oddly, and it's not an original thought, but the worst thing we have to fear is fear itself.

JOM obviously has an issue or two he needs to come to terms with, not least his pseudo-fascist desire to repress all dissenting thought. That's not the attitude that made the USA what it is today.

Again, I contend that personal relationships are none of the government's business.

Quoted for truth.

There is an interesting syndicated op-ed piece by Trudy Rubin published in today's The Miami Herald that talks about the Stasi Museum in Berlin, "...a two story building that exhibits the tools that East Germany's secret police used to spy on most of its citizens' lives."

It's a good read, and graphic in its descriptions of what life is like when a government does intrude and spy on people's lives.

Clavos,

I will check that article out. My son lives in Germany. There remains both a fear and loathing of the Stasi and its informants of whom there were many.

Also, the movie that won an Oscar for best foreign language film, The Lives of Others concerns people living under the thumb of the Stasi in the former East Germany. It is very good, if you don't mind sub-titles.

Baritone

Clavos,

Sorry, somehow I published the above comment twice.

I just read the article seeing that the impetus for it was, in fact the film I noted above. It is very intense and a # of the means used by the Stasi to spy on their citizens mentioned in the article are used in the film.

Baritone

I don't see why people are afraid of gay and lesbian unions ... They should only last one generation right? ...

As for me ... I think that if two spirits want to be together then who can say no? ... Does it really matter what body they are housed in? ...

Magusjinx,

Do remember that a # of same sex couples are either having children by various means and/or are adopting. I think your comment was meant to be funny, and I appreciated the humor, but owing to the above among other reasons, gays and lesbians do have a deeply vested interest in the success or failure of these proposed amendments.

It is my point exactly, that it should be no one's concern what particular gender mix makes up a "couple." Life can be a pretty lonely affair for people legally hindered in their ability to reach out to whomever they choose.

Baritone

Baritone

Using the bible as justification for same gender union is a bad idea.

Having sexual relations with a person of the same gender is prohibited according to the bible. Its impossible to fornicate if you engage in homosexual relations. You are not supposed to have relations in the first place, according to the bible.

Also, I don't know of any Christians that support adultery and fornication. The fact that it happens is not an indication that it is promoted. Neither Christians nor non Christians would say that they support adultery. I don't think that it is respected because of religion. Neither do I think that the idea of homosexual marriage is disliked by Christians or religious people only.

Also the fact that there are bad drivers doesn't mean that we should loose respect for driving laws. Because some (very few) people don't take their weddings or even marriages seriously doesn't mean that we should loose respect for marriage.

Bad argument.

Zedd, Baritone didn't mention the bible in his comment and fornicate simply means having sex without being married.

Oh, and it's "lose" not "loose". apart from those points your comment was entirely lucid.

This is a reality based public service announcement...

Zedd,

I don't comprehend your argument. What I'm talking about is a constitutional ammendment against same sex marriage. I'm not suggesting that everyone must like same sex unions. That is a matter of choice. My biblical illustrations were simply to make a point regarding how ludicrous many of the bible's "thou shalt nots" are.

I assume you are not gay. I also assume you don't approve of the gay life style. That is your choice. However, it is not everyone's choice. The fact that some choose to follow their hereditary predispositions or their hearts to love, and yes, have sex with others of the same gender is, frankly none of your business. Nor should it be the government's.

A same sex union does no sacrilege to the institution of marriage. It is simply symbolic of two people declaring their committment to each other just as it is with the more traditional one man, one woman pairings.

Keep in mind that lesbians and gays are, for the most part unexceptional people. Excepting for their sexual orientation most live just as the majority of heterosexuals do. They have jobs and careers, they own property, they go to church, they are active in their communities, they buy stuff, they pay their bills, AND they pay taxes. They pay taxes to a government from which they should be able to expect the same rights and protections that all other citizens expect. That American governments at both the state and federal levels have enacted or are considering legislation that would in effect single out gays and lesbians, intruding into their private lives and limiting their right to form a legal union is tantamount to betrayal.

Also, such laws and amendments are in fact government sponsorship of a religious agenda a contravention of the US Constitution.

Obviously, atheists and agnostics do not look to the bible for guidance in this matter. I assume that there are some atheists and agnostics who do not support same sex unions for whatever reasons.
Also, I am pretty sure that there are christians who do support such unions.

I'm not sure I understand your point about bad drivers. Poor drivers represent a very real danger to others. A moving two ton vehicle can be a dangerous weapon with a loose nut behind the wheel.

What "danger" do lesbian and gay couples pose to any community? None. None at all.

Baritone

Baritone

You are right, you really don't get my post.

I'll catch you next time bud.

Chris

Christians (whom you are named from) don't study the Koran or the Torah. They study the Bible. Christ is a biblical figure, the central figure in Christianity.

The principals that govern Christians come from the Bible, hence the biblical reference.

Are we all caught up now?

My apologies. I didn't think that I would have to make that connection. Its sort of implied(??????)

Please cease with the simplistic explanations. Your incessant persistence in trying to appear superior to me intellectually suggests that perhaps I bruised your ego at some point. For that I apologies. You may stop now.

Zedd, Dream on, sister...

Zedd,

I'm sorry if I misapprehended your post. It just wasn't intelligible. But that's okay. You are obviously secure in your beliefs, whatever they may be.

Baritone

Baritone writes:

You are obviously secure in your beliefs, whatever they may be.


"Yet ah! Why should they know their fate,
Since sorrow never comes too late,
And happiness too swiftly flies?
Thought would destroy their paradise.
No more; where ignorance is bliss,
'Tis folly to be wise."

Thomas Gray, 1742

"That he's mad, 'tis true, 'tis true 'tis pity,
And pity 'tis 'tis true."

The Shake Man - Hamlet (II, ii, 97-98)

A fine fellow, old Will...

Tis true.

Baritone,

That is perfectly fine. Some people are literal and see only the surface and others see things with more demention and tend to seek even more depth.

Zedd,

Well, I don't think I'm demented.

Zedd,

Misspellings and misuse of the language reduce the credibility of your comments. Dictionaries are cheap and easy to obtain. It is also easy to check spelling on line. I use them all the time. It only takes a few seconds to check a word.

Just some advice from one deep son of a bitch.

Baritone

Zedd,

Also it's good to preview your comments. I thought I had, but my comment above is an obvious testament to my lack of care in that regard. Well, I just wanted to make sure that you knew the message was addressed to you so I named you twice. You believe that, of course. Don't you?


Baritone