Re: POLITICS - I'm out (was: Disturbing article)

[Guest guest]

<I see-- I didn't realize you were limiting your point to American history.

It is American law that is at issue of changing. It is American cultural

tradition and that is at issue of changing. At least at the moment, one thing

continually leads to another though and we do as Americans have a bad habit of

thinking what suits us best should suit the rest world as well.

..

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/22/04 10:42:14 PM Eastern Standard Time,

readnwrite@... writes:

> you're totally misunderstanding me or either intentionally

> twisting what I'm saying to argue with me. I'm not sure which and I

> won't try to judge that. But I don't plan to get into a fight of words

> and terms with you. My point is that the basic and normal structure of

> marriage has children in it and always has. The fact that there are

> legitimate exceptions doesn't mean that the structure of a man and

> woman shouldn't be protected for the possible/probable children that

> are born into most marriages.

There are two reasons I think you're wrong. First, homosexuals are legally

allowed to adopt children, and homosexual women can have their own biological

children. Thus, there is no logical connection between the requirement of a

possibility or probability of child-rearing, and a requirement of opposing

sexes.

Second, there is no Biblical justification for your assertion that the

purpose of marriage is procreation. The reason St. gives is " to avoid

fornication, " but the primary reason is stated clearly in Genesis: " It is not

fitting

that man should be alone. "

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/23/04 2:13:48 AM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> >but nearly none of whom would practice sexual abstinence in

> >order to avoid those numbers of children.

>

> In theory, Catholics would do this.

In theory, but in actuality, I'm sure view of them would.

I believe they are not> supposed to use birth control, still, and sex is

> basically

> supposed to " be open to " conception:

That's not true. They have very restricted means of birth control, but

" fertility awareness " is permissable. The logic is based on an entirely

meritless

argument about what is " natural " and " unnatural. "

> Now, this opens up another interesting point ... a nun is " wed " to Christ.

> So here is a case of a woman marrying (the opposite sex, but also .... ????)

> where clearly (?) no actual babies are expected (I'm not clear on this

> point). I'm not denigrating the practice, but clearly this stretches the

> definition of " marriage " beyond the normal sense, but is considered OK.

Marriage is supposed to be a typification of the union between Christ and the

Church. The crux of marriage is the attainment of salvation through the

harmony of submission and sacrifice. You are right that Christ and a nun do not

procreate, and neither do Christ and the Church. But more importantly, there

is simply no Biblical basis for the idea that the purpose of marriage is

procreation, and that is quite clearly contradicted by the reasons the Bible

*does*

explicitly give for marriage.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/23/04 10:47:45 AM Eastern Standard Time,

mhysmith@... writes:

> When a person is dying, respect is given to those who are experiencing the

> greatest pain and grief which is the family - particularly parents, children

> and spouses.

How can you presume to know who had the greatest attachment to the person or

is experiencing the most pain?

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/23/04 10:47:45 AM Eastern Standard Time,

mhysmith@... writes:

> This is what I was originally saying in that there is great attack on the

> Christians for denying these rights that gays feel they should have, when they

> are in fact, rights that were established because the Christians believed in

> them based on scripture.

>

But " Christians " and " the government " are not the same entity. No one is

questioning a church's right to marry or not marry whom they please.

Chris

[Guest guest]

From: " Heidi Schuppenhauer " <heidis@...>

> Now, this opens up another interesting point ... a nun is " wed " to

Christ.

> So here is a case of a woman marrying (the opposite sex, but also

..... ????)

> where clearly (?) no actual babies are expected (I'm not clear on

this

> point). I'm not denigrating the practice, but clearly this

stretches the

> definition of " marriage " beyond the normal sense, but is considered

OK.

I'm not Catholic, so I don't believe that a nun is wed to Christ any

more than the Christian Church (not just Catholic) as a whole will be

Christ's bride someday. Of course this is in the figurative sense, not

literal, although in actuality the Bible says that marriage is

symbolic of Christ and the Church rather than the other way around:

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the

head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives

be to their own husbands in every thing.

25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church,

and gave himself for it;

26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by

the word,

27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having

spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and

without blemish.

28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that

loveth his wife loveth himself.

29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and

cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall

be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the

church.

33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife

even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

(Ephesians 5:22-33)

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/23/04 6:45:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,

readnwrite@... writes:

> Again, I don't think you're hearing what I'm saying. A child is ALWAYS

> born to a man and a woman.

I understand this quite fine. My point is that this has nothing to do with

the raising of such children. Homosexuals are in every way capable of raising

a child, as are heterosexuals who are infertile, or who are marrying other

heterosexuals who already have children.

If you believe marriage should be restricted to people who will raise their

own biological children, then say so. Otherwise, you are applying your

principals unequally upon homosexuals and heterosexuals.

That structure of a man and woman

> procreating has, since day one (Adam and Eve), been marriage.

Now you're conflating two independent phenomena. A man and a woman have

always been able to, and always have, procreated outside of marriage.

Yes, a > single person can adopt, but that is the EXCEPTION, not the norm,

> for

> the raising of children.

It is the exception, but presumably you will allow it legally. It could also

be said that homosexuality is the exception, and not the norm, to marriage.

So on what basis do you allow one legally, and not the other?

However, the propagation of the human race > will ALWAYS require a man and a

> woman. A child does best when raised by both biological parents in the same

> home. So it's important that that home and structure be protected.

That may or may not be true. Let's assume it's true. In that case, a child

is still clearly benefited by being raised in a family of a man and a man, or

a woman and a woman, over being raised by a bureacracy. Furthermore, children

clearly benefit from being raised by parents who read to them, interact with

them more, which is a factor we can't legally attempt to control. Quite

unquestionably, a child would be better off with homosexual parents who read to

him, feed him well, play with him, then heterosexual parents who don't treat him

well.

> There are, no doubt, many wonderful adoptive parents and I thank God

> for their willingness to take into their hearts and homes a child who

> for some reason or other has been disconnected from his/her biological

> parents. But I do want to say this, as someone who grew up in a home

> where both my biological parents were committed to each other and

> assured us that they would never divorce, that it is a wonderful thing

> to have that kind of security as a child. I pity anyone who has not

> had that, and I would give much so that every child could have that.

> THAT is what I desire to see protected. Unfortunately it has already

> been undermined to a very large degree by our divorce laws.

Well, thank you, but I'm doing reasonably well.

>

> It is also a wonderful thing to grow up in a home where both my

> parents retain my ancestry; I can trace family traits, health issues,

> etc, back through not only them but my grandparents, great

> grandparents, and other relatives. If my parents don't remember

> another of my relatives might. Many people can't do that because they

> have been separated from one or both of their biological parents and

> therefore also one whole side of their heritage.

That's unfortunate, but I suspect it's better than being raised by heroin

addicts barely aware of your existence.

>

> >Second, there is no Biblical justification for your assertion that

> the

> >purpose of marriage is procreation. The reason St. gives is

> " to avoid

> >fornication, " but the primary reason is stated clearly in Genesis:

> " It is not fitting

> >that man should be alone. "

>

> That statement was not in regards to marriage but in reference to the

> fact that Adam was the only human being on the face of the earth.

It's directly conjuncted to the statement " I will make him a helper fit for

him, " at the beginning of the passage that ends with the line " For this reason

a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they

become one flesh. " The entire text between these two lines a narrative,

demonstrating the creation of Eve. Quite clearly, the " Therefore " or " For this

reason "

or however your text translates it, is referring to the creation of Eve, which

is clearly justified by the fact that " It is not good that the man should be

alone " .

Again, the structure is this:

" Then the Lord God said, " It is not good that the man should be alone; I will

make a helper fit for him "

[description of the creation of the helper]

" Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife,

and they become one flesh. "

No > wonder God created Eve, though: that way they could " be fruitful, and

> multiply, and replenish the earth. "

This passage does not exist in remote proximity to the creation of Eve. It's

in the first chapter's creation account:

" So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him;

male and female he created them. And Goid blessed them, and God said to them,

'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion

over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living

thing that moves upon the earth. "

Thus, the only reference to procreation does not follow any reference to

marial union, but directly follows the *creation* of man (meaning of humanity,

as

he made man " male and female). Since the last sentence above is continuous,

by the logic you employ, the purpose of marriage is dominate animals.

If you were to legally enforce this in the way you want to enforce the

hetersexuality of marriage, you'd have to make the intent to be a farming family

a

legal prerequisite to marriage.

On the other hand, the passage I had quoted specifically referred to marital

union of the man and woman, and gave as its justification that " It is not

fitting that man be alone. "

>

> The Bible does declare that marriage is for the purpose of

> procreation, and more specifically for raising godly offspring. This

> verse is in reference to a husband and wife, which you can look up and

> see it in context:

>

> " Has not the LORD made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And

> why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. " (Malachi 2:15, NIV)

This appears to me to be referring to the godliness of the offspring.

Moreover, it seems apparent by the linguistic structure of the passage that

" offspring " refers not to the offspring of the human couple, but the offspring

of God.

It is abundantly obvious if the passage is considered in its rightful

context:

" And this again you do. You cover the Lord's altar with tears, with weeping

and groaning because he no longer regards the offering or accepts it with

favor at your hand. You ask, 'why does he not?' Becasue the Lord was witness to

the covenant between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been

faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. Has not the

one God made and sustained for us the spirit of life? And what does he desire?

Godly offsrping. So take heed to yourselves, and let noe be faithless to the

wife of his youth. 'For I hate divorce,' says the Lord the God of Israel,

and covering one's garmeent with violence, says the Lord of hosts. So take heed

to yourselves and do not be faithless. " (New Oxford Annotated)

The translation is rendered fundamentally different in the Oxford version,

but since I don't know which is more correct, I won't comment on that. But the

passage in its entirety shows sufficiently that was is at issue is the

faithfulness of a man to his wife, not the existence of marriage. It is also

clear

from both translations that God wanting godly offspring refers to his desire

for his own children, humanity, to be godly.

You really have to bend and twist this passage, and pull it entirely out of

context, to say it states that the purpose of a marraige is procreation.

>

> Furthermore, the laws God gave to the Israelites included when a

> husband and wife could come together sexually, which excluded the

> times when the woman is NOT fertile, but gave free access when she

> was.

This is incorrect. It only barred access during menstruation (Lev 18:19),

which is not technically infertile though it is lower-fertility, but did not bar

access during even more surely infertile periods, such as during prenancy, or

after menopause. There is no indication whatsoever this has to do with

fertility.

Moreover, even were this true, which it isn't, it would be overidden by St.

's command that a man always submit to his wife sexually when she desires

it, and vice versa.

Obviously God meant for sexual relations between a husband and

> wife to result in children, though I'm not saying at all that was His

> only purpose for sex.

You haven't supplied a single piece of evidence for this and the only clear

expression of a purpose for sex that I've ever seen in the Bible is St. 's,

which he says is to avoid fornication and burning with passion. In other

words, the purpose of sex is to dissipate sexual frustration and use sexual

energy, and the purpose of marriage is to do so in a moral framework.

Furthermore, the statement that most clearly identifies the purpose of

marriage is the one that God uses when he creates marriage, which is that " It is

not

fitting that the man should be alone. "

Chris

[Guest guest]

From: <ChrisMasterjohn@...>

> In a message dated 2/22/04 10:42:14 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> readnwrite@... writes:

>

> > and terms with you. My point is that the basic and normal

structure of

> > marriage has children in it and always has. The fact that there

are

> > legitimate exceptions doesn't mean that the structure of a man and

> > woman shouldn't be protected for the possible/probable children

that

> > are born into most marriages.

>

> There are two reasons I think you're wrong. First, homosexuals are

legally

> allowed to adopt children, and homosexual women can have their own

biological

> children. Thus, there is no logical connection between the

requirement of a

> possibility or probability of child-rearing, and a requirement of

opposing

> sexes.

Again, I don't think you're hearing what I'm saying. A child is ALWAYS

born to a man and a woman. That structure of a man and woman

procreating has, since day one (Adam and Eve), been marriage. Yes, a

single person can adopt, but that is the EXCEPTION, not the norm, for

the raising of children. However, the propagation of the human race

will ALWAYS require a man and a woman. A child does best when raised

by both biological parents in the same home. So it's important that

that home and structure be protected.

There are, no doubt, many wonderful adoptive parents and I thank God

for their willingness to take into their hearts and homes a child who

for some reason or other has been disconnected from his/her biological

parents. But I do want to say this, as someone who grew up in a home

where both my biological parents were committed to each other and

assured us that they would never divorce, that it is a wonderful thing

to have that kind of security as a child. I pity anyone who has not

had that, and I would give much so that every child could have that.

THAT is what I desire to see protected. Unfortunately it has already

been undermined to a very large degree by our divorce laws.

It is also a wonderful thing to grow up in a home where both my

parents retain my ancestry; I can trace family traits, health issues,

etc, back through not only them but my grandparents, great

grandparents, and other relatives. If my parents don't remember

another of my relatives might. Many people can't do that because they

have been separated from one or both of their biological parents and

therefore also one whole side of their heritage.

> Second, there is no Biblical justification for your assertion that

the

> purpose of marriage is procreation. The reason St. gives is

" to avoid

> fornication, " but the primary reason is stated clearly in Genesis:

" It is not fitting

> that man should be alone. "

That statement was not in regards to marriage but in reference to the

fact that Adam was the only human being on the face of the earth. No

wonder God created Eve, though: that way they could " be fruitful, and

multiply, and replenish the earth. "

The Bible does declare that marriage is for the purpose of

procreation, and more specifically for raising godly offspring. This

verse is in reference to a husband and wife, which you can look up and

see it in context:

" Has not the LORD made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And

why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. " (Malachi 2:15, NIV)

Furthermore, the laws God gave to the Israelites included when a

husband and wife could come together sexually, which excluded the

times when the woman is NOT fertile, but gave free access when she

was. Obviously God meant for sexual relations between a husband and

wife to result in children, though I'm not saying at all that was His

only purpose for sex.

~ Fern

[Guest guest]

From: <ChrisMasterjohn@...>

> Marriage is supposed to be a typification of the union between

Christ and the

> Church. The crux of marriage is the attainment of salvation through

the

> harmony of submission and sacrifice. You are right that Christ and

a nun do not

> procreate, and neither do Christ and the Church. But more

importantly, there

> is simply no Biblical basis for the idea that the purpose of

marriage is

> procreation, and that is quite clearly contradicted by the reasons

the Bible *does*

> explicitly give for marriage.

again I need to correct your misconception. And I'll repeat

here what I wrote in another post:

The Bible does declare that marriage is for the purpose of

procreation, and more specifically for raising godly offspring. This

verse is in reference to a husband and wife, which you can look up and

see it in context:

" Has not the LORD made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And

why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. " (Malachi 2:15, NIV)

Furthermore, the laws God gave to the Israelites included when a

husband and wife could come together sexually, which excluded the

times when the woman is NOT fertile, but gave free access when she

was. Obviously God meant for sexual relations between a husband and

wife to result in children, though I'm not saying at all that was His

only purpose for sex.

I don't know of any other reason for marriage given in the Bible that

contradicts this purpose of procreation. Could you elaborate and give

references please?

~ Fern

[Guest guest]

<How can you presume to know who had the greatest attachment to the person or is

experiencing the most pain?

I do not presume, these are human beings we are talking about and not dogs. As

far as the friends, it is a given in our civilized society that family's,

spouses and children are the most affected - you missed it somewhere. A friend

may well be more upset than any particular one. Some spouses do not love each

other. But this respect is given. This is actually one of the reasons Christie

was using this example because the two guys had apparently been together as a

couple and were attached, but the other guy was not recognized as a spouse would

have been and given this respect. My point was that it sounded that very likely

the lack of regard was mutual.

[Guest guest]

From: <ChrisMasterjohn@...>

> In a message dated 2/23/04 6:45:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> readnwrite@... writes:

>

> > Again, I don't think you're hearing what I'm saying. A child is ALWAYS

> > born to a man and a woman.

>

> I understand this quite fine. My point is that this has nothing to do

with

> the raising of such children. Homosexuals are in every way capable of

raising

> a child, as are heterosexuals who are infertile, or who are marrying

other

> heterosexuals who already have children.

The fact that a child is always born to a man and a woman (not a man and a

man, and not to a woman and a woman) certainly does have something to do

with the raising of children. you are insisting on arguing on the

basis of exceptions, rather than on the basis of the norm, and I'm not

going to go there with you.

> That structure of a man and woman

> > procreating has, since day one (Adam and Eve), been marriage.

>

> Now you're conflating two independent phenomena. A man and a woman have

> always been able to, and always have, procreated outside of marriage.

Perhaps outside of civil marriage, but not outside of marriage.

> Yes, a > single person can adopt, but that is the EXCEPTION, not the

norm,

> > for the raising of children.

>

> It is the exception, but presumably you will allow it legally. It could

also

> be said that homosexuality is the exception, and not the norm, to

marriage.

> So on what basis do you allow one legally, and not the other?

To my knowledge homosexuality is no longer illegal in most places, or at

least in places where there are laws against, they aren't being upheld.

> However, the propagation of the human race > will ALWAYS require a man

and a

> > woman. A child does best when raised by both biological parents in the

same

> > home. So it's important that that home and structure be protected.

>

> That may or may not be true. Let's assume it's true. In that case, a

child

> is still clearly benefited by being raised in a family of a man and a

man, or

> a woman and a woman, over being raised by a bureacracy.

Again, you're arguing on the basis of exceptions, rather than the norm.

> Furthermore, children

> clearly benefit from being raised by parents who read to them, interact

with

> them more, which is a factor we can't legally attempt to control. Quite

> unquestionably, a child would be better off with homosexual parents who

read to

> him, feed him well, play with him, then heterosexual parents who don't

treat him

> well.

As pointed out, they are finding out that isn't the case, that even

with parents who aren't the best parents, children still do better than

when with their biological parents, unless of course in the extreme cases

where their lives are in danger.

> > That statement was not in regards to marriage but in reference to the

> > fact that Adam was the only human being on the face of the earth.

>

> It's directly conjuncted to the statement " I will make him a helper fit

for

> him, " at the beginning of the passage that ends with the line " For this

reason

> a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they

> become one flesh. " The entire text between these two lines a narrative,

> demonstrating the creation of Eve. Quite clearly, the " Therefore " or

" For this reason "

> or however your text translates it, is referring to the creation of Eve,

which

> is clearly justified by the fact that " It is not good that the man should

be

> alone " .

I'm sure we could both argue this till we're blue in the face, and still

neither of us would be convinced by the other. I'll leave my statement as

it stands, especially since it has no significant bearing on the subject at

hand. Certainly companionship is PART of God's purpose for marriage, but

also just as certainly not the only one.

> > The Bible does declare that marriage is for the purpose of

> > procreation, and more specifically for raising godly offspring. This

> > verse is in reference to a husband and wife, which you can look up and

> > see it in context:

> >

> > " Has not the LORD made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And

> > why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. " (Malachi 2:15, NIV)

>

> This appears to me to be referring to the godliness of the offspring.

> Moreover, it seems apparent by the linguistic structure of the passage

that

> " offspring " refers not to the offspring of the human couple, but the

offspring of God.

No, it's referring to the offspring of the human couple, as commentary

after commentary that I have referred to over the years has confirmed this.

I haven't found anyone else to intepret this to mean the offspring of God.

> It is abundantly obvious if the passage is considered in its rightful

> context:

>

> " And this again you do. You cover the Lord's altar with tears, with

weeping

> and groaning because he no longer regards the offering or accepts it with

> favor at your hand. You ask, 'why does he not?' Becasue the Lord was

witness to

> the covenant between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have

been

> faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. Has

not the

> one God made and sustained for us the spirit of life? And what does he

desire?

> Godly offsrping. So take heed to yourselves, and let noe be faithless to

the

> wife of his youth. 'For I hate divorce,' says the Lord the God of

Israel,

> and covering one's garmeent with violence, says the Lord of hosts. So

take heed

> to yourselves and do not be faithless. " (New Oxford Annotated)

>

> The translation is rendered fundamentally different in the Oxford

version,

> but since I don't know which is more correct, I won't comment on that.

But the

> passage in its entirety shows sufficiently that was is at issue is the

> faithfulness of a man to his wife, not the existence of marriage. It is

also clear

> from both translations that God wanting godly offspring refers to his

desire

> for his own children, humanity, to be godly.

No, God is protesting the proliferation of divorce, and He gives the reason

by saying, and this is from the King Version:

" And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And

wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your

spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. "

> You really have to bend and twist this passage, and pull it entirely out

of

> context, to say it states that the purpose of a marraige is procreation.

Then you're saying that hundreds of theologians have bent and twisted this

passage. It's pretty clear if you take it at face value, rather than trying

to make " offspring " out to be something spiritual, rather than actual human

offspring between the man and the " wife of thy youth. "

> > Furthermore, the laws God gave to the Israelites included when a

> > husband and wife could come together sexually, which excluded the

> > times when the woman is NOT fertile, but gave free access when she

> > was.

>

> This is incorrect. It only barred access during menstruation (Lev

18:19),

AND 7 days afterwards, which takes you up to the week before and during

ovulation, when she is the most fertile. (See Leviticus 15)

> which is not technically infertile though it is lower-fertility, but did

not bar

> access during even more surely infertile periods, such as during prenancy

or

> after menopause. There is no indication whatsoever this has to do with

> fertility.

No indication whatsoever? There isn't only if you say it isn't, Chris.

Again, I'm not going to argue with you, as it's fruitless. But I think

anyone can see, who knows anything about a woman's fertility, that God's

laws guaranteed that a husband and wife would have children unless they

were infertile either by age or otherwise.

> You haven't supplied a single piece of evidence for this and the only

clear

> expression of a purpose for sex that I've ever seen in the Bible is St.

's,

> which he says is to avoid fornication and burning with passion. In other

> words, the purpose of sex is to dissipate sexual frustration and use

sexual

> energy, and the purpose of marriage is to do so in a moral framework.

Exactly, and that sexual energy, whether in the animal world or between

humans, when culminated leads to the conception of offspring, unless some

sort of intervention is made to prevent it, and unless one or the other

mate is infertile, due to age or otherwise.

(Man, it gets a bit tiring listing the exceptions over and over, but

evidently I must, or else they are brought up over and over.)

> Furthermore, the statement that most clearly identifies the purpose of

> marriage is the one that God uses when he creates marriage, which is that

" It is not

> fitting that the man should be alone. "

But again, it's not the ONLY statement He makes regarding the purpose of

marriage, unless of course you choose to ignore the rest.

~ Fern

[Guest guest]

>Obviously there was disharmony between the partner and the family. Since

conflicts are very common between inlaws and spouses, I have to challenge that

this conflict was because of the homosexual nature of the relationship. In

spousal relationships, sometimes those marraiges were not long in duration at

all challenging the justification of rights or inheritance. It is not uncommon

that people marry for financial gain. It is not uncommon that wills and powers

of attorney are challenged on the basis of whether the person who wrote them was

in adverse mental or physical state at the time.

I think this is stretching it. If the partner was NOT gay and was legally

married, they wouldn't have been run out of the hospital, stress or no stress

with the inlaws. Wills etc. are another topic, and even then, bringing up

exceptions doesn't prove the rule.

><Why *should* the friends have left " on their own " ? That is EXACTLY why gays

want marriage.

>

>The reasons for saying that the family should not have had to run everyone out

is due to the fact that when the family arrived, they should have left leaving

them privacy, be it homosexual or heterosexual. When a person is dying, respect

is given to those who are experiencing the greatest pain and grief which is the

family - particularly parents, children and spouses.

And the spouse, in this case, was the gay person? If they had been married, no

one would ask them to leave ... maybe very temporarily, but shoot, if my husband

lay dying in the hospital and I was sitting watch, I can't think of any person

who would say " leave now, his mom wants to see him " .

> It is not a party, it is not the appropriate time to hang. Even if you too

are in grief, your own selfish feelings should be placed secondary to those

closest to the dying person. The few remaining hours of life are the most

precious to those who were most bonded over many years, whose lives are most

affected.

And believe it or not, the person he may have been closest to might have been

his gay lover, relegated to the status of " friend " because that's how we do

things in our society. Actually, even if the person had been a " mere " roomate,

I'd presume they might be closer to the dying person than the mother. If the

family is like most, the son moved out in

his late teens, and has been living with " friends " of one sort or another since.

The most recent relationships may be the strongest. In any case, neither you nor

I know, but it's interesting that you presume disrespect by the " friends " .

>> Again, the fact that the friends did not leave and some still only see the

family as expressing homophobia, indicates that there is lack of respect and

regard for them as family and human beings who did love this person for many

years at such a terribly sad time. Again, if my child was dying and their

friends were all hanging at the hospital, I would run them off as well

regardless of their sexual preferences in life.

Even if your son had spent the last 5 years of his life " hanging " with these

friends? THAT is selfish. I had very close roomates in college, they were my

family. My parents were in another state. If they had run off my friends when I

needed them most, I'd be livid. Friends ARE IMPORTANT. If one of them is also

your lover, that one is really important.

>

>>>As you say, much of our law is based on Judeo-Christian tradition, which says

" a man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife " .... i.e. the

spousal attachment supercedes the birth attachment. Ergo it is a good thing to

have an officially recognized spousal attachment.

>

>This is what I was originally saying in that there is great attack on the

Christians for denying these rights that gays feel they should have, when they

are in fact, rights that were established because the Christians believed in

them based on scripture.

Which is changing the subject ... shouldn't spousal rights supercede parental

rights? And in this case, why are you saying parental rights supercede spousal

rights? (which you also bring up as per wills etc ... given that the court DOES

sometimes

overturn spousal rights, I'm surprised you'd think that is a good thing).

>My point above was that this example was not reflective of homosexual problems,

but rather of all human relationships and marraige was not going to prevent them

from occurring.

Except that your point is based on a LOT of speculation. A wife would NOT have

been run out of the hospital in this situation. Wills are a different topic.

> I said that it is appropriate that the legal system address these

relationships and problems. But that is not saying that marraige has to be

redefined, or their relationships should be encompassed under marital laws,

rather recognition of civil unions and defining of partner rights (however suits

them) seems appropriate. Most people do not seem to want to withhold such

" rights " from homosexuals - based on the polls in this country. But the polls

also reflect that they do not want their definition of marraige " withheld " from

them. Many people do feel there is good reason to not redefine marraige.

So add an adjective in front of " marriage " if it makes you feel better ... you

can have a " heterosexual marriage " . I don't see how " withholding a definition "

matters a whit, really. It's a red herring. It also doesn't matter what I think

.... most people believe that " gay marriage " will be a reality at some point, the

trend is going that way. Sorry.

> As I said before, why should I have regard or concern for homosexual issues

when homosexuals have no regard or concern for others? Why should I respect

their differing perspectives or lifestyles when they do not respect others? Why

should I care about their rights to legal protection when they do not respect

the law anyway? Why should I be tolerant of a group of people who are actually,

collectively as a group, the most intolerant I have ever met?

Wow! Those are some interesting assumptions.

1. Homosexuals have no concern for others

2. They do not respect others

3. They do not respect the law

4. They are the most intolerant group I have ever met

OK, so by getting married they broke the law, maybe. So did riding in the front

of the bus,

during the civil rights movement. I can't say that any of the avowed homosexuals

I've

met meet any of the OTHER criteria ... do you have any specific examples? I

mean, I had

a gay hairdresser once that really put me out because I wanted to laugh, he

reminded

me of Candy so much, and I didn't want to be disrespectful and it was SOOO

hard

to remain straight-faced. But he really did cut my hair amazingly well and

treated me

nicely. And I did not notice that he was intolerant of me, even though my

fashion

sense is TRULY AWFUL and I insisted on bleaching AND perming my hair at the same

time (a sin that really has gotten me in trouble with many hairdressers and I

have

since repented).

>Agreed, homosexuals have had their relationships and will always. The issue

here and now is redefining of " marraige " and ending of an extremely long

tradition. So who needs traditions? What they are worth? Well that may be the

more relevant discussion on a board where Nourishing Traditions is a reference

book. They have meaning, they give structure to society, they give order, they

have biological basis to them. Later. And to have a society that is tolerant

of differing beliefs and lifestyles, then respect needs to be given to ALL

differing beliefs and lifestyles and resolution of such issues are very

frequently compromises. Civil unions as opposed to redefining of " marraige "

addresses and resolves the important real issues for gays and it allows non-gays

to maintain their tradition of marraige.

So all this is over the definition of a word? Can you get the insurance

companies and gov't etc. to go along with your definition? If gays have always

been around and always will, why not give them a place in the current framework?

The Indians had a place for " men who preferred to live as squaws " . Granted

squaws had lesser status, but if a man didn't want to be a " warrior " he didn't

have to be one. Or so it is said.

" Allowing non-gays to maintain their tradition of marriage " says that " marriage "

is *owned* by " non-gays " . Which is exactly the issue. Is it?

As for tradition ... the fact is, our society is not a tribe, and numerous

traditions exist within it. If I want to wear a head scarf and say I am Muslim,

I CAN. That is great! Or I can wear a saffron robe and chant. Or eat waterbugs.

We have numerous traditions within this one " society " and in America, really,

the Judeo-Christion tradition was a newcomer, the First People got here first.

And in Europe, the Celts were there first. The church has it's traditions, which

is great ... but that doesn't mean they have to be the law of the land.

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

At 11:16 AM 2/23/2004, you wrote:

>I'm not Catholic, so I don't believe that a nun is wed to Christ any

>more than the Christian Church (not just Catholic) as a whole will be

>Christ's bride someday. Of course this is in the figurative sense, not

>literal, although in actuality the Bible says that marriage is

>symbolic of Christ and the Church rather than the other way around:

>

>22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

>23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the

>head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

>24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives

>be to their own husbands in every thing.

>

I'm sure that the " wedding ceremony " that is part of becoming a nun

is based on those verses (or some like them). The point is about

procreation ... a nun gets a wedding ring, a ceremony, and the

word " marriage " ... but does not expect any children. If kids were

the point of marriage, then this is obviously an exception!

I have no objection to the word " marriage " being used for nuns.

Or for gays. But I have no ownership over the word. My own " marriage "

is mainly defined by how I live, how my family runs, not by other families

or definitions. If some family in Utah or Africa includes 5 wives, or a

" marriage "

in a Heinlien novel includes 2 men and 5 women, it may be interesting, or not,

but it hardly affects my life.

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>> >but nearly none of whom would practice sexual abstinence in

>> >order to avoid those numbers of children.

>>

>> In theory, Catholics would do this.

>

>In theory, but in actuality, I'm sure view of them would.

So Catholics in theory oppose birth control, but in practice use it?

This may be true, but if so, why bother opposing it in theory?

I believe they are not> supposed to use birth control, still, and sex is

>> basically

>> supposed to " be open to " conception:

>

>That's not true. They have very restricted means of birth control, but

> " fertility awareness " is permissable. The logic is based on an entirely

meritless

>argument about what is " natural " and " unnatural. "

Agreed.

>> Now, this opens up another interesting point ... a nun is " wed " to Christ.

>> So here is a case of a woman marrying (the opposite sex, but also .... ????)

>> where clearly (?) no actual babies are expected (I'm not clear on this

>> point). I'm not denigrating the practice, but clearly this stretches the

>> definition of " marriage " beyond the normal sense, but is considered OK.

>

>Marriage is supposed to be a typification of the union between Christ and the

>Church. The crux of marriage is the attainment of salvation through the

>harmony of submission and sacrifice. You are right that Christ and a nun do

not

>procreate, and neither do Christ and the Church. But more importantly, there

>is simply no Biblical basis for the idea that the purpose of marriage is

>procreation, and that is quite clearly contradicted by the reasons the Bible

*does*

>explicitly give for marriage.

Which is basically my point ...

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Actually, the first Biblical commandment is to be fruitful and multiply

(from a Jewish perspective)

Genesis 9:7

As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and

increase upon it. "

> Second, there is no Biblical justification for your assertion that

the

> purpose of marriage is procreation. The reason St. gives is

" to avoid

> fornication, " but the primary reason is stated clearly in Genesis:

" It is not fitting

> that man should be alone. "

[Guest guest]

>> Again, the fact that the friends did not leave and some still only see the

family as expressing homophobia, indicates that there is lack of respect and

regard for them as family and human beings who did love this person for many

years at such a terribly sad time. Again, if my child was dying and their

friends were all hanging at the hospital, I would run them off as well

regardless of their sexual preferences in life.

I always had so much fun hanging at the hospital. That's why I'm incredibly

intolerant of those families who came in at the 11th hour and blew us all out of

the way, because they spoiled my good time.

I missed sitting for hours, all night long, wiping yeasty foam off the mouth and

eyes and out of the ears and from under the nails of a friend with raging

sytemic candida caused by the collapse of their immune system. Of begging the

nurses to let me brush his teeth for him, and being told " Why bother? It will

just be like that again in half an hour. "

I always resented them for not letting me still be able to guide their son, who

was blind from CMV and demented from HIV infecting the brain, to the toilet and

holding his penis for him so he could pee.

I really felt they were just TOO TOO UPTIGHT stopping me from mopping up their

child's infected feces, blood, and vomit.

I was so desolate at not being able to see their heads swell up twice their

normal size. Or see a friend with Kaposi's Sarcoma have so many lesions that

other than a couple of palm-sized areas on his body, there was not one patch of

normal skin left.

I most especially can't believe they were so MEAN as to deprive me of the fun

and good times of fighting with dieticians to try and get them to give friends

who were wasting away something they could actually keep down. Or with nurses

who refused even to come into the patient's room.

My favorite thing that I lost though was sitting up all night listening to a

friend begging me to take him out of the hospital and bring him home, because he

was dying and he wanted to die at home, and knowing that I didn't have the

courage to do it. He couldn't do it on his own because he couldn't see, and

couldn't walk.

HANGING AT THE HOSPITAL. Yeah, that's a really good description of it.

I always wished that absolute and utter ignorance could somehow prevent people

from forming opinions on the subject of which they are absolutely and utterly

ignorant, but as my grandmother always said, if wishes were horses, then beggars

would ride.

Christie

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/23/04 10:22:35 PM Eastern Standard Time,

readnwrite@... writes:

> again I need to correct your misconception. And I'll repeat

> here what I wrote in another post:

>

> The Bible does declare that marriage is for the purpose of

> procreation, and more specifically for raising godly offspring. This

> verse is in reference to a husband and wife, which you can look up and

> see it in context:

>

> " Has not the LORD made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And

> why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. " (Malachi 2:15, NIV)

I already responded to this, and pointed out that you took the quote entirely

out of context. Further, other translations completely fail to render the

meaning yours renders. But leaving that aside, it's clear from the translation

you quote that the offspring are God's, not the man-and-wife's, and it's clear

from the context you seem to be deliberately cleaving this out of, that the

passage concerns not the purpose of marriage, but the purpose of *faithfulness*

within a marriage.

If we are to paraphrase the passage to render your meaning it would look like

this:

" Remain faithful to your wife, because the purpose of marriage is

procreation. "

Does this not strike you as a completely illogical sentence? Cheating on

your wife in no way harms your ability to procreate with her.

>

> Furthermore, the laws God gave to the Israelites included when a

> husband and wife could come together sexually, which excluded the

> times when the woman is NOT fertile, but gave free access when she

> was. Obviously God meant for sexual relations between a husband and

> wife to result in children, though I'm not saying at all that was His

> only purpose for sex.

You must have written this before you read my other post, and I must be

reading this before your response to my other post. Argh! <g> Oh well, we're

both doing it :-) Anyway, this is just false, as I pointed out in my other

email.

> I don't know of any other reason for marriage given in the Bible that

> contradicts this purpose of procreation. Could you elaborate and give

> references please?

You say " other " as if you've provided a passage showing that procreation is

listed as a " purpose " for marriage in the Bible, but you haven't.

Besides, the question is not whether the Bible considers it a possible reason

to marry; the question is whether the Bible considers it a moral requisite to

marriage.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/23/04 10:47:06 PM Eastern Standard Time,

mhysmith@... writes:

> <How can you presume to know who had the greatest attachment to the person

> or is experiencing the most pain?

>

>

>

> I do not presume, these are human beings we are talking about and not dogs.

Right... and as humans our interactions are much more complex than simple

genetic relations. We can form friendships and spousal relationships that

supercede our biological familial relationships.

As far as the friends, it is a given in our civilized society that family's,

spouses and

> children are the most affected - you missed it somewhere.

Please show me the law or societal declaration that states this.

A friend may well be more upset than any particular one. Some spouses do

not

> love each other. But this respect is given. This is actually one of the

> reasons Christie was using this example because the two guys had apparently

> been together as a couple and were attached, but the other guy was not

> recognized as a spouse would have been and given this respect. My point was

that it

> sounded that very likely the lack of regard was mutual.

Maybe, I don't know the situation. But the fact that they formed a bond that

should have been considered spousal indicates that the ability to form new

bonds that are stronger than biological bonds is an active capacity in every

human, so to presume or declare as a society that a particular bond is the

strongest one as if that applies in all cases is wrong.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/24/04 1:48:34 AM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> So Catholics in theory oppose birth control, but in practice use it?

> This may be true, but if so, why bother opposing it in theory?

Because the hierarchy of the Church makes the decisions, and they don't have

to deal with the consequences, because they don't marry.

> Which is basically my point ...

I was simply trying to amplify your point, not disagree with it.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/24/04 1:59:25 AM Eastern Standard Time, kayte@...

writes:

> Actually, the first Biblical commandment is to be fruitful and multiply

> (from a Jewish perspective)

Kayte,

While I'm arguing from a Christian perspective, which is, in my view, the

relevant perspective, since it is Christians, not Jews, who actively oppose gay

marriage, and because Fern is arguing from a Christian perspective, there is no

possible way, Jewish or Christian, to read that commandment as a moral

requisite to marriage. Perhaps it is Jewish tradition to believe that

procreation

is the justification for sex or marriage, but, as I already pointed out, the

commandment to be fruitful and multiply is not found in even remote proximity to

the marital references in Genesis, (in the scope of the creation account),

and it is also found in the same exact sentence as the commandment to dominate

fish and mammals.

So, if you employ the logic you are employing consistently, the purpose of

marriage is to dominate fish.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/24/04 2:01:00 AM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> And believe it or not, the person he may have been closest to might have

> been his gay lover, relegated to the status of " friend " because that's how we

> do things in our society.

Heidi,

You've hit the nail on the head. is destroying her own argument and

demonstrating Christie's, by demonstrating with her own words the bias that a

homosexual lover is a " friend " and not a " spouse, " and thereby demonstrating how

gay marriage would radically alter one's perception of who is justified in

staying and who is not.

Chris

[Guest guest]

From: <ChrisMasterjohn@...>

> Besides, the question is not whether the Bible considers it a possible

reason

> to marry; the question is whether the Bible considers it a moral

requisite to

> marriage.

I had no idea that's what we were discussing. If it is, I'm

bowing out, as I never said and never intended to say that having children

is a moral requisite to marriage.

~ Fern

[Guest guest]

> You've hit the nail on the head. is destroying her own argument and

> demonstrating Christie's, by demonstrating with her own words the bias that a

> homosexual lover is a " friend " and not a " spouse, " and thereby demonstrating

how

gay marriage would radically alter one's perception of who is justified in

staying and who is not.

For the record, I have always considered my spouse my best friend.

I was working on my rebuttal to that post but did not get it finished. Where do

you guys get the time to post so much? Well its easier now to move on and to

hit the highlights anyway. I was not referring to the lover, but the friends in

the hospital. It is not a matter of the lover being closer. It is a matter

that the family as well, most likely had deep feelings also, I mean it is a very

reasonable assumption to make.

I know no more about the situation that any of you guys do. I like that word

bias which I think was more aptly displayed by saying that this man was run out

of the hospital because he was gay by a family who did not care about the dying

man because he was gay, and these friends were run out of the hospital as well

because they were gay, and the power of attorneys and wills were challenged and

overthrown because he was gay, and the courts sided with the family because the

courts are anti-gay as well.

I was suggesting that there was most likely, more to the story than the very

baised perception being shared.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/25/04 2:31:46 AM Eastern Standard Time,

readnwrite@... writes:

> I had no idea that's what we were discussing. If it is, I'm

> bowing out, as I never said and never intended to say that having children

> is a moral requisite to marriage.

Then why did you suggest that the reason homosexuals should not be able to

marry is that they cannot bear children?

Chris

[Guest guest]

From: <ChrisMasterjohn@...>

>> I had no idea that's what we were discussing. If it is, I'm

>> bowing out, as I never said and never intended to say that having

>> children is a moral requisite to marriage.

>

> Then why did you suggest that the reason homosexuals should not

> be able to marry is that they cannot bear children?

I didn't say that is the reason homosexuals should not be able to marry. I

was saying that homosexuals by definition cannot marry, unless of course

they marry someone of the opposite sex. I was defending the definition of

marriage as between a man and a woman, and giving support to that

definition that has been in place for thousands of years.

I mentioned that ONE of God's purposes for marriage is procreation, but I

never said that it was a moral requisite to marriage. However, it seems

that our discussion went WAY off on a tangent, with you arguing against a

twisted version of what I had originally said.

~ Fern