Let's see, according to SULLY, I'm an "idiot", a former "racist," a "fascist" comparable to Franco, Hitler, Mussolini, the Chilean generals, etc.
Gee, and I'M the one who's been accused of "name-calling"?
That's just pathetic. As pathetic as those so-called "progressives" whose agenda bears a closer relationship to Hitler and his National SOCIALISTS than anything GWB has done or could do.
What's most pathetic, however, is his delusion that he as somehow "best[ed]" me. SULLY's a legend in his own mind, to quote Dirty Harry.
I wish upon you a homosexual child, so that you can celebrate in your personal lives all of the joy, love, and fellowship that you advocate here.
But I am at least pleased that you make no attempt to hide it from people. So they can make up their own minds about you with ease.
And, BTW, were I to have a gay child, I would love my child unconditionally. What would YOU do? Kill your own child?, or just shun them? Please, you are noxious.
I'd love my child unconditionally. Maybe you would. Maybe you
really are the kind of jackass that would love a Dahmer justy the way he was. Loving someone unconditionally goes with being 'non-judgemental'. Absolute cop-out from reality.
When my 'homo' son grows up all butch and strong and then visits the hershey highway with your sexually confused son.
my son will make your son his bitch
But apparently it is much more to you.
I care about PEOPLE and who they are, and where their hearts and minds are at.
I've known wonderful gay people (men and women), and real freaks and jerks who were gay - same as 'straight' people - both good and bad.
People are people. What do I care? What do YOU care?
I have no fears about gays; no fears that I am gay, no fear being around gays, (although it's seldom that I am), and am confident in my sexuality and in my 'origin'.
Some of the biggest, most heated arguments I've been in has been with people who have told me that I MUST, that I am OBLIGATED to tell gay people that they are wrong, and are going to hell and that I cannot associate with them etc as friends because they are gay and because they are WRONG.
I can't think of any time where a person was 'won over' by condemning them.
The best way to win someone is through LOVE.
Jesus won the people through his LOVE, and loving ACCEPTANCE.
Exactly, Sedona.
It's funny how hypocritical Christians can be (also) at times. I was raised in a Christian family and my parents don't have a problem with a long-time friend of ours who is gay. They may not agree with it, but they certainly don't turn him away and they truly enjoy his company. A real Christian, to me, is someone who doesn't turn his/her back on someone who is chatised . . . someone who takes a stand and fights for that person. Isn't that what being humane is all about?
Hugs,
Ciara
I don't disagree with anything you say here, CiCi. But these issues are different from those who demand that we redefine marriage to include same-sex couples.
Humane also demands that you take corrective steps when someone engages in bad behavior. How many parents would dispute that?
You express the classic "Hate the sin; love the sinner" ethos which was what Christ taught (as in "Go forth and sin no more"). The difference between that and what homo advocacy groups advocate (sorry for the repetition) is that they demand that we embrace the sin, as well.
I see your point. As a writer I have to look at all perspectives, or at least try to do such a thing. There are some good people and bad people in every type of environment in society, so please don't blame all the homosexuals for wanting us to join on the bandwagon of sin (or so you put it). Most just don't want to be chastised and they want to be allowed to be with one another in a committed marriage. That means, they want a stupid piece of paper, like the rest of us idiots, to make them feel connected to one another -- that's all!
Love & hugs,
Ciara
It doesn't make any difference to me one way or the other if gays marry, but isn't it more than a piece of paper, isn't it also everything that come with the paper. Spousal insurance from employers, survivor benifits, joint property ownership with survivor right, etc. Everything that hetro married couples take for granted?
Don't want to start a political thread but isn't that what the gay marriages are all about, having all the society benifits enjoyed by hetro couples?
"The difference between that and what homo advocacy groups advocate (sorry for the repetition) is that they demand that we embrace the sin, as well"
That is not true, and is one area where the 'breakdown' occurs.
Think of anything, anything at all, and see that your statement is false.
Any parents of teenagers who dress 'weird', listen to 'horrible' music, have piercings or whatever. Do most parents accept it, and does that AUTOMATICALLY mean they embrace it? No. Nor does it mean so in just about any scenario.
I had a cousin here for a reunion in 99. The last time she saw me I was 8 - 8, for crying out loud. But she insisted I was gay because I haven't remarried, and have been single for (now) 14 years. She just thought that was too weird that I was comfortable being single and wasn't even 'trying' to remarry!
(She's not from CA). I was surprised at the entire conversation. Still am..
In one of the 'heated' arguments I mentioned having, I said I'm glad I'm hetero, but what 'if' I hadn't been born hetero, what 'if' I was born homosexual? What then? And I asked my 'oponent' to think the same - what if? We can all say that..
And about the definition of marriage. A man and a woman? Or is it defined two people who have sought each other out among all that there is and decided to make a life partner with this one, sharing their love. THAT'S marriage. It's a union of two making an ELEVATED committment to each other. Otherwise, we could pick 'marriage' apart and then see how perverse and bastardized it's become. Because then you'd have to discuss, "for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, forsaking all others, until death do you part." Now, it seems to me that that is a much better topic to discuss and pick apart than someone's sexual orientation. After all, that's between them and God, and none of my business.
I paid hundreds of dollars to a therapist to finally understand something simple regarding my own divorce. I was grieving. Not because I wasn't with HIM anymore (which was great joy), but because I had broken my vows. I take those vows very, very seriously, and it crushed me to know that I had broken them.
Don't talk about 'marriage' as if it was perfect and holy BECAUSE it's between heteros, and then describe it as perverse if it's between same sexes, when you know yourself that marriage is defiled period - regardless of someone's orientation! We who are married heteros should 'pick out the log in our own eyes before taking out the speck in others' meaning clean it up, or shut up.
-- Modified on 2/21/2004 8:26:50 AM
That's absolutely correct. Let's forget about the whole "sin" part altogether. What is sin? Let me see: We all sin on a daily basis: 1) When we curse (even to ourselves and especially using the Lord's name in vein) when we get cut off by another vehicle; 2) How about what Sedona said, "til' death due us part?" I, too, feel guilty about that one since I'm divorced; 3) How about cosmetic surgery? Some of us are pretty vain sometimes, to include myself.
The list could go on and on, but let's keep the peace by just saying, "Let's keep out of others' business, especially when we don't fully understand their undertaking."
Hugs,
Ciara
OK you are willing to hate the sin but love the sinner. Does that mean that you find gay sex a crime? I know you do greek and oral sex with ladies (from your reviews), so that isn't gay from your point of view.
Do you find sexual contact between two people of the same sex illegal? As you know, it isn't (illegal as far as governments are concerned). If it isn't illegal, what is society to do WRT long term relationships between gays. Why shouldn't it recognize them and give them status and rights and responsibilities?
Harry
Your post seems to suggest that "loving the sinner" means giving them something, something straight out of the Liberal handbook.
"Loving the sinner" isn't a handout; it's teaching them the error of their ways. Those who would simply say "live and let live" to homos ignore the self-destructive nature of their activities. My God! Haven't sixty years of the liberal welfare state and resulting transgenerational poverty taught us that the least effective way of dealing with people (it certainly doesn't help them) is acceptance of the pathologies that got them there in the first place? A fair case can be made (I think homosexual writer Randy Shilts did so, in "And the Band Played On") that the licentiousness of the homo bathhouse culture was primarily responsible for the spread of AIDS in the gay "community."
Yes, I think gay sex should be illegal. That does not, as some would probably suggest, mean jihad against homos, since the Fourth Amendment would protect their privacy just as it protects mine.
And the only reason gay sex isn't now illegal is a Supreme Court decision last summer. And the Supreme Court abandoned any semblence of actually applying the Constitution decades ago.
Society shouldn't recognize and give status and rights and responsibility to homosexual relationships because it legitimizes them, just as society should not give legitimacy or benefits to people who live together outside of marriage.
I don't usually resort to name calling, but if there is anyone that deserves it, it is you.
I have children and I coundn't care less what there sexual prefernce turns out to be. The only problem I would have is that if they do turn out to be Homosexual, they will have to deal with hatred and bigotry from people such as yourself.
You make me sick to my stomach.
Witness the love from all of these advocates of love, posted in just 15 minutes.
And isn't it interesting how these individuals seem to have taken a message which, standing alone, and applying the "values" they embrace here, shouldn't be objectionable at all.
-- Modified on 2/20/2004 11:46:46 AM
Dude-
You really are an idiot, but I for one love you if only as a foil to best.
Where id you get the idea that Dems are soft? That we don't hate and fight for what we belive in. We have seen what happens when folk of your ilk take control- Spain 1939, Germany 1933, Italy 1924(? may have that one wrong by a year of two) Chile 1973, Argentina 1967 (? Might have that wrong too) Greece in the late 60s. Fascism is not pretty and it invariably debases the moral currency at least as much as Communism. W/o healthcare for the masses!
The real FAR left is all about eating the rich, nationalising industries, outlawing profit and such- THINGS NOBODY HERE IS FOR
What you have here are progressives. The kind of people who might like to work towards a Star Trek future, free from needs and where equality is a fact not a dream.
I say again YOU ARE AS WRONG ABOUT GAYS AS YOU WERE ABOUT ALL THE RACISM YOU HELD ON TO OVER THE YEARS. We can out wait you as our cause is just. You are the tattered remnant of the era of the divine rights of kings and the popes and you will be washed away by the flow of history and the efforts of good people everywhere just as surely as the Sun will nova, making all our machinations moot anyway.
And I must say that taking moral direction from any one on this site (myself included) is just silly, given the base topic that brings us here.
Let's see, according to SULLY, I'm an "idiot", a former "racist," a "fascist" comparable to Franco, Hitler, Mussolini, the Chilean generals, etc.
Gee, and I'M the one who's been accused of "name-calling"?
That's just pathetic. As pathetic as those so-called "progressives" whose agenda bears a closer relationship to Hitler and his National SOCIALISTS than anything GWB has done or could do.
What's most pathetic, however, is his delusion that he as somehow "best[ed]" me. SULLY's a legend in his own mind, to quote Dirty Harry.
...we are calling you names based on specific statements you are making.
You are calling people names who you have never met or know anything about and basing your opinions of them by what they do in the bedroom and how they choose to live thier own personal lives.
The fact that you can't see the differnce is not surprising.
Actually, given his political spin in his last post above, it might be he castigates them because they don't beling to the same political party. Now THERE is truly a reason to hate someone.
But gee, I guess I'm safe. I'm not a Democrat.
OK, I admit, that one went over my head.
How old are you?
Remember when there was a class of lefties who were not communists but had similar goals and were unafraid to be seen associating with commies. I think that is it. Was a term from my youth, when my dad was still a New Dealer and before my Mum went all Thatcherite!
Sorry I love obscure references- Dennis Miller used to be my favourite comic for this reason- until he went soft on Dumya and was replaced by Eddie Izzard!
But clearly it's NOT standing alone. Oh, but you already knew that.
If you stop and think a moment (and I'm beginning to suspect you either can't or more likely don't want to), you would also notice that the rest of your argument is flawed as well.
Your same warped attempt at logic would imply that if you care about, have sympathy, and love a young child with cancer, then you would be happy to have all your own children come down with childhood cancers. I'm not equating homosexuality with a disease (though I suspect you do), but instead pointing out to you (probably in vain) that the fact that I accept someone for how they are, whether it's the way I am or not, doesn't mean I wish to dictate the same traits on others.
I have been accused of being an obstinate, loud, curmudgeon by numerous people I work with. I think i do a good job. Does that mean I would want my children to be viewed as obstinate, loud, curmudgeons? No, I don't think so.
You, however, probably think the whole universe should look and think just like you. That's the way I read you posts. If it isn't what you mean, maybe you need to change your presentation approach.
How much woold could a wood chuck chuch if a wood chuck could chuck would?
Try saying that really fast 5 times
All of you thought you were going to find a nasty message here didn't you?? Fooled you
What you're NOT gonnna touch this one? Could it be that you actually agree with this idiotic bigot James?
Let me guess you have a 10 page argument so intricate and thought-provoking all ready but sharing with us gay-loving commie liberals would be like pearls before swine, right?
I was trying to lighten the mood!! If you actually bothered to read any of my previous posts, you would see I have been the one calling for a civil debate instead of petty name calling on both sides. It is immature, petty, and not with the spirit of this free and educated society to call anyone a liberal, commie, socialist, immoral degenerate or a religious, evil, right wing fanatic.
No I do not agree with legalizing gay marriage, and Im not going to go around calling people who do support gay marriage liberal socialist commie swines. I respect your views and opinions. There are probably quiet a few things you and I agree on!! Don't f@#$%^& go around calling people who disagree with you right-wing, extremist, heartless, racists and bigots.
If I say that gays deserve to be lynched or something else derogatory then call me a bigot, and rightfully so. I SIMPLY do not agree with legalizing gay marriage. I have my reasons just as you have yours for supporting it and I respect your views.
Lets leave it at that!!!!!
Thank YOU emeraldvodka!!!! Hello, people, I thought this was supposed to be THE EROTIC REVIEW,..let's not envoke a riot. Geesh! Can't we all just get along?
I'm itching for a road trip, I'll find me a vivacious gal to walk the aisle. I'll invite all you concrete blocks of our so called progressive society to throw tomatoes.
and you know what? I haven't been to Frisco in years, and have raging cabin fever....
SF
THe City
San FRan
Bagdad by the bay
Boy's Town
all OK
But never Frisco!
Not once ever
Or do you like the terms Hussy, Whore, Hooker, slut? Just I abhor those, so must you refrain from Frisco.
Sully- "Love that dirty water- _____ you're my home!"
Ok..so I guess Frisco is not something you care for.
Thanks for letting me know - in the rudest, meanest fashion.
Wow- sorry that you took it that way- I just wanted to let you know that this is something SF folk get a rise out of.
Sully- Kike, Christ killer, Sheeny, etc.
No hard feelings from my side intended to be projected at all. Perhaps facing the cold shoulder of fascism has my commie pinko dander up too high!
Would never want to piss of the great sedona- you are a total womensch!
Re-read again and while I see how you might get offended- I do want you to know that ALL San Franciscans hate that term.
and still not sure how I was mean and rude to you in particular. I thought I was demonstrating with examples of analogous abhorrent (sp?) terms
Sully
The Mea Culpa Man
Can I come to S.F. with you? That's my old hometown.
Hugs,
Ciara
What a HORRIBLE post, but I like the part about traveling to Frisco...LOVE that town. I wanna go with!!! Hold off till May and we'll all go together. : )
NEVER CALL IT FRISCO!!!
Please don't make me get offensive- I am already bummed I harshed Sedona out today
Never meant to...
BUT DON'T CALL IT FRISCO!
I have to agree with this. No one from the Bay Area likes the name "Frisco." We just used to call it S.F. or "the city." But come now, non-locals don't know that.
Hugs,
Ciara
be carefull! If the marriage sticks you may lose half of everything you own in the divorce!
LOL
TET
Do you have a gay child or does someone close to you have a gay child?
If that is the case, then your attitudes must make it very hard to deal with the situation. I have a friend with a gay child who committed suicide. The death was much more difficult to deal with than the sexuality.
There are a thousand things I would be more saddened by than a kink in my children's sexual orientation.
No, I don't.
What I fail to understand is why those of you who are so gung-ho on the fraudulent documents being issued in San Francisco and oh-so supportive of homosexuality would be sooo offended by contemplating the joy on a personal level that you promote as public policy.
The hypocrisy is really thick here.
People who are as vitriolic and angry about homosexuals as our friend james secretly yearn to take it up the a$$ themselves. Come out of the closet, james, and take your place in line to get married to you life partner 
Ahh, the witless answer of those who really have no argument in response.
Put it right up there with "homophobe" -- wrongly denoting "fear of..."
You posted:
"I wish upon you a homosexual child, so that you can celebrate in your personal lives all of the joy, love, and fellowship that you advocate here."
Why did you choose to say that specifically - was there a reason you would mention having homosexual children? I'm trying to relate that with anything at all that has been said?
Do you have a homosexual child? Sibling? Could you not love your child if they were? Would you love them less?
I wish upon YOU understanding (if that's the case), and Peace, the 'peace that surpasses all understanding'.
But Sedonna, traditional Christian marriage is under assault! Read this quote from the Anglican/Episcopal section of Beliefnet:
"The consecration of Gene Robinson as bishop of the New Hampshire Diocese of the Episcoplal Church is an affront to Christions everywhere. I am just thankful the our founder, Henry VII, and his wife Catherine of Aragon, and his wife Anna Boleyn, and his wife Jane Seymour, and his wife Anne of Cleaves, and his wife Katherine Howard, and his wife Catherine Parr are no longer here to suffer through this assault on traditional Christion marriage." Sedona, you are marvelous.
I hope you feel better soon.
And point out that MORE marriages will bring in more money to the state coffers. Besides the fees and such for marriage, there would be gay DIVORCES. this brings in even more money to the state. The gay marriages would have big fancy weddings..MORE money for the state. The list is endless.
Though your sarcasm is obvious, you miss the obvious monetary gains from legalized gay marriages.
TET
Since I oppose more money for the greedy hand of government, this is yet another argument against gay "marriage."
I have been too busy and out of town to keep up with the Discussion board - what's going on here? ANyway I will weigh in on 2 issues here.
1] I am 2nd generation SF and while I know the 'lore' of not calling San Francisco by the dimunitive 'Frisco', I never knew why it got us San Franciscan's hot under the collar. I am always happy that the city by the bay is so loved and I wish I still lived there~!
2] I have many friends who are gay. 2 of them as couples have adopted children and a 3rd had a child before realizing he coudn't continue his life as a straight man. I asked them what hopes they had for their children (straight or gay?). In all 3 cases they immediately told me that they hoped they would be straight, not only to avoid the political and social problems of being gay, but because they had positive views of the 'traditional' hetero family unit.