"Civil Rights" or "Right to Alter Values"?

Same Sex Marriage Forum

Although this is already a heated debate, I'm opening a thread to show the opposing side's arguments against same-sex marriage. There are numerous supporters on this forum for gay relationships, and the common disagreement is that homosexuality does not hurt anyone else, and is the business of the homosexuals only.

The opposing side disagrees that this does not hurt others. Feel free to comment/debate both sides here.

Reference: http://traditionalvalues.org/urban/eight.php

In their own words: Homosexual activists reveal their real agenda.

Homosexuals claim they want the "right" to get married and live normal lives just like heterosexual married couples.

The truth is, however, that the drive to gain legalization of so-called "gay" or "same-sex" marriage is part of a larger sexual agenda. Homosexual activists are now beginning to openly admit that they don't want to marry just to have a normal home life. They want same-sex marriage as a way of destroying the concept of marriage altogether-and of introducing polygamy and polyamory (group sex) as "families."

They are finally admitting what the Traditional Values Coalition (TVC) has been saying for years: Their ultimate goal is to abolish all prohibitions against sex with multiple partners.

WHAT ARE THEY SAYING? ...
Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.

Crain writes: "...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn't deserve the position." (Washington Blade, August, 2003).


Michelangelo Signorile, writing in Out! magazine, has stated that homosexuals should, "...fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely … To debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution. … The most subversive action lesbians and gays can undertake-and one that would perhaps benefit all of society-is to transform the notion of 'family' altogether." (Out! magazine, Dec./Jan., 1994)


Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater "understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman." He notes: "The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness." (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)


Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said: "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. … Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. … We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of reality." (partially quoted in "Beyond Gay Marriage," Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)


Evan Wolfson has stated: "Isn't having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? … marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. "(quoted in "What Marriage Is For," by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)


Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says: "Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I'd be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of 'till death do us part' and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play." (quoted in "Now Free To Marry, Canada's Gays Say, 'Do I?'" by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)


1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: "Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit…" [Emphasis added.]

Reference: http://nwitimes.com/articles/2004/0...e56000b3a4d.txt

BY DEBORAH LAVERTY
Times Staff Writer


CROWN POINT -- Sexual abuse may have contributed to the November death of a 3-year-old Merrillville boy who had a history of heart problems, officials said Friday.

"The rectal injuries could have contributed to his death," Lake County Chief Deputy Coroner Jeff Wells said. "His heart was unstable to begin with, and yes this could have thrown it over the edge. There is a possibility that he could have had a heart attack while being sodomized."

Police are continuing to investigate the death, but have no single suspect, Merrillville Detective Sgt. Don Toth said.

No DNA evidence was found and the boy was in the care of more than one person prior to his death, he said. Efforts by The Times to reach the boy's relatives Friday were unsuccessful.

"Prior to his death there were various individuals in contact with him and so a specific suspect has not been identified," Toth said. "Police are leaving it up to the prosecutor as to the next step. They can review it and see if there is anything there."

Toth said findings from the investigation he is leading will be forwarded to the Lake County Prosecutor's office next week.

Wells said an autopsy showed the boy suffered rectal injuries just prior to the heart attack. He was found not breathing about 11 a.m. Nov. 13 inside his home in the 3900 block of West 78th Court.

The coroner's office consulted with a pediatric cardiopathologist from Riley Children's Hospital in Indianapolis and forensic pathologists before completing the autopsy findings, he said.

I'm very much aware of the fact that heterosexuals are also involved in child molestation, and the article above is not meant to exclude anyone from the horrific results of child molesters regardless of their sexual preference.

Reference: http://traditionalvalues.org/urban/nine.php

In August, 2003, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against the state of Kansas over the state's criminal sodomy law involving children. The ACLU is defending Matthew Limon, a homosexual who committed sodomy against a 14-year-old boy in 2000. At the time of his crime, Simon was 18 years old. The ACLU is claiming that Limon's conviction is unconstitutionally discriminatory because the penalties for sodomy with a minor are different than for heterosexual sex with a minor.

Kansas Attorney General Phill KIine says the fairness of Limon's sentence should be a state legislative issue, not a constitutional one. According to Kline, "If the ACLU wins in the thrust of their arguments, it means the state has no right to say that it is illegal for an adult to have sex with a 13-year-old child." Kline also fears that an ACLU victory will make it difficult for the state to enforce laws against polygamy, incest, bestiality, and other sexual perversions.

The effort to abolish "age of consent" laws has been a long-time goal of homosexual activists. The 1972 Gay Rights Platform, for example, called for the abolition of all laws prohibiting sex with children. The platform demands: "Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent."

In September, 1995, three homosexual activists published an essay entitled, "The State Of Gay Liberation" in Guide, a homosexual publication. The essay was authored by North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) co-founder David Thorstad, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Professor Richard D. Mohr, and San Francisco journalist Bruce Mirken.

Thorstad, of course, is a life-long pederast and homosexual activist who clearly describes the important linkage between homosexuality and pedophilia. In a speech given before a homosexual group in Mexico in 1998, Thorstad said: "Pederasty is the main form that male homosexuality has acquired throughout Western civilization-and not only in the West! Pederasty is inseparable from the high points of Western culture-ancient Greece and the Renaissance." (David Thorstad, "Pederasty And Homosexuality," NAMBLA web site)

Fellow author Professor Richard Mohr, is a homosexual activist who is an advocate for same-sex marriage and has said he hopes that homosexual marriage will help define "monogamy" out of marriage altogether. (Stanley Kurtz, "Beyond Gay Marriage," The Weekly Standard, Aug. 4-11, 2003)

Bruce Mirken is a homosexual and San Francisco journalist who was arrested in 1998 for attempting to have sex with a 13-year-old boy he had contacted through the Internet. When he entered a Sacramento park to sodomize the boy, he was met by police who had been tracking his activities on the Internet. The charges were eventually dropped against him on a technicality.

Sexual Liberation For Children
Thorstad and Professor Mohr want sexual liberation for children and Mirken believes that AIDS activism is what will help perpetuate and strengthen the homosexual movement.

According to David Thorstad, in "The State Of Gay Liberation," homosexuals must get back to a "radical vision of sexual freedom for all. We need to reaffirm our place in the great variety of same-sex behaviors that exist-have always existed-in human societies. We dare not allow our homosexual gift to be alienated from us by the limited vision, stifling political correctness, and erotophobic provincialism." In short, homosexuals should openly support the promotion of adult/child sex!

Professor Mohr argues that the use of "gay youth" is a key to gaining political and cultural victories in the U.S. He writes: "...these brave youth are key to culture's change on gay issues. Thanks to them, increasingly people know someone for whom being gay is an issue. Thanks to them the gay movement is achieving critical mass." Bruce Mirken claims that radical AIDS activism is what will save the homosexual movement from decline.

The effort to push adult/child sex isn't limited to these three homosexual activists. It is part of the overall homosexual movement. As author Mary Eberstadt wrote in "Pedophilia Chic: Reconsidered" in The Weekly Standard, (Jan. 1, 2001): "The reason why the public is being urged to reconsider boy pedophilia is that this 'question,' settled though it may be in the opinions and laws of the rest of the country, is demonstrably not yet settled within certain parts of the gay rights movement." Eberstadt notes that as the homosexual movement becomes more mainstream, this "question" about adult/child sex will become more prominent. Homosexuals who desire sex with children will do exactly what the ACLU is doing in Kansas: Destroy all laws banning sex between adults and children.

Those are hilarious posts! Thanks for the laugh kook, really! Do you actually buy into this crap? Homosexuals want the right to marry so they can have as many partners as they want?? Isn't the whole purpose of marriage to commit to one person for a manogamous relationship? And the parts about the "real" homosexual agendas? That they eventually want to make it legal to have sex with children.
I've visited that site Kook, and it's a breeding ground for weakminded individuals to believe the complete and total BS that they dish out. Only a sick mind would equivalate homosexuality with child rape and molestation. I find it disgusting that you would post such information.

http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/EEK2.GIF

You're not the only one, Chel.

Now Now. Everybody is entitled to his or her own opinions and beliefs. Lets not attack someone for what they believe. This is INReview and this place is a very opinionated place filled with many people with different beliefs. Yes we can debate but lets not try to take everything personal. KJ – I completely understand the situation that you are in and I agree that we should just get along. I know it is easy to get mad if someone starts poking fun of your beliefs. Many opinions are harmful and do damage. Some don’t realize that and continue to poke fun. I’ve learned over the years (but in different situations) to just back down and be the bigger person. You have your beliefs and you wish to share your life with someone you love. Go ahead and do it. I wish you luck and wish you happiness.

Which is why I stated nothing more than I did... there is nothing to say.

Cheddar I respect your view and opinion really, but there are times when you NEED to say something to those who are against you, don't you think??

I respect the fact that Kooka has a right to her own opinion, after all that is one of the things this country has been founded on..... but when it goes as far as it has with her, then I need to say something......

Kooka, you have a right to believe however you choose to feel but to post something as TOTALLY stupid as those articles, well it's beyond me................ it is people like YOU who make me HATE the religious bigots!!!! What ever happened to "loving thy neighbor" or is that no longer taught in churches now a days?? I find it repulsive that you seem to link homosexuality with child molestation and polygamy???? Seriously WTF are you smoking??? I have MANY gay friends and even relatives who DO NOT molest children nor are part of that promiscuous society. And please let's remember that gay people are not the only promiscuous people on earth............... I know many more straight people who are into having multiple sex-partners than I know gay. But back to topic, please do not judge a whole group of people, whom you do not know. I think that is also one of your 10 commandments, is it not??? I for one, find it hard to believe that someone as smart as you falls for something so stupid........ or maybe it's the fact that you hate the gay community so much that makes you believe into these fairy-tales????

Do not confuse the TRUE intent of the gay community for wanting same-sex marriages to be legal. It is THEIR RIGHT to have that which straight people are entitled to. Or do they not deserve the same legal rights as you and I???

Erika

I do believe that enough is enough

The fact that Kooka is a moderator isn't good. She is suppose to be setting an example for us.

Amen Cheddar..............

I think Kooka needs to watch what she is posting on here AS A MODERATOR!!!

Post some counter claims that it does not have an effect on the rest of us. Your arguments have been that "harm no one" and I am showing you the other side of the argument. The fact that I am a moderator has nothing to do with it.

You are claiming that the ones opposing you have no claims against the rights of you to try to pass laws that make this effect EVERYONE. So, I'm stating why we are arguing against the laws. If you feel these arguments are unjustifed (and I did not use the Bible as a factor in this) then prove your point.

You don't want Christians using the Bible, so I'm showing you the other side of the argument. Instead of getting all in an uproar, prove me wrong. Post something about same-sex Civil Rights that will not harm the rest of the American people should the laws be passed.

After all, you keep saying it's none of our business what you do. If that's true, then by all means, prove me wrong.

You can't expect to be posting information about same-sex marriages, and Civil Rights issues, and have everyone conform to your beliefs, and if they don't, they shouldn't be a moderator, or they shouldn't be able to argue their side. If that's the case, no one could be a moderator since we don't agree with everyone.

I posted articles and quotes of agendas. So, if those quotes are not accurate, and that really is not an agenda, then counter act with proof. Those are quotes taken out of gay magazines and publishings. Are you saying the magazines posted lies?

Kooka !!!!!

You are NOT trying to prove that same-sex marriages should not be allowed because they are wrong.................. what you REALLY are doing is trying to make homosexuals nothing more that sexually-deprived immoral people who molest children and who are involved in polygamy!!!!!!

THIS is what I find offensive about YOU and your posts.................. state your beliefs, after all you are free to do so but don't make a group of people into something they ARE NOT........... that is no better than me calling you religious people no better than the Nazis.............. at least Hitler admitted what he intended to do, you people talk and lecture about "loving all" but point fingers and condemn people quicker than anyone else.................

Are you saying the ACLU is also lying about their agenda related to gays? How about what Bill O'Reily stated? Are you saying all these people, publications, media, and organizations are lying, and the four of you are speaking for the entire gay community?

Bill O'Reily is not fact. He throws his own spin on things.

Kooka are you saying that you think Bill O'reily is the spokesman for the whole gay community??? Come on I gave you a lot more intelligence than that!!!!

You are not stating facts, you are quoting people who are not the WHOLE voice of the community you are incriminating!!!

Contrary to what you believe, I don't hate any of you. It would appear that you hate Christians too, but I suspect your posts are simply in support of what you believe, for the same reasons you I post. It's what I believe, and it's my argument. If you don't accept my argument, you're entiled to that, just as I am entitled to reject your arguments.

I have the gay school curriculum which is being taught to children, (heterosexual children) in public schools.

So, if there really is no other agenda than just "rights" then why do they need to be teaching this lifestyle to our children? I can't post the words used in the article because it's most likely inappropriate for this forum. It's very disturbing what's being taught.

These subjects are being taught to children as young as kindergarten. Perhaps you don't mean harm and you only want equal rights, but you can't possibly speak for the entire gay community. There is too much media attention going on that discredits your claims.

Just because someone opposes your views does not mean they are filled with hate. I have no hatred for anyone. What I have is a genuine concern for what is going on in America, and based on what has happened to the countries that already have legalized same-sex marriages. There is no way you can claim this isn't going to harm anyone. It already has.

Kooka I just wonder if you were this outspoken about the murdering of innocent people in Iraq. Somehow I really doubt it!

First and foremost the traditional values website is ALL based on religion and the bible. Not a neutral source. So you did use the bible indirectly.

I just love how you post things about child molestation. You know I have worked in a public government facility for over 14 years. I am REQUIRED to work with children. I am REQUIRED to keep them safe from harm. And not that I hate children, I just really don't like them. I don't want to have to be around them, and I certainly DO NOT as a GAY man find them in the least sexually attractive. More heterosexual men commit sexual crimes against children than any other group. Just because a man molests a boy does NOT mean he is gay. It means the man has a problem and he needs help. And child molestation (and all other sex crimes for that matter) have nothing to do with SEX. They are using sexual acts as a power play. Perhaps someone should learn about the world.

Articles that were taken out of context by traditional values people does not constitute proof of anything. Here, let me do the same.
http://www.indegayforum.org/authors/crain/crain5.html

quote from article The truth is, however, that the drive to gain legalization of so-called "gay" or "same-sex" marriage is part of a larger sexual agenda. Homosexual activists are now beginning to openly admit that they don't want to marry just to have a normal home life. They want same-sex marriage as a way of destroying the concept of marriage altogether-and of introducing polygamy and polyamory (group sex) as "families."end QUOTE

That is so absurd that it is funny.

ahhh Fuscia when I first read that I thought you were AGREEING with Kooka............... whewwwwwwwwww I realized my mistake when I read your last sentence!!!!

[QUOTE]Kookaburra said this in post #2 :
. They want same-sex marriage as a way of destroying the concept of marriage altogether-and of introducing polygamy


Sounds like somebody confused homosexuals with Mormons

Oops... me too. And I was wondering who had kidnapped the real fuscia.

I think that paragraph is so bogus. I have no intention of marrying anyone in the near or far distant future. And I have no intention of marrying more than one person, ever. I don't have to deal with one husband right now, why on earth would I subject myself to two, or three, or four? I refuse to have roommates, I definately don't need multiple husbands.

Kook... give it up. The battle is over... admit your wrongdoing and provide compensation for everybody you harmed.

O.K. guys I fixed it. I was busy with the kids and forgot to put the quotes in. Thanks for understanding.

Well having a gay brother I found Kooka's allegations that homosexual males are to blame for all child molestation cases to be INSULTING!!!!

Someone needs to do a little more research before posting those atrocious articles and pointing fingers!!!

Kookaburra said
"Homosexual activists are now beginning to openly admit that they don't want to marry just to have a normal home life. They want same-sex marriage as a way of destroying the concept of marriage altogether-and of introducing polygamy and polyamory (group sex) as "families"

What! when and where did anyone say that. If Gays want to have polygamous relationships why would they want to go to the trouble of marriage. (I am not gay myself but I do believe that they have no trouble having multi-partner relationships in fact wasn't that the original complaint against them by the right wing (so called Christian) fanatics). When Gay couples want to prove to society that they can be as monogamous as Heterosexuals (oh wait a minute, my mistake we (heterosexuals) are not exactly very monogamous ourselves) then you (right wing fanatics) want to keep them labeled as non-monogamous.
you can't have it both ways.

In Truth I am and have been shocked lately by Kookaburra's posts. In just about everything else that Kookaburra has posted (other than posts related to gays) Kookaburra has always seemed to be a such a good and christian person, but when Kookaburra gets on the subject of gays it is like Adolf Hitler has come alive again. It is so disappointing to me.

Oh, but benyamin... don't you know, us gay folk, we don't know HOW to be monogamous.
No, we're all about one night stands with a different person each time.

That really pisses me off that people assume that sort of BS. I've been with my partner going on 5 years now, and I haven't ever been with another person since, and I don't want to be.

Thanks for your comments... because that is very true.

We all should keep in mind that both sides of the issue are capable of spin. Just because someone is a Christian does not mean that they are 100% truthful. I had a sunday school teacher who turned out to be a child molester. All people can lie, all people can spin for their own adgenda.

Excellent point KJ. And just to reiterate your point, I don't have a take-a-number machine outside my door either. As a matter of fact, all men have to live up to my high standards. And very few have. True it's easy for ANYONE to sleep around, that doesn't take much thought at all. But there are a huge number of us who refuse to. I expect anyone who is interested in me to have some class. I'm clearly not cheap and easy. I expect the next person that I allow in my life romantically to be able to make the commitment for the long term, otherwise it's "hit the road jack". I don't have any gay or lesbian friends that sleep around.

ELEVEN YEARS ago, preparing to march down the wedding aisle (for a second time), I bumped into my friend Patrick, who has never in his near half-century on earth enjoyed the marital option.

"I'm getting married," I said.

"Great," he said. "Has she got a brother for me?"

The two of us laughed at the twist on the old line, but there was longing on his part. In Western Maryland, where he grew up and discovered the sexuality granted him by an apparently loving God, nobody ever talked about marriage for gay people. But now, thousands of gays and lesbians are marrying where they can, while they can. I see their wedding photos in the newspapers and the television news. There are thousands of them lining up. They look as if they might burst into blossom. And, in their eyes, I see the reflections of my friend Patrick's longing amid the laughter.

Please, can we spare ourselves those quotations from the Bible about marriage being the exclusive pairing of men with women? The Bible also says God loves all his children. And it doesn't offer any footnotes listing exceptions to the rule.

And, please, can we spare ourselves the words about the sanctity of heterosexual marriage? About half of us have been botching the hell out of our sanctified heterosexual marriages, so I'm not sure we're in a position to judge somebody else's.

As for some unclear gay "threat" to heteros, our marriages will stand or fall on their own merits, however gays and lesbians manage to lead their lives. This is not an attempt to make heterosexual marriage any less sacred - it is a declaration that gays, too, find it sacred and that they, too, are hungry for stability and security in their lives.

Yesterday, as the White House sent out the first wave of its front men to support George W. Bush's call for a constitutional ban on gay marriage, we had Rep. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania saying he worried mostly about the nation's children. They need care from both genders, he said.

Memo to Santorum: Before casting any stones, try offering this argument to the millions of kids growing up in broken heterosexual households. Try telling it to the kids with no parents at all. Two months ago, some of us gathered at St. Mark Roman Catholic Church in Catonsville to say goodbye to Michael Powell, the managing editor of The Frederick News-Post.

Over the past 15 years, Mike and his wife, Anne, were foster parents to 60 children. They never tried to take any bows for it. But consider the sheer need for any couple to offer their home to so many kids. And then, please let's spare ourselves any talk about children needing attention from both sexes, and how gay marriages would deprive them. Many are ravenously hungry for attention from either sex.

We are familiar with this issue around Baltimore. Three years ago, in a gesture that mixed courage and futility, City Councilman Nick D'Adamo introduced a bill to let homosexual couples register as domestic partners. He did this, he said, after half a dozen constituents told him of being turned away at hospitals or funeral homes by families denying to the very end that their loved one was in a homosexual relationship.

On the day the story ran in this newspaper, the angry telephone calls to D'Adamo did not stop. Some callers had known D'Adamo since he was a kid. Even D'Adamo's mother asked how she could face her friends at Friday night bingo after a measure that would legitimize something that so many people had considered so abhorrent for so long.

The next morning, in his City Hall office, a pensive D'Adamo said, "I look at some of these couples, and you can see on their faces the love they have for each other. And I started thinking to myself, "Who am I to judge?".

We are a nation of cultural mutts, of racial and religious minorities thrown together who once stood apart and, at a distance, feared each other and turned our fears into reflexive and unthinking demonizing. But we evolve. We learn to judge each other not by skin tone or by faith in an unseen God - and we learn not to reduce each other's complex humanity to the thing that happens in the privacy of our bedrooms.

I know that look that Nick D'Adamo mentioned. A few months ago, I had lunch with my old friend Patrick. He's living with a guy now. He talked about the two of them spending their lives together. He didn't mention marriage, because we hadn't yet plunged into the current debate.

But he had that look in his eye. Which, by any other name, we call love. You can see it on the faces of those newlyweds in the newspaper photos. And each of us, looking upon another human being's joy, needs to ask ourselves that simple question: Who am I to judge?

Kooka your arguments are ridiculous................. now a person can't say "the next person that I allow in my life romantically" because it automatically makes them promiscuous??!! Sheesh I guess that makes me a slut too then if I were to say that?? Even though I have been faithfully committed to my boyfriend for 6 years??? No one can foretell the future and some people DO fall out of love. That is part of living.............. and has nothing to do with adultry or cheaping marriage. I think you need to get out of that closet you live in and see the world as it is and learn to accept the people in it. Even those whose lives do not mirror yours..........

I do apologize for mentioning Hitler...I regretted as soon as I posted it but it was an emotional response to your posts.

I do believe in civil discourse but the issue of gay rights to me is exactly like the issue of civil rights for African-Americans during the the 60's which shaped my world. Nothing was more important to me than that when I was growing up. (yes I am white) And to this day the civil rights of all people is the most important issue to me. When I was young I never even imagined about the issue of gay rights. But to me it just is a natural and obvious cause. It wouldn't hurt you or anyone else to recognize that gays deserve the same rights as we do.

(when I was 12 and knew with absolute certainty that my parents didn't have a prejudice bone in their body I was shocked to my core when my mother made disparaging remarks about a fat person, it was then I realized then even good people can be wrong. I have always believed that the man Jesus (I don't believe Jesus is any more related to god than you or me but I do believe that his philosophy's are so indisputably good that, that is the reason a religion was developed around him.) I also use the phrase "what would Jesus(think)do". And I am absolutely positive that Jesus would believe that all people no matter what race, creed, religion or sexual orientation deserve equal treatment under any government.
It is just so obvious to me.
again I apologize for my anger when I compared you to Hitler.
it was uncalled for.

"future partners" could also be there in the posts because unfortunately people do die.

hahahaha Outsider I was about to post that I don't regret comparing Kooka to Hitler for in reality their mentality is the same............. it is just that what Hitler did against the Jews was considered crime because people consider Jews human beings with rights which is not the case with homosexuals........... which is why no one comes to their aid!!

I am going to bed now since I have school tomorrow morning but I thought I would post this before heading off to bed:

GENESIS 1:26-28 and 2:20-25

Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth. So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God 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."

The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field: but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner. So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to man. Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called woman, for out of man this one was taken. Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.

These passages are clearly saying that pro-creation is the only form of sex that is allowed. That woman and man unite as one to pro-create. However even the Catholic Church now excepts the rhythm method of birth control which means they must believe that sex is for more then just pro-creation.

It used to be that when I went to Catholic schools we were taught that sex had a two-fold purpose...

1.To pro-create, but on a deeper level
2. That we come in union with one another and God to fully express and feel our love for one another and God, and to deepen the relationship. Now the Church has always agreed sex was MORE than just pro-creation, but by approving the rhythm method of birth control they contradict themselves and say pro-creation is NOT that important, rather the 2nd part of this is.

If they agree to that, then why shouldn't they agree that homosexuals, who are truly of a homosexual orientation deserve the right to love and be loved just as all human beings on this planet do. As John J Mcneil says "Only a sadistic God would create hundreds of thousands of humans to be inherently homosexual and then deny them the right to sexual intimacy." Also as he says and as I believe, I would rather believe that God was a loving God, than a sadistic one.

I will admit (upon inner reflection) that my feelings about what Jesus would say or do is purely based on my own gut feelings of what is right or wrong. And if forced to do so (should Jesus come down to earth and say Ben, "that is not what I meant"
then I would have to abandon Jesus and realize that I (Me, Myself) would then have to rely on my own well thought out opinions. I don't come by my opinions recklessly or through others (which is why upon reflection I realize that I use the name of Jesus to help others see where I am coming from.) But everything that I think or feel comes from within. And to those who might say "what, do you think that you are as good as Jesus" (or anybody else) to that I say YES. I know for a fact that I am right about this. (perhaps just as much as you feel that you feel you are right) But I just can't help it, I know without any doubt in the world that all men, women, animals, plants, plankton etc. are created equal. and even should some loud godlike voice come down upon and say treat this person like a pariah. I would then say, God, think about what you are saying!
I am being facetious but really we must all rely on our own feelings of what is right and wrong. And to rely upon a book (a great collection of stories I will give you) written thousands of years of ago is unfathomable. I know in my heart what is right or wrong and I will not concede that you have even the slightest possibility of being right on this issue. The biggest problem with religion is that it imposes it's view upon the masses when in fact the masses should figure things out for themselves. And NO there is not 2 sides to all issues. Somethings are Black and White such as slavery, murder, rape, injustice (as in this case)etc.

I hope someday Kookaburra you will realize that you are wrong when it concerns the civil rights of gay people.
By the way, I love you anyway.

Kooka, I keep seeing this comment of yours; we disagree, we agree to disagree, we should move on. Yet you NEVER MOVE ON. You continue to post your hatred filled propaganda and then hide behind your bible to justify your discrimination.
In essence:
"It's ok for me to slander the image of the gay community because I think that's what the bible means, even though it doesn't say the literal words...that's MY INTERPRETATION."

You have such a difficult time, apparently, accepting that.

Chel, which question are you refering to that you want me to answer?