Yes, I am going to open that can of worms. What are everyone's thoughts?
Mine? Well personally I say Congratulations! This for me, is a rather telling topic. I grew up in a very religious home. Long hair, modest clothing, dresses only for women, no swearing, no TV, no radio, limited access to computers and gospel meetings at least twice a week. I like to think I am a better person thanks to that up bringing. But all will have their own opinion.
When I was in High School my best friend was becoming more and more depressed and reserved about something until one day she told me. She was gay. Quite honestly I was relieved, I was really beginning to worry that something was wrong. Turns out she is actually Bi, doubles her chances she says. And good on her.
My husband, well he doesn't believe in God, but as long as everyone is either happy or doesn't complain to him, he doesn't care. The religious group I was in did not approve of my choice and thus I find myself a Christian that does not belong to any Church.
So why this topic? Because quite honestly I believe that everyone deserves to be equal. No matter their beliefs, colour, race, gender, creed or sexuality.

'Because quite honestly I believe that everyone deserves to be equal '

so Bec you believe a five year old and six year old could also get married. Otherwise you don't really believe in equality. You also should support polygamy as everyone should be treated 'equal'. You don't need to study to much biology to find out how unhealthy sodomy is. To encourage this lifestyle is idiotic. I am glad to see that you admit that people committing sodomy as well as sleeping with women is a choice.

btw plenty of apostate churches condone homosexuality so you obviously have not tried to hard to find a church accomodating your belief albiet totally unbiblical.

As the homosexual community generally pride themselves on being different, then why the push to change the definition of marriage?

One gets the impression that they are desperate not to be seen as different.

hi/mummy2

by all..logic we have seen..marriage..
isnt..just between..one man/..one woe-man..
enjoined,,together/forever..into..hush-band/wife

we allso have abstractions..of spirit marriage to living
and of the church..with the heavens[even as christ is wed to..our father

[the father..being the hushbanned
and christ..,himself sub ordained into wife

the church[wife]..is hushbanded by christ
so i hope thats clear..

[im wed to blogging..
[im presuming im...acting as husband..wife

but heck..mums top us all
a wife isnt a mother

its the subordinate..position..just so..that remains clear
com[plet and utter obeyance..to our husbands will

but manhas freewill
if they want to be servant..it has to be freee choice
where is the informed consent?..without a equal-meeting of mind with heart..any contractual..servitude..cannot be implied

the mothers..and the fathers role
is much more clear..marriage brings in spirit

but dont swear..before god[do not take oath/not even..in writing[any signed writing is a contract..[signing contract..creates a faulse person[paper person]..so our..*sig-nature..is the mark

just put your mark here
NO WAY..im stupid..not gay..[as in happy]..
im..not happy jan..even..the church,,isnt explaining
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15602&page=0

Bec, you won't find much support for gay marriage on this forum because we have our fair share of resident bigots and homophobes, as you can see.

I agree with you that it is wonderful that Australia is finally starting to drag itself into the 21st Century and have commenced the journey to equal marriage rights for homosexuals.

I still can't see how this decision will affect anyone else.

The usual hysterical, but predictable, rantings about how this decison will lead society into condoning polygomy or paedophaelia is ridiculous, considering both these terrible practices are against the law and punishable by jail.

Should 2 consenting homosexual adults decide to get married, no one in their right mind will put them in jail! It won't affect anyone else at all.

I know you are religious, but I believe a 2000+ year old book written by humans who say they believe in invisible beings in the sky, should not be ruling our present dsy society in any way.
Politics and religion shohld not be mixed at all in our secular country.

Suse, thanks for the support, I can understand people are worried that this would mean a foot in the door for all and any, but I also think that they need to credit us with a little common sense.

runner, I don't see anything wrong with polygamy as long as all party's involved are been treated as equals and all are happy and none are forced into it. As to children been married I was engaged at 17 (married at 18) by choice however I would not condone children been married as they are unable to know enough to make that kind of decision. What I am trying to say is, if someone is old enough and informed enough to want a certain type of relationship with another person wanting the same type of relationship why shouldn't they?

As to the religious side of things and the argument of "It would threaten what my marriage stands for" What of divorce? Sadly marriage vows don't seem to mean the same thing anymore, but it has nothing to do with "Gay" marriage.

OUG, I think you are disagreeing with me? Maybe, I'm sorry, I don't mean to misunderstand you.

Bec, gay marriage? Yes I support it all the way.

I am very pleased to see Australia’s first same-sex marriage law come into effect in the ACT.

But what really gets me is that there may now be a legal challenge.

Two things – how on Earth can laws ever be implemented before they are known to be solidly founded in law??!! How can we possibly ever have illegal laws??

What is now law in the ACT may be found to be illegitimate if the high court decides so. Something is completely crackers about that!

And secondly, why would the Feds want to push for a high court challenge? Why not just accept the ACT’s right to make its own decision on this.

For that matter, why oppose same-sex marriage at all? It just seems like such a stupid thing to get hung up on.

Suse,

Your usual line of logic?

"I know you are religious, but I believe a 2000+ year old book written by humans who say they believe in invisible beings in the sky, should not be ruling our present dsy society in any way.
Politics and religion shohld not be mixed at all in our secular country".

Well said, the same book says that murder is wrong, along with lying, adultery and theft.

So those are of no importance along with the honouring of one's father and mother.

I certainly agree in marriage equality for polygamists. I hope the ACT law doesn't discriminate against them? After all they have a more valid claim to recognition of their marriages than homosexuals, if not equal. And besides, polygamy is a criminal offence, gay marriage is not. So the more urgent case, in terms of social justice, is surely that of polygamists, not gays.

Does anyone supporting gay marriage not support legalizing polygamy, and if not, obviously that destroys your argument in favour of state registration of homosexual marriage doesn't it?

its ok..rebeca..not.many grasp..my words
im just trying to point out..marriage,..IS ABOUT honoring..and obeying

sure you can dress it up..or change the words
but its an enjoining..of souls we are talking of here
SOLEMNIZED..before god..[ie creating a lawful document..of status change

see mr.is..a rank..of an officer
mrs..is the ranking..of service[im talking legally]

see beca..the bible SAYS SPECIFICALLY..do not take oath

matthew 5;33-37..,..23;15-23
plus james [jesus brother]..said..5;12..

[so taking vows..is a serious legally binding step]
but swearing..it true before god..seems ok..if sincere
BUT..signing..the certification..is signing an oath*..against the specific advice in..the bible

oaths can be spoken..or in w..ritinspeaking it maybe ok
but signing a thing as true..is a lie

please think..have you EVER..signed a form..
declaring..that..your birth details onthe form..is true
[well the rthing maybe or maynot be true..[but one thing is true..NO ONE OF US KNOWS ITS TRUE..from first hand recall[sure youwere there..BUT cant recall..it from YOUR OWN..memories

so..anything you SWORE true..isnt first hand recall true
its based on hear-say..you may think..i its true..but someone told you..[be honest ans say..you dont recall

but that simple lie..[look the births registrar..COULD possibly swear..it true..[by his book]..but even then..its not lawfully true..[from you]..for you were but a baby..at the time.

thing is people have no idea..
how wrongly we use these things..for light and transient reasons

marriage is serious..as long as they know
i couldnt care less ..who swears to..obey who....
just know its not..a law from god..nor the bible..

[the swearing bit]

the bit in..the ten/commands..re adultery..seems to be confusing
see the law..forbids ADULTERATING>>GODS LAWS*[not keeping hubby fateful..or his mises..fruitfull..]

Mise,
What homosexuals are trying to do is get community respect for their sexual activities. That is the only reason they want the word marriage.

I care not what they do in their bedrooms, but I object to using the word 'marriage', they can find a new word to describe their union. For me a marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

They have already corrupted the word 'gay' and they are now doing the same to the word 'marriage'. Their only motive is to try and conjure some respectability for their sexual activities.

OUG, I am getting better at reading your posts, I am beginning to see that you and I are on a simular wave length. I quite often find hidden gems in your posts. :-)

Ludwig, I don't think Tony is going to make himself very popular about this, I think a lot of people sitting on the fence of this issue will also see that it is cruel to give someone their life long dream then rip it from them later.

As for there been a place for religion in politics I think there is, after all a lot of society is religious in some way shape or form. And I think regardless of who you are most people would admit that there are a lot of values that are taught in both religious and non religious homes that are worthwhile and called for.

The new law will denigrate marriage itself.
It will not give a seal of approval to homosexuals.
I am married but if it comes in can we find a new word to describe
real unions ?

The homosexual lobby might call it marriage, but it is a fallacy. Marriage is a biological act between a man and a woman as is birth and death which is registered by the State [meaning Commonwealth]. The registering by the State is only the contract of agreement between the parties it is not the reality of marriage. Marriages, births and deaths are recorded by the State for population / citizen statistics. What two people of the same gender do in their bedroom that does not affect population is not the reality of marriage.

Josephus,

(We've been through all this before when you were Philo)

Marriage is not a biological act.

It is a social mechanism.

Suseonline,
Because pedophilia and polygamy is currently illegal in Australia and punishable by law does not mean that things could change as was homosexuality once. Homosexuality is outlawed in most countries and polygamy is currently recognized by many countries, and pedophilia is accepted in some countries. What makes our marriage laws different is we are an enlightened Western Nation and believe in the equality of gender. Allowing homosexuality is not a modern attitude it is recorded as accepted by societies that existed 5,000 years ago. It is just we live in an educated society that sees the social folly of same sex acts.

Poirot,
Please identify what the marriage contract actually socially identifies as "marriage". Our Law states it is "between a man and a woman". What is it that a man and a woman exclusively share in their social contract?

You want to make marriage the contract and not the reality it does not stack up philosophically. Contracts registered by the State cover a physical reality.

LGBTI is going the way of the Trade Union movement and environmentalism, selling out to the bosses because they've come to an arrangement they can all live with.
Nobody builds up a brand without an intent to capitalise on it and the LGBTI brand, if you remember had a big setback due to AIDS, the equivalent of a mass recall of product.
The capitalisation and sell off of LGBTI is about 20 years behind schedule, a good many of the original entrepreneurs have also died but the small bands of loyalists and their successors have seen it through and are ready to sign on the dotted line.
This isn't a good thing for the simple reason that assimilation of these ever more eccentric movements and tendencies just prolongs the collapse of modernity and capitalism, the whole Zombie system will keep shuffling along indefinitely as long as there are new clients to prop up the Ponzi scheme. Legalising Gay marriage just buys them some time but it's now in a spiral of diminishing returns, today it assimilates LGBTI, then tomorrow "moderate Islam" or polygamy and the payoff decreases each time until they've scraped the bottom of the barrel and there's nothing left.
The explicitly stated goal of the regime at present is social cohesion, that statement alone should put "Gay Marriage" in it's proper context. The proponents of Gay marriage are finally throwing their lot in with the state because resistance and separatism have failed and up until now all their other demands on a tactical level have been met, the Gay liberators are at checkmate and they know it, Gay Marriage is a face saving exercise.
This episode should be studied by dissenters because it's a clear example of yet another radical school of thought capitulating to the Capitalist and Liberal mainstream.

Is Mise, I think most of us are bright enough to teach our kiddies these values without referring to any religious text.

I would imagine that the humans living before these books were written (by humans) must have managed to survive without them? Are we to ignore all history books other than the fictional bible? Why?

Are you suggesting no one thought that killing someone else was a problem before a bunch of guys 2000 years ago decided an invisible man in the sky told them so?
Lol!

We, as a society, can also decide now what people can or cannot do as far as marriage goes, without some guys who worship gods telling us what is or isn't a 'sin'.

Suse, why is someone a bigot, just because they don't approve of what homosexuals do to each other. Perhaps those practices have been legitimized by the rampant pron industry, which is aiding the homos.

Personally I don't give a damn what homos do to whom, with what, or how, but I would like them to do it quietly. The sight of masses of them jumping up & down in a parade does leave me cold to say the least.

As a 15 year old I was accosted by a male family friend. I don't know whether that makes him a homosexual or a pedophile, but whatever, I get a nasty taste in my mouth just thinking about men on men.

I was already playing hooker in the senior school team, so the bloke was a bit lucky not to be injured, but it does colour my thinking.

I believe marriage, as an institution, is dying anyway, so why bother. About the only thing that will save it is the Islamisation of Oz, & the introduction of sharia law. This won't help the homosexuals, as they would immediately be beheaded. Perhaps being one of a registered same sex couple may not be such a good idea, if Tony doesn't manage to stop the boats.

What I really do look forward to is the bitching that will occur when homosexual married couples cop the turbid justice handed out by the family court. Now that will be fun to watch, & they will have no one but themselves to blame.

Hasbeen, the Wikipedia definition of bigot says:
"Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person's ethnicity, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics."

So yes, by your obvious dislike of homosexual men, you are, by definition, a bigot.
They are born homosexual, and how they live and choose to lawfully display themselves in public is their own business.

I don't like watching heterosexual couples in the street with their tongues down each other's throat either, but I don't condemn all heterosexual people as debauched or disgusting because of that.

I'm assuming you don't believe the new marriage laws for Gay marriage in the ACT are good? How will any gay couple getting married personally affect you?

I totally support gay barrage. Good to sec the ACT making a commitment on this with their new law. Lets hope its not long before Tony Abbott can attend the wedding of his sister to her partner. Love to all.

Suse,

The Bible ain't all fiction; the Israeli's worked out, roughly, where Moses was in the 'Burning Bush' episode and found oil.

"Are you suggesting no one thought that killing someone else was a problem before a bunch of guys 2000 years ago decided an invisible man in the sky told them so?
Lol!"

Probably was a problem otherwise why codify the prohibition?

Just so that you don't make the same mistake again, the Bible was finished well before the birth of Christ, some 2,000 years ago, its actual age is a matter of conjecture but the latest evidence puts some of its books back to at least 4,000 BC.

Paul,

Marriage between a man and a woman is based on a natural act, homosexual marriage is based on the un-natural therefore it can not exist under the same definition as heterosexual marriage.

The Greenss continually disrupted the previous government with all manner of stunts on gay marriage.

There has been an election since where the subject was promoted by the Watermelons whose vote suffered as a result. They are on the way out anyway, which is only to be expected for a protest party that markets itself as being there for the environment, but pursues social changes instead.

It is time to accept the democratic decision and move on. There are much more important matters that are begging for attention.

".....There are much more important matters that are begging for attention."

You are so right!

Things like the Coalition's rortathon.

Things like Hockey suddenly declaring the economy's in good shape with the AAA rating being what matters.

Things like the Environment Minister sourcing his climate expertise from Wikipedia.

You know, those sort of things.....

Lol Poirot : ) you are so right.'

Is Mise, if the bible tells us that some god told them to do it, then it is fiction!
Everyone cherry picks what bits they like from these religious books, and that's fine, as long as we don't take any of it as 'gospel'...

Some Heterosexual people may believe that homosexual sex is 'un-natural', but I doubt that the god who supposedly made them as they are would agree they were 'flawed', wouldn't you agree?

Even if the very thought of anything gay made you feel ill, how would them being able to legally marry really adversely affect you?

Suseonline,
If we ignore the view of a Creator, then natural human evolution tells us that children can only be born from man and a woman. That is the real purpose of marriage to have a family and provide for and protect that family. That children need their biological parents is the best society.

Evolution identifies the bowel is to excrete waste, and is not built for sex, otherwise the anus of gay men would have evolved differently. That is why practicing homosexual men have high levels of bowel rupture and contact viruses excreted by the bowel.

The arguments for homosexuals being registered by the State is weak and has no purpose other that to fly in the face with a legal document against those who believe in the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman. To say Homosexuals are born that way is a not supported by science as many wishing to be married to the same sex already have children from a previous marriage to a person of the opposite gender.

Suse,

You might like this.

Talking about Bible stories an such like.

Resident Tea party thicky, Sarah Palin, while promoting her new book on Fox and Friends, today apparently declared that Jesus used to celebrate Easter with his disciples.

"In an interview with Fox and Friends this morning, the former Alaska governor promoted her new book about the left's "war on Christmas" and argued that all Christian holidays should return to the traditional versions practiced by Jesus.

"It makes me so gosh darn angry," Palin explained. "The liberal left in this country has targeted Christian holidays and is trying to secularize them right out of existence.

"When Jesus celebrated Easter with his disciples there were no Easter bunnies or egg hunts. There were no Easter sales at department stores or parades in the street. Easter was a special time of prayer and Christian activism.

"Jesus would gather all the townspeople around and would listen to their stories about the meaning of Easter in their lives. Then he would teach them how to love one another, how to protest Roman abortion clinics and how to properly convert homosexuals.

"You can't even do things like that these days without getting called out by some wacko left-wing human rights group. Christians had more freedom under Roman rule than we do now in our own country! We need to return Easter back to the way it was when Jesus was alive."

The host attempted to correct her.......

""Well, Brian, Easter celebrates, you know, sticking it to all the liberal lefties out there who want to be taking our guns and our freedom....."

etc....

Not much more one can say about that.

http://dailycurrant.com/2013/10/23/sarah-palin-claims-jesus-celebrated-easter/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=sarah-palin-claims-jesus-celebrated-easter

Good post, Poirot, Sarah Palin and our Suseonline seem to have much in common, historically speaking.

Is Mise,

"Good post, Poirot, Sarah Palin and our Suseonline seem to have much in common, historically speaking."

I would have thought from Sarah's musings that:

".....all the liberal lefties out there who want to be taking our guns and our freedom....."

.....you and she would find a lot of common ground.

Lol Poirot!
That mad Palin woman is a real loony tune!
So yes Is Mise, maybe we are similar in that way...

However, I doubt we have anything else in common.
I have no problem with gay people marrying,
I don't believe in any god,
I am pro-choice.
I hate guns.
And...I hate soccer!

Josephus, I don't believe in any 'creator', but seen as you brought up the subject of anal sex, I would imagine if there was a creator and he/she was creating males, surely the penis shouldn't have been made to actually fit into the anus then?

And what about anal sex between heterosexual couples?
Is that ok?
Because that does happen, apparently...

Gay people are born that way.
Who on earth would think, if they weren't actually gay, " hey, you know what? I think I feel like having sex with someone of my own gender for a change?"

There are many gay people who choose not to follow their natural instincts due to the stigma that judgemental, ignorant people put on that sexual orientation.
They certainly have the equipment to have children with someone they aren't really attracted to.
But many end up leaving that relationship eventually, to follow their natural inclinations, as you well know.

Come on Suse, admit it, you do believe in god.

If you don't, why are you forsaking Darwin?

If these homosexuals are born that way, there must be a gene, [or a combination] for it. That being the case, as they could not breed, prior to IVF, the theory of evolution says they would have died out very quickly. With no reproduction the gene would have expired.

So come on admit it, you're really a closet Christian, trying to hide the fact with all this pretend permissive attitude. So we are on to you. It is time to come out of the closet.

If this is not the case I'm really worried. You see I agree with 3 of your stated beliefs, [or pet hates]. 3 out of 5, now that is quite a worry to think we could have 60% common attitudes.

Poirot, great post about Sarah Palin, Is she a member of the Liberal Party? Is she on this forum and posting as one of the usual suspects?

The truth about Jesus, Jesus and his 12 male friends were religious homosexuals or bisexuals, the evidence is in the bible. Jesus complained to his followers that the high priests could not understand their "weakness".
In John 13:23, 19:26, 21:7, 20, reference is made to the special disciple whom Jesus "loved" that was the much younger disciple John. in fact by today's standards many Christians would be branding Jesus a pedophile. One of the problems the Jewish religious had with Jesus was his preaching of "free love" and he wanted that to be taken literally and "love your fellow man" he wanted people to take that literally as well, and have man love man, women love women etc etc, anything went according to Jesus. It was all to much for the conservative Jews at the time and they had Jesus put to death by the Romans for his sexual preachings and crimes.
The evidence of Jesus being bisexual is strong, although he had a loving relationship with his partner John, Jesus was also having sex with a special woman Mary Magdalene, a prostitute he met on one of his many visits to the brothels of Jerusalem. In Mark 14:51-53 reference is made to the "naked youth" this indicates that early Christians were into practices of what today we would term pedophilia. Indeed some pedophile catholic priests today claim they did nothing wrong, they site the actions of early Christians in support of themselves. Some Christian sects today who practice "free love" justify it as being the way of Christ.

Paul,

An interesting post and do you know that most vegetarians eat animal products?

Including blood, skin, meat and even bone.

"Good post, Poirot, Sarah Palin and our Suseonline seem to have much in common, historically speaking."

Are you certain, Is Mise? Surely it is you and Sarah Palin...

"Just so that you don't make the same mistake again, the Bible was finished well before the birth of Christ, some 2,000 years ago,"

Paul,
I suggest you read the New Testament which contains the actual words that Jesus taught, rather than the twisted Hollywood version you present. Some of his disciples were former Essene zealots who believed sex even with a woman was an unclean practice. It is easy to use sarcasm and emotive criticism of facts to gain the support of simple minds.

Palin also is a simpleton as Jesus taught, "he that lives by the sword will die by the sword". He never used weapons to defend himself and when the zealot Peter cut off the Roman soldiers ear he immediately put it back in place. He taught do good to one who would be your enemy.

On the fact of the subject of legalized pedophilia is accepted by more people in our world than the push for homosexual marriage. I have friends in Cambodia working with "Destiny Rescue" who are taking young girls out of sex slavery and teaching them skills to find employment rather than have parents sell their bodies to older men. In some Islamic and other cultures they see no problem is having child wives or as sex slaves. It is just that cultures influenced by Christian values have made persons of 18 years without legal consent the age of marriage.

I think the main reason for the challenge to the ACT laws comes from the separation of powers between commonwealth and state. Marriage has been given (in the constitution) to the commonwealth and as such, the states may not have the authority to create another legally recognized relationship. This is why the court needs to be involved. I'm not a federalist but I am keen for the high court to make a decision based on the constitution I have agreed to live in.

As far as whether gay marriage is right or wrong is an interesting question. Obviously it is impossible to separate this discussion from religion, as shown by the past comments.

My thoughts are that everyone believes in something. It may be Jesus, or it may be Themself, or it may even be their political party. But all people on earth will act according to their beliefs.

I am curious to know the belief system that supports gay marriage. The opposite side is well documented, so what do the pro believe?

I dont mean the comments "i believe everyone has free choice". Everyone has that, I want to know what you believe people should do with that choice. Saying "I believe everyone has free choice" is like saying "I believe the sun provides light", it is a fact of life and as such, belief is no longer needed and any contrary belief is simply denial.

jesus..must have..made mention..of this..greatest/test..
moral,..issue/of our..end times..and..then..there it is

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=acim+homo+sex
but..is it pearl..before swine?
[the acim..says..there is no swine
not anyone..is un-worthy..of our fathers..highest honors

[kiss principle..there are..two opposites..[opposing..motivating/forces/powers]
love..[em-powering]..and its opposite..[opposing]..FEAR*[dis-em-powering]

hear?

http://www.circleofa.org/library/acim-history-issues/copyright/earlier-versions/

The Earlier Versions
and the Editing..of A Course in Miracles

by Robert Perry

Life for students of..A Course..in Miracles used to be..simpler than it is today...We had one version..of our revered book,..and we knew that this version..was almost exactly..as its scribe, Helen Schucman, heard it,..straight from Jesus.

[continues later
reposted..in full here]
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6040&page=0

Under "life issues," I am classing material on sex, homosexuality, selection of partners, the role of the teacher, and parents and children (one of the original miracle principles began with, "Miracles are a blessing from parents to children"23).

Some of this material spoke to personal situations, but much of it discusses these issues in the abstract. So why was it taken out?

She herself gave this impression in the Course's preface:

edited

Then everything changed...In January of 2000,
an earlier version..of the Course,..called the Hugh Lynn Cayce Version,..was disseminated on the Internet...Later in that same year, an even earlier version,..called the Urtext,..also became available on the Internet. Both versions showed/that the Course..as we knew it had gone..through a far more extensive editing/process..than anyone had suspected.

While before we felt the comfort of knowing that our scripture, unlike so many others,..was free of human influence.. we now began to wonder how much of the Course was altered..by human editors.

ALl..HOLY TEXTS..*GLOBALLY
[this is..satans FEAR/realm]

We also wondered..which was the "true" version.
Indeed, the Hugh Lynn Cayce Version..was quickly published/under the rather in-your-face title..Jesus' Course in Miracles..(and just as quickly became unavailable..due to a court injunction).

A huge amount of material has been removed..from the notes that Helen originally took down...We know at least 6,000 words never made it out of her notebooks,..and there may have been many more. And there are an additional 35,000 words that never made it from the Urtext into the standard Course.

What was removed?
need a clue?

"Good post, Poirot, Sarah Palin and our Suseonline seem to have much in common, historically speaking."

Are you certain, Is Mise? Surely it is you and Sarah Palin...
---
Not when it comes to making glaringly obvious mistakes about the age of the biblical writings..
---
"Just so that you don't make the same mistake again, the Bible was finished well before the birth of Christ, some 2,000 years ago,"

I refer of course to the Bible as the writings of the Jews not the Christian additions of the New Testament, which were written after Christ's death.

Is Mise, the bible was written by mere humans, regardless of when.
Any or all of it could be mistakes or fiction.

Most of us have grown up and moved on from the fairy tales of our childhood.
I want nothing to do with the Catholic stories fed to me by the very people who kept secrets about paedophile priests and Brothers.

Just a quick word of advice, Is Mise.

>>I refer of course to the Bible as the writings of the Jews not the Christian additions of the New Testament, which were written after Christ's death.<<

I wouldn't rely too heavily on that document for guidance, if I were you...

>>...the same book says that murder is wrong, along with lying, adultery and theft. So those are of no importance along with the honouring of one's father and mother.<<

If you would like a list of all the other stuff that the Old Testament provides as advice on what is wrong and right, I'm sure that there are a few here who would be delighted to put one together for you.

Or are you being selective as to which parts we should accept, and which we should reject as being relevant to our modern civilization?

Just askin'

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4770&page=0
The same sex marriage is a human rights issue

the gay mirror-age
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4869&page=0

same sex mi-rage

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4661&page=0

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8967&page=2

is my-gen wrong about..[you know what
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12607&page=0

an..eyefull..of humane right
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14606&page=2
forget..missing fathers
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp%3Fdiscussion%3D2968%26page%3D0

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp%3Fdiscussion%3D5975

Pericles,

Suse said "I know you are religious, but I believe a 2000+ year old book written by humans who say they believe in invisible beings in the sky, should not be ruling our present dsy society in any way.
Politics and religion shohld not be mixed at all in our secular country".

Key words "should not be ruling our present dsy society in any way"

So I asked about killing, theft etc.

Having majored in Religious Studies and English, I'm well aware of the inconsistencies, contradictions and mistakes in the Bible. and how did Suse get any knowledge of my religiosity or of its positive, neutral or negative aspects?

Is Mise , as a former misguided 'religious' person, I had no trouble working out where you stand on religious and social issues as a whole.

Of course, I don't really 'know' you well at all, as none of us can really know anyone else on a forum like this one.
You can get a feel for someone's writing style and usual general views about general knowledge and current affairs after you have had several 'conversations' with them over time.

At the end of the day, we can only know someone as much as the information they give about themselves on this site. Even then, one can always lie about that anyway.

I don't mean to upset people's religious feelings or faith, but as this is an opinion forum, I will give my opinion and views on the subject and on what others say.

Religion should not be a part of any decision re legalising gay marriage, as that is a legal issue, and no one else's business.

Cheers,
Sues.

I played chef at a gay resort up here in Far North Queensland out of Cairns, Turtle Cove.
During my three months stint they hosted the "Gay and Lesbian Olympics"
I have never seen a more repulsive exhibition of abnormality in my life and for an ex copper it was hard to take.
However I am not gay and the money was too good to knock back plus all perks etc and home was only a twenty kilometer drive away.
Friends bought the place unaware from Melbourne as well as a local funeral parlor and needed management until they could fill the positions.
I* couldn't give a crap about tay people just as long as they stay out of my space.

Marriage is s social issue and those who were married under the current Act have every right to object to the changing of the status of their union; it boils down to a civil rights issue.

However, as I believe in fair play, I'd be happy for there to be a referendum on the issue of same sex marriage; let the people decide, have a democratic decision that all can live with.

"you know that most vegetarians eat animal products?"
Including blood, skin, meat and even bone. Now Is Mise you can't compare the definition of a vegetarian to Christianity. The first is clearly defined and understood to be as it is, where as Christianity is far more abstract and debatable as to what it really means to be christian.
Josephus, I do not present a "Hollywood" version at all but rather a truthful version of Christ. As for "It is easy to use sarcasm and emotive criticism of facts to gain the support of simple minds." Just because my words do not fit with your modern sanitised version of Christ's teaching does not make me wrong and you right. There was far more revealing facts about Christ in the gospels, and there is more than 4 of them, than what is revealed in todays versions.. The Catholic Church was responsible for the censoring of the new testament, removing or even banning unacceptable teaching so that the gospels would reflect their thoughts on Christ, Not the original facts as written but a later sanitised version.
Christ was gay! It don't sound good for many of today's followers well, tough! Its the way things were, can;t change history, unless you are the Catholic Church.

Paul1405,
Read the writings of the Essene community and the Dead Sea Scrolls to gain some knowledge of their belief in celibacy. They were under oppression from Rome whom they considered a debauched society and they by contrast believed in living a sanctified stoic life would give them victory over their oppressor.

Paul,

Who's making a comparison between Christianity and vegetarianism? Certainly not me; I only pointed out that most vegetarians eat animal products, I hasten to add that I don't consider their doing so to be at all hypocritical.

Paul Christ taught "Love your enemy" in your view it meant have sex with your enemy. The New Testament uses four Greek words describing different aspects of our English word for now used for love.

Jesus in his teachings on love he uses the word 'agapao' which means to sacrificially give hospitality to another - as love your neighbor as yourself does not mean to have sex with a neighbor.

He uses the word 'phileo' which means as a friend 'love father and mother' does not mean have sex with father and mother.

In his teachings on love he never uses the word 'porvos' which means a man who has sex with another man. By the way the Roman Catholic Church used Latin and not Greek if you think they changed the text.

Josephus "Jesus in his teachings on love he uses the word 'agapao'" and then "In his teachings on love he never uses the word 'porvos'" You cannot be certain about exactly what Jesus said or didn't say. There is no narrative of this Jesus said, who was there taking notes? The earliest of the 4 accepted gospels was written at least 70 years after the demise of Christ. Then the accepted 4 went through a Church sanitising process hundreds of years later. Other accounts of the life of Jesus are so hot, that they have been buried away by the Catholic Church for hundreds of years, never to see the light of day.
Take the "Shroud of Turin", the Church for centuries held it up as the genuine article, the face of Christ no less, after a couple of scientific tests it proved to be a phony 12th century job. What did the church do with it, you would think they would have put it in the trash can where it belongs, no they still let the simple minded bow down to this phony piece of rubbish. Just as a cloth, even a phony one, serves a purpose for the Church so does their revised versions of the Gospels serve their purpose. Unfortunately for some, those that revised the gospels didn't do a 100% job, little bits of truth about early Christian beliefs and practices has slipped through the cracks including their acceptance of free love. Josephus can you accept that some Christians today have a different interpretation of what Christianity means to them than what it means to you, show them tolerance as they show tolerance for you.
Just a side note, a friend of mine got sucked into a Christan sect back in the 70's and he told me the best part of it was their interpretation of "biblical free love" it was full on, being a good heterosexual christian the mate said he joined in at every op and some.

Paul1405,
The catholic pope, Leo I believe, back in 200 when you didn't have to be a catholic to be the "Bishop of Rome" and there was a Pope at either end of the Mediterranean, took out a couple of books from the Bible and added some as well. He produced what we know today as the Douay version.
The original version still exists and for all intents and purposes it is called the King James Version.
So all the Catholic Church did was create something for their own reading and faith.

Something as basic as God for the Christians has changed over the centuries. At one time, not so long ago, God was the 'Vengeful God' always at the ready to smite the wrong doer, and God served the purpose of keeping the people in line. Today that vengeful god has been replaced with the 'Loving God' who now is full of forgiveness for the wrong doer. In line with the relatively new loving god the idea of hell has been revised, where once it was an actual place full of fire and brimstone it has now become an abstract state of being, where the wrong doer is now simply punished after death for his sins by the denial of gods love, A concept that less educated and less sophisticated people in the past would have had problems understanding. For some progressive thinking Christians even the devil has gone.
If something as basic as the concept of god changes for Christians over time then it stands to reason that other 'christian truths' would also change over time. The church has the strongest of hands in guiding the acceptable beliefs of the followers.

Two days on and still no mention in the medical journals of medical expert Suseonline's discovery that "surely the penis shouldn't have been made to actually fit into the anus then?".

No apparent following for Suseonline's spruiking of anal sex either. More being found on anal cancer and other nasties, like AIDS is on the increase through risk-taking 'bare-back' and sex by gays.

Worse, there is transmission of AIDS and STIs (more PC than STD) to young heterosexual women - young mothers and mothers to be.

Doubtless for starters Suseonline can shed light for all on how sexual contact is spreading AIDS to heterosexual women , when she claims that 'gays' are born and apart from those who she says are 'forced' to have relationships and sex with women, wouldn't otherwise entertain that disgusting (to them) concept.

Hold the forthcoming November edition of QJM, Suseonline has spoken and science is wrong. Anal sex is natural and good for you says Suseonline and she just knows, 'any hole the penis fits is fine', forget science.

Contrary to Suseonline positive spin on anal sex, women should be very aware of the serious risks that can affect their fertility and threaten life. Talk with your GP and don't take any notice of the spin of Suseonline the nurse, on OLO.

Paul,

How about a reference or three?

Assertions without referential material are worthless.

Bye the way, are you an animal product eating vegetarian?

diss-cuss_point/thesis
[jesus..last teaching-words]

ALL_mind-educated..CREATIONS..are.significant..in a..PERSONAL/historical/progressive..sense
[extracted..from.]
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6040&page=0

They are..the very..first..sysytemised/reference...to
the idea..of OUR-reality..versus..illusion..[of-mind].,..
*the notion..that..THE-reality..can be..affected..BY IMAGINED-FEARS.

IF..only..the..SPIRIT/eternity..is real..and
space..mortal/MATTER/time/place..is potent-illusion.

(The lines.."Nothing real..can be..threatened.
Nothing..unreal..exists"..were..actually..dictated later...for clarity)

How..different would..our day..be..if
we could..establish..and maintain..that..consistent-awareness!..

Imagine..being able..to pass..through_situations..
*fully-aware..that what..you see..is not..really..able..to hurt/you....
that the..illusory/fear-forms..in/front..of mind..perception's.. of you..are just..emotive-baggage[shadows],..

that..you are..literally..walking/through..a dream..
of..your own..miss-perceived..[OTHERS-conceptions].?

You..might think..you..would/stop..caring altogether..about this shadow-play...and..the way..that..*you walked..upon..*its stage.

Yet..that is-not..what this..sentence says...
It seems..to/be..saying,.."While..you are..*in the dream,..why not.*take ACTIVE-part.*in it..constructively?"

What..an interesting/question!

Try..asking yourself..that question..and see.how your mind reacts. Ask..yourself,.."Since/only..eternity..is real,..why_not?..use..the illusion_of..time/constructively?"

The..sense I get..is..The/power..is_not..*in..*its hands;..
the power..is in..my hands...Therefore,..I am free..to use..time however*..I want.

Second,..if..I can/use..time how..I want,
then..why wouldn't..*I use it..constructively..to-do..better?..After all,..I'm here..for now;.I'm in..this/living..live time-moment..in-time.

Why/not..do something_positive..with it?

This contrast..between..the healing-unity/reality
and..the..hurtful/injurious/material..full..of illusion,..
so..of-course,..fearless emoted/motivated/love..[works]..would..become..the..philosophical/backbone..of..the-Course.

Before..this point,..the closest/references..we had
were..two mentions.of.."lower-order/reality,"..which..referred to.the physical level...

Yet..obviously,..even a..lower-order/reality..still
has_been..made real..[accorded/reality]...by..our delusional..fears alone.

whole/purpose..of coming..this far
is..to decide..WHICH BRANCH..YOU WILL*..TO.TAKE..FROM/HERE-ON.

The way..you came..no_longer-matters.
IT..CAN NO..LONGER SERVE.

No-one..who reaches this far..CAN make.the wrong decision.
But..he CAN..INITIATE/delay..And/there..is no par/of..the journey that..seems..more hopeless..and futile..than standing/where
the..road/branches,..*and not..deciding..which_way..to go.

It-is..only the..first/few steps..along/the
NARROW-right/way..that seem hard,..because..you HAVE
chosen,..but you still..think you/can go..back..and make..the other choice.

This..is not/so.. A choice made..with
the..power-of/Heaven..to uphold it..cannot BE..undone.
Your way..IS decided...There will-be..nothing you-will/NOT..be told, if..you acknowledge/this.

For..good..reason,..then,..these references
were/changed..by the editors..to..the "material-bodily/level."

Jesus..starts off..using..a typical,..throwaway comment
that.we make..to each-other..all..the time...

We offhandedly..tell people..to.."have..a good_day,"..
with only.the vaguest-idea..of what/w.. mean..to communicate..unto other..by that...word-choice.

We probably mean ..something like,.."Have..a day..you find enjoyable," or,.."Have..a day..with agreeable..rather than difficult/circumstances."

And we..probably have..no particular..thought
about how..they*..can have..[or..will/chose]..
to live-out..that..good GOD-day...

It's not,,just/a..pleasant-thing..to say...and
good=god..thus..good brings..good..of god..into..live-time/present recall..

plus..the many..other..good-days..comforts
gifted..of..the comforter..within..us-all.

but...You..aren't supposed..to think/about..it..too much...
[the/past-life..whether..for/good or ill..is part..of the past..thus..illusion..

when..we are..trying to.minimize,..illusion/...to..maximize..this present..living..moment..in/time..into..a loving-eternal/aware moment..

Jesus,..however,..has thought..through..
exactly what..he means..by."Have..a god day."..

He..ends-up filling-out..our rather vacant/conventional..saying
with..his own..rather profound..spiritual teaching.

As..a result,..the kind-of day..jesus is..calling.."good"..is *significantly-different..than..our usual..bland-conceptions...recalls.and false memories...

Further.. he has in..aware-mind..a specific way..
to have..that good day...[by loving/other as..the..*way
to..love*our..father]

[love creator..by constantly/CONSISTENTLY...trying..to love-other creations]

This..is so characteristic..of the Course,..to take..some familiar cultural/container,..like.."have a good day,"..and..fill it*.with totally..unfamiliar content,*..which..has both..spiritual-depth

and..specific..injunctions..
for how/to..experience..that depth.
http://miraclevision.com/acim/urtext/acim-urtext-2003-upe-ready-edition.pdf

Hi Is Mise, In the Book of Cyril, chapter seventeen verse elevnteen it clearly states that Pope Ichabod III on March 27th 1453 at about tea time, said, well he said a lot of things, not the least being "stop it, or you'll go blind" as well as "I like Coco Pops for breakfast" but more importantly he stated as cannon law "anything St.Paul1405 post on the forum is gospel." LOL.
There is no need for references for what are generally known religious facts.
"are you (Paul1405) an animal product eating vegetarian? Most certainly as a truly committed vegie I eat nothing but rump steak and pork chops, there is no way a carrot stick or lettuce leaf is going to pass the lips of this committed vegetarian!

"Hi Is Mise, In the Book of Cyril, chapter seventeen verse elevnteen it clearly states that Pope Ichabod III on March 27th 1453 at about tea time, said, well he said a lot of things, not the least being "stop it, or you'll go blind" as well as "I like Coco Pops for breakfast" but more importantly he stated as cannon law "anything St.Paul1405 post on the forum is gospel." LOL."

Double LOL!

Onthebeach, are you bored this morning or what?
I know you love twisting peoples posts around for your own twisted purposes, but really...

As it happens, one does not have to be gay to get any number of nasty STD's, as you well know.
I was just making the point that if there was a 'creator' then he also created gay people, anal sex and all the STD's.

I doubt any of the homophobes on this site give a damn about any of these issues anyway when the main issue is really that their bible says it is an abomination!

"I know you love twisting peoples posts around for your own twisted purposes, but really..."

And so it goes....

What do this blokes all have in common?

Endre Ady
John Batman
Napoleon Bonaparte
Al Capone
Paul Gauguin
Vincent van Gogh
Heinrich Heine
Adolf Hitler
Howard Hughes
George Washington
Scott Joplin
William Lobb
Édouard Manet
Guy de Maupassant
Friedrich Nietzsche
Leo Tolstoy
Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec
George Walker
Oscar Wilde
Hugo Wolf
Christopher Columbus
Franz Schubert

They all had Syphilis. OTB are you saying George Washington was gay? If so the CIA will hunt you down. Poor George actually died from it, most likely contracted it from bonking one to many of his black slave girls. Should not have said that, now the CIA will be hunting me down, foe Un-American posting.

So, Paul, no references; and I was so hoping to broaden my outlook with some facts.
If you are a vegetarian then you probably already know about the problem of vegetarians eating animal products.

did..you..know..syphilis..cures cancer
[if you beg for the..cure..for cancer...more?]

thing is as acim..would..point our..god CREATED..the good things
MAN>>AS..the ...CO-CREATOR..created the 'other'..not good nor bad..as such

[but mankind was created,,to judge our bettors..
[the fallen angels]..and so lest i..be adjudging..angels unaware
i do like..*sgt shultze..[I SEE..nothing,,[evil]..

lest i be sustaining my own delusion..
and judge all..[or any]..more wrong than..my..erant judgment

HOW OFtEN..we..been wrong?
[thats the petty detail..now as for..
judging the angels../who created syphilis..when we got..the glory/duty..POWER..to end it..NOW..within..our material-power..

ok..fine
just be sure..of the..full details..[just..the facts...maam]

nothing..is all good..[but god]
but nothing..of gods*..perfect creations..creation
is Totally..useless/..nothing completly..evil/..nuthin-vile..

nothing..being..that is not being,..
but that..its being..being-created..by mind..
[gods..ours/angels..even beasts/flora/metal/mineral/vapor/aether/light too..[24/7]..

no passion..shall..not be met
this much doth him..love of us do..for..us..his living creations..[E]..[all-equally..[E]..in what-ever..form..of..[E]..as we desire..to be..being.]

see..the most vile beast..yet god..too sustains it its being..[regardless of the will..of the being..the being..is being..
by the passion/creations..its mind..will..to..brings into..its life realisation's..[see adsrocicrecord]

[do not..even kings not..have dreams..of serving?]
could we not forgive..other..[the allof other[our wholly father]./could we not forgive..him..that one small error..of his..true perfect..[his one flaw..of his not so..pefect creation?

[ie.[to-wit/if-so-facto*..freewill..
freewill..lol..for angels/beasts and men?]
who will..you deny?..

their freewilll..[or gods freewill..
when..he gifted..his freewill..of..our freewill..un/to...in-to..us all?

if..i ever get cancer..i..will test..the syphilis-theory-out

who do..we see to get it..?
are there less bad..[as in..less adverse-reactive..'strains'?]..

did the..clever even..look..for
the karma..inherent..in every..man/angel-free-willed..form creation?

Suseonline, "As it happens, one does not have to be gay to get any number of nasty STD's, as you well know"

The back passage increases the risks thirty fold and introduces additional risks.

I suppose you also say that anything that can fit in a woman's various 'holes' is by your logic quite OK. After all, if it can take it...

I am not the first to challenge you on that misleading spin you trot out. Others have, but you repeat it. This is what you said, "surely the penis shouldn't have been made to actually fit into the anus then?".

You missed this:
"Doubtless for starters Suseonline can shed light for all on how sexual contact is spreading AIDS to heterosexual women, when she claims that 'gays' are born and apart from those who she says are 'forced' to have relationships and sex with women, wouldn't otherwise entertain that disgusting (to them) concept".

Most of the lesbians I know have decided to commit to such a life because they have had bad experiences with men. Those couple I know that have sought marriage moved to NZ were in their 50's and both had teenage children. Of course they were born that way that they really wanted to only marry another woman. Well it took them 50 years and abusive husbands before they found out they were born gay. NONSENSE!

Onthebeach you surely can't be so be so naive as to not know that women have already been used (consensual and not) in more ways than gay males can imagine!

Where, exactly, did you get your hysterical comment "The back passage increases the risks thirty fold and introduces additional risks." ?
Thirty fold?
What, thirty times stronger syphilis? Lol!

If they practice safe sex, like everyone else should as well, then the risks are minimal.

Oh rubbish to you Josephus. I can't imagine you 'know' many lesbians at all.
How many women who have had abusive relationships with men actually DO turn to lesbian sex after leaving abusive men?
There aren't nearly that many lesbians out there to put any truth to that bizarre statement.

Ladies, are there any of you that, after an awful relationship with a man, just then decided "well ok, he was awful, I will now go out and have sex with women",, if they had never before been even secretly attracted to women?

Anyone?

What about you guys? Have any of you had an awful breakup with a woman and then thought about having sex with a guy, when the notion had never occured to you before?
Hello?

My best friend has a lovely son who was so obviously gay from about the age of 3 yesrs old that no one else but the family were surprised when he 'came out' at the age of 19.
They were a very religious family whose father was very homophobic, and the boy never even met another gay person until he left school!
He even tried going out with a girl for a year before finally breaking her heart and telling her he was gay.

What do you think of that Josephus?
Who on earth would CHOOSE to be gay in this harsh world?

"Who on earth would CHOOSE to be gay in this harsh world?"

Well, Suse, apparently the Gordons did.

The who, Is Mise?
Sorry, you have lost me.

Okay, Is Mise, oh ye of little faith, its not god enough for you that I have been anointed by his holyness Pope Imbecile himself, you want references for my miracle revelations. Here it is! This 5000 year old video clip of Pope Imbecile III delivering the holy message on gay marriage in the ACT. The video formed part of a much larger DVD that was uncovered late one night, personally by me, in the Seven Eleven Store in Dapto New South Wales. So much for those 4000 year old Chicko Rolls found in the Dead Sea, my stuff out ranks that by 1,000 years, can't top that, its from the Book of Cyril! Many a ecclesiastical scholar has tried to interpolate the most holy of holy books, the Book of Cyril, without success, until I came along. Like Moses the Ark builder my miracles spiritual revelations come to me in dreams, mostly after late night drinking secessions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqaQ_Bhgmrc

Suseonline, "If they practice safe sex, like everyone else should as well, then the risks are minimal"

"Should"! That is the convenient 'out' that is always misleading.

Then how come the risk-taking, bare-backing gays don't do that?

<Report reveals jump in HIV infection rate

Australian HIV infection rates increased by more than 8 per cent in 2011, according to a study to be released today.

The annual surveillance study into sexually transmitted diseases in Australia shows the latest rise contributes to a 50 per cent growth in infection rates over the past 10 years.

The report also shows diseases like gonorrhoea and chlamydia are becoming more common.

There were 1,137 new HIV diagnoses in 2011, up from 719 in 1999.

The director of the National Centre in HIV Social Research, Professor John de Wit, says there is also concern that as many as 30 per cent of HIV cases could be going undiagnosed.

"While Australia has one of the highest rates of HIV testing in the world among gay men, we see that about 60 per cent of gay men have tested in the past 12 months which means there could be a substantial number of people living with HIV who are not aware," he said.

Much of the increase is put down to unsafe sex among gay men, who Mr de Wit says now view HIV/AIDS as no longer life threatening.
..
Health researchers believe 6,000 to 10,000 people in Australia have HIV but do not know it.>

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-17/report-on-hiv-gonorrhoea-chlamydia-infection-rate/4317174

to be continued..

continued..

How come there is transmission to heterosexual women? It is noted that once again you studiously avoided this question asked of you previously,

"Doubtless for starters Suseonline can shed light for all on how sexual contact is spreading AIDS to heterosexual women, when she claims that 'gays' are born and apart from those who she says are 'forced' to have relationships and sex with women, wouldn't otherwise entertain that disgusting (to them) concept".

Contrary to your positive spin on anal sex, women should be very concerned about the serious risks that can affect their fertility and threaten life. It should be a legal requirement for all who have ever had anal sex to disclose that fact to their intending sexual partner.

Regarding condoms, which Suseonline imagines are proof against HIV and other STDs, the answer is that they are useful in reducing infection, but are NO guarantee of safety at all. Most people would be aware of the uses and limitations of condoms.

Onthebeach, you seem such a fountain of veritable knowledge on all things gay and sexually transmissable, that I doubt I can tell you anything you (or google?) don't already know.

I will say that I thought it was a well known fact that because there is such a stigma placed on homosexuality by many ignorant people in our society, that many gay men try to ignore their natural urges towards other men and try to please their families etc by going out with, marrying or living with a woman.

Unfortunately, if you are born gay, unless you are very strongminded and willing to live a life without real sexual satisfaction, then you are likely to seek out sex with males while still being sexally active wth women.
Women can get the same sexually transmitted diseases as men do, regardless if they agree to anal sex or not. All the HIV, hep B or C virus needs to be transmitted is infected semen or blood , and any small break in the mucus membrane linings of the vagina will become infected during normal unprotected sex.

HIV doesn't discriminate...

onthebeach,
Good post. Totally agree.
How does susie tell that a 3 year old boy has homosexual preferences? does he show sexual behaviour to other boys? In fact does he know what sex is?

The lesbian couple I knew lived next door to me for 2 years after breaking up with their husbands. They went to NZ to marry under their new law leaving their teenage children in the house to wreck the place.

Onthebeach, you seem such a fountain of veritable knowledge on all things gay and sexually transmissable. Suse leave off the gay and sexually transmissable bit. OTB is a fountain of veritable knowledge on all things. End of story. LOL Josephus totally agrees with OTB, that must tell you something.

Just as an amusing aside, condoms were used regularly in WW II by both sides in the desert campaign in North Africa.
Stretched over the muzzles of artillery they kept the sand out of the barrels.

'that many gay men try to ignore their natural urges towards other men and try to please their families etc by going out with, marrying or living with a woman. '

and I wonder if you are a padeophile you try and ignore the natural urges, or an adulterer or fornicator. Some padeophiles have asked to be castrated claiming urges are so strong. Give us a break Susie. Try some logic. Its one thing to condone what's not natural its another thing to twist your arguement to make it natural

Which is the more natural, playing in the fun parlor or playing in the garbage disposal unit?

Suseonline,

You have tendered no evidence to prove that:

- gays are born that way as you believe; or that,

- bisexuals are gays who have been 'forced' to repress their 'born' homosexuality; or that,

- those who choose homosexuality later in life and sometimes after a heterosexual life with children, were also 'forced' to 'repress' their homosexuality.

What you contend is utterly ridiculous, even if only because there are some men and women about who would shag anything with a pulse. Many of the immoral, risk-taking people I have met, and avoided, have been utterly selfish, egocentric creatures with only superficial concern for others. They were manipulative users of people. Many of them too, have been very needy and dependent with damaged pasts, especially in their formative years.

Even as a lay person the flaws in what you believe are so obvious as to make it all preposterous.

I don't believe you are doing homosexuals a favour at all. Rather, your unique sort of activism brings them all into disrepute. That includes the lesbians you usually don't mention. BTW, why do you always so obsessed with (male)gays and anal sex?

Josephus, for whatever reasons anyone thought my friend's son would grow up to be gay, we were right weren't we? Obviously he knew nothing about homosexual sex at that age but if you knew anything at all about this subject, you would know that there are many other mannerisms and preferences in life for gay men than their sexual activities.

You are right OTB, I have personally known many gay men, but only a few gay women, and very few bisexual people, so I can't really say much about them.
Obviously you are very interested in them, so do please continue to enlighten us?...

Suseonline, ".. for whatever reasons anyone thought my friend's son would grow up to be gay, we were right weren't we? Obviously he knew nothing about homosexual sex at that age but if you knew anything at all about this subject, you would know that there are many other mannerisms and preferences in life for gay men than their sexual activities."

Just as likely it was interfering women justifying themselves by claiming the high moral ground as 'do-gooders' (do-badders is closer to the truth), a self-fulfilling prophesy + one very confused little boy, whichever way. Boys need dads.

Sounds like your 'gaydar' (you would use that term) is informed by watching too much Are you Being Served (Mr Humphries). But YOU don't stereotype, do you? No Siree! LOL

As I remarked before, your sort of patronising, interfering (feminist agenda), conflict-generating activism doesn't help, it hinders.

Oh for goodness sakes OTB, you don't even read my fascinating posts do you?
I did say this boy had a father living with him ( for all his childhood and beyond,) for all he was worth.

And as it happens, it was mainly his Dad's manly friends who commented on this lovely boy as a child. It is true that most homophobes are males, as they are generally those men who have low self esteem, or who are secretly confused sexually themselves.

luckily, my friend's son grew into a fine young man who is well adjusted and happy in his life, despite his father, because his mum never judged him and always gave him unconditional love.

I hope to be able to go to his wedding one day.

Hey-de-ho, Suse,

Thought I'd drop in for a bit, and what do I find?...but a pack of faux moralists yapping away at you.

otb, gets an honourable mention for using the term "do-gooders" (the last refuge of he without argument)

Is Mise gets second place for describing a woman's vagina as a a "fun parlor".

But first prize goes to runner, for mentioning "fornicator" in the true Puritan spirit for which it was coined.

Here's your prize, runner:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Well thanks for finally showing up Poirot!
I have certainly been having fun trying to educate all the uneducatables here : )

Here are a few scientific comments from medical professionals who I am far more likely to believe than members of the "flat earth society"...

The American Academy of Pediatrics stated in Pediatrics in 2004:“Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts. Although there continues to be controversy and uncertainty as to the genesis of the variety of human sexual orientations, there is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation. Current knowledge suggests that sexual orientation is usually established during early childhood."

The Royal College of Psychiatrists stated in 2007:“Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person's fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice."

I don't think I have anything more to add on this subject.
Night night all...
Suse.

Version 1:

Suseonline, ".. for whatever reasons anyone thought my friend's son would grow up to be gay, we were right weren't we? Obviously he knew nothing about homosexual sex at that age but if you knew anything at all about this subject, you would know that there are many other mannerisms and preferences in life for gay men than their sexual activities."

Version 2:

Suseonline, "And as it happens, it was mainly his Dad's manly friends who commented on this lovely boy as a child"

Keep going, you will get the story right eventually.

Your usual theme is there:

- Wonderful mother, a veritable angel and all knowing.

- Father a deadbeat, useless and a 'homophobe'.

Then you confide: "It is true that most homophobes are males, as they are generally those men who have low self esteem, or who are secretly confused sexually themselves."

Heh, heh, that is the one! But of course men are, with Suseonline the Eighties (Seventies?) feminist composing the story.

i..hate humass..but..its really..disgusting-stuff
i..never..actually tried..it..but i..know..i was born hating it

i guess you..have to..be an anus lover..[its said..we talk of things we obsess about][i know..many things are raised..by jokes..to feel out the feelings..of the target

i guess.its this born to love anus-thing..[look y..our honor..the 3 year old clearly..was going to go queerly..when he was groan-up]..so what.l.if he was..edawaken..13 years..too early

you know..your whoreship..that we are born..gay..
[gay;..used..in the traditional way]..gayness..was a sign of curiosity..of youthful curiosity..not born..that..way..but..this way..those..not unhappy..go/gay..others..just go away..

besides..[some of them*..are just..too lazy
to ever..do..the hard/yards..to..pick up a chick.[or man-up man to man..or man..to woo-man..or woeman to man...

so they go..the easy way..[samesex..cause thats..all they know..its only being..huh?-man..

how many..times..we going to..talk..of
the issue.of gayness as opposed.to greyness[which most of us.will enjoy..even less]..or more..pulling chicks..is such a bore..but as for man..the natural-pull..of anus/stink..oh..man2man..is the lazy way..

the lazy way..is just..to be gay..[born/that same/lazy-way]..
room upon room..of men
or rooms..upon rooms of wombs..[and]..they all want..wot you got

and..you know..what..their both right..
that opposite sex..just isnt worth the effort..

in time you/find..other enjoyments..of learn to..play with..your own flute..bang ya own..drum skins..and realize..some get off .by doing it..others get off..by/yapping about it..and yet others love reading about it..

but..at its essence..its all..about pulling ya leg
[and suckering the poison out]..cause pulling your own leg is like tickling yourself..its just not the same

but..[a man cant serve..two masters..if he..is angry at one..and deserving/of..the other..love needs to be pure..[any resentment/fear./.its not working.,again..dear]

but im..ducking off..with..me mates..to do
a..chukka/play..a rubber/do..a..round with the boys
just in case.

[oh..thats..what a night cap
with..the gurls..really means[right>]

so..the boys club..?..oh right..got ya

anyhow..beating retreat..[not meet]..i recall..once..a lover called herself..NOT..a sperm..receptacle..so she never/got..any more.

[really when..girls make/me..so mad..id turn gay..just
to..spite em..but then..men..dont turn me on..

[i dont like..man smell..so..its either
just as well..or..a sign..i was born..that way]..

happly..but..not gayly so..[anymore]..i can see how a child getting raped..hate man stink..too

or..the attentions..of a smelly aunt
me-thinks..its more..to do..with stinker..
and theirs stinks..than the..gene link..[wink]

Just as an amusing aside, condoms were used regularly in WW II by both sides in the desert campaign in North Africa.
Stretched over the muzzles of artillery they kept the sand out of the barrels.
Posted by Is Mise, Saturday, 26 October 2013 7:41:00 PM

Is Mise, I have concerns, great concerns. My 'old man' served in WWII and once I asked him, were there homosexuals in the Australian army during the war. Dad, being somewhat conservative on that score, gave me a definite NO! "Son, there were No "Nancy Boys" in this mans army/" When I asked how he knew that, he said "The army weeded them OUT." How he didn't actually know, but weeded out they were. Now you present what may be new evidence.
North Africa..Australian Army...Men only...Condoms.
Granted they used condoms stretched, and they must have been really stretched, over their big guns.
But to what other uses did our boys put these condoms? Naturally if the old man was alive today I'm sure he would say "the bloody "Nazzies", he always called em' the "bloody nazzies", they were all poofters. Did Australians aid and abet the enemy by firing buckets of condoms there way, or were they for their own personal use back in the tent late at night?

paul..you raise a time..that was strange
this sorting out/stuff..was much..like a group of wolves
raping the weaker wolf..with broom sticks and private school/esq..hazing

i recall mates..going out poooofffter bassshing
i..always thought..guys with guys..looking for other guys..[must just be a guy thing]..

now i see they were gaily gay..
but thought they didnt swing..that way..so..they would say*[eh?]

but we become..that we obsess about..[thats just..basic karma 101..[ohh]

psychologists..may agree to sagely..diss-agree
yet..its the old school tie thing..
only the boys-club/club

rubber-dub/dub..cubs in..the tub
or a boy/cub-club..thing

a club..or
scabbard obsession

that all..just sounds too gay

i seem to recall..the ww1..condoms were made of animal intestines..or then made of latex-rubber..[and if you..got a genetic aversion to animal matter or rubber..]..doing it in..ya raincoat..so ya cant put the mrs/missery..up the duff..what aBOUT..

ok..enough

They would definitely have used condoms over the muzzle of their Lee Enfields to keep out the dust as well.

It wouldn't matter how many homosexuals served in the forces as long as they were not corrosive to military discipline and morale, which is not likely. The military has only ever acted with alternative postings where those conditions were affected.

However I am not arguing against homosexuals or their rights, though I do oppose changing the Marriage Act. That is for a number of reasons. I do not oppose a separate form of marriage for homosexuals although like the Netherlands, it is very doubtful if more than just a few exceptions might avail themselves of the facility.

What I do challenge though are the provocative, unsupported assertions that Suseonline makes time and times again and regardless of how many times she is corrected. Besides, everyone 'gets' that she is out to sledge men wherever possible as is abundantly clear from her ridiculously over-egged and changing story in this thread, and her refusal to acknowledge the numbers of lesbians and bisexuals.

Of course, if Suseonline is to believe in her 'gay from birth' bisexuals cannot exist, or they must be reduced to an aberrant few. Goodness knows why she maintains there are so few lesbians compared with the gays she is forever on about. But some explanation exists in her other male-hating belief that it is men, not women,
who are 'homophobes',

Suseonline, "It is true that most homophobes are males".

Such splitting:

- women good, men bad;

- women are saints, whereas men are wicked and responsible for all that is bad in the world;

is an enduring main theme of Suseonline's posts. Fathers cop a dreadful sledging. Again, as is obvious from Suseonline's storytelling.

OUG, being from the compassionate and peace loving side of the debate/ I cannot but condemn those that would engage in what is termed "poooofffter bassshing". Two of our best friends are a gay couple, you could not wish to meet a nicer and gentiler two people.
Recently on here a poster who claims to be an ex copper posted that he and his mates took great pleasure throwing "poofters" into the Parramatta River, he may have been joking, maybe not. The tick headed intolerant always want to brutalise some of the most vulnerable in our society. most have a very long hate list, homosexuals are but one of many on such a list, many of these haters will profess to being good god fearing "Christians".

Oi, otb,

Got another trouser hem, have you...which just by chance belongs to a woman on this forum.

Having fun, twisting, distorting and misrepresenting Suse rhetoric, are we?

(Must say, I was fascinated by your suggestion on Graham's thread to ban people from calling out trolling behaviour)

: )

..........

Suse,

Here's some sage advice from Tony Lavis for just such a situation:

"......some trolls are just jerks and there is nothing you can do about them.

Whether they be lonely trolls seeking attention or jerk trolls the best treatment is not to feed them: it strengthens jerks trolls and it conditions lonely trolls in the wrong way. A lonely troll who gets fed too much - especially after midnight - can turn into a jerk troll and you can't fix them after that.

Trolls feed on attention: when you sense a troll in your midst try to give it a wide berth. If it engages you personally remain silent and avoid any form of retaliation. I know it can be hard but in this case you need to do what Jesus would do and turn the other cheek. When a troll gets hungry enough it will eventually crawl away and seek sustenance on another forum."

Paul,

Of course there were homosexuals in the army; I've had them in some of my platoons but provided that they kept their proclivities to themselves they were tolerated, they were judged as soldiers not on their sexual preferences.
There were homosexual men in the services who showed great bravery and one who is well documented was Nancy Wake's wireless operator; she always spoke very highly of him, both as a wireless-op and a soldier.

Latex condoms will stretch to a fantastic size, in an experiment we tied one to a hose and with the water flowing in slowly the thing expanded to about a metre and a half in length and half a metre wide before it burst.
Good results are also achieved on car exhaust pipes but not near as big.

Paul I would say that the Army issued Condoms as they believed that if given half a chance troops would fraternise with local women.

On the Beach, The spread of AIDS to heterosexual women is the same way that it is for Homosexuals, through bodily fluids and sexual intercourse.
It is thought to originated in Africa, a country that is well known for rape or both sexes as well as bad practices of health care. In fact immunisation for Polio with unclean needles in Africa is thought to have strongly contributed to the spread of HIV.
Worldwide the majority of cases transferred sexually are through heterosexual contact, however in first world country's there is a greater risk from anal sex, especially for homosexual men, but it is thought to be a result of a lesser use of protection, not the way the act is preformed. It is also thought that people who preform unsafe anal sex are less likely to tell their doctor about it and therefore are not tested as regularly and this "secrecy" is because of social discrimination.

Because this can be a convoluted process, Poirot...

"I know it can be hard but in this case you need to do what Jesus would do and turn the other cheek."

I've linked to one, possibly, relevant section of the helpful Landover Baptist Church's forum for those who are interested:

http://www.landoverbaptist.net/forumdisplay.php?f=42

(Who said Americans don't 'get' irony?)

You might like the contributions of Mrs. Mary Whitford (Ladies of Landover Senior VP, One of the Truest Christians™ Ever, Mama Grizzly and formerly Sister Mary Maria True Christian™)

WmTrvor,

Bit strapped for time this morning...but can't go past hilarity when I see it.

Under the "not so obvious" signs of homosexuality:

"Enjoys gardening but isn't a Mexican't or Oriental
Goes to proper sporting events but just stares at the players instead of cheering
Goes to "hair salons" instead of barber shops
"Metros*xual"
Over 25 and not yet married
Does anything with flowers, including being submissive enough to give them to his "wife"
Goes to a gym (that isn't The Taut Christian)
Votes Republican, but only for "moderates"
Watches MSNBC
Complains about Fox News
Listens to "pop" music
Is a public school teacher
Claims to be an "atheist"
Claims to be a "buddhist"
Claims to be a "catholic"
Let's face it, if he's not a True Christian™, he probably relishes any chance he has to spit in the face of Jesus
Cooks in the kitchen instead of on a BBQ
Only plays touch football
Is against hunting
Hates guns
Paints his walls any color except white
Can tell the difference between "white" and "off-white"
Is anti-American
Doesn't want to be American
Protests against wars
Anti-capital punishment (no surprise, because once God's Law is back in effect in this country...)
Wears any jewelry other than a manly watch
Yes, that includes a "wedding ring", something only today's feminized men insist on wearing "

That should keep me laughing most of the morning.

Triple LOL!

More time on my hands than I thought.

This is fascinating.

More.....

"Refuses a side of ranch with his dinner at Applebees
Wears sandals
Belongs to a union
Has long hair
Owns a model train set
Has ever been on unemployment
Owns a car that is considered mid size or smaller
Has ever cried.
Knows how to "manscape""

"Pretends to be "tolerant" and says "to each their own"
Calls negras "African Americans"
Doesn't know how to fix an engine
Calls dogs "cute"
Watches musicals
Likes "ethnic music"
Doesn't believe in home schooling
Has S*x And The City on DVD"

"Listens to NPR
Doesn't drive an SUV (bonus faggotry points if he uses public transportation)
Reads the JYT
Over 18 but still has a waist size of 30 or less
Wears clothing from Abercrombie & Fitch or American Apparel (bonus faggotry points if it fits correctly)
Vacations in Christ-hating Europistan
Enters the city limits of any city of 500,000 or more for any reason other than work or evangelism
Likes ethnic food
Actually enjoys clothes shopping"

"owns a MacBook
- has a Twitter account
- does anything whatsoever with his eyebrows
- collects anything (other than firearms)
- has had more than one prostate exam "

"Enjoys professional wrestling
Doesn't care for decent, good old amateur wrestling
Has muscles too big to come from farm work or other honest labor
Puts anything in his hair other than classic Brylcreem and a comb
Plays with children
Eats fruit (especially bananas)
Knows what kind of mushroom that is on his plate
Dances"

Apparently - "This site is best viewed while holding an open King James Bible"....who'd a thunk it?

(Well, I'm obviously not homosexual because I homeschool....Phewww!)

i agree paul..[i..used the crudity..to highlight the absurdity]
but any right minded person..can see the pb's are closet gay
they..just love more extreme..four play..[with the boys]

and yet others just as an excuse to abuse other
[i seen much..the same thing re smoking natzies
[they..just found..justifyable=excuse/..a socially-accepted..reason..to hate

[one guy..would go so far as bash..the cccc rap..out of
any smoker...they saw..throwing away..their butt..

in time..he expanded his remedy..by expanding his ill behavior..
to..any litter-dropping..anything..to be in..the in crowd..or get fodder..to..feed hate..i feel the later..ol'mate.

i recall..one of the easier ways..of finding gay
was to..raise the issue..any way they could conceive
how many..started..with[pb]..then..ended the night playing soggy bisquet..with..his fellet0tows..[fellows play-mating...with his mates

haters love to hate
peacemakers look for way to make peace

[because..we have our lives here..to sort..the goats from..the haters
[the tares from.,.the sheep..the lovers..from the fear-mongers..the better from..the worse..the waking from..the sleeping

sex in..all its forms..
looses interest..in-time
once..we think..we have had..our due fair share

[or so im told]
..

one smile doth not an..affair make
beware of geeks gifting grifts.

ROFL Poirot : )

Hey, don't worry about my interaction with trolls.
I enjoy troll bashing on regular occasions, wth my tongue planted firmly in my cheek...
I know I will never change the attiudes of mindless morons.

LOL by 4,
No by heck !!
LOL to the 4th place.

Great to see you having so much fun Is Mise!
See, it isn't so bad is it?

Cheers,
Suse

Am I the only seriouass poster on this forum! As that well known bisexual poly, Andrew (I like it doth ways) Pea-cock, god rest his soul, would often say, in his deep man voice; "This is a very seriouass matter. So boys and girls no more jocularity and certainly no more jerking off.
I know a few give-a-ways for gayness.

Gays shop at Ikea.
Gays own an espresso machine.
Gays ride in the back seat of cabs.
Gays watch the Lifestyle channel.
Gays have a friend named Nigel.
Gays eat avocados.
Gays don't like beer.
Gays like red wine.
Gays invite you for dinner.
Gays never invite you for a bar-bee.
Gays don't have a favorite footy team.
Gays go to the theater,
Gays always have a favorite recipe for lemon meringue pie.
Gays use the word reallly.
Gays never say mate.
Gays eat at Japanese restaurants

Suse,

You posted "Here are a few scientific comments from medical professionals who I am far more likely to believe than members of the "flat earth society"...

The American Academy of Pediatrics stated in Pediatrics in 2004:“Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor .... Current knowledge suggests that sexual orientation is usually established during early childhood."

The Royal College of Psychiatrists stated in 2007:“Despite.... Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice."

Do these statements not tend to contradict each other?

Um, no.
Is Mise, if their sexual orientation is already in place by childhood, I assume they didn't 'choose' it, given they are unlikely to know sexual differences at this time!

I took it to mean that it may not only mean there is a genetic component for nature to decide on the sexual orientation of a child, but also maybe some environmental aspect?
The science is obviously still out on that one.

What it DOES mean is that it is highly unlikely that teenagers 'choose' their sexual orientation themselves, which is what many misguided individuals think.

Hi, this thread looks to have got a bit out of control. Something about gay marriage appears to have deteriorated into various rants dwelling on the physical side of gay relationships. This isn't a forum for lavatory jokes. I'll start deleting posts from hereonin if needs be.

Graham

the issue..seems to stem..
from/miss-interpretation..of..romans..
miss-reading..the context..of..1;28..[context..is everything]
but first..[before explaining full context..[roams..1;15-32]

first..to explain..1;18/use/meaning..of heaven
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven_and_Hell_(Swedenborg)
The..Christian/Marriage Idea..=heaven]..
[you are/not alone]
[alone=all-one]

According to Swedenborg,..married life..continues after/death..
as before,..his..assurances tell them..their love..will surmount death
and/that..they will live again..and love again..in human-form.
http://www.swedenborgdigitallibrary.org/ES/epic38.htm

In other words,..there is no..“till death/do.us part”..of happily married couples..(See..“Jesus and..Paul on/the Eternity..of Marriage”
http://swedenborgproject.org/2011/08/22/jesus-and-paul-on-the-eternity-of-marriage/

Swedenborg..also says..that Christian/marriage/love..of one man and one woman..is the highest*..of all loves,..the source of..the greatest-bliss.

“For..in themselves/marriages are...so holy..that
there is..*nothing..more holy...They are the/seminaries..of the human race,..and the human-race..is the seminary..of the heavens.”
http://www.swedenborgdigitallibrary.org/ES/epic38.htm

The spiritual/conjunction..of husband..and wife..that is
most holy..is the basis..of Christian marriage..in this world..and the next,..as/is..explained in ..Heaven and Hell.#..366ff...and Marriage Love..(Conjugial Love/in older translations)..#156ff.

Evidence..of this conjunction..is found/in..the fact
that husband..*and wife..*together..are called-[one]/“man” or “one flesh”..in Genesis/..1:27,.2:22-24,..5:2,.and Mark 10:8.

In..heavenly/marriages..neither partner..tries/to..dominate
the other..since love/of..dominion..of one partner..*eliminates the delight..of that marriage.[heaven..and Hell./#369..380]

swedenborg says/that..couples..who lived..in a chaste love/of..marriage are more/than..all others...in the order..and form of heaven,..[like/heaven]..[harmonic supportive/enduring/loyal/loving careing/mercyfull[etc..etc]

and therefore..continue..in..true heavenly-marriage..in all..its..beauty,..and continue..unceasingly..in..the flower/of youth.. The delights..of their love..are ineffable,..and increase to eternity.

from..acim[jesus/words]
http://miraclevision.com/acim/urtext/acim-urtext-2003-upe-ready-edition.pdf

The/world,..in its..original-connotation,..
included..both/the proper/creation..of..man_by/God,..
AND..the proper/creation..by man.in his..Right-Mind...

The latter..required..the endowment/of man..by God..with free/will,..because..all..loving/creation..is freely given.

Nothing..in either/of..these statements..implies..any sort/of
level involvement,.or,..in fact,..anything..except one-continuous line..of creation,..in which all aspects..of creation..are/of..the same order...[all created/equally..]

When..the..“lies of/the serpent”..were introduced,
they were..specifically..called lies/because..they..are not true.
thus..When man listened,..all he heard...was untruth...He does/not
have-to.continue..to believe..what is/not true,..*unless./he chooses to do so.

their outward delights..are it is impossible/to..describe in human words.#..Heaven and Hell..# 489
#..Jump up/Marriage-Love..#332ff.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/01/20/the-gingrich-question-cheating-vs-open-marriage/americans-prefer-serial-monogamy-to-open-relationships

Is Mise,
In reference to;
"Current knowledge suggests that sexual orientation is usually established during early childhood."

The Royal College of Psychiatrists operating out of the Tavistock Institute, out of London, were actively experimenting on programs that dealt with psychological orientation or "Brainwashing", in conjunction with MI5 or MI6, with the aim of producing the super soldier.

The actual program had been commenced back in the 1920s and was adopted by MI5 and the OSS to create a secret and unwittingly compliment under-layer of functioning social, public and political figures of importance that could be used, on trigger, for the purposes of their controllers.

It was a bit like post hypnotic suggestion only this was real time with real complications for non compliance.

The fundamental basis of the programming was the sexual orientation of public school entry level children that were mentored and supported along the academic paths chosen for them by their controllers until they reached a acceptable level in society.

Their usefulness was then activated when needed by the evidenced based sub history of their generated sexual debauchery becoming public.

Court proceedings were contaminated by tainted judicial officers, Patients died on the operating table under the hand of compromised surgeons and fortunes were lost and made by the intervention of intimidated financial bankers and barons.

The worst examples and the prime target of these sexual oriented and unknowing individuals was in the dark world of international espionage and spycraft.

Is Mise, you have touched on an interesting point in this discussion and one that might just wake up a few people.

Of course the day has long passed when their is any profit in orienting the sexual preference of children, except for he pedophile culture, given that homosexuality is a daily function of our society and not a point of leverage for government departments.

Nevertheless their is plenty of information around to support the function of sexual orientation playing a major role in the personality processes of individuality.

its.only..too/easy..in hind-sight..to..see/errors..but
here..we..get to touch on..the..SPIRITUAL?CELESTIAL..marriage/
mirage..complications[even..among..those..knowing higher..the value/mirage

mar-rage..[marr-age]
http://www.exmormon.org/mormwomn.htm

There..were/other
*justifications..for polygamy..[marriage]..

Mormons..were-often..fond/of..stating
that..they..were better/than."Gentiles,"..as n..on-Mormons[and non-jews]..are called,..because/their system..of polygamy..was presumed..to/have..kept..*them..from committing..the sin..of adultery.

as..previously..said..adultery..
is..adulteration..of gods_commandments..[not*..moral-policing]..

Polygamous-marriage..was/supposed..to "make*..possible..the procreation..of enough bodies..for..thousands of..spirits which..have long..awaited incarnation"..(Snowden 141).[true]..

Some Mormons..today..explain/that..many men..died/from..war and disease,..and all..of the..extra-women..[breeders]..needed husbands..to support/them...through..the veil.

A less..sympathetic view..of*polygamy..was voiced..by Sir Richard Burton...He said,.."The..motive..*for polygamy..in Utah..is..its..economy.

Servants..are rare..and costly;..it
is cheaper..and more..comfortable.to marry them"..(Wallace 94).

we..must..re-affirm..marriage..
is*..BETWEEN..one/husband[man]..and one woman[wife]

Polygamous-marriage..is basically..regarded..as
essential...*to Mormon*..theology...[and..it is..as..a learning concept

Mormon/Doctrine..states..As..a matter,,of fact,..
"all gods..first existed..as/spirits,..came..to an earth..to receive adequate/use-full-bodies,..suited..to..their wants..and

then,..after..having/passed..through..a period..of probation..
on/the..aforesaid earth,..were advanced/to..the exalted position.they now enjoy".(Hoekema 38).

After death,..a good/Mormon-man..who..has followed..a
few..certain-rules..is catapulted..to this*same status..and receives..his own..planetary/embodiment..to populate..and..rule over..(Fife 103).

To..fully-receive..this honor,..[obbligato]..put..upon..the sun..of man....a man..must be.."married..for/eternity"..

This..celestially/pure marriage..is..binding after..material/death...as well..as until it...realizes..its relative/fruits...on..its plane..[planetary system]

"Celestial"-marriage,..as..this eternal/marriage/is..often called,..is regarded..essential*..for Mormon women...as..*Without..being celestially married*..to a holder of..the priesthood,..[presumes]..a woman..cannot be.."saved"..(Green 154).

nonsensical..of course
unless..its believed..whole-heartedly[by..freewill/choice]

Mary/Ettie..Smith,..a Mormon.woman..who left..the church,..said that.."women..[thus mothers/wives]..do not..amount to much..in themselves,"..

and that..women..in..those times..were often celestially[in-spirit/alone]..married/to..men..they had/no intention..of ever..living with,..JUST..so/that they..could have..a man..who would be/able..to..get them..into heaven(Green 154).

such..women..are/often..given..secret names..
known only..to ..their husbands,..for..identification-purposes,..
so their.."husbands..can pull/them through.."to.."the other side"..after death.(Laake 118)...

it like many..other missbeliefs..
has hurtfull-fruits[as well-as a few..succes stories]

so much..is..dependant..on..the means.,.by/which
we live..rather..than/the way..we..chose..to/live..

[let not..ye..without/sin..cast stones.

During..the marriage-ceremony,[until 1990,]..men
made..their temple-covenants..*directly..to God,..while
the women..*had to..make..their temple/covenants..*to/their.husbands..(Laake 328).

This/means..that while/..male-temple..workers
representing..*God..lead..the men..through..the cloth*
representing the veil..between worlds,..husbands[symbolically,]..lead their..wives through.

Women..also/promise..to obey..their husbands..
in everything*..[in theory]..as long as..their husbands..obey God (Laake 108).

As part/of..the-ceremony,..women.also receive..[officially]..
their endowments...These...are sacred/ordinances.,.and promises
which make..a person..eligible..to enter..the highest-level..of heaven,..and Mormons..receive them..on.their first visit..to/the temple..(Laake 93).

Men..usually receive..their*..endowments..when
they enter..the temple..to become..a priesthood holder/
or..hen..we..go/on..a mission,..but..women..only..enter..the temple..for the..first time..to be married.

After death,..while..their husbands*..are creating
and*ruling..over planets,.the women..have the questionable.*honor..of bearing his.."spirit children"..*for eternity...

These spirit-children..descend..to..their Father's planet..to..*inhabit-bodies*..as mortals,..who are/then..ruled /over by..him...[they..of course fall..and life.[as we know..it]..moves on..into..eternity.

Mormon/Doctrine..states..that/these..
celestially*..married_men..[and women].."will..live..\..*eternally..
in..the family-unit..and..have..ever variably/evolved..body forms..for..spirit-children,[according.to each/natures/nurture needs..thus becoming..Eternal-Fathers..and Eternal-Mothers"..(516).

BUT*..[know..there/is..ONLY..ONE..true/father]
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6040&page=0

the/deception..is revealed..in..*A man..
who...has multiple-wives..can beget..many/more..spirit-children,..making him*..much..more powerful...[than/wot?][a collapsing star..ripping itself appart?

*marriage..are you..nuts?
[the..value/of woman..is..infinite]
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6079&page=0

Mr. Young it seems OUG has hijacked the thread as usual

Chris I don't know that I'd call it a hijacking but it's a clear attempt to circumvent the rules most of abide by. Just tried a little experiment with OUG's latest post and removed most of the cheats used to join words. I didn't get them all, I can still see some brackets used instead of spaces in whats left and am wondering about the placement of dashes. Current word count is 767 words in that one post ignoring those that I thought left some space writing style.

Its difficult to accept that as anything other than a blatent attempt to circumvent OLO's rules about the number of words in a post.

R0bert

R0bert,
From his wheelchair in the sun-room of his old peoples home he is having fun so we leave him be and suffer.

i know..not to..respond..to trolls
[or hazing]..and..even..if only word counting..
some..at least may sink-in..no..specific-rebuttal..is noted

thus..lets post yet another wasted post
some people have one line replies
have you..thought of tweeters?

some of us..have more to say..and seek
desperately for places..they..may relate..in this case
my words replied the...topic...[get it?]

sadly you..guys only could come up
with critique..of the means..chosen to..say..my opinion..
NOT*..what was said..you did/NOT..even attempt..to REFUTE ANYTHING else..

just the same..mindless..attack of..the man
but studiously..ignore trying to refute..his message

talk about playing
the man..not the ball

anyhow..thats all..
nuthin..to see..nor hear..here/

marry who..you like chris
why didnt..you raise it..at your own..thread?
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5995&page=0

you didnt say much..there either?

they say..being ignored.,is the best thing..
try it with my post's..then resist..trolling off topic..
or better refute..what i said [so..laboriously]..only trying to..help..clarify..the question

what are your here..to do?..
COUNT WORDS..OR IGNORE..READING THEM?
or..just distract..others from..replying the topic

[clutter up..the thread with...useless troll babble..
opinion..is respected..but facts talk louder.
but..i see neither.

cheers guys..try posting..to..topic..next time?
try and stump/me..rather than..bump me
who knows maybe you have answers
or better questions

stuff ya suggestions

OUG, the topic does matter but your cheating on the rules of the site is in my view destructive. Far better for the rules to be followed in spirit than have them either policed strongly or become a meaningless thing ignored by whoever wants to. Your posting style looks like a deliberate attempt to get around the sites word count posting limits.

Its sometimes worth diverting from the topic to deal with the cheats in our midst.

R0bert

ANY..OPINION..on the topic?

*New Marriage laws..for the ACT*

if i left..i would be cheating you
im..not cheating..YOU..

you..lost not one post..
yet..you gained much..but never took..to..the..learning
and offered..no..opinion..nor ANY..rebuttal

but its ok..i..love being ignored..[please try-it]
replying trolls is a waste of posts..and any further thought

its clear you got no..fact..to refute my post
just endless trolls..

no..thanks needed
i..didnt realize we got so..many/upset homosexual/trolls
not wanting to..hear the truth..of what the word..actually says

i..think..i cant..be bothered explaining..romans

so allow you..lot
to figure it out..4..thyself

the issue..seems to stem..
from/miss-interpretation..of..romans..
miss-reading..the context..of..1;28..[context..is everything]
but first..[before explaining..full context..[romans..1;15-32]
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1

http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.php?b=45&c=1&com=mhc

I'm quite amused at some of the responses.

Feminists were in the forefront of support and recognition of gays. Feminists also damned marriage, which they saw as a male tool of oppression of woman. Feminists are noticeable by their deafening silence on the issue of gay marriage.

Originally, the marriage rite was not intended to be a romantic bonding, but a nailing down for pragmatic reasons.

Historically, only the aristocracy/royalty had marriage rites which were a confirmation of the union of lands/status/and dynastic houses - a political display.

Marriage between man and woman was a purely private affair with no need for witnesses.
However, the church found that there were too many men, "marrying" too many women in too many different places. The result was that parishes had to care for the children born, which was quite a burden.

In the 16th century, the Council of Trent issued the church's requirements for a valid marriage, one recognised by the church. Bans had to be posted some six weeks before the event so that those "in the know" could reveal an prior "marriage" to others by the couple. The marriage ceremony had to be conducted by a cleric (who again called, at the ceremony, for those knowing any impediment to the marriage, and finally there had to be witnesses. Marriage was hardly a romantic event, but somewhat cynical.

Personally, I have no problems with gays getting married. Fine. What I don't care for is all the mawkish promotion of it.

Joke of the week:

"[clutter up..the thread with...useless troll babble..
opinion..is respected..but facts talk louder.
but..i see neither."

Thank God there are not two under gods.

Danielle....thats some interesting stuff
there has been an..ongoing attack..against the institution..
of marred rage..but at..it spirit essentials..it talks of status changes

master/thinker/boss/head
body..servant/servitude/gratitude

jesus serves god
as god serves us all
buyt the one served=the wife
[and as previously-posted..a good marriage
means each mutually dedicated..to the well being..of other..[and fertility..merely..shares the gift.]

but then..gays/woman/atheist[acting as agents..of the state]
say..just the name..is great mate[but not beyond debait]

by the state..recognition..of it
that sets us..up..into..delusion..illusion..
statehood abuses and adenda's..like to minimize..its spirit meaning

and expand their areas..of total-control
ie under law..a beggar..is presumed..to..know
for what he begs..if you beg to be a..wife..[servant]..or want to.entrap one...[a slave]..you..use guile..and govt licence

[ie licence=permission..TO_DO..
that,..which..OTHERWISE..[sans licence]..would be unlawful*

you just gotta love how govt subverted..the living
into serving the..dead coorperate person..and dead state-hoods..ie creating..;legal-persons..under the act][iesubhuman..whos only real existence,,is on*..paper license[in word]..

authorized means by author
[ie simply..a signed/order]//legal[not lawfull..PERMISSION..todo
something..he would otherwisde be doing unlawfully

this is satans realm[get it?]

recall what i said re MAKING..your mark[signing..ANYTHING]]
all writing is ONLY an..offer..

*TILL ITS SIGNED..it then..become's as lawfull promise[con-tract] jurisdictional/justifiable....*under civil law

the written authority..[warrant..licence]
ie,,is merely..the authors/AUTHER_ISATION..
they can only order you..if your a person/under the act..
using..their proof..is..egzactly..what gives..them..troll/meisters-masters]..supreem control..over you..and EVERYTHING..you ARE permitted..BY THEM..todo

but [via the lie of contractual-begger authority]
you signed away your freedoms..simply by applying..in..to
their world..of paper-forms[your being enslaved..by forms..

they own/con-troll..
the permissions..thus own/control..you

[now you..comprehend..the why..of the trolls]

for whom..the belt tolls

Some years ago I had a friend with Klienfelter ( xxy chromosomes); he was gay and I came to know quite a lot of his gay friends. As a woman, I can assure everyone that it is innate, not acquired. With straight men, there is the male gaze and a certain natural frisson between men and women. With gay men, this does not remotely exist, nor did I feel the slightest attraction to any of them.

There is also the deep emotional level with gays who are involved, which cannot be denied by straight people.

We are aware of the situation in gaol, where men abuse other men sexually. The abusers are straight.

Danielle, "As a woman, I can assure everyone that it is innate, not acquired. With straight men, there is the male gaze and a certain natural frisson between men and women. With gay men, this does not remotely exist, nor did I feel the slightest attraction to any of them."

Where does bisexual sex fit into it and how come some change as it were, and sometimes change back again?

What gaze and vibes to detect a bisexual?

- It would be very valuable information for young heterosexual women. The risk of very serious diseases being so high from those whose partners have had anal sex, and those partners could have someone in their long line of sexual partners who has introduced the risks through gay sex.

While you can split the population into 'gays' and 'straights', all determined by birth as you believe, there is obvious blurring somewhere from the increasing number of women with AIDS. It is not only young women either, mature women are also affected.

Why is it the argument about effeminate males supposedly born homosexual wanting marriage? When what I have witnessed is mostly 18 - 50 year old females and hoary middle aged males wanting to marry. It has nothing to do with infant orientation but willful decision after unhappy heterosexual relationships.

onthebeach,

You make valid comments. I can't make any opinions about bisexuals; they were certainly not accepted by the gays I knew. Perhaps they are narcissists who don't care from where they get "pleasure" ... any orifice and a pulse. Do bisexuals have strong emotional attachments?

Incidentally, the gay community is not uniform, but has a variety of sub-groups, many of whom despise other gays. The hate mail my klienfelter friend received was from other gays. Some gays do not like sex-change operations and others do. Some detest certain practices. Sub-groups are sharply and often viralently opposed; ... and the divisions continue.

Heterosexuals pair up for a variety of reasons, not necessarily sexual. Indeed, many marry for other reasons than "love" and no-one seems to find this a problem. It will be interesting to see if homosexuals also follow the pattern of heterosexuals.

One thing I did notice, indeed raised by my gay friend, that unattached homosexuals are extremely promiscuous and there was often little interest in the other, but sex.

onthebeach,

Unfortunately you are correct about the epidemic of sexual disease among women of all ages.

Women (and men) should take responsibility for their sexual health. One can't blame any single group for transmission of STD's. It is not as though there isn't information out there - there is. Many AIDs cases have been the result of intravenous drug uses.

It really hardly matters where the disease originates if a person is diagnosed with AIDs, etc. What really matters is how many partners has the person gone through. Once infected, heterosexuals are just as capable as homosexuals, of transmitting the disease to others.

Josephus, I can't agree with you about homosexuality resulting as a consequence of a bad relationship. Perhaps a bad relationship is a consequence of one of the partners being gay.

If people "changed" for such reasons, then for some their sexual orientation would be like a swinging door. Gay one day, heterosexual the next, then gay again ...

We are aware of men who have married and later in life came out as gay. For this generation, those who were openly gay were social pariahs. They married as this was the traditional thing to do. Now with more open attitudes, they are coming out.

do/you..believe..in fairies radicals?
Radical Faeries
From Wikipedia,

Radical Faeries..(also Faeries and Fae)..are a loosely-affiliated worldwide network..and counter-cultural movement..seeking to redefine queer consciousness...through shamanistic spirituality.

Rejecting hetero-imitation,..the Radical Faerie movement..began during the 1970s sexual revolution..among gay men in the United States.

The movement..has expanded in tandem..with the larger gay rights movement,..challenging commercialization..and patriarchal aspects of modern LGBT..life..while celebrating pagan constructs.and rituals.[2]

Faeries tend to be fiercely independent,
anti-establishment, and community-focused.[2]

Faerie culture..is undefinable..as a group;..however,
it has similar characteristics..to "Marxism, feminism, paganism, Native American and New Age spirituality,..anarchism, the mythopoetic men's movement,..radical individualism,..the therapeutic culture of self-fulfillment

and self-actualization,..earth-based movements in support..of sustainable communities,.spiritual solemnity coupled with a camp sensibility,..gay liberation and drag."

Today..Radical Faeries..embody..a wide range of genders,..sexual orientations, and identities...Many sanctuaries..and gatherings are open to all,..while some still focus..on the particular spiritual experience..of man-loving men co-creating..temporary autonomous zones.[4]

Faerie sanctuaries..adapt rural-living..and environmentally sustainable concepts..to modern technologies..as part of creative expression.[2]

Radical Faerie communities..are generally
inspired..by indigenous,..native or..traditional spiritualities,

http://www.swedenborgstudy.com/articles/Swedenborgs-revelation/sl80.htm

These three dimensions..will be found..as areas
of special importance..in the understanding

1. The personal formula..which includes,
(a) genetic heritage..and (b) learning history.

This forms the total pattern..of the "personality"
(or all those factors..some psychologists..try to exclude as "individual differences").

2. The socio-cultural formula
consists of a..collective sharing..of symbols:
language, belief systems, folklore...This composite is..introjected to greater..or lesser extent..by the partiopant.6

3.The transpersonal level
contains patterns..that are transcultural..as well: death and rebirth,..the hero journey,..the "feminine,"..the "masculine,"..God, or "the Sacred."

These patterns not only are encountered by all human beings,
but proliferate into human mythologies..all with a similar basic or archetypal substructure.7

The mystic,..as he or she seeks God,..or ultimate meaning,
penetrates toward the core,..but never without personal and cultural expectations,8

The vision itself..is the core's reply,..never really predictable, because "other,"..but ultimately..*to be formulated..in the same vocabulary..of symbols.as the question was asked...This includes a shaping..by both personal..and sociocultural formulae.

While in time,..it seems that..the ground is constantly quaking beneath our feet,..giving us
no safe place..to stand...Yet inside ourselves,..we can stand on ground..that never shakes.

We can stand ..on changeless ground,
far removed..from the fickle caprice of time.

We can stand on eternity...We can rest..in the Everlasting Arms. And we can regard this..as the only domain that is real..This will allow us to take part ..in time more lightly,.more serenely,..

*realizing..it is only a game.

We can be..calm and collected,..even..knowing..that the stakes are not high,..that indeed,..the stakes..as we envisioned..them..are not real...It is just an illusion,..a parade of shadows...Because this parade..of material delusions..has no power over us,.we are free to take part ..in it however we want.

Given that,..why wouldn't we..take part in it positively, constructively?..Being constructive..means giving miracles,
and thus advancing..others toward.that same reality.*we are rooted in.

It also means progressing.in our own learning,[of the givingnes..inherant..inlove/grace/mercy..service to..other
and thus advancing..ourselves...and other

As long..as we are in this illusion,
why not spend..our illusory time..advancing everyone toward reality?

Feel a sense of refuge,..of sanctuary,
realizing that this sanctuary..can never be touched
[by the hands of time.]

Finally,..now that time..cannot touch you,
now..that its threat..has been lifted from you,
say to yourself,.."Why not use the illusion..of material/space-time constructively?"

You may even want..to ask within,
"Holy Spirit,..how can I use..this illusory situation constructively?"

Ideally.. of course,.you would do this..practice—
both the shorter..and longer versions,..along with your own variations—frequently..*all day long.

Then..you would truly be..carrying out..the instruction in this brilliant little passage...And then..you really might find yourself having..a genuinely good day,..a day like you've never had before

http://www.circleofa.org/library/acim-commentary/text-commentary/have-a-good-daya-foreshadowing-of-the-entire-course-from-early-in-its-dictation/

Many street-corner..shamans of today..have peeked into
the spaces Swedenborg saw,..and that..they are indeed vast
and terrifying..is witnessed..by the casualties...It is dangerous to see too far,.to know too much,..too soon.

The visionary..who has no audience,..who performs no communal ritual, who enacts..no service of healing,.nor work of art, i..s often driven mad..by the power of the illusion-of di-vision.
http://www.swedenborgstudy.com/articles/Swedenborgs-revelation/sl80.htm

Danielle,
From what I've seen most infant girls have natural attraction to other girls and this continues throughout life and is often competitive. Having had to care for four daughters. Their close friendships with other of their female peers have lasted throughout life. As teenagers I suspect they may have experimented with sexual intimacy as they loved to shower and sleep together; but today have all happily married with children. None of those experiences indicated a gay gene or a desire to marry other of their friends.

Most homosexual females wanting an exclusive marriage with another female use artificial male appendages to reach orgasm. This would indicate the nature of their body instincts; and their unfulfilled relationship with men unless they are practicing bisexual which then is a violation of their relationship.

I've not had much to say on the thread on the topic. Some what of a sense that it's all been said before. I've not seen anything in a long time on the topic thats given me reason to re-evaluate my views. Still it seemed timely to summarise where I'm at on the issue.

Summary
- My preference is for the government to get out of the business of registering relationships. There are other ways of dealing with property, responsibility for children, next of kin status etc already operating and government registration of marriage has become a hollow facade.
- If the government does persist in registering relationships between consenting adult humans then it either needs to apply the rules consistantly or stop discriminating. Eg if natural procreation is the basis of marriage then only marriages where that is an expected outcome should be registered (no marriages for the elderly, the infertile etc). If thats not a requirement and either no procreation or artificial assistance with procreation is part of the deal then there is no basis to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
- I don't see any basis for placing a numerical limit on the number of people in a marriage, most of the case against it seems to be based on an assumption that women are less able than men to make adult decisions for themselves.
- If marriage is so important that the government does see a need to continue registering them then that registration should carry some weight with provisions for breach of contact across a wide range of the behaviours deemed to constitute a marriage.

I think any real sense of marriage as registered by the government as a lifelong binding committment between two adults forsaking all others etc has little meaning for most. For some individuals it may be so and what a nasty surprise for them if their spouse has a different practical take on the issue.

R0bert

R0bert,
Most of what you have said seems agreeable; however today in Australia we have child brides as young a nine been given by parents to older men or relatives which I believe the Government should take a stand against. Marriage must be between two consenting adults. Adults be eighteen years unless the courts agree they are responsible. If they intend to have children that if related there are no genetic likelihood of deformity.

History has shown that less family problems arise when marriage is lifelong between one man and one woman. Few homosexual relationships can sustain such lifelong commitment; because children bind the bond between a man and a woman.

Josephus,

You raise valid points. I think you will find that the intimacy of which you wrote is female bonding with no sexual meanings, overt or covert. A sort of closeness to others as sisters. Do not males bond also?

However, if you were to mention teenage crushes, then I agree that there is has a strong sexual element. Teen crushes tend to be for another/others of the same sex. I have a friend who is both a mother and was a teacher. Her belief is that gays do not progress out of this stage to develop as heterosexuals.

I was unaware of the practice you mention of lesbians. I had thought, if they didn't use clitoral stimulation, that they might use vibrators, similarly as some straight women do.

Josephus,

I utterly agree that the government should take a stand about child brides. Actually, I thought it was illegal irrespective of ethnic/religious grounds.

In fact, I think that our government should go further. When we have married migrants from societies which accept of child brides, in fact indorse it, then there should be a check made of when the marriage took place. If the woman was underage at the time of marriage, I think that she should be asked if she wants to be married. If so, she marries her husband (again) under Australian law; if not, then she is deemed single.

I know that there are refuges in Australia set up by Muslim women for girls, who are either promised or being forced into marriage.

Robert,

Your criteria for marriage is completely logical. But, for many their union/cohabitation is highly emotional - and they want all the bells and whistles to accompany it - hence marriage. Even seniors seem to want a marriage ceremony.

If I had my time again, I would only have married because of having children. A widow with adult children, I certainly wouldn't go though any marriage ceremony now.

In France, the civil union is the only legal recognition of marriage. Any religious ceremony is not recognised in law; and takes place after that of the civil one.

There are all manner of very good reasons why a State would want to record births, deaths, marriages and name changes.

In doing so there have to be some rules. Although recently there are some very challenging 'innovations', for example, a father's name being removed from a birth certificate to be replaced by the mother's lesbian partner. That is fine for the immediate ego needs of the lesbians concerned, but not so good for the child. For example not knowing his health(genetic) inheritance could risk his life. But apparently 'rights' don't extend to the silent minor, only to noisy demanding adults who can use PC to their advantage.

Obviously if anyone objects to the State regulating marriage, gay marriage isn't something they would recommend.

The issue at stake isn't that the State should not be regulating marriage. What is being proposed by 'gay' marriage is further, in fact total regulation of relationships by the State, by forcing homosexuals too under the umbrella of intrusive State regulation. That is something that homosexual activists have always objected to before now.

Make no bones about it, when the Statist political Progressives re-jigged de facto law (it is now very broad indeed!) and extended it to homosexuals, in one fell swoop they wiped out all of the alternative forms of relationship for homosexuals, to force homosexuals under the single approved relationship decided, approved and regulated by the State.

Whereas previously homosexuals were free to decide their own splits and who owned what -they were masters of their own destiny- the Statism of the Progressives decreed that they be forced into the same corral as heterosexual couples. Rather than give gays choice and 'rights', they removed their choices and rights.

Gay marriage is the icing on the cake for the Statist Progressives, with the State snooping into everyone's bedroom and deciding their relationship status for them. Big potential savings for Centrelink though and that is a spin-off for government. Major benefits for all of those activist lawyers too, who saw Beamers in the windfalls from homosexuals being forced under family law.

onthebeach,

I think that all fair-minded people would be appalled that a biological parent could be replaced by another on a child's birth certificate. Each child has the right to know both its birth parents for many reasons.

I would have thought that, as with heterosexuals, a legal adoption would be required for any name change. Even then, the birth parent's name is not replaced on the birth certificate.

Yar, well...it was good Christian ethics when I was born to obliterate any identity pertaining to biological parents in the case of children who were adopted.

Still, when I was 41, I found out who my biological mother was (thanks only to my half-sister having the guts to track me down)

Still don't know anything about my biological father....somewhere in America.....

Danielle,

Here is an example,

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/fathers-name-stripped-from-birth-certificate-20110817-1ix2m.html

<Father's name stripped from birth certificate
August 17, 2011

A man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple will have his name stripped from their child's birth certificate after a successful legal bid by the birth mother's ex-partner.

The woman took the NSW Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages, and biological father, to court in May to have his name replaced with her name in the document.

The female child was born in 2001 and the women split in 2006, although they continued to share parental responsibility.

The man also played a role in the child's life.

NSW District Court Judge Stephen Walmsley today ruled in her favour, but expressed sympathy for the biological father.

"I am not persuaded there is any contractual right which can affect this application," he said.

"As [the biological father] concedes, there was no agreement before [the child's] birth that he would be on the register when he agreed to donate his sperm."

The judge said the man and the child obviously had a strong emotional attachment.

"I have considerable sympathy for [the man] - he has done what he considers has been his very best for the child."

Outside court the man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, said he was devastated and labelled the outcome an injustice.

"She's not my daughter as far as the law is concerned," he said.

"The laws are totally inadequate, there are no laws to protect people like me.

"It's a very bad day for fathers, that's all I can say.">

"Obviously if anyone objects to the State regulating marriage, gay marriage isn't something they would recommend."

onthebeach there are a range of things the government does which I consider to be intrusive or unnecessary but which it seems unlikely they will stop doing. In that case I try to state my preferred position then deal with more likely outcomes. I don't see any real good coming to same sex couples from increased government involvment in their lives but I do see why the pointed exclusion from a "right" available to others is an issue. As Danielle rightly points out unions and cohabitation is an emotive issue and many people want the bells and whistles.

None of the arguments against same sex or pluralistic marriage stack up when tested against the way many 2 person heterosexual marriages are played out and yet those who rely on those arguments mostly seem to lack the courage of their convictions to apply them to 2 person heterosexual marriages. The arguments appear to be weak attempts to hide a preference to discriminate rather than genuine positions.

R0bert

I haven't read all of the comments here but referring to the quote in ROberts thread, it may be prudent to consider part v of the constitution, which empowers the commonwealth to make laws for marriage at xi.

I think, without having investigated too deeply, that it is likely that the commonwealth will push over the act laws to the extent of any inconsistencies with its own laws pertaining to same.

Of course, the commonwealth, subject to the constitution is only empowered " ... To make laws for the peace, order, and good government ... "

Thus, it could be argued that to continue what is in my mind a range of abusive practices,, including but not limited to registering gays and lesbians " ... Like dogs ... " to quote one former member of the high court, neither constitutes "good guvment" nor
"Peace" excepting perhaps the peace of the gun.

The other potential constitutional issue re the act laws is that it brings about a situation where gays etc are "more equal" in the act than elsewhere in Australia.

Of course, the other important thing to note is that there are now more than a few religious organisations and others that are more than happy to marry gays etc. thus in effect, they are making a religious law which allows some to practice all of their rights and rituals and others not.

But so as not to be naive, the trash in the parliament knows these things but they care mostly for their positions and getting their own way, so it is common place for them to knowingly write up unlawful laws, such as the so called Malaysian solution, and to have their departments practice policy contrary to the law, which oft they seek to hide under the guise of error and blurred legal boundaries.

Poirot,

I am so sorry that you experienced not knowing the identity of your father. I have friends who had been adopted, and whilst they loved their adoptee parents, they experience "anguish" not knowing whom there birth parents were. This even applies to a couple who, like you, found birth mothers, but not birth fathers. There is something missing, a grief and a sense of loss. One of my friends is well into his sixties and this still haunts him. Humans appear to have a need to know their immediate origins.

Before you were born, illegitimate children were not permitted employment in public service in this country. The treatment of women and children was iniquitous in the past.

onthebeach,

The mother of the little girl, whose father has been erased from her birth certificate, is going to be in for a rough trot when her daughter becomes aware of what she had done. This strikes at the heart of whom the little girl is. Also her having a close relationship with her father, is going to make things so much worse for the mother. I agree. People can be unbelievably selfish when discounting their children's feeling, even if these feelings become manifest in the future.

Danielle,

I agree with you on the wretchedness of the girl and of her father. You are not saying so, but the particular slant of the feminism in Australia that is also dominant in politics, does not regard fathers as having any particular attachment with their offspring, and if any exists, it is a mere flea on the bottom of an elephant when compared with the attachment envisaged between a mother and HER child.

In fact there is a woman ethicist who regularly gets away Scott-Free for arguing without a shred of evidence to support her, that it is of no consequence, it doesn't matter a jot, if false paternity occurs and the man should be liable for the child. Apparently, a child is a child to a man and he has no fatherly feelings, no possibility of any unique attachment for his own offspring. Not so a mother, where the odd case of possible accidental child mix-up in a maternity hospital is very serious indeed, emotionally devastating, even where discovered decades later.

General Comments - gay marriage
Returning to 'gay marriage', it is astounding that the reduction of the spectrum of possible homosexual relationships to a single option, defined and approved by the State is being sold to homosexuals, as their 'right' and a remedy for the 'discrimination' the Australian Human Rights Commission (and the previous Labor government) says doesn't exist anyhow.

One can see how that might suit suitcase lesbians with their U-Haul trailer stacked with their belongings ready for the second date, but it is diametrically opposed to all that homosexuals have previously stood for and regarded as their own, which is choice to form, make and break whatever relationships suit them and without some public bureaucrat or court ruling otherwise.

Gays have been sold a pup. Formalising it into the Marriage Act only puts reinforcing rods in to ensure there is no way back to your free-wheeling days of freedom. Trust the political 'Progressives' who always know what is best for you and pass laws for you for you to toe the line?

*OneontheBeach*

Unfortunately, there is in this case from memory, and again without looking too closely, a distinct difference between the common use meaning of discrimination and the legal meaning as it is within the Act to which you refered.

Thereafter, if at some point gays etc are afforded the same status as everyone else visa vi marriage, that does not mean you have to participate in it.

Having said that, I suspect that the rules pertaining to defactos may already apply, but don't quote me on that one.

But you see, in the UnHoly alliance between the political churches and the genocidal crown, in turn for locking up stolen children and stealing babies amongst other "satanic" perversions, they have been afforded political favours such as the protection of their ill gotten gains from legal claim, the right to lie about what they have learned in the "confessional" and a situation today where you have to remain separated for a full year with no chance of future resolution before divorce will be granted.

It's a joke, but the unfortunate reality is that the majority of Australians continue to fail to demonstrate that they have the wherewithal to provide sufficient political impetus to have the situation rectified. Of course, I do not entirely blame people for that as they have not been adequately educated to enable them to get their heads around the broader picture so to speak.

All the way to characters like Bazza Obama who in his jocularity visa vi "ear bashing" when he was last here demonstrate that indeed, for most people seeing is believing and largely what goes in is what comes out.

Thus here, the place is full of slime who want to hide everything and gag you with punitive retaliatory measures for speaking out.

Still, just because you can take advantage of people does not mean that one should.

Dream On,

Just how could a priest lie about what he had heard in the confessional if he refuses to say what he had heard?

DreamOn, "there is in this case from memory, and again without looking too closely, a distinct difference between the common use meaning of discrimination and the legal meaning as it is within the Act to which you refered"

No. That would be having your cake and eating it too. The Act is comprehensive. It is the law. The Gillard government was adamant, emphatic, that it had, through passage of many changes to laws, got rid of ALL, not just some, discrimination. Are activists saying that activists like Nicola Roxon et al with all of the power available to them as the government, were liars for saying so?

DreamOn, "Thereafter, if at some point gays etc are afforded the same status as everyone else visa vi marriage, that does not mean you have to participate in it"

No. You have no choice whatsoever because whatever relationship or arrangements you and your partner/s might prefer, the family law and marriage provisions will always apply and are superior.

You may have noticed that family law can and does over-rule any arrangement that is perceived as competing with its provisions or frustrating it. The court may penalise you too for that.

We know that under the seal of the confessional, priests are not permitted to divulge what they have heard.

Absolution is conditional. It is valid only when the penitent is truly sorry for his sin and determines never to sin again; this also means removing himself from any circumstances of temptation.

With serial offenders, any credibility as to their sincerity becomes increasingly doubtful. I personally believe that in this situation the priest should not be bound by the seal of the confessional. To invoke the latter under these circumstances , is to my thinking, close to, if not, collusion.

The results of gay marriage laws on a democratic society.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZXzUpzHLkA

Currently it is Gay Pride lobbying Governments with the claim they are being discriminated against by their relationship not being considered equal to the marriage of a man and woman.

The biggest groups in Christian societies for change of marriage definition are the non Christian religious polygamists the Muslims and Mormons. Muslims will claim they are not allowed to practice their religious rights of multiple wives and child brides; the Mormons their rights of multiple marriages to both wives and husbands as was practiced by their founders.

This then leads to how we define marriage. Communities practicing free love could be registered as all married to each other. This would mean terms like adultery, pedophilia etc would be outlawed as discriminatory. Perhaps some religious would already see these terms as discriminatory; with the cry "Stay out of my bedroom you Christian bigots".

The need for polygamy originally was to protect women within the family who had lost their husbands, or when men perished in fighting and there were more women than men. The latter particularly applied to Mormons who were travelling and encountered Native Americans.

Although the customs last, this does not apply today. Additionally, the man had to be a position to care for more than one wife.

We have political activists in Australia among the Muslim community who wish to have multiple wives. They are a larger group than the homosexuals wishing to have their relationship registered with the State. Currently they get around our laws by registering one as a wife and having several mistresses. These mistresses are able to claim single parent support. If multiple marriage were adopted then it would change their status, and in our society not bring shame. The laws would outlaw any discrimination.

If we believe in gender equality then women can have multiple husbands and the homosexual and free love community can have multiple spouse of either gender or both.

It has been the Christian teaching that has given us that the man is to be, "the husband of one wife". This has raised the status of women as equal, whereas Muslims believe women are not equal to a man. The Gay Pride movement wish to destroy the biological relationships of family and define it on the basis of people who love each other and live together.

Josephus, "Currently they get around our laws by registering one as a wife and having several mistresses. These mistresses are able to claim single parent support"

The previous Labor government legitimised bigamy through its re-jigging of laws (definition in particular) affecting de factos. That was contrary to the will of the people and law of very long standing which still exists that makes bigamy unlawful.

Now there is the ridiculous and very unfair circumstance where (say) a woman who is having an affair with a married man with a family can make a claim against the family's assets and income. Several girl friends can do it and it doesn't matter that they entered into an affair with the man knowing full well he was already married.

Yet another unintended negative outcome of political idealism over-ruling common sense and tradition, and just because the feminists who were active behind the scenes could see a man's wallet, which to them is an irresistible target.

onthebeach,

If a man had a child by a mistress, I think there would be grounds for claiming. Surely a man of some integrity would ensure his child was provided for. On the other hand, should a man be sufficiently wealthy, he should (I feel) provide for a mistress and a his child.

However, as for women coming out of the woodwork and claiming against a man's assets and estate, I think that is appalling. They can't justifiably use the excuse that having given some "time" to a man they have entitlement. After all, these women are obviously free agents, irrespective of emotional entanglements.

The Yemen is drafting a new Constitution now outlawing child brides and defining the marriage age at 18. I am not sure if the bride has any say in her marriage as yet under the new Constitution.

Previously once a girl reached pubity [9 - 14 years]she was given by her parents to an older man as a bride. This was not more than sexual abuse of children, and in Muslim minds the foretaste of paradise. Muslim male martyrs are promised 40 young virgin wives in paradise.

Pedophilia is not criminal in many countries, and can easily be lobbied for in any Democratic Government the same as homosexuality - that children have equal rights as adults; otherwise they are discriminated against.

It depends on whose values and principles we uphold.

Malcolm Turnbull has called for a "free vote" in parliament on same sex marriage. Such a pity this man is not the PM today. I don't always agree with Turnbull by I do find him a person of principle, extremely rare in both the Liberal and Labor parties, not so in The Greens of course.
I didn't know where to post this, as there isn't a thread on "The Ridiculous" so here it is.
The Catholic Church is to hold a Synod of Bishops in Rome on the vexing questions of morality. This talk fest of the hierarchical old farts of the Catholic Church will see them pontificate, and no doubt, pass on their wisdom in the form of commandments to the rest of use poor retched souls. This gathering of old farts, men only of course, will enlighten us with their collective knowledge on every thing from same sex marriage to abortion. Naturally this will all be the word of "God". Lucky us.
Are the 'Hells Angles' planning a talk fest on law and order? About as useful.

Danielle,
Its a lot better and cheaper if you can get the state to pay for your de facto children.

Josephus,

The situation concerning the unborn relates to personhood.

I suspect that unborn babies are not legally persons in this country, which enables abortion. In the US a driver who was responsible for the death of an unborn, was not held liable as the law determined the unborn was not a person. I would hazard a guess that it is the same here.

Traditionally, the legal position of a newborn was that it had no personhood, until it had made its first cry. Whilst I am sure that this has tightened up, I do not know what the legal position is, particularly in this country.

Some philosophers argue that the unborn are not persons.

You are not alone in believing that the human embryo is a another human.

Yet many women undergo IVF treatments annually, which effectively means that thousands of embryos are discarded. As medical science becomes more sophisticated, the issues will become increasingly more complex for those who see the embryo as another human.

Many embryos are aborted naturally. If we were to go down your "logical" path, pregnant women would be confined to bed until the pregnancy proved itself viable.

Some philosophers argue that the unborn are not persons

And some argue that at the moment of conception all of the future person is there, are they wrong and is/are some ingredient(s) added later?

Danielle,
Where did abortion come from? Obviously you have had too much alcohol at Cup festivities as you repeat yourself.

Josephus.

Please explain your comments.

Is it because I spoke of embryos aborted naturally. I understand that this is the correct term to use.

Whilst some would deny the right of a female to have an abortion, it really is a case of until you have walked in the shoes of another. For most who undergo such a procedure, it is not a capricious whim and it carries with it emotional scars. I am not into the culture of witch hunting. I would suggest you look to yourself, ... examine your self for evidence of compassion.

It wasn't so long ago that women who had a child out of wedlock, was condemned. Social mores often defined them as pariahs within society. However, if a woman had an abortion, she was equally damned. As for the mothers physically forced to give up their newborns ...

Up until the seventies in Australia, and possibly later, children who were born out of wedlock were refused entry into the public service.

The attitudes surrounding unwed mothers and children born out of wedlock was horrible to say the least. As for the fathers ...? Unfortunately, in certain sections of society such attitudes still prevail.

What is your attitude to unwed mothers?

Many apologies, Jospehus.

I was contributing to a different thread.

Danielle, "Up until the seventies in Australia, and possibly later, children who were born out of wedlock were refused entry into the public service"

Do you have a source for that?

onethebeach,

I experienced this personally.

I received notification from the public service refusing my application for a position. The reasons were "tactfully" alluded to. I sought clarification and the situation was explained to me. Although I had been legally adopted by my stepfather overseas, I didn't pursue the issue further.

Other than this personal experience, I have no other reference to provide. There may have been other issues of which I was not aware, but the explanation given was "the circumstances of your birth".

danielle/quote..<<>.Traditionally, the legal position of a newborn was that it had no personhood,>>..

yes..that point becomes clear..only..AFTER..the act..of birthing
[like a ship emerges from the waters..to berth]..see we are under the law of the seas[maritime law]..[the prisoner sits in..the dock]..when a ship-docks and dischages its cargo..the cargo..is accorded a berthing certification[a berth certificate
http://macquirelatory.com/Birth%20Certificate%20Truth.htm

ditto a person[under the act]..has been registered as cargo
as witnessed by our birthing[live birth]certification..creating a legal person/under the act..thus a slave/person/under the act

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nQVv2OmpqQ

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=person+berthing+%2Fbirth+water

see to obtain..the berthing certification..a person..under the act..needs apply[applying means beg]..and the begger is presumed to know for what he begs[freemen..need no permissions..need ask n0 one..they are fee-born..but in a world of masters and slaves[realities versus fictions]..[satans realm of paper]

we are enslaved [dehumanized into statehood jurisdiction/fictions.[personhood..immediately we emerge from..our mothers waters[our parents by virtue of being persons under the marriage act..cannot conceive[sic]a freeborn being..because they are slaves[persons/under the law..thus /under the act]..its rightly said two wongs cant breed a right

anyhow the person..[unde the act]
..is created..when you sign ANYTHING
[its achieved..by the mark/of the beast*..
ie your sig-nature..gives life to the dead fiction

put your mark here
XXX

welcome into satans realm of statehood paperhood personhoood fiction

The preparatory document for next year’s Synod of Bishops on the Family was formally released at a news conference in the Vatican on Tuesday.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2013/11/vatican-releases-full-text-of-document-and-survey-questions-for-2014-synod-of-bishops-on-the-family/

The synod’s theme is “The pastoral challenges to the Family in the context of Evangelization and it will run from the 5th to the 19th of October 2014.

The document gives an overview of Church teaching on the family and spells out in a frank manner the many daunting challenges facing the family in today’s society, saying there is an urgency for the Church to address these challenges.

The document also includes a questionnaire or consultation containing 39 questions on family issues that has been sent to bishops conferences around the world asking them to share it as widely as possible so that input from local sources can be received.

http://www.news.va/en/news/preparing-for-the-synod

f ) Could a simplification of canonical practice in recognizing a declaration of nullity of the marriage bond provide a positive contribution to solving the problems of the persons involved? If yes, what form would it take?
g) Does a ministry exist to attend to these cases? Describe this pastoral ministry? Do such programmes exist on the national and diocesan levels? How is God’s mercy proclaimed to separated couples and those divorced and remarried and how does the Church put into practice her support for them in their journey of faith?

5. On Unions of Persons of the Same Sex
a) Is there a law in your country recognizing civil unions for people of the same-sex and equating it in some way to marriage?
b) What is the attitude of the local and particular Churches towards both the State as the promoter of civil unions between persons of the same sex and the people involved in this type of union?
c) What pastoral attention can be given to people who have chosen to live in these types of union?
d) In the case of unions of persons of the same sex who have adopted children, what can be done pastorally in light of transmitting the faith?

6. The Education of Children in Irregular Marriages

http://goldengaiadb.com/Reincarnation_and_the_Purpose_of_Life#Gender.2C_Gender_Change.2C_and_Androgyny

Two great principles which are included in the Unity of Godhead were made to appear as two separate things in order that those two principles might be studied in detail by those who were not competent to study them as One.

But when the male considers the female he is but getting at a more clear understanding of a part of himself, and so when the female reasons on the male. For as they were not separate in the eternities / of development which went before this present eternity of matter and form, so the two elements shall, become one again in those eternities which shall come after.

one under god,

You have made interesting points and I am sure there are many who agree them.

As I understand it, some clergy are prepared to marry same sex couples. Perhaps some one who is better informed about this than I, could comment.

The Church's history on counselling married couples has been questionable - especially considering the position of women. Especially so as regards to separation and divorce.

I personally know of a case where an abused woman died under iffy circumstances. The cleric who told me piously observed that she "had earned her crown in heaven".

Personally, I don't think this was a good resolution to her marital problems.

Danielle, <but the explanation given was "the circumstances of your birth">

I would very much doubt that illegitimacy was an acceptable reason to knock you back for entry to the (then) Commonwealth Public Service or State public services.

It is possible the papers are still held in archives for you to check, however it is more likely that your nationality was in dispute, or that you were unfortunate enough to have parentage/dual citizenship (or unresolved citizenship) that related to one of the countries affected by the Cold War politics at the time.

Danielle, "As I understand it, some clergy are prepared to marry same sex couples"

That is unsatisfactory to radical gay activists and the political 'Progressives' who have hitched a ride on the gay politics bandwagon and hold the reins. They will demand that all churches perform gay marriages, without exception. They are using gay politics for their own secondary goals, one of which is to disrupt and hopefully destroy the Christian churches and 'traditional' institutions of society. Gays are grist for the mill in their culture war, although some younger radical gay activists share similar aims and are for instance, statists themselves.

onthebeach,

I was born in France and naturalised in Australia (my mother was Australian). But anything is possible, ... and I thank you for your considered thought ...

Regarding radical gays imposing their will as to marriage on Christian churches. I am very uncomfortable with this. I am not a Christian, but believe that whilst the general laity have traditions and tenets of faith they have embraced, have expectations of, and are comfortable with, major issues such as gay marriage should evolve gently and organically in the churches. However, the Papacy is unlikely to ever accept it.

This is why I am in favour of the French system. The civil marriage is the legal marriage; any following religious marriage is optional and is "icing on the cake". Religious marriage carries no weight in law.

If gays are genuine about having the same rights as heterosexual marriage, then it would be to their benefit if they looked at the French model, in principle, instead of trying to force beliefs on others who may not be ready for this type of enlightenment. The latter can only be divisive.

Is it that some gays would not feel married, unless married in a church? Or is it that they want all the "bells and whistles"? I doubt very much that many, if any, gay couples would cease cohabitation with their partner, if not married in a church?

To me this is the real and sole issue of demanding a church wedding - religious reasons.... The belief that civil unions alone are not valid in the eyes of god ... Church marriage alone provides this. I am not currently involved in the gay community, so I do not know if any have voiced this as a reason for a church wedding.

In countries such as the Netherlands where gay marriage has been a fact for years, very few gays get married. Why not?

In Australia, where the Gillard federal government removed all possible discrimination against homosexuals with numerous law changes and Centrelink made special arrangements to sensitise its policies to gays and staff received special training, very few gays took advantage of the provision, now requirement, to advise of couple status. Why not?

The push is by Gay Pride activists to normalize homosexuality and destroy out democratic right to hold an opinion on abnormal same sex practices. They intend to claim discrimination against persons who claim marriage is the exclusive contract between a man and a woman. Churches cannot refuse to marry them or consider them not married in the sight of God. In their agenda this is discrimination!

Most homosexuals are not into this agenda just those who are overtly into a public display of their pride.

Josephus,

To insist on marriage in a church would imply that they are committed religious and that they seek a marriage valid in the sight of god. By logical extension - as in the case of religious heterosexuals - if there was an impediment to marrying in a church - they would not seek marriage outside the church, nor would they live together.

I don't know what the situation is today, but in the past some churches liked evidence of affiliation and practice within the particular religion when marrying a couple. This didn't necessarily preclude marriage, but was raised. Possibly a consideration as to the couple's sincerity as far as religion went.

Isn't there pastoral counselling required prior to marriage within certain religions now?

Undoubtedly there are gays who are deeply religious and I think they should seek out clerics who do perform gay marriages.

I also think radical gays who demand church weddings should be more sensitive and diplomatic. Nothing worthwhile will be achieved by trying to force others to comply with their wishes. Many would see such demands as capricious, and in most cases would be correct. When acceptance comes, it will be a natural development.

Incidentally, not all male gays practice anal sex.

Danielle, "To insist on marriage in a church would imply that they are committed religious and that they seek a marriage valid in the sight of god"

Yet at the same time gay activists denounce churches and the institution of marriage, saying that both are better gone. How does that work?

Danielle, "By logical extension - as in the case of religious heterosexuals - if there was an impediment to marrying in a church - they would not seek marriage outside the church, nor would they live together"

That extension is dispelled by the very obvious fact, confirmed by gay activists, that they are presently shacking up with their squeeze. Also, most activists for gay marriage are serial activists for other agendas, with gay marriage being one suspects just another lever to push. The few gay marriage activists who are gay themselves may not represent the majority of homosexuals anyhow.

It does seem to be a media-led protest, which is not surprising given some of the main supporters, the political 'Progressives' and Greens being the very obvious example. As an avowed protest party that seeks to embarrass and knobble foe and partners alike for headlines (the Gillard government is a case example), the feckless, treacherous Greens take no responsibility for the unintended consequences of their policies.

There is not only strong evidence that Jesus was gay, there is also evidence of Jesus attending a gay marriage, where he supplied the booze.
John 2:1-11 Marriage at Canna. Jesus attended with his 12 disciples and his mum, who may have felt a little uncomfortable being the only woman at a wedding where everyone else was male, even the bride. The event had considerable importance in the acceptance of early Christians of gay marriage. The gospel account of Jesus being invited to a gay wedding, attending, and using his divine power to save the celebrations from disaster are taken as evidence of his approval of gay marriage and homosexuality in general.
The Mormons believe the Marriage at Canna was actually Jesus's own polygamist wedding, where he married the sisters Mary Magdalene and Martha as well as another Mary, 3 wives. Many theologians are accepting of the gay marriage version, but others, other than Mormon that is, have some difficulty with the polygamy version. But all theologians agree it was clearly not a heterosexual wedding.

Dear Danielle,

Thank You for your well-reasoned and intelligent comments.
It is an issue that is a very emotive one and the model
that you offered in your earlier post modelled on the
French sounds to me like a reasonable suggestion.
If civil marriage became the acceptable and legal form
in this country perhaps this would overcome some problems.
Afterall not everyone marries in churches nowadays - many
couples prefer marriage celebrants. Australia has secular
government and no official or state religion. Religious
laws have no legal status in Australia - so making civil
marriage the legal form in this country makes sense.

I looked up "Fact-Check" on same sex marriage - and found it
to be quite interesting. Pe4rhaps you will as well:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-21/ask-fact-check-same-sex-marriage/5029100

onthebeach,

My comments were meant to be the logical sequel for gays, indeed any, wanting a church marriage. It was not meant to be descriptive.

Foxy,

Thank you. I am very interested in looking at the "Fact-Check" which I will do asap.

Paul1405,

What sources, or other evidence, can you provide that the marriage at Canna was a gay marriage - or that Jesus was gay? Given the environment and mores of the period, these issues would have resulted in very unpleasant consequences. There would have been no Jesus of the gospels.

"Posted by Paul1405, Thursday, 7 November 2013 10:40:35 AM"

Paul,
How about a couple of scholarly references?

the sweach term
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=cana+wedding+gay&

yeilds

many posts re canada gays
but..here is one that mentions gay

http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=663

For God, it is very clear what marriage is. When Christ was asked by a lawyer about whether divorce was possible, Jesus gave a clear teaching about the real meaning of marriage that is as relevant to the debate about whether homosexuals can marry as it was to the subject of divorce-and-remarriage.

If Jesus were to testify up on Beacon Hill before our legislators about the meaning of marriage,hewould..say

"Have you not read that in the beginning God 'made them male and female,' and said, 'for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?

So they are..no longer two,[parents]..but one flesh.[child]
Therefore what..God has joined together,..let no one separate."

In this teaching of Jesus..who is the Truth incarnate,
who is our..teacher..and knows how..and for what..the human person is made,..who loved all of us enough to die out of love for us..we see four things..that are relevant..to our debate:

a).."In the beginning,..God made them male and female."
There is great meaning..to our masculinity..[life-giver]and femininity[motherhood/co-creating]..in God's plan.

God didn't...clone Adam,..or use/doner-eggs/sperm/
but..made Eve, who..was equal to him,,not..only..in dignity,..but complementary.

b).."For this reason..a man shall leave his mother*..and father
and cling..to his wife."..God's plan..is not that..a man leave his parents..and cling to whomever..he wants,..*but to cling to a wife.

c).."The two shall become..*one flesh."..This refers more than merely to their sharing a CHILD*..together..and temporarily joining their bodies physically..in the act of..*making-love,..because that act is just temporary.[but..the blessings/eternal..

God wanted..from the beginning..a more permanent union,
"so they..are no longer two,..but one flesh."..in..billions..of bodies..yet all..of one earth/mother...hjerself sustained/living..by the fathers light/logic/love..into life[love-living]

The way..this occurs..is in a child,..who is..the..embodied enduring union..of the flesh..and the man..and the woman and..blessed by God with the infusion..of an immortal soul.

This one-flesh..union in children "made in love"
is..for Christ,[love]..our Creator[life]..and our Savior,[logic]
as integrally..a part of the essence..of marriage.

[any marriage..with blessed fruits...[atonemment/at-one-meant*]
the fruits affirm..the union*

Dear Paul,

There isn't any evidence that Jesus was gay the same as
there isn't any evidence that Jesus was married even though
the writer Dan Brown, who wrote the bestselling novel,
"The Da Vinci Code," tells us that Jesus was in fact
married to the woman we know as Mary Magdalene. That they
had a child together and that this "truth" was covered up by
the church for self-serving reasons. Some people believe
in fiction. Especially when taken in context that during
the times in which Jesus lived, Jewish men in Jesus' day
did marry, especially those who were considered to be Rabbis.

I guess I'll have to read the book, "Joshua, The Man They
Called Jesus," by Ian Jones and try to find out more
on the subject. Ian Jones apparently has had a lifetime
fascination with the story of Jesus.
Jones has had a long career as an award-winning film and
television producer, director and screenwriter, who's woven
a second vocation as a historian. Recognised as an authority
on the life and times of Ned Kelly, and as a military
historian specialising in the Australian Light Horse of
World War I. His book on Jesus follows Jones' highly
successful biography, "Ned Kelly: A Short Life."

Danielle, they crucified Jesus because of his homosexuality and teachings, how more "unpleasant consequences" could you imagine.
Is Mise: "Paul,How about a couple of scholarly references?" Are not the words of Matthew, Mark, Luck and John sufficient.
What about that 1st century Romano-Jewish historian Flavius Josephus who refers to the stoning of "James the brother of Jesus". What was the penalty in 1st century Judea for homosexually? Stoning.
The Jewish Pharisees questioned Jesus at length about his beliefs and teaching, the conservative Pharisees were shocked by Jesus and his liberal philosophy on social and moral issues.
Foxy, I offer hard evidence of the homosexuality of Jesus. Can anyone here point to any evidence Jesus was a heterosexual?
I found a link that lists Jesus as the number one, most influential homosexual of all times and that list included Alexander The Great and Walt Disney, unfortunately I can't find my link at the moment, but when I do I'll post it for all to see.

Foxy,

Thank you, I'll read the work recommended by you with interest.

Another two excellent works are:

“Trial of Jesus of Nazareth” by the late Professor S.G.F. Brandon, a theologian. This work is rigorously researched and impeccably documented. Brandon had impressive qualifications in Comparative Religion. He also presented significant lectures: Wilde lectures at Oxford, Forwood lectures at Liverpool. Not only was he a member of Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas, but also of the Society for Old Testaments Study; and the International Society for the Study of Time.

The other is "Jesus' Attitude toward the Law: a study of the Gospels" by William Loader, also a theologian.

Paul1405 loves reading and believing homosexual fanciful writings that deliberately set out to discredit Christian objections to homosexuality. It soothes his conscience and gives him reason to reject the real Jesus. Is Paul a closet homosexual? There is a guy in my community with the car number plates PAUL1405. Is he the same person? Questions?

jesus sexuality.is irrelevant..
so..any debate=really de-bait..[ie mass debait*ed]
https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=7&article=1431

Typically, these books begin by dispensing in one way or another with the five explicit biblical injunctions against homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10).

Some carefully attempt to explain away the passages in question, blaming the sexual biases of the ancient world for adversely influencing the Bible writers, while others dismiss the offending verses with a simple wave of the hand. After dealing with the negative commands, these scholars turn to the gospel narratives to develop their own “reading” of the traditional Gospel story. Jesus’ life is deconstructed to shed “new light” on His attitude toward same-sex relationships and His own homosexuality—postmodern hermeneutics at their best.

Despite a complete absence of biblical support for their thesis, most of these liberal scholars do not have to read very far to find what they are looking for (in the jargon of biblical interpretation, this is known as eisegesis).

British homosexual advocate Peter Tatchell summed up one popular position in a 1998 press release:

We don’t know for sure whether Jesus was straight, gay, bisexual or celibate. There is certainly no evidence for the Church’s presumption that he was heterosexual. Nothing in the Bible points to him having desires or relationships with women. The possibility of a gay Christ cannot be ruled out (“Was Jesus Gay? Missing…,” 1998).

BUT NOR CAN..HETRO SEXUALITY BE AFFIRMED
because either is irrelevant..to jesus true works

Tatchell’s quote illustrates that the argument for Jesus’ homosexuality finds its strongest support, not in Scripture, but in its silence.

Homosexual advocates argue that the absence of any explicit commentary on Jesus’ sexuality ought to remove the ancient assumption that He was heterosexual. Demonstrating to their own satisfaction that there is nothing in the New Testament that necessitates Jesus’ heterosexuality, these scholars move on in search of passages favoring Jesus’ homosexuality, the “signals” that McCleary mentioned. Unfortunately for them, biblical references to support their political thesis are few and circumstantial.

Most are vague and focus on men whom Jesus “loved,” such as Lazarus (John 11:36), the Rich Young Ruler (Mark 10:21), John (John 21:20), and the “beloved disciple” (John 20:2). Love in these contexts is interpreted as homoerotic love.

Further evidence is supposedly found in Jesus’ healing of the centurion’s servant in Luke 7:1-10. Because the text says the servant was “dear to him,” it is alleged that centurion and his servant were gay lovers.

That Jesus healed him is presented as proof that He condoned their homosexual relationship (cf. Horner, 1978; Jennings, 2003).

A Course In Miracles also tells us, “Sometimes a sin can be repeated over and over with obviously distressing results but without the loss of its appeal.” (Tx.Or.Ed.19.27) That’s obviously what is going on in these scandals. I am not saying that sex is a sin, but the guilt, danger and excitement inherent in these scandal situations is the “sin” that makes them appealing.

The anxiety, the sense that the activity is bad – that’s the problem. Unless we eliminate that “sin” – the guilt and anxiety associated with sex – unless we make sex a truly natural thing, a common natural activity people do, sex will always get these negatives wired into it and these problems will continue to exist in our society.

from the Urtext. “NO fantasies, sexual or otherwise, are true. Fantasies become totally unnecessary as the Wholly satisfying nature of reality becomes apparent.

The sex impulse IS a miracle impulse when it is in proper focus. One individual sees in another the right partner for ‘procreating the stock’ (Wolff was not too far off here), and also for their joint establishment of a creative home.

This does not involve fantasy at all. If I am asked to participate in the decision, the decision will be a Right one, too.” Once again, it’s open to different interpretations. However, for me, the main message is we are going to be sexual so let us ask Holy Spirit to help us decide with whom, and when. That’s all

It’s just like everything else in the physical world. It isn’t sex negating. It’s the common idea that the world is actually a neutral place and that every decision we need to make about any of these things we should bring to the Holy Spirit.

I believe we will get highly individualized answers to these questions. What one person gets is great for that person and it will be an entirely different answer than what another person will get. Generalizations about sex, physical activity, and what A Course In Miracles is teaching shouldn’t be made

None of what we say about sexual “validity” is going to effect that one little bit. However, what we do say and teach – and the philosophies that we have – will effect the energy in which these inevitable sexual activities happen.

If we continue to hold onto sex-negative ideas that make sex: guilty, wrong, dangerous, and sinful we will keep perpetuating the sexual dysfunction of our society.

This is a trial that I think our society has to learn

Thank you oneundergod.

Unfortunately, there are those who throw up an idea and then search for "evidence." This is the antithesis of scholarship and is used by those who, not having the ability to move in scholastic circles, try and make some name for themselves by a provocative announcement. As you so rightly observe, any evidence provided does not bear close scrutiny.

UOG I agree with you and Danielle on the life of Jesus.

Josephus, I'll have you know, I am a devout member of the Amish community, we reject all things modern in the name of Jesus, hallelujah, praise the Lord! that bloke in the car, rego PAUL1405, is it a red Ferrari, opps I thought no one in the community would notice, sorry.

Josephus,
Thanks for the "heads up" on the plate. I'll run it up, Who knows he might be the missing "Pope". The guy is a nut.

Paul1405,

I think you like to be provocative and like to be a bit of a stirrer.

I have to wonder if you really believe that Jesus was gay ... or even care.

If you really care, why?

It was oneundergod who quickly sourced the origin of this idea.

For one who is so convinced, you were unable to provide the source, which under the circumstances would have been etched into your memory.

i was curious..as to..what the gospil..[of paul 14;05]
would reveal..this is where..that link leads

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vG_Dy8P8M1o

so..the natural con-collusion..is

did paul...hijack the gospel
http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/churches-of-christ-forum/did-paul-%27hijack%27-the-gospel/

alternately

Jesus death for sins was an act of salvation. To receive God's gracious gift Scripture explicitly teaches that:

Truly, then, God overlooking the times of ignorance, now He strictly commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day in which He is going to judge the world in righteousness by a Man whom He appointed, having given proof to all by raising Him from the dead (Acts 17:30-31).

Repentance is necessary in order to receive salvation - therefore it is a necessary component of the Gospel we proclaim. This repentance from sin and turning away from it is also a turning to Christ in saving faith in order to receive salvation:

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast (Ephesians 2:8-9).

And that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem (Luke 24:47).

And how I kept back nothing that was profitable, but have shown you and have taught you publicly, and from house to house, testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 20:20-21).

Some people claim that "faith alone"
in Ephesians 2:8 negates the need to repent. But we must remember this hermeneutical rule: Scripture cannot contradict itself - therefore in understanding it rightly, it must harmonize with the rest of Scripture.

As we harmonize all of Scripture we can clearly see that sometimes only faith or belief is mentioned, sometimes only repentance is mentioned, and sometimes both are mentioned..

i guess that all boils down..to..what was intended
so stirring the pot..made the soup better..not too salty?

stir gently
on..a low flame?

inflame the flaming fame frame

the divination..
of chapter..14/verse..05
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=chapter+14%3A05%2C&

*CHAPTER..14-05/DIVORCE.[14-05-01].
Marriage

How dissolved.
Marriage is..dissolved only:
1...By the death..of one of the parties..or.
2...By a judgment..of a court

John 14:1-5

English Standard Version.(ESV)
I Am the Way,..and the Truth,..and the Life

14..“Let not..your hearts be..troubled...Believe in God;
[a]..believe also..in me....In my Father's house..are many rooms.
If it..were not so,..would I/have told you..that I go..to prepare a place..for you..with-in it..?[b]>>

thats.a key bit/for context
OUR FATHERS-HOUSE..has many rooms
one..for each..of mens wants..needs/urges

<<>3..And if I go..and prepare..a place..for you,
I will come again..and will take you..to myself,..that
where I am..you may be..also...4 And..you know..the way/to where..I am going.”[c]..

5..Thomas/said to him,..

“Lord,..we do not know..where..
you are going...How can we..know the way?”>>

[just..do/as..we/saw-him..do..
all ways..lead to..where..the heart leads

ie even..those..who KNEW him..didnt know
or/if he..was just happy/or..happy and gay

anyway*

Bhagavad-Gita: Chapter 14, Verse 5
www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-14-05.html

Having thus declared..that the origins of all jivas
or..embodied beings..is from...the/combination..of prakriti
or..the material-substratum..pervading..all existence and ...

and purusa..[the Supreme Being]..as eternal*consciousness
and that they..are both manifestations..of the Supreme Lord Krishna. The resulting..*situation of the purusa's/[gods]..conjunction with prakriti[material/sub-stance]..is elaborated upon..in *fourteen verses..

described in relationship..to the gunas..or three modes
of material nature:..*sattva.or goodness,*..rajas..or passion and tamas.or prescience..which all arise..from prakriti[material/matters]..

The source..and foundation..of these gunas[modes]..is only..from prakriti[matter]..and are..dependent upon it.[embedded/with-in/it]..

The physical body..is a product..of the three..modes...Everything in material existence..is under the influence..of the three..meams..which binds/fast..the..embodied..by connecting the effect*..of actions..*to the results..of reactions.

Due to accepting..the illusions..of happiness,/distress,/exhilaration, /delusion,..etc. The jivas/modes..believe..that they are physical beings..because of identifying/with the senses..and the physical body...

So much so..that the..*eternal part/within*..[emmanuel]..
which is the atma..[the/immortal soul].is completely forgotten..
even/though..it*is..a direct/manifestation..of the Supreme Lord..and in reality...immutable and eternal.

the..one/whom wishes..to rise up/from this world..
will's/to..perform meritorious actions..

edit

Apprehending..such/a doubt..Lord Krishna..clarifies this/point
in this verse..and the next stating:..the Supreme Lord..does not create..*any agency*..in the world..of beings,..

rather it..is*/that..the embodied-beings..
*own*..individual nature's..PLUS..their level/of
licentiousness..wantonness..and ignorance..of the atma...
or.[soul/form]..that determines..how they..act out existence.

As..the energizing-source..of all..created-beings
the Supreme/Lord Krishna..engages[exzorts]..all beings..to
be active..and naturally disposed*..as..they gravitate to perform..
actions..for/the objects*..of..their desires..out of primeval/nescience.

*But..the Supreme Lord..has no.influence/nor investment
on.their decision..and..no involvement..whatsoever..in their..freewilled..inter-actions

Danielle, how can you say that, I attended Catholic school, I was an alter boy, I said my rosary, constantly, Sister Mary belted the bible into me, literally. And you doubt my sincerity? Please go to 'Confession' and say 3 Hail Mary's, and never doubt my sincerity again. You agree with OUG? OUG believes smoking is good for you.
Like me, you to could learn much by reading The Book of Auckermudd, I have learned much from Auck, the meaning of life, spirituality, how to play 'Lotto'... and win, Jesus stuff, etc etc.

Paul1405,

Tch ..tch .. tch ...

Your are a stirrer ...

What next are you going to pull out of the hat ...?

sauls/quote12;05..<<..OUG believes smoking is good for you.>>

saul/paul..whatever

i..believe smoking is good for me..[me alone]
i..have no opinion..AT_ALL*..on..how good..or bad it is for any of you

so please do not infer..that i said..its good for stezzra
in..no way do i say anything like that

see i..have anger issues..and
with one puff..i..shrug my anger off..

its cheating..but thats not your concern..either

now the topic was...gay mirage..[clearly a delusion]
but yet again..of no real concern..to any but those sukkerd into it

thats the topic..
but..its expanded upon..better here
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15658

Dear Danielle,

Thanks for the book references - I'll definitely look into
them. This is a subject that I find quite fascinating.
I recall years ago reading Barbara Thiering's book,
"Jesus The Man: A new interpretation from the Dead Sea
Scrolls," and trying to discuss the book with members
of my family. It caused quite a stir.
Especially from my younger brother (he's a principal
of a Catholic school). I found the book fascinating,
and Thiering's book gave me a better understanding
of historical Christianity. I was able to view
the virgin birth, the miracles, the resurrection in an
entirely new light.

Again, Thanks for your additional references.

Danielle, to be serious for a moment much of what I post is satirical guff, put in for a laugh. But there is always an element of truth in what I say. Was Jesus ( and the very existence of Jesus himself can be debated, but for the moment lets accept his existence) heterosexual, homosexual, some other sex, that can't genuinely be determined, just as nothing about Jesus can genuinely be determined.
Modern mainstream Christian orthodox teaching based on scripture is a fallacy. It is a fallacy because it is untrue to give it the power of credibility as being the word of God, the supreme being, (his existence is also highly debatable), or the word of Jesus speaking as God, (again debatable). If you were to say its the word of Julius Caesar a person indisputably known to have existed 2000 years ago I would accept it for what it is. I might not agree with it but I would accept it. If Christians were to say this is what we believe, based on our own predigests, then I would accept what is said, again I might not agree, but I would accept it. Christians demand an unequivocal acceptance of their belief to the detriment of all other, based on a lie, that their belief is "the word of the almighty God" therefore unquestionably correct, that is simply wrong.

Danielle,
I am interested to know what relationship you have in mind here. "Incidentally, not all male gays practice anal sex.
Posted by Danielle, Thursday, 7 November"
Are these homosexuals pushing for same sex marriage? In this case what do they define as marriage?

Josephus,

A similar topic as this was posted on another forum. Gays also responded. Anal sex was mentioned. One gay, with a lifetime partner, made the above comment.

When I was familiar with the gay community, I was aware that not all gays shared the same practices or attitudes. Indeed, some divisions were sharply divided and quite virilently so.
Criticism could be as harsh as any homophobe.

Josephus,

Apologies, I realise that I hadn't answered your question in full.

As I recall, this particular man believed that same sex marriage was appropriate, but wasn't strident about it. He was more concerned that society believed that all homosexuals practiced anal sex, which apparently is not the case.

No one ventured to ask for more intimate details of the relationship between these two men. Whatever it was, it had worked well for some forty years or so. And he did state that it was a gay relationship.

sex derives from the need to be touched
its as simple as that..ok..for some..its to procreate

but basically..its a way.to get outside oneself
and anything given..of love to other..is a worthy gift

paul..subverted..the witness of the go-spell
but the gos[pill]..represents..the..first person witness of jesus works words and life events

then pauloverlayed his creed..
that..hid his most important deed
jesus died..and returned..to talk of it
these simple testements..refute both creeds of judgment/resection..day

jesus big teaching was..those days..were creed too
so many lies to..refute..how many more lives can..they polute?

thhe harvest is heavy
the workers few*..the first will..be last

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6040&page=0#175453

Paul1405,

There is no question that Jesus existed, but certainly there are questions surrounding him.

As we know the Gospels were written a considerable time after Jesus' death, and by those who had never met him.

In “Trial of Jesus of Nazareth,” SGF Brandon states that two Christian groups existed.

Those of the Church of Jerusalem comprising of Jesus’ original apostles and desciples, including Mary, (Jesus’ mother), James (his brother), Peter and John. This group taught a "Christianity" at such variance with Paul's gospel, that Paul himself referred to is a "another gospel ... another Jesus. Particularly so when reporting Jesus' trial and death. The Jerusalem community perished in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD.

There was obviously a serious rupture between the original Jerusalem group and that of the Pauline.

Paul, indeed, distances himself from the Jerusalem group in a letter to the Galatians:

“I would have you know, bretheren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man ... but came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”

Paul’s intention was to establish that his teachings were divine in origin, independent from that taught by the original apostles.

In Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians, he defends himself from the Jerusalem group, which believed him of unsound mind, of being delusional. The Jerusalem community maintained Jesus’ death as a ‘human event’; Paul, on the other hand, claimed it as a ‘mystical event'.

Paul: “... even though we once regarded (oidamen) Christ from a human point of view, we regard (ginoskomen) him thus no longer ...”

The above is taken from Brandon's work. He was a Christian theologian.

There is so much about the historic Jesus which is fascinating, and open for scholarly debate; this is always interesting

Personally, I have no problems with people who are sincere and of faith. I believe that in many ways they should be applauded. This does not, of course, accept of religious beliefs which are dogmas of hate, or violence, etc.

Danielle, "When I was familiar with the gay community, I was aware that not all gays shared the same practices or attitudes. Indeed, some divisions were sharply divided"

All the more reason to question just who is behind the push for 'gay marriage', which appears to be media-led, with the media being led by the publicly funded national broadcasters, the ABC and SBS. In turn, the media is being astutely manipulated by a small number of gay activists, 'Gay Pride', who do not represent the majority of gays, and by the other usual suspects the self-styled 'Progressive' elite, the well-educated, comfortably-off Cafe Latte Left.

Homosexuals especially the males, have forever been irrevocably opposed to adopting heterosexual cultural mores and the expectations and regulations affecting them. They relished their freedom, their 'outlaw' status, where they chose what forms of relationship they preferred and managed their own affairs free from the strictures and interference of government.

What a change the bullying Gay Pride and Progressive activists have wrought. You could be excused for imagining they are all lawyers or people with substantial assets to compete for, because the outcome of their zealotry has been the exact opposite of what gays and even the Left have always been for.

Now the State through (ambiguous) broadening of the de facto definition and extension of it to cover homosexuals, presumes to tell gays (as the State so informs heterosexuals!), the status of their relationships (regardless of the gay's intent and statement on entering the said relationship) and even the disbursement of assets and income on separation. Family law now rules homosexual relationships and lawyers are dong very well out of it, thank you very much indeed.

The Statist political 'Progressives' have won their cultural war already. But even so, they have more social re-engineering to do, which necessitates further hijacking of gay politics to attack the Marriage Act and their hated enemy, Christian churches.

What political 'Progressives' will not do however, is hold themselves accountable for the many negative consequences of their interference in and re-jigging of social policies.

onthebeach,

You make so many valid comments.

Certainly, the gays I knew were far from interested in marriage. They regarded it as something heterosexuals "endured" (sort of).

I believe much of the problem is the PC crowd. Most of us were inculcated with ideas of respect and acceptance for other races, cultures, religions and societies. One didn't go round abusing people who were different. Indeed differences were to be rejoiced.

Yet we didn't ignore elephants pounding round the room, which needed to be addressed. If the British had been PC, suttee would be still practiced in India.

This was the norm for so many of us.

However, with PC has come, as you state, social engineering. Somehow, we must be conform to the colour "beige" ...

Danielle,

Thank you for the kind comment.

There is a lot of Selfism about. That alone explains a lot.

Father Joe, where on earth did you dig up that pair of yokels, they were doing fine until they hit me with that religious clap trap of theirs. When will these village idiots realise the god stuff is mans imagination. Oh that's right they are all village idiots so will never realises the truth of it all.

Paul1405,

I have no problems with sincere people of good will having a religion. For many, religion supplies the reason for existence, a way of life, and is a great comfort. There is possibly a need in such people, and those who can embrace and practice a religion are to be applauded.

By religion, obviously those riddled with hatreds and prejudice are not included in these comments. Surprisingly, given the bad press homosexuality has received, many Christians are OK with it. Reform Judaism accepts it, and I understand, will provide services for gay marriage. To Islam, of course, homosexuality is an anathema - in Iran it attracts execution. I do not know about other non-Abrahamic faiths.

Whilst people experience great anguish or confusion within their lives, and religion provides some solace for them, I don't see that it should be condemned. We are not all the same.

While I am not a practising Christian, I can say without fear of contradiction that in the relatively small amount voluntary work I do, it is Christians and most likely conservative or middle of the road ones, that I meet doing voluntary work. They are always of good cheer, and come from all walks of life and income levels.

I have encountered the same people and later their families also volunteering that I met when I was mowing the pre-Kindy yard through to later years.

These are the parishioners of local churches. The churches themselves have always made their facilities available, unstintingly.

It has taught me lessons because while I always looked a bit askance at (say) the Roman Catholic Church, remembering the tough lives of some of my friends especially girls, in their schools (not referring to the molesting that has been in the news), that church for example is on the front foot helping the aged where few others might do it. I was also very happily surprised by the evangelicals during the Brisbane floods, through my exposure to a young evangelical pastor and his horde of tradesmen who worked tirelessly and donated building materials without a whisper of religion. They made me feel a slouch and I criticised myself for sometimes wanting some recognition when I was exhausted, thanks they did not expect at all, but simply rejoiced in helping the community.

It is about tolerance. There are compelling reasons why the Christian churches that are sledged by political correctness should be supported and shown tolerance. But then political correctness isn't about tolerance and that is the whole point of it. It is a cultural war. The great Charlton Heston addressing the graduating class of lawyers at Harvard put it so well years ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y29sSvJRhp8

onthebeach,

You are right, of course.

Many volunteers, if not most, follow a religion. By contributing man-hours and "products" these people save the government billions annually. They also reach those who would otherwise slip through governmental cracks.

We may not believe what they believe. But they have the right to believe what they want - we should respect this. Reality for most is subjective, anyway.

Danielle, What about the Freemasons? My beef is not so much with the general adherents of religions. Some devotees are perfectly 'good' people, although many harbor unreasonable predigests based on "teachings" from within, that is not a good thing. You can help the poor and sick, and still hate the homosexuals. My concern is with the church hierarchy who claim their opinions on things that matter in society, such as moral issues have some kind of divine approval and therefore should be totally adhered to under the pain of ever lasting damnation. Not to mention the human failings within churches, pedophilia priests to name but one, what gives them the right to lecture the rest of society on morality.
Next year I do believe the Catholic Church is conducting a synod of its hierarchy in Rome to pontificate on these very weighty moral issues. No doubt the hierarchy will firstly pray for gods intersession and his guiding hand in their most trying of deliberations. At the end of this talk fest, these elderly gentlemen will hold forth with an outpouring of supposed divine wisdom. Some where they will attach the word of god to their findings, and then command all to adhere to what will be nothing more than a continuation of the ridged conservative view which now prevails within the Catholic Church.
Danielle how do you view this.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/catholics-to-have-their-say-on-sex-marriage-divorce-20131103-2wuxy.html

Paul1405, "What about the Freemasons?"

Quelle horreur!

LOL. A fraternal society of moral law-abiding gentlemen, ordinary working folk, who are old fashioned enough to get dressed up to share one another's company over a glass of sherbet.

More secret rituals in the women's croquet club, or the CWA - which it was on a par with in country towns.

Beach, my Freemason comment what directed at Danielle's remark "Many volunteers, if not most, follow a religion" I said "What about the Freemasons?" I don't have a prob with any Masons, free, or the ones you have to pay for. I don't know what these lads get up to when they get together, I don't know what they do when they meet, a little peck on the cheek maybe, or a big slobbery one on the lips, I don't known. Like gays, what Freemasons do down at the lodge when the lights go out doesn't bother me. unlike those "churchies" who want to stick their noses in everybody's business.

Paul1405,

Sorry if I misunderstood your meaning.

I had a grin when I read your post. From family members I know that the Freemasons don't discriminate, apart from it being a fraternal membership. So there would be gay members. Although I doubt they do anything with lights out.

The community service clubs I belong to are not much different. Freemasons, Rotary etc are men's sheds.

Paul1405,

Yes, there are failings within churches and within the laity also. But there are failings in the wider society. We are all human and failings are part of the human condition. No - I do not like concepts of hell-fire damnation. But obviously those that follow a religion accept this. - and perhaps not literally. Nothing is achieved by attempting to destroy a person's faith, which in so many cases is important to them and a great solace - unless you can provide something to replace it. Those who already have doubts will search for the answers.

As for Freemasons, the only thing I know about them is that they have a secret handshake and wear an apron at meetings. Do Freemasons ever come up on one's radar for any reason I imagined that in this day and age, that freemasonry provided a chance of networking.

Paul1405,

You ask me about papal announcements. These do not affect me at all. If their laity accept them, and many don't, eg. Birth control, that is their decision.

You mention busy-bodies in the religions. I don't think there are any more there than in other areas of society. Office politics can be extremely savage. Again, this doesn't affect me. If I was informed that I was destined for hell - I wouldn't take it on board, but be rather amused.

Incidentally, I had a religious upbringing, but rejected it and am not a Christian. This was my choice. Although I rejected Christianity, I respect others' rights to embrace it. One shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath-water.

Danielle, "I imagined that in this day and age, that freemasonry provided a chance of networking"

From close relatives I believe that such an expectation (of benefit) would not be tolerated at all. They have a high moral standard. It is I believe a way for men who accept responsibility and aspire to better moral conduct (take that in the broad) can meet similar men. When you think about it, the men's service clubs were all like that, men's 'sheds' as it were. Families are great, work is fair but never-ending - you need a break from it for a couple of hours a month, for sanity and a breather with other men.

Where else could like-minded family men, good citizens, meet? There was only the pub, a poor alternative if you were a responsible guy and you didn't want to 'pee the family's income up against a wall' or gamble to lose it even faster.

Beach, I have no problem with civic organizations as you call 'men's clubs' Rotary, Lions Club, the CWA. I would prefer if these organisations were all inclusive the CWA could welcome gays then they could become the CW and GA, in the end you end up with the alphabet club. On balance these restrictive clubs/organisations do far more good than harm, for that alone I see them as a positive in society.
Danielle, you might be missing my point a little. I to at one time believed that seeing the little old men and women, and others, going into the church and being lectured was basically okay, as it seems all very benign, besides as you say it gives them some comfort, even if its false comfort, and if they were not doing that what would they be doing? robbing banks, no.
To me like the civic orgs mentioned above, it comes down to balance, the good and the positives that organised religions contribute to society, and they do contribute such, as opposed to the bad and the negatives they also contribute. Churches do not limit their influence to only the adherents, although they are a most influenced group, they also wish to influence government decision making and the thinking of the broader community as well. They also act to limit the actions of people, if the mass is dissatisfied with their lot, the church rather that championing the people, placate them with false promise. As Karl Marx's famously said in full;
"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people."
As I said it is a question of balance.

onthebeach,

Thank you for the information re Freemasons.

Russia provides evidence of what occurs when religion is banned. Instead of loosing its hold, it goes underground and appears to get stronger. This demonstrates that many have a need for some belief system. How would this be replaced?

Those who do not believe, should be a little gentle with those that do. This, of course, does not mean ignoring horrors, which should be condemned loudly, and exposed, such as child abuse.

This applies to all religions.

Many Islamic reformers blame Western priests of political correctness, who come to the support of Islamists, for slow progress in bringing about changes, which they perceive condemn their people to misery. They feel that with Western condemnation, changes would be introduced.

Religion does influence governments. We only have to look at the Western world to see that so many of our laws are based on Christian ethics. In time these laws evolve to reflect wider societal values.

But a recognition of the value of religion, whichever religion, in people's lives is important.

Yes, Paul, I do agree with you, it is a question of balance.

I'm not sure I agree with Karl Marx. I don't think there is a distinction between oppressed or the elite, as far as religion is concerned.

Modern communists put their own spin on Marx.

Marx didn't believe that religion was the enemy. He imagined that the solace religion offered might reduce the pain that should force low income workers to accept his political concept, oppression as he described it and its causes.

If he was alive today I wonder if he would be even more opposed to Centrelink for the same reason? Feed them and give them housing assistance and they will never suffer enough to accept his view of the world and communism.

Communists have a tough gig in the modern welfare State. All of that disruption and what have they got to give that is better?

Laws are based upon what people value. The Christian society values the wholesome family living in harmony and contributing to the betterment of society. They will lobby for those values, equally others will oppose them for whatever reason.

This is politics!

Otherwise we would not need Government to represent the views of the people in forming laws. There are those that believe we should be free to do and behave just however we feel, but no one is an Island; we each affect someone else. Isolating or restraining in prisons people who offend us is part of a wholesome society; unless we can rehabilitate them.