Oh woe is me....

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

Where does that woman teach? Avoid her classroom!

Making a school field trip to your wedding seems, well, odd to me. Inept. Politically risky. Maybe we've got a whole population of witless schoolteachers. I'm starting to worry now.

What I told my kids, when they were kids, is that families aren't all the same. Some have one parent, some have two, there are two-mommy families, two-daddy families, you still have to do what the parents tell you when you're at their house. That seemed to cover all the important issues.

[jamiebk]

PS....this was at an elementary school.

[Serenity]

[OperaTenor]

Yes indeed, California just created a second class of society. Maybe we can just start calling them niggers.....

At one of Altoid's dance classes the other day, I spoke with a mother of another member of her class about it. she says she's a teacher, and she explained why she voted for Prop 8. she said she was afraid a "homosexual agenda" would be rammed down school children's throats if 8 passed. IOW, she bought the ad line of 8 proponents, hook, line and sinker. To top it off, she didn't know 8 would deny same sex couples the right to marry, or that they would be denied the same civil liberties enjoyed by straight couples, or that they could now be discriminated against in the workplace, or that existing same sex marriages performed in California could now be nullified. She didn't know any of that.

The other mother there is a Hungarian woman who is refreshingly outspoken. I began to wonder if I was going to have to sit between them as she got so agitated at the other woman's idiocy.

Her response? "Well, if it's that bad, we can just vote it out next year, right?" She doesn't even understand that it's a constitutional amendment(or revision, if you follow the lawsuits).

I refrained from asking her where she teaches, so I'd know where not to take my child....

Just to be clear OT...teaching (or at least exposure/orientation to) gay marriage did take place in San Fran. right before the elections. It seemed like a bonehead move to me when the issue was being so hotly debated...and the proposition on the ballot. It played right into the supporter's hands. What happened was this. A gay teacher and her parter were getting married under the, then legal, ruling. They decided that it would be a good idea to take the class to city hall in SF to watch. The trip was set up as a class field trip and parents were given a chance to "opt out". This was a Charter School BTW. Most of the class went. Anyway, it did seem an inappropriate use of classroom time and I think that the treachers could have accomplished the same thing if they had held a Saturday (or after school) wedding and invited the class. Oh...also, they used school $$ to pay for the transportation.

If everyone involved was on board with it, what's the problem? They were shown a real aspect of life. Why should this be different than if the kids were taken to a straight wedding?

[Shapley]

Practice your religion freely but don't try to push it on me when I tell you that I don't want to hear it. Don't try to infuse our laws with your religious beliefs so that it negates the beliefs of other citizens or forces us to hear an equal amount of time of listening to sermons of your faith. I want a society that allows us to practice our own secular or non-secular faiths/beliefs without having to deal with yours in a manner that is cumbersome to either of us. Hmmm.....let me believe what I want without you trying to convince me that your position is better or that mine is flawed. Is this simple enough?

Are you saying that laws that run counter to Catholic teachings do not do to Catholics exactly what you are suggesting Catholics are doing to you? Or is this some sort of one-way street?

[OperaTenor]

Yo Shap, show where in the Bible homosexuality is wrong.

Here's a hint: Be careful traipsing through Leviticus.

[Serenity]

[OperaTenor]

Serenity, feel free to edit in "based on their erroneous religious beliefs", at least as far as Christians are concerned.

Jews too, for that matter.

[Shapley]

Yo Shap, show where in the Bible homosexuality is wrong.

Here's a hint: Be careful traipsing through Leviticus.

It predates Leviticus. You do now the root of the word 'sodomy', don't you?

Which leads us to why homosexual marriage is wrong. As you may know, in Christian marriage, there are two parts to marriage - the ceremony and the consummation. Consummation requires an act which, when performed by other than a man and a woman, constitutes an act of sodomy. If the Church sanctions marriage between persons other than a man and a woman, it necessarily has to sanction sodomy. No can do.

V/R
Shapley

[OperaTenor]

I get it. You need to reread that story. It wasn't about homosexuality, it was about inhospitality.

I keep forgetting you're a fundamentalist, Shap.

[Shapley]

It wasn't about homosexuality, it was about inhospitality.

Which is why, to this day, we refer to an inhospitable person as a 'sodomite'...

I keep forgetting you're a fundamentalist, Shap.

And I keep forgetting you're a revisionist.....

[Serenity]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfZaI1o1 ... re=related

Leper Messiah

Spineless from the start, sucked into the part
Circus comes to town, you play the lead clown
Please, please
Spreading his disease, living by his story
Knees, knees
Falling to your knees, suffer for his glory
You will

Time for lust, time for lie
Time to kiss your life goodbye
Send me money, send me green
Heaven you will meet
Make a contribution
And you'll get a better seat
Bow to Leper Messiah

Marvel at his tricks, need your Sunday fix
Blind devotion came, rotting your brain
Chain, chain
Join the endless chain
Taken by his glamour
Fame, Fame
Infection is the game, stinking drunk with power
We see

Time for lust, time for lie
Time to kiss your life goodbye
Send me money, send me green
Heaven you will meet
Make a contribution
And you'll get a better seat
Bow to Leper Messiah

Bow to Leper Messiah
Witchery, weakening
Sees the sheep are gathering
Set the trap, hypnotize
Now you follow

Time for lust, time for lie
Time to kiss your life goodbye
Send me money, send me green
Heaven you will meet
Make a contribution
And you'll get a better seat
Bow to Leper Messiah

Lie.

[Shapley]

I know there are several instances of controversy in our society such as homosexuality, abortion, stem cell research, creationism, etc. Let's discuss this proposition in California but let me point out my ignorance on the issue. I don't know specific history on the proposition and I am a casual observer, which means, I don't particularly have strong feelings on either side of the issue. But, I feel that it is unfair to deny benefits to people that consider themselves a couple even though the majority of society does not consider them a couple based on their religious beliefs. I feel it is unfair to deny a gay couple the right to adopt a child based on their sexual orientation because my religious views tell me their relationship is weird or wrong or "not right". I think it is wrong to deny "death benefits" to the surviving half of "a couple" when the other half has passed away. I, personally, am not gay nor do I understand what it means to be gay, but when someone points their finger at me and declares me "wrong" I point the finger back at them and say "No, I think you are wrong. Please explain why my existence is wrong and if we disagree then leave me be and let's co-exist as best we can because I believe my existence is right."

First of all, I must point out that you are assuming that everyonve who voted in favour of the measure did so for religious reasons. There are likely those who voted on purely political reasons, financial reasons, or perhaps simply out of a secular dislike for the concept of homosexual marriages. Religious persons are not the only ones who hold that viewpoint.

Second of all, the measure only preserves the status-quo. Until a recent court ruling, such a measure was not necessary, because the unions were not allowed under prior law.

Third, civilization, over the course of thousands of years, has developed mores and codes of conduct that are believed to be conducive to the advance of civil society. As civilation grows and advances, those codes may fade away, change, or otherwise be modified. Sometimes those changes are not good for society, sometimes they are. However, the population has the right to decide when and how such changes are made. The effort to force the population to accept through judicial fiat that which has long been unacceptable is meeting with popular resistance. Heterosexual marriage has been sanctioned and supported by society for centuries because it has been deemed to be conducive to the function of society. There is no evidence to indicate that homosexual marriage has any societal benefit, and therefore no socially acceptable reason to sanction it. If it were simply a matter between the 'couple', then it would be of little consequence to society at large. However, societal sanction comes with a cost, and society has, at this point, found that cost (real or percieved) too high, so Americans have rejected the measure whereever it has been put before them for popular vote.

Perhaps, in time, this will change. However, the onus is on the supporters of the measure to explain what benefit to society can be derived in tearing down a several-thousand-year-old taboo. So far, the claim that 'they deserve the same rights as others' isn't cutting it. They have the same rights as other, unmarried, couples. They have lost nothing with this measure.

V/R
Shapley

[Shapley]

I get it. You need to reread that story. It wasn't about homosexuality, it was about inhospitality.

A similar story is told in chapter 19 of the Book of Judges.

[OperaTenor]

Are you arguing the Bible is a literal document?

[Shapley]

Are you arguing the Bible is a literal document?

Hardly. You are the one who asked for a location in the Bible in which it states that homosexuality is wrong. I merely provided what you asked for. I'm perfectly willing to accept that it may reside in the penumbras of the text.

I can't read Hebrew, so I cannot attest to the accuracy of the wording of our English translations of the scripture.

In my Bible, the passage is as follows:

And they called Lot, and said to him: Where are the men that came in to thee at night? bring them out hither, that we may know them:
vocaveruntque Loth et dixerunt ei ubi sunt viri qui introierunt ad te nocte educ illos huc ut cognoscamus eos

Lot went out to them, and shut the door after him, and said:
egressus ad eos Loth post tergum adcludens ostium ait

Do not so, I beseech you, my brethren, do not commit this evil.
[i[nolite quaeso fratres mei nolite malum hoc facere[/i]

I have two daughters who, as yet, have not known man; I will bring them out to you, and abuse you them as it shall please you, so that you do no evil to these men, because they are come in under the shadow of my roof.
habeo duas filias quae necdum cognoverunt virum educam eas ad vos et abutimini eis sicut placuerit vobis dummodo viris istis nihil faciatis mali quia ingressi sunt sub umbraculum tegminis mei

I have merely provided what you ask for, and now you challenge me for doing so?

I"m trying to keep the conversation suitable for general audiences, but it is a difficult subject matter. We, as Catholics, believe that homosexuality is wrong, specificaly male homesexuality, because the acts it entails are both merely self-gratifiying and non-hygienic. It entails 'wasting one's seed', which is considered to be sinful. These statements do not require a literal translation of the Bible to support them.

[OperaTenor]

Anal rape has a long history as a tool of subjugation of the vanquished. It is credibly argued that that is the case in this passage. Additionally, it was Hebrew law at the time to admit strangers and give them food or lodging as they require. Sodom had made a law to end this practice as a means of hoarding their wealth. Lot was acting in defiance of that law, and the soldiers were there to exercise their authority, in so doing intended to anally rape the visitors.

Hence, this is not about homosexuality, at least as not as much as it is about inhospitality.

It's all there, in the context of that passage.

[Shapley]

Anal rape has a long history as a tool of subjugation of the vanquished. It is credibly argued that that is the case in this passage. Additionally, it was Hebrew law at the time to admit strangers and give them food or lodging as they require. Sodom had made a law to end this practice as a means of hoarding their wealth. Lot was acting in defiance of that law, and the soldiers were there to exercise their authority, in so doing intended to anally rape the visitors.

Hence, this is not about homosexuality, at least as not as much as it is about inhospitality.

It's all there, in the context of that passage.

Lot offered his daughters to satisfy the men's lust. Why would he do this if their lust was not the motivation behind the attack. As I've said, we have adopted the word 'Sodomy' to describe certain acts associated with the ancient city of Sodom. Josephus describes the men's lust for Lot's visitors as bringing down the wrath of God.

But this has been argued for centuries, and we shant resolve it here. I have offered my statement, and you, your rebuttal. You have no more support for your view than I have for mine, and I am not trying to convert you to my cause, nor should you try to convert me to yours. I have provided what was asked, and explained my position. There is nothing further to be gained, and this discussion really should be in the "debate" area, in any case.

V/R
Shapley

[OperaTenor]

We also believed the Earth was flat for centuries.

[Shapley]

We also believed the Earth was flat for centuries.

I didn't.

I stated earlier, in my response to Serenity, that it is necessary for those proponents of homosexual marriage to show that there is some societal benefit to support changing 200+ years of American legal precedent against it. They have yet to make that case. The argument now is merely a selfish desire on their part to force 'acceptance' of a lifestyle most Americans find abhorrent. Thus far, they are not winning that arguement on the popular front, as the recent vote in California clearly shows.

V/R
Shapley