A Serious WAY Off Topic Question

Actually this may work out well in the end. We've often wondered howw to use our techpoints and tossed around the idea of a pub night where we all meet on some place, probably in the US somewhere for some drinks and a good BS session.

Well the way we are going, maybe we can all meet in ahell for a good chuckle. I don't think it would be THAT bad a place, all my friends will be there, probably my cat and I can watch my former employers sizzle on the barbeque as we tip a few.

If there are any goody goodies that slipped one day, we can give them our amassed tech points and they can but thier way into heaven and leave us to enjoy ourselves instead.

Actually, the more people I see condemned to eternal damnation, the more I think hell will be heaven. If everyone goes to hell why would I want to go to heaven?

I had a gay neighbour who was a successful stand up comedian. He had minor fits of epilepsy and drowned in the bathtub one day while his hubby was at work. (Why was he in the damn bath then? We asked that too, what a nutter). He used to tell those as his gay dinsosuar jokes and I'm sure he would be flattered that someone was still amused.

Side note: Funny enough but his widowed husband said he could never love another man, or woman. His eart was with Abe and that's it. I guess homosexuality really is an inner feeling just like a man has for a woman and not just superficial or decided.

This may also be a subconcious reason I am so defensive of the gay lifestyle. I was going to say this is off topic but the thread's changed so much I forgot that it WAS the topic!

Cheers,
OM

lol :-)

It is either past my bedtime or I need to run out for a few.

In the context of these off-topic discussions, "flaming" means making derogatory remarks about the character of the person who has made a posting, as distinct from criticising the content of the actual posting.

So that your comment: "I don't wish to criticise anyone, because I don't think that would be right. But you say jul646 is the first person to use the word "perversion" in this discussion.
Well "perversion" has many meanings, and here is a definition of "perverse" from my dictionary:"

This does not constitute "flaming" because it is a legitimate comment on the content of the posting, but without casting aspersions on either myself or Maxwell Edison.

"Flaming" has been getting quite out of hand lately, and we are all trying to avoid slipping off into this destructive tangent.

TechRepublic is also policing the discussions to be on the lookout for such behaviour. Quite recently, two or three new members who criticised either individuals, or the TechRepublic website, had their membership cancelled for refusing to desist from these kinds of comments.

Some long-standing members have also been warned by TechRepublic that they risk having their memberships cancelled if they don't desist from the practice of "flaming."

I do not like to say simply "Catholic" as this has a particular meaning which has nothing to with religion:

catholic / adj.
1 of interest or use to all; universal.
2 all-embracing; of wide sympathies or interests (has catholic tastes).

However put a capitol letter on the word and still, in my dictionary, it refers specifially if not exclusinely to the Roman Catholic Church -- the mother church from which other denominations of Christianity evolved.

n. (Catholic) a Roman Catholic.

It is my opinion that this Church invents doctrines, which are not supported by the Bible, to suit its own agenda.

For example: infallibilty of the Pope, and mandatory celibacy for priests and nuns, are doctrines that are relatively recent and cannot be supported by passages from the Bible.

In the New Testament, divorce is a definite no-no, as it is condemned by Jesus, and also the Apostles in the various epistles.

However I have learned from people I have encountered that "annulment" can be and is readily available at the discretion of the Priest/Bishop etc. The only grounds for an annulment in my book would be non-consummation of the marriage. But this would apply equally to a civil marriage.

...what if there was a religion that endorsed homosexuals? I am not implying any orgy, cult or tribal behaviour. Just a small sect/religion, that acknowledged that homosexuals could marry? Would that be ok in your eyes?

I don't believe in Christianity, but respect your belief in it. So, I don't want to dwell deeper into that subject. Otherwise, we both would just end up revealing more of our stupidities, to the merry of the onlookers :-)))))

Long time back I saw a documentary or something, that discussed this issue briefly. Googling revealed that there are several studies and research works on this area. Well, we now know why there are so many majors and minor subjects in the colleges :-)))

I know your post was to elicit a laugh or a smile..

It has been quite a lively discussion since my opening post.

I have noticed the firey (sp) response to my beliefs. I did my best to focus on the subject matter and yet was still personally attacked by some.

I know that my 'view' seems harsh, one sided, "blind", whatever; but it the basis of our views that seperate us. Because of certain presuppositions on both sides there is no way that I can change your view, or you, mine.

I stand on the fact that God has created all things and has set forth their workings. His son, Jesus Christ came to this earth to pay the price that we may be reunited in a holy relationship with our Creator. God determines right from wrong, God judges and convicts or pardons, God is the Alpha (beginning) and the Omega (ending).

Because of my relationship with Him, I desire to become more like Him, to draw closer, to please, and to fulfill His direction in my life.

I have studied his condemnation of homosexuality, not the homosexual person; for if God did not love them, He would not have sent His Son to rescue them. Understand that He came to save us all for "...we all have fallen short of the Glory of God." and "... there are none righteous, NO NOT ONE ..." but "... He came to seek and to save those who are lost ...".

OZ, you seem to be an imperialistic person. You have to have you supporting information in cold hard binary. Well, I am sorry but that just isn't going to happen. This is a matter of the soul/heart; what one chooses to believe or reject.

For me to be right would mean that all man kind is responsible to an Ultimate authority, that we are doomed until repentant, are devoid of eternal value without God, and will be judged for our choices.

It is easy to reject that.

But what most fail to comprehend, although it hardly can be otherwise from the outsie, is the unbelievable life change that God makes within a person, the comfort and assurance, the solitude, the freedom, the joy, .... could go on for eternity; and I will. :)

So without this change in foundation, our views will be forever divergent.

It is because of this standard, that the Originator of our very existance has erected, that I cannot support the homosexual 'lifestyle' nor the conferring of priveleges God has ordained for marriage upon homosexual pairs.

What we believe shapes everything we do; be it monumental or trivial. This applies to much more than "religion" (term commonly used hear), but any thing we hold as fact or truth. Faith is an integral part of all human beings. Now this faith can be shaped and directed in many ways. We have faith that a chair will hold us; unconscious, but a result of conditioning. Faith is defined in Hebrews as "... the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of the things not seen ...". Therefore, some place their faith upon themselves, those things that they see, or something otherwise affirming.

My faith is in Jesus Christ. His love for all sent Him to die an unjust death. He indured our punishment and paid our price that we might be cleansed and restored.

It is by His love that I love each and everyone on this forum; black/white, homo/heterosexual, honest/lier, left/right handed, even OZ. It does not matter. I pray for every person that Christ be made manifest in their life. I desire only the eternal best for all men. This same love also desires that all men be kept from those things Christ has defined as detrimental and wrong. This is the classic "Love the sinner, refuse the sin" that the unredeemed cannot fully comprehend.

My heart aches and fears over this issue. Throughout history it has signalled the comming downfall of nations and the eradication of two cities.

Strong families, as defined by God, make a strong nation. Families are the foundation on which communities, cities, states, and nations are built. Most social issues today can be traced back to the family. In sociatal history, when the family is broken, so is the society. Interestingly enough, the destruction of the family from the 60s to the present has brought with it the most enormous increase in sociatal problems.

So, to sum up may not be necessary as my views have been clearly stated; but to fulfill my title:

1) Protect marriage
2) Disallow marriage priveleges to homosexual pairs
3) Protect families (foundation of our society)
4) Protect our Nation throught family protection

Thank you,

"But what most fail to comprehend, although it hardly can be otherwise from the outsie, is the unbelievable life change that God makes within a person, the comfort and assurance, the solitude, the freedom, the joy, .... could go on for eternity; and I will"

I've had a moment of understanding that I feel so priovaledged to have experienced it has given me complete comfort in life without wondering what happens afterwards. I live with a great inner peace and comfort. People comment all the time how onfident I seem and at ease with myself and those around me. I truly have seen the light, it wasn't a religious light though. I live everyday to it's fullest and enjoy every second of the world around me, nothing fascinates me more than the nature that is in my area, comepletely oblivious to man's messed up world around them.

I see sights everyday that others have only seen on TV or in the movies, I live right in the middle of it and see it as a privaledge that I can enjoy.

How does my life lack in that it would be better by finding faith in Christ? (you don't have to answer that please) If anything I think it would be detrimental to myself as I would always question what I am being told to have faith in.

So you sit in your corner and love the world around you and I'll do the same in my corner.

Is one of us wrong? Of course not.
Will one of us be proven wrong? Of course not.
Will we both live life to it's fullest? Yes.
Will we both make the most out of our lives? Yes.

Do I need YOUR faith in order to live this way? Of course not.

Julian,

Getting an annulment in the Catholic Church is a VERY involved process.

In the 70's through the early 90's, the US Catholic Bishops did open up the process quite a bit. In the 80's, it was a fairly easy task to get an annulment. In the mid 90's, the Bishops tightened up the process again.

You are correct that not consummating a marriage is grounds for an annulment. Aside from that, the petitioner needs to prove one of 2 things:

1. The marriage was never recognized in the eyes of the Church.

2. The marriage was not proper and should not have been recognized by the church.

When the Catholic Church grants an annulment, it basically states that the marriage NEVER existed.

Should a couple decide to end a Catholic marriage, they are allowed to separate, and even divorce. The problem comes up should either partner decide that they wish to have a different partner.

To further complicate things, the Catholic Church teaches that the only reason for sexual relations is pro-creation. ANY sex act that does not include the possibility of pro-creation is considered to be sinful. So, a Catholic is going against Church rules if they use condoms, birth control pills, or have any surgical fertility procedure that is NOT for medical reasons.

Chas

thank you for the recent posts and to say-that this was a good discussion-top to bottom.
The initial goal of mrafrohead was to hear from all people; the discussion was just that: From all people, for all people, and by all people.

It came to here: to agree to disagree; to discuss without malice and flames.

That is what the goal is- a true open forum.
You may reply to-
boxwood.3@netzero.com

...you forget Sports :-))))))))))

Women and Boozen are fine. But are'nt we going to get bored watching others roasting, we need some Sports. Ofcourse, for half-time shows we switch off the cable and watch the show in Hell.

1. An annulment is precisely a divorce upon fornication as mentioned in Mt 19:9, i.e. a certification that you were not really married. In Hebrew it is called something like "get 'al znuth", and Jesus said it was the only divorce after which one could really remarry.
2. Clerical celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine. There are many married men who have become priests while their wives were still alive; I think about half of Byzantine-rite priests are married; when a cleric of certain Protestant sects, e.g. Anglicanism, becomes a Catholic there is a fast-track to Catholic ordination open to him, and his marriage does not stand in the way. It is important to distinguish between doctrines and discipline.

Who should be more scared about that comment???

Me or you??? ;p

I vote you. hehahahahah

Because had I had the choice of being someone other than myself, I'd probably do it, because sometimes I scare even myself...

The odd part though, is that I have been thinking that too. Even before you posted it... **start twilight zone music now**

mrafrohead ;p

You said if you had the chance you'd probably think twice about being you again.

Everyone throughout a persons life will compare you to someone else. You even get the "you should be more like..." and "Why can't you be like..." but in every case, I've found something about the person I didn't want to adopt.

I think that I constantly amaze myself and laugh at myself too. I've made some REALLY stupid mistakes, I've had some ground breaking ideas and done some pretty wonderful things in my time too.

I've hated myself and I've loved myself. In the end though, I've always been there for me and can always rely on me. I would never let myself down.

So, given another chance, I wouldn't change a thing, it may be better or it may be worse but it's been one hell of a ride so far.
I've seen and done things that those 'I should be more like' would never do or get to see and I would do it all over again exactly the same, or else I just wouldn't become me and that would REALLY suck.

Per the teaching of most Christian religions, polygamy is a sin.

I can't quote chapter and verse, but there is a story where Jesus did voice out against polygamy.

He stopped and talked with a woman and they talked about her husband. Jesus reminded her that she had several husbands and admonished her for that.

Chas

well, I the Bible is available to all at cost
from- www.abs.org
The american bible society is non-denominational and has the catholic version, as well as, newer protestant versions in easy-to-read languages from all over the world. [you may wish to direct this question to them, also] as far as other books of other faiths, if you feel that God is leading you to those, that is your choice. but you need to ask God with a sincere heart if He does in fact want to to read these books. this is not a subject to make fun of but a serious, personal prayer to God to find out who He is and what he would like you to do. and He will lead you in the right direction. I hope that this helps you.

This Bible story is in the old testament and abraham was not a disciple but was chosen by God for leading Israel. abraham and sarah could not have any children and sarah grew very old, sad that she was childless. God finally blessed her with a son and that was GREAT! One day God asked abraham to take his son and go and build an altar.
abraham did what God told him to do, took his son with him up a mountain and built the altar. Isaac said," Father, where is the animal for the sacrifice?" and Abraham said, " God will provide this for us." abraham trusted in God so much that he followed what God said and didn't know that his faith would endure the ultimate test! God said to bind up isaac and put him on the altar and abraham obeyed God. now this was their ONLY SON, and still abraham obey God. as abraham went to light the fire, God called to abraham not to do this but to look behind him. and, there, caught in a bush, was a ram. God then told abraham to unloosen the ties on Isaac and to use the ram for a sacrafice instead. it really is a beautiful story because, for example, I don't think that i could take one of my daughters and follow and trust God to do this! but then again, i know that if God did ask me to do this then he would have a reason and give me the strenth to follow Him. so one meaning is the test of faith that God gave abraham to prepare him as a leader of Israel. and God rewarded abraham, too, because he told him that his children ,"...would be as many as the sand on the shore." that has , as you all know, occurred with the jews today all over the world.
there is another meaning that attaches to the New Testament- God so loved the world that while we were yet still sinners , He gave his only Son.
SO, God' s son, Jesus, was the ulltimate and final sacrifice for each and every person.
this is a fine example of how the Bible interperts itself. God is INDEED a very loving God so, no, he did not let Isaac die, but Isaac lived and both were obedient to God. there are commentaries in Bible book stores that help one understand more and give other passages in the Bible that explain what your are reading-cross references, it you will. but the chief thing is to get a copy that you can understand, in a version that you can read easily. then as you go along, you can see things kind of connect-but then God helps you, too. I still read and read the Bible and always something that I forgot or didn't stand out to me before, becomes fresh. God will help your read it- you just need to ask Him. I hope that this answers your question- you can always e-mail me privately if you have alot of questions as you go along-boxwood.3@netzero.com
thanks for your question- i really like that story.

I had a user at one company that was forever asking me to help with his PDA bible software.

It would crash when he backed it up then he loaded a bunch of shareware and got nothing but problems with his main focus being recovering his PDA bible.

I've spent hours saving that bible and have never actually read a word of it, perhaps some people need it in written form only. Unfortunately this guy was a toy collector that was forever screwing them up.

oz-I have the purchased version of NIV BIble o the palm itself. i bought it a couple of years ago and used it with the previos version of palm reader. no problems. the newer palmreader pro is on the palm since 2 weeks ago and the NIV Bible works well with that reader , too.
I DL another version ASV BIBLE and the linking daily reading guide and installed on the palm last month. because i wanted more space on the palm, i put it later on the 32 mb card. [they say that the application should be on the palm and the data or books, etc can be on the card. but this is not alwas consistant.] when i moved the daily reading guide to the card, it crashed. so i put it back on the palm and it crashed, too. i had to remove it all and reinstall on the palm itself. now for the adobe reader for palm- that app is on the card along with the books.

Well I assume you've all heard by now that sae sex marriage has been approved in Oregon.

What's I found funny was that the news was reported with the same excitement and format as the 911 reports, the day of the attacks.

"well, we are standing here outside the courthouse, and you can see there are several 'gay and lesbian' couples lined up already, now lets go back to Les Nesman who is standing by in the studio with a LIVE gay person".

Is this really a breaking news story? I am amazed that such a ridiculously incorrect and archaic issue has become such a media target.

They say people live in the past, I am starting to think I've been living in the future and just got sent back 20 years.

First, I fully agree with Chas. There are 2 sides of this issue. One being civil/legal and the other based on specific religious endocrines. According to the law of the land these issues are supposed to be separate. Since that's the case the government should only be involved in the civil or legal aspect of it. In America all people are supposed to have the same legal/civil rights. If that's true, civil unions shouldn't be based on gender.

I personally feel homosexuality is abnormal. But I'm not in charge of or don't decide what's normal for others.

Because of the fact that gays are PEOPLE they have rights (no more or less than anyone else). You mentioned about gays being assaulted. It?s illegal to attack (cut with a knife) another person, period. So there isn't any need for changes the existing law just needs to be applied. It's illegal to discriminate against people, period. Again there's no need for new laws. In a situation where an officer of the law turned the other way as any person was being attacked he too would be breaking the law or at least be guilty of not performing his duty to protect and serve. Either way he should be fired.

The struggle of women and minorities in this country were because of what they were not what they liked to do. So the comparison to what gays have experienced isn?t the same. Let?s be real here, homosexuality is a preference; regardless of what leads to this decision it's a CHOICE. A gay person could wake up one day and decide to change this lifestyle. In fact in most situations they don't have to let anyone know their sexual preference. There's no way for a person to change the color of their skin or unless surgically altered a woman is a woman. To compare the problems gays have had to racial and gender discrimination is a mockery of the struggle that these groups went through.

Yes gay people have been treated horribly at times but other than the specific laws concerning sexual conduct and marriage all of it has been illegal based on the rights that they already have as American citizens. The most that gays should fight for is protection under the existing laws as written.

which, in Christian terminology are probably promptings from the Holy Spirit:

"John 4:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you."

The Old Testament is indeed difficult to understand, especially for a beginner. I recommend that you read Matthew Chapters 5, 6 and 7. This clearly outlines Jesus's teachings about both ethical and spiritual matters.

John, thank you for your post-you are correct in saying that it is unusual to have a dream, etc. I stated the ,"ask God..." in a perhaps a rather too simplistic way. in some experiences that i have known, when a person does ask God where should i start or what should i read, God sometimes allows one of the practices that you mentioned (Christian acts of kindness, etc) to take place or a another person to come into the questioner's life and speak about Jesus. Then, though reading the Bible, God does indeed show each individual more.
I agree with you, too, that living examples of others- what they say and do, help immensely to leading a person to God. BTW, I did forget about mentioning the Gideons Int'l whose work of placing a Bible in every hotel room & in each person's hand , is marvelous. They are highly respected and non-denominational with a goal of just asking a person to read the Word of God for themselves.

You made some interesting points Julian. I have been involved in a lon relationship with an Ismaeli Muslim girl. Although born in Africa, she is of Pakistani decent. Many religious problems came into play when it came to us talking about marriage but both of us knew that even if I was cool with having an indian wedding, the people of the church would talk.

Out of respect to her family and those of her church we've just ecome the closest of friends.

We were able to accept our differences in our beliefs, I even accept many views from her religion just as I believe in many Christian values.

Her parents, although outwardly accepting of the idea, were internally noy happy with the idea. They say they accepted it but I know they would rather I was Muslim and they didn't feel I believed thier religious veiws.

So I would say they had 'forced interest' in myself and were not truly accepting of what I believed.

In the end, we all TRY to be politically correct, we all TRY to be accepting of others, we all TRY to accept other religions. Do we though?

Had stepped away from this topic for a while.

But ... wow.

To be truely Hell, the TVs would only show infomercials, the beer would be warm flat american, the girls would all look like Rosie O'D. and be just as "friendly". Hell is where they send you for punishment, nothing you would enjoy.

For Oz hell would be him in the same room with GWB and his most adamant fans, but Oz would be unable to talk or anything else but listen, for enternity.

Marriage is like a Horse with a broken leg.
You can shoot the Horse
But that don't fix the leg.

Well, I was born in a pub/brewery, things in hell would change, no American pee in a bottle.

GWB would be daily entertainment, listening to all the followers prey and bow daily would be a good giggle. Mind you, in hell I could hold my own election and just kick the little wankers ass and be done with it, out of my face no more GWB, NEXT!!!

But judging by those who wil also be condemed to hell and the reasons they'd be there, I'd buy a ticket for sure. I bet you could even scalp hell passes in heaven just so people could escape the monotonous 'harp'ing about the clouds.

What would be amusing is all the prudes who slipped up somewhere along the way and end up in hell, what a shocker they'd have.

You see, if I go to hell, I am going to be in god company. If I go to heaven, I hear it's a good place, maybe boring but nice at least.
I have no shock coming to me.

Now those people who spent thier WHOLE lives choosigna specific religion may all find out it was Bhuddism all along and they will be in for one heck of a let down on the big day. They will be cast into eternal peril and will have to set aside all thier former beliefs and start being more open. I prefer to leave all the doors open and let destiny decide.

Another thing I am thinking is that all the time I have had Christianity FORCED down my throat during my life has been enough for any man to reject it, that's not how to get a believer. If you force yourself upon the opposite sex, do you REALLY think you're gonna get some? You'd think they would have found a more logical way to spread the word.

Now if they are ALL rightt and are watching hell from the clouds of heaven, do I REALLY want to be there? "See, I told you so, we were right", "look, there's another one burning away, I told them but did they believe me NOOOOOOOOO!", "Quick, there's another, I told you I was right, yup, up here in heaven right again" SHUT UUUUUUUUUUPPP!!!!

I don't need an eternity of that. Fill me with liquor and light a match, play some Purple Haze and let me light up the night sky.

I think you have the wrong concept of Hell. It is not going to be a place to go and party with the other sinners. It is a place of punishment and torment. The Demons of Hell are not going to laugh and play with you, they are going to skin you alive then put the skin back on and do it again. Think of what happens on a Gay honeymoon, that is what they are going to do to you, but with no lube. Have you ever been in pain before? With your accident I guess yes. Imagine it 1000 times worse then 1000 times worse, with no end in sight. Eternity is a looooong time. There are some who belive that you will be consumed in the fire, snuffed out, gone forever. But not right away.

I don't think Buddist belive in Heaven so I won't see many there.

The people in Heaven will not look down on anyone in Hell, they will not be able to see it, it is sin and Heaven and sin are as far apart as east and west.

I usually don't bother to fix istakes but the following grammatical error reads wrong.

"... and no Christian or homosexual couples to be 'coupled' or whatever..."

Should read "...and no NON-Christian or homosexual couples..."

Well, if I believed in heaven and hell, and also had been told THAT I would be pretty darn religious myself!

I think your reference to a gay honey moon was rude crude VERY uncalled for and inappropriate to say the very least. Hey, it's not your thing and it isn't mine, but don't be comparing a gay honeymooon to life in hell ("Life in Hell" was where the Simpsons began in Vancouver's "Georgia Straight" weekly music news).

But I agree, if I believed in heaven and hell, I'd be pushing for heaven and praying every day. As you DO believe in these two eternal places and not the possibility of reincarnation, prepetual energy etc., I would definitely recommend looking to go for heaven.

My point is, IF I am judged, which I don't believe I will be, IF I am cast into hell, which apparently those that know nothing say I will be, then "Hell aint a bad place to be". One thing's for sure, if I'M there, there's gonna be good times to be had.

I addressed the need for a definition in my original post-marriage was defined by many of us in this dicussion as meaning one man and one woman. so, yes, a word like 'union' or 'coupled' could then be used side by side with the word 'marriage'.
you are also right, as i addressed previously, that this issue is regarding the gov't and benefits and NOT religion. i said that there are 3 issues- 1. moral/religion 2. govt and 3. money/benefits. now to repeat that again- #1 issue is a matter of church/ religion to which each person is free to choose to belong and their religion has a yes or no to homosexual marriage. 9 each person is free NOT to choose a church or religion, too.)but the real issue that is the whole point here is -the gov't and social security. etc being extended to other "unions". and this , of course, involves money to pay for the greater expense of extended benefits.
I agree that Oz, puttting the original question back to everyone, is pointing out this again. Maybe now there needs to be a simple yes or no-type to the gov't question. HERE ARE 2 SAMPLE QUESTIONS FOR OUR BALLOT HERE:
1.SHOULD THE GOV'T ALLOW PERSONS OF THE SAME SEX TO LEGALLY BE COUPLED OR TO BE A LEGAL UNION?
[YES OR NO]
2. SHOULD THE GOVT ALLOW 'UNIONS' OR 'COUPLED PERSONS' TO RECEIVE EXTENDED BENEFITS FROM THEIR PARTNER'S SOCIAL SECURITY, HEALTH AND MEDICAL, ETC?
[ WITH THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE STAYING THE SAME AND THE DEFINITION OF UNIONS OR COUPLED PERSONS MEANING SAME SEX UNIONS}?

[YES OR NO]

[OZ-YOU COULD MAKE A FORM FOR A BALLOT SOMEWHERE- LIKE A POLL. Is this what you had in mind for the point of the discussion?]

I have not responded to this question as it is not one that can be shown, explained, or defined well or clearly.

I could start with here is this and that, and would soon be told that it is only my views. So that would go nowhere.

So, what I have decided to do is to "play the odds" in answering your question. Since Christianity is an all or nothing, they can be only right or wrong. Therefore that leaves us with the following:

Scenario 1:

You are right. God is not real, and one has the ability to choose as one pleases without eternal recourse. There is no worry of judgement, eternity, absolutes, etc. Party as you wish, live life to the fullest.

If one chooses a religion, fine. Live and let live. If we are wrong and the Catholics are right, then we can correct this in purgatory. If we are wrong and the reincarnationists are right, then we will try again next time.

Scenario 2:

Christians are right. God is real and does define absolutes. There will be judgement with eternal damnation or jubilation.

By choosing this relationship with God, Christians are spared from damnation and delivered unto eternal delight. Those who reject God will face the consequences therein.

Now, simply on a "playing the odds" level, which seems the better choice?

By "mutual masturbation" I meant simulated copulation. The latter expression is more used by biologists. In a sexual species, two individuals of the same sex cannot copulate, but in our species and some others they can in various ways simulate copulation. So, of course, can persons of different sexes and, if mutual masturbation is a sin, it is a greater sin when mixed-sex couples commit it, because mixed-sex couples have the option of copulation.

Having sex with someone is having sexual intercourse with that person and sexual intercourse is intersexual course and two people of the same sex cannot do anything intersexual.

This is what I see you are saying.

Christians couldn't care less if gays were considered married or coulped or whatever. Christians also don't care if THEY are considered married or coupled or whatever, it is just a word.

Christians just don't feel that gay people should have equal rights given to them by the government?

From what I've sen here, the ENTIRE issue is over the definition of 'MARRIAGE' as a coupling between a man and a woman. Therefore the term used IS the entire problem. Th egay community doesn't care if you see them as MARRIED, COUPLED or whatever, these people simply want to be treated equally as people that contribute to society. Now they may not procreate BUT there are enough homeless, downtrodden and orphaned children of 'heterosexual' couples in the world who simply couldn't live up to thier end of the bargain, that they can adopt and raise children (hetero or homosexual)to become contributing citizens of society.

if they are helping children by loving and teaching them, these kids will grow up to be more accepting of differences, understanding of others and generally better people than most. How is this not as much of a contribution to our society as a hetero sexual couple, one that may have children and leave the responsibility for someone else to raise?

If you can give me a single VALID reason WHY homosexual couples should NOT have equal rights to others, I will accept your opinion.

How odd to see terms like "abnormal," "perversion," and "give in" from a writer who seems to genuinely feel that he is going out of his way to be tolerant. This is pretty much how equal job and educational opportunities for women were regarded 40 years ago. "Well all right, for the loudmouths who insist that they can't feel 'fulfilled' unless we let them do something besides the incredibly important and rewarding responsibilities of raising our children and cooking our meals." And how inter-racial marriage was regarded sixty years ago. "The fact that somebody could even consider dating a person of another race -- much less marrying one -- speaks volumes about the failure of their parents to teach them proper moral values in this era of excess permissiveness. Throw out those subversive books by Benjamin Spock and Sigmund Freud and go back to the truths that we've been handing down for thousands of years."

It's the good old argument from the days of my grandparents: "Everybody knows that [fill in the blanks] is right. It's ridiculous to waste our time discussing it, much less debating it -- as if our own grandparents could actually have been wrong!"

I have a suggestion: Next time you compose a posting, leave it sit for an hour. Then come back and look at it with fresh eyes. Remove all the words that are judgmental, biased, and mean-spirited. Then post what's left.

Shot? so quick, so clean an ending?
Oh that was right, lad, that was brave:
Yours was not an ill for mending,
'Twas best to take it to the grave.

Oh you had forethought, you could reason,
And saw your road and where it led,
And early wise and brave in season
Put the pistol to your head.

Oh soon, and better so than later
After long disgrace and scorn,
You shot dead the household traitor,
The soul that should not have been born.

Right you guessed the rising morrow
And scorned to tread the mire you must:
Dust's your wages, son of sorrow,
But men may come to worse than dust.

Souls undone, undoing others, --
Long time since the tale began.
You would not live to wrong your brothers:
Oh lad, you died as fits a man.

Now to your grave shall friend and stranger
With ruth and some with envy come:
Undishonoured, clear of danger,
Clean of guilt, pass hence and home.

Turn safe to rest, no dreams, no waking;
And here, man, here's the wreath I've made:
'Tis not a gift that's worth the taking,
But wear it and it will not fade.

By: Alfred Edward Houseman

What part of your reply would make me take an interest in your book ? Not a very good sales/marketing approach.

How SEX is defined in a book and how it is defined iby society differ.

You were referring to the need of sexual penetration in order for 'having sex to be considered 'having Sex'. If I am wrong in this, please correct me.

There isn't a sex cousellor, marriage counsellor or WOMAN in the world who will agree that in order ot have sex, they need penetration.

Book SCHMOOK, how about a taste of reality instead. Close the book open the eyes and ears, the world isn't a book, if it was, we'd all be millionaires married to beautiful people and living on a sec;uded island.

Books are fine and interesting, then there's reality.

Contradicting what I would like to believe? Knee jerk reaction? Instead of talking third person, I am here, why don't you adress me instead of others?

that those who are Married (heterosexuals), and only have sex with their spouse, need not worry about STD, protection, etc.

If homosexuallity is just another "lifestyle", why all the excess baggage?

Those who are Homosexual with all the excess baggage where to remain with a single partner over their entire lifetime they also would experience very little likelihood of any STD's.

But like most people who have at the very least a few sexual partners over their life time the chances are greater of contracting an STD. After all why should the Homosexual community be SO much different from the Heterosexual community?

Just how long does the average marriage last?

How many married people have outside LOVERS?

Unfortunately in the "Ideal" world none of this would happen but being a realist and living in this world you have to accept what can and does happen.

Anyway isn't it a falicty that HIV is a Homosexual thing? I personally thought that it had a higher incidence among the IV Drug user community and that it was nothing more than a media beat-up that HIV was only contracted by homosexuals. Now what was the name of that American movie that showed "The Girl Next Door" who contracted AIDS from a "Blood Transfusion?"

At least she went on in a positive manner and attempted to educate the rest of the American People who would listen that any one of them was susceptible to this disease with out their knowing it!

kind of makes you think doesn't it?

Col

I am sorry if you understood me to say that only Homosexuals contract HIV. Only a fool could spout such a proposition.

I was contrasting the ideal (Hetero Marriage, sex only with spouse) with the other.

HIV travels along many routes: drugs, medical mistake, sex, etc.

Fortunately, there are still many who abide by the ideal, it is not dead.

Boy, this is a can of worms we have opened. Some many topics that can be reached from this point; but I will digress in regard to brevity.

But on a side note, the abiltiy to stop AIDS has been known for 2000 years or more...

Ok, if you and your wife get regular checkups and have birth control in place (if chosen) you have no reason for protection.

Well neither do gay men, they are STILL going to get regular checkups just because they are more sexually health concious. Don't think that just because you and your wife have only shared each other that you cannot contract an STD, you are VERY wrong my friend. STD transmission doesn't rely on cheating or not being clean. Viruses can be contracted in MANY ways especially STD's. Married couples feel a certain 'false' immunity to STD's (while the risk is lowm it is not absent) and don't get tested. A gay couple knows better as they are more sexually aware, they will be tested regularly even if they are true to each other. Common sense, not neccessity. You can contract an STD and pass it to your partner no mater how loyal you are, stay clean and get checked regularly. I know you'll turn your nose up at such a comment but that's exactly why I don't see straght sex as the 'healthy'lifestyle.

How many couples actually get tested before getting married? A pure guess, maybe 25% at MOST?

Gay couples I would say is much closer to 90% +.

Who is leading the unhealthy lifestyle now?

Perhaps Colin was referring to the Frontal Lobotomy, not really electric but a way we used to deal with sexual differences of almost any 'unnatural' form.

Either way, I think the point he was making, in agreement to your own, was that we used to deal with what we considered sexual perversion by the most extreme methods and have since learned mroe about psychology and understand that these are not sexual abnormalities in people at all but merely sexual 'differences' that we must learn to accept in order to function as a society.

I may be completely wrong but that's my take.

But the main problem is that marriage just doesn't last like it did when our Grandparents where around. Divorce has been fairly prevalent depending on you're own age since at least my Parents day and maybe for the younger members here their Grandparents day.

You are hover right and I did think a very long time before putting a post into this topic.

Col