a portrait - Ellen DeGeneres

In message , Neil
Harrington writes

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...



But again, they have EXACTLY the same rights, the same "equal
protection under the law" as everyone else. The issue is whether they
should be given some new "right" that didn't exist before, and a
redefinition of "marriage" to mean something it didn't mean before. It
is this desire to corrupt the language, and to trash an important
concept in traditional values, that is bothersome.



You would have a stronger argument if you wanted to deny giving a gay
person a driver's license, except for business driving. I most States
driving is a privilege, not a civil right.

I'm not getting into any narrowly defined "civil rights." I'm saying that
homosexuals, generally speaking, should have exactly the same rights as
heterosexuals (or people with no sexual preference at all), and I would
include a driver's license among such rights.
I completely agree. Such rights include the right to participate in
medical decisions with a partner, the right to inherit from a life partner
and the right to visit a sick partner in a hospital, the right to co-won a
home and obtain a joint mortgage, and the right to be a co-tenant under a
lease. Did you notice I made a similar statement earlier.

The rights are exactly the same for all, yes. This is as it should be. No
need to create any special "rights" for any group, nor should that ever be
done. I'm glad we agree on this.

SO we can relax the recent restriction that some people put on the word
"marriage" in recent years. So all groups get the same rights.


--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2010050222410175249-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2010-05-02 21:39:14 -0700, tony cooper
said:

On Sun, 2 May 2010 21:03:49 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

You do know that "bigotry" is the obstinate or intolerant devotion to
one's own opinions and prejudices? Atheists who are intolerant of the
religious can be bigots.

Agreed.
I believe those of faith are free to worship as they please.

The gist of your rant was that the "betrayed" should abandon their
religion. If they want to continue to be a member of that religion,
even though that religion holds them to be wrong on this issue,
shouldn't they be free to worship as they please? Where is your
tolerance?

From my point of view they are free to choose either direction.
I have never encouraged anyone of faith to leave that faith. I have been
respectful of members of all faiths. If they inquire as to my faith, I
feel no shame in telling them I am an atheist. Some are dumbfounded at
such an admission and try to tell me the error of my ways, others are
understanding and respectful.
My point is, if there is an aspect of their religion which for whatever
reason is intolerant of an aspect of their life, they themselves cannot
deny, then they should consider a change. If they choose not to leave
their religion that is their choice. However that means they place a
higher value on that religion than their relationship, which makes me
question their level of commitment to that relationship.

For now it is the religions which lack the tolerance, and do their best to
influence the law makers in denying a group of our citizenry equal
protection under the law.


I find myself comfortable as an atheist, not having to favor one
religion over another.

So am I. However, I would never suggest to someone else that they
should leave their religion or question why they don't. That seems
exceedingly presumptious to me.

I would only suggest that move if the person in question is being
tormented by that religion and leaving the religion is the only action
which makes sense.

Makes sense to who? It doesn't make a damn bit of difference if it
makes sense or not to you. It's what makes sense to *them* that
counts.

If they value the relationship they are committed to, in the face of
disapproval from their religion, it should make sense to consider a
change. Whether they do, or not does not effect my life.

The hypocrisy of the whole thing is that we have the devoutly
religious who want the rest of us to do as they want, and then we have
the unreligious who want the religious people to change.

Half of the above statement I agree with. As far as the "unreligious", and
by that I am assuming you mean atheists, I can only speak for myself. I
have a distain for evangelizing whether for or against religion. My
skepticism came at an early age, and I am aware of the futility of
undermining the beliefs of those who are devoutly religious. My argument
is neither for, nor against religion. Mine is for religion to remain
outside the secular World.


I don't really see a difference between a bible-thumper who says "I
suggest you become religious" and a nonreligious person saying "I
suggest you leave your religion". They are both proselytizing.

Proselytizing evangelists are an annoyance regardless of what they are
selling. They are no different to the Billy Mays, or ShamWow guys of the
faith business.

But the ShamWow guy was entertaining! I've heard the product was actually
pretty ****ty, but I always got a kick out of that commercial.

That's the difference between ShamWow guys and proselytizing evangelists.


If individuals find themselves torn by what their religion is telling
them, perhaps they need to reevaluate things they once found important.
After all, nothing is, or should be immutable.

In most cases I think even religious people don't really let their religion
stand in the way of much. This seems to be especially true when it comes to
sex.

In message , Peter
writes
"Chris H" wrote in message
...
In message , Peter
writes
"Bill Graham" wrote in message news:4qKdnazoCqpXNkLW
...

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message news:K7OdnStD7r0
...





Boo ****ing hoo. You seem to believe that a religion should be a
malleable thing that should change this way or that according to
whatever is in vogue at the time. Assuming there really were such an
entity as the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God, you think He would feel
it that important to stay in fashion?


But they do change. Even the Bible has been rewritten several times
over the years. And no sects of Christianity have remained the same
over the years....They have all loosened up to accommodate the modern
mores.

Excuse me sir!
The Bible has not changed in over 5,000 years.

COMPLETE CRAP!!!!!!!!
The new testament is less than 2,000 years old.

The various councils and meetings of the Western Churches and Eastern
orthodox churches changed both testaments in the period 500-100 AD.

Hence the reason for (according to the Koran) that god sent another
prophet to correct things. Hence the Jews, Christians and Moslems
having a largely common book.

I have seen churches that are over 1000 years old with bible stories
carved in to the walls..... trouble is these are from books later
dropped from the Bible.

Then of course the Bible got translated.... there are many version of
the bible about. Not all have the same books in them. Not all the
worlds bibles are King James Bibles.

I was doing some research in to something the other day and discovered
that on "facts" many bibles differ. At one point the metals used for the
pillars of the temple down as bras, bronze or copper. And that was
three American Bibles in English... I wonder how many other variations
there are in other languages.

The Bible is a political document created around 500-1200 AD from
earlier books not withstanding all the changes and translations since.

Your tolerance for the belief of others is almost as underwhelming as
your ignorance and/or lack of veracity.

Anyone is free to believe what they like as a faith. I tolerate all
faiths etc. (even though most faiths do not tolerate others who do not
believe as they do as demonstrated above)

However: Re-writing history is not something I tolerate in anyone.

I have not argued with anyone's faith. However I will argue with the
ludicrous statement that the bible has not changed in over 5000 years...
Some parts are only just 1500 years old.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 03 May 2010 19:29:24 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

On Sun, 2 May 2010 22:48:31 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2010-05-02 22:31:53 -0700, tony cooper
said:

On Sun, 2 May 2010 21:03:49 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

You do? Who are these "upper echelon" people?

Where do you want to start? The Papacy, The College of Cardinals,

Get serious, Duck. Who has any idea of what the College of Cardinals
do except when its puff-of-smoke-time?

They play upper management to the diocese.

A Cardinal, in the Catholic church, is a level of the hierarchy of the
church. A Cardinal may be in charge of a diocese or an archdiocese.
All Cardinals are members of the College of Cardinals, but the College
is only convened on the death of a Pope or when the Pope summons them
for a consistory (a special meeting). That's a rare event.


Hoist on my own petard. I should not of capitalized the word

You mean you "should not HAVE capitalized the word [ . . . ]" :-)

"cardinal" above. The word is capitalized when it is used as part of
a title (Cardinal Jones or College of Cardinals) but not when it
refers to a job description.

Just so. The same principle applies to titles generally.

In message , Neil
Harrington writes

SO you are telling me it is correct to marry a 13 year old girl?

Men have certainly married 13-year-old girls, using "marriage" in the
correct and traditional meaning of that word. Whether it is "correct" in
some other sense to do that is irrelevant to the discussion.

No, God (in the form of a Christian Priest) has married men to 13 year
old girls... That was the Age of consent in England at one time. There
was a big debate when it went up from 12 and the Church wanted to keep
it at 12.

So what was condoned by God a couple of 100 years ago is now not just
illegal but a mortal sin (unless you are a Catholic :-)

The same applies to gay marriages. Especially as there are gay priests
in all Christian denominations these days (and still pedophiles in the
Catholic Church.)

There is no way out. Gay Marriages have been with us since the dawn of
time and accepted in most cultures even if not a main stream activity.
There has been a recent restriction by some to limit "marriage" to
partners of different sexes but the reality is there is no mandate to do
that.




--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
news

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...



But again, they have EXACTLY the same rights, the same "equal
protection under the law" as everyone else. The issue is whether they
should be given some new "right" that didn't exist before, and a
redefinition of "marriage" to mean something it didn't mean before. It
is this desire to corrupt the language, and to trash an important
concept in traditional values, that is bothersome.



You would have a stronger argument if you wanted to deny giving a gay
person a driver's license, except for business driving. I most States
driving is a privilege, not a civil right.

I'm not getting into any narrowly defined "civil rights." I'm saying
that homosexuals, generally speaking, should have exactly the same
rights as heterosexuals (or people with no sexual preference at all),
and I would include a driver's license among such rights.
I completely agree. Such rights include the right to participate in
medical decisions with a partner, the right to inherit from a life
partner and the right to visit a sick partner in a hospital, the right to
co-won a home and obtain a joint mortgage, and the right to be a
co-tenant under a lease. Did you notice I made a similar statement
earlier.

The rights are exactly the same for all, yes. This is as it should be. No
need to create any special "rights" for any group, nor should that ever be
done. I'm glad we agree on this.


We probably agree on a lot of things. Please tell me how you would ensure
that gay people have them with respect to lifetime committed partners.
Heterosexuals will get those rights only by getting married. Why are gays
not effectively denied those rights in most states?

--
Peter

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2010050218325643658-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2010-05-02 14:03:20 -0700, tony cooper
said:

On Sun, 2 May 2010 12:33:01 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

My feeling on this, is if they have a choice to make, dump the
religion. It doesn't have their best interests at heart anyway. All the
religion wants is control, even control of those who are non-believers.
Nothing good ever came from blind faith.

That's a bad rap on religion. As an atheist, I don't need it.
However strong belief in a religion is absolutely core to some people.
It gets them through very difficult times. It gives them a feeling of
hope.

There are many people who have a strong religious belief system that
have no interest whatsoever in controlling other people. They may
disapprove of others, but disapproval is not an attempt at control.

To imply that others do not need religion is really no different from
saying that gays don't need marriage. It's a projection of values to
other people's lives.

Nothing good ever came from prohibiting faith. Good comes from
toleration of the views of others.

Personally, I don't see much difference between religious people who
think that others should conform to their beliefs and anti-religion
people who think that others should conform to *their* beliefs.

Certainly I am ranting in the heat of debate.
I recognize there are those who get much from their faith. However we are
talking of a group who are held in distain by their religion, and are
denied the sacrament of marriage within that religion because their own
religion deems them "sinners."

Their own religion does not tolerate them in anyway. Once that faith
betrays them in that way, why should they continue to follow that faith
if it leaves them in emotional and psychological torment.

The question remains. If they are betrayed by a faith which will not
support them, why not consider leaving that religion?

...and I know many people of faith, Christian, Jew, Muslim, who are
disappointed in the lack of tolerance in the upper echelon, and
fundamentalist elements of their religions. I also know many followers of
those faiths who believe themselves to be tolerant of all others, but who
are blind to their own bigotry.

I find myself comfortable as an atheist, not having to favor one religion
over another.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

At least you have a home, since many of your political brothers are also
atheists, and tolerant of same. But I am truly a, "Man without a country".
My conservative heroes, like Rush, are intolerant of atheists, and insult
us on a regular basis. To me this is the one place where their normal
ability to think logically breaks down. I can listen to, and agree with,
their point of view for hours, and then, seemingly out of nowhere, they
will reach out and insult my intelligence by calling me a, "bad citizen",
because I don't accept their stupid Christian myth, and believe the whole
universe, (with more galaxies in it than there are grains of sand on all
the beaches on earth), was created by some mean looking old bearded man in
the sky that created man "in his own image". This is sure a crazy
world.........

I more or less agree with you there, but the Christian mythology business
doesn't really bother me -- it's sort of like white noise in the background,
easy to ignore.

What does bother me is that so many otherwise sensible conservatives are so
staunchly pro-Zionist, or in other words neocons rather than conservative in
any strict sense of the word.

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:201005031719258930-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...

[...]
...and as far as using the word "marriage" I'm just fine leaving that to the religious conservatives stuck in the dark ages. Call
it what you will, just provide equal protection under the law to all regardless of sexual preference.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

My first inclination was to accept "civil unions" in lieu of
"marriages" for homosexuals, but that lasted less than a day.
Anything less than full "marriage", *both* legally and in name,
represents (and is) less than full equality. Of course, if "civil
unions" became the standard for everyone, and "marriage"
were bestowed by an *additional* religious ceremony (but
only if desired), then this would be acceptable...
--DR

"Chris H" wrote in message
...
In message , Peter
writes

Your tolerance for the belief of others is almost as underwhelming as
your ignorance and/or lack of veracity.

Anyone is free to believe what they like as a faith. I tolerate all
faiths etc. (even though most faiths do not tolerate others who do not
believe as they do as demonstrated above)

However: Re-writing history is not something I tolerate in anyone.

I have not argued with anyone's faith. However I will argue with the
ludicrous statement that the bible has not changed in over 5000 years...
Some parts are only just 1500 years old.



What parts of Tanakh have changed?
Feel free to Google the term.


--
Peter

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...
"The Royal Spam" wrote in message ...

What has this got to do with photography?

You may be asked to photograph a gay wedding....do you know all the proper protocols of carrying out such an assignment? Can you
charge off your expenses against your income on your taxes?

8^)
--DR