a portrait - Ellen DeGeneres

Neil Harrington wrote:
wrote in message ...
Neil Harrington wrote:
"Wilba" wrote in message
...
wrote:

The only "point" you have made Neil is you feel you should control
what other people can do with their lives because you don't share their
desires.
I think you've actually misunderstood Neil, and the above statement is
only correct in one particular instance - Neil won't allow others to do
is use the word marriage to refer to a legally sanctioned same-sex
partnership.

The problem is, he distorts and deliberately misunderstands the cogent
arguments made against him in such bizarre and perverse ways that he
appears to be a utterly irrational. For instance, he asserts that
same-sex marriage is legal in eight countries and ten states of the USA,
thereby acknowledging that same-sex marriage is a reality in our world.
Then he insists that his opinion universally invalidates all uses and
definitions of the word marriage other than his own.
guffaw!

"[My] own opinion" . . . and the other 187 countries that agree with me,
and the other 40 states of the U.S. too, of course.

ALL of us have these same "bizarre and perverse ways," evidently.

When you try to convince people that 99% of the whole world

bzzzzzz Wrong. Did you ever bother to look at the links to the voting
results when this has been voted on. Show us where 99% voted no on this..
BTW 40 out of 50 states doesn't = 99%,

And 40 out of 50 states is not 99% of the whole world. Do you have a reading
disability?




I guess you have a problem comprehending that our country can't make
laws for the world nor should we base how we create our laws on what
people in other countries want.

Or did you have difficulty reading the voting results from the last time
this came up for a vote. 48% were in favor of it. I guess you choose to
ignore this.

I also find in hard to believe the right wing considers what other
countries want when they are crafting our laws. Unless it supports your
narrow minded opinion.

Stephanie

Neil Harrington wrote:
"Chris H" wrote in message

Obama is trying to make the US a civilised 1st world country .

guffaw!

Only if you regard Venezuela as "a civilised 1st world country."

The U.S. has been by far the most successful first-world country for the
last century or so. Whether it can survive Obama, however, remains to be
seen.



Yeah we were SOOO much better off after 8 years of GWB...


Stephanie

Chris H wrote:


There are two types of marriage in the UK but I think the same or
similar applies everywhere else.

1st the state marriage which is a legal document the state recognises
for tax and all other legal uses. This has no religious component . in
the UK it is a called (romantically :-) a "Registry Office" marriage.
Though now they have relaxed the rules so they can do them in places of
the than the local council offices.

2nd type of marriage is a religious one. In the UK all CofE priests (and
I think also some RC priests, rabbis and Islamic clerics) are also state
registrars. This means that people who get the religious marriage where
the cleric is a registrar sign the paperwork in the church/temple as
part of the service. Where the cleric is not a registrar (and or the
place is not authorised for state marriages) the happy couple have to
(either before or after) go to a state registrar to have the "legal"
state wedding.

So a Moslem could marry four wives in the sight of god in a Mosque but
only register one of them as a legal wife as far as the state is
concerned.

I would say that any two people, same sex or otherwise, should be able
to have the first type of marriage. The second type, the religious
marriage should be up to the religion in question.

If the faith does not permit same sex marriages fine. Those are the
rules of their faith. You don't have to join their club.

Then everyone should be happy.


As long as they call the first type 'a "Registry Office" marriage' or
union or whatever they chose to name it, give the same rights and tax
code etc etc to everyone, I totally agree this would solve the problem.
They can't just have it called a "union" for gays but then have it
called "marriage" for straight people and have different sets of rules
for each.

I also agree that at that point each church has the right to decide if
they approve of a same sex marriage or not and the state has ZERO say so
in that.

I just don't see why the "religious right" in this country thinks they
should be allowed to control how other people live.

Stephanie

David Ruether wrote:
wrote in message ...
Bill Graham wrote:
wrote in message

Interesting how the right wing fights against -gay rights- and in the same breath talk about how people should be allowed to
make their own choices and how important FREEDOM is..

Stephanie

Don't make the mistake of throwing all conservatives into the "religious right" bag. There are conservatives who are libertarians
and not religious nuts out there. - I happen to be one of them.

Well believe it or not, I consider myself a conservative on most issues. But there is no way I can support what the "right wing"
does. I don't like either party. They ALL are corrupt.

Stephanie

I think that last is a dangerous (but easily arrived at) assumption
that leads to not voting. While some do appear to be corrupt (I
think mainly Republicans who demonstrably lie about important
issues and often appear to more often represent the interests of
lobbyists above the interests of the public - but Democrats are not
immune from "unseemly horse-trading" to secure sufficient votes [but
which would you rather see happen, that or nothing at all get done
due to the current obstructionism of the Republicans in congress?]),
I have found legislators that I have had contact with, both local
and national, to be helpful, honest, and very hard working - with
the interests of the public held highest. It is too easy to dismiss
these people, which is both unfair to them, and not useful in terms
of keeping good people in office. The lowest win when we let them
win...
--DR




I should have added I support the "least corrupt" :-)

Stephanie

wrote in message ...
David Ruether wrote:
"Bill Graham" wrote in message

Again thanks. I've always been annoyed by that intrusion of
religion into the pledge, and also with the words, "in god we
trust" on our money, as if that represents the views of all who
use the money, and therefore of all US citizens. The tendency
of a majority of people to believe that their *beliefs* are
universal and "true" can be oppressive.
--DR


While I do believe in God and go to church every sunday, I also don't
think it has any place in the government because who knows if what "Their
God wants" is the same as my view of God. Clearly in this case we are
discussing it isn't and given the wide range of denominations, there are a
variety of ways He is viewed.

Stephanie

Are you suggesting that people of faith have no business being active in
government? The constitution prohibits establishment of a state religion
and the government's intrusion into religion. It does not prohibit people
of faith from involvement and influence in government. I suggest a reading
of some of the founding father's writings, many of which state quite the
opposite of your view that God has no place in government. George
Washington said in his farewll address "It is impossible to govern the world
without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to
political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable
supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be
maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect
that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
Of course, there will be many who attempt to rewrite history and deny that
our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles but that won't change
the truth that it was.

wrote in message ...
David Ruether wrote:

Again thanks. I've always been annoyed by that intrusion of
religion into the pledge, and also with the words, "in god we
trust" on our money, as if that represents the views of all who
use the money, and therefore of all US citizens. The tendency
of a majority of people to believe that their *beliefs* are
universal and "true" can be oppressive.
--DR

While I do believe in God and go to church every sunday, I also don't think it has any place in the government because who knows
if what "Their God wants" is the same as my view of God. Clearly in this case we are discussing it isn't and given the wide range
of denominations, there are a variety of ways He is viewed.

Stephanie

Or "It", since a single god has no need for gender...;-)
--DR

wrote in message ...
David Ruether wrote:
wrote in message ...
Bill Graham wrote:
wrote in message

Interesting how the right wing fights against -gay rights- and in the same breath talk about how people should be allowed to
make their own choices and how important FREEDOM is..

Stephanie

Don't make the mistake of throwing all conservatives into the "religious right" bag. There are conservatives who are
libertarians and not religious nuts out there. - I happen to be one of them.

Well believe it or not, I consider myself a conservative on most issues. But there is no way I can support what the "right wing"
does. I don't like either party. They ALL are corrupt.

Stephanie

I think that last is a dangerous (but easily arrived at) assumption
that leads to not voting. While some do appear to be corrupt (I
think mainly Republicans who demonstrably lie about important
issues and often appear to more often represent the interests of
lobbyists above the interests of the public - but Democrats are not
immune from "unseemly horse-trading" to secure sufficient votes [but
which would you rather see happen, that or nothing at all get done
due to the current obstructionism of the Republicans in congress?]),
I have found legislators that I have had contact with, both local
and national, to be helpful, honest, and very hard working - with
the interests of the public held highest. It is too easy to dismiss
these people, which is both unfair to them, and not useful in terms
of keeping good people in office. The lowest win when we let them
win...
--DR

I should have added I support the "least corrupt" :-)

Stephanie

A-a-a-a-h . . . . ! 8^)
--DR

In message , David Ruether
writes

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
m...
"Bruce" wrote in message news:0tvas5p1kubk1om
...
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:38:59 -0400, "David Ruether"
wrote:

A case in point is the rise
of Sarah Palin... We are in a time when a near idiot can rise to
within reach of the presidency

Please, in the interests of accuracy, less of the "near"?

No, we are in a time when a near idiot has risen to the presidency.
He is currently engaged in giving the whole ball park away to
the visiting team, and putting our grandchildren (and theirs) into
terrible debt. We have only one more chance to get rid of him,
and that chance may be too late.

I guess I disagree with you on several counts. I think
no one else would call Obama an idiot.

Certainly not compared to GW Bush or Palin



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

In message , "
writes
Chris H wrote:
There are two types of marriage in the UK but I think the same or
similar applies everywhere else.
1st the state marriage which is a legal document the state
recognises
for tax and all other legal uses. This has no religious component . in
the UK it is a called (romantically :-) a "Registry Office" marriage.
Though now they have relaxed the rules so they can do them in places of
the than the local council offices.
2nd type of marriage is a religious one. In the UK all CofE priests
(and
I think also some RC priests, rabbis and Islamic clerics) are also state
registrars. This means that people who get the religious marriage where
the cleric is a registrar sign the paperwork in the church/temple as
part of the service. Where the cleric is not a registrar (and or the
place is not authorised for state marriages) the happy couple have to
(either before or after) go to a state registrar to have the "legal"
state wedding.
So a Moslem could marry four wives in the sight of god in a Mosque
but
only register one of them as a legal wife as far as the state is
concerned.
I would say that any two people, same sex or otherwise, should be
able
to have the first type of marriage. The second type, the religious
marriage should be up to the religion in question.
If the faith does not permit same sex marriages fine. Those are the
rules of their faith. You don't have to join their club.
Then everyone should be happy.


As long as they call the first type 'a "Registry Office" marriage' or
union or whatever they chose to name it,

Yes it is a "marriage" the religious groups can call their ceremony's
anything they like.

give the same rights and tax code etc etc to everyone, I totally agree
this would solve the problem. They can't just have it called a "union"
for gays but then have it called "marriage" for straight people and
have different sets of rules for each.

Agreed. It should be a "marriage" for any couple, mixed sex or same sex.

I also agree that at that point each church has the right to decide if
they approve of a same sex marriage or not and the state has ZERO say
so in that.

Yes. So a pair of Gays can have a state/legal marriage and be legally
Married but it is up to the religions if it falls in their remit for a
religious marriage at their temple. The State should have no say in
that.

I just don't see why the "religious right" in this country thinks they
should be allowed to control how other people live.

Agreed. BTW which religion are the "Religious right" in your country?

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

Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
wrote in message ...
David Ruether wrote:
"Bill Graham" wrote in message

Again thanks. I've always been annoyed by that intrusion of
religion into the pledge, and also with the words, "in god we
trust" on our money, as if that represents the views of all who
use the money, and therefore of all US citizens. The tendency
of a majority of people to believe that their *beliefs* are
universal and "true" can be oppressive.
--DR

While I do believe in God and go to church every sunday, I also don't
think it has any place in the government because who knows if what "Their
God wants" is the same as my view of God. Clearly in this case we are
discussing it isn't and given the wide range of denominations, there are a
variety of ways He is viewed.

Stephanie

Are you suggesting that people of faith have no business being active in
government?

They have no business trying to impose their faith on other people if
that is why they are being active.

They also have no business trying to control what other people do based
on their faith or religious beliefs. As I stated, I am a person of
faith, I am active in government but would NEVER use the government to
force my religious beliefs on other people.

While the founding fathers felt religion was needed to guide the
country, they also created separation of church and state for good reason.

Stephanie