Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: yard_man who wrote (37945)	2/21/2005 9:03:58 PM
From: geode00	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

No one knows whether Jesus was gay or not. That's the entire point of 'FAITH'. If one person's faith is that he was and another's is that he was not then who the heck cares? That is the entire problem with this particular human thought process. If YOUR FAITH is clear and strong then you shouldn't care what other people think. "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. --- Thomas Jefferson" This is just one problem I have with the whole concept of gay marriage. I think everyone who wants to be hitched should have contractual obligations from the state: civil unions. Then everyone who wanted to could get married in the religion or non-religion of their choosing. Who the heck cares? And if someone cares, why the heck do they? It used to be that people of different 'races' couldn't get married. That was considered indecent or ungodly way back when. I know of families who consider that a Catholic marrying a Protestant is a 'mixed marriage' and doomed to failure. The government isn't in the business of promoting gay marriage. It's in the business of protecting EVERYONE's rights. The definition of EVERYONE used to only include white men with property. We've come a long way since then, let's keep going forward.

To: yard_man who wrote (37945)	2/22/2005 11:22:29 AM
From: Orcastraiter	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 173976

nonsense and blasphemy. Jesus was not gay. He was heterosexual and celibate. I know, in a day and age when everyone is taught to give in to every impulese, that seems crazy -- but that is the truth. The truth? Jesus was a heterosexual? And he was celibate too? That is a contradiction in terms. If Jesus was celibate he engaged in no sexual behavior. Therefore it could not be the truth to call him a heterosexual. There is no evidence that I know of indicating that Jesus was a heterosexual or a homosexual. I think that most folks consider Jesus to be above the desires of the flesh, celibate. Your reference to Sodom and Gomorrah is incomplete. For the city was truly depraved, not only in terms of desires of the flesh, but in terms of compassion for each other. Selfishness and greed where the root of the evil there. Depraved and wanton sexual behavior is the manifestation of selfishness and greed, not the cause ot it. But there is another kind of sex. The sex which is the joining of two people who love each other. That is not what was happening in Sodom and Gomorrah. If the state actually starts promulgating homosexuality Who is the state? The state, in a free country, is the people. Laws are made by the people. We the people. When a law is not useful then it can be changed. We already live in a society that accepts and allows gay unions. The state does not sanctify the acts of individuals. Individuals are petitioning for rights that are granted to heterosexual unions, which are not granted to homosexual unions. -- the next thing to be question will be sex with children, or sex in public or anything else which has historically been considered wrong. Many things have been historically been considered wrong. Drinking and gambling come to mind. Activities that the state is deeply involved with. By taxation and regulation the state has become the mob. I find this to be more offensive as an act of governance than allowing those folks that wish to marry to do so. Sex with children is not wrong in many cultures. In many countries in the world, girls have babies in their early teens. When menstruation begins, so to does sex. Will that be acceptable in the US? I don't think so. Will the allowing of people who are already living together and having sex as consenting adults then lead to sex with children? That argument has not been made. I am not afraid of homosexuality, but the state has no business promoting, in my opinion -- not any more than it does promoting other kinds of immorality or evil behaviors. The state does not promote that which is petitioned for by the people. What the state should promote is personal freedom and responsibility. The pursuit of happiness is a very personal journey. I have nothing to fear from gay people getting married. Allowing their bond does not increase the number of gay people, nor does it sanctify or encourage it. If you truly are not afraid of homosexuality then what is it you are afraid of? Orca