Voozh

Cancer insurance pays benefits when you are diagnosed with cancer. These benefits are paid in addition to benefits you may receive from other health insurance coverage and can be used to pay physician, hospital, prescription drug and other expenses associated with cancer treatment.

You may also be able to use benefits to cover indirect costs of cancer including transportation, childcare and living expenses. Cancer insurance quote is renewable for life and is available to individuals and families.

Marriage is not an institution or a design of the State or of mankind for that matter. The Designer of marriage is the Creator of heaven and earth.

In Genesis 1 God brought all things into existance. In Genesis 2 we have a detailed view of the creation of mankind. Adam realizes, as he names the animalkind, that there is not one like him. Upon this realization, God creates for him Eve. Then God pronouces their union, and the pattern for mankind ever after, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his WIFE, and they shall become one flesh." (Gen. 2:24).

God did not give Adam the choice to have a male OR female OR both OR other. God made a woman for the man. The apostle Paul also teaches, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that marriage is a picture of the unity Christians (the Church, also called the Bride of Christ) are to have with Christ.

We can believe all we want about making marriage any combination of people we want, but we deceive only ourselves if we think that anything other than God's design is going to please Him. Those who want other than God's will are pleasing only their flesh and carnal nature.

Homosexual marriage is not going to lower the rate of HIV/AIDS cases, adultery, abortion, or divorce. In America, the gay-marriage issue is not about being treated equal, or marrying the one you love, it is about trying destroy the family and rebel against God (like that ever ends well). I believe I have read that in those European countries where homosexual marriage is legal that the marriage rates for the country decline, while the rate of cohabitating couples increase. That seems to indicate that the homosexual marriage agenda isn't really about getting married after all.

God is not mocked, if we sow to the wind we will reap the whirlwind.

I am writing a book that includes a chapter on human-animal relationships.

"phobaphill" has commented that:

"marriage to animals is illegal in spite of afro-caribbean religions"

Can anyone give me references to anything published on the subject, in books or learned journals, or even innewspaper/magazine articles, i.e. which Afro-Caribrran religions and what exactly to they allow or encourage in this respect?

Please respond directly to my e-mail address:
[email protected]

Many thanks,
David Levy

This is NOT a slippery slope toward marrying your dog, daughter, or table. These people are adults. Maybe you should stop worrying about what they do in their bedroom and focus on your own?

May be it has already been said but we have to mention an important fact here that may take a little bit tension away. This not really a marriage (like the article says: 'only not in name') but a legal cohobation, that is more based on a financial fundament that on morality or love.

I think that the issue of two women and one man getting married is so disgusting. In a real marriage...as this is not...one man and one woman get married and they become one. You can't be ONE with more than one woman. You can't go thru the sexual experience as two women and one man together and have everything 'fit' at the end of intercourse. It is not biologically possible. This is really profane.

No, no, this won't do! "Becoming one" is just a figure of speech, just a verbal conceit. Two people can't become one. Really, they can't. They can become incredibly intimate, caring, sympathetic, loving and sharing (oooh, I've gone all poetical), but they are still two people.

And you seem to be implying that the sex is the most important part of marriage. For many happily and completely married couples, it isn't.

Bob Doney

Since the publication of the Dutch Catechism, the Catholic Bishops can do nothing to resist.

Even if they wished to resist, the Catholic Church has been so reduced in the Netherlands as to have zero political influence.

It is tragic that the public will have to see the horrible consequences of such violations of the natural law before a reaction sets in.

It is not what people do in the privacy of their bedroom that bothers me, it is what they want to force me to do in the privacy of my mind and the public of my discourse.
I do, however offer a resolution - eliminate the tax free status of fringe benefits and then call it whatever you want.

As an avowed libertine...who is waaaaaaay more liberal than this trio, I offer my hearty congratulations to the happy trio.

Anyone interested can read my blog entry about it:

http://confessionsofalibertine.blog-city.com/polyamorous_civil_union_sol...

There's been much serious and worthy political stuff on this site in the past few weeks - European constitution, history of Belgium, and so on and so on.

Now we've got a vigorous debate about the meaning of marriage, the numbers and proclivities of the participants and whether you should be able to marry your goldfish, and the site visitor stats have gone THROUGH THE ROOF!!!

Funny old world, ain't it.

Bob Doney

Like others who have seen this coming, I wrote at www.BrokenMasterpieces.com on Sept 8 that gay marriage is simply a contradiction of terms and that if legalized, everything is game. Why stop at sex, why not age, number, or worse, genus? GT

The reason you stop is because we already have a legal definition of who can and cannot enter into a contract.

If you can't, because you're a dog or a rug or 12 years old, then you simply can't.

Otherwise, why is it anyone's business but the people involved?

Canada, Mexico, Panama, The Philippines, Uraguay, and Zimbabwe. If they can bed, why can't they wed?

You can bed because it is just your own body. (and your partner's)
Any law restricting that is a law upon your body (remember sodomy laws??)

Marriage, however, always implies property. Even if neither partner has properties in the moment they marry, marriage laws contain provisions regarding property. That's why marriage age is usually higher than sexual age. Because of the property part in all marriage contracts, not because of the sex.

But let my try an answer : because the implications of entering a legally binding contract can be much more serious than taking someone in one's bed.

I understand the normally 20 minute ceremony took half an hour.

What a beautiful event! I'm so glad this is happening in my lifetime!!!

Netherlands is paving the way for Polyamory!! Those who feel they can chain the human heart and dictate the rules of loving and beautiful diverse relationships have lost this one!

Yeah you guys....Fantastic!

Well, if God is love, then who are we to argue with God when he tells us to be with more than one.

Count me in the positive camp. As long as it's all consensual then there's nothing wrong with poly. Just because something is unusual doesn't make it wrong or evil.

See, I'm with you here. PO\olyamoury has been practised (and recodnised) since...well, since the beginning ot marraige, at least. And finally, a milti-partner union is being recognised....how neat!

Marriages between men and girls, men and boys, and people and animals. To not allow these types of marriages would be discriminatory, closed-minded and useless because the relationships are going to happen anyway.

Yes, I agree fully.

I am glad that there is people who see the injustice that current marriage laws create.

Hope more people realize this, soon.

This is sick and disgusting. Western civilization is heading to the graveyard. If you do much research about the social effects of polygamy, you'll find that it causes poverty and instability because there are so many men out there without any women to marry. I'm sure that the wacko Muslims you've imported to finally kill off Europe will love this.

What a pathetic argument.

If guys want to get female partners then I'd suggest they learn to appeal to women. The very fact that this fairly unattractive looking guy is in a partnership with two women proves that it's not just cute looks that we're looking for.

And incidentally, whining is a trait that really turns a lot of women off. So moaning that there won't be enough chicks to go around and you won't get your fair share isn't likely to get you very far.

Not everyone finds him unattractive!

Except that it's not just one man with many women. There ARE relationships that involve one woman with more than one man.

"Polygamy" just means marriage among more than two people. "Polygyny" means more than one wife, and "polyandry" means more than one husband. Hence, there is nothing inherently destabilizing about polygamy, since people do live both polygynously and polyandrously.

Because I'm sure that modern women, unlike ancient women who often didn't have much of a choice, will flock to this in droves, right? Polygamy is going to become everyone's new favorite marriage type, I'm sure.

Or, it could be confined to the people who act like that anyway, who are a very small proportion of the population.

This argument is, and always has been, idiotic. Children do not have a legal right to consent, and animals don't even have the physical/mental ability to voice their consent, so your argument is irrelevant.

Depends on what you mean by 'children.' Judge Ginsburg in the U.S. is on the record as wanting to move the age of consent to 12.
In the U.S. there are several states have an age of consent of 14, 15, or 16- in New Hampshire a female as young as 13 can marry with parental permission. most states allow 16 year olds to marry with parental permission. Some don't require parental permission if the female is pregnant. (http://www.coolnurse.com/marriage_laws.htm)

So should it be legal for this same man to wed two fifteen year olds if their parents approve (or if he impregnates them)? How about four fifteen year olds? Five? Six?

Or maybe he'd like to marry a 14 y.o. boy and a three 16 y.o. girls- the ages are legal ages for marriage in certain states. There is no argument for Same Sex Marriage that wouldn't also protect such unions.

Marriage has always and only been between man and woman- same sex marriage is like like calling a square a circle and thinking that makes it so. No culture anywhere, not even cultures that tolerated or even celebrated homosexuality have had same sex marriage.

If your concerned about young people being used, why not focus on that issue. You state yourself that these laws allowing such young people to wed already exist. If you have an issue with that, then you should focus on that, and not on what consenting adults are doing.

It might be a red herring, but it's not *my* red herring. I didn't bring it up. Somebody else did- and then, as always happens, rather than actually address the argument, the pro-gay marriage side uses the brilliant reponse, "That can't happen."
Yes. It can. And since he (or she, I forget) is the one who said it can't happen, and I have shown it can, the ball is in the other court. He obviously thought it was a bad thing, or he would not have said that it couldn't happen. So he must now explain how his argument wouldn't apply to that situation.
Marriage has always been between man and woman, and in most places and times, one man and one woman. That's pretty much universal. So I think those who want to redefine the social norms have the responsibility to explain why this is better and why their arguments do not also apply to other situations they do not (currently, at least) approve of.
And that's not a red herring, but you are begging the questi

Why not just toss out every law since they all deal with consenting adults?

...the polyamory argument was "idiotic," too. "Oh, that's not going to happen," the proponents of gay marriage assured us. Surprise, surprise. It did.

The difference here is clear.

I can see homosexuals pushing for same sex marriage.
I can see polygamist unions fighting for multi-partner marriage.

I don't see any girls or boys pushing for marrying men.
I don't see any animals pushing for marrying humans.

When you show me those, then your argument will have creedence.

Victor's excluvisity is interesting. He draws the line somewhere--no 4th person will be admitted in this "union." There seems to be a threshold of endurance, a point beyond which they cannot and/or will not tolerate open admission. It's accelerating pragmatism, but it has an absolute brake pedal that someday, somehow comes down somewhere.

The legalization is interesting, as well. I wonder when will come the day that this government-citizen conglamerate's again-and-again-newly-revised "Definition of Marriage" will be called upon to INclude more into that "union?" What if I want to join an exclusive threesome union? Shouldn't the government be required to respond positively to my demand for my rights? Why should such a threesome have a right to exclude me from their happiness?

Well what stops anyone from forcing their way into an TWOsome, I wonder? What is the point of this preposterous theory? Marriage in our day and age is a commitment between CONSENTING adults. It is a contract, nothing more and nothing less. No one can be coerced into a contract with others against their will. Such a contract would be void.

Initially I too was appalled by this "three-some" union. But then I stsrted thinking about it. What is the harm? Over the ages of mankind, men have had more than one wife. Even today, in some countries (like the middle east) a man can have up to 4 wives. Didn't that african king take his 13 or 14th wife who was only 17? Where was the outrage on that?

Or is this a racial thing: Black Africans and Middle Easterners don't count because they are not "white?"

As for the religious angle. Where is having more than one wife PROHIBITED? Didn't the men in the Old Testament routinely have more than one wife? Was Moses a "sinner?" What about King David or Mohammed?

While same sex relations are clearly listed as abominations in the Bible and Quran, having more than one wife is not. Native Americans also had multiple wives. Apparently, the greatest penalty of having more than one wife is having more than one mother in law. :)

Let us stop the prohibition against religion. Multiple wives would benefit society. Less consumerism, less divorce, etc.

As for same sex unions between men, that is clearly against nature! Stamp that out, but leave what is natural alone.

PS I am looking for someone (young attractive and female) to help me convince my wife that my views are correct.:)

::As for the religious angle. Where is having more than one wife PROHIBITED? Didn't the men in the Old Testament routinely have more than one wife? Was Moses a "sinner?" What about King David or Mohammed?::

Since you brought it up, having more than one wife is prohibited here:
Deuteronomy 17, verse 17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn
not away...
And it is understood here:
Matt 19:4-6
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
(Some people deal with the words in religious books very differently then they would treat those same words anywhere else. In case this is hard, think of it this way. See, if I tell my kids they can eat the cookies in the cookie jar, they understand this mean they cannot eat cookies in some place other than the cookie jar. If I tell them they may eat all the red candies, they understand that means I want them not to eat the others. If I ask my secretary to bring me all the correspondence from clients dated Sept. 13, it is understood that I do not want correspondence from other dates.)

Titus 1:6 (and others)
says church leaders must have only one wife

Some men in the OT had more than one wife, but I do not think you can say that they all 'routinely' did. And invariably, the OT indicates that this caused problems. Big problems.

And my goodness, yes, *of course* Moses and David were both sinners, according to both the Old Testament and the New. I cannot speak for Islam, but if you knew your Bible enough to make an argument from it, you would know that there is only one person within its pages who is said to be sinless.
David actually calls himself a sinner in the Old Testament writings. And could you please explain why you think Moses was polygamous? The only wife I know of that he had was Zipporah, the Ethiopian woman.

I don't mean to be snotty (well, not *really* snotty) but perhaps you should read your Bible before making arguments from it?

The idea that marriage is a religious institution is ludicrous. It is a legal institution, and in the USA there is a separation of church and state. Therefore marriage is a secular institution.

Nevermind that most couples get married in a church or at the very least by a Pastor, Minister or Priest.

Yeah, it has nothing to do with religion...riiiiight.

The actual ceremony might be done before a minister, but the marriage license itself is granted by the state. That's what keeps polygamy illegal in the USA in spite of the non-LDS Church Mormons. That's what keeps marriage to animals illegal in spite of Afro-Caribbean religions. That's what keeps marriage to minors illegal even though it is never forbidden in the Bible, Torah or Quran. The State, not the Church.

Happens a lot and I agree it is sometimes confusing. But when we talk about allowing gays to marry we clearly mean the secular marriage and not the religious one.

To openminded Stephen:
"I already convinced your wife!"

Marriages are supposed to be a religious ceremony signifying a couples love for one another before God. Civil Unions were intended to be the legal back-door for couples who did not want to be married to still have a recognised partnership.

Suddenly, the homosexuals had a loophole they could use to force the issue of marriage. Now, in this case, the issue has been forced open even more. Wake up and smell the coffee, people. While gays make straight people feel guilty for "forcing thier values on others" they are, in fact, forcing their values on us.

I respect their right to live whatever life they want. They can answer to God for that one day. It is not my place to judge. They have every right to work their jobs, go to schools and have any kind of sex they want as long as they don't hurt anyone. But marriage is meant to be a union between one man and one woman and I wish they'd shut up and leave that institution alone.

marriage is meant to be a union between one man and one woman

Why?

Or rather...so what if it was, originally, back when marriage was invented? It can be "meant to be" something else now. Why shouldn't it?

Many people argued that blacks were "meant to be" slaves. That's changed. So can what marriage is "meant to be".

that those used to promote emotional opportunity arguments (in this case homosexuality/bi-sexuality being the equivalent of hereterosexual marriage on the purely emotional grounds of supposed equivalency of pleasure and love as emotional positives) never mention the disease of HIV or AIDS, and never mention the non-creating aspects of homosexuality or bisexuality. It is telling that the mere idea or the actual pleasure they supposedly derive protects them (or us as a society in the long run) from the physical realites of such activities.

As well, they never mention that others are being asked to fund their disease so that it spreads as a contagion.

Who in truth would advocate the spread of a horrific, contagious disease spread by sexual contact on the basis of the pleasure of those who engaged in it while those who do not engage in it pay for it in tax supported medical services? Who goes out and finds a disease to waste their money propigating among their own populace --for any reason?

No. It is plain those who want legal recognition of deviancy want it to pay for the physical effects they know in advance such deviancy will cost. So "privacy" arguments ( I do what I want and you do what you want) are no cover when deviants are asking non-deviants to pay for what they knew in advance would happen: not only will others get the disease if it hangs around long enough through simply trying to help those with the disease, but they want public, tax supported medical services guarenteed so that they can live as long as possible so as to do the most damage and cost the most money simply because it gives them pleasure to do so. And after all, according to their own arguments, if they 'love' to do so and that's their thing, why should anyone complain? After all, love is an emotional positive, pleasure is an emotional positve, what's the difference if pleasure kills?

Very plainly those who seek to kill their fellow man in lies of pleasure versus death know they cannot win the argument in truth, so they must appeal to lies of free will with such widgets as "if you deny me my pleasure, then you cut off part of your own free will / choice. And you said long ago choice was good. So I've got you in your own arguement. You've got to include me just to keep your own argument of free will intact."

And some had fallen for it.

Romans 9:18 So then, to whom He will He shews mercy, and whom He will He hardens.

In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen

Are you talking about smoking, eating doughnuts, hang-gliding or what?

Bob Doney

that actually end up as horror for all are the end game of the lie of free will.

True, homosexuality / bisexuality are but one small part of the overall lie and its effects. Which makes them still evil. But they particularly take an active voice in seeming that they are not dangerous at all.

We don't see an 'adulterer movement' as politics (except for the abortion issue) and we don't see a 'murderer movement' as a politcal agenda of any (except for the abortion issue).

The foundation from which homosexuality / bisexuality springs is non-creating speech: the native speech of of all men. Because their speech can create nothing, it gives all natural men a lens of non-creation and makes it seem scarcity is the rule of life as seeing the universe as a closed box (nothing created or destroyed, only changed). Homosexuality is just part of the overall agenda of non-creation the lie performs through them.

Homosexuals, hang gliders, over-eaters, smokers, etc, simply see emotion as the scarce commodity, and are always seeking emotional opportunity in whatever new venue they can find, no matter the end result.

But we see very plainly a public awareness that over-eating of anything, as well as donuts, is not the good but indeed, evil and the public on every level in a diet craze to at least attempt to avoid it (as if they had free will) as well as governmental programs to teach good eating habits (as if they had free will) and to put healthy food on the shelves as opposed to poisoned food.

We see very plainly smoking condemned as a public enemy and drain on the economy, with much more evil effects than good and less and less persons smoking these days, to which all but those who economic interest it is to get others smoking, universally know is good.

We also see the difficulty those who regularly engage in life-threating / thrill seeking adventures have in getting life insurance or medical insurance. The economics by in large effect themselves because they are so (somwhat) economically isolated.

Yet supposedly, homosexuality / bisexuality is not only to be ignored as an evil that brings in disease and effects far beyond one single person "just enjoying themselves" with another but which effects those not even involved and some years later.

If a hang glider gets killed, he gets buried and that is it. Hang gliders don't pass on that sudden stop at the bottom of the fall to others than themselves. If a smoker dies they get buried and that is it. They don't pass on that cancer to someone else. The danger is in the smoke, and the lie off ree will that enticed the smoker, not in the body of the dead. If a donut eater dies from an overdose of donuts, the donuts go with them to the grave and effect no one else. The danger is the lie of free will that enticed the eater and the substance of donuts, not the body of the dead.

If a homosexual / bisexual with AIDS dies, the disease can still kill even though the body is dead. It is contagious through blood and bodily fluids.

Every epidemic in the world with the exception of AIDS and HIV has quarentines, and mandatory standards to assure those with the disease do not spread it, even when those standards involve what would normally be seen as heinous emotional upset to those involved.

But suddenly, to those with an agenda of advancing homosexuality and bisexuality as emotional opportunities AIDS and HIV are not-deadly. Indeed, is a horror to them to be cut off from the opportunity of spreading their contagion as fast as possible only so they will not be seen as deviant and end their supposed spree of emotional drink.

True, the lie of free will, the non-creating speech is the culprit: anti-Christ. But that in no way exonerates those who love to speak and hear anti-Christ in any of their particulars such as homosexuality and bisexuality under the lie of "they sin too so mine doesn't count".

And in that homosexuals and bisexuals aren't getting any 'extra' condemnation that adulterers and murderers and all sinners don't already have. Niether do they get less.

For God to tell them of it in the Name of their Savior is no crime but indeed is the only Justice.

Proverbs 15:32 He that refuseth instruction despiseth his own soul: but he that heareth reproof getteth understanding.

In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen

Very interesting, if a little obscure in parts. I don't approve of your American spelling of "donuts", but we can leave that for another day.

However, you seem to be blissfully unaware that HIV/AIDS is most commonly spread by sex between men and women.

Bob Doney 1882:4938 "He that quoteth from the Bible all the time is in danger of being thought a bit of a religious nut."

In the Name of (guess who)

Bob Doney (formerly known when a child as "Donut")

about Truth: He truncates the non-creating speech of emotional opportunity. And that is why He is hated.

HIV and AIDs began in the homosexual / bisexual community and spread from there as bisexual partners passed it on to promiscuous heterosexuals.

What new disease should we wait for next while we fight the one they have already given the world? And why in any way should they be paid to be a lab to come up with another one? Here is yet another homosexual who seems to have come up with a new strain of drug resistant HIV as of June 2005. Some notes from that page:

"CT practices multiple partner unprotected anal-receptive/anal-insertive intercourse with his male partner of >10yrs at multiple venues and occasionally uses crystal methamphetamine."

and

? Patient Zero (CT) is a 52 year-old Caucasian MSM from Connecticut, HIV+ 10/93, who began AZT monotherapy in 1995 with CD4 95, followed by AZT/SQV-hgc, prior to beginning HAART in 1997.

and

Past history includes rectal condyloma, syphilis, and CA-MRSA from 2002-2004, and multiple metabolic complications.

So: He already had AIDs, already had had syhilis, was on medicine paid for by someone else to stay alive and yet has come up with a whole new strain of drug resistant HIV while on crystal meth induced bouts of anal sex. And that's not going on everywhere in the world any homosexual community is accepted?

Am I against his soul, Bob? Do I hope he burns in hell? Absolutely not. But neither do I in any way wish him to be paid to hang around so his flesh can contaminate as many as he can say he 'loves' by infecting them with not only a deadly disease, but one his own body has manufactured to do away with any benefits of medicine. Not only that, but neither do I wish him to be legally protected to do so under the lie of "homosexual / bisexual marriage".

Something we don't find in nature is an intelligently placed ignorance in order to make strategic use of it. You seem to be blissfully unaware (as I googled that reference in less than five minutes) that homosexuals and bisexuals are famously promiscuous, even going so far as to say 'they can't help it' and wanting Viagra to help them not help it. Keeping one's eye trained on such pictures as are at the top of the page doesn't change that.

No. It is plain, Bob that homosexual / bisexual marriage is a deception to at all cost divert the attention away from the reality of what the great evil of homosexuality / bisexuality is doing to the overall populace (non-creation of children and introduction of terrible, incurable disease) while holding forth thoughts of the warmth of 'relationships' beyond sex.

If those who are under such tyranny as non-creating speech do not hear the Word of God and are not non-metaphorically born again in Jesus Christ, they will indeed
burn in the lake of fire.

So while some consider it the better part of etiquette to say nothing so that the sellers of emotional opportunity and homosexuals and their apologists 'get what is coming to them' on an eternal scale, God through me, even according to the false emotional etiquette of 'free' will of 'doing emotion correctly', much less according to whatever model you have of it, is Love in speaking His Word to you. While it is never too late until death to hear and be born again in Jesus Christ, death is not a friend and gets no seat at the table of civilzation.

1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

James 1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen

I am sorry, but HIVS were actually products of the blood of various animals. Certain tribes consumed the animals after inproper cleaning procedure. Furthermore, lesbians have less chance of getting AIDS than straight people >_>

Furthermore, without marriage, homosexuals will be limited to promiscuos sex WHETHER OR NOT THEY DESIRE NON-ADULTUROUS SEX. I assure you that if we allowed same sex marriage, the AIDS rate among both gay and straight people would plummet.

You conveniently ignore the point of my last posting - no, not the one about the spelling of "doughnuts" - the one where I said that most HIV/AIDS is spread by heterosexual sex.

It's also a bit rich to blame "homosexuals who are famously promiscuous", and then deny them the legality of a contractual and social relationship, i.e. marriage, which implies that two of them want to spend their lives together.

By the way, where do I get this incorruptible seed that Peter is boning on about? Will my local garden centre stock it? I would imagine I could get it mail order from the Netherlands - they seem pretty switched on about breeding.

Bob Doney

"they want to spend their lives together". That's the very point of evil. That they got 'together' at all IS the evil.

But everyone already understood that point way back when homosexuality first got started in the modern age.

Trying to make out homosexuals should stay together as demonstration of ( a very general emotional positive...as hopefully by them confusing pleasure with love) is like those who love tyranny saying nuclear weapons and terrorist should get together to 'see what happens' --and then get married.

You have become enamored of a lie of entertainment and so hardened to the Truth of the destruction that homosexuality wreaks that you only see evil when it is not around.

But the homosexuality / bisexuality is not simply a talking point, something about which to attempt eloquence. Homosexuals were first and foremost victims of non-creating speech trying to be eloquent ( and famous for their peculiarity of speech, their inside jokes, the speech and heart in common among them) --then came the physics of death therein. They did not see the serpent when it bit them and killed them, its poison being that it forced them to have pleasure in their own destruction. The eloquence they loved was their undoing and the stretching of their lies to all around them.

Like so many, you have been stripped of understanding that men and women demonstrate love in pro-creation and in caring for what is created beyond mere birth. They demonstrate love far beyond pleasure.

Pleasure is not love.

Love does not spread a disease as much as possible so as to not convict those with it initially of deviancy. Pleasure does and doesn't care. Love does not continue to do so over and over, coming up with ever more deadly strains of disease as recreation that others must pay for with cash and lives. Pleasure does and doesn't care.

It is plain, Bob, that you know all these things, and like all homosexuals and their apologists are drunk on your own non-creating speech. No amount of seeing first-hand death for others by what they are supporting is enough to persuade them that they are deceived. They already know the truth and their fundamental answer is as all homosexuals and their apologists, as all slaves of anit-Christ/non-creating speech:

"So what? I'm going to do it anyway."

At that point, homosexuals and their apologists join the ranks of Hitler, Stalin, Nebuchadnezzar, serial murders and terrorists who, knowing the evil they do can only see the emotional opportunity of their own non-creating speech ahead and so go forward, listening to Mozart and killing all around them while crying tears as if to make it even; as if the mere appearence of 'doing' some emotional etiquette properly made them good and not evil.

So it becomes clear it is not an information problem. No amount of calm explanation or shock will change them. They will simply keep on justifiying what they do as best as anti-Christ can through them as they walk in a sea of blood they cause. It is a spiritual problem.

Homosexuals and their apologist are in need of being born again in Jesus Christ by hearing the Word of God, the very seed given to you in the course of this conversation.

The root of your incredulity and unbelief in Jesus Christ is that you, like the Pharisees have until now known only non-creating speech. You grew up in a speech that can't create anything. All your 'logic' and false knowledge is built on a supposed closed box universe, where nothing is created but only changed because your speech is fundamentally powerless. You are deceived you know perfectly well what words can and cannot do and that outright new creation just isn't what words are for.

But God is His Word, separate and distinct from non-creating speech. He doesn't 'use language' to inform you what you ought to do or be. He cannot be bought or sold, not for emotion or cash. He is Love and hates the sin of homosexuality. His Speaking is the doing of genuine, non-metaphorical new creation in Jesus Christ.

So the question is not: what will you 'do' (or stop doing) next to please God ...or not. You don't have free will, irrespective that some may think God an emotional imbecile because He doesn't make emotional sense to them. The question is simply what have you heard? To hear Him is to be born again. His Word is the seed you seek and that you cannot buy.

John 6:28,29 They said therefore to him, What should we do that we may work the works of God? Jesus answered and said to them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom *he* has sent.

2 Corinthians 13:3-5 Since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me, (who is not weak towards you, but is powerful among you, for if indeed he has been crucified in weakness, yet he lives by God's power; for indeed *we* are weak in him, but we shall live with him by God's power towards you,) examine your own selves if ye be in the faith; prove your own selves: do ye not recognise yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you, unless indeed ye be reprobates?

All of them were told, Bob, explicitly to their face: Hitler, Nebuchadnezzar, Stalin--all the homosexuals through whom anti-Christ spreads himself as their speech and disease. And where are they now, having preferred the speech they grew up in, in order that they appeared logical and sensual before certain men and women?

Zechariah 1:5,6 Your fathers, where are they? and the prophets, do they live for ever? But my words and my statutes, which I commanded my servants the prophets, did they not overtake your fathers? And they turned and said, Like as Jehovah of hosts thought to do unto us, according to our ways and according to our doings, so hath he dealt with us.

and yet again:

Psalm 103:10-12 He hath not dealt with us according to our sins, nor rewarded us according to our iniquities. For as the heavens are high above the earth, so great is his loving-kindness toward them that fear him. As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.

2 Corinthians 5:17 So if any one be in Christ, there is a new creation; the old things have passed away; behold all things have become new:

In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen

Hmmmm. So you're not keen on homosexuals then!

I'm not clear why you think you are able to comment on my beliefs about Jesus Christ, logic, epistemiology, cosmology and all the rest. I don't recall telling you what they are. It may be that you are jumping to some pretty hasty conclusions.

Bob Doney

You are completely correct in your assertion. The argument, "marriage always was X, therefore it always should be X" is a logically fallacious argument. Don't let anyone bullshit you, becaues that line of logic is called "appeal to tradition." It's always invalid. Always--just like appeal to emotions, appeal to popularity etc.

It's even better when the tradition they are pointing to never existed the way that they claim.

I must have missed something. When did marriage become something exclusivly reserved for religious people? Have all these people that married without a religious service imagined things?

you are very adept. yes, you did miss something.

Yeah you missed the third, fourth and fifth word of the first sentence.

"supposed to be"

Ming & Krist,

I'll give you both a bit of credit. First, Ming is right to say I went off the topic by bringing homosexuality into the issue. However, to ignore the tie to gay marriage when issues about civil unions is being discussed is like making spaghetti without the noodles.

My point about having their values forced on others, and this includes the polygamist relationship of the story, is based on the simple fact that many Christians and, might I note, many non-believers as well, consider the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman to be much more sacred than the joke being made of it today and we are offended by the idea of gay marriage and civil unions that recognise multi-partners. Thus, their efforts to have these unions recognized are infringing on our beliefs. If they want to go ahead with these relationships that is their business, but to make marriage an issue in it is attacking my own faith.

In your case Krist, I will forgive you for ignoring milleniums of history. Of course marriage is historically based on religious beliefs. It is laughable of you to say otherwise.

The “Flemish American” states, “ many … we are offended by the idea of gay marriage and civil unions that recognize multi-partners. Thus, their efforts to have these unions recognized are infringing on our beliefs.”

I am so completely appalled by the lack of logic in this. By this reasoning anyone who does not believe and act like you do is infringing on your beliefs. Is it infringing on your beliefs for Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, or Wikans to call their philosophies “religions”?

Since you like analogies so much, let’s consider football. Is it infringing on the world’s beliefs for Americans to call their sport football? Most people in the world refer to football, they are speaking of the game Americans call “soccer”. In fact football referred to that game long before the American game existed.

In fact, what Americans call football can trace its roots back to rugby, and rugby back to soccer. They all get called football, and they all classify as a sport. But I suppose that you think calling “soccer”, “football” is infringing on your beliefs as well.

Calling poker or gulf a sport and showing them on ESPN is offensive to many as well, but that doesn’t mean it’s infringing on anyone’s beliefs.

To infringe on someone’s beliefs is to keep them from having or practicing those beliefs. No one is suggesting to keep those who believe in heterosexual mono-partnering from doing anything, or having whatever beliefs they want. You are even free to teach your children that homosexuality and multi-partnering are wrong.

Just like I am free to teach my children that bigotry and suppression of freedoms is wrong.

Thank you for those responding to my original statement. As is expected in blogland, I can see much of what I said has been twisted for your own purposes, as is your prerogative.

While I felt I was clear, I will try to put my thoughts into simple sentences. I'm curious to see where this will take us.

1. Marriage is a religious institution.

2. Civil unions are legal "back-doors" to make historically unconventional relationships like a marriage. This includes homosexual relationships as well as a heterosexual couple living out of wedlock and, in this case, a polygamist relationship.

3. Trying to force the legal institutions to recognise these unconventional relationships as marriage seriously undermines the deep meaning of the tradition and is being done more to antagonize traditionalists rather than out of actual, legal need.

Thus, I conclude that they are forcing their own set of values on me and consider myself completely justified in defending the institution as it was intended to be...the joining of one man and one woman.

What if monotheist religion came at some point to help patriarchal societies develop ?
What if all your beliefs work socially the same way those 'poor indians' , guiding their society rules and avoiding genetic deviance ?
What if your traditions are a tool, to mold society, a tool created by others, or by society itself, and you're just a pawn ?

"My point about having their values forced on others, and this includes the polygamist relationship of the story, is based on the simple fact that many Christians and, might I note, many non-believers as well, consider the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman to be much more sacred than the joke being made of it today and we are offended by the idea of gay marriage and civil unions that recognise multi-partners."

Aren't you enforcing your beliefs on non-religious people here? Not everyone is a christian and not all non-christians share the same views.

"Of course marriage is historically based on religious beliefs."

It can't be denied that christian beliefs play an important part in what Dutch people consider 'marriage', but this is a part of their culture. It's in no way 'nature'. Other cultures can have different interpretations of the word 'marriage'.

Christians are upset because of multiple-person marriage? Are you joking?

Go back and read it again. For your own sake, for the sake of the argument you are trying to make, go back and read it again.

The "tradition" of one man and one woman is a myth and is as modern as modernity gets.

we are offended by the idea of gay marriage and civil unions that recognise multi-partners. Thus, their efforts to have these unions recognized are infringing on our beliefs.

Infringing on beliefs? How does one do that? If you can't handle having your beliefs challenged, can't handle seeing contradictions of your beliefs and that means you can't believe what you did any more, that's your problem, not anyone else's. It's not a "right" to have everyone else conform to your beliefs. If you want that you need to go live with Amish people or some other closed-society.

"In your case Krist, I will forgive you for ignoring milleniums of history."

Um, first of all, technically it's *millenia* not milleniums. :\ At least according to proper pluralization of Latin nouns. But I'm just being picky.

"Of course marriage is historically based on religious beliefs."

Well, just whose beliefs are you referring to? The word marriage actually comes from the Latin words maritare and maritus. If you consider the rigidity of the Roman marriage systems, and often the lack of love, do you really want to compare so-called "ideal" marriages to that? Because that is the basis. Otherwise you must look elsewhere in the world where there is a rich variety of legal, social, and religious relationships between people.

Karena wrote: "Um, first of all, technically it's *millenia* not milleniums. :\ At least according to proper pluralization of Latin nouns. But I'm just being picky."

Not only are you being picky, you are also very wrong. Both forms are correct in the Queen's English, as any dictionary will tell you. And if you insist on commenting on other people's spelling skills, make sure that you don't make silly mistakes, such as spelling "millenniums" or "millennia" with only one "n"...

Well, the fact is you should bother about the "sanctity" of YOUR OWN marriage. Isn't that enough for you? :D
I don't need "sanctity", I just pay taxes and expect society to treat me righteously. And I promise I won't mess with your marriage, dear.

How the hell did gays suddenly get mixed up in this farce you people are creating here? Is this what you people call an "intellectual" discussion? Why don't you all mind your own bloody business and let people get on with their lives the way THEY see fit? "It is not my place to judge" you say? Well, then don't! And please, PLEASE explain to me HOW on god's green earth gays are "forcing their values" on you? What ARE "their values" anyway?

this legal union of one man with two bisexual women was made possible by the gay rights lobbyists who insisted that they needed gay marriage.

Nearly everything they claim to want through changing the only definition of marriage the world has ever had is also available through forming a legal partnership, a corporation.

Gays are indeed forcing their values, by demanding to participate in an institution reserved by nature and common sense for one man and one woman. It's like the athlete who says, "I want to play football, but I'll play it with a bat." Well, you have the right to play it, but don't call it "football." That would indeed be forcing one's values (that bats are equally fine in football as not) on the game. Likewise, gays have the right their relationships, but don't call it "marriage." When they insist on invading an institution and watering it down to where it no longer means a commitment between one man and one woman, but a "loving relationship" between any number of people of any gender, that is nothing less than cramming their values down our throats.

i wholly agree with your assessment to the gays trying to cram their agenda on an institution called marriage, in which is all about a union between a woman and a man; and i might add a hetersexual woman and man.

When they insist on invading an institution and watering it down to where it no longer means a commitment between one man and one woman...

It has not meant that since the first divorce.

Does this poor bastard know what he's getting himself into? I doubt it. He better have a place to hide during *that time of the month* in that household! And does he know how many times he's gonna hear *why did you leave the toilet seat up?*. What about sexual relations? No... wait... I get it....

That being said as soon as I can get Mandy Moore and Charlize Theron to agree we'll all be going to the Netherlands to legalize our union.

My wife wants to marry my sister who wants also to stay married with my brother in law who has a homosexual relationship with my brother who lives with two teenagers from a first marriage with a kangooroo!!!

Isn't it time the authorities got out of the business of officially sanctioning what people do in their private lives altogether? A union between any number of people, in any combination of sexes and/or sexual orientations ought to be permitted, as long as all members enter it voluntarily. Contract freedom should here too exist, and the gouvernement has no business dictating which types of contracts are acceptable, which types of contract will get the official seal of approval, and which types will not.

(BTW, noticed which adds google added to the item? :-)

That would be all well and fine if it was kept private.
The proplem is that once these unions are recognized there are numerous benefits and entitlements that their partner('s) become eligable for.These benefits were granted as incentives for people to form family units as opposed to women simply having kids out of wedlock. If it wasn't due to the governmental benefits granted married couples this would be a non-issue. But where do we draw the line?

All I can see is greedy people who are willing to open the door to nasty divorce hearings down the road in exchange for a few benefits now.

Final thought...

It really doesn't matter what man has to say about it.
If GOD doesn't recognise it as a marriage it's not a marriage.

I fully agree with you! I think it is simply beautiful that these people have found each other and I hope that they will find happiness and prosperity!

Then again, there are also good reasons against.

What if a commune of seventeen with children splits up, are we going to give all 16 co-parents visitation rights?

What happens when a group splits up is up to the group. If they're smart they will have made the necessary provisions in their contract beforehand.

When a "group" splits up, it is because they have disagreements. Common sense dictates that those disagreements may extend to what will happen to the kids.

Clearly, nothing precludes all 17 members of an ex-commune claiming and enforcing co-parent rights.

Sure. Ugly things could happen. But it is a law of nature that no matter what, ugly things always will happen somewhere. That should not keep us from acting on principle. In this case the principle that I want upheld is that what consenting adults do in their own time and place is their business.

If it really got ugly a judge could always step in and enforce the divorce clauses in the contract the commune members had with each other, or absent such clauses, give co-parenting right to natural parents. That ought to be easy, as there can't be more than two natural parents for each child...

"That ought to be easy, as there can't be more than two natural parents for each child"

Only in your ideal world.

What if the parentage can not be established, because the father is one of two identical twins, both member of the commune, who had both "access" at the time of conception?

What if the child is adopted to start with? Or is it your position that these people should not qualify for adoption?

That ought to be easy, as there can't be more than two natural parents for each child...

I think the biotechnologists are about to prove you wrong on this one, Krist!

By the way, you don't want any limitations on the contractual rights of consenting adults. What about the children? What are their rights?

Bob Doney

you all seem to miss on important point. Ofcourse, allowing people to decide for themselves under what domestic arrangements they want to live will cause problems. Some of them may not be trivial to solve. But that is not a reason not to allow people the freedom to live under domestic arrangements of their choice.
The alternative, allowing only certain domestic arrangements via gouvernement fiat also causes problems. Some of which are also not trivial to solve.

Nothing humans endeavor will be perfect. No arrangement is problem proof. That something might lead to problems is not in itself a sufficient reason to disallow it.

The position that people ought to be free to live the way they choose to, is one I support on principle. Because I want to be able to live the way I want to I support other peoples' right to do so too. And I reject the idea that just because it could cause problems is enough reason to limit freedom in this case.

I take similar positions on other issues. I support the right of people to possess firearms for example, even though this undeniable leads to problems at times too.

Krist

No doubt, the behaviour of the man violates any non-discrimination laws which would happen to exist in the Netherlands. He refuses more members in this union, at least partly because of their sexual preferences.
No doubt, soon more laws will have to be added to make it possible for courts to overrule any refused membership in this kind of unions.

There's always one, isn't there, who takes the piss and spoils it for everyone else.

Bob Doney

URL: https://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/301

⇱ First Trio "Married" in The Netherlands | The Brussels Journal