No Gay Valentine

February 17, 2005

WARNING: THIS THREAD MAY MAKE THOSE WITH SENSATIVE STOMACHS VOMIT.

From the wacko left (salon.com) No Gay Valentines

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Holding on to her husband's arm, a middle-aged woman in a white wedding veil and sparkly makeup beamed as she walked past a cluster of protesters outside the Alltel Arena in Little Rock, Ark.

Why do these gay people have to try and toss cold water on these couple's parade? Must be very unhappy in life.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Those who weren't welcome at the governor's celebration -- gay couples like Robert Loyd and John Schenck, together for 30 years and recently wed in Toronto -- took the event as a personal rebuke

Oh poor guys. Now my wife and I can't celebrate Valentines Day without them feeling like victems. Talk about a victem mentality!!!

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

As part of that effort, he pushed for the state's covenant marriage law, which essentially forecloses the option of no-fault divorce for participating couples.

Now there is someone doing more than just talking. That is putting his money where his mouth is. I wish Texas had this law.

If anyone questions how wacko salpon.com is, note the author of this article thinks two gay guys in rebellion against God is more romantic than a married couple committing themselves more deeply to each other.

February 17, 2005

I read the salon article and came away with a different perspective.

Shane, would you say that marriage is the " a source of boundless bliss"? Are you sure that Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and his wife, Janet, haven't "romanticized view of marriage, true love and putting the partner above everything"? Practically speaking, is your marriage like that? I have spoken to many married couples and have oppertunities to query many older folk...none of them would define thier marriage as what the Governor said...Nor have they characterized marriage like what Rabbi Daniel Lapin proclaimed. "Your eyes must light up when your spouse enters the room". Most of the older couples say they choose to light up if they want to, but they dont 'have to'...

There is a difference, Shane.

It seems to me that the governor went overboard with defining a heterosexual marriage. To the point that gays were insulted. Which, contrary to your beliefs, is possible. It is hard for a salon reporter to make clear the intention of the article when dealing with controversial subjects like marriage and homosexuality and the like. When one goes overboard and romanticizes the marriage, it takes on a different meaning, which was not clear in the article...

And if the article is viewed in that light, then the marriage

that was defined by the governor as romantized and 'a source of bliss forever' was just as off as the defination of a homosexual marriage as a sexual perversion...

February 18, 2005

The salon.com reporter was trying to steer the reader down a road and you went right where he led you. If you can "think outside the box" you can see things in a light differently that the reporter wants you too.

Marriage is in trouble in the country and many parts of the world. My hat is off to all those that try to strengthen it. I think having a marriage option that doesn't allow no-fault divorce is a fantastic idea.

As far as gays being offended, I suspect that many gays were not offended at all - only a handful of vocal ones.

February 18, 2005

Quote:

The salon.com reporter was trying to steer the reader down a road and you went right where he led you. If you can "think outside the box" you can see things in a light differently that the reporter wants you too.

Ok, so let me get this straight...

You bring in an article, that no one here advocates as being practical for Christians, and slam the reporter for showing the unrealistic supposed "christian" arguements of marriage, which no Christain here who is married agrees with, just to show that marriage is a sacred institution.....

Either you are argueing for the sake of arguement, which I find useless or you have an agenda of your own that you want to use C/A for....which I also find somewhat. for lack of a better word, stupid.

Congratulations, Shane. Your post was much to do about nothing....

February 18, 2005

You seem full of insults, brother. Is your spirit troubled?

What I found very interesting about the story was the marriage option that doesn't allow no fault divorce. It seemed to me that the governor had the big Valentine bash in order to promote this marriage option. It didn't appear to me to be a gay-bashing event.

February 18, 2005

Quote:

You seem full of insults, brother. Is your spirit troubled?

No, there was no insulting, here Shane. It is called "thinking outside the box"...You may recall that phrase from a recent thread....

Quote:

What I found very interesting about the story was the marriage option that doesn't allow no fault divorce. It seemed to me that the governor had the big Valentine bash in order to promote this marriage option. It didn't appear to me to be a gay-bashing event.

I didn't see that, Shane. What I did see was the reporter opinion of unrealistic expectations from marriage to the point that some from the Gay community found offensive. Whether I agree with the reporter's views or not, is not up for discussion. but how you came to YOUR conclusions from this articles are, as YOU brought it up....

It comes to me as a refreshing thought, that the world doesn't revolve around "YOU".....

February 18, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

but how you came to YOUR conclusions from this articles are, as YOU brought it up....

The old double standard huh. That is truely sad.

I guess the real question is that if your state had such a law, would you marry your wife again so that you couldn't get a no-fault divorce? I would in a heartbeat. I want my wife to know that I am here for her for better or worse until death do us part.

February 18, 2005

Quote:

The old double standard huh. That is truely sad.

If you are refering to YOUR double standards, you are correct...it truely is sad...

Quote:

I guess the real question is that if your state had such a law, would you marry your wife again so that you couldn't get a no-fault divorce? I would in a heartbeat. I want my wife to know that I am here for her for better or worse until death do us part.

Shane, it isn't about ME...YOU brought up this thread. YOu read something that wasn't in the article and YOU brought out YOUR values and claimed something that the article just wasn't saying....Again, Shane, it isn't about ME, but rather about YOU....

Pretty hard to think outside that box, ain't it?

February 18, 2005

Is someone living in lala land?

It is ok for Brother Neil to question my motives but not ok for me to suggest how things seem about him <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> Wow!! Now that is a double standard.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Shane, it isn't about ME

Well, this thread is about marriage. If you are married then you may be able to contribute your experience. Maybe the better question is if your wife would be willing to marry you in a way that wouldn't allow her a no-fault divorce. Hmmmm, I wonder if my wife would be willing to do that with me <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

February 18, 2005

Suppose, for the sake of discussion, that Huckabee did "over romanticize marriage"-- so what? Seems to me if anybody ought to be upset by that, it's married people. After all, they're the ones who feel some burden to "live up to" unrealistic expectations.

And if marriage isn't as great as it's cracked up to be, why would gays want it? It would be much more effective, politically, if they had celebrated this event, and said, "We want that bliss, too."

This tactic of putting down marriage and then demanding it be redefined so they can "enjoy" its "privileges" is self-contradictory, and ultimately self-defeating.

February 18, 2005

Quote:

...Marriage is in trouble in the country and many parts of the world. My hat is off to all those that try to strengthen it. I think having a marriage option that doesn't allow no-fault divorce is a fantastic idea.

As far as gays being offended, I suspect that many gays were not offended at all - only a handful of vocal ones.

Here's a newsflash for the rightwing family values crowd - Marriage was in big trouble long before gays even thought of pushing for marriage rights or even came out of the closet!! The fact that the rate of divorce among evangelical Christians is as high or higher than the rest of the population, and has been for decades, should tell you that this has nothing to do with homosexuality, gay marriage or anything of the sort.

This is nothing more than rightwing political propaganda designed to wip homophobic voters into a blind voting frenzy of fear to suggest that outlawing homosexual marriage will do anything to strengthen or improve heterosexual marriage, the family or family values. There is no cause and effect relationship here at all! Beating on our heterosexual chests, outlawing and ranting against homosexuals does not do anything to make me and my wife and our children more heterosexual or faithful to one another. And it certainly doesn't make homosexuals less gay and definitely doesn't turn them into heterosexuals.

As I heard one gay person say, "Have you noticed that practically all homosexuals came from and were raised by heterosexual parents?" The empirical evidence would suggest that there is a very high probability that heterosexual marriage may be a causal factor of homosexuality.

Tom

February 18, 2005

Quote:

The empirical evidence would suggest that there is a very high probability that heterosexual marriage may be a causal factor of homosexuality.

I can state with absolute certainty that marriage is the single direct causal factor in divorce!

We can get rid of divorce entirely by outlawing marriage all together!

And birth is a causal factor in human death. We could eliminate death for humans entirely, in a single generation, if we simply eliminated human birth.

Birth contributes to homosexuality, heterosexuality, transgender, racism, hunger, oppression--

No dinosaurs have died, endured hunger, pain, or predation for thousands of years. Clearly, the way of the dinosaur is the wave of the future!

February 19, 2005

I read, listen and watch a lot of politcal commentary and have never once heard anyone advance the idea that homosexuality in any way has an effect of the divorce rate. That seems like just a bunch of smoke and mirrors.

Now one is very much in error to associate family values with the right wing. It is quite insulting to many liberals and moderates. Fact is there are many liberals and moderates that are also concerned about family values. There are even communists concerned about family values. No one need be right wing to be concerned about family values.

February 19, 2005

Shane, I think that the protestors came to this because Huckabee made this ceremony to be a political statement!

February 19, 2005

Brother Anthony, do you base your opinion on the salon.com article or do you have other sources of information? I ask because I know that is what the salon.com reporter wants us to conclude but I don't know that to be fact.

February 21, 2005

Quote:

Brother Anthony, do you base your opinion on the salon.com article or do you have other sources of information? I ask because I know that is what the salon.com reporter wants us to conclude but I don't know that to be fact.

I have asked and you have NOT, Shane, put up counter information regarding this event from a different main stream] reporter or a main source other than to boo-hoo this article and degrenate Salon.com.

We get YOUR agenda!...you don't like homosexuals nor do you like Salon.com....So, what's new in your neighborhood?

:eyerolls:

February 22, 2005

Actually I don't have a problem with salon.com any more than I do with Rush Limbaugh. They both present opinions from the political extreames that the mainstream press doesn't. The mainstream press does have a liberal bias but not to the extreame and it is constantly moving closer to the middle. The extreame forms of media are like watchdogs. But you know something about watchdogs? Most of the time when they bark it is over nothing. Same with with Salon and Rush.

Removing the reporter's bias, the story here seems to be that the governor passed a marriage law that allows couples to get married so they cannot have a no-fualt divorce. However it hasn't went over well. Not many couples are doing it. So it looks kind of like a flop. So what does the governor do? He throws a big Valentine Day wedding ceromony for couples wishing to choose this. The event should bring attention to this marriage option and hopefully boost its popularity.

I don't see that the event had anything to do with homosexuality other than that some gays don't like the governor and decided to protest the event. And unless the governor had promoted the event as anti-homosexual, the protestors were really out of line. They were trying to rain on these other couples' parade.

However if the governor did promote this as an anti-homosexual event, he invited the gay protestors. Yet I would think that by promoting it as an anti-homosexual event, he would get less couples to participate - You attract more flies with honey than vinigar. The fact that the governor supported a ban on gay marriage and than promoted a mass Valantine wedding are not nessarily connected.

I would like to see a story on this from another news source too. I think this type of marriage that doesn't allow no-fualt divorce is a great idea. However I do think it would take some promotion to make it popular. Maybe even paying jornalists to promote it (oh the scandel).

BTW, Brother Neil, I ran a ministry for three years for homosexuals. I have held hands and prayed with gays, even those with AIDS. I would have to say that I love homosexuals and my heart is broken for them. God has so much more for them than they can see.

February 22, 2005

Quote:

Actually I don't have a problem with salon.com any more than I do with Rush Limbaugh.

I take issue with this statement.

On more than one occassion, you have lamblasted Salon.com . In your comments, you aired your right wing comments as middle of the road. Your agenda is far closer to Rush Limbaugh's goals than middle of the road. I find your "middle of the road" comments rather extreme in thier own right. I find them deceptive and a blantent attempt to pull public opinion so far to the right that practical views will look extreem- case in point- abortion. Go to the [:"red"] Black Holocaust [/] thread to see arguements there....

Quote:

So what does the governor do? He throws a big Valentine Day wedding ceromony for couples wishing to choose this. The event should bring attention to this marriage option and hopefully boost its popularity.

So, why are gays in the newstory?

Marriage as described by the governor, provided by the ceremony, and a deliberate snubbing of the gay community only shows how much humanity CAN NOT GET ALONG. Therefore, humanity must rid itself of gays by protraying them as low life, self-centered, sex-crazed weirdos. Something that humanity can do without.

And the reporter for Salon.com shows how hypocritical the other side is.... Since you put this up, and since you are against homosexuals, and since you have a through knowledge of homosexuals, your agenda becomes apparent when your comments show hoomosexuals in a bad light.

IOWs [if I may reflect YOUR views], Shane says that homosexual need to be gotten rid of, and I will start by protraying them in a bad light to get agreement here in C/A. Later on, when we all agree that they are bad, we can kill them.

Congratulations, Shane, I got the point....again...

February 22, 2005

It is beyond me to understand why so many feel free to assume the worst about their fellow believers here.

I am at a loss to understand what could possibly justify such a comment.

Quote:

Later on, when we all agree that they are bad, we can kill them.

February 22, 2005

Quote:

It is beyond me to understand why so many feel free to assume the worst about their fellow believers here.

Ed,

You may be a great writer for the church, but you amaze me at your lack of historical and social perspective. Oh, I know, you can reassure me that this is not the case, but your comments show otherwise.

I have, dealt with Shane, for the last couple of years, and he continues to espouse what HE CALLS 'middle of the road values", which may resonate with many SDAs. After all, what SDA wouldn't like to see the extinction of the Gay agenda with the conversion of all gays into bible believing Christains. I don't think there are any even here on C/A.

A practical review of the homosexual issue is that the issue itself is not going to go away. We have homosexual SDAs [what's the organisation called, "Kinship International"? ], who lurk on this board. Therefore, to allow the continued hate filled theology and behavior is irresponsible of the church's social community.

Even recent history of Europes of the 30s & 40s, shows that the killing of jews began with the degration of a part of humanity. The next step was to place them in ghettos, and slowly exterminate them as the reigning social power allowed.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but Shane's article was to place homosexuals in a bad light. His agenda is compatable with other right wing organizations who espouse the s a m e philosophy. As a SDA, I don't think this sort of thing should be allowed, especially of a moderator, without an accounting.

I do tend to think that it is an act of love to hold someone accountable for thier views, especially when those views are detrimental to the one concept that all humanity understand....agape. I just don't see the agape principle being espoused by Shane. Am I holding him accountable for that? You bet yer sweet bibby, I am ....

February 23, 2005

No sale.

Your analysis takes too many logical leaps, similar to:

"Hitler was a vegetarian. Hitler was also a Nazi. So watch out for those vegetarians, they're only a step away from being Nazis."

It's light years from, "I don't agree with the GLAAD agenda," to "Let's kill all the perverts." The attempt to conflate one with the other suggests a weak philosophical underpinning.

It is a mistake to assume that because my reading of history and social issues differs from yours that mine is lacking. I know about the pink triangle and can quote Martin Niemoeller as well as anyone. It just doesn't fly.

It's like labeling those who don't approve of homosexual behavior as "homophobes." What rubbish. I am no more afraid of homosexuals than I am of someone with cerebral palsy, or someone who's left-handed. Just another sort of namecalling, only this one acquires a spurious scientific aura. And once again hints at weak logical and philosophical underpinnings.

If your best argument is "You don't agree with gay marriage, so you really want to kill gays," you've lost already.

After all, "If you don't agree with strictly heterosexual marriage, you must really want to kill married couples," is the same logic. Just pathetic.

February 23, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Your agenda is far closer to Rush Limbaugh's goals than middle of the road.

I know you read a lot of my commentary so either one or two things is true. 1. you don't know where Rush Limbaugh is on the political spectrum or 2. you don't know where the middle is. I am to the right of the middle but closer to the middle than to Limbaugh.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Go to the Black Holocaust thread to see arguements there....

In the thread Black Holocaust I am trying to discuss what appears to be Planned Parenthood targeting the black community. I don't see how that is extreame.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

So, why are gays in the newstory?

Since I don't have another account of the story I can only guess at the answer to the question. The salon reporter obviously wants us to believe what you are all too willing to swallow hook, line and sinker. The actual reason gays may be in the story is because they showed up to protest.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

a deliberate snubbing of the gay community

Now that is how the Salon reporter and a few gays saw the event. What we don't know is if that is actually how the governor planned it. Maybe that was the case. However maybe it wasn't.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

since you are against homosexuals

I am not against gays and this thread isn't about me. I labored three years for gay's salvation. How many other people do you know that have labored for gay's salvation? Have you? Far from being homophobic, I have embraced gays and prayed with them - even ones with AIDS. Have you?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Shane says that homosexual need to be gotten rid of

When? What thread? What is the post #? What was the date? Supply the quote.

This story was all about the mass wedding and it seemed odd that the salon reporter was most impressed with the gays that were left out. That shows how off base the reporter is. The gay protestors are not the story. He missed the forest for the trees. The mass wedding is the story.

February 23, 2005

Quote:

No sale.

I wasn't selling. You asked and I gave a reason. If you don't accept my reasoning, that ain't my problem.

Quote:

It is a mistake to assume that because my reading of history and social issues differs from yours that mine is lacking. I know about the pink triangle and can quote Martin Niemoeller as well as anyone. It just doesn't fly.

Well whoop de do!... You asked....I gave an answer and now you are sore at me for being honest with you...You bait, and now you attempt to trash. I ain't buying it, Ed. If you want to defend trashing homosexuals, that's all right with me, but I will hold you responsible for your writing. It's a form of hatred, pure and simple. You know it, I know it. So quit trying to defend those who advocate hate theology and philsophy and who hide behind religion to promote it.

Quote:

It's like labeling those who don't approve of homosexual behavior as "homophobes." What rubbish. I am no more afraid of homosexuals than I am of someone with cerebral palsy, or someone who's left-handed. Just another sort of namecalling, only this one acquires a spurious scientific aura. And once again hints at weak logical and philosophical underpinnings.

And your point to all this homosexual bashing is what again? It's love???? I don't think so, Ed. Look, I dont approve of homosexual behavior either, but I am not out to make homosexual look bad, and neither am I defending thier behavior. What I don't approve of is baiting, ...which is somthing that Shane and you seem to do well.

Quote:

If your best argument is "You don't agree with gay marriage, so you really want to kill gays," you've lost already.

Ed, if you, an SDA writer, can not really read and understand what is being said, I suggest that you admit it and quit trying to put words into my mouth. I have enough words of my own without others trying to put thiers in my mouth as well.

[:"green"]First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--

because I was not a communist;

Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--

because I was not a socialist;

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--

because I was not a trade unionist;

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--

because I was not a Jew;

Then they came for me--

and there was no one left to speak out for me. [/]

Maybe you don't understand what persecution is, Ed. Perhaps you have never had the experience of it. Well, bigotry is out there, and when you have had that experience, you realize that it is a sick form of life....and you want no one to ever have to go thru that.

February 23, 2005

When you address what I wrote, I'll reply. Until then, I cannot deal with your hallucinations.

February 23, 2005

Quote:

I know you read a lot of my commentary so either one or two things is true. 1. you don't know where Rush Limbaugh is on the political spectrum or 2. you don't know where the middle is. I am to the right of the middle but closer to the middle than to Limbaugh.

There is a 3rd option, which I subscribe to....That is, you have moved the extreems such that you are in the middle. You define the extreems and then you can claim that you are in the middle of the road....Hey, you do what you want....But when it comes to the practicality scale, you are way over to the right...may not be so political, but it is practical....

Quote:

Since I don't have another account of the story I can only guess at the answer to the question. The salon reporter obviously wants us to believe what you are all too willing to swallow hook, line and sinker. The actual reason gays may be in the story is because they showed up to protest.

And you are presupposing some things that are not in the story, Shane. Your prejuidice is showing. That is why you are being held accountable for your post....You show, in your religious zeal, your true nature....and it is hatred.

Quote:

Now that is how the Salon reporter and a few gays saw the event. What we don't know is if that is actually how the governor planned it. Maybe that was the case. However maybe it wasn't.

You don't know if "the governor planned it"???? Didn't you read the article, Shane...

[:"green"]There's a contradiction at the heart of the marriage movement. In their zeal to "protect" marriage from gay people and divorce, religious right activists have fetishized it, promoting it as a source of boundless bliss that would make the authors of bodice-rippers blush even as they bemoan a society where people are too easily swayed by marriage's disappointments. "On the one hand they have this romanticized view of marriage, true love and putting the partner above everything, but another theme in this whole marriage movement is that you shouldn't expect so much from marriage, you should suck it up, stay together for the sake of the kids and recognize that marriage is a moral duty," says Stephanie Coontz, author of the forthcoming "Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage." [/]

There it is, from the story Shane, the reason for the article. Marriage is "fetishized"....And the governor promoted it as the standard for marriage. IOWs, the govenor doesn't understand what marriage is about, and he reinforced that my myth of marriage, before the world and especially the homosexual community as a 'witness to the Lord'...

Your post, Shane, devalued the homosexual community further. Go look at your first post...Tell me that you were not mocking...And don't use the humor line...it ain't gonna wash here.

Quote:

The gay protestors are not the story. He missed the forest for the trees. The mass wedding is the story.

So why are YOU devaluating the homosexual community? It can be argued that was the aim of your first post, Shane...

Sign In

No Gay Valentine

Recommended Posts

Dr. Shane

Neil D

Dr. Shane

Neil D

Dr. Shane

Neil D

Dr. Shane

Neil D

Dr. Shane

there buster

Tom Wetmore

there buster

Dr. Shane

Anthony!

Dr. Shane

Neil D

Dr. Shane

Neil D

there buster

Neil D

there buster

Dr. Shane

Neil D

there buster

Neil D

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity