Society must choose: The Sodomites or Judeo-Christian Tradition

Re: Society must choose: The Sodomites or Judeo-Christian Tradition

Maine was a temporary cleansing against the vile militant sodomite agenda but, as we all know, these sexual miscreants never quit....

******************************************************************
Homosexual Leaders Blame TV Ads, Obama for Loss in Maine

Wednesday, November 04, 2009

By David Crary, Associated Press & Lisa Leff, Associated Press


Kt Crossman joins same-sex marriage supporters for a rally on the steps of City Hall, in Portland, Maine, on Wednesday, Nov. 4, 2009, a day after voters rejected the gay marriage law. (AP Photo/Pat Wellenbach)
San Francisco (AP) - Stunned and angry, national gay rights leaders Wednesday blamed scare-mongering ads - and President Barack Obama's lack of engagement - for a bitter election setback in Maine that could alter the dynamics for both sides in the gay-marriage debate.

Conservatives, in contrast, celebrated Maine voters' rejection of a law that would have allowed gay couples to wed, depicting it as a warning shot that should deter politicians in other states from pushing for same-sex marriage.

"Every time the citizens have voted on marriage, they have always sided with natural marriage," said Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, a Florida-based Christian legal group. "Maine dramatically illustrates the will of the people, and politicians should wake up and listen."

Gay activists were frustrated that Obama, who insists he staunchly supports their overall civil rights agenda, didn't speak out forcefully in defense of Maine's marriage law before Tuesday's referendum. The law was repealed in a vote of 53 percent to 47 percent.

"President Obama missed an opportunity to state his position against these discriminatory attacks with the clarity and moral imperative that would have helped in this close fight," said Evan Wolfson of the national advocacy group Freedom to Marry. "The anti-gay forces are throwing millions of dollars into various unsubtle ads aimed at scaring people, so subtle statements from the White House are not enough."

The White House, asked about the criticism, had no immediate comment.

The marriage debate is simmering in at least a half-dozen states where a same-sex marriage bill is pending or where a court ruling or existing law is being eyed by conservatives for possible challenge.

Had Maine's law been upheld by voters, it would have become the sixth state to legalize gay marriage - and the first to affirm it by popular vote. In Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Iowa, gay marriage resulted from court decisions or legislation.

California is sure to be a major battleground over the next several years. Last year, conservatives succeeded in winning public approval of Proposition 8, which overturned a state court ruling allowing gay marriage. Gay rights groups want to take the issue back to the voters but are divided on a timetable.

In the aftermath of the Maine vote, some California activists appealed to their supporters for money to help them put a measure on the 2010 ballot. Other activist leaders want to wait until 2012.

"It's never too early to go back to right a fundamental wrong," said Chaz Lowe of Yes! on Equality, who favors shooting for 2010. "A lot of people are angry, a lot of people are upset. It at least has the potential to be a mobilization for the grass roots."

Some California activists said the outcome in Maine strengthened their belief that it will fall to the U.S. Supreme Court - not the voters - to make gay marriage legal. A federal lawsuit challenging Prop. 8 is scheduled to go to trial in January, the first step in a legal journey that is expected to reach the high court in a few years.

"The results in Maine underscore exactly why we are challenging California's same-sex marriage ban," said Chad Griffin, president of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, the Los Angeles group spearheading the lawsuit. "The U.S. Constitution guarantees equal rights to every American, and when those rights are violated, it is the role of our courts to protect us, regardless of what the polls say."

The situation elsewhere:

- In New Jersey, the election Tuesday of Republican Chris Christie as governor puts extra pressure on gay rights supporters to win passage of a pending same-sex marriage bill before the legislative session ends in January. Christie says he would veto such a bill, while lame-duck Gov. Jon Corzine, a Democrat, says he would sign it. :+excited-

- In Iowa, where the state Supreme Court legalized gay marriage last April, conservatives have no quick way to overturn the ruling. Their only option would be to amend the state constitution through a ballot measure - in 2014 at the earliest - and that effort would need approval from a legislature whose current Democratic leaders don't even want to debate the issue.

- In New Hampshire, conservatives have filed legislation to repeal the state's new gay-marriage law and amend the constitution to ban such unions. Kevin Smith, executive director of the conservative Cornerstone Policy Research, said he doubts the measures will pass, but hopes the vote in Maine will give gay-marriage opponents ammunition for the 2010 elections. *double :houra*

"It gives us more fodder to go back to people and say, 'Look, they aren't letting you vote on it,'" Smith said.

- In Washington, D.C., conservatives are trying to force a popular vote on a bill headed toward City Council approval that would legalize gay marriage. Michael Crawford, one of the leaders of the local pro-gay marriage campaign, said the result in Maine increased his determination to avoid a ballot measure.

"The same cabal of anti-gay groups who stripped away marriage equality from our families in California and Maine now have their sights on D.C.," he said.

Crawford was among numerous gay rights leaders complaining about the campaign tactics of the groups that opposed same-sex marriage in Maine and California.

In both states, California-based political strategist Frank Schubert oversaw an advertising campaign warning that "homosexual marriage" would be taught in public schools.

The campaign to defend gay marriage countered that Maine's state curriculum guidelines contain no reference to marriage, and the state's Democratic attorney general, Janet Mills, issued an opinion backing that up. But the ads continued.

"It is infuriating to see that the same fear-mongering ads that were used to pass Prop. 8 a year ago have triumphed again at the expense of so many," said Joe Solmonese of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest national gay rights group. :LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO

Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, came away with a different message.

"Over and over again, the American people have affirmed marriage at the ballot box and turned aside the demands of a movement that remains largely driven by Hollywood, some extreme activists and a few activist judges," he said. "We hope the message sent by Maine's voters will be heard in Washington and state capitals around the nation."

David Crary reported from New York.
 
Re: Society must choose: The Sodomites or Judeo-Christian Tradition

Mark, how do you walk the streets of your Toronto neighborhood knowing that same-sex married couples could be ANYWHERE?
 
Re: Society must choose: The Sodomites or Judeo-Christian Tradition

Sodomites plus the points. I think they come out fired up after their last minute loss to The Heathens. Home field advantage should be huge here.
 

scrimmage

What you contemplate you imitate
Re: Society must choose: The Sodomites or Judeo-Christian Tradition

Sodomites plus the points. I think they come out fired up after their last minute loss to The Heathens. Home field advantage should be huge here.

Lesbian Elected Mayor of Houston,Texas

Sat Dec 12,2009
Annise Parker Wins Runoff Election
Despite Anti-Gay Attacks

HOUSTON, Dec. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --

Houston, Texas has become the largest city in the United States to elect an openly gay mayor after City Controller Annise Parker was declared the winner of a runoff election tonight. Social conservatives fought her election, funding a campaign aimed at turning out likeminded voters to support her opponent, former city attorney Gene Locke. But Parker's endorsements from labor, police, women's, gay rights and other groups were echoed by the Houston Chronicle, the area's major daily newspaper, and her campaign ran a superior get-out-the-vote effort.

Chuck Wolfe, president and CEO of the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, which endorsed Parker, said her victory holds tremendous significance for the gay community. "This is a watershed moment in American politics. Annise was elected by fair-minded people from across the city because of her experience and competence, and we're glad Houston soundly rejected the politics of division. This victory sends a clear signal that gays and lesbians are an integral part of American civic life, that we're willing to lead, and that voters will respond to candidates who are open and honest about their lives," Wolfe said.

Parker praised the support of the Victory Fund and its donors, who raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to help fund her campaign. ? "I am so grateful to the Victory Fund and its supporters for believing in this campaign from the beginning. ? This race was about the future of Houston, and whether we will face that future proud to be an open, welcoming, and fair-minded city. ? Tonight Houstonians said yes to a future like that, and I am glad the Victory Fund helped make that happen," Parker said.

Parker's election was the Victory Fund's top political priority in 2009, a year that saw 54 of its 79 endorsed openly gay, lesbian bisexual and transgender (LGBT) candidates elected to public office.

The Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund is the only national organization dedicated to increasing the number of openly lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) elected officials at all levels of government. Since its founding in 1991, the Victory Fund has helped grow that number from 49 to more than 450.

SOURCE Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20091213/pl_usnw/DC25267;_ylt=AvscSTDVGZ25P25VPmkBGyJ0fNdF

 
Re: Society must choose: The Sodomites or Judeo-Christian Tradition

Lesbian Elected Mayor of Houston,Texas

Sat Dec 12,2009
Annise Parker Wins Runoff Election
Despite Anti-Gay Attacks

HOUSTON, Dec. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --
It's called Hurricane Katrina migration.

Great. Sodom and Gomorrah has moved to Texas.

 

scrimmage

What you contemplate you imitate
Re: Society must choose: The Sodomites or Judeo-Christian Tradition

Hurricane Katrina migration.

Was there a big Hurricane Katrina migration to these other cities?:

Several other U.S. cities, including Portland, Ore., Providence, R.I., and Cambridge, Mass., have openly gay mayors,
but none as large as Houston.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation/AP/story/1378524.html
Guess Mayor Annise Parker's opponent didn't get out the voters who you might theorize he would then,eh Joe:

She won the run-off against fellow Democrat Gene Locke, an African-American lawyer and former city attorney,
after a four-way primary in November came up inconclusive.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091213/ts_nm/us_election_houston_mayor
 
Re: Society must choose: The Sodomites or Judeo-Christian Tradition

Senator DeMint troubled by the thought of a gay president

During an interview with Bloomberg's Al Hunt, South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint said he would find it troublesome if the country elected an openly gay president.

"It would be bothersome to me personally because I consider it immoral," DeMint said during the interview. When the issue of gay marriage came up, DeMint did not hold back from denouncing the notion.

"Marriage is a religious institution. The federal government has no business redefining what it is. Governments should not be in the business of promoting a behavior that's proven to be destructive to our society."


http://www.amazon.com/Saving-Freedo...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260867030&sr=8-1

91023i2ndw;l
 

scrimmage

What you contemplate you imitate
Re: Society must choose: The Sodomites or Judeo-Christian Tradition

Gay Marriage Moves One Step Closer
to Reality in D.C.
Posted on Dec 15, 2009

The City Council in Washington, D.C., soundly passed a bill Tuesday[12/15/2009] that will make gay marriage legal in the nation?s capital if it clears a few more hurdles. However, one of those hurdles happens to be Congress, and opponents of the measure are gearing up for a battle.

The New York Times:
The bill, which passed by an 11-2 vote, may still face obstacles in Congress, among city voters and in the courts, but most advocates say they expect it to become law by the spring. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty has said he will sign it.
From:
http://www.truthdig.com/eartothegro...es_one_step_closer_to_reality_in_dc_20091215/

Hell Yes
By Mr. Fish
Posted on Dec 14, 2009

By christian96, December 15 at 2:15 am
The devil doesn?t have to worry about Hell freezing
over. He has to worry about the ?Lake of Fire.?
Could happen when the sun explodes!

Cartoon,comment from:
http://www.truthdig.com/cartoon/item/hell_yes_20091214/


Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Loving Sinners

?Love the sinner, hate the sin? is a phrase that has been tossed about so often, that many people think it is a biblical quotation. Using the search feature on my bible software on 16 different versions of the Bible turned up: ?There were no results for this search?. A search of the internet pointed to a possibility that it may have been a paraphrase of St Augustine of Hippo who said in Latin, Cum dilectione hominum et odio vitiorum, or ?With love for mankind and hatred of sins.? So why do we as Christians use this phrase so often?

It may be because the sentiment it expresses is one found in Scripture. After all Paul reminds Timothy that, ?Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners?of whom I am the worst? (1 Tim 1:15). Jesus certainly went out of his way to reach the lost, and became known as a ?friend of tax collectors and sinners? (Luke 7:34). Then we have that famous story of the woman caught in adultery. As we all know, the story ends with him saying to this poor dis-graced person, ?Neither do I condemn you... Go now and leave your life of sin? (John 8:11).

However, in my experience, as good and biblical as this phrase sounds, it is for all intents and purposes a human impossibility. As depraved creatures, we do neither well. Our ?love? is incomplete at best, or hypocritical at its worst. And our ?hate? is qualified. We ?hate? the sin that is not our own. More importantly, we cannot for all our efforts keep that fine line between the ?sin? and the ?sinner?.

I have never heard a person once utter with great conviction, ?That pastor really hates my sin, but I am convinced that he absolutely loves me!? Instead, what I have come across many times are people who has been so battered and bruised by other Christians, because of the callous judgement, and angry rhetoric, that they despaired of ever finding healing in the church.
I am reminded of the story that Philip Yancey tells in his book, What?s So Amazing About Grace? He speaks to a prostitute who is desperate, advising her to go to the neighbourhood church to find help. She replies, ?Church! Why would I ever go there? I was already feeling terrible about myself. They'd just make me feel worse."

Excerpt from:
http://thewongday.blogspot.com/2009/05/loving-sinners.html

 

scrimmage

What you contemplate you imitate
Re: Society must choose: The Sodomites or Judeo-Christian Tradition

Mark, how do you walk the streets of your Toronto neighborhood knowing that same-sex married couples could be ANYWHERE?


Mexico City Brings Gay Marriage South of the Border

Posted on Dec 21, 2009

<TABLE style="BORDER-RIGHT: #555555 0px solid; BORDER-TOP: #555555 0px solid; FLOAT: right; MARGIN-LEFT: 10px; BORDER-LEFT: #555555 0px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #555555 0px solid" width=300><TBODY><TR><TD style="FONT-SIZE: x-small" align=right jQuery1261458232991="178">
</TD></TR><TR><TD style="FONT-SIZE: x-small" align=right jQuery1261458232991="179">Flickr / Esparta</TD></TR><TR><TD style="FONT-SIZE: x-small" jQuery1261458232991="180">An hombre gets his parade on in Mexico City.




</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Mexico City, one of the largest metropolises in the world, is set to become the first city in Latin America to legalize gay marriage. The mega-city and its surrounding suburbs are home to roughly 20 million people, just under one-fifth of Mexico?s population.
A few cities in Latin America already have same-sex civil unions, Mexico City among them, but the Mexican capital will be the first to legalize same-sex marriage. Not all of that staunchly Catholic part of the world is thrilled with the development.
Isn?t the difference between a civil union and marriage just a name and maybe some tasteful decorations? Not so. Read below about what the change means to Mexico City?s gays. ?PZS




From:
http://www.truthdig.com/eartothegro...gs_gay_marriage_south_of_the_border_20091221/

Mexico City assembly legalizes same-sex marriage
By E. EDUARDO CASTILLO (AP) ?Decmber 21 2009

MEXICO CITY ? Mexico City lawmakers on Monday[12/21/2009] made the city the first in Latin America to legalize same-sex marriage, a change that will give homosexual couples more rights, including allowing them to adopt children.
The bill passed the capital's local assembly 39-20 to the cheers of supporters who yelled: "Yes, we could! Yes, we could!"
Leftist Mayor Marcelo Ebrard of the Democratic Revolution Party is widely expected to sign the measure into law.

The bill calls for changing the definition of marriage in the city's civil code. Marriage is currently defined as the union of a man and a woman. The new definition will be "the free uniting of two people."
The change would allow same-sex couples to adopt children, apply for bank loans together, inherit wealth and be included in the insurance policies of their spouse, rights they were denied under civil unions allowed in the city.

"We are so happy," said Temistocles Villanueva, a 23-year-old film student who celebrated by passionately kissing his boyfriend outside the city's assembly.

Only seven countries allow gay marriages: Canada, Spain, South Africa, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands and Belgium. U.S. states that permit same-sex marriage are Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut and New Hampshire.

From:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5grJesfflOb0tjV_flyYRem81BVMwD9CNUTRO1
 

scrimmage

What you contemplate you imitate
Re: Society must choose: The Sodomites or Judeo-Christian Tradition

Somewhere on the spectrum of human sexuality:

Pakistani Eunuchs
Recognised as Distinct
Gender

By Martha Lee
December 23, 2009


Eunuchs, known as "hijras" in Pakistan, who are men castrated at an early age for medical or social reasons, will now be allowed to identify themselves as a distinct gender in order to ensure their rights, ruled Pakistan?s Supreme Court.

The court said they should be issued with national identity cards showing their distinct gender. The government has also been ordered to take steps to ensure they are entitled to inherit property.
Generally shunned by the largely Muslim conservative society, they tend to live together in slum communities, surviving through begging and by dancing at weddings and carnivals. A hijra association has welcomed the order, saying it is "a major step giving respect and identity in society".

Indian authorities last month agreed to list eunuchs and transgender people by using the term "others", distinct from males and females, on electoral rolls and voter identity cards, after a long-running campaign by the members of the community. There are estimated to be about 300,000 hijras in Pakistan, and 500,000 hijras in India.

From:
http://carnalnation.com/content/42262/930/pakistani-eunuchs-recognised-distinct-gender

Eunuchs of Pakistan
Posted by JANGBIR on Aug 8, '09 2:40 AM for everyone

From:
http://jangvir.multiply.com/journal/item/26/EUNUCHS_OF_PAKISTAN
 

scrimmage

What you contemplate you imitate
Re: Society must choose: The Sodomites or Judeo-Christian Tradition

China's coming out to the world,and saying its arrived moment?
News
<LABEL class=views-label-nothing>By Martha Lee</LABEL> January 6th, 2010


<!--paging_filter-->Founder of Eros Coaching, Dr. Martha Lee is a Clinical Sexologist based in Singapore.

Presenting:
First Mr. Gay China Contestants

Beijing will host the very first "Mr. Gay China 2010" pageant next Friday[1/15/2009]. This is just a few weeks after Hong Kong's first gay pageant was won by 30-year-old American dancer Rick Twombley. The winner will compete for the title of Mr. Gay World Ambassador in Olso, Norway.

According to Ben Zhang, founder of gay media and PR website gayographic.org, there will be sportswear and swimsuit segments, a Q&A session,and a panel of judges will select the winner based on overall performance.

The pageant was open to anyone who lives in China - local or foreign,
and contestants applied online. To browse the candidates, find out about mixers and other events in the days before, or even purchase tickets
to the event, you can visit the Mr. Gay China website.

Homosexuality is still a sensitive issue in China - where it was officially considered a mental illness until 2001 - and Zhang conceded that some contestants might not want to be filmed at the pageant. But he said the Chinese general public was more tolerant towards homosexuality than
that in some other countries he had visited.

Nevertheless, the Chinese mainstream media will not be invited to the pageant. Gay men and women in China often find it difficult to come out
to their friends and family. One of the reasons lies in the nation's one-child policy, which means parents rely on their only child to marry and
to produce grandchildren.

The official China Daily newspaper in 2005 put the number of homosexuals in China at around 30 million, out of a total population of 1.3 billion.
But government departments and academic reports have put the figure at around 15 million, according to the state-run Xinhua news agency.
From:
http://carnalnation.com/content/44185/930/presenting-first-mr-gay-china-contestants







Judging Criteria

The Mr. Gay China competition is much more than a beauty contest. While physical beauty will be part of the judges? considerations,
it is a young man?s character and personality that will make a difference in the selection.
The jury will consist of at least five persons, with one Director from Gayographic being appointed Head of the Jury.

The jury will focus on a young man who:
  • shows an interest in the world around him;
  • can articulate his thoughts;
  • has an innate charm and sparkle;
  • is special, but real;
  • has poise and confidence without coming across as arrogant;
  • can be an ambassador of goodwill;
  • is the quintessential young man that is representative of China.
http://www.gayographic.org/mgc/candidate_en.htm
 
Re: Society must choose: The Sodomites or Judeo-Christian Tradition

It seems as is "society" is choosing tolerance over bigotry, yet again. Of course, the wackos conveniently forget that this Jesus cat was one of the most tolerant figures in history. . .

______________________________________________

Portugal parliament votes to permit gay marriage

By BARRY HATTON Associated Press Writer ? 2010 The Associated Press

Jan. 8, 2010, 8:59AM


LISBON, Portugal — Portugal's parliament passed a bill Friday that would make the predominantly Catholic nation the sixth in Europe to permit gay marriage.
Conservative President Anibal Cavaco Silva is thought unlikely to veto the Socialist government's bill, which won the support of all left-of-center parties. His ratification would allow the first gay marriage ceremonies to take place in April — a month before Pope Benedict XVI is due on an official visit to Portugal.
Right-of-center parties opposed the change and sought a national referendum on the issue, but their proposal was rejected and the government's bill was passed by 125 votes to 99.
Gay rights campaigners applauded from the galleries, hugged and kissed outside the building and ate wedding cake.
"This law rights a wrong," Prime Minister Jose Socrates said in a speech to lawmakers, adding that it "simply ends pointless suffering."
Socrates said the measure is part of his effort to modernize Portugal where homosexuality was a crime until 1982. Two years ago his government lifted Portugal's ban on abortion, despite church opposition.
Gay marriage is currently permitted in Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and Norway. Canada, South Africa and six U.S. states also permit it.
The bill removes a reference in the current law to marriage being between two people of different sexes.
"It's a slight change to the law, it's true," Socrates, the prime minister, said. "But it is a very important and symbolic step towards fully ensuring respect for values that are essential in any democratic, open and tolerant society: the values of freedom, equality and non-discrimination."
Like neighboring Spain, which introduced same-sex marriages four years ago, Portugal is an overwhelmingly Roman Catholic country and previous efforts to introduce gay marriage ran into strong resistance from religious groups and conservative lawmakers.
Paulo Corte-Real, head of a lobby group called Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transsexual Intervention, said Portugal had become a pioneering country in gay rights.
"This is a historic moment. We just hope (the bill) gets ratified quickly," he said.
Socrates said a referendum was not necessary because the gay marriage proposal was included in the Socialist Party's manifesto in last September's general election, when it was returned to power.
In 2001, a law allowed "civil unions" between same-sex couples which granted them certain legal, tax and property rights. However, it did not allow couples to take their partner's name, inherit their possessions nor their state pension, which is permitted in marriages.
A proposal from the Left Bloc and Green Party allowing gay couples to adopt children was voted down Friday. Gay campaigners said they would continue to fight for gay couples' parental rights.
The main opposition Social Democratic Party proposed granting non-married cohabiting couples of the same sex more rights, as in France, but its bill also was rejected.


http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/6805198.html
 

scrimmage

What you contemplate you imitate
Re: Society must choose: The Sodomites or Judeo-Christian Tradition

Joe will be happy to know:
[or maybe not?,since a "communist" regime is oppressing individuals rights,what does he have to say about this?]

January 16, 2010
All made up but nowhere to go ?
gay contest axed for failing to conform

<!-- END: Module - Main Heading --><!--CMA user Call Diffrenet Variation Of Image --><!-- BEGIN: Module - M24 Article Headline with portrait image (b) --></SCRIPT><!-- Print Author name from By Line associated with the article -->By Jane Macartney in Beijing </I>
From:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6989681.ece

<!--

--><!-- END: M19 - Article tools --><!-- BEGIN: Portrait image -->

<!-- Remove following to not show photographer information -->(Ng Han Guan/AP)
<!-- Remove following to not show image description -->The host of Mr Gay China, Michael Tsai, before the event was cancelled
<!-- END: Module - Module - M24 Article Headline with portrait image (b) --><!-- BEGIN: Module - Main Article --><!-- Check the Article Type and display accordingly--><!-- Print Author image associated with the Author--><!-- Print the body of the article--><STYLE type=text/css>div#related-article-links p a, div#related-article-links p a:visited {color:#06c;} </STYLE><!-- Pagination --><!--Display article with page breaks -->

Jay?s foundation had been applied, and his face powdered.
The swimming trunks had been laid out and the judges were in place for the inaugural Mr Gay China pageant. Then the police arrived.

Less than an hour before the contestants were due on stage, the police scrapped the country?s first gay pageant, showing just how far homosexuality is from winning acceptance in this conservative society.

Ben Zhang had gathered a host in drag, some of China?s most prominent gays and a carefully invited audience at a swish, black-walled club designed by Philippe Starck in the heart of Beijing.

The eight contestants were in make-up when a group of uniformed police marched into the club. Mr Zhang said that they told him there was nothing wrong with the homosexual content, but: ?You did not do things according to procedures.?

Jay, from the northern port city of Tianjin, told The Times: ?I?m rather disappointed. I never expected they would cancel.? Dressed in a form-fitting white shirt, hip-hugging black trousers and sharply pointed black shoes, and with an earring in his left ear, the slender 29-year-old said shyly that he believed he had a chance of winning. ?I think my figure is my greatest asset,? he said.

Mr Zhang had said that he hoped a successful pageant would encourage greater awareness and tolerance in a country where gays are frequently discriminated against and ostracised.

The winner would have taken part in the Worldwide Mr Gay pageant next month in Oslo. All the contestants chose to go by English names to conceal their real identities in case of discrimination.

Jay, along with several other contestants, said that he had not told his parents about his sexuality, although most friends, and even colleagues, were not bothered. He said: ?I know it?s possible that my parents could find out after all this publicity. But they want me to get married. I think they will finally understand because I am their son.?

Difficulties for gays are easing, but are still widespread in a country that officially considered homosexuality a mental disorder until 2001. Last June China?s first gay pride festival was held in Shanghai, albeit with with some events cancelled at the last minute by the authorities.
 
Re: Society must choose: The Sodomites or Judeo-Christian Tradition

It seems as is "society" is choosing tolerance over bigotry, yet again. Of course, the wackos conveniently forget that this Jesus cat was one of the most tolerant figures in history. . .

______________________________________________

Portugal parliament votes to permit gay marriage

By BARRY HATTON Associated Press Writer ? 2010 The Associated Press

Jan. 8, 2010, 8:59AM


LISBON, Portugal ? Portugal's parliament passed a bill Friday that would make the predominantly Catholic nation the sixth in Europe to permit gay marriage.
Conservative President Anibal Cavaco Silva is thought unlikely to veto the Socialist government's bill, which won the support of all left-of-center parties. His ratification would allow the first gay marriage ceremonies to take place in April ? a month before Pope Benedict XVI is due on an official visit to Portugal.
Right-of-center parties opposed the change and sought a national referendum on the issue, but their proposal was rejected and the government's bill was passed by 125 votes to 99.
Gay rights campaigners applauded from the galleries, hugged and kissed outside the building and ate wedding cake.
"This law rights a wrong," Prime Minister Jose Socrates said in a speech to lawmakers, adding that it "simply ends pointless suffering."
Socrates said the measure is part of his effort to modernize Portugal where homosexuality was a crime until 1982. Two years ago his government lifted Portugal's ban on abortion, despite church opposition.
Gay marriage is currently permitted in Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and Norway. Canada, South Africa and six U.S. states also permit it.
The bill removes a reference in the current law to marriage being between two people of different sexes.
"It's a slight change to the law, it's true," Socrates, the prime minister, said. "But it is a very important and symbolic step towards fully ensuring respect for values that are essential in any democratic, open and tolerant society: the values of freedom, equality and non-discrimination."
Like neighboring Spain, which introduced same-sex marriages four years ago, Portugal is an overwhelmingly Roman Catholic country and previous efforts to introduce gay marriage ran into strong resistance from religious groups and conservative lawmakers.
Paulo Corte-Real, head of a lobby group called Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transsexual Intervention, said Portugal had become a pioneering country in gay rights.
"This is a historic moment. We just hope (the bill) gets ratified quickly," he said.
Socrates said a referendum was not necessary because the gay marriage proposal was included in the Socialist Party's manifesto in last September's general election, when it was returned to power.
In 2001, a law allowed "civil unions" between same-sex couples which granted them certain legal, tax and property rights. However, it did not allow couples to take their partner's name, inherit their possessions nor their state pension, which is permitted in marriages.
A proposal from the Left Bloc and Green Party allowing gay couples to adopt children was voted down Friday. Gay campaigners said they would continue to fight for gay couples' parental rights.
The main opposition Social Democratic Party proposed granting non-married cohabiting couples of the same sex more rights, as in France, but its bill also was rejected.


http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/6805198.html
"Jesus cat was one of the most tolerant figures in history"

pure bullshit.
 
Re: Society must choose: The Sodomites or Judeo-Christian Tradition

"Jesus cat was one of the most tolerant figures in history"

pure bullshit.
Assuredly a most telling and hard-hitting post. The quality and organization of your factual recitation puts all controverting arguments to shame. Your family and friends must be immensely proud of you after this fine effort.
 
Re: Society must choose: The Sodomites or Judeo-Christian Tradition

It seems as is "society" is choosing tolerance over bigotry, yet again. Of course, the wackos conveniently forget that this Jesus cat was one of the most tolerant figures in history. . .

______________________________________________

Portugal parliament votes to permit gay marriage
Howdy! My first trip through the darkened halls of Cyber Purgatory since Jan 5.

Nice news post, counselor. So that's six European countries, Canada, five states in the USA.

THEY'RE EVERYWHERE!

Soon will come the time when We Should Be All Scared and stuff?

---
Also, props on noticing that along with his insistence on bucking the religious status quo, that Jesus Christ guy may himself have been homosexual. Unfortunately we have no way of knowing for sure because such info might well serve to dissolve much of the 21st century rancor when the word HOMOSEXUAL is raised in Polite Company.

Keep jammin', my four or five Sensible Sorts over here at EOG. I'm going to do a quick surf of "I Dominate the WorldWideWeb" Lanquel's posts from past couple weeks so I can get a quick count on how many times he's made direct or implied reference to his faux American citizenship.

I'll then be Up, Up and Away to my normal life of being a LawnMowing SuperHero and also (finally after deferring our startup from last April until Feb 2010) an internet marketeer SuperHero via the miracle of my own work and my association with the smart folks at Network21.

Back here maybe in a couple weeks, during which time Markie can comb that interweb to find humorous pictures of a guy pushing a lawnmower while wearing a cap that says Amway on the bill.

LIFE SENTENCE in Cyber Purgatory merits allowance to make such jokes, Joey. We Love ya buddy

....in a total non-sodomite and in a healthy Judeo-Christian way Of Course!
 

scrimmage

What you contemplate you imitate
Re: Society must choose: The Sodomites or Judeo-Christian Tradition


Man-kiss ad isn't gay-OK
with CBS

All-guy dating site gets Super Bowl snub
By AMANDA MELILLO
Last Updated: 10:35 AM, January 29, 2010
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/all_guy_dating_site_gets_super_bowl_fCCRuiVFPXkWlORm7cs03N
<!-- context: -->
CBS wants to keep one team from scoring on Super Bowl Sunday.
The network refuses to say if it will allow an ad for a gay men's dating service to air the day of the big game, Feb. 7 [2010], despite the fact that its content is no more racy than nearly any beer commercial not starring the Budweiser Clydesdales.
In the ad for ManCrunch.com, two men watching the game reach into the chip bowl at the same time, then look into each others eyes -- awkwardly at first -- before kissing passionately.

<CREDITS></CREDITS>CHIP SHOT: Two he-men turn a chance encounter over potato chips into a steamy makeout session, in an ad that CBS claims it has no time to air on Super Bowl Sunday.
CBS told the Web site that all ad space was already full, even though a handful of spots still remain unsold, said Man Crunch spokesman Dominic Friesen.

"It's clearly a form of discrimination that we're getting the runaround, that we're not being told the truth," he said. "Quite frankly, there is a lot of ad space available -- a lot of the companies that typically advertise during the Super Bowl are not advertising this year."

The network says it still needs time to review the ad.

But it is not as if CBS is shying away from controversy in this year's ads.
The network has accepted an anti-abortion spot from the group Focus on the Family that features college football star Tim Tebow and his mother.
That the executives would allow an advocacy ad on a divisive issue but not accept one from a service arranging dates between consenting adults is outrageous, ManCrunch.com complained.

"Honestly, when we went into this, we didn't think there would be any problem," Friesen said. "Clearly, the ad is promoting a dating site targeting gay men."
CBS sources said there is a difference between an advocacy ad from Focus on the Family and a commercial ad by Man Crunch.

CBS also rejected one of the commercials that GoDaddy.com, a Web domain services company notorious for airing raunchy ads, produced for the two spots they have purchased.
The rejected ad, titled "Lola," shows a football player who becomes a fashion designer.
"This is about a guy who starts an online business and hits the jackpot. I just don't think 'Lola' is offensive," said GoDaddy CEO Bob Parsons. "In fact, we didn't see this one coming -- we were absolutely blindsided."
Ironically, that ad was rejected because it seemed homophobic, CBS sources said.
[email protected]

<EMBED height=344 type=application/x-shockwave-flash width=425 src=http://www.youtube.com/v/5MQWFiIrBLA&hl=en_US&fs=1& allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></EMBED>
 

scrimmage

What you contemplate you imitate
Re: Society must choose: The Sodomites or Judeo-Christian Tradition

Altosackbuteer
01/29/2010 7:44 AM
A couple of decades ago, the TV show In Living Color did a gay spoof of the Super Bowl, in which the in-studio gay men mused that their dream Super Bowl match-up would be the Packers v. the Oilers.
Comment from:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/nation...uiVFPXkWlORm7cs03N?listcomments=true#comments

mminer58 (1 year ago)
This is the best Super Bowl halftime show ever!

Men On Football -
Original, Unedited Version from In Living Color
<EMBED height=344 type=application/x-shockwave-flash width=425 src=http://www.youtube.com/v/2OKwRsnWO84&hl=en_US&fs=1& allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true">
comgeek24 (1 week ago)
Supposedly this took away 20 to 25 million of the viewers away from CBS' lame ass halftime show. You'd think that they would have gotten someone a little better than Gloria Estefan and Brian Boitano. I def would have watched this vs. the actual halftime show. The line about Richard Gere and the gerbil was great!

surfer53 (5 months ago)
I'm Canadian and I love Americans...we'd be screwed without you...China? no thanks. But some of the things you do are crazy. The irony is that censorship is nonpartisan. Both Liberals and Conservatives try to ban things they disagree with. Al Gore once said: The debate is settled. It never is. The debate is never settled. Thats what makes America great - the flooding of ideas. Allow everything and let me make the decision that fits my own personal values, and you can do the same.
 
Re: Society must choose: The Sodomites or Judeo-Christian Tradition

Propagandizing the irrational, scientifically inferior argument will always lead to defeat at the ballot box -- always.

**********************************************************

Hawaii kills same-sex civil unions bill
By MARK NIESSE

Associated Press Writer

Jan 29, 6:37 PM EST

<!-- Story-MediaBoxPosition: 0 --> <!-- MediaBox: 90908461 Created : 2010/1/29 18:37:37 Modified : 2010/1/29 18:37:37 Generated: 2010/1/29 18:37:37 --> HONOLULU (AP) -- Hawaii lawmakers declined to vote Friday on a bill that would have allowed same-sex civil unions, effectively killing the measure.
The state House of Representatives decided to indefinitely postpone a decision on whether to grant gay and lesbian couples the same rights and benefits the state provides to married couples.

The state Senate had approved a civil unions bill last week. But House leadership wavered on pushing the controversial issue. Last year, 33 of 51 House members voted in favor of civil unions.

Civil union supporters in the crowded House gallery on Friday shouted, "Shame on you!" while opponents cheered.


:+excited- :+excited- :+excited- :+excited- :+excited-
 
Re: Society must choose: The Sodomites or Judeo-Christian Tradition

Many 'Successful' Gay 'Marriages' Share an Open Secret

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html

This just in: the sodomite lifestyle is really about promiscuity and infidelity outside of their primary 'relationship.'

In other news, the sky is blue. :doh1

Quite honestly, I haven't posted here lately because I feel like I need to go bathe each time I click on this thread.

 
Re: Society must choose: The Sodomites or Judeo-Christian Tradition

Obama's pro-gay military policy will help Republicans

By James Corum

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...ro-gay-military-policy-will-help-republicans/

January 29th, 2010

President Barack Hussein Obama is the gift that keeps on giving ? at least in his efforts to ensure that the Republicans will take the majority of Congress in November this year.

In Obama?s State of the Union Speech, he racked up some memorable records: more than 100 references to himself; more than a dozen ?straw man? attacks against the masses of unnamed bad people who want to keep America down and stop his reforms. There was also record number of ?Blame Bush? statements ? putting the blame for financial troubles, high government spending, deficits, unemployment, and intelligence failures all on the last president.

On defence Obama had only one serious proposal: to ask Congress to change its 15 year-old policy of not allowing open and active gays to serve in the armed forces. This was expected, and is a political payoff to the gay advocacy groups that strongly supported Obama in the 2008 election.

The problem for Obama is that this initiative directly involves him in a debate on defence issues, a place where he and his party are considered very weak. The current policy of tolerating gays in the armed forces if they are quiet about it is considered to be an effective working compromise by most of Congress and the military leadership. In 2005 when a law to change the policy was proposed it was quickly buried in committee and forgotten.

The reason the policy has not been overturned is that allowing gays to serve openly in the forces would create major morale and discipline problems in the forces.


Establishing another special protected class within the military will encourage a spate of official complaints and counter complaints. Currently there is a large bureaucracy within the US armed forces to deal with complaints from female personnel and from special minority groups. Certainly there are real instances of discrimination, but very often the complaints are bogus. Soldiers who are rightly given a poor efficiency report or passed over for promotion routinely file a discrimination complaint to counter a poor performance rating. Such complaints have special status and must be fully investigated ? no matter how specious. So the officer or NCO that gives a correct efficiency rating to a below par soldier has to defend himself against possible career-killing allegations that can be made with no proof provided by the complainee. The culture of complaint and investigation takes up a vast amount time for leaders who have more important things to do, like fight wars.

This system of encouraging special classes to complain explains how Major Nidal Hassan, the Muslim US Army Major who shot dozens of soldiers at Fort Hood, was allowed to stay in the Army despite years of glaring performance problems. Superior officers apparently feared a discrimination complaint had they acted properly and removed him from the Army.

Setting up gays as a specially protected group will guarantee a mass of complaints ? and not just from gay soldiers. If a gay soldier is passed over for promotion, he can claim sexual discrimination, and a sexual discrimination complaint is considered more serious than a complaint of bias by superiors. On the other hand, straight soldiers who do not like gay officers or NCOs can also work the system. If a gay officer or NCO asks a lower ranking soldier for a date, the lower ranker can charge sexual discrimination against the superior. A straight soldier passed over for promotion in favor of a gay can also claim sexual discrimination and initiate an investigation of his superiors.

Politically, this is a lose-lose situation for Obama. The proposal will be greeted warmly by gay activists ? but Obama already has their votes. On the other hand, this issue will energize the conservatives against him and give Obama?s defence critics an opening to attack the administration for weakening the nation?s defences.

Changing the policy will require Congressional hearings, and they will be public and attract plenty of high-ranking testimomy against changing the current policy. Senior Republicans in Congress have already pledged to fight the change.

There are a few dozen Democratic congressmen who come from very conservative districts, and Obama has just put them all on the spot. If they follow the president?s lead on this, they will put their own seats in jeopardy and likely lose them to Republicans in the November congressional elections.

If they follow their constituents, they earn the anger of the Congressional Democratic leadership and further fracture the party in an election year.

:+textinb3
 

scrimmage

What you contemplate you imitate
Re: Society must choose: The Sodomites or Judeo-Christian Tradition


Is Marriage a Sacrament, a Civil Right,or Bull Crap?

<SMALL>Jan 29th, 2010 | By Samantha Buker</SMALL>
<SMALL></SMALL>
<SMALL>I?m here today about Adam and Eve.?
? Rep. Alfred Baldasaro, House Judicial Committee Hearing to overturn gay marriage in New Hampshire

Right now, America is enjoying its first case in a federal court to examine if state bans on same-sex marriage illegally discriminate against gay Americans. Before you refuse to read my next sentence, I?ll plead a Ron Paul clause here.

The Honorable Ron Paul is not a supporter of the Federal Marriage Amendment, which for years now has not garnered a majority to pass. He?s got a simple reason. He says the government has no role in regulating marriage. Amen, brother!
Well, he says the feds should have no role. The federal courts shouldn?t rule on it. Why that means state legislature and state courts should bother in it, I don?t see, either.

Maybe I?m blind, but there?s no article in the Constitution that says, expressly: States shall determine the Unions of its Citizens by legislative or judiciary Powers. What does come into play in Article IV is that ?Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.? Further, ?The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.?
To me this sounds like Tough titties, what is legal or illegal in one state must be respected by all states. But I?m no lawyer, and luckily, over the years, we?ve made a bunch of clarifying amendments to the thing. After all, maybe you don?t consider marriage a privilege.

Marriage As a Civil Right

Let?s go back to a 1967 trial for a minute. It challenged a Virginia law banning interracial marriage: Loving v. Virginia. It?s the hinge upon which the Prop 8 plaintiffs? case works. Here?s what the chief justice for the majority Earl Warren had to say:

?The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the ?basic civil rights of man,? fundamental to our very existence and survival.?

Warren?s language relies on that in the Declaration of Independence, but the decision centers on the resounding protection of the 14th Amendment ? guaranteeing all citizens equal protection under the law. We saw this amendment invoked with success in Brown v. Board of Education. My civics teacher in my B-more public school crowned this case with glory. The triumph over the conundrum that ?separate but equal? was inherently unequal. My teacher was black, and maybe I?d have heard something less emphatic had I lived in, hmmm, Georgia or Texas. She had a devil of a time finding us a great textbook with lots of firsthand sources.

Likewise, my high school was also a profound relief to the gay teens in my class. Now that those same friends are older, they?ve got partners who would be spouses, but very few states to marry in.

Marriage: A Sacrament

Such momentous challenges in American history should be televised (or at least posted on YouTube). Filtered only through reporters and not simply broadcast live, it can easily seem as though Satan himself appeared in the courtroom to sodomize innocent children.

If, hypothetically, your god thinks it?s a sin, just don?t join in. But two men holding a marriage certificate doesn?t cheapen your own marriage in the eyes of God, so it shouldn?t bother you either. You?ve got enough work to do just staying married to the spouse you?ve got. Give ?civil union? all the legal, state, and nationally recognized rights and you?ll find far less threat to your sacred word.

Let?s run through the alleged threats to the institution of ?marriage.?
I put this in quotes because divorce has rendered all points on the sanctity and permanence of said union utterly and patently false. How can something be sacred if ? thanks to the state ? abolishing it is only a lawyer away?

All that remains, statewise, are guarantees of property rights. A friend of mine recently split with a girlfriend of 10 years. They?d bought a house together. It occurs to me that a ring would have solved this dilemma. They?d have a bona fide legal path to tread for separation. It also occurs to me, however, if one or the other had actually mandated a ring in say, Year Two, maybe they?d have just split up right there. Marriage is as much a handy threat for discontinuing a union.

OK. OK. In a perfect world, everyone has never seen porn, waits until marriage and enjoys the bliss of commitment: hard-won toil of progressing in an institution that keeps you together long beyond the be-fruitful-and-multiply period. I?m not saying there aren?t socially strengthening benefits to be reaped from good marriages and good families.

But like a church, an institution is only as good as the people in it.

What, Me Kill Marriage?


The easiest solution (except as regards the Government Paperwork Elimination Act) is to just overturn the word ?marriage? as a federal or state concept. We could do this two ways. We could cut out the regard for civic benefits in marriage entirely, which is messy. Or we could declare henceforth everyone form ?domestic partnerships.? Not even your golden anniversary grandparents will be exempt from this ?grandfathering? into the new thing: civil union.

What?s at stake with such a change? The definition of ?citizenship.? At present, marriage confers citizenship. Marriage is a universally recognized global category that is portable between states in the union and nation-states alike. Insurance companies would be very annoyed. And state and fed employers would have even more citizens on the ?gimme roster.?

Keep this in mind. One nation had to be the first to outlaw slavery. (Today?s citizens fight over whose country was really first.) Saint-Domingue (which today we call Haiti) certainly was in the head of the pack. Vermont was the first state to do so. England and Denmark followed suit. But to redefine citizenship and freemen is a process that takes, oh, several hundred years. Guess we won?t rush it with this marriage thing.

Why Do We Marry Anyway?

As I can make out, the three main things marriage concerns: procreation, property rights and fear. Of the three, civic marriage concerns itself only with the first two. We make contractual agreements in business because we assume the other party is going to protect his or her own interests insofar as he or she is able and to renege as it suits. In hostile or friendly M&As alike, the suitor usually puts in place a multimillion-dollar fee in case the company chooses a different suitor.

Just so in marriage, we like strong barriers to exit. Women like it when men have to stay when they have babies. Fathers like it because their daughters cost enough to support to maturity. Men like it because they can reap the rewards of their loins and don?t have to stay in fighting lion pride form to receive favors. God likes it because he has a bigger church that actually takes time to say ?hi? and ?thanks? on occasion.

How about that baby making? The defense for Prop 8 plan to argue that marriage demands the ability to make babies. However, this is stupid, as barren men and women get married all the time. They spend their free time doing things other than wiping up puke and snuffly noses and nobody gets mad at them.

Also, as Sarah Palin?s daughter handily illustrates, procreation is achieved with or without the institution of marriage (unless you?d want to bring in old legal laws now off the books about ?breech of promise?). Sure, many successful men and women of past ages were bastards; among that number are a pope and a cardinal. There?s Alexander Hamilton, Billie Holiday, Leonardo da Vinci, Eva Peron and William the Conqueror. So perhaps you could safely say that a marriage doth not child make. But wouldn?t we rather two loving parents for each child, instead of the old ruse: loveless marriages for the sake of children?

Give me my property rights. When we endure the stupidity (and genius) of a spouse, when we bear his young, we?d hope to keep living in our house after he is dead. It?s only nice and natural. Besides, the kids need a place to live too. And if we?ve got a farm with cattle, sheep, goats, fields of wheat, acres of corn, we want that food and the income it produces.
Of course, thanks to government carrots like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, the definition of property rights has broadened. We want our spouse?s benefits to transfer. That?s not just anyone?s free money. It?s my free money. That?s the least the government can do when my spouse dies.

Fear: We don?t want to toil alone. Believe it or no, not all gays want to marry. The more radical leftists and queer scholars are direly opposed to same-sex marriage too.

They see marriage as an instrument of domination meant to keep people content so that they don?t revolt. They see marriage as an institution correlated to capitalist structures of subordination.

But I think most people want to marry ? unconsciously ? because A) They are not alpha males and shemales and B) because it exhausts precious resources to ?always be on the market,? e.g,. exhausts heart, bank account, beer fund, gas mileage, etc.

To get back to the core of the matter, God gave Adam a ?helpmate,? as Eve is called, because it was not ?good for him to be alone.? Anyone you meet on the street will agree that it is not good to be always alone.

All They Really Want: Equal Protection

For gay partners, some days, what the argument boils down to is homophobic doctors and nurses standing in the way.

On the average day, this all might seem like a question of semantics. But when you say to someone who is trying to keep you from seeing your life partner, ?But we are civil partners,? it?s not the same as saying, ?He is my husband and I have a federal and state right to see him, and if you stand in my way, I will sue your ass.?

According to the Government Accountability Office, there are at least 1,049 legal protections that come with marriage. Even simple things are thus far denied to folks in civil unions ? where they have civil unions ? like the right to take off work to care for your sick partner.

So you can ignore much of what I wrote above. The case against Prop 8 is actually far less ambitious, as can be seen in plaintiff lawyer Ted Olson?s opening statement:

During this trial, Plaintiffs and leading experts in the fields of history, psychology, economics, and political science will prove three fundamental points:

First ? Marriage is vitally important in American society.

Second ? By denying gay men and lesbians the right to marry, Proposition 8 works a grievous harm on the plaintiffs and other gay men and lesbians throughout California, and adds yet another chapter to the long history of discrimination they have suffered.

Third ? Proposition 8 perpetrates this irreparable, immeasurable, discriminatory harm for no good reason.

As I edit this, the evidence and testimony just wrapped up. Expect Judge Vaughn R. Walker to hear closing arguments come March or April. For the record, Massachusetts has had gay marriage (as granted by Massachusetts court) since 2003.
Massachusetts still boasts the lowest divorce rate in the union. In fact, its average is near the American norm circa the heyday of 1940s morality.

The difficulty with a civil union is that you can?t take it with you. It?s not portable, it?s like getting a Holy Grail you can?t take beyond the Great Seal. One lesbian blogger touched my heart with her simple request. ?As Marilyn Monroe put it, ?Let them be miserable just like the rest of us.??

Regards,
Samantha Buker
January 29, 2010
From:
http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com/is-marriage-a-sacrament-a-civil-right-or-bull-crap/


</SMALL>
 
Re: Society must choose: The Sodomites or Judeo-Christian Tradition

Just another example of how gay Americans are much smarter than homophobic Canadians.

This website will enjoy an equal amount of publicity and exposure to their service thanks to the CBS rejection and it won't cost them a penny in advertising dollars.
 

scrimmage

What you contemplate you imitate
Re: Society must choose: The Sodomites or Judeo-Christian Tradition

Keep jammin', my four or five Sensible Sorts over here at EOG. I'm going to do a quick surf of "I Dominate the WorldWideWeb" Lanquel's posts from past couple weeks so I can get a quick count on how many times he's made direct or implied reference to his faux American citizenship.

I'll then be Up, Up and Away to my normal life of being a LawnMowing SuperHero and also (finally after deferring our startup from last April until Feb 2010) an internet marketeer SuperHero via the miracle of my own work and my association with the smart folks at Network21.

Back here maybe in a couple weeks, during which time Markie can comb that interweb to find humorous pictures of a guy pushing a lawnmower while wearing a cap that says Amway on the bill.

LIFE SENTENCE in Cyber Purgatory merits allowance to make such jokes, Joey. We Love ya buddy

....in a total non-sodomite and in a healthy Judeo-Christian way Of Course!
BOB MARLEY-JAMMING
<EMBED height=344 type=application/x-shockwave-flash width=425 src=http://www.youtube.com/v/WALDlstxVxQ&hl=en_US&fs=1& allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always">
The 5th Dimension
at the 1972 Grammy Awards
<EMBED height=344 type=application/x-shockwave-flash width=425 src=http://www.youtube.com/v/z_P8UXwhdLg&hl=en_US&fs=1& allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always">

</EMBED>
An early glimpse of the amusing husband-and-wife banter between Marilyn McCoo and Billy Davis Jr. and a sampling of the individual voices of the other Fifth Dimension members Florence La Rue, Ron Townson, and Lamonte McLemore as they present the award for best performance by a duo/group during the 1972 Grammy Awards. This same award was won early on twice by the 5th Dimension for "Up Up and Away" and "Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In". Some years later, Marilyn and Billy will also win as a duo for their hit song "You Don't Have to Be a Star (To Be in My Show)".
Very subtle,subversive,presentation by the 5th Dimension at the 1972 Grammy Awards,notice how they do a better sample version of the nominated songs than the performer who sang the original did.
They weren't as with the system at the time as some might have thought["husband -and- wife banter" ?],try to watch what's really going on here...
 

scrimmage

What you contemplate you imitate
Re: Society must choose: The Sodomites or Judeo-Christian Tradition

Don?t Ask, Don?t Kvel:
Lieberman to Lead on Gay Soldiers
Posted on Feb 22, 2010

Image by Truthout.org via Flickr

Somehow Joe Lieberman, who just finished demolishing health care reform, is leading the way on another big Democratic plank: The Connecticut senator will sponsor legislation to overturn the military?s ?don?t ask, don?t tell? policy. Of course if the Democrats show any interest in his bill, he?s likely to threaten a filibuster. ?PZS
http://www.truthdig.com/eartothegro...l_lieberman_to_lead_on_gay_soldiers_20100222/

PIMPINTURTLE.COM confronts Senator Joe Lieberman, during his campaign for John McCain, about World Trade Center building 7... and asks if he would be willing to support a new investigation into 9/11.

Everything that you see in this video is exactly as it happened. Nothing has been removed from Senator Lieberman's response. The only editing that was done was the addition of the WTC 7 collapse footage, following the Senator's remark, "I have no evidence that this really occurred."

Immediately after the footage of the WTC 7 collapse the dialogue continues in its original order, exactly from where it left off.
In other words, this video was not edited to make it look as if he said something he did not.

NONE OF SENATOR LIEBERMAN'S COMMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION PROPOSED HAVE BEEN EDITED OUT!
PIMPIN TURTLE Confronts Sen. Joe
Lieberman on WTC-7 & 9/11, ORIGINAL
CENSORED BY YOUTUBE
<EMBED height=344 type=application/x-shockwave-flash width=425 src=http://www.youtube.com/v/pvTIEUXhHv8&hl=en_US&fs=1& allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></EMBED>

 
Re: Society must choose: The Sodomites or Judeo-Christian Tradition

Religion is an outdated idea. It's time to move on folks. Also, what don't these religious nut bags not understand about the Constitution...separation of church and state. It's very simple. Practice whatever religion you want in private. Your relationship with a higher power has nothing to do with anyone else.
 
Re: Society must choose: The Sodomites or Judeo-Christian Tradition

Religion is an outdated idea. It's time to move on folks. Also, what don't these religious nut bags not understand about the Constitution...separation of church and state. It's very simple. Practice whatever religion you want in private. Your relationship with a higher power has nothing to do with anyone else.
Barry,

I see you are another ignorant idiot, probably educated in the
American liberal public school system in the last20 years.

Please show me where in the Constitution it mentions separation
of church and state. Have fun.

:hangt

Actually, here I'll help you, because you clearly need it.

The first amendment only says that the Federal Government can't make a
Federal law respecting a certain religion.

Ignorant people have bought into the whole separation of church
and state thing - and have bought into a lie.

The original framers of our government didn't intend to keep religion
out of politics, but to keep government out of religion.

Do some research, and think about this:

Many of the states' constitutions *required* government workers to
be Christians. Hmmm... seems like that one goes 100% against
the bullshit modern dogma against Christianity.

I'll cite just one, but I can cite a ton more if need be.

Constitution of Delaware Article 22:

ART. 22. Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall take the following oath, or affirmation, if conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, to wit:
" I, A B. will bear true allegiance to the Delaware State, submit to its constitution and laws, and do no act wittingly whereby the freedom thereof may be prejudiced."
And also make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit:
" I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."

http://www.nhinet.org/ccs/docs/del-1776.htm


Comments Barry?

:cocktail
 
Re: Society must choose: The Sodomites or Judeo-Christian Tradition

Use of the phrase
The phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.<SUP id=cite_ref-29 class=reference>[30]</SUP>
Jefferson was also asked about meaning of the constitution later. He did not mince words but plainly spoke of its meaning not being twisted by those who would seek to either undermine its original meaning or invent that its clearly defined statements meant something they did not. Once more, Jefferson in his own words:
"On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed" <SUP id=cite_ref-30 class=reference>[31]</SUP>
Another early user of the term was James Madison, the principal drafter of the United States Bill of Rights. In a recorded conversation surrounding the meaning of the 1st Amendment being offered the following was said:
August 15, 1789. Mr. [Peter] Sylvester [of New York] had some doubts...He feared it [the First Amendment] might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether...Mr. [Elbridge] Gerry [of Massachusetts] said it would read better if it was that "no religious doctrine shall be established by law."...Mr. [James] Madison [of Virginia] said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that "Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law."...[T]he State...seemed to entertain an opinion that under the clause of the Constitution...it enabled them [Congress] to make laws of such a nature as might...establish a national religion; to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended...Mr. Madison thought if the word "National" was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen...He thought if the word "national" was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent.<SUP id=cite_ref-31 class=reference>[32]</SUP>
Madison contended "Because if Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body."<SUP id=cite_ref-32 class=reference>[33]</SUP> Several years later he wrote of "total separation of the church from the state."<SUP id=cite_ref-33 class=reference>[34]</SUP> "Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States," Madison wrote,<SUP id=cite_ref-34 class=reference>[35]</SUP> and he declared, "practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States."<SUP id=cite_ref-35 class=reference>[36]</SUP> In a letter to Edward Livingston Madison further expanded, "We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt." <SUP id=cite_ref-36 class=reference>[37]</SUP> This attitude is further reflected in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, originally authored by Thomas Jefferson, but championed by Madison, and guaranteeing that no one may be compelled to finance any religion or denomination.
 
Re: Society must choose: The Sodomites or Judeo-Christian Tradition

Roscoe,

Please address my previous post which illustrates that many
of our states' constitutions *REQUIRED* people to formally
sign a pledge that they were indeed Christians before they were
allowed to participate in state government.

Posting some quote by Jefferson or Madison proves nothing, except
that they had their own personal opinions on the issue. I can post
an infinitude of quotes from other framers which opposed their
positions on the issue.
 

scrimmage

What you contemplate you imitate
Re: Society must choose: The Sodomites or Judeo-Christian Tradition

Roscoe,

Please address my previous post which illustrates that many
of our states' constitutions *REQUIRED* people to formally
sign a pledge that they were indeed Christians before they were
allowed to participate in state government.

Posting some quote by Jefferson or Madison proves nothing, except
that they had their own personal opinions on the issue. I can post
an infinitude of quotes from other framers which opposed their
positions on the issue.
At one time many states may have "*REQUIRED* people to formally sign a pledge",but currently all states constitutions guarantee religious liberty parallel to the First Amendment,while 8 states have clauses prohibiting atheists from holding office,those clause were held to be unenforceable by the Supreme Court in 1961.
The Fourteenth Amendment ratified in 1868,and 1947's Everson v. Board of Education added further individual protection from being required to belong to an "official" church.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion

United States of America

The First Amendment to the US Constitution explicitly forbids the U.S. federal government from enacting any law respecting a religious establishment, and thus forbids either designating an official church for the United States, or interfering with State and local official churches ? which were common when the First Amendment was enacted. It did not prevent state governments from establishing official churches. Connecticut continued to do so until it replaced its colonial Charter with the Connecticut Constitution of 1818; Massachusetts retained an establishment of religion in general until 1833. (The Massachusetts system required every man to belong to some church, and pay taxes towards it; while it was formally neutral between denominations, in practice the indifferent would be counted as belonging to the majority denomination, and in some cases religious minorities had trouble being recognized at all.)

The Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, ratified in 1868, makes no mention of religious establishment, but forbids the states to "abridge the privileges or immunities" of U.S. citizens, or to "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".
In the 1947 case of Everson v. Board of Education, the United States Supreme Court held that this later provision incorporates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause as applying to the States, and thereby prohibits state and local religious establishments. The exact boundaries of this prohibition are still disputed, and are a frequent source of cases before the US Supreme Court ? especially as the Court must now balance, on a state (similar, but not equivalent to province) level, the First Amendment prohibitions on government establishment of official religions with the First Amendment prohibitions on government interference with the free exercise of religion. See school prayer for such a controversy in contemporary US politics.

All current U.S. state constitutions include guarantees of religious liberty parallel to the First Amendment, but eight (Arkansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas) also contain clauses that prohibit atheists from holding public office. However, these clauses have been held by the United States Supreme Court to be unenforceable in the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, where the court ruled unanimously that such clauses constituted a religious test incompatible with the religious test prohibition in Article 6 Section 3 of the United States Constitution.
 

scrimmage

What you contemplate you imitate
Re: Society must choose: The Sodomites or Judeo-Christian Tradition

Embracing Eros
<LABEL class=views-label-nothing>by: </LABEL>Margaret Wade March 3rd, 2010
From:
http://carnalnation.com/content/49319/88/choose-your-own-deity

Choose Your Own Deity

<!-- empty vote up/down widget -->During my research into all the gods and goddesses you could choose for your own love deity, many wonderful ?mythical? people popped up. It would be rude not to introduce them to you. Maybe you want a friend on your altar that is easier for you to identify with than a single straight white man. A god in one civilization is a myth in a different time and place. In their day, these folks were just as popular and just as ?real? as Yahweh, Allah, and Jesus are today. And some of them were just as likely to take offense.

The fact that we call Hera, Zeus, and Aphrodite ?mythological? shows how well the early Christian church succeeded at ousting its predecessors. It certainly helped that none of those previous ?pagan? religions claimed that there was only one deity. There was always room for another. As we know, that inclusiveness didn't work both ways, and that's why Christian saints are included in our list of deities. Because, well, a bunch of them used to be full-fledged deities in a different religion.

You see, the biggest difficulty in converting the masses to a monotheistic religion was convincing folks to give up the gods and goddesses that their families and towns had venerated for centuries. The goddess responsible for getting your grandparents together at a Juno Februata festival?which resulted in every family member you know being born?was not to be thrown over for a male god that didn't even want you celebrating Juno's (left) day. Most townsfolk agreed.

So the holidays and deities had to be replaced by something and someone recognizable. Like breaking a habit, it's easier done by replacing it with something than just trying to quit. Thus, Christianity started producing lists of saints in the 5th century. Many of their histories were vague, and some had a variety of stories, but many had familiar sounding names and other similarities to their namesakes. Their names, images, and altar icons contained veiled references to their pagan personas.

Take St. Aphra (also spelled Afra, pictured left), for instance. She's a patron saint of reformed prostitutes, having been one in the Temple of Venus by some accounts. Or was she actually a Sacred Prostitute in a temple to Aphrodite as her name hints? In either case, she harbored a Catholic bishop who, in turn, converted her and her household to Christianity. She reformed her wicked ways and then got burned at the stake for housing the bishop. At least she won't be burned again in the Christian hell, right? There's no report of what happened to the bishop.

The advantage of non-Christian divine patrons is that they can still have sex lives, which is important to some of us. Prostitute goddesses don't have to be repentant; gays don't have to hide or be ashamed; and cross-dressers and transgender folk have special value just for being who they are.

For instance, cross-dressing is big in rituals across the globe. Dionysius' female followers, the Maenads, wore men's clothing. In some parts of sub-Saharan Africa, grooms still dress as women to avoid interference by jealous spirits. Ghede, or Ghede Nibo, a Voodoo lord of sex and death, wants all his followers to cross-dress in ritual circles. He, like Dionysius, encourages them to get lewd and outrageous, and to have fun.

If you think you're too much of a he-man to dress in lingerie, consider that Thor (left) wasn't. Yes, the ancient Germanic god of thunder himself dressed as quite the fair maiden in order to trick The King of the Giants into giving him his hammer back. (Yeah, tell me that's not a phallic reference.) He was pretending to be the king's future bride, but apparently he didn't pass too well. However, Loki, his trickster friend (also in maiden drag), covered for him, explaining that ?she? (that is, Thor) ate like a Thunder God?and drank three casks of mead as well!?because she was so excited about getting married to that marvelous king that she hadn't been able to eat for eight days. Now that's a case of wedding
jitters!

Heracles (when in Roman, Hercules, pictured below left) did some time in women's clothing, too?and as a 24/7 slave! He spent a year, or possibly three, spinning flax for Queen Omphalo of Lydia. He was so good at it that she freed him and married him. The priests in her tradition wore women's clothing all the time, so he was in good company. He and his lovely bride might make good additions to your altar if you go in for cross-dressing for your partner or practice D/s (dominance and submission).

A female cross-dresser, Saint Margaret, became Brother Pelagius so convincingly that when a nun got pregnant and she was accused of it, she did her penance rather than blow her cover. The truth was discovered after she died. Again, there are still loose ends about the others in the story?the nun, the baby, and the now-suspect other brothers. By the way, since we're back on saints again, note that both ?Margaret? and ?Pelagius? have roots in the Pagan sea goddess, Aphrodite Marina.

The Shinto religion has some great deities we seldom hear of. One of them, Ishi Kore (left), has been described as a cross-dresser and as transgender. Hir description sounds more accurately androgynous, however. One of hir stories starts with Amaterasu, the sun goddess, hiding in a cave to avoid her angry brother. All the other gods get tired of the unbroken darkness, so they hatched a plan. Another kami (divine Japanese spirit or spirits), Ame no Uzume, dances a bawdy strip tease for the gods, who start hooting and hollering in delight. She stages it directly in front of the entrance to Amaterasu's cave, who comes out to see what all the fuss is about. Ishi Kore holds up a mirror in which Amaterasu becomes entranced by her own brightness while others close up the cave behind her. Thus, the ingenious intersex and the sexy stripper kami save the world from eternal gloom and darkness. Where can we find action figures of them for our altars?!

Another Shinto you might want to put on your altar is Shudo Daimyojin, a kami of male-male love and sex. And bonus!: You can write your own story for him, since he is widely known but no description is available. His name ?Shudo? refers to pederasty, which was highly respected in all-male Japanese worlds like monasteries and the warrior camps where samurai were trained.

A revival of Chinese Tu Er Shin is underway in Taiwan. He is a protector of male same-sex lovers. Once a human with a secret affection for another man, he got caught peeping on the guy and was killed for it. The spirit world made him into a god because his death was the result of true love. Why his name means ?rabbit deity? is unclear, but you could work with that image for your altar icon.

As for lesbians, it's a deeper dig to find them, but there are women-loving goddesses. One favorite is the female-female version of Ganesha's conception (left). Parvati's elephant-headed maidservant Malini gets pregnant when, out of love, she drinks the post-bath fluids of her mistress. They're not official patrons of two-mother couples yet, but chances are they'd be delighted to.

Then there's Tlazolteotl (left), Aztec goddess of love and sex, prostitutes (she had temple whores), death and human sacrifice, witchcraft, and according to some sources, lesbians. Because, of course, as soon as you start talking love, sex, prostitutes, witchcraft, and sacrifice... well, is it a stretch to include lesbians? Other sources claim otherwise. They claim that this character is male, while yet others say s/he is the god/dess of filth and a sin-eater. This is one busy deity?absolutely perfect for the altar of every goth, lesbian, wiccan whore!

Yes, there are more, so many more. There's someone for everyone. But do get to know your chosen deity/deities before you make them share an altar with someone else. Like your human friends, they're all different and want their own toys and artwork around them. Each has preferences in foods and who they want to hang out with. For instance, Kali and Yahweh are domineering in their own ways and will both want the top spot on any altar they grace. And it might be wise to keep Tlazolteotl to hirself. Of course, you can always put up altars all over your house.
 
Re: Society must choose: The Sodomites or Judeo-Christian Tradition

Mary Glasspool Approved: Episcopal Church OKs Election Of Second Gay Bishop


LOS ANGELES ? The Episcopal Church has approved the election of a lesbian assistant bishop in the Diocese of Los Angeles, making her the second openly gay bishop in the Anglican global fellowship, diocese officials said Wednesday.


Episcopal conservatives were quick to criticize the approval of the Rev. Mary Glasspool of Baltimore, who was elected last December, and said the move was "grieving the heart of God."


Still, Glasspool's victory underscored a continued Episcopal commitment to accepting same-sex relationships despite enormous pressure from other Anglicans to change their stand.


"I am ... aware that not everyone rejoices in this election and consent, and will work, pray and continue to extend my own hands and heart to bridge those gaps, and strengthen the bonds of affection among all people, in the name of Jesus Christ," Glasspool said in a printed statement.


Glasspool and the Rev. Diane M. Jardine Bruce were elected in December to serve as assistant bishops, making them the first women bishops to serve in that diocese. Both, however, needed the full church's approval to be consecrated.


Both are scheduled to be consecrated on May 15.


The Episcopal Church, which is the Anglican body in the United States, caused an uproar in 2003 by consecrating the first openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire.


Breakaway Episcopal conservatives have formed a rival church, the Anglican Church in North America.

Several overseas Anglicans have been pressuring Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, spiritual leader of the world's 77 million Anglicans, to officially recognize the new conservative entity
 
Top