Andrejs wrote:

> I would say that anyone who
>claims to believe in individual rights
>above all and by the same token then
>claims that the institution of marriage
>should only be confined to a specific
>group based on their sexual preference
>(heterosexuals) is a hypocrite. But
>that’s just me.

All the restrictions on the choice of marriage partner notwithstanding (such as - no marrying one’s sibling, someone already married, etc), the institution of marriage is not confined to specific group and certainly not heterosexuals. So long as homosexual individual can find an individual of opposite sex willing to marry him/her, he/she can undertake the obligations and enjoy the privileges entailed by the marriage. I’m too lazy to dig for statistics, but significant number of homosexual individuals have done precisely that. A prominent example in Latvia is preacher of homosexuality Maris Sants (who later divorced the mother of his children in order, I guess, to pursue what could be called his “other preferences”).

I suspect professor Zagarins will be unable to resist showing his professor-ly appreciation of these parallels, :) but to claim that non-inclusion of homosexual relationships into the concept of marriage institution unduly confines it—or even confines it to one group,—is akin to saying that non-inclusion of, say, some rowing club, whose members, prior to proceeding to row, devote time to worship of some Higher Being, unduly confines the concept of religious organization or sanctuary. Or, to paraphrase Orson Scott Card,—demanding that homosexual relationships be included is akin to demanding that that which is known as “day” shall henceforth, for no obvious rational and compelling reason, in a socially “liberal” fashion, include that which was known as “night”.

As to where any step in that “inclusive” direction eventually leads should IMO become plenty clear after reading, say, this: http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1607705.html — those homophobic, “non-inclusive” paintings of Romeo and Juliet as well as the groom and the bride in a room that used to be called “Wedding room” would have to give place to “inclusive” but empty landscapes… Our Copper Lady, in order to be “inclusive” when encouraging young “traditional” people to marry and to procreate, would have to remember to encourage young homosexual people to partner up and.. and.. and.. yeah, and to do what? :)

Jānis a.k.a Simpsonite a.k.a. Kofera kungs a.k.a. Sherlock wrote, among other gibberish:

< So long as homosexual individual can find an individual of opposite sex willing to marry him/her, he/she can undertake the obligations and enjoy the privileges entailed by the marriage.>

and

< I suspect professor Zagarins will be unable to resist showing his professor-ly appreciation of these parallels, :) but to claim that non-inclusion of homosexual relationships into the concept of marriage institution unduly confines it—or even confines it to one group,—is akin to saying that non-inclusion of, say, some rowing club, whose members, prior to proceeding to row, devote time to worship of some Higher Being, unduly confines the concept of religious organization or sanctuary. Or, to paraphrase Orson Scott Card,—demanding that homosexual relationships be included is akin to demanding that that which is known as “day” shall henceforth, for no obvious rational and compelling reason, in a socially “liberal” fashion, include that which was known as “night”.>

Excuse me, but you until you have given us full account of your own personal sexual preferences and the details of your encounters of your personal penis with the receptacle of its choice, this gibberish of yours does not transcend what it is - pure gibberish. Especially, I must say, the business of those rowing clubs of yours or your Orson Scott Card’s sensibilities.

< Our Copper Lady, in order to be “inclusive” when encouraging young “traditional” people to marry and to procreate, would have to remember to encourage young homosexual people to partner up and.. and.. and.. yeah, and to do what? :)>

Your “Copper Lady” being… who???

Gelge W. Twigg {sic}

“A prominent example in Latvia is preacher of homosexuality Maris Sants (who later divorced the mother of his children in order, I guess, to pursue what could be called his “other preferences”).”

A preacher of homosexuality…what the $%^# is that?!  My understanding is that Maris Sants is/was an ordained minister who happens to be homosexual and ministers to that community, for which he has been “punished” by the powers that be in his church.  He does not “preach” homosexuality…he does “preach” tolerance…unless of course I have missed some news item out of LaLa land and homosexuality has now been made a religion there?

And let’s give the man some credit…he could have stayed married and pursued his “other preferences.”  I hear that’s common these days in many communities in the US…because if you are on the “down low” and still married while you pursue those other preferences than you aren’t really gay.  It seems to me Mr Sants pursued the ethical path, became honest about his life and feelings, and allowed his wife the option of following her “preferences.”

I personally feel that as long as we are imposing restrictions on marriage we could try some basic intelligence testing…and as for procreating…I would definitely prefer that some people were tested for intellectual abilities before they were allowed to procreate.

Wonderful sentiments, McTalzeme.

However, I do not see *your* church accepting a divorced homo as its spiritual leader anytime soon.

/R

Is voyeurism a sexual deviation, or is it a necessary part of establishing a world where free speech and free sexuality are vitrues, not vices?

Speculator axed:

>Is voyeurism a sexual deviation, or is
>it a necessary part of establishing a
>world where free speech and free
>sexuality are vitrues, not vices?

Until I see what, exactly, the Iron Lady meant by “strong marriage” in her own family’s experience I shall continue to question her motives for signing the law that sets her and her family up as an example to the rest of us.

Gelge W. Twigg {sic}

Gelge suggests I show a deeper interest in the Copper Lady’s (and when did she turn to copper?) sex life.
Scourge thinks about it for a moment, but no. If he has to show interest in anyone’s sex life he can think of many more stimulating avatars.
And true, Scourge never could draw a straight line. This is why Scourge is not an engineer.

Samsonite, on the other hand, still insists he believes in individual rights:

>All the restrictions on the choice of
>marriage partner notwithstanding (such
>as - no marrying one’s sibling,
>someone already married, etc), the
>institution of marriage is not confined
>to specific group and certainly not
>heterosexuals.

Are we talking about legal restrictions here or sociatal and moral restrictions? Me thinks you are mixing the two. Either way, the above restriction would apply to homosexual couples as well, no? So I am not sure how you can claim that the institution of marrigage is not confined to a specific group. If you claim that all individuals should have the same rights under the law and they are willing to assume all of the liabilities, why limit it to only mixed sex couples?

>So long as homosexual
>individual can find an individual of
>opposite sex willing to marry him/her,
>he/she can undertake the obligations and
>enjoy the privileges entailed by the
>marriage.

Why impose that restriction on them? Is it because heterosexual couples might produce children? Not all do. Following that line of reasoning does this mean post menaposal women should be restricted from marriage too?

>I’m too lazy to dig for
>statistics, but significant number of
>homosexual individuals have done
>precisely that. A prominent example in
>Latvia is preacher of homosexuality
>Maris Sants (who later divorced the
>mother of his children in order, I
>guess, to pursue what could be called
>his “other preferences”).

What does one have to do with the other? What is marriage but a contract between two consenting adults?

>I suspect professor Zagarins will be
>unable to resist showing his
>professor-ly appreciation of these
>parallels, :) but to claim that
>non-inclusion of homosexual
>relationships into the concept of
>marriage institution unduly confines
>it—or even confines it to one
>group,—is akin to saying that
>non-inclusion of, say, some rowing club,
>whose members, prior to proceeding to
>row, devote time to worship of some
>Higher Being, unduly confines the
>concept of religious organization or
>sanctuary.

I am sorry, but HUH? Non sequitor. Are we talking about marriage as a private club or a religious institution. I couldn’t care less what rowers do before the they row. If I want to become a member of a rowing club I’ll follow their rules. Marriage as far as I understand it is not a rowing club.

>Or, to paraphrase Orson Scott
>Card,—demanding that homosexual
>relationships be included is akin to
>demanding that that which is known as
>“day” shall henceforth, for no
>obvious rational and compelling reason,
>in a socially “liberal” fashion,
>include that which was known as
>“night”.

I guess Orson ran out of ideas for a new Ender novel. To phrase me what Orson is suggesting is more akin to saying that everyone can enjoy the day, but only if they wear cowboy hats. Afterall, its for their own good. It prevents skin cancer.

>As to where any step in that
>“inclusive” direction eventually
>leads should IMO become plenty clear
>after reading, say, this:
>http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1607705.html
>— those homophobic,
>“non-inclusive” paintings of Romeo
>and Juliet as well as the groom and the
>bride in a room that used to be called
>“Wedding room” would have to give
>place to “inclusive” but empty
>landscapes… Our Copper Lady, in order
>to be “inclusive” when
>encouraging young
>“traditional” people to marry
>and to procreate, would have to remember
>to encourage young homosexual people to
>partner up and.. and.. and.. yeah, and
>to do what?

I don’t care about inclusive. As an individual single heterosexual male with no children who strongly believes in individual rights, I just don’t get why I should have the right to do something which an individual single homosexual male should be restricted from.

Andrejs, scourge of queer lines

McTalzeme wrote:

>“A prominent example in Latvia is
>preacher of homosexuality Maris Sants
>(who later divorced the mother of his
>children in order, I guess, to pursue
>what could be called his “other
>preferences”).”
>
>A preacher of homosexuality…what the
>$%^# is that?!

That, ma’am, is my characterisation of what I have noticed Maris Sants preaching (2. http://www.bartleby.com/61/58/P0505800.html)—on at least two occasions. It does not come into conflict with your understanding of who Maris Sants is/was, and what he does/did,—during the time not used to preach homosexuality.

>unless of course I have missed some news item out
>of LaLa land and homosexuality has now
>been made a religion there?

It is starting to resemble it: trying to disparage and vilify the institution of marriage, to deny or lessen its importance—be it in conjunction with extolling homosexuality or not—is becoming akin to some sort of “gospel” for people devoted to socially “liberal” causes. What both the preachers of gospel and “gospel” share is that they put forward what amounts to their belief in something as well as their expectation that it ought to be followed without them having to provide something amounting to rational substantiation of their beliefs.

To illustrate: it is a statistically demonstrated fact that unmarried cohabitations are substantially more likely to end in separation than marriages are. Furthermore, it is also statistically demonstrated fact that marriages preceded by “trial” cohabitations are substantially more likely to end in separation than marriages not preceded by such a “trial”.

The problems as I see them are:

1) devotees of socially “liberal” causes, who advocated making unmarried cohabitations socially acceptable, did not show something that can be called rational substantiation of the necessity to do so, or the scientific assessment of consequences of doing so;
2) even now, tens of years after the social acceptance of unmarried cohabitations has become a fact, those called social scientists are unable to provide unequivocal, irrefutable statement as to what causes “after-trial” marriages to be more unstable—is it something “trial” cohabitation does to people and their relationship, or do other factors, such as demographically “predetermined” self-selection of poor “marital material” into “trial” unmarried cohabitation, account for greater instability of marriages arising out of it,

In effect, those who advocated social acceptance of unmarried cohabitations—those called social scientists included—had no prior knowledge of—and had no basis that could be called scientific to assess—what the consequences of such “social engineering” will be. They simply stated their belief that there will be no “negative” consequences or that they will be outweighed by “positive” consequences, propagandised their belief, acted and contributed to others acting on that belief, and tens of years later still cannot establish and demonstrate causal relationships between the consequences and all factors that could have caused them…

>And let’s give the man some credit…he
>could have stayed married and pursued
>his “other preferences.”

I don’t know much more than plain, stripped of any context information I already stated, but generally speaking, I disagree vehemently—credit is due where a person stays married and NOT pursues his “other preferences”. Intuitively, precisely this kind of “giving credit” where it is not due—merely because one could, plausibly, choose to do something worse—is one of the reasons why divorcing has been MADE not only socially acceptable as a last resort, when all else fails, but even turned into some sort of “ethical path” that can and should be freely pursued.

>It seems to me Mr Sants pursued
>the ethical path, became honest about
>his life and feelings, and allowed his
>wife the option of following her
>“preferences.”

It was of course not for him to allow/disallow this option to his wife, just as it was not for her to do so. Of course Maris Sants had to make a choice, but to describe his choice as “ethical path”.., it is just so.. *err* wrong, I think.

>I personally feel that as long as we are
>imposing restrictions on marriage we
>could try some basic intelligence
>testing…and as for procreating…I
>would definitely prefer that some people
>were tested for intellectual abilities
>before they were allowed to procreate.

You.. you.. you so “totalitarian”, ma’am :)

I found this forum on siets.lv/

http://www.booz.info/zoom-disc.php?mainid=3265&tabula=discus

I think I have lost interest in this thread. Sorry, can we move on to how each of us deserves respect, no matter how we turned out?? within moral limits, of course??

Personally, I haven’t murdered anyone, yet, though have felt tempted. As for the other commandments, I’d prefer to email privately.

happy summer/winter holiday.

i.g.s.

  As for the other commandments, I’d prefer to email privately.

happy summer/winter holiday.

i.g.s.
////////////////////////////////////////////

No mail for me…..........
However, have a Happy Boxing Shorts Day!!!

pete

>No mail for me…..........
>However, have a Happy Boxing Shorts
>Day!!!
>
>
>pete

You were expecting mail from me already!

Hell! If centuries of established religion can’t untie all this mess, don’t expect me to do it in 6 days!!

Lazy days down under….

igs

>Yes! May also include Johny’s hand
>holders,but not Howie. Howie is still
>too busy baying at the moon.
>
if Howie is John Howard….no way he could ever be seen as a Kumbaya crowd type.

But even Peter Garrett has defected to the Labor Party. When will they ever learn? to use an old 60s folk song line (Where Have All the Flowers Gone?)

old folkie and Dylan fan

Are voyeurism, pedophilia and sadism going to be considered alternate lifestyles if those behaviors are proven to be genetically determined?

>Are voyeurism, pedophilia and sadism
>going to be considered alternate
>lifestyles if those behaviors are proven
>to be genetically determined?

Are you equating homosexuality with voyeurism, pedophilia and sadism? There are quite a few laws dealing with the above which would apply to homosexuals as well as heterosexuals so what does one have to do with the other?
Sodomy, on the other hand, has long since been decriminilized in most places.

Andrejs

P.S.

Why is it so hard for people who are against homosexuals marrying to admit that it’s not the idea of them marrying each other, but their very existance that they are against?