[angelize56]

khaki: You go girl!!!!

LAN: Always the gentleman!

Take care. angel

[LANMaster]

Hiya Marlene. Great to see you!
Yes ... feeling quite peachy today.

I'll try to make this as brief as possible.

When the Religious society attempted to FORCE their way into the debate over homosexuality, I sided with the homos.

Now the homos are trying to FORCE their way into the church.
And this time I will side with the church.

Cheers.

[khaki]

Originally posted by Stoner:
Paul

youre one sick puppy.

I almost had a caniption when I read this post!

I posted first!


smilin' Jack ....... smilin'

so... you guys think that you are so cute.

Ha-ha... a bunch of real jokers, huh?

And yet SOMEHOW it does not occur to either of you that those posts were INAPPROPRIATE?!!!!!!

I didn't "invite" this misogynistic BS from either of you
We don't have that type of relationship here (thank God!!!)

so how dare you expose me to your disrespectful filth.

You may think it's a real hardy-har-har, boys-will-be-boys backslapper...
but your "joke" offends me as a woman.

I can take a lot of cr@p (and I have... from both of you)...
but THAT crossed the line

[angelize56]

Didn't want to start a new thread so thought I'd put this here. Gee...what next...throw out the Bible! Take care. angel

Wisconsin Priests Want Celibacy To Be Optional
Letter To Be Mailed To Bishop

POSTED: 7:22 a.m. EDT August 19, 2003

MILWAUKEE -- More than 160 priests in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Milwaukee say married men should be allowed to enter the priesthood.

They've signed letters that will be mailed Tuesday to Bishop Wilton Gregory, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The letter will be sent to a subcommittee of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Milwaukee Archbishop Timothy Dolan will chair that panel, starting in November.

The letter says married men should be allowed because of the ongoing shortage of priests. (Kind of know why the shortage in some dioceses.)

It also acknowledges that celibacy has been a blessing for many priests and some may choose to remain celibate.

Under current rules, Catholic priests must take a vow of celibacy, and priests are forbidden to be married.

The Rev. Tom Suriano is pastor of Saint Patrick Church in Whitewater and one of three priests who led the effort.

He says priests hope the letter will prompt a dialogue about the need for optional celibacy.

Sociologist Dean Hoge says it's the first time since the 1960s and mid-1970s that a group of priests has spoken out on the issue of celibacy.

[valley]

Originally posted by khaki:
And yet SOMEHOW it does not occur to either of you that those posts were INAPPROPRIATE?!!!!!!

I didn't "invite" this misogynistic BS from either of you
We don't have that type of relationship here (thank God!!!)

so how dare you expose me to your disrespectful filth.

You may think it's a real hardy-har-har, boys-will-be-boys backslapper...
but your "joke" offends me as a woman.

I can take a lot of cr@p (and I have... from both of you)...
but THAT crossed the line

Khaki....I'd try to forget about it since you know they are just trying to push your buttons....but if it turns into a habit and you are truly upset and offended by it then you do have the right to report the post and have your concerns addressed, so long as you do not abuse the right.

Techguy specifically asks for respect in this forum

Mulder said this forum pretty much moderates itself....I hope he wasnt serious because there are members who cannot be trusted to moderate themselves and will need a babysitter, Mulder included sometimes! Like unruly children....you give 'em and inch and they'll take a mile if left unchecked.

I also refer you to the rules so that you know what techguy deems appropriate: http://www.techguy.org/rules.html Now, it is one thing among friends.......but quite another to ask for kisses from someone who you know dislikes you. Jack and Paul....you both need to knock it off because I know neither one of you really want to be accused of sexual harassment....if you keep it up, it will become an issue. Khaki doesnt want this kind of attention, I suggest you take her seriously. You both should know better than to joke like that with her of all people who you have upset before.

[Tuppence2]

Hello Khaki,

I didn't notice any self-policing when a very rude and derogatory remark was made about me. The post was left without comment from anyone, even after reporting it (a few words were removed). You could try that route, though.

Bye,
Penny.

[columbo]

How is it hypocritical? I havent twisted scriptures out of context but have spent hours in this one thread trying to explain them as as carefully as I can, according to my own understanding of them.

Columbo asked a question and I answered it, didnt I? But I also question his motives as less than kind since the point of his entire posts seemed to suggest to me that I should shut up, like the good little woman in the bible are commanded to.

No, my post was intended to suggest that perhaps a great deal of the "instructions" contained within the Bible have become dated and archaic, and perhaps should no longer be considered applicable. Like instructions forbidding men to shave their beards, or forbidding women to wear gold, or forbidding homosexuals from accepting their own nature.

When did I imply or state that my motives were kind? I wasn't trying to be nice or mean.

You quoted scripture from 1 Timothy to try to illustrate the point you were trying to make to Marcus and Gibble. I responded by quoting scripture from the same book. But when I did it, you responded by saying that Paul's words applied only to the people of Ephesus. Yet you were the first one to quote from that exact same book (1 Timothy 1:8-10) when it served your purpose (despite your later claims that Paul's words were applicable only to the people of Ephesus).

That is why you're being a hypocrite Val. That is why I said that you twist and manipulate the meaning and context of scripture to fit whatever argument you're trying to put forth.

I don't think you should shut-up, and never meant to infer that by quoting from Timothy. But the archaic restrictions and instructions concerning women in the Bible are fairly evident. I personally don't believe that women should be subservient to men, or treat men as their masters.

Your husband may consider himself lucky that he has a wife who "obeys" him, but I don't think that women should accept "subjection" simply because it was written thousands of years ago that they should. I don't believe that God intended as much.

[plschwartz]

Val:
It appears to me you want to perpetuate the old idea of there being different rules for boys and girls. You want us to respect your dropping your little comments and then leaving, and allow that another woman can hide behind sexual harassment
As far as I am concerned this is a unisexual discussion board with one set of rules (whatever they are) til Techguy says elsewise. I certainly have traded jibs with Chris about homosexuality without him calling that harassment. And there is pleanty of sexual flirting and innuendo around this Kitchen. The heat is the same for all of us

[Gibble]

Originally posted by plschwartz:
Val:
It appears to me you want to perpetuate the old idea of there being different rules for boys and girls. You want us to respect your dropping your little comments and then leaving, and allow that another woman can hide behind sexual harassment
As far as I am concerned this is a unisexual discussion board with one set of rules (whatever they are) til Techguy says elsewise. I certainly have traded jibs with Chris about homosexuality without him calling that harassment. And there is pleanty of sexual flirting and innuendo around this Kitchen. The heat is the same for all of us

*psst* it's over...drop it allready

[LANMaster]

And now ... Back to the ISSUE ....

Poll finds majority against gay unions
Candidates may face threat of backlash
By WILL LESTER
Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- More than half of Americans favor a law barring gay marriage and specifying wedlock be between a man and a woman, an Associated Press poll found.

The survey also found presidential candidates could face a backlash if they support gay marriage or civil unions, which provide gay couples the legal rights and benefits of marriage.

The poll, conducted for the AP by ICR-International Communications Research of Media, Pa., found 52 percent favor a law banning gay marriages, while 41 percent oppose it.

About four in 10 -- 41 percent -- support allowing civil unions, roughly the same level found in an AP poll three years ago. But 53 percent now say they oppose civil unions, up from 46 percent in the earlier survey.

The increase came largely from people who previously were undecided, the polls suggested.

Close to half those surveyed said they would be less likely to support a presidential candidate who backs civil unions (44 percent) or gay marriage (49 percent), while only around 10 percent said they would be more likely.

"I don't think it's a great idea, the whole idea of marriage is bringing up children," said Jim Martin, a 64-year-old engineer from Alexandria, Va. "If somebody was promoting it, I would vote against them."

The issue poses a challenge for the Democratic presidential candidates in the 2004 election. The six leading candidates say they oppose gay marriage but are critical of efforts to ban it.

Four of the six -- former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt, Florida Sen. Bob Graham and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry -- say they support civil unions. North Carolina Sen. John Edwards and Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman say they favor benefits for gay partners, but say states should decide on civil unions.

President Bush has said he supports efforts to legally ban gay marriage, but encourages tolerance of gays and lesbians.

About one-third of people who identified themselves as Democrats and independents said they would be less likely to support a candidate who backs civil unions. Twice as many Republicans said they feel that way.

More than four in 10 Democrats support passing laws against gay marriage, according to the poll. Two-thirds of Republicans support passing such laws.

Source

[Gibble]

"President Bush has said he supports efforts to legally ban gay marriage, but encourages tolerance of gays and lesbians"

...spoken like a politician. Covering his bases, by disagree, but not completely

I'm so glad I'm a Canuck

[valley]

Originally posted by Gibble:
"President Bush has said he supports efforts to legally ban gay marriage, but encourages tolerance of gays and lesbians"

Makes no difference. Despite the fact that he has support by 4 out of 10 democrats and 2/3 of the rebublicans and more than half of the people here.....he's still wrong if he utters an ounce of disagreement.

[Gibble]

umm...my point was he's a hypocrite

[LANMaster]

Originally posted by Gibble:
"President Bush has said he supports efforts to legally ban gay marriage, but encourages tolerance of gays and lesbians"

...spoken like a politician. Covering his bases, by disagree, but not completely

I'm so glad I'm a Canuck

umm...my point was he's a hypocrite

That's BS Gibble.
I tolerate homos. But I am against their forcing their way into a sacred RELIGIOUS icon such as marriage.
I think they should be allowed all financial benefits and fees related to marriage as well. But can't you see what is happening right before our eyes?
The homos are trying to make it so that a church cannot refuse to marry them!

This is a violation that I will not stand and ignore.

The backlash by society against the gays will be severe.

[columbo]

That's BS Gibble.
I tolerate homos. But I am against their forcing their way into a sacred RELIGIOUS icon such as marriage.
I think they should be allowed all financial benefits and fees related to marriage as well. But can't you see what is happening right before our eyes?
The homos are trying to make it so that a church cannot refuse to marry them!

This is a violation that I will not stand and ignore.

The backlash by society against the gays will be severe.

Marriage isn't a sacred religious institution (I'm guessing that you meant that, rather than icon). And if you look back over the history of marriage, you can see that it has evolved and changed greatly over time. Marriage started out as a way for fathers to essentially auction off their daughters/sons (for some form of dowry or compensation).

Churches didn't become involved in marriage ceremonies and defining marital laws until centuries later.

Who exactly is forcing churches to perform wedding ceremonies for homosexual couples?

Saying you "tolerate homos" is pretty pointless Lan...It is painfully obvious that you don't. The tone and intent of your last post (referring to "them" as "the homos") is fairly indicative of your feelings towards "them".

Saying that you "tolerate" a certain type of person prior to launching into an angry missive about them is something that people who want to make sure they don't come across as prejudiced do....

It would be akin to me arguing against special education for mentally-handicapped children by saying:

"I tolerate retards. But I am against their forcing me to pay for their special education. I think they should be allowed to go to school, but that's it.
The retards are trying to make it so that they'll get more money for school!"