THOTH

I can pretty much agree with you here actually (all religions right in their own way...at least in part...as they are human contrived sysytems to make sense of the world around considering our limited perspective/ability to know etc...)...though I would more likely perhaps say Christianity is not the only wrong religion...same difference - effectively...and while you may be imbued with Christian virtue - and your religious views are more positve then negative - and I like that - in the end (I don't think) you can really call yourself a Christian - because by definition the prime docrine of accepting Christ as savior and the bible as the (one and only true) word of the lord - seems to irreparably contradict the tennents of other religions...(which don't at all recognize such and which are composed of completley different ritual & observance & acceptance...)

All very much encouraged by most religions it seems - no? I mean historicaly and currently...for instance look at this Rudolph Steiner quote "...Christianity as a world-view is greater than all religions" - I mean come now...this is so typical...its always an us or them thing...I mean can you actually tell an Irish Protestant and an Irish Catholic apart? Why T F are they killing each other then...and look at Islam...and - of course Christianity (and its penchanch for conversion - by sword if neccessay - I mean look at the new world experience...and elsewhere...everywhere...)...these religions are ripe with intolerance, rigid dogmatism and fanatiscim...its the Atheists and agnostics and such who are live and let live...

how about rum & coke?

Perhaps in Japan - where employer is sometimes seen as sort of a family. But we are talking about pair-bonds and all that goes with it. There was a time when interacial marraiages were also not recognized (and many are still against this) - but we have - at least officially - gotten beyond our predjudice against this. Gay couples are a fact. And there is no reason for their unions to have any less legal and social status then the union of any two other adults.

Would that be the same if it were - like OJ - killing someone and getting away with it? ...or is stealing somehow a lesser offense?

oh and here is another link you migth find interesting...(and from a Christian source no less..at least I think it is...) http://presys.com/~ekklesia/mvm.htm "...today's Domestic Relationship of Marriage is neither natural, remembering that the law of nature is "divine will," nor ecclesiastical, "distinguished from `civil' or `secular,'" but it is civil." "Marriage is often referred to as a civil contract, but the emphasis in such a reference is not on the word `contract' but upon the word `civil' as distinguished from ecclesiastical; since there is religious freedom in this country a religious ceremony, and rules of ecclesiastical organizations with regard to marriage have no legal significance"

Domino – As much as I admire your intellect I must say that I often find you to be very narrow/conservative and at the same time quite divorced from the reality of things. You are young – so don’t have experience in life – so can be forgiven I guess...and perhaps in time you will find a way to overcome your (typical Armenian) conservative judgementality. Lets address the concept of marriage now shall we? You say a union between man and women…well yes, traditionally this is so…and you infer that this is due to nature – the natural way of things – for procreation and such. OK – all makes sense – I understand these things (but I reject that this “natural way” of things is necessarily the only way – nor is it easy to really define). If we followed such we would all still perhaps be living in trees – I mean just because something has always been a certain way does not bind us forever to it does it? I mean regarding marriage…well up until very recently a marriage was only undertaken when two families agreed – and their were often dowry’s (payments) and such to secure it…and when the women married she became the property of her husband – literally – with very few rights of her own (here in the west and I think it still persists elsewhere). No this is has it has been – thus should this be the way of it now? I argue that societal values change the definitions of even (and especially) things so fundamental to us and how we live. And marriage is clearly a social/societal thing (almost by defintion)...before that people just lived together you know...cohabitated the cave & such...(and you already have made a slight reference before to multiple partners etc etc - but we don't need to go there I think...that is another discussion..) I agree with you that the intent of marriage is to create a family. But what is a family. Well – when two people are married they become a family – bound to each other and seen by the outside as one entity. Additionally a marriage cements relations of kin – yes all the relatives are involved (certainly one reason why the families got so much say traditionally…the other being economics…and this is also still a key piece). Those getting married become a family – become (essentially) legally one – and are seen as such by others…and their families become related as well – and this is important. The various legal and economic aspects are most important and this is just reality. By denying certain (legitimate and existing) couples these rights (yes rights) then you are discriminating. And its important to understand that there is such a thing as marriage – which is a civil institution – where you must get licensed by the state (and priests and such are only acting on behalf of the state – and they are likewise licensed) and this religious concept of holy matrimony…these are two separate and entirely different things (and I have no care for the latter nor are we discussing/debating such). Thus yes – fundamentally this is a legal issue – and by definition (as far as the concept/term) is concerned – it is not a religious one – as religion (at least in the USA) must keep out of such things. And its of course a cultural issue – and as such our culture is changing. You say you don’t object to same-sex (civil) unions – well this is exactly what marriage is. And these folks are entitled to full protection & benefits under the law – anything else is essentially either outright discrimination or a separate (but unequal) situation. Here is some additional info on marriage versus civil unions. The latter are unrecognized in most all states and do not confer at all the same benefits & protections… http://www.glad.org/Publications/CivilRigh...rriagevcu.shtml And – of course there can be other complications as well – just what is a man and what is a women – eh? lol http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/phil...th_gaym_sex.htm

Yes go on believing..it will do you just as well...and have just as much relevance... Why thank you I guess...oh but you are calling my "realism" primitive..much like the Church viewed Copernicus I imagine...and who says I'm anti-Idealist? And somehow I don't find myself limited...I'm certainly open to (potentially) believing in anything...I've just grown out of fairy tales.... Really? Didn't know that my wife was passing behavoral edicts resulting in condemnation and death..and she ussually gives me pretty much a free hand in what I do...if anything she is more liberal then I.... And I'll have to get back to you on my (judgemental) salad...I'm pretty open about what I like - do I really have to choose a one and only favorite? Whose rules? But seriously - this issue is not a joke - when it results in peoples (harmless) behaviors being condemned and when we have folks running around saying that the word of the Bible is the word of God and is immutable and such...

Well that settles it then...

But when one ascribes to believeing the Bible as the word of God - who is it to take it upon themselves to choose? And wasn't the entire legitimacy of Jesus supposedly based on proffecies form the Old Testament and didn't Jesus himself (according to Mat, Mar, Lu & Jo & apostle Paul) base his entire religious underpinnings on the continuity and application of the Old Testament teachings/history etc - wasn't this the intent...oh yeah and to bring such to the Gentiles and throw in a bunch of Peace Love and Dope stuff along with it? (I always pictured him as a real hippie king....don't know...JC Superstar...etc)

Yeah Nairi - but all the good fire & brimestone stuff and smiting enemies and punishing offenders - well all that is in the Old Testament...where would Christianity be without it? A bunch of do gooding pacifists...I mean how could we have overun the New World and made the rest (well except for a few patches of desert in the Middle East..) our own with this sort of philosophy? Actually - on a serious note - I have had long debates with a good/practicing (and very well informed) Christian friend of mine where I argue that the God(s) (the Elohim and then this guy Yawaeh) of the Old Testament are in fact different (as in different beings entirely) then the Gods (father Jehova, Son Jesus and that nebulus Holy Ghost) whose (various) attributes are described in the New....he feels differently...(something about a contract involving this Jesus fellow alleviating the wrath of the vengeful & jealous old bearded guy...you know the one who pretty much just F'd with the Jews anyway..and their Philistinian neighbors & such...and they left the rest of the world pretty much be to do as they wished...to worship fire, the sun, trees, and various pantheons of mixed morality and such...)..don't know really...though in my mind its all just meaningless speculation (about contrived non-existant personalities...)...like did Shakespear really write all those plays & sonnets? Well we know that the various books of the bible (that have been compiled by humans) were actually written by various humans as well...and then there is this Mohhammed guy, and Joseph Smith, Sun Yung Moon, L Ron hubbard, Sasun & Domino and who knows who else who have all (claimed to) receive divine inspiration of one sort or another...

Many argue how homosexuality and what have you are sinful, specifically prohibited and punishible by God as they can find versus to support such (exclusively from the old testment and primarily in Leviticus it seems...)...so in this vein I came accross a post in another forum that I think is food for thought regarding gods eternal word concerning right and wrong and suggested punishments for transgressions etc. Here is an excerpt from a post where someone is enquiring to a Christian friend for guidance on the correct course of action according to God's word... "I do need some advice from you... regarding some of the specific laws and how to follow them. a. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? b. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? c. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. d. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians? e. I have a neighbor who insists on working on Sunday (the Sabbath). In the book of Exodus verse 35:2 it clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself? f. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't know. Can you settle this? g. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? h. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die? i. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? j. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16). Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14). I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging, and we should do what the bible says."

Yeah George Carlin - some expert to rely on for the future of our planet eh? OK - he is a funny guy - and very insightful at times...but here he is just wrong. I don't dispute that "the day after tommorow" is likely a sensationalist trash movie however... (but, haven't seen it...just don't have much hope for it or other similar Hollywood type ventures...)

You did no such think....and cannot - becuse cultural is not only entirely valid - but is all that is at issue. Just because you reject it does not mean that you are automatically correct on this one. The issue is cultural - exclusively. Should we list all the various things done by man/mankind/pweoplkind (or what have you) that are "not according to nature" and I thought you were a scientist? Are you ready to reject all sorts of scientific achievements - man was not meant to fly sor tof thing...what of ceserean birth..since when did kids ever come out that way huh? Well its against nature - thus shoud nto be allowed...please... Oh yes - rights versus privledges..well straight couples get married..gay couples want to as well - who are you to say that it is not their right! Again the nature argument ("as nature intended"....lol) - it just has no bearing...did nature intend us to wear clothes? Perhaps we should all be going around nude? Yes descrimination...and don't you dare say that I'm "yapping" - what gives you the right? (or was that a privilaedge)...don;t go there if you want me to remain civil as well - we are having a debate - and frankly I have it all over you on this one - as your arguments are based on yoru stated predjudices while mine are based on an enlightened perspective...we aren't amish you kow... Well now we see another bias - so not procreating is against nature eh? You are also against any marraige that does not result in children (and later you argue against adoption) - some enlightend individual you are. I will have you know that two of the most wonderful people in the world who had the most amazing marraige were my godparents - who had no children nor any chance of having so because of their polio - and they had a picturebook loving marraige - incredibly so - and you would deny this? You are without a clue my friend! I really think you should give up this debate now because your arguments are totally bankrupt and have no bearing on reality. I have no idea what their arguments are to be honest - I just know common sense and am not hampered by a Christian narrowed worldview... And Kurds are mountain Turks BTW -no? They are not aminority - why not - because the powers that be say not...is that your criteria? They are a minority if they practice a distinct culture apart from the majority and are discriminated against because of it...as in this case...regardless.. Just as Kurds are with Turks and most every other minority group....Is their really that much genetically seperating Armenians and Turks? Perhaps - but even if not a bit - it is their culture/expresion of it - and themn seeing themselves as a minority group that matters - not what you say - so its a lifestyle - well its different - thus they are treated differently - thus a minority. What - 2 person male-female union is not as nature intended!?!?!?! NOT NATURAL!!!! lol yeah - face it - we are a varied species - like all life - and variation occurs within - her is to hoping we are mature enough to embrace that variation and not to enforce lockstep conformity. BTW - seems as if homosexuality has been with us throught history and in all cultures - so it is NATURAL....and marriage is not a natural institution but one that is entirely culturaly disctated..and in any event outr culture is changing and evolving - and unless you want to be /support the next Hitler you will learn to have a bit more tolerance... Again your biases betray you. Is a single parent "family" "natural" - yeah this (your argument) is meaningless - it occurs because of circumstance - is it ideal? Is a father who beats you preferable? Answers are not so simple. Well if everyone practiced homosexuality? What kind of alternative universe is this??? Total non-argument - no basis in reality...Earth to Domino - its this universe were talking about... And that you are so against adoption - and so for everyone having children and expanding the population...well good for you there are other universes to inhabit..because your solution is indeed not a good long term prospect for humanity...or our (mother) Earth Its all about culture...and it is a relative (and evolving) thing (besides the fact that homosexulity has existed throughout the millenia - thus is "natural")...please try to come down to earth dear Domino...we are talking this planet man - and the culture around us...are we to be stuck in the old models forever - and we are only beginning to see changes that will reslut in humans not being at all the same as we are now...how then will you deal with these ethical issues? (not natural - never seen it before...y'all...)

Nice comments Nakharar. I suggest that you my enjoy reading the book "A Fez of the heart" - I think you would enjoy it and get additional insight...

Well some of my best interviews have been over the phone...! But I do recall one interview where these folks were very interested in me and tentatively gave me a job offer but before I left the interview they suggested I might want to cut my hair a bit, shave and suggested that I not wear a belt with bullets in little bullet holders on it (like I was wearing for the interview!) - etc etc - I promptly told them that I would (basically) do as I please and they could take me or leave me - as is! (Got the job BTW...though predictably I drove them nuts with similar [insubordination - for lack of a better word...])

In my days I ran the gamut from faovored student (ussually because of what I had to offer (intellectually/regarding the class subject matter etc) - not looks to being the one who directly challenged the instructor in an adversarial way (sometimes with disputes ending up going to the dept head [who backed me! lol] - yeah its good to be in with certain folks...) There is something to this good lookign thing...saw a TV pioece on this once where they had folks who were striking looking and those not looking lost and needing help in Manhatten - and other people were comming up to help the good loking ones everytime while the normal looking folks got little or no help... and you do notice this (regarding yourself) eh? ! - well good for you - why not take advantage eh?

...!?!?!? and you tell me why a minority group - any minority group should be denied the ability to do as the majority? ..fraid this argument goes the other way my boy...yeah - just why should Kurds get to speak their own language? Just because Turks do - why should they? They should buckle under and do as their told - no? And be grateful for that... Riding a horse? No - i don't at all get what you mean - this is an argument about a majority group denying basic things to a minority or subgroup. And in Ottoman times this was one of the things denied - no? Seems pretty basic yeah - but what is more basic to humans then pairing off and developing life partnerships - why should those who are of the same sex be denied? I fail completely to see the difference...(and many straight couples have no intention of having children etc - maybe we shoudl call their union something other then marraige as well - and maybe we should also disadvantage them in some way while wer'e at it - just as gay couples are denied all of the benefits and recognition of a proper marraige...again how is it any different? ...just because of sex? Cannot and is not a union something more then/beyond just sex? Why is this the defining factor? ...anyway...if humanities survival is in peril it is because of too many people and not too few..thus gays and others who are not having children - especially in the resource hungry and polluting West - are doing us all a favor...(plus more women for you eh?) ..speaking of irrelevant arguments... One can make all kinds of arguments about what "nature" intends - etc - they really mean nothing (and BTW - in which universe is this...or do you still not aspire to the belief that if we think it up it is true - thus if we concieve of a universe where gays can be married and this is according to nature...well then it must be - so why are you complaining? And funny - this whole discussion began with the issue of Gay parents adopting...now shouldn't they be allowed a tax break? Shouldn't they be allowed to pass on property and inheritance and be covered by the other's insurance - etc etc...or are they not fully human in your euyes to have the full rights of everyone else?

semantics...its all about discrimination and failure of the majority group to allow a group which is a bit (but not too) different do their thing like everyone else is allowed (I mean they arn't harnming anyone...they just want to get married - not anything really counter-culture here is it? ..and they want the same benefits as other couples...I mean they are couples - thats pretty much Ok no? Or shopuld we not allow that as well? [not specifically speaking to you hear Domino...but still - is seperate/different really equal? And how can we really specify such - isn't this already a bankrupt concept?])...anyway I supose the Ottomans were right in denying Armenians free expression of their culture and the ability to have all the Priviledges as the majority culture...and for making restrictive laws and such...I mean owning a gun is a priviledge isn't it - not a right? riding a horse? being able to live in your own home secure from the Army camping out in it and raping your women? and taxes...yeah its a tax issue too...etc etc Yeah - why should this troublesome minority - who believes in some different stuff and is different from the majority- why should they get to do all the things the majority group does? No - they should just be grateful for what they got - no? Happy (but not gay apparently...) is he who calls himself straight..etc

Armat - like you I (we) did not get married in a church... ...and yeah - I do supose it is a priviledge for gays to be able to use the same bathrooms as straights...perhaps they shoudl have seperate ones...maybe they should even have to where stars on their chests..or little pink ribbons - I don't know... Marraige is no privilege - it is a fundemental fact of life in our society...and I know plenty of couples who do not have and have no intention of having children...yet they are happily married. To deny this to two consenting adults is the same thing as telling them (with apologies to George Orwell...) - "yes - we are all equal - but some of us are more equal then others..." What next - deny the right for someone to get married because they are too sickly? too anti-war? Too artisitc 9and unproductive (sorry Armat...I don;t meen you of course! )? etc etc ...these are choices - no? And bottom line - Gay marraige (and parenting) has pretty much been shown to work. And what - we deny this basic right (and yes - i see it as a right) to folks - where does that leave us - a bunch of disafected/put out/angry folks for no real reason...I mean give it a rest already - like Armat said - what is the difference to you really?

Great! funny but kind of tragic too... 13 years old? Perhaps they should be throwing a ball arond to him instead of leaving him home alone all the time drinking beer, champagn (at least its only Dom - not anything really good...) and playing play station. Yeah - blame the kid - I blame the parents (well at least they drink beer thats not twist off..I supose thats a point in their favor....)...and when I was 13 - I drank beer WITH my dad!

no variation in this? Does it matter if its day or night?

"civil unions" & what not...can you say - "seperate but equal" "go sit in the back of the bus" etc etc...BTW I still sometimes work in a building where there are two sets of mens rooms in each corrdor...left over from the legacy where one was for black & one white...so I get a daily reminder of the kinds of rationalizations people can make to enforce their prejudices that result in some particualr groups or subsets being blocked from or unable to have access to or what have you - simple basic things that are available to the majority group. Try living on the reverse end of this sort of situation sometimes and then tell us all how it feels. (& no BTW I am not gay or such - in case folks are wondering... )

Yes, still I really don't think it is so simple. What of cultures where the young (of either or both) go through homosexual stages (to learn the ways etc)...as in Ancient Greece and in some African societies that I am aware? And what of bi-sexuality in general and such - or people who just see sex as good fun - and may enjoy/be attracted to either...in some cases this may be biologically determined - and I'm sure inclinations have a facotr - but I think acculturation plays and equal if not greater part (like everything) ..and as a man...well...OK - so your not attracted - thus it doesn't make any sense? no...you just cannot relate based on your own feelings/desires or what have you...that is different then it not making "sense" per se...and what is it that makes women attractive? ...well a great many things... absolutely - agree 100% ... ...though some (Sasun?) might argue that we are indeed born ore then once... I do not agree that it is something that folks may have no choice over however....but I think this is really irrelevant. There have been gay people throughout history...a significant % of the population - if figures are to be believed...and inate or not - doesn't matter - even if total choice...these people have the right to be treated/dealt with and what have you - as anyone else...

Don't be so sure that this might not be possible int the future. SCIENCE! ..yeah - then what? Would you admit then that you have no real argument against? Wern't you one of the ones who was claiming homosexuality as a mental illness and such? If not - sorry - but all of these anti-gay arguments are sort of running together/seem very much the same..