The Shotgun Blog
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Closing the marriage debate
The whole same-sex marriage thing is back. Just when you thought it was safe to turn on the news again. Boom! Like Jaws 14, or Scary Movie 23: the guys building religious congregations on the issue, and the guys building left wing interest groups – they’re all at it again. Yelling at each other. Yelling at us. Threatening MP’s. Asking for donations.
I could smell it in the air just about the time that someone at church a few weeks ago handed me a pre-printed postcard addressed to my MP.
But, at least two good things are going to happen: 1) the federal government will introduce a motion on the matter, and 2) the motion will fail.
It is a good thing for the government to open the matter. The House debate last year and the public debate over the last few years have been more than plentiful. But then, the Liberals played games. They used it as an election issue. They forced members of cabinet to vote for same-sex marriage. Belinda was there, and Martin was speechifying, and calling Harper names, and Anne MacLellan voted for something she said she never would. And then, boom, two buddies could march down to city hall and get hitched. … but they already could marry …but only in seven provinces.…
Did we get out of Oz? Did the Tin Man get his brain? Somehow, the movie ended before Dorothy woke up.
So, what we need is closure. And, that, hopefully, is exactly what Prime Minister Harper is doing. He is helping us move on.
With any luck and a little wisdom, MP’s will decide against re-opening the marriage debate. They will conclude that marriages between persons of the same sex do not decay the fabric of the institution itself.
With a little common sense they'll see that opposite-sex couples don’t break-up because two guys down the street get married.
They’ll realise that committed families are not imperilled when Jackie and Jill marry. In fact, Jill and Jackie, and Bob and Doug and all the rest, might actually have committed relationships themselves. And, cats and dogs aren’t next.
At the end of the day, God will make the call. I, for one, am betting that He will go a little harder on those who want to spend their time (and my money) sneering at those who just want to spend their lives caring for one another.
Until then, let’s leave Oz behind.
Posted by John Ratchford on December 5, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Closing the marriage debate:
Now John, it truly is one thing for someone to say that Christians should not be permitted a say in politics or to point out that our post-modern society is not Christian. You did not say that but others at least imply that.
However, you must understand that when you claim to speak for the Living God or at least make a claim about how he thinks, you will be challenged.
Therefore, you may want to amend your second last paragraph....
Posted by: Brent Weston | 2006-12-05 11:37:23 AM
This is one of the most dishonestly represented debates we have had in this country.Actually,next to health care,I can think of no other topic so buried in rhetoric,doublespeak and outright bullshit.
Despite my personal disgust with the homosexual act,I have,like many others modified my thinking to accept the fact a gay couple deserve the same chance at happiness a hetero couple do.(They could show me a little consideration in return by not flaunting it on TV and in parades)Anyways,they have already attained the same rights as straight couples,but that wasn't good enough.
They demand that it be called MARRIAGE.Why,I wondered,when they have come so far,do they further DEMAND this simple little technicality?You see,this is NOT about SS'M'.This is about NORMALIZING homosexuality.
Gay activists want society to ultimately accept homosexuality as NORMAL and completely ON PAR with heterosexuality.That is what all this is about.
So,big deal you say?
They are already working tirelessly to have this propaganda taught as part of the school curriculem.Having two moms or dads is JUST AS NORMAL as the traditional family they preach.Two men in love is JUST AS NORMAL as a man and woman in love,they teach.Fine,but what are kids to take from this.
Do any of you really remember your high school years?The confusion,euphoria,pain,ecstacy and self-doubt puberty brought on?How would you expect a child to react when they have been taught since grade 1 that GAY is A-OK.What post-pubescent kid who has any self-doubt about their sexuality(that would be all of them)could not be easily enticed into a little homosexual experimentation with their peers.After all,hasn't society told them this is a perfectly natural path to follow?
I'm relieved my daughters will have graduated before this mindset is entrenched.You can be sure I will be active in helping my grandchildren avoid the pain and confusion these'gay is normal'agendists will create.
For now,I'll just sit back and wait for the taunts of HOMOPHOBE to start since I dare disagree with their'hidden'agenda.Call me what you want,just leave the innocent children out of this.
Posted by: Canadian Observer | 2006-12-05 11:53:46 AM
An earlier post of mine agrees with your point:
Posted by: Brent Weston | 2006-12-05 12:05:00 PM
For once France has shown wisdom by putting children first. They will not allow SSM because of children, which makes lots of sense. Marriage is where children are procreated and educated.
How come this debate came forward? Because of corrupted and perverted politicians. It could never have happened in 1960. Not even in 1999.
So this affair is of utmost importance because it attacks the very fabric of our society. And we even have historic precedent. How many people have studied roman and greek history? Any society that has considered homosexuality normal disappeared quickly. If we want to vanish in lots of suffering, vote for SSM.
If you vote for SSM, you vote against God. You behave like Sodom and Gomorrah. You can expect the same curse.
I do invite everybody to ask forcefully for a referendum on the subject. I am totally convinced people will reject SSM with a strong majority.
Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2006-12-05 12:08:05 PM
Are you retarded? A referendum on the subject would mean another 10 years of Liberal rule. Are you an agent for the NDP?
God doesn't care about who you sleep with. Neither does Casper the Ghost and neither does Batman. Losers.
Posted by: What will You Guys Get Wrong Next? | 2006-12-05 12:57:40 PM
Posted by: Brent Weston | 2006-12-05 1:05:15 PM
Well said John.
Posted by: Travis | 2006-12-05 1:33:01 PM
I really don't think God wanted men to deposit sperm into a sigmoid colon (home of fecal matter) for fun. ... Do you?
Just thought I would ask?
If you respond with it's none of my business what two men do in the privacy of their bedroom, then why the parades?
Posted by: Duke | 2006-12-05 1:49:49 PM
I really don't care what consenting adults do in private, but the whole point of marriage is to protect the special arrangement of Mom & Dad as undoubtedly the best possible environment for raising our next generation.
Posted by: Joel K. | 2006-12-05 1:51:12 PM
Here comes the politically correct again!
Hold your nose, folks! We are in for one disgusting debate after the other!
I preferred the days when matters of law were reserved for what was right and what was wrong.
Today, no one cares whether anything is right or wrong. All they care about is whether someone's feelings are hurt or not, but in one direction! Politeness and good behaviour has been replaced by the politically correct.
People care about whether a gay person's feelings are hurt, but do not care if a heterosexual person's feelings are hurt, or offended.
It just so happens to offend me, that grown men would want to go around in women's clothing, with their parts hanging out, in front of children.
Of course, I am the first to say that people who do not want their children to see that kind of thing, (his thing in particular) should therefore not take their children to such things as gay pride parades.
Or me, for that matter. I do not want to look at them doing that in a parade. I also am not interested in looking at men, who wave their limp wrists around, as if they cannot control their inclinations whatsoever, while speaking with this fake lisp! Their behaviour, although meaningful for them, is considered innapropriate by yours truly.
We have debated this already.
But there is something else here.
Gays want to be mainstream. And yes, I agree, there ARE many gay couples, who do not want to be associated with gay parades. But what has happenned is the gay agenda has been based on these public displays, so much so, that the gays who just want to live like everybody else, are drowned out in the feverishness of the gays, who want the right to display their whatsits as if that kind of behaviour was acceptible family entertainment.
IT IS NOT. Nor shall it ever be considered appropriate in most people's books.
So, we come to this impass. It is not whether we draw the line somewhere, but rather do we draw the line?
Sure, we disagree that people should be covered from head to tail, with their freedoms limited, but at the same time, we do not want grown men displaying themselves from head to tail, as well.
But what does this tell us?
This informs us that there is what we call, our mainstream culture, and there is what we see as a fringe culture. There are reasons why fringe is fringe. It is that way because there is what is the right and respectable way of being, and behaving, and what is not respectable. Sure, adults in the free world, are free to go to the Clubs of their choice, and see whatever display of public nudity they choose. We keep that type of behaviour compartmentalized, because we do not want to look at it each and every day. And, we want to be able to have the choice as to whether we see it or not. I, for one, choose not to see it. And, we keep our children out of those places, because they are children. We cherish childhood, as it is a special period of life. The childhood years are the innocent years. They are the years in which sweetness, loveliness, and opportunity for a better world and personhood exist like no other time. They exist, and adults have the responsibility to ensure that the children grow up, and have the best opportunity at a happy life. Not just for themselves, but also for the next generation that they will be raising.
And, we hope that they will grow up and experience an orientation in life that has embeded the biological imperative, that each of us has been evolved with. In that, what I mean, is heterosexuality! There is a reason why heterosexual is mainstream, and the gay culture, is fringe. Although it may hurt someone's feelings for me to say that, no one can deny that no matter how many times men have a go at eachother, they will never be able to produce naturally, a child between them.
Same for two women, spatula or no spatula.
Although some feel that the orientation of two people of the same sex, to eachother, is natural for them, because it does not lead to naturally producing offspring, there is a natural inherentness to the biological imperative of a man and a woman.
This exists even without traditional authority.
This exists in spite of what is believed within or without a faith.
This exists, just because it is a fact.
And, it exists no matter how well two men or two women may raise children. That aspect, careing and nurturing children, has nothing to do with the facts associated with the biological imperative. It has already been proven that children who are raised by gay couples are no more likely to be gay than children raised by heterosexual couples, or even single parents for that matter. So raising has nothing to do with it.
Or, even having children.
What I have heard gay couples say, is that marriage rights, as associated with the death of a spouse, in spite of what all other laws have entailed, did not reach them. Many were cut out of the death of their spouse, in spite of the fact that they had spent their lifetimes with them.
That too has nothing to do with marriage.
And some have said that they wanted the same respect as a couple, and that access to marriage would do just that.
Well, no matter which way the wording is done, SSM, is never ever going to be HSM, no matter what. It is always, because of the biological imperative, going to be different. It is always going to have greater challenges, that HSM folks never have, if all conditions are just right. And, the folks who are SSM, who are not part of the fringe naked dancing with chains in the streets, gay paride thing, will have no more respect of eachother, or by the community as a whole, as they had before, because they were already assimilated into society. They had no issues with or by those in the community. It is only the fringe groups, who offend people, and I believe that we have the right to say what it is we find so dispectful of their behaviour. And they have the duty to understand and respect that the majority of people in society, simply have no interest in seeing their naked ugly buttocks sticking out from under some strange wired/chained/black leather for all to see. Or, for that matter, visualizing two men going at eachother. That they want it in private, then they can fill their boots. I will never find it acceptable for children to look at, no matter how much they force mainstream society, to make them included in on all terms that have been created to respect the biological imperative of a man and a woman, joined together, that has culturally been considered, to be in more ways than one, to be in holy matrimony.
Although it can be argued that HSM couples will never loose what they have by what the other person does in private, in their own homes, down the street, or next door for that matter, and ir can be said that no law changes what people do in private, there is an arguement, that has not been debated fully, that we as a society can, must, and do have the right to set our limits.
If we do not, then the person next door will be argueing the right to marry a pig. Clearly it is easy to see that the biological imperative draws a line between species. Yet how has it come to the point where we do not see the line drawn between folks of the same sex. It is one thing not to beat them, or ostracize them, or ban them from workplaces, or sentence them to prison, for being as they are, but quite another, for them to insist that what is mainstream must also apply to them, in the same manner as it applies to what is distinctly associated with the biological imperative.
If the debate goes on, then I hope that the category is opened, that a distinct wording for the domestic union, be formed to respect the difference in the union, of a man and a man, a woman and a woman, and a marriage that is a man and a woman.
Posted by: Lady | 2006-12-05 1:54:45 PM
The Tory motion is a sham to throw a bone to those who believed Harper when he said he was against homosexual marriages. This way he can close the chapter and appear to keep his promise.
It looks like Dion will strongarm the Grit caucus to vote against the motion although, officially, it will be a free vote. Traditional marriage Grits like Paul Szabo are already backing down. Szabo said he's voting against it because it doesn't go far enough. Really? And that he expect that he will EVER get an opportunity to vote on something that goes farther than this motion. He's lying. He doesn't want to be seen as an undesirable So-con-Lib. He wants to play ball. It will be interesting to see the final count.
Posted by: Roark | 2006-12-05 2:25:18 PM
Anybody who can not se the difference between a marriage and a "gay" marriage must have a dismal relationship indeed. "What's the harm?? Why not?. "I am hetro and married and it makes no difference to me!" "It doesn't bother me!" etc. etc. This type of what passes for debate only shows the depth or lack of depth in that person's relationship with the opposite sex. Yes...OPPOSITE sex. Homosexual sex is not normal. We should not confuse what is normal with what is acceptable. I would surely defend anyone's desire to live as they wish within the bounds of our commonly acceptable values, or even outside of these values but within the law. But homosexual sex just is not normal sex. We weren't built for it and that ain't going to change. So all I am saying ito gays is stop trying to portray homosexual sex as cool, withit, desirable, and above all normal. Have whatever civic agreements you need to make your relationships and your lives "equal" but leave marriage out of homosexual relationships. It is only possible for a man and a woman and it not for you. As for this claptrap about "committed " homosexual relationships goes, far more of my gay couple friends are soooo not monogamous, that it would be rediculous. Most importantly, they would agree with me.
Posted by: Kate | 2006-12-05 2:40:56 PM
"Homosexual sex is not normal."
What if they stick to oral? Or heavy petting? What about handjobs? Are handjobs normal?
Kate, in your opinion, where do things start to get weird?
Posted by: Feces Eating Buddha | 2006-12-05 2:46:47 PM
You got told Kate!
Posted by: Feces Eating Buddha | 2006-12-05 3:07:21 PM
When the Word of God is not considered, people can behave worst than animals.
I hold to a referendum. If people choose SSM, then we will all go down together. But I think it will easily win as we see by the comments.
Don't forget the children. They need a father and a mother.
Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2006-12-05 3:19:01 PM
Whether homosexuality is a freak of Nature, defective genes, whatever, it is not normal.
For many, if not most people, anal sex, oral sex , sex with animals, whatever, is perversion and depravity. It goes beyond morals and into the realm of human decency.
For those who have been dealt this card to include those who claim bisexuality it is of importance how they conduct themselves in the broader society, not the least of which is the scourge of AIDS which is largely preventable.
Marriage has been for the union of one man and one woman as long as recorded time. It is now being made a mockery of and will soon become meaningless if we allow the social engineers continued free reign.
Posted by: Liz J | 2006-12-05 3:49:17 PM
Trudeau got one thing right--the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. Marriage does not exist to legitimize bedroom relationships. Marriage exists to promote baby-making within the context of the two genetic parents, who have instinctual vested interests in raising their offspring. It exists for the sake of children because there is a pressing state interest in producing a new generation of productive abnd creative contributors and therefore in enhancing the overall nurturing of children on a macro scale. (Individual exceptional situations are just that.)
Once we have severed the link in people's minds between marraige and child-making and nurturing, then children suffer. European experience shows birthrates out of marriage increasing dramatically. Why? People are losing the connection. Marriage has nothing to do with children, it is state regulation of bedroom relationships. Why marry, unless you are religious. Children outside marriage do less well. Ergo, novel social experimentation with the definition of marriage hurts children.
The irony of the whole debate was demonstrated by the National Post. One week after touting gay marriage, on another issue (the risk to pension funding due to low birth rates) it decried the plummeting birth rate and posed the question, what can society do to promote couples to have children? Gee, how about creating a sacred social institution to promote and revere couples who contribute to society in this way? Oh dear, we used to have that, didn't we. What was it called?
Posted by: murray | 2006-12-05 4:12:30 PM
The human race is by definition and nature dimorphic; that is, male and female. To claim that it is metaphysically possible to have marriage not consisting of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others is the equivalent of claiming water is dry, fire is cold, etc. The relationship may exist in the barest of terms but it cannot be marriage.
The infinite, personal God made us forever men and women, which is cause for thanksgiving and joy in and of itself.
It is arrogance defined for a legislature to presume to alter that fundamental human reality through a vote.
Posted by: TJ | 2006-12-05 4:14:52 PM
Have you asked them if they agree with you?
Posted by: Travis | 2006-12-05 5:20:58 PM
"spatula or no spatula"
Lady, do you perhaps mean turkey baster?
Posted by: Joan Tintor | 2006-12-05 7:12:49 PM
Repeal the Marriage Act(s) problem solved. The Church carried out the whole marriage thing for centuries before the Canadian government got involved, a legal union is not required.
Every person should be equal in Canada regardless of marital status - the government only uses marriage to discriminate for or against married people, and therefore discriminates against everyone with seperate laws for some, like tax laws. Repeal the Act.
Posted by: Philanthropist | 2006-12-05 8:51:07 PM
So, Murray, the alternates have not only stolen the word "gay" from us, they've stolen the sacrament of marriage. Now they're moving on to include the children. They can't make 'em on their own but they can buy the services of those who are properly endowed to do so.
Where will this end? Who knows? Who cares? Certainly not the Bozos running the country. The Martin Liberals pushed the issue through, it's their's to wear and it appears we are stuck with it.
Posted by: Liz J | 2006-12-06 6:18:58 AM
Philanthropist is right.
Posted by: Roark | 2006-12-06 7:36:42 AM
Philanthropist and Roark are completely wrong. Marriage is a reflection of the naturally dimorphic nature of human beings and has been around for all of recorded time.
It is obvious then that it requires government support to continue.
Posted by: Travis | 2006-12-06 8:18:24 AM
Apparently my got filtered out (just in case it wasn't obvious).
Posted by: Travis | 2006-12-06 8:19:48 AM
Bah (end sarcasm)!
Posted by: Travis | 2006-12-06 8:21:20 AM
John sez that gay marriage has not hurt our society so what is the problem.......You must be blind not to see what the left has done to this country in the past 40 years or so. Leftist Europe is where we are headed and they are headed to towards becoming extinct. For Johns information, it is policies like this that will eventually cause the collapse of western societies wheather he thinks it or now.
Posted by: themaj | 2006-12-06 9:22:10 AM
Europe is not headed for extinction. Sorry. Only the medically brain-dead and Mark Steyn's cult-like followers believe that.
That the state recognizes the union between two guys, calling it marriage, will not cause the west to collapse. No matter how much themaj fantasizes about such a result.
Although wasting our time debating homosexual marriage while neglecting other, more important issues, just might.
Posted by: Feces Eating Buddha | 2006-12-06 9:45:13 AM
And, might I add that in the beginning, G-d created humans. He created humans both male and female. These humans were created in G-d's image. Nothing and no one can change that, no matter what human rights they get, or how sore they get in the process.
I hear it hurts the day after. That is why they invented tucks.
(I heard taliban jack got down right dirty, when he confused gas, with ass. I am still waiting for Western Standard "to get to the bottom of it" (SH).
We must care for the next generation. We must show them the ways, and respect that the ways that were developed, have been good. We should never cow to those who throw the baby out with the bathwater. And yet, in spite of this truth, that is in fact what we have done.
I feel the human rights of homosexual people have been respected in the laws, up until the point where they were included in the term marriage. Then, at that point, it was flipped across the line. We are all different. And yet what we can say about our individual differences is not as important as the fundamental things that unite us all.
The marriage debate will die in the cross-roads. And as Murray stated so well, we will be searching for a new ceremony, to celebrate the union, of one man with one woman. Perhaps we will call it, a domestic union. Since the gays dopn't want it, we can take it for ourtselves. In the spirit of what it is, it is what it is, no doubt about it....
Posted by: Lady | 2006-12-06 10:42:31 AM
Feces, but who divided the country on this issue? It was the Ontario Court and the Grits who opted for flawed legislation. This was NOT an issue before this happened.
However, I do support repealing the marriage act altogether. Marriage does not require a state seal to continue to exist.
Posted by: Roark | 2006-12-06 10:44:13 AM
I've never been able to understand all the fuss. It all comes down to how you define marriage. We all agree that, at the very least, a marriage is a unit with certain legal rights and obligations.
But if you say that Church & State Sanctioned Marriage is a celebration of love between consenting adults then you have no reason to oppose SSM.
If, on the other hand, you think marriage is a dry, functional formality recognizing the biological ability of two people to pop a kid, then by all means rage against the Evil Gay Agenda.
But because this is a question of interpretation and opinion (kind of like the Bible) there will never be an answer that satisfies everyone.
And that means, unfortunately for a conservative minority in a democratic society, we have to go with the answer that satisfies the most people. SSM is, and should rightly be, legal, sane, and healthy.
Posted by: mischiff | 2006-12-06 3:13:27 PM
That is a radical but very pertinent suggestion.
For many people, marriage doesn't mean anything anymore. So they discuss along some superficial lines like they would discuss hockey.
To them, life is a hockey game. Only one problem guys. It will end not like a hockey game but in a coffin. When your body is in a coffin, where will you be? Answer: facing your creator who will ask questions.
Are you ready to provide answers?
Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2006-12-06 8:58:55 PM
From the WSJ:
In her new book, "Marriage and Caste in America: Separate and Unequal Families in a Post-Marital Age," Ms. Hymowitz documents how, by refusing to emphasize the link between marriage and successful child raising, "we have created a new demographic, which is the poor, working, single mother."
Posted by: murray | 2006-12-07 5:04:15 AM
I am curious as to why you chose that name. With right understanding and intent it CAN be ok, but with no understanding or wrong intent, it is just plain offensive.
Can you elucidate please?
Posted by: Buddhist | 2006-12-07 5:42:09 AM
So unfortunately it turns out the planet is OLDER than 6,000 years old, turns out the world ISN'T FLAT, turns out black people are not akin to animals, turns out women are human and deserve a vote, turns out mixed race marriages are normal, turns out contraceptives reduce unwanted pregnancies and STDs, turns out the Iraq war was bullshit, turns out everything you and your kind have believed has always been WRONG.
Turns out you're an idiot who never learns.
Posted by: Barrel of Monkeys | 2006-12-07 9:33:44 AM
And your solution to the fact human beings are perfect creations whose rejection of God's true laws lead them into evil acts?
I can only hope that your abilities are higher than an ability to criticize without offering solutions.
Bear in mind, the Marxist experiment which purported the state offered all answers to universal human questions proved to be an abject failure after less than half a century of practise.
And, the jihadist answer in which religion is in fact the state has only produced paranioa, murder and human suffering ... much like the Marxist solution.
Your turn, bud.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-12-07 10:15:15 AM
If you're suggesting everything needs empirical evidence to be true, let me put one question.
Has any other human being seen your brain? If not, how can anybody be sure you have one?
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-12-07 10:18:29 AM
"Bear in mind, the Marxist experiment which purported the state offered all answers to universal human questions proved to be an abject failure after less than half a century of practise."
Remind me again who the US owes much of its debt to? Oh right, the People's Republic of China.
Anyway I'm not a Marxist apologist but I just found your ignorance hilarious. I consider statements like, "human beings are perfect creations whose rejection of God's true laws lead them into evil acts," to be the textual equivalent of a red nose and big floppy shoes.
Sorry, little boy, Daddy God doesn't exist (at least not as you conceive of it).
Posted by: Barrel of Monkeys | 2006-12-07 10:25:36 AM
Since you cannot provide any empirical evidence that anybody has seen your brain, then I can fairly assume your brain also does not exist.
How do I know your brain exists?
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-12-07 10:39:16 AM
Answer two other questions.
Is there such a thing as cold?
Is there such a thing as darkness?
Can it be proven those two things actually exist ... or are they an absence of something?
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-12-07 10:46:58 AM
Good one SYF
Posted by: Brent Weston | 2006-12-07 10:50:53 AM
I don't believe in god but, it's obvious to me that homosexual behaviour or not natural.
try to convince us on that one.
Posted by: gm | 2006-12-07 10:55:05 AM
Thanks for your kind words.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-12-07 11:20:24 AM
Anyway my original point stands (and thanks to Set You Free for his inadvertent support of the Marxists in China) everything people like you fight against happens anyway and the world is better of for it.
gm, I wouldn't waste my time trying to convince you of anything. I don't have to. Thankfully I live in a democracy and as polls show a majority of Canadians support same sex marriage. It's done and the longer it remains the more difficult it'll be to reverse the decision.
You lost. God is crying I'm sure cause apparently he cares more about same sex marriage than say poverty, children soldiers, the global sex trade, blah blah blah. Your God sucks.
Posted by: God is still resting | 2006-12-07 11:49:35 AM
Set You Free and Barrel of Monkeys
"cold" and "darkness" are concepts of the human mind.
What we call "cold" is in relation to what we feel, in relation to the absense of sufficient heat.
And, "darkness" is no different, in it is what we see when light is absent.
What these two mean, on a physical level, are plain simple facts of observation.
What they mean on other levels, is quite different.
We have the right to define these things, on the physical plane, and we also have the right to define them, as we see them, in the honest, innocent, spiritual plane. Truth on that, is you also cannot see either through physical eyes, even though you can see their effect; if you don't think about it in the first place, you cannot know it at all. We know these things exist by the effect they have on us and the world around us. Heat through the absense of heat causes differences in the density of gas, and bends light. We can see that. And, we can see thermometres, where the effect of heat causes the expansion of material, such as mercury. And light can be divided into the different wave lengths, which can be seen in the rainbow, as well as the sunrise or sunset. Two of my favorite times of the day.
But is is also very apparent, when you look into the eyes of someone, who knows what spiritual warmth and light is all about.
And, it is not about the coldness I have seen, when I gazed into the eyes of those islamofacists, who would rather kill me and my loved ones, rather than think a single moment about our human rights, as equal to theirs!
Posted by: Lady | 2006-12-07 11:57:46 AM
god is still resting:
you don't want to waste you time convincing me that homosexual behaviour is not natural
because you can't. You don't have a logical argument. The vast majority of the world going back the prehistory knows that homosexual behaviour is abnormal.
Posted by: gm | 2006-12-07 12:11:34 PM
You are welcome.
Posted by: Brent Weston | 2006-12-07 2:49:01 PM
There are varying degrees of light, but once there is absence of all light, it gets dark. Once it is dark, there are no degrees of darkness.
Same as heat. It can be warm, it can be relatively freezing. But since it is all a measure of molecular activity, once all molecular activity stops at absolute zero (-400 whatever), that is pure cold and it cannot get any colder.
Therefore, physical light and physical heat can be measured ... darkness and cold cannot change once it reaches the absense of light and heat.
Mankind's population continues to grow through heterosexual activity.
Mankind can reproduce itself at varying degrees, but if it ever reaches the point where the entire population cannot, does not, refuses to, or acts in a sexual manner in which reproduction is impossible, that would be extinction.
Like the example of the dodo bird today, there are no varying degrees of extinction.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-12-07 3:17:18 PM
We really should be very concerned with the rapid rise in homosexuality and other various and sundry sexes, tran-sexuals and bisexuals, transgenders, whatever, it's sex mania out there. Would it be the pollution? Something in the water?
Problem is, if it keeps up at this pace, we're headed for extinction. There is no such thing as abnormal any more, wrong is as good as right, stupid is as good as smart etc.etc.etc......
Posted by: Liz J | 2006-12-07 4:46:47 PM
Well, pollution causes genetic gender mutations in fish and other species. That it may be happening to humans is not as far-fetched as you think.
Posted by: Roark | 2006-12-07 5:55:43 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.