Lodinews.com

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

There should be no labels when defining marriage

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Thursday, April 18, 2013 12:00 am

In response to Patrick Maple's comment, left on Ben Coleman's letter "Gay marriage, straight marriage are not the same," on Lodinews.com, I must ask: Since when is marriage defined as a "unit of two people who are capable of reproducing"?

He also seems to have an issue about labeling a marriage between people of the same sex. Obviously, when two women or two men get married (and a label is important to him) it could be a "gay marriage." This could become tiresome, however. Would marriage between two people of different nationalities be called a "purple and green marriage?" We would then have a "second marriage," "third marriage," "fourth marriage," etc. How about an "adulterers marriage"? Or my personal favorite: "What a dumb decision, it will never work" marriage. Half of all marriages fail. I could go on — labels belong on clothing!

Mr. Maple, marriage is defined as a social union or legal contract between two people called "spouses." This can vary according to different cultures, but the idea remains the same. The "marriage" part comes after the ceremony. It is what these people create for themselves that is sanctified. A "family" has many definitions. How about we celebrate love between two people, period?

"Marriage equality threatens traditional marriage in the same way that abolishing slavery made freedom less important for white people." — Author unknown

Regardless of what we look like, the mistakes we've made or who we are born to love, we are all here for the same reason; to love one another with open minds and open hearts.

Debby Goni

Lodi

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don’t pretend you’re someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don’t threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don’t insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the ‘Report’ link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 Don’t reveal personal information about other commenters. You may reveal your own personal information, but we advise you not to do so.
  • 11 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.

61 comments:

  • Michael Schiller posted at 10:25 pm on Sat, Jun 29, 2013.

    Michael Schiller Posts: 1

    FYI, I'm the unknown author of that quote.
    http://i.politicomments.com/rs

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 6:36 pm on Thu, Apr 25, 2013.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    Big splash...little ripples.

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 8:52 am on Wed, Apr 24, 2013.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    So...I have asked six of the Liberal Lefties to explain, demonstrate or show me what a "White people" is...none of them ventured to do so. Why? Because they know their comments are racist and bigoted (the Supreme Court ruled on reverse-discrimination last year) and now people who have been discriminated against because they are not a minority (whatever that is) are fighting back.

    mslee: The use of derogatory and sexist names are a form of bullying...something that I am sure you as a Left leaner is against...right? Here you are supposedly fighting for gender equality and against discrimination yet you begin your letter with exactly that.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 1:42 pm on Tue, Apr 23, 2013.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Patty: Try re-reading the letter. It might help you.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 9:44 pm on Mon, Apr 22, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    I did not say you were stupid. I just said this line of reasoning you are now droning on about is mindlessly stupid which it most certainly is. The quote is not any less accurate because a very few people of color were involved also. This is just another example of a right wing fanatic trying to rewrite history. It does not fly.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 3:48 pm on Mon, Apr 22, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    I would love to see where you got your statistics. However even if they were true the statement is not racist. Your idea that it was not "white people" who instituted and were the main beneficiaries of slavery is on its face mindlessly stupid. As to Native Americans their treatment was also criminal.

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 3:11 pm on Mon, Apr 22, 2013.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    mrlee: Can YOU explain what a " White people" is...you are agreeing with a racist bigoted statement without acknowledgement as to WHO said it...wow. Were you aware that "Black people" owned slaves and were in fact the first slave owners here? Yet it is the "White people" who are singled out! Hmmmm. Now that I think of it that has been the mantra ever since...it's "White people"'s fault.

    In 1830 there were 3,775 black families living in the South who owned black slaves. By 1860 there were about 3,000 slaves owned by black households in the city of New Orleans alone. Look up Freeman Indians. Would you consider Native Americans being re-located to reservations, starved, murdered, raped and at the best mistreated...equal to slavery?

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 1:06 pm on Mon, Apr 22, 2013.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    "Marriage equality threatens traditional marriage in the same way that abolishing slavery made freedom less important for white people." — Author unknown

    Great quote, Debby Goni! And great letter too. I agree with you.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 5:19 am on Mon, Apr 22, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    I cannot seem to find the offending quote you are so upset about and you deem not to repeat it. I never back away from an argument but it is difficult when the person you are debating thought processes and use of the language are so disorientated.

    On the other hand there are no "radical lefties" blogging on these pages. It just shows how far to the right people like yourself have gone that you would even think so.

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 12:21 am on Mon, Apr 22, 2013.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    Typical response from a Radical Leftie: " I don't understand... " Well you don't because you are lazy and don't want to use your brain. The people you defend use racist bigoted statements like "White people" to depict people who oppose their ideas in a derogatory way and you agree with their statement. I simply ask you what does a "White people" look like...describe one. Not one of the Leftic Radicals msb, mrt, mrc, mrh or you will answer to your own statement. You and they reek of political cowardice and feigned convictions. Clear enough? If race was NOT an issue then why inject it? Why was the "white people" quote (directed at me) used by msg? You supported it then, why not now? Explain please.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 9:30 pm on Sun, Apr 21, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    Pat you need to bring a translator for your posts are making less and less sense

     
  • John Lucas posted at 9:28 pm on Sun, Apr 21, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    Race is not an issue, ideas are the issue.

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 7:43 pm on Sun, Apr 21, 2013.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    No mrh...it isn't that simple...some non-religious people don't believe in g/l marriage either. For different reasons. Besides what is worth having is worth fighting for. You like simple answers...can YOU tell us what a "White people" looks like? Maybe a Red one? Is that something racist or bigot would say??? How about you mrl?? Speak up !

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 7:32 pm on Sun, Apr 21, 2013.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    mrl: Right Wing Extremist vs Left Wing Loon: Work vs Free. Mine is mine to share. vs. mine is yours to share. Peaceful vs violent. Save my money vs spend his money. Principals vs "what ever". Morals and parameters vs chaos and "what ever". Issues vs idiotlogs. Religion or spirituality vs "what ever". Can you tell us what "White people" look like?

     
  • John Lucas posted at 6:33 pm on Sun, Apr 21, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    Sam, it is not about religion. It is about what is the definition of a committed couple under the law. Anyway, I always like your posts.

     
  • Sam Heller posted at 5:39 pm on Sun, Apr 21, 2013.

    Sam Heller Posts: 176

    I say 2 types of legal marriage:

    1) Traditional Marriage; between one man and one woman.... NO DIVORCE allowed. Proof of no pre-martital sex. Proof that they have the capability to conceive children. No re-marrying after the death of a partner. Marriage is for life.

    2) Marriage; all other loving couples ... 2 consenting, non-related adults.

    Churches can choose what types of marriages they accept.

    That seems to cover it all.

    Quit fighting.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 10:59 am on Sun, Apr 21, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    You, Mr Pham(Darrell?), Jerome, Mr Chapman, Mr Baxter etc are not being attacked because you are Conservative but because you are right wing fanatics. the truth is that you give Conservatism a bad name and are in the process of destroying the Republican Party.

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 10:37 am on Sun, Apr 21, 2013.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    mrh: I feel for your intelligence...as I said to mscd: x=man, y=woman and xy=man and a woman...why is that so hard to follow? Maybe you can explain why xx, or yy is the same as xy and the laws would not necessarily be different? Why in an xx or a yy does it take an extra x or y to create a family? Can you help msb with the concept of "White people"...can you tell me what a "White people" looks like? Maybe a "Red people" or even a Yellow people"...are you not of that mindset?

    As for why we are here...you are not here for the same reasons I am...this is obvious. Can you tell me why a priest is celibate, or why some people choose to remain single, or choose to not have children, or choose to leave early, or choose to not be born? Aren't we all just looking for love like msg says?

    msg: Having an "open mind" goes both ways...and no, many are born and never get to love, many never get to be born. Why is that? Societies have parameters, morals, values, laws and beliefs for a reason...it is how they survive. I would point to the "sexual revolution" and the damage it has done to both men and women and this society. Can you explain Kermit Gosnell? BTW I am not a religious man...just a concerned one.

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 10:15 am on Sun, Apr 21, 2013.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    msb...x=man, y=woman, xy=man and woman...two men or two women are not the same as a man and a woman. The laws governing each will necessarily be different.

    msb: YOU know you know everything but maybe you don't: In 1654 Anthony Johnson sued Robert Parker in the Northampton Court for his freedom. In 1655, the court ruled that Anthony Johnson could hold John Casor indefinitely. The court gave judicial sanction for blacks to own slave of their own race. Thus Casor became the first permanent slave and Johnson the first slave owner.

    Whites still could not legally hold a black servant as an indefinite slave until 1670. In that year, the colonial assembly passed legislation permitting free whites, blacks, and Indians the right to own blacks as slaves.

    By 1699, the number of free blacks prompted fears of a “Negro insurrection.” Virginia Colonial ordered the repatriation of freed blacks back to Africa. Many blacks sold themselves to white masters so they would not have to go to Africa. This was the first effort to gently repatriate free blacks back to Africa. The modern nations of Sierra Leone and Liberia both originated as colonies of repatriated former black slaves.

    However, black slave owners continued to thrive in the United States.

    By 1830 there were 3,775 black families living in the South who owned black slaves. By 1860 there were about 3,000 slaves owned by black households in the city of New Orleans alone. Look up Freeman Indians. Would you consider Native Americans being re-located to reservations, starved, murdered, raped and at the best mistreated...equal to slavery?

    Again can you tell me what a 'White people" looks like? Ignorant. What does a "Native American" look like...how about a "Mexican people" or may be "Irish people" how about a "Polish people" or maybe a "Tibetan people"??? Ignorant.

    "White people" is a racist bigoted statement made by ignorant people of another race or culture. Native Americans are not red...Asians are not yellow. Including this statement in any conversation only goes to show the ignorance of the writer/speaker. I have many gay/lesbian friends and friends who are supporters of their plight...some agree with me (including family members) some don't.

    Were the people in Boston just collateral damage to YOU?

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 9:29 am on Sun, Apr 21, 2013.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    mrl: Typical liberal misdirection move...MY parents came here with nothing...I grew up with nothing except a set of parents who taught me how to work and pay my own way...unlike you. You expect everyone else to pay your way and many or any others way who either refuse to work or find working annoying. Those who wish to work can those who don't sit at home as victims. Our country has spent MANY Trillions of dollars around the world for various reasons including aid for the suffering and look where it has gotten us. I am very aware of those who need a lift...and I am very generous about my giving...so don't try your sanctimonious tripe on me...it doesn't work. Seems funny that when someone comes here from another country and makes it...they are attacked for being a conservative ie; Mr Pham.

    To the real subject: I am still waiting for the LNS to release my response to the last set of attacks from its liberal left. Why is that?

     
  • John Lucas posted at 7:39 am on Sun, Apr 21, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    Pat Maple said:

     I am here to pay my own way...others want me to pay theirs

    This is a very telling statement from Mr Maple and is very common for right wing fanatics. They love to whine about others not working hard and glory in their victimhood. The bubble they live in refuses to accept the reality that the vast majority of Americans, Liberal and Conservative, get up every morning and go to work. I guess it would get in the way of their magnificent ability to groan and complain while interfering with their self concept of being superman and a cut above everyone else

    What always strikes me is their utter lack of gratitude. They fail to understand the truth that by being born here they have already won the lottery. The vast majority of the world’s population would trade places with them in a heartbeat. It is like the old Ann Richards joke about George Bush. He thought he hit a triple but the reality is he was born on third base. Their conceit does get old.

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 5:15 pm on Sat, Apr 20, 2013.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1459

    Thank you again Mr Tillet. This is another long winded and rambling incoherent submissions from Pat. There is some concern about third parties and adoption I feel he is trying to communicate but for the life of me I have no idea.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 11:51 am on Sat, Apr 20, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Does anyone even know what Mr. Maple is talking about in the above rant?

    FYI, Mr. Maple - there is no YY. Females are designated as XX and males are designated as XY, unless you are trying to imply that homosexuals are YY.

    Go back to school and try to learn something about something. Your babbling is quite embarrassing.

    And, as Mr. Tillett so astutely noted, WHITE people were the slave owners, so who else did you think would be responsible for freeing them? But there were also many efforts that were put forth by free blacks, such as Harriet Tubman, who helped slaves travel to the North via the Underground Railroad.

    Your best bet, instead of trying to justify some strange reasons for being against same-sex marriage is just to admit that you don't like homosexuals.

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 11:07 am on Sat, Apr 20, 2013.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 546

    You also point out that older people who marry may choose to not have kids. But what about those that are not "capable of re-producing between themselves", who wish to marry. Is fertility a pre-requisite?

    also, you do realize that in addition to all of the things that white people did to end slavery in America, that white people, were in fact the ones that owned the slaves? You do get that right? Yeah, they helped them into the boat, out of which they had tossed them. Yeah for them.

    I'm not sure you should be the one lambasting about "asinine" statements.

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 10:58 am on Sat, Apr 20, 2013.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 546

    Thank you for providing eveidence that refutes the erroneous claim that "Marriage is a unit of two people who are capable of re-producing between themselves."

    "Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that establishes rights and obligations between the spouses, between the spouses and their children, and between the spouses and their in-laws. The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but it is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged. Haviland, William A.; Prins, Harald E. L.; McBride, Bunny; Walrath, Dana (2011). Cultural Anthropology: The Human Challenge (13th ed.). Cengage Learning."

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 10:49 am on Sat, Apr 20, 2013.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    More feigned outrage...So msg...why didn't you use my entire statement? What I said was: "Marriage is a unit of two people who are capable of re-producing between themselves." BETWEEN THEMSELVES...funny that you left that part out. XX is not a YY...XY is neither. The contracts (since marriage involves this) between each situation will necessarily be different. In order for XX or YY who cannot procreate (the original contract purpose) they must involve a third party if they wish. The contract for XY implies procreations and is extended to the child and its rights even before birth...that part is always left out by the liberals and abortionists. But not the courts.

    Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that establishes rights and obligations between the spouses, between the spouses and their children, and between the spouses and their in-laws. The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but it is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged. Haviland, William A.; Prins, Harald E. L.; McBride, Bunny; Walrath, Dana (2011). Cultural Anthropology: The Human Challenge (13th ed.). Cengage Learning.

    As far as your scenario of two older people or people who do not want children...that is their choice and does not include a third party. The question would then be what is the purpose? Love, companionship, help? That can all be accomplished with civil unions and partnership rights. Societies have recognized homosexuality and not condoned it but have often done little about it: Starting with the "3rd-century Hinayana texts of Vasubandhu, that oral and a--l sxe, whether with a man or a woman, are violations of the third precept regarding inappropriate sexual behavior." Yet they did nothing about it.

    "Marriage equality threatens traditional marriage in the same way that abolishing slavery made freedom less important for white people." AS ALWAYS: Unknown Author! This is an asinine racist statement. "White people" (for your information MANY Black, Asian, Native American, Hispanic even French people oppose this)...are the guilt target...you seem to forget that it was "white people" who freed the slaves, who bought them from "black traders" (yes they had a big part in it), a "white people" wrote the Civil Rights legislation, "white people" have stood up for them at every turn...hmmm. G/Ls are FREE..they are not slaves, they have a right to petition, work, live, eat, cohabitate...like anyone else. They just want what they want and expect everyone else to accept their want to be the same as me...when they clearly are not. I am not a woman, I am not gay...we are not the same. "White people"...what does a "White people look like?

    Lastly, you state: "Regardless of what we look like, the mistakes we've made or who we are born to love, we are all here for the same reason; to love one another with open minds and open hearts." We are not all here for the same reason...nice platitude but not so...I am here to pay my own way...others want me to pay theirs, some are here to kill people, I am not. Some people seek recognition, others hide from it. Some are here to save the planet, others to destroy it. Some are here for themselves, others for all. Some will step up...others will run. Some will make a difference for the good, some for the bad...others none. We as a society decide what parameters, laws, beliefs, morals and situations we will support and those we will not...many of us do not support this situation and not all for religious reasons.

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 10:34 am on Sat, Apr 20, 2013.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1459

    Walter you got it right in your 7:43 post below.
    You have to think the bible was written (cobbled together) by the body of people-controllers of the day much like the people-controllers of today cobble together legislation. It was never meant to be perfect but simply what they could get a consensus on. As true for the OT as the NT. If you find a nice phrase in the bible you can be assured they all agreed it was a nice phrase. However when it comes to history you can be sure that, as today, there were different versions with differeing motives and accuracy was the lesser consideration. A consensus had to be reached as to what the final version would be. To believe it was from a devine hand is to fail to realize how better it could have been written.

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 10:14 am on Sat, Apr 20, 2013.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1459

    [thumbup]

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 9:54 am on Sat, Apr 20, 2013.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 546

    “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

    -Gandhi

     
  • John Lucas posted at 9:44 am on Sat, Apr 20, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    [smile]

     
  • robert maurer posted at 8:14 pm on Fri, Apr 19, 2013.

    mason day Posts: 444

    Sorry,Walter; my schooling only goes back as far as the Greek symposiums, but even theJWs that come to my door with their pamphlets are moving away from the OT and are accepting Christ into their religeon. (enlightenment or trolling for increased participation and funds?) [beam]

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 7:43 pm on Fri, Apr 19, 2013.

    Walt Posts: 1117

    Eric, these authors are writing about their family.

    They got a collections of tales, facts and fabrications handed down. A lot of stuff.

    They're writing, collating and conflating. Creating.

    They're collaborating with elders, leaders and other authors - sharing ideas, type scenes, narrative devices; brainstorming.

    Learning literary skills.

    God is not involved.

    It's just a bunch of old Hebrew men laying down "the law".

    A combination of transcribed oral history, passion narratives and rules to oppress by.

    They don't like women. They don't like their neighbors. They don't even like themselves!!


    [lol]

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 7:39 pm on Fri, Apr 19, 2013.

    Walt Posts: 1117

    Bob, it seems that we have to go back to 3000 year old text...

    To argue against gay marriage these days...

    So we're hopelessly stuck in the old testament!

    Until further notice.

    [smile]

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 7:31 pm on Fri, Apr 19, 2013.

    Walt Posts: 1117

    Kevin, you are a man of faith.

    I can't use the words of God, as "transcribed" by old angry Hebrew men, 3000 years ago to judge anyone.

    Have you ever considered converting to Episcopalianism?

    [smile]

     
  • robert maurer posted at 7:09 pm on Fri, Apr 19, 2013.

    mason day Posts: 444

    Umm, Walter, you forgot to mention Thomas Jefferson and his slaves and the children created because of...

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 5:19 pm on Fri, Apr 19, 2013.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1507

    I looked up a little Leviticus also and with all of the rules about who can be seen naked and who can sleep with who polygamy is not mentioned. It does mention that you shouldn't sleep with your sister whether she is your fathers child or your mothers child. So I'm thinking how can your sister be your fathers child and not your mothers? Seems there are three options here divorce, widower or polygamy. Thing is, later on in Leviticus it states that a man should only marry a virgin and it states specifically that a man should not marry a widow or divorcee. This only leaves polygamy and like I said it mysteriously is not mentioned.

    These rules go on and on I'm just saying is if you want to use one of the few places in the bible that discusses homosexuality, as a guide to a proper and pure life, you should probably embrace all of those rules and good luck with that. Hope you got a bullock to burn.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 4:47 pm on Fri, Apr 19, 2013.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2020

    There should also be a clarification that in that day and age, when a smaller city-state formed an alliance they would give a daughter in "marriage" to seal the treaty. It is not like Solomon had time to go out and court all these women.

    That said, I do still agree he was a PIG, violated God's laws and was punished for it.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 4:41 pm on Fri, Apr 19, 2013.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2020

    You are right Walter, Solomon was corrupted by the flesh. He was given greatness and led the Israelites with wisdom and WASTED it all. Despite Ms. Bobin's claim, God did not condone polygamy, those that participated in the practice experienced negative results. For Solomon it was to be turned away from God by the pursuits of the flesh and have the kingdom he built be ripped away from him.

    My whole point in bring this up was all the "look the Bible says so and so did it" without the follow up of things turned out badly for them. Why is it so easy to accept the character flaws of Biblical figures as factual, but then look at the results of their actions as "Apologetic"? Why two standards for acceptance? Why accept that Solomon was a pig (probably was) but NOT accept that it led to significant problems for him?

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 4:21 pm on Fri, Apr 19, 2013.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1459

    Multiple wives is a sign of wealth. It is as true then as today.

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 4:00 pm on Fri, Apr 19, 2013.

    Walt Posts: 1117

    Kevin, now that everybody scrambled to read up on King Solomon...

    What is your point?

    "He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines"

    And that's just the official listing.

    How many one night stands? How many "boy lovers"?

    The author is silent on this...

    But what were the customary sexual proclivities for an omnipotent King in his day??

    Did he take advantage of his slaves? Of course he did!

    Outside of the bedroom...

    He fights with his neighbors. He detest their gods. He wages war.

    He fights with his family. He murders. He's having a lot of sex.

    How about a new "wife" every other week for 40 years??

    The author is writing after Solomon's death...

    He's writing apologetic and trying to clean up a very sordid tale!

    The family line is a mess and this "king" Solomon was a pig!


    [smile]

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 9:44 am on Fri, Apr 19, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Depends of which version of the Bible one is using.

    If you want to show that all ends badly for Solomon, that really has nothing to do with the fact that Solomon, his father David, and just about every other important figure in the Bible had multiple wives and concubines.

    Most of this is myth and metaphor, anyway, used to illustrate that many were descended from the few who were God's favorites.

    Doesn't mean any of this polygamistic nonsense actually happened.

    But for Christians, Jews and Islamists, this is the word of God and must be taken at face value, meaning God condoned polygamy.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 7:16 am on Fri, Apr 19, 2013.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2020

    Walter: Care to finish the story or are you going to stick with only quoting the small part that supports your position?


    This is just the start of the story quoted at 4:59.
    "Kings 11:1 "But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites"

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 6:59 pm on Thu, Apr 18, 2013.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1459

    [thumbup]

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 6:58 pm on Thu, Apr 18, 2013.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1459

    It makes me feel better about the city of my birth.

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 6:55 pm on Thu, Apr 18, 2013.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1459

    John for president. Right on.

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 6:53 pm on Thu, Apr 18, 2013.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1459

    [smile]

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 6:21 pm on Thu, Apr 18, 2013.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1459

    Ms Goni writes a very good letter.

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 6:19 pm on Thu, Apr 18, 2013.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1459

    Thank you Eric. Polygamy is a natural occurance through out eons. The conversation needs to begin and you are taking the first step. Again thank you.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 5:12 pm on Thu, Apr 18, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    [smile]

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 5:00 pm on Thu, Apr 18, 2013.

    Walt Posts: 1117

    [thumbup][thumbup][thumbup][thumbup][thumbup]

    Five thumbs up!

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 4:59 pm on Thu, Apr 18, 2013.

    Walt Posts: 1117

    Kings 11:1 "But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites"

    King Solomon was a s-l-u-t.

    He and his contemporaries certainly dabbled in same sex liaisons!

    In ancient times homosexuality existed alongside heterosexuality to varying degrees.

    Some of these old Hebrew dudes apparently took offense (think: Jerry) to what was going on around them.
    R
    That's why we find mention of these activities in ancient scripture; they didn't like it so they wrote (rant) against it!!

    Folks, not much has changed in 3000 years!

    [smile]

     
  • John Lucas posted at 3:56 pm on Thu, Apr 18, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    Government is not in the business of marriage is any religious sense. Atheist couples do not get an marriage license because they want to meet any religious obligation. It is in the business of dealing with the rights and privileges of committed couples under the law. Traditionally couples were defined as a man and a woman. The issue is the definition.

    I will tell you why you are bigoted. You want to define what a couple is according to you personal religious views. You are entitled to those views as far as it goes. It is when you want those views( i.e.: your definition of what a committed couple is) codified into law and forced on everyone else that you cross the line. It is the same thing when women were denied the vote because some thought they were in some way inferior. It is the same as when blacks were denied the vote and other rights because some thought they were inferior. You think committed same sex couples are inferior and the law should reflect that view. You are clearly bigoted in this regard. You are not God.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 3:37 pm on Thu, Apr 18, 2013.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1507

    I wouldn’t worry too much about the Supreme Court siding with the “homosexual agenda” (and you wonder why people think you’re a hater) currently nine states allow same sex marriage along with the district of Columbia and three Native American tribes. Rhode Island recognizes it as well as California on a conditional basis. I think DOMA will be found unconstitutional in short I think we have hit a tipping point and state by state we will see an increase in legal same sex marriage until one day this discrimination will be a thing of the past.

    Also I don’t know why all the Christians have such a hard time with polygamy the Old Testament is full of it. Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, and others all had multiple wives. If I’m not wrong Solomon had 700 wives and concubines to boot but I keep hearing that if same sex marriage is allowed then why not polygamy. Why not polygamy?

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 1:27 pm on Thu, Apr 18, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2350

    Regarding the third paragraph of Ms. Goni’s letter, it should be noted that "sanctification" is purely and wholly related to a religious condition. (See definition at: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sanctify) When it comes to the sanctification of marriage, this union is based upon one's religious belief or “faith.” Marriage isn’t necessarily a “celebration of love between two people, period.” Our belief is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America (as is the faith (or in some cases non-faith) of Jewish people, LDS, Agnostics, Atheists, etc. Christians (which I consider myself to be) believe that a sanctified marriage to be a union between one man and one woman – with other expectations within the bounds of holy matrimony as set forth in the Holy Bible.

    To expect us to dispose of this sanctification would be to insist that we ignore certain parts of what we consider the actual Word of God: the Holy Bible. Also, we cannot accept that our belief structure to be disposed of or in any way changed due to any law or anything else that even the President of the United States or the Supreme Court of the United States might conjure up.

    Is our belief that marriage should be between one man and one woman born out of hatred; are we bigots because we believe this way? All one need do is refer to the definition of "bigot" at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bigot for the answer to that question. As for whether or not our stance is due to hatred toward homosexuals or any one or any thing else is pure nonsense. Many ridicule our belief that we hate the sin, not the sinner. If this were untrue, we’d be hating ourselves because try as hard as we might, we will also continue to be sinful; we’re no different than anyone else.

    I also question why you would limit love to just between two people? Clearly by opening the door to redefining marriage won’t there be those who will also want to be considered regarding love between two or more? Or would that be stretching the bounds of decency? I cannot possibly see why they would accept being ostracized. After all, the law isn’t being changed just for homosexuals, is it? What about others in the LGBT lifestyles? Who gets the final say on what is a “valid” marriage? Seriously, how would a bi-sexual man or woman expect to be treated according to the law; is it not reasonable to believe that three people might very well be mature enough to manage their feelings in such a relationship that would cause them to want to marry among themselves – to provide the same rights under the law as two people? Or could only two in the relationship enjoy that “right” while the third (or more) would have to participate in a lesser role? I can anticipate some very complicated situations for certain.

    So what will Christians do if the Supreme Court sides with the homosexual agenda regarding the issues presently being considered? The answer should be obvious – most of us will do nothing. We will simply keep on believing the Bible and attempt to live our lives according to the teachings of Jesus Christ. There will be no riots or other destructive behavior. So long as we're not forced to change what we believe as Christians, you'll hardly notice that we even exist. On the other hand, as citizens of the United States, we very well might try to have certain laws changed.

    Footnote: while I personally try to not judge anyone’s Christian walk, I must state that in no way do I support the actions of Westboro Baptist Church or others like it that for whatever reason have become seriously misguided. I do wish I could say that their motives are pure, but I simply cannot fathom why they do what they do. Their website is extremely disturbing to me as they clearly do not provide glory to God.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 1:06 pm on Thu, Apr 18, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Thanks for an excellent letter, Ms. Goni!


     
  • David Diskin posted at 1:04 pm on Thu, Apr 18, 2013.

    David Diskin Posts: 183

    I am so happy to see letters like this. They make me feel better about the city that I've called home for nearly 20 years.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 11:25 am on Thu, Apr 18, 2013.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1507

    Thanks Debby great letter. Thanks LNS for printing it. Simon I happily stand corrected.

     
  • Rosalie Taddei posted at 10:25 am on Thu, Apr 18, 2013.

    Rosalie Taddei Posts: 7

    [thumbup]

     
  • Sam Heller posted at 7:11 am on Thu, Apr 18, 2013.

    Sam Heller Posts: 176

    [thumbup][thumbup]

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 7:10 am on Thu, Apr 18, 2013.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 546

    excellent letter, Debby

     
  • John Lucas posted at 6:51 am on Thu, Apr 18, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    [thumbup]

     

Recent Comments

Posted 2 hours ago by trista aquino.

article: Letter: Evil is always present

Oh no no the hostages I was talking about were their translators, assistants, the guy working with the 3rd man w/that humanitarian group an…

More...

Posted 2 hours ago by Kevin Paglia.

article: Letter: Vote no on giving taxpayer mone…

IF America truly wants to take the power away from the Middle East terrorists then we HAVE to hit them where it hurts. Develop non-oil dep…

More...

Posted 2 hours ago by Kevin Paglia.

article: General Mills announces ‘preliminary de…

When Minimum wage goes to $15/hour prepare for more of these kinds of evacuations from small towns.

More...

Posted 3 hours ago by Cliff Compton.

article: Second Bluegrass at the Lake event take…

it was a great festival. such a priviledge to play there. Thank you Lodi Parks. Cliff Compton & Mountaintop

More...

Posted 4 hours ago by Ed Walters.

article: Letter: Vote no on giving taxpayer mone…

This country throws money away for many reasons, give the Syria rebels the money to allow them to fight, and keep the American forces out o…

More...

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Loading…

Your News

News for the community, by the community.

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists