His4Ever, JerseyDiamond and Joe_Cool are hypocrites.

[Joe_Cool]

*Originally posted by Thylacine *
Oh, the old but God just is so he rools! argument. So if I tell you that my leader from the planet bumblefree is coming soon and wants everyone to wear purple you will be happy to wear purple?

Sure! As soon as followers of leader bumblefree get purple-wearing laws passed, I’ll either abide by them or fight them. Good luck.

Please try to understand, not everybody believes that your version of God exists. It is not a given, if it was there would be no need for faith, we would all be able to see him and have him tick our time sheets.*

I didn’t say that everybody did believe in my God. But that’s immaterial. Either he is and those who disbelieve are wrong, or he isn’t and those of us who do believe are wrong. One doesn’t depend on the other - He exists or not independently of anybody’s belief. I happen to live my life under the belief that he is real, and as far as I’m concerned, he’s as real as the bed I’m sitting on. And I believe that eventually you will encounter him and have no choice whether to believe.

You think I’m wrong. So what? My belief hurts you just as much as yours hurts me - not at all.

Separate the Church and State and I will respect your views,

Funny that you should say this, because I did just that. But you chose to completely ignore the “state” portion of my post in order to attack the “church” portion.

**until such time as you and yours relinquish your political power I will fight against your prescriptions in my life each step of the way. **

Ha haha HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Oh man, hoo-boy was that a good laugh. If I and mine had any political power at all, we wouldn’t be renting a tiny two-bedroom apartment in a crappy part of crappy New Jersey. Tell you what - you can have all of my political power. I hope it does you more good than it’s done me.

But since you probably meant to say that the majority of voters have supported laws based on Christianized morality, I don’t know what to tell you. Oppose those laws and maybe you’ll win. I fail to see why I’m obligated to vote for your agenda in order to prove that I’m not a bigot. I’ll vote my beliefs and you vote yours, and what say we let democratic republicanism do its job?

You have no right to prescribe that I am a lesser human and that is what you do when you deny my rights to a union that is legally sanctioned and makes me happy. You also open my life up to abuse and bigotry and make life harder than it should be all because I happen to find myself attracted to people who share the same basic plumbing layout.

You have no right to prescribe that I am a lesser human and that is what you do when you deny my right to have a fancy car and an expensive summer home and other things that make me happy, simply because I don’t have the money for them. You open my life up to hardship and bigotry from more affluent folk and make it harder than it should be all because I happen to be struggling with my finances.

Life’s hard, friend. Anybody who says otherwise is lying to you. We don’t all get to have all the things that make us happy. And you have your cause and effect mixed up - I don’t prescribe anything. I read and report what God said in the Bible. Contrary to what you might think, I’m not in congress. I’m not the emperor of the US. I’m not master of all I survey. I’m just a guy who has to bust his ass to get by, just like 100 million other guys in this country. I vote my conscience, and I recommend that you do the same.

***by your version of course I mean the one you find in your reading of the Bible which is by no means the only Christian God that is worshipped, some of them I could grow quite fond of, never yours though. **

That’s unfortunate, though I’m sure I’ll recover. But really - since you’re that concerned about it, be active in the political process and get changed what you don’t like.

But remember - I don’t make laws. It’s not my fault. And if you’re not happy, well, sorry. Lots of people share your unhappiness.

On preview, I see you said

Believe what you want but relinquish the political power.

So you’re saying that because we’re Christians, we forfeit our right to participate in the nation’s politics? In other words, only people who support what you want should be able to vote or otherwise take part in the political process?

That’s such a ridiculous thing to say that I’m at a loss for words.
hastur:
Same thing. If you don’t like the laws, write to your congressman and your senators. Vote to change the laws. But don’t blame your dislike of civil law on me and my wife. If your complaint is that people who subscribe to a stricter morality are in the majority and vote for what they want, well, I’m sorry but that’s just too bad. You can campaign for a change, or you can move to someplace else where your desires more closely match the laws.

There are a lot of laws I don’t like, and I try to get them changed - I don’t bitch and yell at you, for example, about New Jersey’s stupid seat belt law. I don’t post long pit rants directed at you because I don’t like the “assault weapon ban”. I move as much as I’m able within the political system to enact change. And since I’ve so far been unsuccessful, I deal with it.

I’d suggest the same course of action for you.

(that said, I’d like to remind the forgetful that I do support a civil marriage for everybody. But I can’t support any union outside God’s parameters to be sanctioned by a Christian church that purports to represent God)

[keturah]

Listen, Jersey. You and your ''husband" can continue spouting this garbage all you want, but you must realize that you are gaining no ground. You continually talk about how your “marriage” is sanctioned by God, even with the evidence that you have a child that is not of your marriage. When questioned Joe responds that the situation is only your business. In my book that is all good and fine, except when you question others interpretations and condemn them. It is fine if you have bent the scripture to apply to you, and I say more power to you. Your child should have the benefit of both a mother and a father figure. Just don’t continue to apply your strict interpretation to everyone except yourself and Joe.

[gobear]

If your complaint is that people who subscribe to a stricter morality are in the majority and vote for what they want, well, I’m sorry but that’s just too bad. You can campaign for a change, or you can move to someplace else where your desires more closely match the laws.

Heterosexuality is not a “stricter morality”; it is one variation of human sexuality, as is homosexuality. My love and my relationship are not immoral–to say so is unkind as well as untruthful.

You and JD are not responsible for the laws, but you are responsible for treating other people as you wish to be treated. I am not sneering at your relationship, but when you say that discriminating against gay people is a “stricter morality”, then you are sneering at me and mine.

[Joe_Cool]

Listen, Jersey. You and your ''husband" can continue spouting this garbage all you want, but you must realize that you are gaining no ground. You continually talk about how your “marriage” is sanctioned by God, even with the evidence that you have a child that is not of your marriage. When questioned Joe responds that the situation is only your business. In my book that is all good and fine, except when you question others interpretations and condemn them. It is fine if you have bent the scripture to apply to you, and I say more power to you. Your child should have the benefit of both a mother and a father figure. Just don’t continue to apply your strict interpretation to everyone except yourself and Joe.

Look, I’m trying really hard to behave civilly, but you “people” are making it really difficult when you keep making accusations without knowing anything about what you’re talking about.

But listen one more time:
We apply our interpretations of the scripture to ourselves equally. Nobody is bending anything - that scripture does not apply to us.
If all the evidence you have is that I have a stepchild, then you admit your complete ignorance of the situation.
Don’t accuse unless you can back up your accusation with fact.
I’m sorry you don’t have access to the facts, but that’s the way it is.
It’s none of your business.

So get off it already.

[Joe_Cool]

*Originally posted by gobear *
**Heterosexuality is not a “stricter morality”; it is one variation of human sexuality, as is homosexuality. My love and my relationship are not immoral–to say so is unkind as well as untruthful.

You and JD are not responsible for the laws, but you are responsible for treating other people as you wish to be treated. I am not sneering at your relationship, but when you say that discriminating against gay people is a “stricter morality”, then you are sneering at me and mine. **

Wasn’t intended that way.

These people (group 1) approve of A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I, and J.

These other people (group 2) approve of only C,D,F, and H.

Group 2 is stricter, regardless of what the various represented behaviors are. That’s all I meant by it.

[JerseyDiamond]

How is it, exactly, that I control the government, Thylacine?

Hastur, If you love someone, really love someone, going the extra mile wouldn’t be an issue. Why does it have to be with you?
I know that I love J_C enough to do whatever it takes for us to be happy, even if it is inconvienient.

The problem seems to be that you just don’t want to have to go out of your way to do something.
There are a lot of things that will not be handed to us in life.

All these things that you say I got for free because I am married weren’t so free. As a matter of fact, you can do all of what I said for about the price of my wedding, including having your own wedding party. (I went as cheap as I could on my wedding)

I was under the impression that because some judges says, “bonds of holy matrimony”, and the fact that every court house I have been in has a Holy Bible on the table near the judge, that the marriage is sanctioned under God.
I am aware, though, that not all judges say God or Holy.

DoctorJ,
I have ad a few Jobs over the years, and Aetna Us Healthcare give you the option to add your life partner to your insurance.
A friend of mine has B/C B/S of NJ and they have the same option.
My job also offered Oxford, and they have that same program.
I think your best bet is to call the above insurance and talk to customer services. That would be your best Cite. They are very helpful.

[gobear]

We’re cool, then Joe.

[keturah]

OK Joe, let me spell it out for you…you can continue to tell me that the scripture does not apply to you for reasons that you will not reveal. This tells me that you have no ground to stand on. If it is all sanctioned by the scripture I would figure that you would be shouting it from the rooftops. Unfortunatly you seem quite unwilling to do that, and this leads me to believe that you are not being truthful.

[gobear]

Keturah, you are asking people to reveal private, painful history. Why should they open up their private lives for the prurient scrutiny of others? If we are going to demonstrate the value of compassion, we must be compassionate ourselves. I’m trying to follow the examples of Martin Luther King, Gandhi, and yes, even Jesus himself by standing forcefully in defense of my life and my rights, but at the same time also extending respect and courtesy to the other side.

Revealing private pain for your edification is just plain wrong.

[JerseyDiamond]

The scripture DOES apply to us, and we have not broken the commandments. We were not fornicators nor were we adulterers. So, Keturah, now you can go on believing whatever you want.
Let me spell it out for you…It is none of your business.
If there is anyone on the board we feel the need to discuss this information with, it would be by private email. Thanks, The End.

[keturah]

Let me be very clear here, I do not wish for any one to have to reveal any private pain in their lives and I hope that Joe and Jersey have a wonderful life with their new family. I think that I chose to use hyperbole to let both of them know that their words can hurt others, especially those who don’t belive exactly what they believe. It is only my late entry into the thread without reading it in my entirety that led me to say what others already have. Joe and Jersey, best of luck with that little one.

[Joe_Cool]

Keturah, you are, of course, free to continue to demand that I splay out my private life for your perusal, in exchange for the dubious reward of allowing you decide whether it is up to scriptural snuff.

But since your approval is pretty low on my list of things that matter, I’ll (for about the hundredth time) have to exercise my prerogative to decline.

And as much as I hate, Hate, HATE to pull this card…
Who the heck are you to demand anything of me? I’ve never heard of you, and of your staggering 27 posts over the past 8 months, nearly 20% are bashing me and my wife. At least gobear, Esprix and Polycarp, though we disagree probably more often than not, have been around and taken the time to interact with us via board and/or e-mail enough to have built some sort of rapport with us, which entitles them to a bit more of a look into what makes us tick and a little more leeway with their requests and demands than most other posters.

So now, tell me again, who are you? And why are you entitled to know anything at all about my personal life?

[keturah]

Joe,
Please read my post above. I think that I was giving you and your wife best wishes. Please do not think that this is an attack too. I heard what gobear said, and listened–hence the post above. I truly wish you and yours the best.

[Guinastasia]

Guys, would you just back the fuck off already?

:rolleyes:

[Homebrew]

*Originally posted by JerseyDiamond *
The problem seems to be that you just don’t want to have to go out of your way to do something.

This is the condescending crap that pisses us off.

As a matter of fact, you can do all of what I said for about the price of my wedding, including having your own wedding party. (I went as cheap as I could on my wedding)

I don’t think you quite understand the difference in the way we’re treated under the law and elsewhere.

Robert Daniel and Bill Flanigan knew the day would come when they would have to say goodbye to each other forever. But as the AIDS virus finished ravaging Daniel’s body at the University of Maryland Medical System’s Shock Trauma Center, Flanigan, Daniel’s gay partner, never got his chance to say goodbye.

In a claim filed against the hospital on Feb. 27, Flanigan said he was not allowed to see his partner of the past five years because the hospital didn’t recognize their partnership as being “family.” By the time Flanigan did see Daniel, he had lost consciousness. Daniel died three days after being admitted to the hospital on Oct. 19, 2000, from a form of gangrene brought on by complications of the AIDS virus, according to the claim.

Need another? This cite even refers to a legal case where a family is fighting against inheritance rights of a partner - something a straight couple of 30 years would not have to face ever.

Millspaugh’s dilemma echoes a case now pending before the Washington Supreme Court, which pits a dead man’s partner of 30 years against the family who now claim the rights to his estate. Lambda Legal Defense appealed this case after a lower court ruled that since the two men could not marry under state law, their relationship could not be defined as “marriage-like.” Washington law does, in fact, allow unmarried heterosexual couples to inherit under certain circumstances if they had held a “marriage-like” relationship. Thus the circular reasoning by the lower court boggles the mind. Lambda lawyers are awaiting with interest to hear the supreme court’s take on the matter, expected this fall or early next year.

Do we even need to get into the tax benefits, etc?

[Homebrew]

Here’s some reading material if you’re interested.

http://hcqsa.virtualave.net/benefits.html

[Lilairen]

I kinda like John Shelby Spong’s God. The one who displayed his word in the actions of an illegitimate child and popularised it through the writings of a gay man.

That’s a sense of humor I can really, really appreciate.

[JerseyDiamond]

Homebrew, I was not trying to be condescending! If somehtings means a lot to you, you go out and do it, right? I would!

That really sucks that he couldn’t see his partner. I would have allowed it! Something has to be done to make the hospitals recognize these legal documents! Did he have these documents handy?

There has to be more legal steps to take to ensure benefits, (visitations or estate), to the partner.

Can’t you claim head of household when doing taxes, if you are the sole supporter, and your SO file but let them know that he/she is being claimed?

[Homebrew]

here’s more

og97016.pdf

[Mockingbird]

*Originally posted by Joe_Cool *
hastur:
Same thing. If you don’t like the laws, write to your congressman and your senators. Vote to change the laws. But don’t blame your dislike of civil law on me and my wife. If your complaint is that people who subscribe to a stricter morality are in the majority and vote for what they want, well, I’m sorry but that’s just too bad. You can campaign for a change, or you can move to someplace else where your desires more closely match the laws.

There are a lot of laws I don’t like, and I try to get them changed - I don’t bitch and yell at you, for example, about New Jersey’s stupid seat belt law. I don’t post long pit rants directed at you because I don’t like the “assault weapon ban”. I move as much as I’m able within the political system to enact change. And since I’ve so far been unsuccessful, I deal with it.

I’d suggest the same course of action for you.

(that said, I’d like to remind the forgetful that I do support a civil marriage for everybody. But I can’t support any union outside God’s parameters to be sanctioned by a Christian church that purports to represent God) **

Nowhere in my post was I blaming you or JD.

Crawl off the cross and actually read my posts as well as the posts of others. This tactic you have of bouncing from victim/martyr to vitrolic attacker is tired.