h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Here in the People's Republic of Massachusetts (which has been ordered by our state Supreme Court to facilitate same-sex marriage within six months), the coallition that opposes same-sex marriage seems to be pretty broad-based. There are Christians, Jews, and Muslims in the coallition. There may even be some atheists and agnostics. Bahais, Buddhists, and Hindus may have their reasons (religious and otherwise) for opposing same-sex marriage. It would be interesting to hear why they feel this way, but I doubt that I will be able to hear it. The media glom onto the 800-pound gorilla (i.e. the reaction of Catholic leaders, because Massachusetts is a predominantly Catholic state), and that's what we'll be hearing about ad infinitum.

"Unitatians believes in salvation through the teachings of Jesus. Universalists believed, rather, in Universal Salvation."

"Should have read Unitarians bemieved (past tense)."

Bemieved..... Cripes.... of course, you know I meant believed....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3508969.stm
"Mr Schwarzenegger said they represented "an imminent risk to civil order"."

Well, there certainly could be some demonstrations against it, but 'an inmminent risk to civil order'? Only if the people against same-sex marriage act the same way as the people against integration did during the civil rights movement in the 60s

Once more the law is shown to be a ass. So what's new?

Back to the Unitarians though. Not that I know anything about it, from inside or out, I gather that the Unitarians deny the Trinity; making Jesus a little less than God. Hence the thusness.

It always seemed a poor idea to me, to try and make religion rational. Kind of loses its mystic edge if it makes too much sense; religion properly involves an assault on common sense.

I'm currently reading "The Name of the Rose" -- however well or ill based it is on church history, it illustrates the constant lack of agreement on fundamental issues within the Catholic Chruch throughout its history -- and that's only one Christian sect. And we speak (elsewhere) of "The Muslims" as though they were unanimous.

No sect has ever been, and never will be, unanimous, not even a sect of one member.

"Judaean People's Popular Front -- what became of them?"
"There he is over there!"
"Splitter!"

The split between rationality and religion is an interesting one.
When I was in college, I was told that Thomas Aquinas had done a pretty good job of bridging it. However, I have never been able to make head or tail of Aquinas. I think he is overrrated, plus pretty pompous and not fun to read.

As for same-sex marriage, I expect that the people who want it will be pretty quiet and keep to themselves. That hardly seems to me like a threat to civil order.

"Thomas Aquinas had done a pretty good job of bridging it" -- all too good. Shouldn't have tried. Just got into a brawl with the followers of Duns Scotus.

Hello Mr. P. You are right. I am not aware of USA law. I believe the USA has state laws. And national ones. It does not matter. Because before laws. There are ethics. And morals? These we are discussing. I think. But in order to make the law. The majority view. Or that of their representatives. It must prevail. Otherwise anarchy prevails. Discrimination is important to make the laws. From the ethics. In the UK it is not legal. To do these things. That the USA allow? Who is wrong?

Bestiality? You have answered it. Mr. P. In the way I expected you to. Sometimes. It is easy. To turn the coin. And see the other side. Sometimes we refuse even to try? Good luck. Mr.P.

Hello. Mr. G. I have said. Before. You are a funny man. I believe this. No. I have not done this. It will tell me? My licence fee. Is only one half of yours. Mr. G. That you can put up messages. Provocatively? But I am not allowed to respond? Good luck. I will make the allowance. For older people. good luck. Mr. G.

I am sorry. Mr. G. I have not the knowledge. Of this person. Mr. Jim Lynn? I am wondering? Mr. G. YOu have read the house rules? I do not believe. You are allowed. To defame. Or slander. Fellow users. I will let it go. this time. On account of it is your birthday soon. And the half a century? It is very good. Mr. G. Good luck.

Mr. Mudhook? You reply to my post? It is not clear. The little arrow? It does not take me to my post. Nevermind. I try. To understand your point? It is difficult as well. What do you say? The objection. To same sex marriage. In the west. It does not come from the abrahamic culture? In the case of Bush. It does not come from his idea? Of christian morality? The other points? You must read the bible. And the history book. To understand. It is well documented. I think so. But not relevant. To this topic. And I do not have it. Mr. Mud. The details. At my fingertip. Good luck

RMOLAMO. Mr. Mud. I almost forgot? A dictionary. To look up the meanings. Of discrimination. I think. You think it just means. Prejudice? A lot of people think this. Good luck.

Hello. Mr. E. It is thoughtful. Of you? To consider my sensitivity. Ha ha. I do not care. Really. It is nothing. But the beating of the wing of a moth. On my arm. Without the controversial view. We are like the nodding dog. On that funny advert. Insurance? Oh yes. Oh yes. We forget. There is a different side. To most things. You make the assumptions? I will correct you. If I may. Mr. E. I talk of culture. Not the scripture. Culture evolves? From the scripture. Yes. Initially. But it is always the interpretation. Eventually. Any similarity. Between the belief. And the word. Is coincidental? I believe this. So do you? I see this? In your second paragraph? you do not like to discriminate? At all. Then Mr. E. How do you buy a new car? Or choose which music? To listen to. It is the result. Of discrimination. Which can be bad. Not the act of it. Of course. Like the others. We will say it means prejudice. From now on? I do not want it. To appear obtuse. Good luck.

My beliefs? I forgot. No. I am not a christian. Or indeed. A follower of abrahamic faiths. The way I feel? It is always to try. To see. The opposition view. Why do they think. Like they do? Understand. Before condemning. I say this? In my first post. Maybe not. Good luck.

fleas
Firstly, it is Mrs. Mudhooks.

Secondly, I think I have been very clear. Everyone else seems to understand.

Morality is not an issue which should enter into the question. Morality is based on personal beliefs. Society, as whole, determines what is right and wrong. By "as a whole" I do not mean the majority. I mean by consensus, which is a different thing altogether. Laws change and evolve because society changes and evolves.

If we used the rules set up for society, say in the middle ages, 99% of the population would be little more than slaves, would not be able to read and write, and animals could be burned at the stake for "crimes". AND marriage would not be sanctioned by the church, it would strictly be a legal contract between families. (The Church saw marriage as promotion of Original Sin.)

As society has evolved and changed thorugh the ages. The majority (not minority) have been shown to hold that gays and lesbians have rights. These rights have been upheld in law. Several states in the US and some Provinces in Canada have recently upheld the legal right for gays and lesbians to marry.

As for your rather curious use of an analogy of allowing someone to marry their dog, it is patently ridiculous, if not completely disgusting. A dog is not a consenting being and, as such, cannot agree to such a union, and futhermore, wouldn't have an interest in it.

Same-sex couples are consenting adults who are no different than heterosexual couples. They are consenting adults who work, and go to church and provide happy homes for their children, and have sex (like most heterosexuals, probably not as often as they would like). You have the right not to like the idea but the fact is, they are human beings like everyone else.

Can I make a suggestion to you? Try writing in coherent sentences. If you want people to take you seriously, a basic knowledge of sentence structure would help.

Regarding your use of "discrimination". I did not misunderstand your use of the word. You used the term in the form "Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners". You can decide you didn't, but I think everyone here understood that that was how you were using it.

In that sense, discrimination IS always wrong.

As for "You must read the bible. And the history book."

The bible has nothing to do with the question. If we used the Biblical Law as a basis for society, we wouldn't be able to wear shirts of two fabrics, and must make burnt offerings to God. We base laws on Common Law, here in North America, except for Quebec and several states which use Napoleonic Law, not Biblical Law, and these laws have changed and evolved over time.

I work in the legal field so, one could say I know "a little something of the law".

I also work in the field of human rights, so I know just "a little something about that", as well.

To which history book are you refering as THE history book? I have read many history books in my time, which is why I have what most people would call "informed opinion".

I have also read the Bible, for what it is worth, but subscribe to the opinion that the Bible has some nice stories and a few good guidelines, but it is sadly out of date.

Mrs. M. RMAOLMAO. You think I am the mind reader? Nevermind. I am happy. To consider your gender. Tolerance. It is my middle name. Not literally. Like yours? It is not really mudhook. Ha ha. You should have chosen a feminine nickname? But I am being rude. As you? For criticising my poor sentences.

Everyone else seem to understand? You say this. This is it? Your idea? Of consensus. RMOALFO. You are afunny lady. Mrs. M. I like this. Of course. In the real world. There would be no laws? If we waited. For everyone to agree. And if no one dissented? There would be progress? Ha ha. It is good. I enjoy this.

You like the history. I see this. Let me say? No more than twenty years ago. In England. This thread would not have as many supporters. As it shows today. Evolution. It is not spontaneous. Like your child? Who would throw his toy. From the pram? You would give in so readily. Now the smacking of children is bad. Even for the mother. Conflict. It is the chasm. Understanding is the bridge. Good luck. Mrs. Mudhook. You are really a fine lady. I believe this is true.

>>How on earth do the people who are against same-sex marriage think that same-sex marriage is going to threaten their marriage, or the institution of marriage? What on earth do they think same-sex couples will do to the institution of marriage that opposite-sex couples haven't already done? What kind of defilement and mockery of the institution of marriage can same-sex couples make, that opposite-sex couples haven't already made? <<

I do not believe anyone is interested. In the answers. To these questions posed. It is sad. As sad as the prejudice. Against minorities. Such as the homosexuals.

In regards to your use of unusual sentence-structure. I am making a helpful suggestion. It is very hard to understand what you are trying to say. If you want to be taken seriously, it would help if we could understand what is being got at. It would also help if you didn't respond by laughing at other people's opinion. I didn't laugh at your's, so why do you laugh at mine?

"Everyone else seem to understand? You say this. This is it? Your idea? Of consensus. RMOALFO."

"Everyone else" referred to those people who posted here. Of the people posting here, everyone most clearly understood your use of the term "discrimination".

Since you don't seem to be interested in reasoned discussion, I will leave you in peace.

Hello. Mrs. M. You cut and paste too? From the on-line dictionary. Sometimes. I do too. But not often. I would prefer. The ability to make distinctions. Based on intellect? And knowledge. And what you see. But we have done this. Mrs. M. Already. I will accept your majority. Or consensus? That it means prejudice.

You do not like the bible? Then you must read the koran. Mrs. M. It will be good. To do so? Do you not think. Some of the stories. Maybe the same? But it is not out of date. As you say. You will enjoy it. The Koran. I believe you have made one. A discrimination. Between the bible. And the koran?

I digress? Yes. The question? I can not see it. This message board. It is not easy to see. The past posts. Hopefully. Evolution is on its way. Nevermind. I will try to recall it. The question? You asked this. Why do the jews not eat pork and christians are allowed. It is in the bible. And the interpretation is well documented. I am sorry. I can not recall the details. And why some clergy can not marry. And some. It does not matter for them. It is found in the history book. Of christianity.The history books. And the bible. They are relevant. To the question you ask.

It is not good. To behave like the pompous? Mrs. Mudhook. We will not mind. Anyone using our site. Even if they do not pay for it? Like we have done. But to say things. Like your opinions. They are superior to ours? I will tolerate this. Of course. It is nothing. But I believe it. Others will not do so. Easily. Everyone is equal. That is what we are saying? Here. No? Mrs. M. Good luck.

Goodbye? Mrs. Mudhook. If you must go. It is a shame. I think this. I am not interested in reasonable discussion? But it is not me. Who is leaving. Because they have not the power of persuation? Or the ability to temper their view? good luck. With your human rights and legal work. Mrs. M.

Persuasion. RMAOLFLA.