Canada Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage

[s1m0n]

Not sexually they don't. In S1m0nWorld they might, but not on this planet.

Again, what universe are you living in?

I know all kinds of gay people and gay couples with children, biological children.

Just like straight some couples they use sperm banks, host mothers, "turkey basters", have children from earlier relationships, or adopt.

Often a gay couple will partner with another gay or straight person of the opposite sex, and will have a baby that the couple raises while the third becomes a non-custodial parent.

I know both sorts--my ex sister-in-law and her girfriend have had two babies with the help of a gay male friend, and my friend Jessie recently hosted a baby which a gay couple she knows adopted. They used the tried-and-true turkey baster insemination method and mixed both fathers' sperm, so that chance or God would be in charge of deciding who would be the biological father.

Gay people have been using these methods of having families for years. This is not a novelty. Where have you been?

[Lorenzo]

Relax. I'm sure he understands your point as well as you, or better.

Your're beginning to sound married to your pet.

[Flyingcursor]

And kittens would sleep peacefully.

But presumably the same number of ugly-ass human babies

ka-ching.

[TomB]

Relax. I'm sure he understands your point as well as you, or better.

Your're beginning to sound married to your pet.

There was nothing wrong in that response? He was just answering Gary's comment, that's all. This has been a pretty civil discussion so far, hopefully it can stay that way.

Tom

[TomB]

I'm not sure I'm understanding you folks here. Are you saying you are against pedophiles? Can this be true? Here on C&F? Almost all the arguments to justify homosexuality could be used to justify pedophilia. It is found amongst other animals. It is within human nature to behave this way. It doesn't ncessarily hurt the child. The only stigma for the child is from bashing by heterosexuals. Actually, come to think of it, the only stigma to homosexuality is bashing by heterosexuals....

djm

Heh! Heh!

[Walden]

The Bible contains much wonderful guidance, but it also contains and condones things that today we are horrified to even consider. Slavery springs to mind. Or stoning disrespectful children to death...

We'd all be dead if that latter were enforced.

Seriously, though, I waited so long to reply to this post mostly because I didn't want to bog down with religious matters in this discussion of civil law, inasmuch as it really won't do much more than make me nervous.

My Rabbi is fond of saying that we should take the Torah (or Bible) SERIOUSLY, but not necessarily LITERALLY.

I'd guardedly say I agree with that sentiment. My religious background is an offshoot of Methodism, itself an offshoot of Anglicanism, and I hold that Scripture is to be understood in the light of faith, tradition, and reason.

Be guided by it, but aware that concepts contained therein are subject to historical change.
(Not arguing, Walden, just voicing my own thoughts)

Scripture, I believe, is understood in terms of its context. The context of some passages indicate it is speaking literally, and the context of others indicate it is not speaking literally. However, much of Scripture, I believe, speaks on more than one level.

If we look at the building of the Tower of Babel, for example, on the surface we see a story of a misguided society which was brought down by a confusion of language by a displeased Deity, but instantly we are inclined to think that there is something more there, below the surface. Faith inclines us to look for the spiritual understanding of it, and to seek Divine guidance in its understanding. Tradition inclines us to look up what the teaching of those who have gone before us have been in the matter. To learn what the early fathers said. To read what is in commentaries. Reason inclines us to learn, academically, not to be guided by every whim, but to take a rational approach to understanding.

[buddhu]

I agree with Walden. And I don't have to explain it either.

Susan

Of course you don't, and neither does Walden. However, I don't think Buddhu was suggesting that Walden had to explain, and I think he was asking a sincere question.

Yeah, I know that Buddhu has liberal opinions, but when he gets involved in discussions it doesn't turn into bickering or insults, (at least I don't recall).

Nobody has to say why, and I don't blame anyone for not going into the reasons for their opinions, but in this case it did not seem like an attack on Walden to me. Still if Walden wants to remain silent, I don't fault him one bit.

All the Best, Tom

Thanks Tom. A sincere question indeed, and no implication intended that Walden had to explain anything. Walden's original reply gave very little away and left me wondering.

** Puts on eggshell-walking slippers **

Oy vey...