Positive news about gay marriage

Automatic Washer - The world's coolest Washing Machines, Dryers and Dishwashers

Help Support :

I did not mean just you.
I realize that Mark, but I can only speak for me. My apology to you for using those terms is sincere. I would never want something as silly as words to come between us.

Oh? Really? You've been bashed by Christians, here, on your own website?
Ummmm, yeah I have, where have you been? Usually it happens around the last weekend in June ***scratches head****

Then why would you turn around and disrespect others for their own beliefs?
I think I need some education, how exactly did I "disrespect others for their own beliefs"? As far as I'm concerned I've never done that, but I'm open to hearing some examples of how I've done that.
 
"Ummmm, yeah I have, where have you been? Usually it happens around the last weekend in June ***scratches head****"

You've been bashed by Christians on your own website?

"I think I need some education, how exactly did I "disrespect others for their own beliefs"? As far as I'm concerned I've never done that, but I'm open to hearing some examples of how I've done that."

You don't need "education", as much as you need to realize that, the same tolerance you advocate for our opinions, you have to be willing to extend to those whose opinions you don't share.

And what's been done to us in the past does not need to be dredged up. There's a huge difference between protesting violence and literal bashings, open invective and hate on street corners, discrimination on the job, etc., and the political battle over marriage equality, something we've NEVER had.

If you stand up in defense of those who smear and defame peaceful, decent religious people, and you're in a position of any sort of power (i.e., this website), you're promoting that abuse, and that's not a bit different than those lemmings that support those who would hold our own collective interests back.

What you believe, what I believe, is all irrelevant. At least the pretense of respect should be upheld.
 
i am a huge supporter of same sex marriages and unions!

look at del and phyllis they prove that there is love and commitment and not some stupid notion that homosexuals are not good for marriage and have no commitment! I dont have to be gay to support the cause i mean look at the the straight couples generally we are never happy in a relationship and our divorce rates, infidelity are far higher. Straight marriages are a joke if britney spears or any of us straightees can go to vegas get married and then divorced in 55 hours! im all for gay rights!
rock on! im all for everyones equal rights because thats what america is suppose to stand on no?
 
To Oxy..

the same tolerance you advocate for our opinions, you have to be willing to extend to those whose opinions you don't share.
Actually I think I'm pretty damn "tolerant" around here, I rarely delete posts or censure posters, only in the most extreme cases. I've also taken some heat from other members for being overly tolerant of people who only post in confrontational super forum threads and rarely if ever have anything to add within the washer, dryer or dishwasher community. But I'll still be tolerant of them no mater how much "heat" and complaints I get about them.

If you stand up in defense of those who smear and defame peaceful, decent religious people,
Again I need some education, how exactly did I do that? Are you referring to what I said, or maybe what I didn't say, I have no idea what you mean. Examples please and less double talk.

At least the pretense of respect should be upheld.
At least here we agree.
 
they preach such a rant of tolerance.

I have been bashed by christians on this site, but I cannot recall if it was June or not. I was also called racist by one of them rather recently.....
 
"And what's been done to us in the past does not need to be dredged up. There's a huge difference between protesting violence and literal bashings, open invective and hate on street corners, discrimination on the job, etc., and the political battle over marriage equality, something we've NEVER had."

This is double talk. Marriage equality is only one area where gay people don't enjoy equality. No straight man has ever been fired from a job because he's straight. Why is that different than marriage equality? In either case, it is the denial of rights, rights that protect. Same with gay bashing, same with the type of hate speech that occurs from certain pulpits. This equality, or protection, is something we've never had either, and many have suffered for it. So how is it different?

"If you stand up in defense of those who smear and defame peaceful, decent religious people, and you're in a position of any sort of power (i.e., this website), you're promoting that abuse, and that's not a bit different than those lemmings that support those who would hold our own collective interests back."

It's not the peaceful, decent religious people who are the problem, Scott. It's the zealots that see fit to rob "peaceful, decent homosexual people" of the very basic freedoms that they seem to take for granted. No one is promoting any type of abuse, Scott. What you describe is called censorship, and that's not what this forum is about, and never has been. It was established for discussions of any topic, and religion is just another topic, as is gay rights. No one has to participate if they don't want to.

And yes, Robert and others have been bashed by folks on this site, specifically, the thread last June regarding Gay Pride, the highest of holy holidays, in case you don't remember. It was disgraceful behavior.
 
"Actually I think I'm pretty damn "tolerant" around here, I rarely delete posts or censure posters, only in the most extreme cases."

This is true.

But, when you do, and you inadvertently hurt a substantial portion of the community that has been directed by their teachings to suffer in silence, with your words, they carry more weight, and more responsibility.

"I've also taken some heat from other members for being overly tolerant of people who only post in confrontational super forum threads and rarely if ever have anything to add within the washer, dryer or dishwasher community."

Well, I rarely post in the other two forums, because I do not "collect", per se, and I've decided to keep my Whirlpool DD for eternity, because I do not care for what is out there now, so my primary focus is on laundry products and the like, for now.

If posting in "Super" or "Deluxe" is a litmus test for membership in this community, please let me know, and I'll make myself scarce, but I don't know why this would be any other poster's concern.

"But I'll still be tolerant of them no mater how much "heat" and complaints I get about them."

Well, that's silly. I mean, if you CHOOSE to put up with such complaints, then that's your CHOICE.

My email address is featured on my profile. I'm very open to discussing anything I've written; in fact, I'd be willing to rephrase anything I've written that I worded foolishly.

I don't understand why anyone would "turn in" anyone else, on the basis of what anyone wrote here (unless, of course, someone was threatening or shady, in terms of business).

Some people, IMHO, need to get real with one another, stop running to surrogate daddies to solve their problems for them, and learn to coexist with those they disagree with, rather than call for their "enemy's" bannination.

I've NEVER complained to you about any issues regarding a poster. You don't have time, and nothing gets solved anyway.

"Again I need some education, how exactly did I do that? Are you referring to what I said, or maybe what I didn't say, I have no idea what you mean. Examples please and less double talk."

"I'm sorry to say, but a witch like me who could zap myself to Paris for lunch if I wanted... would never believe that religious nonsense..."

Double talk? First, someone goes out on the limb to admit that they've been hurt by something you've said, and you make a joke out of it.....then, you turn around and, after they've clearly stated that they hold something you can't comprehend dear to their heart, you compound your insensitivity by belitting that thing, that, frankly, no one should have been running their mouth disrespecting in the first place?

Robert, this is Manners 101, and I was shocked that you would come out with that. There was nothing in what Mark was saying that was prosyletizing or trying to win over converts. He was simply protesting what he saw as insensitivity toward ALL the person he was, not just the part you find compatible with your "world".

It's not about the marriage equality issue, or even living as a gay man in the 21st century, and acknowledging the challenges organized religions have presented to the so-called "gay agenda".

Substantial numbers of those gay men, worldwide, have spiritual lives and private beliefs that are either based on, draw heavily upon, or are carried entirely upon the organizational framework of these organized religions. What is in their hearts is as essential to their existence as what is in their head or between their legs.

Is it necessary to devalue them...us...because you choose to blame every conceivable setback the gay community suffers on their beliefs, without ever taking into account that "boy posters" and over-the-top parade floats might just play as big as a role in our struggles?

For all of this "confrontational attitude" I'm so guilty of, at least I'm direct. I don't gossip behind other peoples backs.
 
While I would not be one to consider Jefferson/Madison's writings a matter of faith - it is conveniently though the word that Governs our land.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." Thomas Jefferson, 1802.

I've always felt that the best reading is that of acts within our History to help clearly define this great country we live in.

This is a great step for GLBT community - and I hope that it is just a sign of things to come, even if slowly. There is always hope.

Ben
 
"No straight man has ever been fired from a job because he's straight."

Not true. Some guy caught porking his secretary in the office supply closet will most likely find himself on the outside, looking in.

"It's not the peaceful, decent religious people who are the problem, Scott. It's the zealots that see fit to rob "peaceful, decent homosexual people" of the very basic freedoms that they seem to take for granted. No one is promoting any type of abuse, Scott. What you describe is called censorship, and that's not what this forum is about, and never has been. It was established for discussions of any topic, and religion is just another topic, as is gay rights. No one has to participate if they don't want to."

Andrew, that's like saying you're a member of a car buff site, and the inevitable "The Polesmokers Are Destroying Our Children's Schools" thread gets started, and you're just supposed to quietly ignore it.

That's behavior for people IN closets, not out of them.

You might SAY you'd be able to skim over it, but, sooner or later, you'd take a look, and you'd probably respond in some way.

(And, I might add, I've taken pains not to be hostile on this subject, even though I'm the one who's been repeatedly attacked. I realize this is a sore spot for many in the community, and I understand the reasons. But how long will this be used as an excuse, and how much worse will the vitriol get? Because, then, what you're advocating, is for the gay community to be divided, just like our political parties are.)

"And yes, Robert and others have been bashed by folks on this site, specifically, the thread last June regarding Gay Pride, the highest of holy holidays, in case you don't remember. It was disgraceful behavior."

I actually DON'T remember that. Was I, God Forbid, a participant? Is there a thread number I can reference?

And does it justify the type of rhetoric we continue to see here? How? Does it improve the situation?
 
"This is a great step for GLBT community - and I hope that it is just a sign of things to come, even if slowly. There is always hope."

I agree. And there shouldn't be so much worry.

If the votes go the other way in November, all that will happen is it'll be overturned, and go back and forth for a few years.

In the meantime, other states will follow suit, the spotlight will be off California, and it'll cease to be a political boondoggle.
 
"And another thing, please read all 765+ reader comments in today's Los Angeles Times article, now here's a lesson in tolerance, not to mention why some of us might be a bit tired of the truly intolerant lately..."

Okay....what planet do you believe we all live on, where you think you're NOT going to see this sort of thing?

It is only the elitists in our community who can ghettoize themselves in the big cities, and live in totally self-contained uber-liberal bubbles, where everybody loves one another and not one of us would ever begrudge the other a thing.

I was brought up proudly working-class. Being gay is just one part of who I am. I have to try and change attitudes simply by being the best person I know how to be. I've never had the luxury of add-water-and-stir acceptance.

Meanwhile, I see LOADS of people in those comments, wishing us well, and trying to reason with the rest of the nation, that our communities simply write off as hostile knuckledraggers.

I can't do that anymore. If it wouldn't be for my orientation, I'd BE one of those knuckledraggers. And, for all my "edumacation", I'm a lot closer to their side of the fence then I'll ever be to this one.
 
I'm too tired to respond fully to you this evening, but I will say three things, (there is always tomorrow)

A You need to lighten up, and not take everything that is said so seriously.

B I'm sorry to say, but a witch like me who could zap myself to Paris for lunch if I wanted... would never believe that religious nonsense..." Making a Joke out of it.
If you would open your eyes just a bit you would see that that was NO JOKE, that was me making a point. Don't you even begin to tell me about sensitivity.

C.
" without ever taking into account that "boy posters" and over-the-top parade floats might just play as big as a role in our struggles? "
That is part of who we all are, and I'm proud to be identified with those things. Obviously you are not. We have every right to have parades and boy posters, and if they offend others, that's too bad, they can not simply not look. We will never be silenced ever again because it "offends" others. Just like if I find religion totally offensive to me personally I don't have to go to church. But unlike so many others, I have no desire to ban their churches or tell them how to live their lives. Respect is earned on both sides, its not just automatically handed over.
 
Well said Robert

If people are offended, look away! Don't discriminate, don't hate, just accept and respect.

I happen to find you offensive for finding me offensive...

WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO ABOUT IT??
 
<blockquote>You might SAY you'd be able to skim over it, but, sooner or later, you'd take a look, and you'd probably respond in some way.</blockquote>I'd hazard to say there are many readers following the ... uhh, discussion ... who don't respond, for whatever reason.

Oops, I responded, although it took several days and several started/abandoned posts.

Back to the shadows ...
 
>>And what's been done to us in the past does not need to be dredged up. There's a huge difference between protesting violence and literal bashings, open invective and hate on street corners, discrimination on the job, etc., and the political battle over marriage equality, something we've NEVER had. <<

I have to restate some basic facts here. First of all, in many parts of the world we STILL ARE being killed simply for being who we are. Second, we did not start this fight with christian churches and other religions, nor have we ever asked for the last 3500 years of persecution from them. And lastly, this "defense of marriage" nonsense is the first time in U.S. history where constitutional amendments are being proposed and passed not to limit government power, but specifically to target a group of 20+ million Americans and deny them a basic human right. It's no less obscene and repugnant in my patriotic view than tying us to fences and beating us to death.

>>If you stand up in defense of those who smear and defame peaceful, decent religious people, and you're in a position of any sort of power (i.e., this website), you're promoting that abuse, and that's not a bit different than those lemmings that support those who would hold our own collective interests back. <<

I've not heard anyone here defame peaceful, decent religious people. However we have begun to defend ourselves from the same religious hierarchies and groups who've been targeting us for the last 3500 years.

>>What you believe, what I believe, is all irrelevant. <<

There's that word again.
 
Wow...

I walked right into this one!

I think it all boils down to the old Church and State argument. Who gets the say? Who gets benefits of marriage? Does a church decide whether or not we can file taxes jointly? Does a state decide whether or not we can be married under the eyes of God?

In the back of my mind (way back there!) I have felt that this was kind of an "all or nothing" subject. One should have the power to decide and not the other. If that power resides with the churches then government is out and the insitution of marriage should have no legality whatsoever, gay or straight. It was would be performed and recognized strictly on a church-by-church basis.

If government is to dictate who can or cannot be married then it needs to be equal and across the board. Individuals marrying other individuals with all unions having the same legal benefits, responsibilities, etc. regardless of what any church says. Some churches will embrace it and others will not and it's up to them to decide but it would have no bearing legally.

I really think until one of these two scenarios becomes a reality there will be no equality. I can't say I'm a religious person or have any strong beliefs of that nature. I literally feel that my existence is beyond my own comprehension or anyone elses. I do however believe that there should be a deep seperation between church and state if this is to be a country of equality. Otherwise everything will be a religious battle.

Just my two cents. Thanks!

Jon
 
"It's not the peaceful, decent religious people who are the problem, Scott. It's the zealots that see fit to rob "peaceful, decent homosexual people" of the very basic freedoms that they seem to take for granted. No one is promoting any type of abuse, Scott. What you describe is called censorship, and that's not what this forum is about, and never has been. It was established for discussions of any topic, and religion is just another topic, as is gay rights. No one has to participate if they don't want to.

Andrew, that's like saying you're a member of a car buff site, and the inevitable "The Polesmokers Are Destroying Our Children's Schools" thread gets started, and you're just supposed to quietly ignore it. "

Your point was that Robert tolerates it so he promotes it, because of his authority on this site...clear and simple. It's still censorship for him to do otherwise, and as I said, that was never the purpose of this forum.

"And yes, Robert and others have been bashed by folks on this site, specifically, the thread last June regarding Gay Pride, the highest of holy holidays, in case you don't remember. It was disgraceful behavior."

"I actually DON'T remember that. Was I, God Forbid, a participant? Is there a thread number I can reference?"

No, Scott, you were not. At least not that I remember. It was another member that started it. But this was exactly Robert's point...it does happen, it has happened and it will happen again. You seemed somewhat doubtful that this was the case, but it is, unfortunately.

"And does it justify the type of rhetoric we continue to see here? How? Does it improve the situation?"

Ask a black person who was alive and sentient in the 1960s if they believe the confrontations, struggles, even riots, etc., etc., they endured to even be recognized as part of the human race was worth it to them?

I guess my point is that true freedom does not come easy. And there will always be those who want to take it away from you. If you don't dredge up the past, refuse to sit still and take it, even up to acts of civil disobedience when absolutely necessary, then we fall victim to anyone and everyone who would seek to deprive us of basic human rights.

So you may thing parade floats are silly, and these silly faggots marching down the street in June of every year are part of "our" problem. Maybe they are? Maybe they're not. But I do know one thing....other persecuted groups didn't make progress by sitting back and acting like perfect gentlemen and perfect ladies. They were very much "in your face" to get the treatment they were due, and the basic human rights that others "humans" had, but they did not. Yes, I agree with you that you should be the best person you know how to be to those around you, but that doesn't get you anywhere when others seek to deprive you of what is or should be rightfully yours. And I've been around long enough to have learned that the hard way.
 
"A You need to lighten up, and not take everything that is said so seriously."

No, actually, I don't. As a clued-in respondent above noted, if it weren't Christians that were being bashed, you'd be all over yourself with righteous indignation.

"Don't you even begin to tell me about sensitivity."

I don't. There are enough walking open wounds and entitlement mentalities around to last several lifetimes. I'm simply asking that you stop and consider that pushing one's own atheist agenda, when you preside over an internet community, can be hurtful and divisive, and cause gays of faith to question whether or not they are even welcome. This seems to be controversial to a few, but it's really not...it's simply common sense, and good manners.

"That is part of who we all are..."

Uh, Robert? No, it is NOT, so don't speak for the entire gay community.

I hate the fact that, of all the images of the upcoming festivities in your own city, you chose to post that image, one that feeds into the most negative stereotypes of shallowness, superficiality, rent boys selling their desperate asses to rapacious entrepreneurs who really don't give a damn, and the very "NAMBLA" exploitative mentality that feeds our community's real enemies and holds us back, negating the very real gains that people like me fought for and won.

It's not even on behalf of one of the usual fashion houses, where you can argue an artistic defense. A BAR, sponsoring ads
featuring KIDS, probably seven years shy of being able to legally drink there.

As I've remarked repeatedly over the past eleven years, when "Pride" festivities began to be more about sleazy themes, the marketing of planned decadence, and hypocritical, reactionary
images, could someone please remind me what part of this we should all claim to be "proud" of?

If the world were to end tomorrow, would this be the gay community's crowning achievement, our contribution to society?

No, Robert, this is your personal trip, and if it works for you, go for it. Just don't demand universal acceptance of it, and blame religious people of all stripes, conservatives, or any of the other usual, tired scapegoats, when it's precisely the elements you endorse that are holding us back in the eyes of the mainstream, because they all vote too.
 
"I have to restate some basic facts here...."

No, Jeff, you're simply repeating your own opinion, as absolute fact, and then carrying on with the same old 3500-year-old canard, which is useless for the purpose of actually moving ahead and resolving a current controversy, in order to push a side agenda and sow discord.

I haven't seen one person of faith prosyletize here.

Maybe this is because we actually understand the concept of seperation of church and state, and you need them to be inextricably linked in order to plead your religiously-based case?
 
JeffG

Just a note. The Christian church is just slightly over 2000 years old, not 3500 years. If you went back 3500 years your would be in Roman times for the western world.

Keven is right, many straight people, who claim to be christian, would see us put to death if they could. We must stand up for our rights.

I have also observed that while people of faiths other than christian may also take a stand against homosexuals they do not take to the streets in huge public displays to protest against us. Maybe I missed it if it happened but I have never seen a large group of jewish people standing in the streets protesting against us or calling for legislation against us.

I for one will not accept the way things used to be. I well know the claims that America is a nation founded on christian values. Well it's damn well past the time that America changed some of theose so called values.

While I love my southern home and many things about it I have had to learn survival skills that are just wrong to have had to live by. I am openly gay and have paid a high price for it.

Jon is right. "The Church" -any church for that matter- should not dictate law. For any who spout the argument that America is a christian nation I will also point out that the founders of this nation made a definate separation of church and state. I look forward to the day gay rights reach the shore to shore in this country.
 
Who was it that fed the Christians to the lions?? That part of history is a little foggy to me. Perhaps there are some hungry lions somewhere?
 
2-cents from the front lines

I think it is important to never judge any group by the example of a few. So far here in California there have been few protesters, but as the Orange County Register reported in today's paper "those few go to any ends to get their message heard" including shouting through marriage ceremonies and spitting on couples. These protesters are hardly "Christian" and do not follow the principles of Christian religion. I cannot believe that they claim to be privy to how God thinks and who God loves and hates on this planet.

On the other hand, I hear Christian people who do not personally believe in same sex marriage say that it does not affect them and in this country we should have the freedom to pursue happiness as each individual sees fit.

The evil people making noise in public while hiding behind a "Christian" banner should be ignored and not held up as poster children of that religion. A good example are the members (about 20 total I think) of the Westboro Baptist Church who traveled to California to be on TV this week. Fred Phelps and his cult have been protetsing gay events and military funerals for years and are the most hateful people you may ever encounter in this country. His son now lives in Orange County and I read an interview about his life at home with dad. He and several siblings escaped and never looked back. According to this son, Phelps raised his kids as "followers" (most of the church are family members) exposed to extreme mental and physical abuse. County officials tried to intervene several times, but were unsuccessful. The son said the followers of Phelps are damaged and brainwashed. Hardly a happy Christian family. I feel sorry for them.

It was best summed up in a radio interview I heard this week. When a just-married woman was asked to comment on the protesters, she responded something to the effect "today is a day of joy and love, and I am not going to ruin that by commenting and going to their dark place."

I liked the term another member coined, "Christianist," that separates these misguided folks who want to run the government and everyone else's lives by their religious beliefs (can we say Pat Roberston?) from folks who try to live their lives by the teachings of "love one another as yourself," and "do not judge lest you be judged."

As for the protesters who tell me to read a bible, I say "I have and it says that "eating shrimp is an abomination unto the Lord." So why aren't these zealots shouting and spitting on people trying to have dinner at the Red Lobster??!!

Bottom line, we all must respect each other.
 
The Romans

put christians in an arena with hungry lions for entertainment before they converted to the christian religion.

While people like to talk about the "decline" or the "fall" of Rome, no such thing really happened. Although Rome underwent several shocks in the fourth and fifth centuries, some of them violent with a transfer of the imperiate to non-Romans, Rome really did remain in existence. It's impossible to say when the history of Rome ends and when the medieval period begins exactly. But the empire really does end, for all practical purposes, with the restructuring of the empire by Diocletian.

Diocletian (284-305) came to the throne after a century of disorganization, internal dissent, economic collapse, and foreign invasions. A tough and practical soldier he had one ambition: to retire from the imperiate alive. And he managed to do it (an exceptional feat). To stem the descent into chaos, he decided that the Empire was too large to be adminstered by a central authority, so he divided it in half. The western half would be ruled by a colleague, Maximian, and the seat of government would be Rome; the eastern half would be ruled by Diocletian, and the seat of government was in Nicomedia. Maximian recognized Diocletian as "Augustus," or the senior ruler of the Roman emperor. Beneath these two were appointed to each two officials, called caesars, not only to help manage the administration, but to assume their respective empires on the death of the emperor. In this way, the succession was always guaranteed and the successors had already spent much of their career adminstering the empire. This would prevent both the possibility of the ambitious seizing of the imperiate by provincial generals and would prevent incompetents from assuming control of the Empire.

This was a brilliant strategy and, with other innovations, stabilized the Empire. Diocletian was the first emperor to manifestly break with Roman tradition. He shifted the seat of power to the east, in Nicomedia in Turkey. He also adopted eastern ideas of monarchy; he no longer called himself princeps or even imperator , but dominus , or "Lord." He took a crown and wore royal clothing; he demanded and got out and out worship by his subjects.

In 305, Diocletian retired to a farm to raise cabbages; he forced Maxmian also to retire. So the imperiate passed without fuss to their two caesars. This brilliant system, so promising in its inception, fell apart immediately as the two emperors began feuding. Within a year, the son of one of the original caesars gained the throne: Constantine (306-337). Like Diocletian, he ruled only half of the Roman Empire, the western half. But in 324, he abandoned the system and ruled over a single, united empire. However, he shifted the seat of government east to his own city in Turkey, Constantinople.

Constantine was like Diocletian in his affection for eastern ways of life and eastern views of monarchy. He took on himself all the trappings of an eastern king, as Diocletian had done, and declared the imperiate to be hereditary. After eight hundred years without a monarch, Rome had finally returned back to monarchy. Constantine, however, is one of the most noted rulers in Rome for he was the first emperor to convert to Christianity. Although he didn't make Christianity a state religion, his conversion provoked a wild proliferation of the faith, particularly in the eastern empire. Constantine, however, never really became a Christian ruler. He retained all the trappings of power including the demand that he be venerated as a god, as Diocletian had done.

Constantine, however, had several problems with his new faith. The first was that there was no established doctrine. In fact, there were as many forms of Christianity as there were communities of Christians. The second was more pressing, for foundational Christianity was manifestly anti-political. Its founder, Jesus of Nazareth, consistently condemned worldly authority and insisted that the Christian life is a non-worldly, individualistic, non-political life. As a result, the foundational Christian texts are not only anti-Roman (for Judaea was part of the Roman Empire during the life of Jesus of Nazareth), but consistently dismissive of human, worldly authority. If Christianity were going to work as a religion in a state ruled by a monarch that demanded worship and absolute authority, it would have to be changed. To this end, Constantine convened a group of Christian bishops at Nicea in 325; there, the basic orthodoxy of Christianity was instantiated in what came to be called the Nicene creed, the basic statement of belief for orthodox Christianity. Constantine accomplished more, however, for the Nicene council also ratified his own power and Christianity would begin the long struggle, lasting to this day, between the anti-political ideas of Jesus of Nazareth and the Christianity that is compromised to allow for human authority and power.

When Constantine died, he divided the Empire between his three sons who, as you might expect, began fighting one another over complete control of the Empire. His sons all adopted Christianity as well, but the emperor, Julian the Apostate (361-363), opposed the religion and tried to undo it by dismissing all the Christians from the government. He was a little too late and reigned a little too briefly, though, to have any real effect. The government of Rome during the fourth century essentially traces out a history of dynastic squabbles and constant internal fractiousness; it wasn't until the end of the century, in the rule of Theodosius (379-395), that Rome was again united under a single emperor. Theodosius made his mark in history by declaring Christianity the state religion of Rome; he made all pagan religions illegal. The Christian Roman state had entered the stage; however, history was about to dramatically change the character of Rome. In 410, the Visigoths, a Germanic tribe that had migrated into northern Italy under the pressure of migrations of the Huns, captured and sacked Rome. From 451 to 453, Rome was overrun by the Hunnish leader, Attila, and finally, in 455, the Vandals, another Germanic tribe, conquered Rome. Finally, in 476, Odoacer deposed the Roman emperor and made himself emperor. Power had passed from the Romans to the barbarians war-chiefs; the Middle Ages had begun. Rome now passed to two heirs: Europe in the west and, to the east, the Byzantines, who carried on the government structure, the social structure, the art and the thought of classical Rome and Greece.

There are always hungry lions Andrew....and someone ready to feed them.
 
Robert could you please zap me to the high desert area near, Palm Springs with two machines and then on to London for two weeks? Thanks in advance, frntl
Of course Darrel, but you'll have to tell me about this "high desert area near Palm Springs" so I know where to Zap you. I'm only familiar with the Warm Springs Area of Palm Springs, which I totally love LOL ***watches oxy's face cringe cause its so "heathen" gay****. Also would you like a Unimatic and Lady Kenmore, or maybe a Filter-Flo GE and a Speed Queen???? Then off to London with you ***begins to raise arms***.

Oxy please your posts are clearly about "ssshhhhhh keep quiet everyone, don't let the good decent straight christian people see us or at least trick them into seeing that see we are just like them". That is total BS.

if it weren't Christians that were being bashed, you'd be all over yourself with righteous indignation.
That couldn't be further from the truth, my opinion on religion covers all religions, to me they are all the same. I respect everyone's right to their beliefs, and would never dream of trying to change anyone's minds about their beliefs, but in turn I demand the same respect about me being gay as well as my lack of belief.

"That is part of who we all are..." Uh, Robert? No, it is NOT, so don't speak for the entire gay community.
I said it is PART of who we are, not ALL of who were are. And I have some bad news for you Oxy, oh yes it certainly is part of who you are whether you like it or not. As a gay person, you are gonna have to accept this diversity within our own community.

I'm simply asking that you stop and consider that pushing one's own atheist agenda, when you preside over an internet community, can be hurtful and divisive, and cause gays of faith to question whether or not they are even welcome.
"Atheist Agenda" lol, whatever, if anyone has an agenda here its you. I've got four words for you Oxy: "OVER MY DEAD BODY" will I keep quiet because I welcome gay people of faith here just like everyone else. While yes I'm am a total Atheist, have been for almost 30 years now and proud of my lack of belief. But just because I run this website does not in any way mean that I don't have the right to voice my opinion just because my simple lack of belief might offend some religious member. There you go again with your "ssshhhhh keep quiet you might offend someone bullshit again" GET OVER IT, you've come to the wrong place if you want a webmaster like that. Everyone here knows that I am totally welcoming to everyone, and I mean everyone, even to someone like you who is clearly only here to stir the pot.

I hate the fact that, of all the images of the upcoming festivities in your own city, you chose to post that image, one that feeds into the most negative stereotypes of shallowness, superficiality, rent boys selling their desperate asses to rapacious entrepreneurs who really don't give a damn, and the very "NAMBLA" exploitative mentality that feeds our community's real enemies and holds us back, negating the very real gains that people like me fought for and won.
Wow listen to that hatred pouring out of you about people in our own community, what a shame. "rent boys selling their desperate asses" what a load of crap, you don't know a thing about any of those people. I think that poster is cool, I think its all in fun and take it for what its worth, which isn't much, but I'm none the less thrilled its hanging there. As you can see from many of the comments people have posted here WE WILL NO LONGER LIVE OUR LIVES BEING CAREFUL NOT TO OFFEND OTHERS BY HIDING OUR CULTURE OR TRUE SELVES. EVER AGAIN. I don't care if we are feeding our real enemies with ammo, we are who we are period, they are the ones with the problem and they are gonna have to get over it.

A BAR, sponsoring ads featuring KIDS, probably seven years shy of being able to legally drink there. Ummm, you're crazy, that would make them 15 years old and then that would be a BIG problem. Those "KIDS" as you call them are all at least 21 and are of the drinking age, I've seen at least one of them out drinking. They have every right to be in that poster, believe me they are not the "victims" you are making them out to be. I bet they would be offended to hear you say that.

that are holding us back in the eyes of the mainstream, because they all vote too.
I'm sorry but for the last 1950 years we said nothing, we hid in closets, we didn't fight back and we we're treated like crap from everyone. We now are out, proud and in everyone's face. And look what is happening right before our very eyes, marriage in two states and counting. I say girls, forge forward, 'cause what ever we've done over the last 50 years, its working, slowly but surely!

As I've remarked repeatedly over the past eleven years, when "Pride" festivities began to be more about sleazy themes, the marketing of planned decadence, and hypocritical, reactionary images, could someone please remind me what part of this we should all claim to be "proud" of?
Certainly, we should be proud of all this and lots more and unlike you most of us are proud of all of it! Its unfortunate but sometimes our own worst enemies come from within.
 
"As a gay person, you are gonna have to accept this diversity within our own community."

Uh, not really. The backlash has already started.

And we are capable of thinking for ourselves, making our own ethical choices, and wielding our own influence from within, thank you very much!

"Atheist Agenda" lol, whatever, if anyone has an agenda here its you."

You mean respect, and freedom from elitist drones? Yep, that would be me! Deal with it, or boot my ass.

"...I welcome gay people of faith here just like everyone else. "

How? By reminding them that they are morons for believing what they do? Please...you have zero respect, and you can't even admit that you made a mistake, IMHO.

"Everyone here knows that I am totally welcoming to everyone,"

Without going into detail regarding past dressings-down, emails and the like, whenever your nose got out of joint, I would not call your attitude toward me "welcoming", not by a long shot.

I cannot recall one civil response, even when you were quietly proven wrong later on, so let's not bullshit each other.

I have strong opinions, and I enjoy dialogue. I'm not a fan of vacant, elitist shits and giggles, I believe there are individuals of substance and worth here, and I've received emails that clearly back up that there are those who actually appreciate diverse opinions, rather than paying homage to the concept.

"Wow listen to that hatred pouring out of you about people in our own community, what a shame."

Robert? That's not hatred, it's legitimate self-criticism. I'm sorry you can't appreciate the difference.

Nobody's "stirring the pot" here. You're representing what appears to be a majority opinion, and mine differs somewhat.

"I think that poster is cool, I think its all in fun and take it for what its worth, which isn't much, but I'm none the less thrilled its hanging there."

I'm sure Stephanie Miller would too.

I am not Stephanie Miller. GET OVER IT. If I think it's cheap, typically tacky, and not representative of the community as a whole, I WILL SAY SO, ROBERT!

"WE WILL NO LONGER LIVE OUR LIVES BEING CAREFUL NOT TO OFFEND OTHERS BY HIDING OUR CULTURE OR TRUE SELVES."

Except that's not "culture". It's not even really a part of gay culture. It's the lowest common denominator, and the mentality behind it does damage. The next time you come to New York, come with me to the food distribution center I volunteer at. I'll introduce you to some of the victims that get tossed away, after you ogle.

"Ummm, you're crazy, that would make them 15 years old and then that would be a BIG problem..."

And the fact that you at least recognize that is a good thing.

"Those "KIDS" as you call them are all at least 21 and are of the drinking age,"

ROFLMAO!!! Riiiiight, nice try!

"I've seen at least one of them out drinking...."

And we ALL know that there are NEVER underaged drinkers in gay bars, LOL!!

"I bet they would be offended to hear you say that."

Of course they would! I'm cutting into their income stream, no pun intended, LOL!

Are you kidding me, man?

"I'm sorry but for the last 1950 years we said nothing, we hid in closets, we didn't fight back and we we're treated like crap from everyone."

Oh? You don't seem particularly oppressed. Can you name ONE instance, in which you've been discriminated against or been openly victimized in a hate crime, in which counter-discrimination against all religious PEOPLE (not the institutions) can be fairly scapegoated?

"And look what is happening right before our very eyes, marriage in two states and counting. I say girls, forge forward, 'cause what ever we've done over the last 50 years, its working, slowly but surely!"

The problem is, is wasn't people like you who can fairly claim to have done anything concrete in achieving this milestone.

IMHO, you're just riding the coattails and claiming entitlement and privilege to a right you never earned.

Sorry, but that's my opinion.
 
"Bottom line, we all must respect each other."

Thank you, golittlesport.

Now, will this actually happen.

Probably not, not as long as there are those out there like me, that refuse to be mastered.
 
AMEN Robert!!! <:

It is always the ones that are so ashamed of who they are that are so judgemental of everyone elses actions.
 
Back
Top