Australian Politics Forum

What is it of anyones business what someone else does or does not do? How does gayness effect anyone but the gay ppl themselves? So what if some religions are against it. Its not thier business. I am not talking about gay marriage here or any "lifestyle". I am talking about sexual preference.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 13^th, 2012 at 12:02pm:

LOL, you put up a poll, LOL.

As the wise Spot of Borg asks.....

"What is it of anyones business what someone else does or does not do?"

Take your own advice dillberry.

;D ;D ;D

FriYAY wrote on Apr 13^th, 2012 at 12:32pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 13^th, 2012 at 12:02pm:

LOL, you put up a poll, LOL.

As the wise Spot of Borg asks.....

"What is it of anyones business what someone else does or does not do?"

Take your own advice dillberry.

;D ;D ;D

I was being ironic. . . .it was meant to be funny - besides its not like anyone can see who answered what.

SOB

Oh friggin poo,. I wasnt ever going to talk to that one again. Didnt look @ the name.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 13^th, 2012 at 12:44pm:

Oh friggin poo,. I wasnt ever going to talk to that one again. Didnt look @ the name.

SOB

LOL, I was surprised. ;)

After the alcohol tax error…. :o

After the deer error…. :o

And after the semi-automatic guns error…. :o

I thought you’d still be running, or hiding, or better still, educating your-self so as not to speak so much dribble. :-X

I was wrong. :P

You're fun, keep it up. ::)

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 13^th, 2012 at 12:02pm:

Ordinarily it wouldn't be anyones business, but someone, whether it be homos and their lobby groups, the media, academics or whatever, someone is trying to force the rest of society to validate it.

After a long campaign demanding we "get out of their bedrooms" the homo cause are now demanding that "we" get back into their bedrooms and tell them their orientation is "equal" to the couplings which ensure the survival of the human species.

I don't give a toss what they do, but you can't force me to endorse it, and that's what all the noise is about.

... wrote on Apr 13^th, 2012 at 1:28pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 13^th, 2012 at 12:02pm:

Huh. That makes sense I guess.

When I was a kid there were a couple gay ppl running a fish and chips up the road. Everyone knew they were gay but nobody spoke of it. They didnt complain and i dont remember anyone complaining about them (but i may not have been in the right circles to hear it). Perhaps you are right about why it supposedly matters now.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 13^th, 2012 at 1:32pm:

When I was a kid there were a couple gay ppl running a fish and chips up the road. Everyone knew they were gay but nobody spoke of it. They didnt complain and i dont remember anyone complaining about them (but i may not have been in the right circles to hear it). Perhaps you are right about why it supposedly matters now.

SOB

When I was a kid there were a couple of straight people running a fish and chips up the road. Everyone knew they were straight but nobody spoke of it. They didnt complain and i dont remember anyone complaining about them (but i may not have been in the right circles to hear it).

What does someone's sexual preference have to do with running a fish and chip shop? :-?

Uncle Meat wrote on Apr 13^th, 2012 at 1:36pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 13^th, 2012 at 1:32pm:

I was just pointing out that it didnt matter much then. I was a kid - i didnt know what a gay was. It was years later when looking back and someone pointed it out that i even know about it. Im saying that things have changed and now it apparently matters.

SOB

Uncle Meat wrote on Apr 13^th, 2012 at 1:36pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 13^th, 2012 at 1:32pm:

Gays don't like fish.

Im gunna fill in for another member and say communists and godless hebeasts

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 13^th, 2012 at 9:53pm:

Im gunna fill in for another member and say communists and godless hebeasts

lol

SOB

Well, if men can have bumsex together - then women can run Westpac, Australia and other 'manly' things.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Why can't Ozpolitics have a member run thread called bum chums?

All the poofs could go there & stop invading the other threads.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 4:05pm:

Why can't Ozpolitics have a member run thread called bum chums?

All the poofs could go there & stop invading the other threads.

Yeah they are all longweekends threads

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 4:06pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 4:05pm:

Why can't Ozpolitics have a member run thread called bum chums?

All the poofs could go there & stop invading the other threads.

Yeah they are all longweekends threads

It's a good idea isn't it?
Longweekend & his mate Karnal & Blackadder could all be together.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 4:10pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 4:06pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 4:05pm:

Why can't Ozpolitics have a member run thread called bum chums?

All the poofs could go there & stop invading the other threads.

Yeah they are all longweekends threads

It's a good idea isn't it?
Longweekend & his mate Karnal & Blackadder could all be together.

Only problem is his imaginary friend in the sky

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 4:12pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 4:10pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 4:06pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 4:05pm:

Why can't Ozpolitics have a member run thread called bum chums?

All the poofs could go there & stop invading the other threads.

Yeah they are all longweekends threads

It's a good idea isn't it?
Longweekend & his mate Karnal & Blackadder could all be together.

Only problem is his imaginary friend in the sky

Wouldn't be a problem for Longweekend.
This is his mate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMWjV2zRD3w

Bobby. wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 4:05pm:

Why can't Ozpolitics have a member run thread called bum chums?

All the poofs could go there & stop invading the other threads.

You'd love that, wouldn't you?

Bobby. wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 4:17pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 4:12pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 4:10pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 4:06pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 4:05pm:

Why can't Ozpolitics have a member run thread called bum chums?

All the poofs could go there & stop invading the other threads.

Yeah they are all longweekends threads

It's a good idea isn't it?
Longweekend & his mate Karnal & Blackadder could all be together.

Only problem is his imaginary friend in the sky

Wouldn't be a problem for Longweekend.
This is his mate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMWjV2zRD3w

Lets just hope for longys sake they weren’t mates when longy was a kid
actually what am I saying, he deserves it

Annie Anthrax wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 4:24pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 4:05pm:

Why can't Ozpolitics have a member run thread called bum chums?

All the poofs could go there & stop invading the other threads.

You'd love that, wouldn't you?

Yes it would be great if I wouldn't be replying to poofs all the time.
They can stay in their own section.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 4:05pm:

Why can't Ozpolitics have a member run thread called bum chums?

All the poofs could go there & stop invading the other threads.

How can you tell who has a different sexual preference from you?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 4:40pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 4:05pm:

Why can't Ozpolitics have a member run thread called bum chums?

All the poofs could go there & stop invading the other threads.

How can you tell who has a different sexual preference from you?

SOB

After a while you get to know. e.g.
It's obvious that people like Karnal are gay -
just read the sick stuff they write.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 4:45pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 4:40pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 4:05pm:

Why can't Ozpolitics have a member run thread called bum chums?

All the poofs could go there & stop invading the other threads.

How can you tell who has a different sexual preference from you?

SOB

After a while you get to know. e.g.
It's obvious that people like Karnal are gay -
just read the sick stuff they write.

"People like Karnal" okay. I did a search on Karnal after reading this and i see a lot of ppl calling him gay but i dont see him saying anything gay himself. Not that it matters really but i dont see how it has anything to do with posting in a forum. Unless you are posting about equality.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 4:52pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 4:45pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 4:40pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 4:05pm:

Why can't Ozpolitics have a member run thread called bum chums?

All the poofs could go there & stop invading the other threads.

How can you tell who has a different sexual preference from you?

SOB

After a while you get to know. e.g.
It's obvious that people like Karnal are gay -
just read the sick stuff they write.

Have another read.

See how one of my threads was invaded by Karnal:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1333109832/15#15

Bobby. wrote on Apr 16^th, 2012 at 4:15pm:

See how one of my threads was invaded by Karnal:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1333109832/15#15

Lol. He is just trolling. And he is calling you gay as well as himself. Trying to shock,

SOB

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7lfnq_seventh-sense_fun

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7lfnq_seventh-sense_fun

homosexuality is pretty gay

You know what's gay?

People who "experiment" with hommersex, but then claim they're not really gay.

Ummm yes, I'm afraid you are.

... wrote on Apr 17^th, 2012 at 3:59pm:

You know what's gay?

People who "experiment" with hommersex, but then claim they're not really gay.

Ummm yes, I'm afraid you are.

Yuck

Bobby. wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 4:45pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 4:40pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 4:05pm:

Why can't Ozpolitics have a member run thread called bum chums?

All the poofs could go there & stop invading the other threads.

How can you tell who has a different sexual preference from you?

SOB

After a while you get to know. e.g.
It's obvious that people like Karnal are gay -
just read the sick stuff they write.

Bobbie is definately bi-curious. He's admitted this a number of times.

I don't think it matters whether you admit being hommersex or not. It's the thought that counts.

You'll find someone nice eventually, Bobbie.

Mattyfisk wrote on Apr 18^th, 2012 at 1:32pm:

Don't worry about Karnal, bobby, he's just trying to make matty jealous by flirting with you. :)

Actually, Matty's looking for a plus-one for his appearance on Dancing With the Stars. It's an opportunity become the first same-sex couple on the program.

Any takers?

Sorry, any celebrity takers?

Mattyfisk wrote on Apr 18^th, 2012 at 1:32pm:

Stop playing with your trouser snake Karnal - you loser.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 19^th, 2012 at 12:36am:

Mattyfisk wrote on Apr 18^th, 2012 at 1:32pm:

Stop playing with your trouser snake Karnal - you loser.

Hey BOBBIE ever thought of turning the other cheek?

Bobbie's humour is getting camper every day.

Cheeky!

http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html

Quote:

When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite
Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.

Original Article or

A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai in Israel. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman ‘pronubus’ (a best man), overseeing a wedding. The pronubus is Christ. The married couple are both men.

Is the icon suggesting that a gay "wedding" is being sanctified by Christ himself? The idea seems shocking. But the full answer comes from other early Christian sources about the two men featured in the icon, St. Sergius and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who were Christian martyrs. These two officers in the Roman army incurred the anger of Emperor Maximian when they were exposed as ‘secret Christians’ by refusing to enter a pagan temple. Both were sent to Syria circa 303 CE where Bacchus is thought to have died while being flogged. Sergius survived torture but was later beheaded. Legend says that Bacchus appeared to the dying Sergius as an angel, telling him to be brave because they would soon be reunited in heaven.

While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early Christian church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly intimate. Severus, the Patriarch of Antioch (AD 512 - 518) explained that, "we should not separate in speech they [Sergius and Bacchus] who were joined in life". This is not a case of simple "adelphopoiia." In the definitive 10th century account of their lives, St. Sergius is openly celebrated as the "sweet companion and lover" of St. Bacchus. Sergius and Bacchus's close relationship has led many modern scholars to believe they were lovers. But the most compelling evidence for this view is that the oldest text of their martyrology, written in New Testament Greek describes them as "erastai,” or "lovers". In other words, they were a male homosexual couple. Their orientation and relationship was not only acknowledged, but it was fully accepted and celebrated by the early Christian church, which was far more tolerant than it is today.

Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual.

Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.

Such same gender Christian sanctified unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12thand/ early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (‘Geraldus Cambrensis’) recorded.

Same-sex unions in pre-modern Europe list in great detail some same gender ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century rite, "Order for Solemn Same-Sex Union", invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, and called on God to "vouchsafe unto these, Thy servants [N and N], the grace to love one another and to abide without hate and not be the cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God, and all Thy saints". The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded".

Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple lay their right hands on the Gospel while having a crucifix placed in their left hands. After kissing the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

Records of Christian same sex unions have been discovered in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, in Istanbul and in the Sinai, covering a thousand-years from the 8th to the 18th century.

The Dominican missionary and Prior, Jacques Goar (1601-1653), includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek Orthodox prayer books, “Euchologion Sive Rituale Graecorum Complectens Ritus Et Ordines Divinae Liturgiae” (Paris, 1667).

While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, homophobic writings didn’t appear in Western Europe until the late 14th century. Even then, church-consecrated same sex unions continued to take place.

At St. John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope's parish church) in 1578, as many as thirteen same-gender couples were joined during a high Mass and with the cooperation of the Vatican clergy, "taking communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together" according to a contemporary report. Another woman to woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century.

Prof. Boswell's academic study is so well researched and documented that it poses fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their own modern attitudes towards homosexuality.

For the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be cowardly and deceptive. The evidence convincingly shows that what the modern church claims has always been its unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is, in fact, nothing of the sort.

It proves that for the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom, from Ireland to Istanbul and even in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given love and committment to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honored and blessed, through the Eucharist in the name of, and in the presence of, Jesus Christ.

SOB

I'm sorry, but I only attract men.I have nothing against gay people, but I'm just totally opposite from them.

For some reason this thread died after i posted that article hahahahahahaha!

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 11^th, 2012 at 7:22am:

For some reason this thread died after i posted that article hahahahahahaha!

SOB

This thread is gay.

... wrote on Apr 17^th, 2012 at 3:59pm:

You know what's gay?

People who "experiment" with hommersex, but then claim they're not really gay.

Ummm yes, I'm afraid you are.

What about bisexuals honky is that another fancy name for poofter who does the occasional woman?

There is no such thing as bisexual, you either suck penis or you do not suck penis.

Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 11^th, 2012 at 2:31pm:

... wrote on Apr 17^th, 2012 at 3:59pm:

You know what's gay?

People who "experiment" with hommersex, but then claim they're not really gay.

Ummm yes, I'm afraid you are.

What about bisexuals honky is that another fancy name for poofter who does the occasional woman?

There is no such thing as bisexual, you either suck penis or you do not suck penis.

Bisexuals are those who fall in the mid section of the spectrum of gaynesstm

Not quite exclusively straight, not quite exclusively homo.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 11^th, 2012 at 7:22am:

For some reason this thread died after i posted that article hahahahahahaha!

SOB

Here is the opening statement of the essay;

Quote:

A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai in Israel. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman ‘pronubus’ (a best man), overseeing a wedding. The pronubus is Christ. The married couple are both men.

And here is the icon in question;

Anyone see and clear proof of a wedding happening here?

Most of the arguments for the church having always accepted homosexual marriage is much a long the same lines of many modern day conspiracies; "Just an ugly looking bloke with weird eyes like the government would want you to believe... Or a reptilian shape shifter from the planet nibiru who wants to enslave the world and eat your babies? You decide...". In other words, just a lot of "maybe", "possibly", "could be", "if you squint and look really closely", and not a lot of hard proof.

I expect the owners of the "art" from the monastery know what it is of. They have their records etc. Just because you dont know doesnt mean that nobody does.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 11^th, 2012 at 5:10pm:

I expect the owners of the "art" from the monastery know what it is of. They have their records etc. Just because you dont know doesnt mean that nobody does.

SOB

Firstly it is kept in Ukraine and not Egypt where the monastery is. The people of the monastery don't have it so would have little information on it. They have plenty of records in their library (worth visiting), but as the monastery wasn't built to after St Sergius and St Bacchus were already dead, it is unlikely they would have any information beyond the basic records.

Secondly, this icon didn't come to several hundred years after the two depicted were dead. So even the artist would have little knowledge.

Third, there no record attached to this being of a gay wedding. It is an assumption made by Josh Boswell, A Yale professor who happened to be homosexual. A gay professor living in the twentieth century has no more authority to look at this and see a gay wedding than anyone else. No one has claimed this to be a gay wedding until this gay professor came along.

Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl Member Run Boards >> Relationships >> Gayness http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1334282574 Message started by Spot of Borg on Apr 13^th, 2012 at 12:02pm