Gods image.

[chesters1]

Of course the other item linked, expression now commonly used is 'my partner', who invented that.

 

i hate that term especially as i'm married ,its simple enough to call them husband or wife even if not married common law persons are equal but partner

[corydoras]

plenty of gay actions but perhaps not gay ,our "pet" cows go through the motions (its called bulling and very common) and fish act like the opposite sex if theres no opposite sex but "gay" as in really gay would be hard to prove i would think

apes are also strange they mate with everything even their own kids its a "bonding" process (dont think it would stand up in human courts if we reacted our nearest relations actions )

It's also to reinforce dominance after competition. Could you imagine this in the Olympics Silver medallist buggers the bronze medallist and the gold medallist gets a to bugger the other two?

[Emma two]

I am sorry but I fail to see the reasoning in that. It has very little to do with culture, the natural route designed by nature is man and woman, not man and man or woman and woman.

 

There is very little in life which is NOT to do with culture, for example how the British attitude towards fishing varies when compared to other countries cultures. Despite legislation our culture is still prohibitive and restricting in it's attitudes towards same sex relationships when compared with other quite different societies like traditional Japanese, Polynesian, Siberian and many Native American groups who didn't exhibit the same type of insecurities as ours does.

 

As Snakey seems to have pointed out (I havn't followed the link yet), same sex behaviour occurs in other species, and humans dont choose to be gay, in the same way as we choose our job, cars, hobbies etc, they just 'are', therefore by definition it is 'natural'.

 

Gay insecurities keep getting mentioned, I belive overstated. Look at the way this thread has developed. I'm not sure how 'gay' came into it in the first place, perhaps I mentioned it in response to christian attitudes. We have talked about it alot, someone has accused me of 'ramming my opinions down their throat, which was a predictable response which is almost a cliché and is meaningless and irritating. However my posts have simply been responses questions posed by others. I would have stopped way back, and it leaves me wondering who is the more insecure?

[Emma two]

if not married common law persons are equal but partner

 

 

'Common Law' is a myth....

 

'One in six couples in Britain live together without getting married.

Many are in long term relationships and might describe their other half as a partner or a common-law husband or wife.

 

But, legally there is no such thing as a common law relationship,

 

And many couples are living in blissful ignorance of how few rights they have over property, inheritance and children, when relationships break down or partners die. '

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/breakfast/3894353.stm

 

This is why the civil partnership law was so important to same sex couples, significantly to protect property and assets. They are likley to use the term 'partner' because 'husband / wife' is often seen as inappropriate or even silly, some may use it in a 'fun' way in some situations, however the notion that one partner takes the 'man' role and the other the 'wife' is rarely the case.

Edited October 23, 2008 by Emma two

[barry luxton]

However my posts have simply been responses questions posed by others. I would have stopped way back, and it leaves me wondering who is the more insecure?

 

Don't suppose i fit into that as i have been sterotyped in a cereal box as i have 28 years served, still better than being called po@f i suppose.

[chesters1]

'Common Law' is a myth....

 

'One in six couples in Britain live together without getting married.

Many are in long term relationships and might describe their other half as a partner or a common-law husband or wife.

 

But, legally there is no such thing as a common law relationship,

 

And many couples are living in blissful ignorance of how few rights they have over property, inheritance and children, when relationships break down or partners die. '

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/breakfast/3894353.stm

 

This is why the civil partnership law was so important to same sex couples, significantly to protect property and assets. They are likley to use the term 'partner' because 'husband / wife' is often seen as inappropriate or even silly, some may use it in a 'fun' way in some situations, however the notion that one partner takes the 'man' role and the other the 'wife' is rarely the case.

i said it was common law to call your unmarried other half a wife or hubby i didnt say the rights a married couple come with it ,hence people still marry

calling someone a partner gets no more rights than calling them wife or hubby if their not married so why not wife or hubby?

keep partner for our same sex couples its more suited ,going by some lesbian couples i have seen one definitely (by manner and dress) seems to be the hubby and in one case fishing at the pond the male "she" probably has more male hormones than i

Edited October 22, 2008 by chesters1

[Emma two]

Don't suppose i fit into that as i have been sterotyped in a cereal box as i have 28 years served, still better than being called po@f i suppose.

 

Well you volunteered to self identify as such when I introduced the term, and I certainly don't see it as a negative thing, just pointed out that it isn't always the wonderful thing it's cracked out to be.

 

Our next anniversary is our 34th.

Edited October 22, 2008 by Emma two

[chesters1]

partner (i really hate that word) should be kept for solicitors or estate agents it suggests to me a working relationship rather than a living one.

my son uses the word describing his err girlfriend i would just say mrs if i were describing her ,i dont regard being married gives you the monopoly use of the terms hubby or wife etc.

Edited October 22, 2008 by chesters1

[The Flying Tench]

That's why I'll 'have a go' at the nice Christians like Flying Tench about the antics of the mad fundies in the states, because they, mostly unwittingly give succour to the crazies by not shouting them down at every opportunity.

 

For example there are scores of children in the US who die every year because there parents refuse to take them to a doctor or hospital when the prayers don't work, and the child dies. Usually the child has a horrible death, from an eminently curable condition. To make matters worse a lot of US states have laws that give parents immunity from prosecution under these circumstances. This just breaks my heart, the fact that the child lived 6,000 miles from me does not make me feel any less bitter.

 

When you explain this to people like Mr Tench they say 'I didn't know about that' or ''That is indeed worrying', but I don't see them take on their own kind and tell them that they are wrong, they just look the other way or mutter something about 'The lord having mysterious ways'?

 

Can you clarify what you mean by 'shouting them down'? How would you go about it in my shoes?

 

Secondly, I'm puzzled to hear there are christians in USA who won't take their children to the doc. Are you sure you are not referring to the Jehovah's Witnesses? Even if you are correct, I am not clear what I am meant to do about it! And, having travelled a bit round USA churches, and found them perfectly reasonable people (!), I suspect the sect you refer to are a very small minority - and I certainly think there should be laws to protect the child's right to treatment.

 

Third, the group we do have a few of in UK are the creationists. I don't see them as a huge problem in the way you do. Actually, many people (not just christians) disbelieve in evolution just because they can't see how it works, so it's not surprising some church people share these views. I see creationists as a problem as they put some scientific types off christianity - but I would have thought you might think that is a good thing! Having said that, many of the people who are put off haven't heard it from creationists. I was talking to someone with a PhD in, I think, biochemistry a year or two back and she said 'You see, it is hard for me to believe, I am a scientist.' I asked her what she meant - and it turned out she thought that to be a christian you had to believe in a literal Adam and Eve. No creationist had got at her, it was just that her last contact with the church had been Sunday School at, I would guess, about 7 years old.

 

I think that one or two people in my congregation are creationists, and naturally I need to treat them with respect because the have read books and come to those conclusions. But, as I have said, I will be preaching a sermon in a few weeks on the topic, and will have discussion afterwards, and will do my best to convince them of theistic evolution. If I tried to 'shout them down' as you suggest I don't think it would convince them any more than if they tried that tactic on me!

[Peter Sharpe]

Regarding the question asking what will humans eventually look like, my answer is simply, "Who cares?".

 

As to the supposition that a god must have created the universe out of absolutely nothing - why?

 

That is making the assumption that everything has to have a beginning and an end, because that is all our experience has allowed our brains to understand. What if everything really is infinite or else repeats infinitely with no boundaries? Just because our brains aren't capable of grasping that concept, it doesn't mean that it isn't possible. To state otherwise is simply an example of either the ignorance or the arrogance of the human species. Some people refuse to acknowledge the possibility that the laws of nature don't conform to the ways in which the human brain can interpret them, so they have to fill the hole in their understanding with something called God.

 

The human brain is an extremely primitive organ. Live with it.