Member since Aug 11, 2012



  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Recent Comments

Re: “City governments threaten freedom of speech by blocking fast-food chain

FCB, I am sorry to see you feel this way. I disagree. I will continue my research. Thank you.

0 of 2 people like this.
Posted by Delta8 on August 11, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Re: “City governments threaten freedom of speech by blocking fast-food chain

For the record, I have been on the fence about gay marriage. Legally I think that if two people are going to live their lives with such a commitment that they consider themselves to belong to each other exclusively, then they should be allowed to have the legal benefits of taxes, property, medical coverage and the right to make legal decisions for each other such as estate and medical decisions like many married couples currently receive. I think it is inhumane to deny a dying gay person access to his/her partner simply bc they do not have a conventional relationship. It is not kind and it is not caring. It is legal red tape that needs to be done away with.

I do however have a challenging time being okay with the concept of "gay marriage" as a term. Since the beginning of time marriage has been known as between one man and one woman and it has furthered the human race. (Let's face it, there is no perpetuation of the race without the egg AND the sperm as well as an oven to incubate.) Since biology does not favor a same sex union I think it's pretty clear that it is incompatible with marriage. For this reason I wish that another term would be used to describe same sex unions. Marriage is a term that describes a union as I mentioned above and it has its roots in scripture from beginning to end as a picture of God and His relationship to mankind. It is meant as a holy thing to honor God. Since most homosexuals do not acknowledge God at all in their lives I would think that if they saw this connection to God in the concept of marriage they would want to distance themselves from it at all costs. So under that line of thinking why not use the term "civil union" or "domestic union"? It would capture the essence of the relationship and how the same sex couple lives their life without equating the spiritual side of conventional marriage to that of same sex couples, would it not?

Bottom line for me: legal equality, fine; spiritual equality, not okay. It seems impossible to remove the term "marriage" from its biblical or otherwise religious roots, thus it should be given respect as the holy thing that it is.

1 of 3 people like this.
Posted by Delta8 on August 11, 2012 at 7:44 PM

Re: “City governments threaten freedom of speech by blocking fast-food chain

Couldn't agree more with the author of this article.

As for Clarkie's comments, I have several thoughts. The first is what if Clarkie is right and all those scriptures are true? FCB can choose to believe they are all myth like one of my favorite characters Dr. Temperance Brennan on Bones. If one chooses to believe they are all myth and when they die come to find they are all true, wouldn't that be a rather large and irrevocable mistake? From what I have studied, the answer is yes it would.

The other question I have is how/why those who do not share such views can only read them as angry and hatefilled messages. I see no curse words, name calling, phrases in caps or excessive exclamation marks. I read the message Clarkie is sharing as one of a great warning. One not said with any amount of glee or joyfulness at the prospect of one's eternal demise. It might me compared to one person warning another of eminent danger such as a coming tornado, fire, or other hazardous condition. Many might call that a loving and caring act. While I personally would not be thrilled at a coming danger that ruins everything I know as my normal life, I would much rather heed a warning and at least have the chance to rebuild my life than lose it entirely. I think this is the most accurate metaphor I can find.

Thirdly, no one is saying that FCB or any other absolutely must conform to Clarkie's views or beliefs. This is a free country where we all have the right to believe and express what we feel without fear of persecution. I think if the LGBT community wants their right to express their opinions and not be vilified for it that it's only fair they not vilify those with opposing views. A more civil stance would be, 'Hey, I really disagree with you and here's why, but I'll respect your right to your opinion if you can respect me & mine.' I see such a stance from Clarkie. I do not see such a stance from FCB who actually does resort to name calling, a rather childish tradition that furthers no cause. It seems that if the LGBT community wanted to get somewhere with real effectiveness they could start by not resorting to meaningless name calling. Thoughts?

3 of 6 people like this.
Posted by Delta8 on August 11, 2012 at 7:19 PM
Classified Listings

Powered by Foundation   © Copyright 2018, Charleston City Paper   RSS