--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "John" <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > To All: > > > > The vedic scriptures allow marriage to a tree... > > Gives whole new meaning to the term "sporting wood." > http://users.lmi.net/sonyarap/arborerecta/arborimages/mantree.jpeg > > > ..., a clay pot, and even allow marriage > > by abduction, as Krishna did. However, the scriptures > > do not recognize any marriages between human couples of the same > > sex. The rationale behind these injunctions is that marriage is > > for the procreation of children. > > Yup, you're sure gonna procreate a flock of > young'uns by marrying a tree or a clay pot. :-)
Barry, it should be explained that marriage to a tree or a clay pot is method devised by the rishis to avoid divorces or failed marriages. By analyzing a person's jyotish chart, the jyotishi or astrologer can determine whether the person will have a successful marriage. If not, the person is advised to marry a tree or a clay pot in order to cleanse away the marriage affliction, technically called Kujadosha (Mars affliction). After this ritual, then the person can safely marry the woman or man who is intended for marriage. > > There's a story in Shrimad Bhagavatam, also, which states that > > Indra, the king of the demigods and the senses, have been known > > to put on a ruse as a guru and rishi to confuse the people in > > the world. He does this to make sure that human beings do not > > get far advanced in their understanding of reality and to ensure > > his power as the king of the demigods. Thus, we see many false > > prophets and wise men who proclaim to have the path to Reality. > > > > In this regard, it is possible that the California judges who > > allowed gay marriages in the state may have been influenced by > > the subtle reasonings of Indra, the king of the senses. > > Ok, since the subject has come up lately, > what IS it with homophobia in human beings? > And with their tendency to justify that > homophobia with their "scriptures?" There are reasons why the prophets from the Bible and Vedas have written their opinions about sexual relations and marriage. IMO, one of the reasons was to ensure the continuation of the human race. We as humans of today who are searching for the right path should consider their advice. > I mean, what is the difference between some > guy in our time who is terrified that one day > he'll spring a woodie in the locker room while > eyeing his tennis partner's bum, and the > authors of the so-called "scriptures," who > were probably similarly terrified of the same > thing happening to them as they bathed with > other devotees in the Ganges? This may have happened, but it may not be right. MMY has coined the phrase "mistake of the intellect". This phrase appears to be applicable in this case. > Gay marriage REALLY seems to push the homo- > phobes' buttons. Me, I'm kinda for it. My ex- > girlfriend had a relative who was gay, who died > last year. He had been effectively married to > his partner for OVER 35 YEARS! They were both > bankers and pillars of their community and > respected and loved by one and all, straight > or gay. And they were clearly *in love*, enough > to stay with each other through thick and thin > for longer than most of the people here have > been meditating. > > How many straight marriages do you know of > that have lasted that long? Be honest now. Their partnership is remarkable to have lasted that long. No doubt about that. > And yet the homophobes point to their Bibles > and their "scriptures" and make grunting noises > about how God -- the *same* God that they often > define as "God is love" -- hates gays, and hates > gay marriage even more. > > WTF? This is one of the reasons why the gay Episcopal bishop (Eugene Robertson) is creating such an uproar in the Anglican community. Because of his sexual preference, the Anglican community is in the verge of a schism. > Who ARE these terrified little pissants that > they presume to tell others that they aren't > allowed to commit their lives to another person, > just because that person has the same convex > or concave configuration that they do? Your asking a very difficult question. People are still trying to find the right answer. That's the reason why its creating a divide in all countries of the world. > John shoots *himself* in his homophobic foot > above by saying that the very "scriptures" he > cites as authorities against gay marriage > allow marriage to trees and clay pots. Presum- > ably John would have *no problem* with a guy > taking his clay pot wife out to dinner, or > with a guy humping his oaken wife in a public > park. After all, the "scriptures" say it's Ok, > so it IS Ok. I've explained the reason for the apparent disconnect in reasoning as shown above. > I think it's appropriate to cite a few quotes > by that great bugger Oscar Wilde on the sub- > ject of love, marriage, and other such follies. > He was the master of the epigram and the devas- > tating one-liner, and I suspect that his...uh... > quill is still as sharp today when it comes to > puncturing the pompous as it was when he was > alive: > > "A man who moralises is usually a hypocrite, and a woman > who moralises is invariably plain." > > "Morality is simply the attitude we adopt towards people > we personally dislike." > > "Wickedness is a myth invented by good people to account > for the curious attractiveness of others." > > "As a wicked man I am a complete failure. Why, there are > lots of people who say I have never really done anything > wrong in the whole course of my life. Of course they only > say it behind my back." > > "London is full of women who trust their husbands. One can > always recognise them. They look so thoroughly unhappy." > > "It is well for his peace that the saint goes to his > martyrdom. He is spared the sight of the horror of his > harvest." > > "The only difference between the saint and the sinner is > that every saint has a past, and every sinner has a future." > > "It is he who has broken the bond of marriage - not I. I only > break its bondage." > > "What a fuss people make about fidelity! Why, even in love > it is purely a question for physiology. It has nothing to > do with our own will. Young men want to be faithful, and > are not; old men want to be faithless, and cannot: that is > all one can say." > > "The amount of women in London who flirt with their own > husbands is perfectly scandalous. It looks so bad. It is > simply washing one's clean linen in public." > > "When one is in love, one always begins by deceiving one's > self, and one always ends by deceiving others. That is what > the world calls a romance." > > "There's nothing in the world like the devotion of a married > woman. It's a thing no married man knows anything about." > > "Twenty years of romance make a woman look like a ruin, but > twenty years of marriage make her something like a public > building." > > "Men marry because they are tired; women, because they are > curious; both are disappointed." > > "When a woman marries again it is because she detested her > first husband. When a man marries again it is because he > adored his first wife. Women try their luck; men risk theirs." > > "The only difference between a caprice and a life-long > passion is that the caprice lasts a little longer." > > "What is said of a man is nothing. The point is, who says it." Oscar Wilde is a writer, but not necessarily a prophet who is giving moral guidance. Admittedly, this issue is very contentious and our coverage here is not going to solve it overnight. It's an ongoing dialogue. As of now, some segments of the California electorate are trying to initiate a mandate for the next election in November to abolish gay marriages. So, stay tuned.
