Religion

[Goggs Mackay]

I think a large reason why many Paracast listeners are so loyal to the show is the one main difference between the Paracast and it's contemporaries i.e the fact that Gene, David and Chris did and do not give guests 'a free pass' as Gene once put it. Unlike Coast to Coast, where anyone can pretty much talk about anything, however 'far out' it may be, without fear of being held to task on the facts. I love the fact the Paracast hosts ask why we should believe anything a guest says. Hearsay maybe all someone has and it may even be based on fact. But, for those of us really wanting to get to the truth we want to hear facts. We want to hear how information is obtained and exactly what led a guest to come to the conclusions that they report on the show. It is not enough for them to just say, 'well that's just what I think is all'.
No. We demand a bit more of the guests on this show and it is for that reason many would-be guests run a mile rather than come on the show.
Well, here is a point about the show that I don't get, even though I realise it can be the greatest of any poisoned chalice.
Religion, religion, religion.
I am aware the purpose of the show is not to debate religion and certainly in the U.S it can be a very divisive issue, more so than it is for us in the U.K.
What bothers me is that a guest can mention something quite 'out there' and quite rightly, one of the hosts will jump on that and ask what is the reason for said belief and what are the provable facts? We do not want people to just come on the show and spout what they believe without giving some decent reasons for that belief.
BUT, and it is a big but, I have heard a few guests over the years mention that they are of one religion or other, and I don't discriminate, but I never hear the hosts asking them why they believe what they do in religious terms. Lets face it, every holy book has some pretty far out stuff in it, the very type of stuff that if a child made up, it would be admonished by it's parents for being silly? -my family are christians, some being quite strict in always saying grace before a meal, attending church very regularly and even not watching TV on a sunday, or even going to a shop etc- I do not agree with my elders views on religion one bit and I often talk to them about WHY they believe what they do. For me, it is not enough to just say that that was they way you were brought up, as if no-one decides to think for themselves but just blindly follow those before them.
I do not want people to feel they cannot announce they are of a certain religion, everyone should be free to believe what they want. However, if they want to be taken seriously on paranormal topics, in which I believe the maxim 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence', then I think we should ask people about all their beliefs. I really want to know if someone completely dismisses evolution and thinks the age of the earth can be calculated by adding up the ages of those mentioned in the old testament etc. I am not making fun of religious people but because of the ideas and claims I've found to be pretty universal in most religions, I want to hear why people are willing to believe certain things based solely on faith but at the same time demanding evidence of others when it comes to all sorts of paranormal topics.
I am sort of guessing that if I get a reply from either host on this post it will be along the lines of 'we would be opening up a can of worms we could not devote enough time to without turning into a religious debate show'. Maybe I should not presume to know what Gene and Chris think about this question but I don't think it is too often that a guest reveals they are religious and that is why I don't think the show would get bogged down on theological debate.
I would simply ask that when a guest is presenting evidence without facts or is being down on someone else due to that person not having facts to back up their claims, then that guest should be held to the same standard. It is precisely because one could argue that the paranormal and religion have so much in common that we MUST treat belief in either the same way.
I am asking just that religious belief not be given a 'free pass'.
Thoughts anyone?

 

[Voyager]

Religion comes in where man's understanding fails. I used to enjoy listening to Art Bell. He was funny, but some of the guests he had were over the top. He usually would let them ramble on, much as c2c does now. Richard Hoagland, Ed Dames, Bob Lazar, etc. Art Bell forbid callers from reciting scripture. He had many religious fanatics calling the show.

 

[jpw.in.wi]

I'm all for serious discussions of religion with guests, but I think that's really outside of the mission of this show.

I would like to say, though, that one thing that has urcked me in the past is the quick and condescending ways in which certain religions have been dismissed on the show. In particular, Chris really burned me on one occasion when all he had to say about Pope Benedict XVI was that he was one of the most evil looking men he'd ever seen. Really? Can you get more mean-spirited and superficial than that?

 

[Voyager]

I must concur with Chris. He does look evil. Considering the history of the Vatican; I find it hard to believe they have become spiritually enlightened. Ask the Pope why they won't let the public have access to the vast library of knowledge they have kept secret for centuries.

 

[mike]

Nah hes just a heavy metal fan.............

"Its a long way to the shop, if you wanna sausage rollllllllll"

 

[Voyager]

Nah hes just a heavy metal fan.............

"Its a long way to the shop, if you wanna sausage rollllllllll"

I could tell you an amusing story about a Catholic priest. Nothing to do with molestation. I don't think the staff would appreciate it. He did possess a brick. This brick was from Lebanon. Some Lebanese are blonde. He also had a weed. The first name of the weed, was Spice.

 

[jpw.in.wi]

This is exactly what I mean. It's the direction things always seem to go in here. Can someone quote something Benedict XVI has actually said or written or taught that is "evil"?

I mean, if we're going to begin and end our judgements of people at the level of how physically attractive we judge them to be, we are all in trouble, because we're ALL going to be old, saggy, wrinkly, and ugly some day.

As for the Vatican's "secret" archives, any serious scholar from anywhere in the world can have access to it. You just have to go through the proper channels to be granted that access. People have got to stop looking at the Church through Dan Brown-colored glasses.

I'm a practicing Catholic. Many years ago I went to seminary to discern whether or not I had a vocation to the priesthood, and I still maintain friendships with a few of the guys I studied with. I have a family member who is a member of the Catholic clergy, and he has connections to the very "highest" offices in the Vatican. So I like to think I have more of an insider's point of view on certain things, and because of this it gets very personal for me.

So again, I've all for SERIOUS and informed discussions of religion--and not just about the Catholic religion--but I have little hope for that actually happening. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[Voyager]

This is exactly what I mean. It's the direction things always seem to go in here. Can someone quote something Benedict XVI has actually said or written or taught that is "evil"?

I mean, if we're going to begin and end our judgements of people at the level of how physically attractive we judge them to be, we are all in trouble, because we're ALL going to be old, saggy, wrinkly, and ugly some day.

As for the Vatican's "secret" archives, any serious scholar from anywhere in the world can have access to it. You just have to go through the proper channels to be granted that access. People have got to stop looking at the Church through Dan Brown-colored glasses.

I'm a practicing Catholic. Many years ago I went to seminary to discern whether or not I had a vocation to the priesthood, and I still maintain friendships with a few of the guys I studied with. I have a family member who is a member of the Catholic clergy, and he has connections to the very "highest" offices in the Vatican. So I like to think I have more of an insider's point of view on certain things, and because of this it gets very personal for me.

So again, I've all for SERIOUS and informed discussions of religion--and not just about the Catholic religion--but I have little hope for that actually happening. I hope I'm wrong.

All religions are belief systems based on faith. Catholicism certainly does not have a monopoly on evil deeds justified in the name of religion.There are good and bad people in all walks of life. This is a free country (or used to be), you have the right to practice any faith you choose. Religion is an emotionally charged issue. I accept the fact that I don't fully understand the underlying reality of existence, and subscribe to no religion.

 

[Ezechiel]

I'm all for serious discussions of religion with guests, but I think that's really outside of the mission of this show.

I would like to say, though, that one thing that has urcked me in the past is the quick and condescending ways in which certain religions have been dismissed on the show. In particular, Chris really burned me on one occasion when all he had to say about Pope Benedict XVI was that he was one of the most evil looking men he'd ever seen. Really? Can you get more mean-spirited and superficial than that?

Gotta admit he's not too photogenic lol.

Beyond that, his latest message is clearly a condemnation of an important part of humanity. What will his verdict be when the underlying mechanics of homosexuality are finally fully understood by science. Will he recant his words the same way Gallileo was pardonned 300 years later...

Gay marriage is a threat to humanity, claims Pope
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2084696/Pope-Benedict-XVI-Gay-marriage-threat-humanity.html

Begs the question... what is the catholic sect leadership ? A bunch of men married to Jesus Christ ? Only the leaders can marry a man ?

Vow of celibacy... a front for hiding homosexuals ?
That sect is twisted beyond belief. The infestation by pedophiles who used their authority as a platform for abuses is well documented.

 

[Voyager]

Gotta admit he's not too photogenic lol.

Beyond that, his latest message is clearly a condemnation of an important part of humanity. What will his verdict be when the underlying mechanics of homosexuality are finally fully understood by science. Will he recant his words the same way Gallileo was pardonned 300 years later...

Gay marriage is a threat to humanity, claims Pope
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2084696/Pope-Benedict-XVI-Gay-marriage-threat-humanity.html

Begs the question... what is the catholic sect leadership ? A bunch of men married to Jesus Christ ? Only the leaders can marry a man ?

Vow of celibacy... a front for hiding homosexuals ?
That sect is twisted beyond belief. The infestation by pedophiles who used their authority as a platform for abuses is well documented.

Why did you have to go and plant that image in my mind. Reminds me of that movie: Planet of the Apes.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

I make no distinction between the major religions because at one time or another they pretty much have all been VERY NAUGHTY BOYS.
What I cannot abide is how in the Catholic Church, the Pope is seen as some sort of deity? I can pretty much guarrantee that the current pope, and most before him has had the same thoughts as the rest of us, good and bad. The difference in the past is that we know that the Church has done some heinous evil in the name of God. You cannot get any more hippocritical than that! Can you?
It is a business and a very succesful one at that.
But! If people really draw comfort from their religion I cannot argue with that. What I cannot abide though is when you are having a pretty sane discussion about anything and then some religious person then starts QUOTING SCRIPTURE LIKE IT IS PROVEN FACT!
I could just as rationally quote Bugs Bunny or Star Wars!!
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRGHH. Get me a stake and light it up - it's for me!
gordon

 

[pixelsmith]

I'm all for serious discussions of religion with guests, but I think that's really outside of the mission of this show.

I would like to say, though, that one thing that has urcked me in the past is the quick and condescending ways in which certain religions have been dismissed on the show. In particular, Chris really burned me on one occasion when all he had to say about Pope Benedict XVI was that he was one of the most evil looking men he'd ever seen. Really? Can you get more mean-spirited and superficial than that?

really? you think religion is outside of a paranormal type discussion? better think that one thru a little more.

 

[mike]

On the issue of gay marriage, if jack and jill 3 streets over want to get married, what do i care ?
It has nothing to do with me, why should i have a say in the matter.
Likewise if jenny and jane want to marry or ben and bob, Thats their business not mine.
Nor is it the church's business.
If two people choose to form a partnership then thats their business, and they should be free to do so, and have access to the same rights as anyone else.
At the end of the day its just skin, it comes in a variety of configurations, but the personality inside the skin is whats important, if two people make a connection what does skin config matter, be they black and white, asian and eskimo ,male or female.

Should they be allowed to marry in a church ? no, any more than i should be allowed to take a pet pig into a mosque.
Clubs have rules and the members should abide by them

Likewise those clubs have no right to extend their rules to the greater population, its a matter of personal choice.
I cant go into my local country club wearing sandals and a singlet, If i want to enjoy a meal there i need to dress up, but neither does that club dictate what i can wear in my own backyard.

The popes opinions should be confined to those who subscribe to his club, and not society as a whole

The vatican is a religous theme park, a disneyland where they engage in anachronstic costume play, those who want to visit are free to do so. But for them to dictate policy would be akin to letting disneyland tell us we all have to wear mickey mouse ears.

Gay adoption...... i do have concerns about this issue, not because i think gay parents cant or dont do as good a job as traditional ones, but because the child has no choice.
Every other scenario involves the free choice of consenting adults, this one gets iffy because of that factor

 

[tyder001]

Gay adoption...... i do have concerns about this issue, not because i think gay parents cant or dont do as good a job as traditional ones, but because the child has no choice.

Mike, the child has no choice anyway. Believe me if a gay couple have a stable household and the means to raise a child it is far better than letting the state or the system knock it around for 18 years or so. I think gay people should have the right to marry (It's like the military, everybody should try it once.) But, the church has the right not to reconize it. Same way I look at abortion. Sue has the right to decide about her own body (but it's not a holy right of passage, it really is a life and death decsion.) But, Jane (espcially if has spiritual feelings about it, has the right not to have her tax dollars pay for it. Just common sense folks.

 

[mike]

Gay adoption...... i do have concerns about this issue, not because i think gay parents cant or dont do as good a job as traditional ones, but because the child has no choice.

Mike, the child has no choice anyway. Believe me if a gay couple have a stable household and the means to raise a child it is far better than letting the state or the system knock it around for 18 years or so. I think gay people should have the right to marry (It's like the military, everybody should try it once.) But, the church has the right not to reconize it. Same way I look at abortion. Sue has the right to decide about her own body (but it's not a holy right of passage, it really is a life and death decsion.) But, Jane (espcially if has spiritual feelings about it, has the right not to have her tax dollars pay for it. Just common sense folks.

On the issue of abortion and tax dollars, setting aside the moral questions and talking strictly fiscal. Whats better here, a few hundred tax dollars to prevent a child being born into abject poverty, or hundreds of thousands of dollars in welfare payments, to mother and unwanted child.

Thou shalt not kill is also a spiritual command Jane feels strongly about, but her tax dollars go towards the military and weapons programs.
Which is why we seperate church and state, The state needs to decide how best to spend tax, not Jane.

Here in Australia if you cant afford a medical procedure and you need it, the taxpayer will provide it, the same with dental, and accomodation/food etc.
Thus if a teenage schoolgirl gets pregnant and wants a TOP, as the procedure is called here its hers for the asking. She has the choice, she can leave school and go on welfare and raise the child if she wants to, but if she wants a TOP, all she has to do is tell the social worker assigned that she cant afford the child, and thats reason enough for approval.
The reality is if she decides to birth the child and live on welfare, not only will it cost "Jane" more in tax money, but statistically the child itself has a higher chance of being a welfare recipient in its life, i once heard a social security worker lament how the only thing some welfare recipients teach their children, is how to fill out a dole form when they become eligable.
Like wise Jane may object to drinking and smoking, but that doesnt mean she can veto the medical procedures of those who need them having chosen to do so.
Where do we draw the line between what a taxpayer does and doesnt agree to pay for ?
Add religious beliefs to that and it becomes unworkable, why should a muslim pay tax, so a welfare recipient can eat bacon for breakfast ?

The only solution is to seperate church and state, religious beliefs cannot be allowed to dictate policy

 

[mike]

Lets look at this from a different angle

Religious policy makers are only accountable to god/allah, not the people
below is a classic example

Raymond Ibrahim: New Saudi Fatwa Defends Pedophilia as ‘Marriage’

Muslim “child-marriage” — euphemism for pedophilia — is making headlines again, at least in Arabic media: Dr. Salih bin Fawzan, a prominent cleric and member of Saudi Arabia’s highest religious council, just issued a fatwa asserting that there is no minimum age for marriage, and that girls can be married “even if they are in the cradle.”
Appearing in Saudi papers on July 13, the fatwa complains that “Uninformed interference with Sharia rulings by the press and journalists is on the increase, posing dire consequences to society, including their interference with the question of marriage to small girls who have not reached maturity, and their demand that a minimum age be set for girls to marry.”
Fawzan insists that nowhere does Sharia set an age limit for marrying girls: like countless Muslim scholars before him, he relies on Koran 65:4, which discusses marriage to females who have not yet begun menstruating (i.e., are prepubescent) and the fact that Muhammad, Islam’s role model, married Aisha when she was 6 years old, “consummating” the marriage — or, in modern parlance, raping her — when she was 9.
The point of the Saudi fatwa, however, is not that girls as young as 9 can have sex, based on Muhammad’s example, but rather that there is no age limit whatsoever; the only question open to consideration is whether the girl is physically capable of handling her husband/rapist. Fawzan documents this point by quoting Ibn Batal’s authoritative exegesis of Sahih Bukhari:

The ulema [Islam’s interpreters] have agreed that it is permissible for fathers to marry off their small daughters, even if they are in the cradle. But it is not permissible for their husbands to have sex with them unless they are capable of being placed beneath and bearing the weight of the men. And their capability in this regard varies based on their nature and capacity. Aisha was 6 when she married the prophet, but he had sex with her when she was 9 [i.e., when she was deemed capable].​

Fawzan concludes his fatwa with a warning: “It behooves those who call for setting a minimum age for marriage to fear Allah and not contradict his Sharia, or try to legislate things Allah did not permit. For laws are Allah’s province; and legislation is his excusive right, to be shared by none other. And among these are the rules governing marriage.”
Fawzan, of course, is not the first to insist on the legitimacy of pedophilia in Islam. Even the former grand mufti of Saudi Arabia supported “child-marriage,” since “the Koran and Sunna document it.”
Nor is this just some theoretical, theological point; the lives of many young girls are being destroyed because of this ruling. Recall, for instance, the 13-year-old girl who died while her much older husband was copulating with her (it was later revealed that, due to her reluctance, he was tying her up and “raping” her — as if there were another way to describe sex with children); or the 12-year-old who died giving birth to a stillborn; or the 10-year-old who made headlines by hiding out from her 80-year-old “husband.”
Then there are the countless anonymous girls who do nothing to warrant any media attention — such as die — and have learned to live with their elderly husbands pawing at them, like, no doubt, the girl who married Islam’s most popular cleric, Yusuf Qaradawi, when she was 14.
What do we make of the fact that it is always Islam’s religious, authoritative voices — not aberrant voices, not “terrorists,” “extremists,” or any other euphemism coined for the occasion — that are constantly demonstrating Sharia’s savageries? Weeks before this fatwa, a female politician and activist in Kuwait called for institutionalizing sex-slavery (recommending that Muslims buy and sell female Russian captives from the Chechnya war); a popular Egyptian preacher not only said the same thing, but added that the solution to Islam’s poverty is to go on jihad and plunder the lives and possessions of infidels.
Sounds odd? Perhaps; but it is perfectly consistent. After all, distilled and in the eyes of the non-believer, Sharia law is nothing less than a legal system built atop the words and deeds of a 7th century Arab, whose behavior — from pedophilia and sex-slavery to war mongering and plundering — was very much that of a 7th century Arab. Having enticed or enslaved his contemporaries into following him, his teachings continue to entice and enslave their descendants; and, now as then, it is always the innocent who suffer.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/07/r...udi-fatwa-defends-pedophilia-as-marriage.html

to fear Allah and not contradict his Sharia, or try to legislate things Allah did not permit. For laws are Allah’s province; and legislation is his excusive right, to be shared by none other

Sharia law is nothing less than a legal system built atop the words and deeds of a 7th century Arab, whose behavior — from pedophilia and sex-slavery to war mongering and plundering — was very much that of a 7th century Arab.

Is abrahamic law any less outdated ?

The law must be modern and up to date, it should be a reflection of contempory values, not those of a society/s long ago turned to dust

The ulema [Islam’s interpreters], are not accountable to the people, the will of the people is sublimated by the will of the gods..........

Should our laws be the province of the god/s or us ?

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Nothing is more full of the paranormal than the basis of most religions. This is why I think when the Paracast interviews someone on a paranormal topic, and it comes out in the discussion that the interviewee is religious then I believe they become fair game to be asked on what basis do they believe these blatantly paranormal things in the holy books.
We should not give anyone a 'pass' on any out of the ordinary belief. I am not suggesting belittling people or calling them wrong, simply expect the same burden of proof to be sought as we do for anyone who sees a UFO or claims abduction etc.
I think Christian religions, at least in the holy books are no better or no worse than the Koran, however it is the interpretation and implementation of the Koran in some countries that seems to me to be more questionable than say, a mainly Christian state/country.
gordon

 

[tyder001]

I think if somebody comes on the show and says something like "I believe u.f.o.'s are demonic because I'm a born again Christian. Then yes, their religion is fair game. But, if they say I don't believe in u.f.o.'s in general because I just don't think they could travel across space/time then no their religion has nothing to do with it. Actually, I have found that most religious people are quite willing to engage on the issue and don't shirk or make their faith off limits. There was a guest on the paracast named L.A. Marzulli (someone feel free to correct my spelling of that name) Anyway, he had very strong fundi religious beliefs. The host were very respectful but did not give him a free pass on his religion. So, it can be done without a lot of name calling and hysteria. Gene, for one does an excellent job of keeping personal stuff at a good level during an interview. Chris has been rudely attacked himself a time or two for just daring to think outside the box. So, I think the host here do a good job of walking the line between letting a guest tell his/her story and demanding accountablity. Some here would not be happy unless this was called the "Skepticcast" Others would love it to be "Ufocast" all the time. So, all in all I haven't seen a real problem on this show with religious or other beliefs being held accountable. Oh, and I still think some of the anti religion hysteria on this thread is hysterical. But, that's a different discussion altogether.

 

[jpw.in.wi]

Gotta admit he's not too photogenic lol.

... his latest message is clearly a condemnation of an important part of humanity. What will his verdict be when the underlying mechanics of homosexuality are finally fully understood by science. Will he recant his words the same way Gallileo was pardonned 300 years later...

Gay marriage is a threat to humanity, claims Pope
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2084696/Pope-Benedict-XVI-Gay-marriage-threat-humanity.html

Begs the question... what is the catholic sect leadership ? A bunch of men married to Jesus Christ ? Only the leaders can marry a man ?

Vow of celibacy... a front for hiding homosexuals ?
That sect is twisted beyond belief. The infestation by pedophiles who used their authority as a platform for abuses is well documented.

Here's where someone can prove me wrong that a serious discussion of religion can actually be had in these forums.

The Church always has REASONS why it judges a thought, an action, or the absence of an action to be morally right or wrong. So, instead of insulting the Pope's appearance, or accusing the Church of being a front for homosexual pedophiles, or mindlessly citing the Galileo affair absent any context, or generally indicting current Church leaders for the obvious wrongdoings of other Church leaders who lived centuries ago, can somebody please take just one of the REASONS why the Church judges homosexual marriage to be wrong and refute that point? Seriously?

I love the programs Gene and Chris produce, trying to unravel Earth mysteries--ghosts, UFOs, cryptozoology, Men-in-Black, inter-dimensional interactions, etc.--by dialoguing with clearheaded, grounded paranormal researchers. I really don't think The Paracast should get itself involved in dense examinations of theology and world religions. I think that sort of thing needs to be done right or not at all, and Paracast listeners would just not tolerate it. I want them to stay on the air!

 

[mike]

Perhaps you could tell us the REASONS why the Church judges homosexual marriage to be wrong .

Why is it wrong ?

[Some background: I'm a man, ive been married to a woman for 26 years, i find the sight of two women kissing a bit of a turn on, the sight of two men kissing a bit yucky.
I dont know why this is, it might be genetic or social , i dont know. But regardless i recognise thats not a valid basis for me to say gay people should'nt have the same rights, the same priviledges and obligations as anyone else who wants to form a partnership. Its not my business, any more than my sexual orientation is anyone elses]

If your answer is going to be because the bible says so......... then i am going to quote the same source as it supports and gives specific instructions for slavery.
Whats written in some book is not justification to impose your morals on someone else.
You want to be a member of that club, thats fine you obey its rules, but you cannot force or impose those rules on anyone else but yourself. PERIOD

Its just skin, i get that one can have a visceral reaction to seeing two chaps in chaps kissing etc, the same way some people used to have a visceral reaction to seeing a black man and a white woman kissing.
But that is not in of itself a justification to impose that reaction and subsequent restrictions on them.

Marriage between a black man and a white woman, two men, two women, or a man and a woman is all the same to me, the configuration of the skin they wear is irrelevant.
If they choose each other, that connection has nothing to do with the skin each entity wears, and everything to do with the person inside.

For the church the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman, and i agree they should not be forced to perform gay marriages. I can respect its right to choose not to.
But nor should it, imo be allowed to dictate to those who do not subscribe to its ruleset, how they should live. (any more than a catholic should be forced to abide by a muslim ruleset, or a hindu one)

The "god says so" mantra has been used to justify so many atrocities its obscene.
There is no proof he/she/it said any such thing, let alone that they exist at all.
By all means if such things resonate with you, live by those rules. but the church has no business imposing these rules on anyone other than those who choose to subscribe to them.

Imo the only real test thats applicable in formulating our social covenants, is does this or can this hurt someone else. murder, rape, theft, drink driving... etc etc.
Being offended either personally or on behalf of a god, is not reason enough. Vegetarians are offended by meat eating, do we close Mcdonalds ?. Animal cruelty issues aside if someone wants to eat meat thats their business, it may offend Vegetarians, but it doesnt directly harm them. being offended by a behaviour is not grounds to ban it.
In the Hindu faith there are REASONS why the religion judges eating meat to be wrong .......
Should that morality be imposed on you the same way the catholic church seeks to impose its morality on homosexuals ?

As i said before if jack and jill want to get married, whats that to me ?. likewise if jack and john want to marry........ its their business, not mine