The Ethical Boundaries of the Gay Agenda: A New Millenium of Free Speech

Wasn't the country founded on blacks being 3/5 of a person? Do you have a problem with me because I don't want to conform to that?

You're full of shit and can't back any of that up.

She got canned because she voiced an opinion different from a militant faggot, period, and we're going to see that proven in court, and you WILL eat your fucking words you filthy liar.

__________________

Except for the minor fact that they kill gays there. I mean other then that, it would be ideal

That you don't notice your own hypocrisy is astounding.

Oh? Well instead of just throwing your turds to see what will stick, why don't point out exactly what the hell you're trying to say here punk... point out my hypocrisy.

__________________

Well, I can't deny that I'm predictable. You aren't the first person to tell me, and as much as I hate to admit (being an totally extreme mountain climber and doing the Dew, and all) you're right: I'm predictable.

However, I don't know what you mean about being on the flip side of that which I denigrate so much. Care to explain?

__________________
Faith is nothing more than the desire to believe.

If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.
-Rene Descartes

WRONG. Most of the founding fathers were either Deists or Masons. "Under God" was added to The Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, proposed by a Chicago-area chaplain, and championed by The Knights of Columbus. "In God we trust" was passed as an act of congress in 1956. So you see, NONE of this can be traced back to our founders. We were founded by a bunch of guys ,many of whom in today's terms would be called Atheists. Some believed in "God" but as a deity, not as Jesus Christ.

Well, I hope you're being sarcastic now cause I would hate to think that what I said actually hurt your feelings. You are being sarcastic, right?

__________________
Faith is nothing more than the desire to believe.

If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.
-Rene Descartes

Last time I checked, to 'love who you love' wasn't a right.

__________________

"All people, however fanatical they may be in their zeal to disparage and to fight capitalism, implicitly pay homage to it by passionately clamoring for the products it turns out." - Ludwig von Mises

How could something redundant be a right?

Well, I have two choices here, Colorado in your initial post on this thread. I can either reciprocate point by point or simply generalize. I appreciate your post by the way. I'll go with the generalization.

What you have failed to do here, is acknowledge the crux of the story. Acceptance is a very difficult issue when the belief system of people are being challenged to the point of extinction. Opinions are largely benign until it's met with unreasonable challenges of the moral integrity of that individual. Core values are part of the quality of life we are afforded especially something as fundamental as marriage. Something most of us are raised with and respect and have embraced as the core structure of traditional family life. While it's certainly not perfect, especially in this increasing secular society where everything goes, it still represents a foundation of structure which essentially demonstrates the values of the moral majority of this country.

Change should not mean the encroachment of the quality of life of any citizen in this country. Change should only accommodate basic discrimination and prejudices but marriage is not part of such a scenario. The discrimination of homosexuals, historically, in this country is indeed prejudicial. However, life choices of partners does not fit into the arena of changing the protocols of an institution whose most fundamental cannon is intended for the joint, legal union of a man and a woman, with the potential, if possible or if desired, of the procreation of children. Marriage does not require procreation, however any natural children deliberately conceived in a same sex marriage does not legally protect the child under such a law, nor the child's absentee natural parent whom, by whatever arrangement, was commissioned to conceived. If you legislate for the right to marry someone of the same sex, you must also account for the potential of that couple to conceive, no matter how small a percentage. So how would this be done? And what about the natural legacy of that child's outside natural parent? Neither the child nor this "third" entity have any rights in marriage. They still don't. Why did this couple get married? To create this entity in a child's life is completely compromising the rights of that child to be conceived and raised by a mother and a father. We do not own our children. By that's another story altogether. A huge story.

To begin with, Homosexuals in this country can be together as a couple, and raise children and they do. There are no laws against this. There are no issues of constitutional violation of human rights or civil rights. Marriage is not a civil right. It requires a license which, among other things requires that marriage is between a man and a woman. This
issue concerns circumventing the definition of marriage. It's not an issue of the prevention of an individual from joining an institution who is simply NOT qualified to do so.

Procreation is a human right. Being with whomever we please and raising a family is also a human right. However there are loose ends to the coupling of same sex genders even on a secular standpoint. The paternal legacy of that child is forever compromised for one. And this is not exclusive to homosexual couples with children. It's a phenomena in this country. The indiscrimate multiplicity of parents, having children through every imaginable dynamic. Children are conceived with complete disgard in this country. Married individuals having children outside the marriage. Teenagers packing together to bring children into this world. And a percentage of single parents raising their children which exceeds well over 50% in this country. There is no real political representation of children. Only when there is a marriage, and of course, that vow is as good as the total commitment by both parents too ensure that proper rightful representation.

You simply cannot legislate the right of marriage to same sex couples and not include the inherent right of any potentially conceived child to be raised by a man and a woman. To be raised by its natural parents. And again, there is the issue of that child's other natural parent who is not legally or ethically a part of that child's life by design, by choice.

In this country, we can do as we please, on such critical matters. But only one thing ensures the integrity of a viable family structure on every level. Traditional Marriage is an institution and as a core principled value for future generations as it has been for thousands of years. There are no loose ends as a matter of legitimacy. And this requires a sense of discipline and choice to not further perpetuate an increasing dilemma of dyfunctional lifestyles which have outlived itself in terms of self-gratification.

Anne Marie

Well, I can't say that I like thinking about other people's sex acts at all, not just homosexuals but my parents, grandparents, my obese neighbors, etc. I also don't like brussell sprouts, but I don't deem those who do as sick. And I also don't think its any of my business. I also don't consider homosexuality as sick, vile, or perverted. I couldn't say that all homosexuals and those who support same-sex marriage aren't bigots, but I would say that most attempt NOT to be hypocritical and try to be good people, just like anyone else.

I think demonizing homosexuals is just as wrong as demonizing anyone.

__________________
Faith is nothing more than the desire to believe.

If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.
-Rene Descartes

So, in other words, freedom of religion but only at the behest of the Christian government?

__________________
Faith is nothing more than the desire to believe.

If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.
-Rene Descartes

That's what I thought... accuse me of being hypocritical and then make a run for it because you're just spewing your usual line of SHIT. You're a liar and a fraud dick, I mean nik. You're so easy to shoot out of the water it's not funny. You're just a simpleton.

__________________

OMFG you are SOO full of shit!!

Judeo-Christian Values in America have a basis in the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..."

Here, do you know how to fucking read?...

American Thinker: Judeo-Christian Values

Doesn't sound Atheist to me. Get your facts right moron...

Anyway, lets stick to the thread, aye.... Quit derailing the conversation with your gas...