Do you seriously believe

[del]

Since you are an advocate, I will answer you.

No, I don't. It's all the other shiteous talk that goes hand-in-hand with the objection. Read above (fudge packer, etc). The belief that somebody could choose to be gay, and by virtue of having chosen, they are viewed as less than. The fact that it is fine with them that my sister cannot marry. She is not entitled. She is not straight, therefore, she is not deserving. That they are to be identified by their sexual preference and automatically perceived as perverts ... there are just so many lies, and I grow weary of being accused of all manner of things because essentially? I love my sister.

Your sister can marry in exactly the same way you can. You cannot marry someone of the same sex any more than she can. In what way is the law being unfairly applied to her? If she tries to access the exact same marriage laws that everyone else uses, ie. marrying someone of the opposite sex, and is not allowed to because she is a lesbian, then you come talk to us.

No one is being "identified by their sexual preference" . . . aside from their obsessive need to identify THEMSELVES by it. I can't marry someone of the same sex any more than she can, and neither can anyone else of any sexual preference. No singling out necessary.

As to how people perceive them . . . well, here's where you finally get close to the REAL heart of the issue. What advocates of homosexual "marriage" REALLY want is to legislate other people's perceptions and opinions for them. They want everyone to think their behavior is perfectly normal, and they think that passing laws declaring it normal is the first step toward that. Only problem is, you can't legislate people's opinions, nor should you.

Personally, I get tired of being accused of all manner of things because you love your sister and somehow think that should affect how I view the world. I think we'd all appreciate it if you'd find some way a little less intrusive into other people's lives to work out your little personal family drama.

Do you want to marry a woman? No? Then your point is invalid. Here is a bunny with a pancake on its head.

are you sure that's not two pancakes?

 

[BDBoop]

I love altercating with those who served. Yes you served, I lose.

Semper Fi.

Thanks for the thanks.

Not all friends of gay marriage are on the left and not all foes are on the right.

It wasn't thanks, but I will say in all honesty?

Thank you for serving.

I'm not usually this .... whatever I am this evening. I think I'm channeling my mother.

So I apologize, as I have caught at least two people in the crossfire.

With Infidel being the other.

I'm sorry.

 

[asterism]

The progressives in the 70 swore to us that no-fault divorce was good for children, and that it would be better if parents were to split or not marry in the first place, than it would be if they got married and weren't in love, or wanted divorce at some point..but stayed together.

No fault divorce would be the salvation of the family (which needed saving because according to Kinsey, 95 percent of married couples cheated on each other, and 10 percent were homosexual...as it turns out, that was a lie)...

So we embarked on divorcing the shit out of each other, and having babies out of wedlock...because we were told it didn't make any difference and would ultimately be *healthier* for children, if their parents were able to engage in sex where and when they wanted to, without the difficulties that marriage and monogamy afforded...

It was all a pack of lies. No fault divorce at the behest of Kinsey has resulted in an explosion of fatherless families, broken families and has swelled the welfare rolls with generations of families who either marry serially, don't marry at all, and have children with multiple men.

Flash forward 40 years and here we are again..no fault divorce is well entrenched...now it's time to further decimate the family by re-defining what it IS and removing all incentive to participate in the construct that ensures our society's continued strength and survival.

We can't close the barn door now. That said, I don't think government caused the societal maladies by "allowing" certain legal constructs to be widespread. In fact, I think the notion that the government can and should influence the "family unit" is at the heart of the entire problem.

It's quite a farce to put the government in charge of morals and that complain that the morals have degraded to those held by the majority.

 

[The Infidel]

Is it worth it, to any of you. 8,000,000 young people have left the church because of how said church treats gay people. Is it worth it? Sure, you can be right. You can even have the last word. But look at the cost.

So faith, morals, and doctrine should be based on the popularity of those ideals among young people?

Take a poll about premarital sex. There will be serious outrage.

 

[uscitizen]

Plenty of people are treated as second class citizens. Disagree? Go get a city job in Atlanta as a white man.

Good luck with that.

so you want to live off of a nanny state govt and grow it bigger?

Nope...
Just to be judged by the content of ones character and not by their skin color or sexual preference.

And you judge no one bases on their sexual preference?
I do. but I realize that that their sexual preference is none of my business.
And I do not let it get in my way of dealing with them on other matters.
Just as long as they do not expect me to have sex with a man.

 

[The Infidel]

I love altercating with those who served. Yes you served, I lose.

Semper Fi.

Thanks for the thanks.

Not all friends of gay marriage are on the left and not all foes are on the right.

It wasn't thanks, but I will say in all honesty?

Thank you for serving.

I'm not usually this .... whatever I am this evening. I think I'm channeling my mother.

So I apologize, as I have caught at least two people in the crossfire.

With Infidel being the other.

I'm sorry.

I still love you BD

 

[The Infidel]

so you want to live off of a nanny state govt and grow it bigger?

Nope...
Just to be judged by the content of ones character and not by their skin color or sexual preference.

And you judge no one bases on their sexual preference?
I do. but I realize that that their sexual preference is none of my business.
And I do not let it get in my way of dealing with them on other matters.
Just as long as they do not expect me to have sex with a man.

 

[asterism]

I love altercating with those who served. Yes you served, I lose.

Semper Fi.

Thanks for the thanks.

Not all friends of gay marriage are on the left and not all foes are on the right.

It wasn't thanks, but I will say in all honesty?

Thank you for serving.

I'm not usually this .... whatever I am this evening. I think I'm channeling my mother.

So I apologize, as I have caught at least two people in the crossfire.

With Infidel being the other.

I'm sorry.

Acknowledged and no worries, no offense taken.

 

[koshergrl]

The progressives in the 70 swore to us that no-fault divorce was good for children, and that it would be better if parents were to split or not marry in the first place, than it would be if they got married and weren't in love, or wanted divorce at some point..but stayed together.

No fault divorce would be the salvation of the family (which needed saving because according to Kinsey, 95 percent of married couples cheated on each other, and 10 percent were homosexual...as it turns out, that was a lie)...

So we embarked on divorcing the shit out of each other, and having babies out of wedlock...because we were told it didn't make any difference and would ultimately be *healthier* for children, if their parents were able to engage in sex where and when they wanted to, without the difficulties that marriage and monogamy afforded...

It was all a pack of lies. No fault divorce at the behest of Kinsey has resulted in an explosion of fatherless families, broken families and has swelled the welfare rolls with generations of families who either marry serially, don't marry at all, and have children with multiple men.

Flash forward 40 years and here we are again..no fault divorce is well entrenched...now it's time to further decimate the family by re-defining what it IS and removing all incentive to participate in the construct that ensures our society's continued strength and survival.

We can't close the barn door now. That said, I don't think government caused the societal maladies by "allowing" certain legal constructs to be widespread. In fact, I think the notion that the government can and should influence the "family unit" is at the heart of the entire problem.

It's quite a farce to put the government in charge of morals and that complain that the morals have degraded to those held by the majority.

No shit, I agree. Which is why I object to the fact that our schools started teaching Kinsey's lies to children under the auspices of "sexual education" in the late 60s, and continues today..spreading garbage like "homosexual partnering is every bit as healthy in a family construct as heterosexual partnering" and "children are sexual from birth so we should just assume they're going to have sex". That was where our difficulties started. Followed by "if it feels good, do it" and "all sex is good sex" and "no fault divorce is healthy for families!"

And you are proposing we just keep marching along that path, continuing to teach those lies, and continuing to bomb away at the traditional family...

I, on the other had, think we should stop. Right. Here.

 

[BDBoop]

Your sister can marry in exactly the same way you can. You cannot marry someone of the same sex any more than she can. In what way is the law being unfairly applied to her? If she tries to access the exact same marriage laws that everyone else uses, ie. marrying someone of the opposite sex, and is not allowed to because she is a lesbian, then you come talk to us.

No one is being "identified by their sexual preference" . . . aside from their obsessive need to identify THEMSELVES by it. I can't marry someone of the same sex any more than she can, and neither can anyone else of any sexual preference. No singling out necessary.

As to how people perceive them . . . well, here's where you finally get close to the REAL heart of the issue. What advocates of homosexual "marriage" REALLY want is to legislate other people's perceptions and opinions for them. They want everyone to think their behavior is perfectly normal, and they think that passing laws declaring it normal is the first step toward that. Only problem is, you can't legislate people's opinions, nor should you.

Personally, I get tired of being accused of all manner of things because you love your sister and somehow think that should affect how I view the world. I think we'd all appreciate it if you'd find some way a little less intrusive into other people's lives to work out your little personal family drama.

Do you want to marry a woman? No? Then your point is invalid. Here is a bunny with a pancake on its head.

are you sure that's not two pancakes?

Now that you mention it; is that pancake smiling?

 

[BDBoop]

Thanks for the thanks.

Not all friends of gay marriage are on the left and not all foes are on the right.

It wasn't thanks, but I will say in all honesty?

Thank you for serving.

I'm not usually this .... whatever I am this evening. I think I'm channeling my mother.

So I apologize, as I have caught at least two people in the crossfire.

With Infidel being the other.

I'm sorry.

I still love you BD

/hugs



Thanks.

 

[BDBoop]

My favorite.

 

[uscitizen]

Does not the definition of "the traditional family" change with time?

Seems to me it has changed a lot in my lifetime.
No women should work now?
Little girls should only do little girl things? Like staying out of politics? Heck women can even vote now!
Children should be physically punished for disobedience?
Divorce?
Acceptance and celebration of out of wedlock births?
Women preparing all the meals for the family. Actually cooking!
and on and on.

 

[The Infidel]

 

[asterism]

The progressives in the 70 swore to us that no-fault divorce was good for children, and that it would be better if parents were to split or not marry in the first place, than it would be if they got married and weren't in love, or wanted divorce at some point..but stayed together.

No fault divorce would be the salvation of the family (which needed saving because according to Kinsey, 95 percent of married couples cheated on each other, and 10 percent were homosexual...as it turns out, that was a lie)...

So we embarked on divorcing the shit out of each other, and having babies out of wedlock...because we were told it didn't make any difference and would ultimately be *healthier* for children, if their parents were able to engage in sex where and when they wanted to, without the difficulties that marriage and monogamy afforded...

It was all a pack of lies. No fault divorce at the behest of Kinsey has resulted in an explosion of fatherless families, broken families and has swelled the welfare rolls with generations of families who either marry serially, don't marry at all, and have children with multiple men.

Flash forward 40 years and here we are again..no fault divorce is well entrenched...now it's time to further decimate the family by re-defining what it IS and removing all incentive to participate in the construct that ensures our society's continued strength and survival.

We can't close the barn door now. That said, I don't think government caused the societal maladies by "allowing" certain legal constructs to be widespread. In fact, I think the notion that the government can and should influence the "family unit" is at the heart of the entire problem.

It's quite a farce to put the government in charge of morals and that complain that the morals have degraded to those held by the majority.

No shit, I agree. Which is why I object to the fact that our schools started teaching Kinsey's lies to children under the auspices of "sexual education" in the late 60s, and continues today..spreading garbage like "homosexual partnering is every bit as healthy in a family construct as heterosexual partnering" and "children are sexual from birth so we should just assume they're going to have sex". That was where our difficulties started. Followed by "if it feels good, do it" and "all sex is good sex" and "no fault divorce is healthy for families!"

And you are proposing we just keep marching along that path, continuing to teach those lies, and continuing to bomb away at the traditional family...

I, on the other had, think we should stop. Right. Here.

No, I'm not proposing that we just keep marching along that path. You want to get rid of government in education? Take your kids out of government schools and do whatever you can to help your neighbors do the same. Sooner or later the government won't have the power to control it anymore.

But you seem to advocate a different tact, one that puts the government in charge of enforcing morals. That is something I cannot abide. A government with enough power to enforce morals is a government powerful enough to define them for its own benefit.

 

[The Infidel]

We can't close the barn door now. That said, I don't think government caused the societal maladies by "allowing" certain legal constructs to be widespread. In fact, I think the notion that the government can and should influence the "family unit" is at the heart of the entire problem.

It's quite a farce to put the government in charge of morals and that complain that the morals have degraded to those held by the majority.

No shit, I agree. Which is why I object to the fact that our schools started teaching Kinsey's lies to children under the auspices of "sexual education" in the late 60s, and continues today..spreading garbage like "homosexual partnering is every bit as healthy in a family construct as heterosexual partnering" and "children are sexual from birth so we should just assume they're going to have sex". That was where our difficulties started. Followed by "if it feels good, do it" and "all sex is good sex" and "no fault divorce is healthy for families!"

And you are proposing we just keep marching along that path, continuing to teach those lies, and continuing to bomb away at the traditional family...

I, on the other had, think we should stop. Right. Here.

No, I'm not proposing that we just keep marching along that path. You want to get rid of government in education? Take your kids out of government schools and do whatever you can to help you neighbors do the same. Sooner or later the government won't have the power to control it anymore.

But you seem to advocate a different tact, one that puts the government in charge of enforcing morals. That is something I cannot abide. A government with enough power to enforce morals is a government powerful enough to define them for its own benefit.

Thats what my wife and I chose to do.

 

[uscitizen]

Our family values and morals are pretty much controlled by the programming industry. aka Television.

 

[The Infidel]

Our family values and morals are pretty much controlled by the programming industry. aka Television.

In most yes... and thats a shame too.

Just look at VH1, MTV, TrueTV, and all these stupid reality shows.... OMG we are soooo fucked!

 

[koshergrl]

We can't close the barn door now. That said, I don't think government caused the societal maladies by "allowing" certain legal constructs to be widespread. In fact, I think the notion that the government can and should influence the "family unit" is at the heart of the entire problem.

It's quite a farce to put the government in charge of morals and that complain that the morals have degraded to those held by the majority.

No shit, I agree. Which is why I object to the fact that our schools started teaching Kinsey's lies to children under the auspices of "sexual education" in the late 60s, and continues today..spreading garbage like "homosexual partnering is every bit as healthy in a family construct as heterosexual partnering" and "children are sexual from birth so we should just assume they're going to have sex". That was where our difficulties started. Followed by "if it feels good, do it" and "all sex is good sex" and "no fault divorce is healthy for families!"

And you are proposing we just keep marching along that path, continuing to teach those lies, and continuing to bomb away at the traditional family...

I, on the other had, think we should stop. Right. Here.

No, I'm not proposing that we just keep marching along that path. You want to get rid of government in education? Take your kids out of government schools and do whatever you can to help you neighbors do the same. Sooner or later the government won't have the power to control it anymore.

But you seem to advocate a different tact, one that puts the government in charge of enforcing morals. That is something I cannot abide. A government with enough power to enforce morals is a government powerful enough to define them for its own benefit.

Not at all. I don't think government should enforce morals. I don't object to homosexual marriage on a moral basis. I object to it on the basis that it isn't marriage when two homosexuals reject the favored construct for raising children, but insist we all pretend they are doing the exact same thing as married heteros.

They reject the construct. They don't want to be a part of it. That's fine, they have the right to do that..but in rejecting that, it means we don't just close our eyes and say "ok ok, you're married anyway". When you reject something, you don't get to force people to pretend you are participating. If you were offered a cush job, and rejected it for a lower paying, harder job...should we be forced to pay you at the rate of the cush job and provide you with all the benefits?

Nope. You made your choice. If you change your mind, it's right there. But it's crap to pretend that they're being "forced" to live by anybody else's standards. They reject the standard...but they are attempting to force us to give them the benefits of the construct they don't want to participate in. It's ridiculous, and has nothing to do with morality, except that I guess it's a sign of a moral person to accept the consequences of their choices and actions.

 

[BDBoop]

No shit, I agree. Which is why I object to the fact that our schools started teaching Kinsey's lies to children under the auspices of "sexual education" in the late 60s, and continues today..spreading garbage like "homosexual partnering is every bit as healthy in a family construct as heterosexual partnering" and "children are sexual from birth so we should just assume they're going to have sex". That was where our difficulties started. Followed by "if it feels good, do it" and "all sex is good sex" and "no fault divorce is healthy for families!"

And you are proposing we just keep marching along that path, continuing to teach those lies, and continuing to bomb away at the traditional family...

I, on the other had, think we should stop. Right. Here.

No, I'm not proposing that we just keep marching along that path. You want to get rid of government in education? Take your kids out of government schools and do whatever you can to help you neighbors do the same. Sooner or later the government won't have the power to control it anymore.

But you seem to advocate a different tact, one that puts the government in charge of enforcing morals. That is something I cannot abide. A government with enough power to enforce morals is a government powerful enough to define them for its own benefit.

Not at all. I don't think government should enforce morals. I don't object to homosexual marriage on a moral basis. I object to it on the basis that it isn't marriage when two homosexuals reject the favored construct for raising children, but insist we all pretend they are doing the exact same thing as married heteros.

They reject the construct. They don't want to be a part of it. That's fine, they have the right to do that..but in rejecting that, it means we don't just close our eyes and say "ok ok, you're married anyway". When you reject something, you don't get to force people to pretend you are participating. If you were offered a cush job, and rejected it for a lower paying, harder job...should we be forced to pay you at the rate of the cush job and provide you with all the benefits?

Nope. You made your choice. If you change your mind, it's right there.