Sad Commentary on our direction as a Nation

[Silence]

No, you loon, I don't believe any of those things. I'm a single mother, too. My world is definitely not narrow. I'm not the one assigning thoughts and feelings (incorrectly) to others based solely on my own narrow vision of what I THINK their faith means.

this is what you said Allie:

And we're having it. Traditional families are no longer respected or seen as things of value. They are being supplanted by non-traditional families; i.e., families headed by homosexuals. People for the past 40 years have been encouraged to "find themselves" at the cost of their families, and to walk away from their families at the first sign of difficulty or less than perfect happiness...and then are encouraged to play the field and bring serial partners into the family home, where their children are exposed.

now you gave the example of families headed by the dreaded "homosexual" but it could just as easily be headed by a single mother, could it not? I can only form my opinions of you based on how you present those opinions Allie and you present them very narrowly. You believe YOUR way is the ONLY right way. I think your way has value as well, it's not how I would choose to do things but it clearly works for you and so it must have merit.

So we're changing from hating Christians because they "force" their religion on others, to stating we just have a problem with the way it's "presented".

I'm not sure where all this Christian hating rhetoric comes from. is this a pity party that I wasn't invited to? I'm a Christian and I don't feel hated, not for being Chirstian anyway.

I don't badger people into believing anything, never have never will. I defend my own belief from assholes who call me a "nutter" a "bible thumper" and "narrow minded" without having so much of a glimmer into what I'm about. I defend myself from assholes who ask me what I believe, then start screaming that I'm trying to "force" my religion down their throat when I state my beliefs.

again, it's how you present your beliefs that make me view you as a nutter. Saying that families headed by homosexuals are what is wrong with society is ridiculous. They love their families and their children as much as a heterosexual would. The human heart does not know orientation when it comes to a parent loving their child. The fact that you SEEM to believe being homosexual somehow makes a person UNFIT to be a parent is what I'm taking issue with.

Like I said, I can only go by how you present yourself online. Are you different IRL than online? if you are then you're right, I can't possibly KNOW you or what you're about. I personally am the same online as offline. I don't know how to be two different people simply because I have the comfort of hiding behind a keyboard. I'm not saying anything on here that I don't say IRL and that I wouldn't say if you were standing in front of me.

I believe abortion is wrong. I believe our government is wrong in promoting it, and I don't believe that is the government's job. Do I think women who have aborted are morally bankrupt? Have I ever said that? I don't believe I have. I have said I pity women who are lulled into believing it's a good choice by a government and a loud-mouthed pack of progressive teachers who tell our children that it's a good choice, devoid of any sort of repercussion. I pray for women who have had abortions (and this isn't impersonal, believe me) and I have no intention of saying here or anywhere else that I know what, if any, price they will ultimately pay. I have no idea. I just know that at its core it's wrong. And it's wrong to tell people otherwise.

how is our government "promoting" abortion Allie? there is no funding for abortion services...the FDA blocked RU486 for YEARS even though it's used worldwide and is safer, less invasive and cheaper than surgical abortion.

Also, having had to have an abortion myself, I can tell you when I went for the required counseling beforehand, NO ONE told me it was a "GOOD CHOICE" the clinic wanted to make sure I was making this decision on my own and not being forced or pressured by outside influence. They were kind and supportive and talked me through all my options. This was BEFORE Bush took office of course. NOW, who knows what they'd tell me. Perhaps that I was going to hell if I terminated the pregnancy.

That's not forcing anythign down anyone's throat. I get so sick of progressives who will screech their own hideous beliefs all over the place, and are insulting when they do it...who cry "foul!" when some person DARES to voice an opinion that is different from theirs.

you cons are whiners. You bitch and complain about abortions, your guns, immigration, and any number of issues. You blame liberals for everything even though the cons have been in power, either in the white house or in congress for all but 12 of the last 30 years.

Newsflash. Just because somebody has a different opinion doesn't mean they're 1. forcing it down your throat, or 2. narrow minded.

That's just rhetoric.

perhaps we think your beliefs are hideous? perhaps we're sick of your insults too? perhaps we would like to DARE to voice our opinion without being called parasites and unbelieving Godless jackasses. (and no, those aren't words YOU have every said personally...I'm paraphrasing the sentiment by the cons so don't get your knickers in a twist).

 

[WillowTree]

The ones who poured money into the state of California to make sure Proposition 8 passed for one. These are Utah Mormons and Roman Catholics.

They seek to impose their religious values on civil marriage laws.

so is that what you want civil unions? or religous marriage? which?

 

[ABikerSailor]

so is that what you want civil unions? or religous marriage? which?

See? This is the problem with that statement......we can have BOTH! IT just depends on the signature of the person on the bottom.....if it's an ordained minister, it's a marriage, if it is signed by a JP? It's a civil ceremony.

Shit......can't we all just work together for ONCE?

 

[jillian]

See? This is the problem with that statement......we can have BOTH! IT just depends on the signature of the person on the bottom.....if it's an ordained minister, it's a marriage, if it is signed by a JP? It's a civil ceremony.

Shit......can't we all just work together for ONCE?

Not really... The right to perform a marriage is a right granted by the state. Whether the person performing a marriage is religious or secular is then up to the individual.

 

[WillowTree]

See? This is the problem with that statement......we can have BOTH! IT just depends on the signature of the person on the bottom.....if it's an ordained minister, it's a marriage, if it is signed by a JP? It's a civil ceremony.

Shit......can't we all just work together for ONCE?

well, cause I'm having trouble figuring out what the argument is about. "Marriage" is steeped in religious tradition. I think marriage was a relgious thing well before there was civil written law. So, I'm trying to figure out if we are fighting for civil rights or for the opportunity to be religious.

 

[Silence]

so is that what you want civil unions? or religous marriage? which?

Marriage is a LEGAL contract, which is why it takes a court of law to break that contract. consenting adults should be allowed to enter into that contract regardless of whether it's with one man/one woman, two men or two women.

The spiritual ceremony isn't the same thing. Couples go to the Clerk of Court for a marriage license and they don't have to get married in church for it to be a marriage.

 

[WillowTree]

Marriage is a LEGAL contract, which is why it takes a court of law to break that contract. consenting adults should be allowed to enter into that contract regardless of whether it's with one man/one woman, two men or two women.

The spiritual ceremony isn't the same thing. Couples go to the Clerk of Court for a marriage license and they don't have to get married in church for it to be a marriage.

What I think I'm trying to ask is this; will a civil union accomplish the task of granting the same rights as married people get, or is the word marriage imperative to the cause?

 

[Silence]

What I think I'm trying to ask is this; will a civil union accomplish the task of granting the same rights as married people get, or is the word marriage imperative to the cause?

I think it's the rights being denied more than what people call it but I'm not on the inside of this fight as it's not something that effects me personally so I could just be looking at it from the wrong direction.

I've been married and personally would NEVER do it again and wouldn't recommend it to anyone who likes being happy.

However, I understand the desire to be recognized for the committment these people make to each other. I understand wanting to legally have the same rights as other couples who share their lives, be it children, money, property or whatever and that is what is being denied. and that is wrong, both on a civil rights level and on a human level IMO

 

[AllieBaba]

could you spout more lies? I don't think there were enough in that paragraph.

is your little ole church, that thinks everyone but you is going to hell except you, actually telling you that the nasty old "g-dless libs" are going to force y'all t o marry queers?

RAFLMAO!!! Keep your church out of government and we'll keep the government out of your church.

You're insane, aren't you?

Nice post. Another example of how it's the Christians who are trying to force their POV down the throat of anyone.

My church doesn't think everyone is going to hell but me. That's a Jewish thing, not a Christian one. NOr does my church think anyone's forcing us to marry queers. We do object to the government trying to tell us what we can do, who we are forced to accept into our membership, and what we can preach inside our own churches.

 

[ABikerSailor]

What I think I'm trying to ask is this; will a civil union accomplish the task of granting the same rights as married people get, or is the word marriage imperative to the cause?

Easy question to answer......if you were married by a JP, you get the same legal rights. If you are married by a minister, you get the same legal rights, as well as the benefit of saying you're "married". Either way, it's good for a tax write off and survivors benefits.

 

[AllieBaba]

Okay.....picking apart the "traditional" family? Ummmm......do we REALLY think people who by virtue of being heterosexual that automatically makes them better and more capable parents than those that aren't? I lived with a couple of lesbians while I was stationed in Norfolk. There was also a child with them, and they NEVER had to answer any questions as to if they were "suitable" parents or not. Me? I was raised by a heterosexual couple. My real father divorced my mother after 1 year of marriage. She then married an Air Force dude who ended up beating me senseless once a week, and I won't even tell you about the third one......he was the worst. So tell me again how heteros are much better parents?

As far as traditional families not being respected? Well......with the current crop of people divorcing each other, the unfaithful wives who end up having sex with students, the homosexual cheating (Ted Haggard), or any of the other politicians who are caught? How are those very people who scream about traditional families respecting the very values they espouse?

About the "finding yourself part"......it hasn't been just over the past 40 years......ever heard of the American Frontier? How about Westward Ho? Wanna go back farther than that? Talk to the Native Americans about their first spirit walk where they go to meet their spirit animal. Even farther? How's about the Aboriginies who go on walkabout? Sorry.....just because others don't subscribe to your way, doesn't mean that others are wrong. A good example of that would be for me to ask you to go to a war zone and live there for a month or two, with few showers, little food, and lots of discomfort. Me? I consider that my way, as I've been in the military. I don't expect others to do it, but I also let them know that just because I do, doesn't make you better than me.

And no....our children aren't being forced to experiment with sex. However, abstinence only education NEVER works. Example? Just because you close a door and tell someone to not go in there and rip you off, and then you come home and find your closet empty, doesn't mean you should not have taken precautions. A door lock would have helped quite a bit. So would sex education in our schools that taught about what contraceptives are for and how they work, that way THEY can "lock the door". Quick question for you by the way.....would you rather pay for a condom or an abortion?

And.....as far as the liberal progressives calling the shots? Nope.....the conservatives have been doing it all their lives, telling us what to believe, who to believe in and all that other crap.

It's just that the liberal progressives have quit listening to the lies and gone their own way.

Look at the statistics, and you can answer your own stupid questions. I know that since you and your chums started ridiculing Christianity and traditional values, the standard of living in America, the incidence of child murder, abuse, and gang membership have sky rocketed. You do the math.

 

[Shogun]

Look at the statistics, and you can answer your own stupid questions. I know that since you and your chums started ridiculing Christianity and traditional values, the standard of living in America, the incidence of child murder, abuse, and gang membership have sky rocketed. You do the math.

false correlation. Suggesting that there is MORE child abuse today then a hundred years ago is fallacy at it's finest.

 

[AllieBaba]

And where did I say anything about children being forced to experiment with sex? Oh, that's right. I didn't. That's you lying, again, about the situation, in order to make your own radical stance look "normal".

 

[AllieBaba]

false correlation. Suggesting that there is MORE child abuse today then a hundred years ago is fallacy at it's finest.

Really? Prove it.

 

[YWN666]

who are these people? Other than Jehovah Witness's I have never met any religous people who insis on forcing thier religion on other people. who are these people of whom you speak.

Anyone who tries to legislate their religion. See my post on the Dover, PA trial.

 

[YWN666]

Look at the statistics, and you can answer your own stupid questions. I know that since you and your chums started ridiculing Christianity and traditional values, the standard of living in America, the incidence of child murder, abuse, and gang membership have sky rocketed. You do the math.

Good grief, your logic really sucks. What you are employing is a logical fallacy that assumes if one event follows another, the first caused the second.

Ther number of television repair shops in the US has plummeted in the last 20 years and in the same time period, the temperature of the oceans has risen 6 degrees. Conclusion: Television repair shops absorb heat.

 

[AllieBaba]

Still not answering the question. Who on this board has ever said we should legislate religion?

Other than the libs, that is.

 

[AllieBaba]

Good grief, your logic really sucks. What you are employing is a logical fallacy that assumes if one event follows another, the first caused the second.

Ther number of television repair shops in the US has plummeted in the last 20 years and in the same time period, the temperature of the oceans has risen 6 degrees. Conclusion: Television repair shops absorb heat.

You go ahead and tell yourself that if you want. The fact of the matter is, broken homes create a huge vacuum. Children from broken, non-traditional homes are at higher risk for drug addiction, sexual molestation, assault, you name it.

But go ahead and keep telling yourself the kid growing up in a stable, 2-parent, heterosexual Christian household is at as high a risk as the kid growing up in a single parent household where a series of different, temporary sexual partners parade in and out the front door and where morality has no place in family discussion.

 

[jillian]

false correlation. Suggesting that there is MORE child abuse today then a hundred years ago is fallacy at it's finest.

And let's not forget how moral child labor was...

 

[AllieBaba]

Much better to dismember them before birth.

REgardless, it was legal at the time. I believe the ones who put the kabosh to it were Christians.
Kinda like we put the kabosh to slavery, child imprisonment, and fought to keep religion out of government at the inception of our country.

Damn Christians.