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

[sidneyworld]

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

 

[Coloradomtnman]

That's not quite the issue Cmm... what you're not mentioning is normal behavior as opposed to abnormal, deviant, perverted behavior. What's there to accept about normal? It is after all "normal." But to ask normal people to accept two men jamming each others cock up their asses is enough to make most normal people sick to their stomach in disgust. It's vile, it's perverted, it's sick, and these militant, bigot, fags demonizing anyone and everyone who DARES voice a differing opinion has got to end.

The prior Miss USA ordeal will no doubt shed much light on the BIGOTRY of the homos and their supporters.

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.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

What? Have you ever said the Plede Of Allegiance? "One Nation Under God"..... or looked at money for that matter... "In God We Trust" WTF are you talking about that God "has no place in the discussion of our country"... We are all christians, just not ruled by a king side by side a church. We have a republic under God. Can't fight facts. We started as a christian based country blessed by God.

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

 

[007]

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

How could something redundant be a right?

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.

 

[jblue1978]

You're right; this works both ways, WHEN it comes to the Freedom of Speech. However, if you are speaking of Freedom of Religion and not Freedom of Speech, that also works both ways and not in the way in which you'd like. My religious beliefs are that anyone can marry anyone and to prevent that happening goes against my religious beliefs. So, now whose religion gets the law? Yours? That we stop people from marrying eachother just because it doesn't fall in with your religious beliefs (although it doesn't directly affect you), or mine: let's not have laws stopping people from marrying eachother at all?

If she were a lesbian, and said she supported same-sex marriages and was kicked off the pageant, I would've though: "Duh! Whattaya expect from beauty pageant judges?" I have been surprised that the judges didn't fit my preconceived notion.



Well, that's a matter of opinion. I also think she's an idiot and a stuck in the mud traditionalist in denial of the most fundamental truth of the Universe: change. And since he was a judge, his opinion really counts in this matter.



Who cares about Hannity? That sounds like bullshit to me.



It wasn't to further the Gay Agenda. This is how people who regard homosexuality as dangerous or subversive or unhealthy for society perceive it. He just didn't like her and being a judge, he had the right to "fire" her ass. Even if it is because she opposes gay marriage. Not every homosexual is furthering the mythical "gay agenda". All they want is acceptance, and is that so wrong?



Exactly.



Apples and oranges. She is a beauty pageant contestant, not a world leader.



That is because homosexuals are oppressed in this country unlike the Moral Majority. I'm not saying that makes it right, I'm just explaining why. I'm not saying that its wrong either.



Those are assumptions and inaccurate ones at that.

You have an obvious bias against homosexuality as much as you attempted to be open to it. I applaud your attempt and admire that you somewhat succeeded. However, I would guess that you probably haven't been exposed to many homosexuals.

There are many more homosexuals percentage-wise than you assume above. 10% is the current consensus. 30% for bi-sexuality. I don't know just how accurate those figures are (nobody does), but that's the current consensus among mental health, social work professionals, and cultural anthropologists. I think that if you base your opinion about how many people in this country support or oppose same-sex marriages solely on California's voting records, you could support your opinion. I don't think it reflects what most people (including those who didn't vote) think. That also doesn't make it right. Its called mob rule. The Founding Fathers set up the Constitution and the system of government to try to avoid that happening, and its mostly worked unless you consider Suffrage, Civil Rights, etc. where the voting majority didn't want to extend equal rights to the disenfranchised or the oppressed.

Homosexuality isn't generally a chosen life-style. If you aren't gay, or bi-sexual, then you're straight and if you're straight and in a sexual relationship with someone of the same-sex, you aren't happy. Period. Does that mean that people never do that? No. But the vast majority of homosexuals are gay, not straight people choosing to be in a homosexual relationship. If your children are straight, then they are straight and there is a .001% chance they'll engage in a homosexual relationship. What if your children are gay, so what? It happens and there isn't anything wrong with it because it doesn't hurt anybody.

If they teach that homosexuality is ok in school, its like teaching that black people were equal in school 50 years ago. I don't think anyone is telling your children that they SHOULD be homosexuals.

Maybe not in all, but in this matter you are conservative. You resist change and social progress. It doesn't fit in with your world view, but its inevitable. Best broaden your perspective and get with the times, cause "Times, they are a changin'."

This country was founded in an attempt to escape religious totalitarianism, so GOD really shouldn't even be in the discussion.

What? Have you ever said the Plede Of Allegiance? "One Nation Under God"..... or looked at money for that matter... "In God We Trust" WTF are you talking about that God "has no place in the discussion of our country"... We are all christians, just not ruled by a king side by side a church. We have a republic under God. Can't fight facts. We started as a christian based country blessed by God.

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.

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...

 

[007]

That's not quite the issue Cmm... what you're not mentioning is normal behavior as opposed to abnormal, deviant, perverted behavior. What's there to accept about normal? It is after all "normal." But to ask normal people to accept two men jamming each others cock up their asses is enough to make most normal people sick to their stomach in disgust. It's vile, it's perverted, it's sick, and these militant, bigot, fags demonizing anyone and everyone who DARES voice a differing opinion has got to end.

The prior Miss USA ordeal will no doubt shed much light on the BIGOTRY of the homos and their supporters.

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.

Well, then I appreciate your calm, sensible reply, but we'll have to leave it at we agree to disagree, because I DO find homosexuality vile, disgusting, perverted and sick, and I'm in line with the majority of people.

It's not my intention to demonize homosexuality either, although I'll hold nothing back when describing it. Since sucking each others cocks and ramming them up each others butt holes is what they do, then that's what I'll say. I'm a little shocked you don't find that perverted... unless of course you have homosexual tendencies yourself... just guessing not accusing.

God makes it perfectly clear what he thinks about homos and their perverted actions, so it's not up to me to judge or demonize. God said their blood shall be upon them and they will surely die. I'll leave it at that.

But the homos and their supporters HAVE been waging ALL OUT WAR against ANYONE who DARE speak out against them with a differing opinion, and NOTHING has DEMONSTRATED THAT BETTER than this last offensive against the former Miss USA. Their BIGOTRY will be on stark display for all to see as Miss USA goes forward with her law suit. It's going to be a bad time for homos and their war against normal people.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

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.

I understand your point but this is my take on it: Christians, Muslims, etc., and traditionalists don't like the idea of marriage being something other than between a man and a woman. They don't want to accept that. However, they don't have to. All they have to do is get married to one person of the opposite gender. Two people of the same gender marrying has no direct effect on them. You can hold on to the traditional family as the core structure of your values and homosexual can marry and neither has to exclude the other.

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.

Says who? Who gets to corner the market on the definition of marriage? Christians? Muslims? Traditionalists? Why do they get to define marriage? What gives them the right? Because they are the majority? That is mob rule.

And not allowing same-sex marriages is discrimination by the government. If heterosexual can marry eachother, why can't homosexuals? It doesn't guarantee happiness but it does guarantee the right to pursue it. That's why its a right and why its an issue. Another reason why its discrimination is because there are homosexuals and hetersexual Americans whose religious beliefs are that they should be allowed to marry whom they love and not being allowed to do that is the imposition of one group's religious beliefs onto another's life. That violates the Freedom of Religion.

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?

Well, let's find out. I'm sure there's nothing that Americans can't do!

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.

Well, since it happens anyway with straight parents, and homosexuals adopt or have children now, why not address this issue straight (no pun intended) on.

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.

What group gets to define the criteria for marriage? The majority? Once again that is mob rule.

Procreation is a human right. Being with whomever we please and raising a family is also a human right.

So, you agree, being with whomever we please and raising a family is a human right. Is there any law which states that you can't marry whom you, as a heterosexual, please (as long as it harms no human being)?

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.

Even when there isn't a marriage there is some legal representation for children.

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.

This issue isn't addressed well now. So, like I said, why not tackle it straight on.

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.

And homosexuals marrying eachother won't change that. For those who believe in ensuring the integrity of a viable family structure on every level can still believe in it and practice it without being effected by same-sex marriage.

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.

And to legislate that dysfunctional families can't have children is the same as legislating that homosexuals can't marry. Would you ever vote to support a law which bans man and woman married couples can't have children because they don't meet certain criteria?

I appreciate you civility. Its too bad not more of us who are all Americans can remain civil during our debates. Perhaps if politicians could, instead of wrangling over whose a marxist leftwingnut and whose a rightwing reactionary nazi, we could get something worthwhile accomplished in government?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

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...

Its says Creator, jblue, not the Christian God, Father of Jesus Christ. That means ANY religion.

 

[9 Volt]

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...

Its says Creator, jblue, not the Christian God, Father of Jesus Christ. That means ANY religion.

You are right. It says THEIR creator. Doesn't sound Christian to me. Do some research jblue.

 

[jblue1978]

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...

Its says Creator, jblue, not the Christian God, Father of Jesus Christ. That means ANY religion.

Our Founding Fathers separated church from state, but they wisely did not separate God from state; they acknowledged God as the source of our rights, and, in fact, they were careful to place Biblical morality directly into our founding documents and laws, and into our values and culture precisely to help prevent a future of totalitarian or tyrannical rule in America.

Sounds like "Christian" to me.... Wow, it's even in the title of their faith: Judeo-Christian Did you even try reading the article? Guess not...

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Well, then I appreciate your calm, sensible reply, but we'll have to leave it at we agree to disagree, because I DO find homosexuality vile, disgusting, perverted and sick, and I'm in line with the majority of people.

But in this country because you find someone's act or lifestyle in poor taste doesn't mean you get to discriminate against them.

It's not my intention to demonize homosexuality either, although I'll hold nothing back when describing it. Since sucking each others cocks and ramming them up each others butt holes is what they do, then that's what I'll say.

That's okay with me since I hate "PC" as well and it IS what gay men do...

I'm a little shocked you don't find that perverted... unless of course you have homosexual tendencies yourself... just guessing not accusing.

I don't find it perverted because I know many homosexuals and I think that they are just like everyone else except they suck eachothers' cocks, ram it up eachothers' buttholes, lick eachothers' muffs, etc. I like to do those same things, only with my girlfriend, so nope, I'm not homosexual, and I really dislike the idea of sucking cocks or hairy asses, so I don't have any tendencies to be one either.

Have you ever read Shaespeare? "Methinks you doth protest too much!" Not accusing...just guessing.

God makes it perfectly clear what he thinks about homos and their perverted actions, so it's not up to me to judge or demonize. God said their blood shall be upon them and they will surely die. I'll leave it at that.

What about Freedom of Religion and those of us who don't believe in God or the same God you do?

But the homos and their supporters HAVE been waging ALL OUT WAR against ANYONE who DARE speak out against them with a differing opinion, and NOTHING has DEMONSTRATED THAT BETTER than this last offensive against the former Miss USA. Their BIGOTRY will be on stark display for all to see as Miss USA goes forward with her law suit. It's going to be a bad time for homos and their war against normal people.

I think this is an issue which will die out as not really being all the important, whether it was the homosexual community throwing a fit, or the conservative Right.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Our Founding Fathers separated church from state, but they wisely did not separate God from state;

By separating Church and State the Founding Fathers effectively DID separate God from state.

they acknowledged God as the source of our rights,

No, they achnowldged a CREATOR as the source of our rights, and whether or not a CREATOR is the source of human rights is debatable.

and, in fact, they were careful to place Biblical morality directly into our founding documents and laws, and into our values and culture precisely to help prevent a future of totalitarian or tyrannical rule in America.

Those very same values are held by people other than Christians, jblue. They aren't JUST Christians values

Sounds like "Christian" to me.... Wow, it's even in the title of their faith: Judeo-Christian

The Founding Fathers were deists, not Judeo-Christians, unless you speak of the environment in which they lived and not they're religious faith.

 

[9 Volt]

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...

Its says Creator, jblue, not the Christian God, Father of Jesus Christ. That means ANY religion.

Our Founding Fathers separated church from state, but they wisely did not separate God from state; they acknowledged God as the source of our rights, and, in fact, they were careful to place Biblical morality directly into our founding documents and laws, and into our values and culture precisely to help prevent a future of totalitarian or tyrannical rule in America.

Sounds like "Christian" to me.... Wow, it's even in the title of their faith: Judeo-Christian Did you even try reading the article? Guess not...

Judeo-Christian values is the name of the article Einstein. "Biblical morality" or more appropriately the Ten Commandments are pretty much common sense and can be translated to any number of religions. So show me the word "christian" in the Declaration or in any founder's documents and you have an argument. Otherwise you have no footing.

 

[Gurdari]

That's not quite the issue Cmm... what you're not mentioning is normal behavior as opposed to abnormal, deviant, perverted behavior. What's there to accept about normal? It is after all "normal." But to ask normal people to accept two men jamming each others cock up their asses is enough to make most normal people sick to their stomach in disgust. It's vile, it's perverted, it's sick, and these militant, bigot, fags demonizing anyone and everyone who DARES voice a differing opinion has got to end.

The prior Miss USA ordeal will no doubt shed much light on the BIGOTRY of the homos and their supporters.

Clint...Clint...

You're argument sounds like "I really don't like certain thaings! I wish they didn't exist!"
as opposed to A is true because of B, supported by C.

You're free to hate as much as you like, maybe you should care about homosexual sex quite as much. You're basically acting in the manner you accuse the 'gays' of acting.

 

[manifold]

Wait, wait, I think I get it...

The 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, not freedom from speech.

 

[sidneyworld]

Colorado,

I understand your point but this is my take on it: Christians, Muslims, etc., and traditionalists don't like the idea of marriage being something other than between a man and a woman. They don't want to accept that. However, they don't have to. All they have to do is get married to one person of the opposite gender. Two people of the same gender marrying has no direct effect on them. You can hold on to the traditional family as the core structure of your values and homosexual can marry and neither has to exclude the other.

Exceptional point until you add in the potentiality of offspring. But even beforehand, changing the definition of marriage, essentially changes its intended value and compromises a core foundation of this institution as it relates to maintstream socio-political values in this country. Again, Colorado, marriage is not a civil or human right. It's a subscription with mandatory qualifications predicated on it's cannons, no different than the boyscouts, no different than a corporate charter, as a demonstration.

Says who? Who gets to corner the market on the definition of marriage? Christians? Muslims? Traditionalists? Why do they get to define marriage? What gives them the right? Because they are the majority? That is mob rule.

And not allowing same-sex marriages is discrimination by the government. If heterosexual can marry eachother, why can't homosexuals? It doesn't guarantee happiness but it does guarantee the right to pursue it. That's why its a right and why its an issue. Another reason why its discrimination is because there are homosexuals and hetersexual Americans whose religious beliefs are that they should be allowed to marry whom they love and not being allowed to do that is the imposition of one group's religious beliefs onto another's life. That violates the Freedom of Religion.

I am reminded here of an issue regarding woman's rights in this country and the compromise of safety protocols to allow women into the fire department. This was around 1975 I believe. The standard/minimum weight a firefighter must carry a person out of a building was 150lbs. It was lowered after NOW (National Association of Women) won argument of discrimination against women because of gender, and successfully had those safety protocols lowered. This was a critical compromise in the viability of the fire department's general standards as was originally mandated for the good of the common public.

What this demonstrates is the disproportion and defunct ideology of exercising one's liberty by challenging simple common sense when it critically affects the common public. In the case of Same Sex Marriages, on a legislative level, it compromises a segment of core values of those who embrace marriage and the sanctity of marriage being that between a man and a woman for the sake of another's belief that they are being singled out of such a privilege. But in fact, they are not. The dynamic this couple simply do not qualify such a union uner the auspices of marriage.

Colorado, I have a meeting I have to get to... I'll continue later. Thanks for the civility as well. I greatly appreciate that. We might not find ourselves in complete agreement, no doubt. But your diplomacy is well received.

Anne Marie

 

[KittenKoder]

Another gay-bashing thread from those who claim to not be gay ... not surprising one bit.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Exceptional point until you add in the potentiality of offspring. But even beforehand, changing the definition of marriage, essentially changes its intended value and compromises a core foundation of this institution as it relates to maintstream socio-political values in this country. Again, Colorado, marriage is not a civil or human right. It's a subscription with mandatory qualifications predicated on it's cannons, no different than the boyscouts, no different than a corporate charter, as a demonstration.

Here's the difference: The boyscouts are a private organization. Corporations would violate Equal Opportunity. Marriage is a government status. The government should not discriminate.

I am reminded here of an issue regarding woman's rights in this country and the compromise of safety protocols to allow women into the fire department. This was around 1975 I believe. The standard/minimum weight a firefighter must carry a person out of a building was 150lbs. It was lowered after NOW (National Association of Women) won argument of discrimination against women because of gender, and successfully had those safety protocols lowered. This was a critical compromise in the viability of the fire department's general standards as was originally mandated for the good of the common public.

Let me say that the "common sense" you refer to could also be said to have "physical evidence" supporting it.

What this demonstrates is the disproportion and defunct ideology of exercising one's liberty by challenging simple common sense when it critically affects the common public. In the case of Same Sex Marriages, on a legislative level, it compromises a segment of core values of those who embrace marriage and the sanctity of marriage being that between a man and a woman for the sake of another's belief that they are being singled out of such a privilege.

How will government recognized same-sex marriages effect those who believe that marriage is between and man and woman? I believe that God doesn't exist and I don't go to Sunday Services. Does that effect your belief in God?

Same-sex couples aren't being singled out for a privelege, there are being granted the equality of sharing in that privelege.

But in fact, they are not. The dynamic this couple simply do not qualify such a union uner the auspices of marriage.

As per your definition, not mine.

Colorado, I have a meeting I have to get to... I'll continue later. Thanks for the civility as well. I greatly appreciate that. We might not find ourselves in complete agreement, no doubt. But your diplomacy is well received.

Anne Marie

My pleasure. We'll argue more when you get back.

 

[007]

***

Well, then I appreciate your calm, sensible reply, but we'll have to leave it at we agree to disagree, because I DO find homosexuality vile, disgusting, perverted and sick, and I'm in line with the majority of people.

But in this country because you find someone's act or lifestyle in poor taste doesn't mean you get to discriminate against them.

Just because you bring the word discriminate into the debate with no prior discrimination present, it doesn't mean I or anyone else has discriminated against homos. You're spinning and using a buzz word to deflect. The issue at hand is the militant responses normal people get from homos and their supporters when they voice an opinion that's different from the homo agenda.

It's not my intention to demonize homosexuality either, although I'll hold nothing back when describing it. Since sucking each others cocks and ramming them up each others butt holes is what they do, then that's what I'll say.

That's okay with me since I hate "PC" as well and it IS what gay men do...

I don't find it perverted because I know many homosexuals and I think that they are just like everyone else except they suck eachothers' cocks, ram it up eachothers' buttholes, lick eachothers' muffs, etc. I like to do those same things, only with my girlfriend, so nope, I'm not homosexual, and I really dislike the idea of sucking cocks or hairy asses, so I don't have any tendencies to be one either.

Have you ever read Shaespeare? "Methinks you doth protest too much!" Not accusing...just guessing.

You see no difference between you having anal sex with your wife, a female, instead of having it with another man? Are you being obtuse for lack of a better argument?

And no, I'm not the one that claimed I didn't think it was perverse, you were. So aping my comment won't get you very far. It sounds more like, "nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, naaaah, nah, I know you are but what am I," than anything else.

God makes it perfectly clear what he thinks about homos and their perverted actions, so it's not up to me to judge or demonize. God said their blood shall be upon them and they will surely die. I'll leave it at that.

What about Freedom of Religion and those of us who don't believe in God or the same God you do?

Whatever. Believe what you want.

But the homos and their supporters HAVE been waging ALL OUT WAR against ANYONE who DARE speak out against them with a differing opinion, and NOTHING has DEMONSTRATED THAT BETTER than this last offensive against the former Miss USA. Their BIGOTRY will be on stark display for all to see as Miss USA goes forward with her law suit. It's going to be a bad time for homos and their war against normal people.

I think this is an issue which will die out as not really being all the important, whether it was the homosexual community throwing a fit, or the conservative Right.

Sure it will die out, but before it does it's going to leave a lasting impression in people's minds about the BIGOTRY of the homos and their supporters.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Don't know if that number is accurate but homosexuals are the minority in this country. So, why all the cow-towing to them? Because that's what this country has become, a country that favors the minority and the majority be damned.

No, this is a country that favors equal rights and the majority be damned.

Equal rights for all is fine but I don't believe that is how it is in this country at this time. The minority is greatly favored at the expense of many other factors. Have to hire someone? Must meet your 'minority quota', even if it means hiring a less qualified person for the job. How's that make sense?