The Queers are at it again!!!!!!!!

[LuvRPgrl]

Wow Psycho, we agree. The state is not the solution to this problem, right? Go to churches, synagogs, mosques, whatever one calls Wiccan churches?

Thats correct. The state should only recognize it in so far as income taxes are involved.

If they agreed to take the state out of it, then they would start protesting churches that wouldnt allow it, guaranteed.

One of the basic problems with issues like this is you are dealing with a group of people who have an inate sense of unhappiness. They search for things they think are making them unhappy, all the while ignoring the elephant in the room which is the cause. They delude themselves that its something like, "we are discriminated against" and attack the , real or imagined, discrimination.
Problem is, when that issued is taken care of, they are still unhappy, and go after something else. Happy people generally get on about their lives and arent always into some activism.
Thats why activists are always activists, they are never happy. Thats also why its overwhelmingly liberals who are activists. It requires two things, an inate unhappiness (despite their outward appearance) and self delusion. Some thing the liberal camp is loaded with.

A few examples are the ACLU. They no longer are needed. I admit, in the 60's, I would have been a die hard card carrying member. In fact, I may not have survived the decade. But today, they have to search for trivial little issues to justify themselves. MY GOD, imagine how horrible it was when some high school grad mentioned God in his graduation speech. Im sure the crowd went running in horror.

NOW is another great example. They continue on but really have no issues to address.

A good example of a group of activists, that truly are in it for the right reason, was the abolitionists. (I might add, they were overwhelminglly devoted Christians). Once slavery was abolished, the group dissappeared. No reason to exist anymore.

 

[Psychoblues]

Does that little diatribe make you feel better? Good for you. Were you as shallow in the 60's as you are now?

Thats correct. The state should only recognize it in so far as income taxes are involved.

If they agreed to take the state out of it, then they would start protesting churches that wouldnt allow it, guaranteed.

One of the basic problems with issues like this is you are dealing with a group of people who have an inate sense of unhappiness. They search for things they think are making them unhappy, all the while ignoring the elephant in the room which is the cause. They delude themselves that its something like, "we are discriminated against" and attack the , real or imagined, discrimination.
Problem is, when that issued is taken care of, they are still unhappy, and go after something else. Happy people generally get on about their lives and arent always into some activism.
Thats why activists are always activists, they are never happy. Thats also why its overwhelmingly liberals who are activists. It requires two things, an inate unhappiness (despite their outward appearance) and self delusion. Some thing the liberal camp is loaded with.

A few examples are the ACLU. They no longer are needed. I admit, in the 60's, I would have been a die hard card carrying member. In fact, I may not have survived the decade. But today, they have to search for trivial little issues to justify themselves. MY GOD, imagine how horrible it was when some high school grad mentioned God in his graduation speech. Im sure the crowd went running in horror.

NOW is another great example. They continue on but really have no issues to address.

A good example of a group of activists, that truly are in it for the right reason, was the abolitionists. (I might add, they were overwhelminglly devoted Christians). Once slavery was abolished, the group dissappeared. No reason to exist anymore.

I just wanted to know.

Psychoblues

 

[mattskramer]

If its such an insignificant issue then why do liberals and gays keep trying to push their agenda?
You could just as easily say that the pro-gay-marriage people are making such a big deal that it is laughable....

It is important to the 1 or 2 percent of the population (by conservative estimates) that is gay. At the very least, gay couples would like civil union status so that they can enjoy the benefits and responsibilities that heterosexual couples face. That is not too much to ask for and, if it is granted, would not damage America.

 

[mattskramer]

If they agreed to take the state out of it, then they would start protesting churches that wouldnt allow it, guaranteed.

You are such a fortune-teller. Anyway, Some gays would probably demand more and some would not. Some Republicans demand much. Some Republicans do not demand much.

One of the basic problems with issues like this is you are dealing with a group of people who have an inate sense of unhappiness. They search for things they think are making them unhappy, all the while ignoring the elephant in the room which is the cause. They delude themselves that its something like, "we are discriminated against" and attack the , real or imagined, discrimination.

Problem is, when that issued is taken care of, they are still unhappy, and go after something else. Happy people generally get on about their lives and arent always into some activism.

Okay. So are you basically saying that we should not grant them anything because they might demand more. Perhaps we should not have allowed people to smoke cigarettes because smokers would then demand marijuana.

Anyway, can’t your same criticism be applied to any person or group? I laughed when the militant Christians raised hell when some stores decided to replace the phrase “Merry Christmas” with “Season’s Greetings”.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Does that little diatribe make you feel better? Good for you. Were you as shallow in the 60's as you are now?



I just wanted to know.

Psychoblues

just call me Hal.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

It is important to the 1 or 2 percent of the population (by conservative estimates) that is gay. At the very least, gay couples would like civil union status so that they can enjoy the benefits and responsibilities that heterosexual couples face. That is not too much to ask for and, if it is granted, would not damage America.

Heterosexual couples face responsabilities of raising their own BIOLOGICAL children, something the homo's never will. That particular responsability is the reason why the state recognizes heterosexual marriages. Hence their is no need or reason to acknowledge homosexual marriages.
Homos should have no more benefits than any other American. If you think they should, please tell me why. What reason is there for a childless homosexual couple should have tax and other benefits that single people dont have?

And it would damage America.

They once said no fault divorce was an improvement, and wouldnt harm America. Yet it has led to huge numbers of single parent households. Now we know for a fact that has detremental effects on kids. Virtually ALL prison inmates come from single parent homes. Almost all of those had no father in the household.

Just saying it wont harm America doesnt make it so. The info we have suggests otherwise.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

You are such a fortune-teller. Anyway, Some gays would probably demand more and some would not.”.

Fortune teller? My statement is merely based on past experience with the gay community leaders agenda. Even if some wont, the policitcal demands of the leaders would still continue.

Some Republicans demand much. Some Republicans do not demand much. ”.

Irrelevant to the question at hand.

Okay. So are you basically saying that we should not grant them anything because they might demand more.”.

For one who preaches about how great they are at logical thinking and pointing out others fallacies,...hmmm, well, anyways, I didnt say that in any way shape or form. What I responded to was that "thats all they want" statement, and it isnt true thats all they want.

Perhaps we should not have allowed people to smoke cigarettes because smokers would then demand marijuana. ”.

again irrlevant.

Anyway, can’t your same criticism be applied to any person or group? I laughed when the militant Christians raised hell when some stores decided to replace the phrase “Merry Christmas” with “Season’s Greetings”.

Im not a militant Christian, and I complained about it. Calling them militants and "raised hell" just reduces any credibility you might have.

And I suppose I could make the same analogy to those who fight to stop a person from using the term God in a graduation speech. Seems like such a minute issue, yet the ACLU, American Civil LIARS Union, spends tons of cash fighting it.

If its trivial as you claim, they why is the homosexual activists fighting so hard for it?

 

[mattskramer]

Heterosexual couples face responsabilities of raising their own BIOLOGICAL children, something the homo's never will. That particular responsability is the reason why the state recognizes heterosexual marriages. Hence their is no need or reason to acknowledge homosexual marriages.

1. To be consistent let us then not allow those who choose not to have children to get married.

2. Those who want biological children but, due to a biological abnormality, can’t have biological children can be tested each year. Once the doctor contends that they can and will reproduce, they can be married.

3. What of the homosexual couple who adopts a child, or who uses sperm or egg donors?

Homos should have no more benefits than any other American. If you think they should, please tell me why. What reason is there for a childless homosexual couple should have tax and other benefits that single people don’t have?

See http://usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=375034&postcount=53

And it would damage America.

They once said no fault divorce was an improvement, and wouldnt harm America. Yet it has led to huge numbers of single parent households. Now we know for a fact that has detremental effects on kids. Virtually ALL prison inmates come from single parent homes. Almost all of those had no father in the household.

I am not talking about single parent households. I am nearly talking about the opposite – homosexual couples who may or may not have kids, who want the same benefits and responsibilities that heterosexual couples have.

See: http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarriage/a/benefits.htm

Just saying it wont harm America doesnt make it so. The info we have suggests otherwise.

The “information” is merely biased speculation.

 

[mattskramer]

Outdated organizations:

CWA (Concerned Women for America) A bunch of paranoid, puritanical ninnies.

ACLJ (American Christian Legal Juggernauts) overly reactionary organization that taught some schools to not raise an eye to Christians.

Groups of people who have an innate sense of unhappiness. They search for things they think are making them unhappy, all the while ignoring the elephant in the room, which is the cause. They delude themselves that its something like, "we are discriminated against" and attack the, real or imagined, discrimination.

 

[Emmett]

Are you seriously comparing taking a crap in public to being homosexual? Goto India, all they do is crap in the streets lol. Anyway, go take a crap in the street, see if you can still get married, I bet the next day you could. Because homosexuals lead an alternate lifestyle that means they shouldn't be able to get married?

The topic of interracial marriage is a sound comparison. A majority of americans felt that blacks were unfit to be wed to whites, and thus made it illegal. And today in every state in the country it's illegal for gays to get married because bigots have passed laws against it. There isn't one good reason why somebody's significant other can't be allowed visitation rights, or marital tax benefits, or insurance claims, or inheritance rights, but there's an organized bigotted movement out there that denies millions of people these things.

The real issue is the US is full of free will bigots, especially men, who reject and deny their own sexual desires on a consistent basis. When polled the most strongly anti-homosexual men in the US are also quite honest about being the most tempted to have sex with another man. A you should know with free will bigotry comes hypocracy.

Which particular poll was that Greg?

 

[mattskramer]

Homosexuality is abberant behavior. It isn't acceptable to drop your pants in public and take a crap. Matter of fact we have laws against it. Does it hurt anyone? No. Is it aberrant behavior? Yes.

Picking your nose in public isn't socially acceptable. Does it hurt anyone? No. Is it aberrant behavior? Yes.

Being drunk in public is aberrant behavior, and against the law. Does it hurt anyone? Not in and of itself.

Wow! What an excellent example of relativism. I think that you are catching on. What is your view about smoking, wearing miss-matched clothing or clothing made from different materials, burping excessively in public, plaid multi-colored hair styles, nose-rings, homosexual couples kissing in public?

 

[Emmett]

Wow! What an excellent example of relativism. I think that you are catching on. What is your view about smoking, wearing miss-matched clothing or clothing made from different materials, burping excessively in public, plaid multi-colored hair styles, nose-rings, homosexual couples kissing in public?

Well, I know you didn't ask me the question Matt but I'll answer. All of the above is acceptable except fags kissing in public. Personally I don't want to watch anyone kissing really. The rest, I don't mind really.

 

[mattskramer]

Well, I know you didn't ask me the question Matt but I'll answer. All of the above is acceptable except fags kissing in public. Personally I don't want to watch anyone kissing really. The rest, I don't mind really.

If you think that it is okay for people to smoke cigarettes in public – with all of that questionable second-hand smoke – is it okay for them to smoke marijuana? What is your view on cocaine? What age should people reach before they are considered to be mature enough to give consent for sex? – even neighboring states don’t seem to reach an agreement on that one.

Oh well. I think that you see my point.

 

[Emmett]

If you think that it is okay for people to smoke cigarettes in public – with all of that questionable second-hand smoke – is it okay for them to smoke marijuana? What is your view on cocaine? What age should people reach before they are considered to be mature enough to give consent for sex? – even neighboring states don’t seem to reach an agreement on that one.

Oh well. I think that you see my point.

Matt, I do see your point. However, one must decide where to draw lines for the sake of decency.

Personally, I am a Libertarian so I don't really care what the hell a person does so long as it does not hurt someone else. Now, that seems simple as it is said but it isn't.

I smoke, but I am certainly willing to respect those that don't and not smoke indoors. That is a personal responsability decision.

I don't care who smokes pot, it's harmless! But don't smoke it front of my grandchildren or offer it to them or I'll get involved.

Cocaine! Sit out in a cornfield and snort, smoke or stuff as much of the shit up your ass as you want to for all I care, but don't ask me to pay for your rehabilitation, don't expect me to "understand" why you wrecked your car into mine while under it's influence, or excuse you from commiting a crime because of your addiction to it.

As to age of consent! Personal Responsability man! My granddaughter will wait as long as I can possibly influence to have sex and I pray she will be married at that point. I will do everything to influence that to the best of my ability. Of course I will do it in a world where she will be shown films at school about a girl with two mommies, she will watch commercials that show damn near naked girls having what appears to be a great life while advertising whatever they are doing, I will hope she does not fall subject to pier pressure.

I don't wish to push my agenda on anyone. Having said that I don't want my children to have to watch anyone, gay or otherwise sucking face oin a restuarant. What would be great would be if everyone would exhibit personal responsability for themselves and their families.

I am a staunch supporter of Liberty. I have alot of elasticity in that belief. Do whatever you like I say! If it unfairly affects me, then it is wrong!

Blow smoke in my food when I don't smoke. That's wrong!

Break in my house to support a drug habit, I should be able to shoot your ass with my legally owned gun.

Allow your 14 year old daughter to have sex if you want. I don't believe government has any place in that scenario. Influence my kid to do the same, that's wrong!