PDA

View Full Version : 1st repercussion of gay marriage


zico20
08-18-2015, 09:50 PM
Here is the start of the new gay world we will live in. Political correctness is going way further than anyone can imagine. For all the fathers on this board, how does it feel to no longer be a father. I realize this is only one state , but it will spread like the plague. Surprised Tennessee started this.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/08/18/tennessee-courts-replace-mother-and-father-with-parent-1-parent-2.html?intcmp=hphz03

Gays are cheering the start of wiping out the traditional family.

horses4courses
08-18-2015, 10:11 PM
Sorry that you regard gay people as inferior.
That's your problem, though.

The rest of the world, or much of it at least, sees things differently now.
Less bigotry and more tolerance. That's as it should be.
People should learn to accept others for who they are.

The family unit will do just fine with gay couples in the neighborhood.
You can still sleep soundly at night. No worries.

I do have one question for you, though.
Are you a person likely to complain about over-population on this earth?

Tall One
08-18-2015, 10:16 PM
Anyone ever not surprised it's Tennessee?


SEC humor, carry on.

zico20
08-18-2015, 10:31 PM
Sorry that you regard gay people as inferior.
That's your problem, though.

The rest of the world, or much of it at least, sees things differently now.
Less bigotry and more tolerance. That's as it should be.
People should learn to accept others for who they are.

The family unit will do just fine with gay couples in the neighborhood.
You can still sleep soundly at night. No worries.

I do have one question for you, though.
Are you a person likely to complain about over-population on this earth?

I never said that gay people are inferior. However, it certainly seems like you find the mother/father terminology an offensive term.

Why would I complain about over-population of the Earth?

LottaKash
08-18-2015, 10:37 PM
The rest of the world, or much of it at least, sees things differently now.


I suspect that you don't get out much these days...

horses4courses
08-18-2015, 10:41 PM
I never said that gay people are inferior. However, it certainly seems like you find the mother/father terminology an offensive term.

Why would I complain about over-population of the Earth?

Oh, and I'm a father of two, by the way.
It won't really bother me filling out a form in the future,
and having to refer to myself as parent 1 or 2.

This isn't just a matter for homosexual parents.
Straight couples have been adopting children since forever.
Referring to them as the child's mother or father isn't technically correct.
Political correctness takes a backseat to categorical accuracy, perhaps?

Robert Goren
08-19-2015, 01:04 AM
Much ado about nothing. His ruling will be overturned on appeal. Some time judge got his name on FOX News. Hope he enjoys his 15 minutes.

mostpost
08-19-2015, 01:44 PM
Here is the start of the new gay world we will live in. Political correctness is going way further than anyone can imagine. For all the fathers on this board, how does it feel to no longer be a father. I realize this is only one state , but it will spread like the plague. Surprised Tennessee started this.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/08/18/tennessee-courts-replace-mother-and-father-with-parent-1-parent-2.html?intcmp=hphz03

Gays are cheering the start of wiping out the traditional family.
The very first line of your link, disputes your post.
The Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts reversed a controversial decision to replace the terms "mother" and "father" with "parent 1" and "parent 2."
Perhaps someone did make the poor decision to replace the terms mother and father, but someone with more sense overruled them.

Gay people do not want to wipe out the family, they want to be allowed to raise a family of their own. They do not want to be called parent one and parent two. They want to be called Mommy and Daddy. In these cases there are two mommies or two daddies. I am sure you find that terribly perverted, but it is not.

I know two gay men (Now married) who adopted three boys from Central America. The oldest is now sixteen or seventeen and shows no signs of catching "Gayness" from his fathers. The boys address both men as "Dad" or "Daddy". When talking about their fathers to someone else they call them Dad J or Dad C.

These men are as good parents as any hetero couple, maybe better. They are not immoral, the are church goers, active in their community and I am proud to have them as friends.

In case you don't know, I am hetero but tolerant.

LottaKash
08-19-2015, 01:52 PM
.

I am sure you find that terribly perverted, but it is not.



Not terribly, "just"...

There is no other living species on earth that has two mommies or two daddies...It is just terribly unnatural...

mostpost
08-19-2015, 01:58 PM
It appears there was an original story in which Tennessee said they were going to use the terms Parent 1 and Parent 2 in place of Mother and Father. Then there was an update in which Tennessee realized this was a really dumb idea.
It may be that Zico20 posted before the update.

Let's remember that this was an idea hatched in the Tennessee AOC all on their own. There is no gay movement to be known as parent 1 and parent 2.

There may be a few exceptions, but I think in most cases in a household with two male partners, both want to be looked upon as the father. Two women would both want to be seen as the mother. Contrary to popular belief, gay people do not want to be the other sex. That is another category entirely.

boxcar
08-19-2015, 01:59 PM
Oh, and I'm a father of two, by the way.
It won't really bother me filling out a form in the future,
and having to refer to myself as parent 1 or 2.

This isn't just a matter for homosexual parents.
Straight couples have been adopting children since forever.
Referring to them as the child's mother or father isn't technically correct.
Political correctness takes a backseat to categorical accuracy, perhaps?

"Isn't technically correct"? But it has been legally correct forever and has served societies just fine. The non-biological parents of adopted children have always been regarded as being their parents legally. What is wrong with that?

mostpost
08-19-2015, 02:04 PM
Not terribly, "just"...

There is no other living species on earth that has two mommies or two daddies...It is just terribly unnatural...

It would serve you well to do some research before you make a statement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

mostpost
08-19-2015, 02:06 PM
"Isn't technically correct"? But it has been legally correct forever and has served societies just fine. The non-biological parents of adopted children have always been regarded as being their parents legally. What is wrong with that?
I have to agree with you on this-and disagree with H4C. Adoptive parents are parents, both De Jure and De Facto.

And it does not matter if they are gay, straight or bi.

Inner Dirt
08-19-2015, 02:46 PM
I get sick and tired of the LGBT or whatever you call it being celebrated and crammed down everyone's throat. Fine and dandy
it is a biological aberration but why does it have to get so much
attention from the media?

I have always had MSN as my home page (please someone give me an alternative to look at)

Daily, close to the top of the page is a link to either a Caitlyn Jenner story or pictures of the he-she.

Another one is Britney Griner's marriage troubles or her wife expecting twins.
(If Tim Duncan's wife was expecting twins no one would know about it)

On modern television there seems to be way more gays than are in the general population. One example gays make up like 3% of the population
and even way less than that are the obvious types (flaming guys and women who dress like men) yet on Master Chef they have at least one or
more obvious homosexuals out of 20 contestants.

TV talk show hosts on broadcast TV, we have Ellen, Rosie, Steve and Chris (he just died) so keeping with the law of averages in the general population
can you name me 128 straight TV talk show hosts?

This country is so backward and caters to minority groups over and above
the majority masses. What happened to "In Rome do as the Romans do"?
Anywhere but the USA they would tell you cross out what doesn't apply on
a form. If it says mother and father if the kid has two dads cross out mother and write father. Parent 1 and 2, give me a break. That will probably
cause fights, each parent is equally as important so who should
be parent 1?

Marshall Bennett
08-19-2015, 03:48 PM
InnerDirt :ThmbUp:

Marshall Bennett
08-19-2015, 03:54 PM
Gay people do not want to wipe out the family, they want to be allowed to raise a family of their own. They do not want to be called parent one and parent two. They want to be called Mommy and Daddy. In these cases there are two mommies or two daddies. I am sure you find that terribly perverted, but it is not.

I know two gay men (Now married) who adopted three boys from Central America. The oldest is now sixteen or seventeen and shows no signs of catching "Gayness" from his fathers. The boys address both men as "Dad" or "Daddy". When talking about their fathers to someone else they call them Dad J or Dad C.

And this is all nice and natural? This is "normal" as gays want to be referred as?
Sometimes you post useful stuff, mosty, but a lot of what you post such as this makes me want to throw up.

LottaKash
08-19-2015, 04:45 PM
It would serve you well to do some research before you make a statement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

Interesting enough, but I wonder what the other animals think of all of that aberrant behavior ?....Of course they don't think rationally as we do, so I guess they don't have this moral dilemma going on, as we homo-sapiens do....

That article, tho informative to a degree, didn't change my mind, in this regard, one iota...

iceknight
08-19-2015, 05:01 PM
Here is the start of the new gay world we will live in. Political correctness is going way further than anyone can imagine. For all the fathers on this board, how does it feel to no longer be a father. I realize this is only one state , but it will spread like the plague. Surprised Tennessee started this.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/08/18/tennessee-courts-replace-mother-and-father-with-parent-1-parent-2.html?intcmp=hphz03

Gays are cheering the start of wiping out the traditional family. If you are looking for affirmation from the government on YOUR fatherhood...
then this meme is the only response that comes to me ...
http://i2.wp.com/memecollection.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/obama-hes-not-your-dad.jpg?w=900

And with regards to "moral dilemmas" .. morality is a highly subjective thing. How do people on this board deal with the morality of using animals for our pleasure, drugging them, selectively breeding them so only speedsters are born with weak legs and other associated issues with horse racing? Any number of people can take various stands on issues but using broad adjectives like moral soley to push one's agenda is not always appropriate.

However, in the interest of broader population, I do agree with this:
.... cross out what doesn't apply on
a form. In fact, going back to my earlier comment on affirmation labels from the govt (being a non-issue) for actual family dynamics, it is even more efficient to not waste resources changing forms.

classhandicapper
08-19-2015, 07:17 PM
I get sick and tired of the LGBT or whatever you call it being celebrated and crammed down everyone's throat.

It's happening because LBGT community is actively trying to normalize homosexual and transgender behavior. It's similar to the period on TV and in the movies when they would almost never show a black person as the "bad guy". It was an attempt to break the stereotypes and reprogram America.

It's all social engineering that may or may not have anything to do with statistical or any other reality.

I have a theory on this. I think it sometimes provokes the opposite effect. If you don't mind, I'll use you as an example. I don't think you are at all unusual. I suspect there are loads of people that couldn't care less who is sleeping with who or what they do in bed. But they don't like having it rammed down their throat on every television show every night. So as a result, the LBGT community's attempt to reprogram people's thinking sometimes creates hostility that would never be there except for the fact that they are going way over the top.

horses4courses
08-19-2015, 07:21 PM
And it does not matter if they are gay, straight or bi.

Then we agree.

Some right-leaners don't feel that gay parents
have the same rights as straight adoptive parents.

Track Collector
08-19-2015, 10:48 PM
God instituted marriage, and defined it as the union of a man and woman.

Funny how man often thinks he/she knows better than our creator.

FantasticDan
08-19-2015, 11:45 PM
God instituted marriage, and defined it as the union of a man and woman. Funny how man often thinks he/she knows better than our creator.Actually, marriage has quite the varied history, much of it before your particular creator got ahold of it :p :ThmbUp:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/20/historical-marriage-definitions_n_4589763.html

Clocker
08-20-2015, 01:14 AM
I don't give a rat's patoot what consenting adults do as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others. But I am seeing increasing evidence of a potential problem in this area.

The potential problem is that children raised in a traditional two-parent heterosexual household appear to have a much lower predisposition to learning and developmental problems than kids raised in other "non-traditional" households.

I don't give a rat's patoot about that either, since they aren't my kids. But as my old math prof used to say, a word to the wise is sufficient. Check it out for yourself.

Greyfox
08-20-2015, 01:52 AM
The rest of the world, or much of it at least, sees things differently now.


The vast majority of the world does not see things differently now.
Only the brow beaten politically correct nations of the west, and even many individuals in western countries do not agree with gay marriage.
Don't believe me?
Check out Russia, China, India, Arabia.....and the list goes on and on.

iceknight
08-20-2015, 03:09 AM
The vast majority of the world does not see things differently now.
Only the brow beaten politically correct nations of the west, and even many individuals in western countries do not agree with gay marriage.
Don't believe me?
Check out Russia, China, India, Arabia.....and the list goes on and on. Those four? I am surprised anyone in US wants to be like them.. but I guess if any narrow agenda fits-then north korea/syria/libya would also be on the list then!

Inner Dirt
08-20-2015, 10:50 AM
It's happening because LBGT community is actively trying to normalize homosexual and transgender behavior. It's similar to the period on TV and in the movies when they would almost never show a black person as the "bad guy". It was an attempt to break the stereotypes and reprogram America.

It's all social engineering that may or may not have anything to do with statistical or any other reality.

I have a theory on this. I think it sometimes provokes the opposite effect. If you don't mind, I'll use you as an example. I don't think you are at all unusual. I suspect there are loads of people that couldn't care less who is sleeping with who or what they do in bed. But they don't like having it rammed down their throat on every television show every night. So as a result, the LBGT community's attempt to reprogram people's thinking sometimes creates hostility that would never be there except for the fact that they are going way over the top.

That hits the nail on the head for me. The Caitlyn Jenner thing sent me over the edge. I live in the 3rd world country of Central Virginia where the broadcast radius of your average Sports Talk station is 25 miles. I can only
pick up Espn Radio in my shop if I want to listen to sports talk. Of course
Jenner won a courage award from ESPN and was talked about for hours for
weeks on end on ESPN radio a while back. Also all the ridiculous over the top comments, headline: "Caitlyn Jenner looks "stunning" in an evening gown. Really? Give me a break? Even the photo shopped version looked like
nothing more than a drag queen. A straight male loaded on Viagara who just was released from 20 years in prison would not look twice at Jenner.
Sick of them trying to cram that he-she down our throats.

Tom
08-20-2015, 11:18 AM
Interesting enough, but I wonder what the other animals think of all of that aberrant behavior ?....Of course they don't think rationally as we do, so I guess they don't have this moral dilemma going on, as we homo-sapiens do....

That article, tho informative to a degree, didn't change my mind, in this regard, one iota...

Between this and abortion, we may get rid of libs once and for all. :jump:

Greyfox
08-20-2015, 11:54 AM
Those four? I am surprised anyone in US wants to be like them.. but I guess if any narrow agenda fits-then north korea/syria/libya would also be on the list then!

I never said that anyone wants to be like them.
They were used to underline the point that the vast majority of people on this planet are not in favor of gay marriages.
Horses4courses more or less claimed the "rest of the world sees things differently now," when in fact the rest of the world doesn't.

Marshall Bennett
08-20-2015, 11:59 AM
Depends a lot if you are in favor of traditional values, or this new-wave brand of puke. It's really simple, actually. :)

TBD
08-20-2015, 12:17 PM
First and foremost I very rarely attempt to assist others with enlightenment, simply because they fail to assist themselves. However, in this case I feel a compelling need to correct a general misdirection that Mostpost has created. Other species on this planet do not exhibit Homosexual behavior. This is limited to Homo sapiens sapiens. It is improper to project Human behaviors onto other species. The actions other animals display with sexuality have vastly different meanings and within certain respects are not sexual in nature. Moreover they represent dominance or a definition of order within their environment. In fact, to project their actions back onto our behavior might enlighten you. Really Mostpost attempting to use Wikipedia to justify you thoughts on this matter defines your bias on the subject.

Tom
08-20-2015, 12:29 PM
Gay behavior is not natural. That is not a value statement, it is just fact.
Nature is not fair nor unfair. It has no use for politics. It is what it is.
Nature most usually provides for a male and a female and their purpose is to mate and continue the species.

If two people decide to go against that, and use sex for what it was not intended, then they are not good nor bad, but they are not natural.

thaskalos
08-20-2015, 12:51 PM
First and foremost I very rarely attempt to assist others with enlightenment, simply because they fail to assist themselves. However, in this case I feel a compelling need to correct a general misdirection that Mostpost has created. Other species on this planet do not exhibit Homosexual behavior. This is limited to Homo sapiens sapiens. It is improper to project Human behaviors onto other species. The actions other animals display with sexuality have vastly different meanings and within certain respects are not sexual in nature. Moreover they represent dominance or a definition of order within their environment. In fact, to project their actions back onto our behavior might enlighten you. Really Mostpost attempting to use Wikipedia to justify you thoughts on this matter defines your bias on the subject.
I find this utterly fascinating! You say that other species DO display "homosexual behavior"...but this behavior has a different meaning, and is not really "sexual" in nature. But your explanation for said behavior seems lacking...especially since recent studies into the sexual behavior of animals seem to suggest that some animals' "homosexual behavior" is of a more lasting nature...whereas their "heterosexual behavior" is rather fleeting by comparison. Is this an act of "dominance" or a "definition of order within their environment" too?

I don't pretend to be an expert on the topic, of course. And I always appreciate a little assistance with my "enlightenment". :ThmbUp:

Tom
08-20-2015, 01:39 PM
especially since recent studies into the sexual behavior of animals seem to suggest that some animals' "homosexual behavior" is of a more lasting nature...whereas their "heterosexual behavior" is rather fleeting by comparison.

Marriage is also not natural! :rolleyes:
Covorting- "stop and bop," appears to be natural. :jump:

classhandicapper
08-20-2015, 03:08 PM
I think this humans vs. animals debate is kind of missing the point.

The standard for normalcy can't be if animals do it too. That's more of a hint that whatever causes same sex attraction and behavior in humans might also be present in other species.

Tom
08-20-2015, 03:42 PM
Some PEOPLE covet other species as well.

classhandicapper
08-20-2015, 03:44 PM
Some PEOPLE covet other species as well.

I always thought Black Caviar had a nice hind quarters......for racing that is. ;)

Marshall Bennett
08-20-2015, 03:56 PM
Gay behavior is not natural. That is not a value statement, it is just fact.
Nature is not fair nor unfair. It has no use for politics. It is what it is.
Nature most usually provides for a male and a female and their purpose is to mate and continue the species.

If two people decide to go against that, and use sex for what it was not intended, then they are not good nor bad, but they are not natural.
Seems to me if it's not natural, and goes against what sex was intended to be for, then it's bad. :)

horses4courses
08-20-2015, 04:21 PM
All these "experts" who determine what's "right and natural".

The only natural thing that I see from them
is that their mouths open far too often. :rolleyes:

Tom
08-20-2015, 04:40 PM
Well, Brainiac, suppose YOU define natural for us peons.
Things that do not occur in nature would be unnatural to me.
But you must have some special insights.
Please, the floor is yours.

Enlighten, Oh Wise one.
(Or is it wise-acre?)

horses4courses
08-20-2015, 04:48 PM
Well, Brainiac, suppose YOU define natural for us peons.
Things that do not occur in nature would be unnatural to me.
But you must have some special insights.
Please, the floor is yours.

Enlighten, Oh Wise one.
(Or is it wise-acre?)

Are there ever any issues for you that aren't
black or white, natural or unnatural, right or wrong?

LottaKash
08-20-2015, 05:30 PM
All these "experts" who determine what's "right and natural".

The only natural thing that I see from them
is that their mouths open far too often. :rolleyes:

Do you think, in men, that putting a certain something into certain orifices in the body that were only meant for certain and specific functions, is a natural and normal thing to do ?

Or for women, having to strap on a certain something in hopes that it will perform a certain function, when in reality that certain something is/was already available, is that a natural and normal thing to do.. ?

Are certain gay men already born with a girly-lisp ?...Is that natural..?

They are all choices as far as I can see, and unnatural actions it seems, at least to me....

thaskalos
08-20-2015, 05:38 PM
Do you think, in men, that putting a certain something into certain orifices in the body that were only meant for certain and specific functions, is a natural and normal thing to do ?


As long as MY orifices remain unattacked...I am fine with it.

Marshall Bennett
08-20-2015, 07:09 PM
LottaKash. :ThmbUp:

Tom
08-20-2015, 09:47 PM
Are there ever any issues for you that aren't
black or white, natural or unnatural, right or wrong?

Duh.
THIS one.
I said, if you paid attention, it is neither right nor wrong, just not natural.
Now, are you going to enlighten us?

iceknight
08-21-2015, 12:02 AM
Do you think, in men, that putting a certain something into certain orifices in the body that were only meant for certain and specific functions, is a natural and normal thing to do ?

Or for women, having to strap on a certain something in hopes that it will perform a certain function, when in reality that certain something is/was already available, is that a natural and normal thing to do.. ?

Are certain gay men already born with a girly-lisp ?...Is that natural..?

They are all choices as far as I can see, and unnatural actions it seems, at least to me.... 1. You seem too much fixated on the sex portion of homosexual relationships. Your focus seems "unnatural" to me.
2. I hope you have asked the orifice question about the mouth to a large majority of heterosexual couples.
So now, do you still think that it is your or the govt business to focus on what happens behind closed doors between consensual adults?

The biggest thing that lgbt couples in love had been demanding for the longest time were equal rights - to co-parent/adopt, to share property legally, to be able to present in the hospital etc.. Since that was not afforded for a long time, they just took it to the courts, challenged the existing law and won the case. Maybe having an open mind would help in understanding what human rights are.. you know those same rights that the US claims to be at the forefront of.. maybe not. Terms like "natural" are used per convenience by most people. Hogwash.

LottaKash
08-21-2015, 01:09 AM
1. You seem too much fixated on the sex portion of homosexual relationships. Your focus seems "unnatural" to me.
2. I hope you have asked the orifice question about the mouth to a large majority of heterosexual couples.
So now, do you still think that it is your or the govt business to focus on what happens behind closed doors between consensual adults?

The biggest thing that lgbt couples in love had been demanding for the longest time were equal rights - to co-parent/adopt, to share property legally, to be able to present in the hospital etc.. Since that was not afforded for a long time, they just took it to the courts, challenged the existing law and won the case. Maybe having an open mind would help in understanding what human rights are.. you know those same rights that the US claims to be at the forefront of.. maybe not. Terms like "natural" are used per convenience by most people. Hogwash.

I am not fixated on anything...If you noticed, I posed my comments as Questions to H4C on the subject of "natural"... As in Men on Men, and Women on Women, and the unnaturalness of it.....As in Non-Procreating Sex as a Fetish...

The Hogwash comment is redirected back to you...As a Bible Believing Christian, my God has stated what is an Abomination to him, and I try my best to abide with that...If you are not good with that then so be it...You can continue to get more of your religion & morality from the NY times or from the Evolutionists or some other new-age avant garde type pages...

Our judicial system is one of "precedence" now, and morality, as it seems to me at least, has taken a back seat to the "squeaky wheels of American society".... This nation has become a nation of "Nihilism"

"nihilism" :

noun ni·hil·ism \ˈnī-(h)ə-ˌli-zəm, ˈnē-\

: the belief that traditional morals, ideas, beliefs, etc., have no worth or value

: the belief that a society's political and social institutions are so bad that they should be destroyed

horses4courses
08-21-2015, 11:03 AM
I am not fixated on anything...If you noticed, I posed my comments as Questions to H4C on the subject of "natural"... As in Men on Men, and Women on Women, and the unnaturalness of it.....As in Non-Procreating Sex as a Fetish...

The Hogwash comment is redirected back to you...As a Bible Believing Christian, my God has stated what is an Abomination to him, and I try my best to abide with that...If you are not good with that then so be it...You can continue to get more of your religion & morality from the NY times or from the Evolutionists or some other new-age avant garde type pages...

Our judicial system is one of "precedence" now, and morality, as it seems to me at least, has taken a back seat to the "squeaky wheels of American society".... This nation has become a nation of "Nihilism"

"nihilism" :

noun ni·hil·ism \ˈnī-(h)ə-ˌli-zəm, ˈnē-\

: the belief that traditional morals, ideas, beliefs, etc., have no worth or value

: the belief that a society's political and social institutions are so bad that they should be destroyed

This can only come about by believing that your morals, ideas,
and beliefs are solely the correct ones, and superior to any others.

What it comes down to is an inability to think outside the box.
Dismissing all that is contrary to your beliefs,
even though they seldom, if ever, have a direct effect on your life.
That failure leaves your mind shut into that box. That's your choice.

Tom
08-21-2015, 11:50 AM
If one thought their morals and beliefs were not the correct ones, why would they hold on to them?

And is what you just described what the left is doing here as well?

Greyfox
08-21-2015, 12:05 PM
The biggest thing that lgbt couples in love had been demanding for the longest time were equal rights - to co-parent/adopt, to share property legally, to be able to present in the hospital etc.. Since that was not afforded for a long time, they just took it to the courts, challenged the existing law and won the case. Maybe having an open mind would help in understanding what human rights are.. you know those same rights that the US claims to be at the forefront of.. maybe not. Terms like "natural" are used per convenience by most people. Hogwash.

Fine. But why do they need to call it marriage?
Give them their rights in a Civil Union.
Those who believe that a marriage is strictly between a man and a woman have their rights too.

horses4courses
08-21-2015, 12:06 PM
If one thought their morals and beliefs were not the correct ones, why would they hold on to them?

And is what you just described what the left is doing here as well?

Tolerance.
Are your morals and beliefs the only way to go?

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the code you live by.
You, or lottakash, or any other conservatives here.
But, is it your way or the highway?

Marshall Bennett
08-21-2015, 12:33 PM
Tolerance.
Are your morals and beliefs the only way to go?

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the code you live by.
You, or lottakash, or any other conservatives here.
But, is it your way or the highway?
And it's been the moral standard for thousands of years, but that's still not good enough for you liberals. Now you want to poison the pot. You would have thought the outbreak of Aids might have been a clue, but instead of curbing the moral decay you pass laws to make it even worse.
Perhaps it's not our way or the highway, but a higher power or the highway.
Oh wait, that's no good for you either.
Do carry on, just leave us (me) out of your moral cesspool.

Tom
08-21-2015, 12:35 PM
When your way includes what I consider to be murdering babies, yes, I have no tolerance. I tried to just let if go and have it dealt with by a higher power, but your guys are now trying to get me to pay for your crimes, so yes, now we are at war. I support anyone who want to deny your side any rights.

Who you bop or how you bop, I do not care. But leave me out it. Bake your own cake or whatever it is you want.

classhandicapper
08-21-2015, 01:23 PM
This is NOT a black and white subject.

Once can be extremely religious and believe in the 100% validity of scripture but still be tolerant, accepting, sympathetic, loving, believe homosexual behavior is typically not a choice, and even fight for many gay rights.

One can be tolerant, accepting, sympathetic, loving, believe homosexual behavior is typically not a choice, and even fight for gay rights but still conclude it's not normal behavior.

One can be a raving atheist that believes religion is the worst thing to ever happen to humanity and will eventually lead to its doom but still conclude homosexuality is not a normal behavior.

There are a lot of different flavors.

Then there are people like me for example that originally got their values from religious instruction but concluded later that you could easily get to most of the same answers by just observing the world and the results of various possible paths in life. I consider myself in that "tolerant" group but get frustrated that tolerance is not a two way street.

Marshall Bennett
08-21-2015, 03:35 PM
Are certain gay men already born with a girly-lisp ?...Is that natural..?

:lol: I missed this somehow earlier. A classic case.

delayjf
08-21-2015, 04:28 PM
What it comes down to is an inability to think outside the box.

I just love how the left perpetrates and defends immorality as some kind of manifestation of their "intellectual" superiority - To quote Capt. James Kirk to Kahn - "I'm laughing at your superior intellect". :lol:

horses4courses
08-21-2015, 04:48 PM
I just love how the left perpetrates and defends immorality as some kind of manifestation of their "intellectual" superiority - To quote Capt. James Kirk to Kahn - "I'm laughing at your superior intellect". :lol:

Oh, is that what it is? :lol:

Call it as you wish.
I see it as intolerance and bigotry - caused by a closed mindset.

mostpost
08-21-2015, 08:26 PM
If one thought their morals and beliefs were not the correct ones, why would they hold on to them?

And is what you just described what the left is doing here as well?
You think they are correct but are they? A lot of things which were once forbidden for very good reasons should be (and are) allowed now. For example, do you know the real reason for the Catholic prohibition against eating meat on Fridays?

We were told it was because Christ died on a Friday and this was a way in which we could share in his sacrifice. A good enough reason and a worthwhile sacrifice.

But here is the real reason it began. Back in the day, the people of Italy stopped eating fish. The fisherman went to the pope and said "No one is buying fish anymore. Our families are starving." So the Pope at the time decreed that no one should eat meat on Friday. He couched his decree in terms of Christ dying on a Friday, but the reason for the decree was to help the fisherman of Italy or any other country.

The reason Jews and Muslims do not eat pork products is religious, but it is based on the difficulties in ancient times of preparing and preserving those foods

The institution of Marriage-which has had many forms throughout history-was started because children needed a stable forum in which to be raised. The optimum number of children needed to be conceived in order to perpetuate the species. Most children died in childbirth or a few years after.
Adults died earlier and more frequently. We needed to have as many children as we could just to stay even

Those are not problems we have now. We have more than enough people on the earth. I'm not talking about abortion now, but there is no reason why anyone should not practice birth control if they so desire. The idea that sex is sinful if it is not engaged in for procreation is nonsense.

Clocker
08-21-2015, 09:37 PM
But here is the real reason it began. Back in the day, the people of Italy stopped eating fish. The fisherman went to the pope and said "No one is buying fish anymore. Our families are starving." So the Pope at the time decreed that no one should eat meat on Friday. He couched his decree in terms of Christ dying on a Friday, but the reason for the decree was to help the fisherman of Italy or any other country.

And they all lived happily ever after. :D

One of the consistent metaphors for Christ through out church history is the Lamb of God. John the Baptist, seeing Christ, said "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world."

Christ was the sacrificial lamb, and to honor the sacrifice, Catholics abstained from the meat of warm blooded animals on Fridays. They still do on Fridays in Lent. Fish flesh is meat, but it is the meat of cold-blooded animals. Seafood was allowed on Friday, but so was pasta, cheese, etc.

But thanks for the quaint little fairy tale.

iceknight
08-21-2015, 11:57 PM
A lot of BS arguments presented here by those supporting the sanctity of marriage. Make sure to cancel the Ashley Madison accounts and stop watching the Duggar show. In sheer numbers Ashley Madison clearly shows that marriage is threatened by heterosexuals themselves - whether they be cons or dems or independents in political affiliation.

mostpost
08-22-2015, 02:11 AM
Fine. But why do they need to call it marriage?
Give them their rights in a Civil Union.
Those who believe that a marriage is strictly between a man and a woman have their rights too.
Because a Civil Union is not equal to Marriage. It's a substitute. It's like "Separate but Equal." Black people could not eat at the same lunch counter as white people, but that was ok because they had their own lunch counter. They could not ride in the front of the bus, but that was OK because the back of the bus was going the same places as the front. Black children could not attend the same schools as white children but they had separate but equal schools.

People believed that this was right. They believed that God had ordained it. That he had created black people to be inferior to white people. Don't tell me that this was not true. It was absolutely true. And those people were just as wrong as you are about marriage.

Inner Dirt
08-22-2015, 08:45 AM
Because a Civil Union is not equal to Marriage. It's a substitute. It's like "Separate but Equal." Black people could not eat at the same lunch counter as white people, but that was ok because they had their own lunch counter. They could not ride in the front of the bus, but that was OK because the back of the bus was going the same places as the front. Black children could not attend the same schools as white children but they had separate but equal schools.

People believed that this was right. They believed that God had ordained it. That he had created black people to be inferior to white people. Don't tell me that this was not true. It was absolutely true. And those people were just as wrong as you are about marriage.

To compare LGBT right struggles to anything a black person endured in this country really minimizes how blacks suffered before civil right laws. You cannot hide being black, but you sure can hide being gay if you wish to.

classhandicapper
08-22-2015, 10:18 AM
Because a Civil Union is not equal to Marriage.

For those that object to gay marriage on religious grounds (many object for other reasons), the answer is fairly simple. Value your own church marriages as totally distinct from marriages performed by government.

They are different anyway.

When you get married by a mainstream priest, minister, rabbi, cleric etc... it is a spiritual union that God is theoretically giving his seal of approval to.

When you get married by the "state", God has nothing to do with it. Given our government, it's way more likely that Satan is involved.

We are just talking about words. They are not equal anyway.

Greyfox
08-22-2015, 12:21 PM
Because a Civil Union is not equal to Marriage. It's a substitute. It's like "Separate but Equal."

For all intents and purposes a Civil Union would have the same rights as Marriage under the law.
The term Marriage should be reserved for when a man and a woman wed.
The term Civil Union should be for same sex couples who wed.
There is a tremendous push in society to "normalize" homosexuality.
I have relatives who are homosexuals.
I love them dearly, but I don't see them as "normal."
They are different and if two of them wed people of the same sex, then the term used for that merge should be Civil Union.
The analogy of blacks at the back of the bus is a poor one.

Greyfox
08-22-2015, 12:42 PM
And now I'm getting a google pop up at the bottom of the page here for
Atlantis All Gay Cruises. Yikes. :faint:

mostpost
08-22-2015, 03:30 PM
To compare LGBT right struggles to anything a black person endured in this country really minimizes how blacks suffered before civil right laws. You cannot hide being black, but you sure can hide being gay if you wish to.
Why do you guys always miss the point? I was talking about attitudes toward the two subjects, not the consequences. In both cases those trying to deny rights to a minority group were convinced that they were acting morally and those that opposed them were immoral.

Marshall Bennett
08-22-2015, 03:38 PM
Why do you guys always miss the point? I was talking about attitudes toward the two subjects, not the consequences. In both cases those trying to deny rights to a minority group were convinced that they were acting morally and those that opposed them were immoral.
Homosexuality is unnatural. The skin color of blacks isn't. How can use the comparison to justify any statements you make within this thread?
I believe you sort of derailed from the subject line here.

TJDave
08-22-2015, 07:03 PM
Homosexuality is unnatural. The skin color of blacks isn't.

Up until 50-60 years ago a black person's skin color and homosexuality was considered unnatural. Are you suggesting society was wrong about one yet now still right about the other?

Greyfox
08-22-2015, 07:06 PM
Up until 50-60 years ago a black person's skin color and homosexuality was considered unnatural. Are you suggesting society was wrong about one yet now still right about the other?

I've been around longer than that and I never ever heard anyone ever say that a black person's skin color was unnatural.
They might have said a lot of other things about blacks, but not that.

TJDave
08-22-2015, 07:11 PM
I've been around longer than that and I never ever heard anyone ever say that a black person's skin color was unnatural.
They might have said a lot of other things about blacks, but not that.

I grew up in the South. White's only bathrooms and water fountains is not natural.

Tom
08-22-2015, 07:15 PM
The people that hung those signs were unnatural.

Clocker
08-22-2015, 07:22 PM
I grew up in the South. White's only bathrooms and water fountains is not natural.

You said black skin color was considered unnatural.
Now you are saying white behavior is unnatural? :confused:

Greyfox
08-22-2015, 07:24 PM
I grew up in the South. White's only bathrooms and water fountains is not natural.

That is not saying their skin color is unnatural.
When you post statements such as you did, that is how history gets revised.
No one ever said their skin color is unnatural.

PaceAdvantage
08-29-2015, 10:50 AM
Sorry that you regard gay people as inferior.
That's your problem, though.

The rest of the world, or much of it at least, sees things differently now.
Less bigotry and more tolerance. That's as it should be.
People should learn to accept others for who they are.

The family unit will do just fine with gay couples in the neighborhood.
You can still sleep soundly at night. No worries.

I do have one question for you, though.
Are you a person likely to complain about over-population on this earth?Where did zico write that he thought gay people were inferior?

PaceAdvantage
08-29-2015, 10:52 AM
Some right-leaners don't feel that gay parents
have the same rights as straight adoptive parents.Who?