# Politics and News > SOCIETY & humanities >  Is homosexuality being turned into a leftist ideology?

## thedarkdaimon

I decided instead of derailing the America/Sodom/Gomorrah thread to spin this off into its own thread:



> I always separate the condition of being homosexual from the turning of homosexuality into an aggressive branch of leftist ideology to be used ruthlessly against real or perceived enemies. The first I can tolerate easily. The second is hateful, toxic poison that must be eradicated.





> Can I get an example what you are talking about in regards to homosexuality being turned into an leftist ideology? Because I'm not seeing it.





> You can't be serious. All these "Gay" Pride marches...loud and proud and the junk hangin' out...
> 
> And then, the various demands for political accommodation. You know of which I speak - I don't want to get off on a tangent; you're free to start another thread if you want. But all this...is demand for accedence to demands. Made by a small minority; backed with big money. Made of the political structure; to be implemented through political means.
> 
> Anyone wants to practice unnatural, unhygenic sex - that's fine, as long as your buddies are willing and as long as I don't have to watch it. But for ALL of us to change our laws, our language, our standards, our religious faiths...our whole CULTURE...for a fraction of the population, on THEIR demand...that's beyond the pale.


What demands besides want to be able to get married and to be treated like any American are homosexuals asking for? The only change in laws they want is the right to marry and to not be discriminated against. They are not trying to change our language, standards or religious faiths.

Homosexuals just want to be treated equally under the law. How is that a leftist ideology? Of course looking back at the way conservatives have treated minority groups, maybe it is.

----------

kilgram (09-25-2013)

----------


## Calypso Jones

yes they are trying to change our language standards and beliefs.    They've usurped the term 'gay'.  I resent that.   They and their supporters also sneak in names with other meanings that are well known to the homosexual culture but not to the rest of us...and those terms are designed to insult/denigrate heteros/Christians/conservatives.

----------


## Canadianeye

All of that is nonsense. Nothing personal, but it is balderdash. So, historically all the homosexual agendists wanted was to be married? I could have sworn, that it started out as an attempt to generate societal tolerance. This was achieved by getting the AMA to proclaim that it was not a mental disorder. Then the pressure was applied for acceptance via the leftist media, aka, libtard hollywood elites, full of their own brand of debauchery. Then came the arguments about it being a genetic thing, and they had no control...equating themselves to blacks civil rights movement. (much to the vehement disliking by the black community). Then, they used the viciousness of their lobby (and attack dog liberal leftist medias) to attack those who stood against this creeping intolerance.

Then...in the liberal left dominated education system they started going after the children. My children, cuz I took it personally. At the same time, they went after the churches using their liberal leftist massively bias media again. Then the nuclear family. Add along the way the military as a strategic point of cause.

Now, I have a mental disorder in the way of some mass planet wide general diagnosis phobia, and they are normal. Our children are indoctrinated beyond belief, society has an anything goes, the ends justify the means, swirl down into toilet reality...which was long predicted by people like me was gonna happen. And it did.

Eventually, they wanted to get married. In my country even though that has been achieved, they still rail against the PM and try to stir up controversy. Why? Because they are liberal leftists with a voice granted them by a purchased media.

----------

Bill the Dead Cat (06-22-2014),Calypso Jones (09-25-2013),Perianne (09-25-2013),texmaster (09-25-2013)

----------


## JustPassinThru

In their bid of rent-seeking, looking for ways for free bennies paid for by others and for other reasons...the homosexual lobby has tried to redefine "marriage."  Doing so is offensive enough in its own right; but in so doing, they're penalizing persons who resist on moral or religious grounds and thus refuse to support these sham-marriage ceremonies.  These include clergy; wedding caterers and photographers; newspapers with society pages that list weddings.  Need I mention the new preference the military is giving to homosexual sham-marriage partners?

The attempt is blunt club to BEAT others into complying with their DEMANDS that this be labeled as normal and laudable.

Beyond that:  For good sense homosexuals were kept out of children's youth groups.  Because these groups function as intended when sexual attraction and distraction are REMOVED.  Children and adolescents are in there, partly, to learn the wisdom of older persons.  Of their sex - meaning, responsibilities, customs, the way it's expected they act as they get older.  What is honorable.  The sort of stuff that might be uncomfortable when discussed at the dinner table.

Just as it would be completely inappropriate to have twenty-five-year-old MEN leading adolescent Girl Scouts...so, too, is it obviously wrong to have someone who may be of the same sex but who's sexually attracted to those children.  This is a no brainer!...but not to homosexual agitators.

Who have the ear of an increasing number of sense-free but esteem-enhanced Federal jurists.  Now, maybe a socially-isolated judge of forty years thinks these ideas are good...but isn't it up to PARENTS what's good for their children?

And if you don't agree...then, you're working to overturn America's culture with Leftist ideology.

----------

Calypso Jones (09-25-2013),texmaster (09-25-2013)

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> yes they are trying to change our language standards and beliefs.    They've usurped the term 'gay'.  I resent that.   They and their supporters also sneak in names with other meanings that are well known to the homosexual culture but not to the rest of us...and those terms are designed to insult/denigrate heteros/Christians/conservatives.


They didn't usurp the term "gay". They just asked to be called that, is that so bad? Do you call African-Americans "negroes"? If the majority of Americans didn't want to call homosexuals, gays, it would have never happened. Every culture has its own words and meanings, nothing new there, where do you think "twerking" and "brony" come from? Besides "homophobic" which was coined to describe people who are afraid of homosexuals, what terms are an insult to hereros/Christians/conservatives?

----------

kilgram (09-25-2013)

----------


## Perianne

> They didn't usurp the term "gay". They just asked to be called that, is that so bad? Do you call African-Americans "negroes"? If the majority of Americans didn't want to call homosexuals, gays, it would have never happened. Every culture has its own words and meanings, nothing new there, where do you think "twerking" and "brony" come from? Besides "homophobic" which was coined to describe people who are afraid of homosexuals, what terms are an insult to hereros/Christians/conservatives?


I have my own term for them and other groups who vote Democratic.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> They didn't usurp the term "gay". They just asked to be called that, is that so bad? Do you call African-Americans "negroes"? If the majority of Americans didn't want to call homosexuals, gays, it would have never happened. Every culture has its own words and meanings, nothing new there, where do you think "twerking" and "brony" come from? Besides "homophobic" which was coined to describe people who are afraid of homosexuals, what terms are an insult to hereros/Christians/conservatives?


your opinion was beat down by two very reasoned posts and you go after my little post about the term 'gay'.  Well that's pretty cowardly isn't it?  Or are you just pretending the two previous posters didn't post?  

I am not homophobic.  No one is homophobic.  There is no fear involved.    It's disgust with the practice and with the radical homosexuals' conduct and rhetoric.   They don't want marriage.  They've said so themselves.  What they want to do is to destroy the institution of marriage and ultimately the culture.

----------

Micketto (09-25-2013),texmaster (09-25-2013)

----------


## kilgram

> yes they are trying to change our language standards and beliefs.    They've usurped the term 'gay'.  I resent that.   They and their supporters also sneak in names with other meanings that are well known to the homosexual culture but not to the rest of us...and those terms are designed to insult/denigrate heteros/Christians/conservatives.


They usurped the term gay? What the hell.

How do they denigrate Christians/Conservative? I am hetero and I don't feel denigrated in any way. 

What beliefs they want to change? The belief that homosexuals are inferior, that they are rubbish? That they should be stoned? Or what? Well, then if it is, I welcome this change. Maybe you, the conservative are the problem.

----------


## Micketto

> What demands besides want to be able to get married and to be treated like any American are homosexuals asking for? The only change in laws they want is the right to marry and to not be discriminated against. They are not trying to change our language, standards or religious faiths.
> 
> Homosexuals just want to be treated equally under the law. How is that a leftist ideology? Of course looking back at the way conservatives have treated minority groups, maybe it is.


Others have listed better examples than I can, but the ones that bother me are when they try and make a national protest of a fast food joint simply because the owner admits in an interview that he doesn't believe homosexuality is righteous (he's a Christian).... or their silly impact on a wholesome instituion like the Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts, fighting for the ability to discuss their gayness... or threatening a small time bakery who didn't want to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding.... or a Church-turned-Hall who didn't want a gay couple giving their vows inside... or the numerous wedding photographers who didn't want to take on a job because they didn't believe in gay marriage...

The list is endless.
And none of them are examples of the Right making this an issue...they are just saying "no thanks" and getting backlash for it.
It's the left who have taken on the "ideology", and the militancy of the homos is the result.

You can try saying "well those were all discrimination".... but if you did you'd look as stupid as the homos who cry over it.

People don't have the right to do business in a way that reflects their belief system anymore.
The queers won't "tolerate" it.

----------

Calypso Jones (09-25-2013),Mordent (06-05-2014)

----------


## kilgram

> your opinion was beat down by two very reasoned posts and you go after my little post about the term 'gay'.  Well that's pretty cowardly isn't it?  Or are you just pretending the two previous posters didn't post?  
> 
> I am not homophobic.  No one is homophobic.  There is no fear involved.    It's disgust with the practice and with the radical homosexuals' conduct and rhetoric.   They don't want marriage.  They've said so themselves.  What they want to do is to destroy the institution of marriage and ultimately the culture.


You are homophobic. Purely homophobic. And yes, there is fear. There is fear to them. There is the fear that they could have their lives like you. You are afraid that homosexuals be able to marry and that they enjoy the same rights as you. You are homophobic. Like it or not.

Obviously like all fascists, racists or homophobic you deny the fact that you are homophobic. I've not ever seen any racist, homophobic or fascist to admit openly that they are that.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> How do they denigrate Christians/Conservative? I am hetero and I don't feel denigrated in any way.


How well do you know your Bible?  How seriously do you take it?

The Bible has stern words about homosexuality.  The homosexual lobby has obscene taunts to yell at Christians.

If you're not in either camp, that's your business.  But there is no way a serious Christian can accept the normalization of homosexual practices and behaviors mainstreamed in the culture.

----------


## kilgram

> In their bid of rent-seeking, looking for ways for free bennies paid for by others and for other reasons...the homosexual lobby has tried to redefine "marriage."  Doing so is offensive enough in its own right; but in so doing, they're penalizing persons who resist on moral or religious grounds and thus refuse to support these sham-marriage ceremonies.  These include clergy; wedding caterers and photographers; newspapers with society pages that list weddings.  Need I mention the new preference the military is giving to homosexual sham-marriage partners?
> 
> The attempt is blunt club to BEAT others into complying with their DEMANDS that this be labeled as normal and laudable.
> 
> Beyond that:  For good sense homosexuals were kept out of children's youth groups.  Because these groups function as intended when sexual attraction and distraction are REMOVED.  Children and adolescents are in there, partly, to learn the wisdom of older persons.  Of their sex - meaning, responsibilities, customs, the way it's expected they act as they get older.  What is honorable.  The sort of stuff that might be uncomfortable when discussed at the dinner table.
> 
> Just as it would be completely inappropriate to have twenty-five-year-old MEN leading adolescent Girl Scouts...so, too, is it obviously wrong to have someone who may be of the same sex but who's sexually attracted to those children.  This is a no brainer!...but not to homosexual agitators.
> 
> Who have the ear of an increasing number of sense-free but esteem-enhanced Federal jurists.  Now, maybe a socially-isolated judge of forty years thinks these ideas are good...but isn't it up to PARENTS what's good for their children?
> ...


Why is wrong that a man leading a group of girls-scout? I don't see the problem, or do you think that he would want to rape them? Maybe you have a dirty mind, and you are the problem.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> You are homophobic. Purely homophobic. And yes, there is fear. There is fear to them. There is the fear that they could have their lives like you. You are afraid that homosexuals be able to marry and that they enjoy the same rights as you. You are homophobic. Like it or not.
> 
> Obviously like all fascists, racists or homophobic you deny the fact that you are homophobic. I've not ever seen any racist, homophobic or fascist to admit openly that they are that.


Isn't this always how this goes?

You called CJ a name.  Maybe, just maybe, you've played that card too often...and we won't shrivel back with fear and apologies.

I don't know what CJ feels deep down.  I DO know that I am NOT a homophobic - I'm mis-homosexual.

I don't fear them.  I despise them and what they do; what they feel compelled to do under my nose.  That they feel the need to pull our children under their sphere.  And that my tax monies are spent to treat their ENTIRELY PREVENTABLE bane, AIDS, which comes from unhygenic, filthy, deviant sexual activity.

What I fear for is our future.

----------


## kilgram

> How well do you know your Bible?  How seriously do you take it?
> 
> The Bible has stern words about homosexuality.  The homosexual lobby has obscene taunts to yell at Christians.
> 
> If you're not in either camp, that's your business.  But there is no way a serious Christian can accept the normalization of homosexual practices and behaviors mainstreamed in the culture.


The bible? What the hell has to do the bible here with the civil rights? I don't care what your fantastic book says. I don't care of your fantasies. You can believe whatever you want, even if you want to believe in the pink unicorn.

And if I am not wrong, USA is not a Christian country, don't try to force your Christian laws on the rest, because it would mean that you are the same as the Islamic Talibans  :Wink:

----------


## kilgram

> Isn't this always how this goes?
> 
> You called CJ a name.  Maybe, just maybe, you've played that card too often...and we won't shrivel back with fear and apologies.
> 
> I don't know what CJ feels deep down.  I DO know that I am NOT a homophobic - I'm mis-homosexual.
> 
> I don't fear them.  I despise them and what they do; what they feel compelled to do under my nose.  That they feel the need to pull our children under their sphere.  And that my tax monies are spent to treat their ENTIRELY PREVENTABLE bane, AIDS, which comes from unhygenic, filthy, deviant sexual activity.
> 
> What I fear for is our future.


LOL. AIDS is also heterosexual. Heteros practice oral and anal sex. And sorry, but I don't see neither as deviant sexual activities.

They don't put "your children" on their sphere. Homosexuals if you don't know are born even from radical conservative families. They don't choose to be that. As I said other times, if they could choose they would choose not to be homosexuals, because it causes problems, discrimination, danger of prison in some countries and even death in others...

And yes, you are homophobic.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> The bible? What the hell has to do the bible here with the civil rights? I don't care what your fantastic book says. I don't care of your fantasies. You can believe whatever you want, even if you want to believe in the pink unicorn.
> 
> And if I am not wrong, USA is not a Christian country, don't try to force your Christian laws on the rest, because it would mean that you are the same as the Islamic Talibans



you ask for an opinion and then you bash the one who shares their opinion and you don't like that.  THAT is a perfect example of how the left works.  And of course you are defending the practice of homosexuality so I think this is a good example of how the left has turned homosexuality into a leftist ideology.

----------


## Calypso Jones

IF I were homophobic I would be compelled to run screaming in the opposite direction.   As it is, I have friends with homosexual children that I have actually travelled with, business associates and clients.  They don't frighten me...but neither do they share their sexual proclivities with me and I thank God for that.   I am praying for their healing as I pray for anyone elses'.

----------


## Canadianeye

> LOL. AIDS is also heterosexual. Heteros practice oral and anal sex. And sorry, but I don't see neither as deviant sexual activities.
> 
> They don't put "your children" on their sphere. Homosexuals if you don't know are born even from radical conservative families. They don't choose to be that. As I said other times, if they could choose they would choose not to be homosexuals, because it causes problems, discrimination, danger of prison in some countries and even death in others...
> 
> And yes, you are homophobic.


Here we go again. It is just like the equally tiring and ridiculous argument that anyone who disagrees with homosexuality is a latent homosexual.

You guys spin out these labels and mantras like they are truth. All they are is verbal tactics to suppress freedom of speech and freedom of expression, in conjunction with fear mongering those who disagree into silence. That tactic escalates with the vicious militant arm of the homosexual agendists (the massive liberal leftist bias media) to bring ruin should it go to any sort of a public discussion.

They bring ruin to those who dissent to purchase the silence of the masses. Ya know, usual liberal leftist tried and true techniques.

Apply label, make it hurt if the person dares to tear it off...and rinse and repeat.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> All of that is nonsense. Nothing personal, but it is balderdash. So, historically all the homosexual agendists wanted was to be married? I could have sworn, that it started out as an attempt to generate societal tolerance. This was achieved by getting the AMA to proclaim that it was not a mental disorder. Then the pressure was applied for acceptance via the leftist media, aka, libtard hollywood elites, full of their own brand of debauchery. Then came the arguments about it being a genetic thing, and they had no control...equating themselves to blacks civil rights movement. (much to the vehement disliking by the black community). Then, they used the viciousness of their lobby (and attack dog liberal leftist medias) to attack those who stood against this creeping intolerance.
> 
> Then...in the liberal left dominated education system they started going after the children. My children, cuz I took it personally. At the same time, they went after the churches using their liberal leftist massively bias media again. Then the nuclear family. Add along the way the military as a strategic point of cause.
> 
> Now, I have a mental disorder in the way of some mass planet wide general diagnosis phobia, and they are normal. Our children are indoctrinated beyond belief, society has an anything goes, the ends justify the means, swirl down into toilet reality...which was long predicted by people like me was gonna happen. And it did.
> 
> Eventually, they wanted to get married. In my country even though that has been achieved, they still rail against the PM and try to stir up controversy. Why? Because they are liberal leftists with a voice granted them by a purchased media.


What is wrong with wanting societal tolerance? And what is it with conservatives thinking that every time scientists/doctors/researchers disagree with their position that it is some mass conspiracy? And when will the myth of the liberal leftist media finally die?

What is funny is that somehow schools teaching tolerance of others is now a liberal conspiracy to indoctrinate our children. Now I don't know you well enough to know if you have a mental disorder, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, however, I am curious to know why homosexuality bothers you so much.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> Others have listed better examples than I can, but the ones that bother me are when they try and make a national protest of a fast food joint simply because the owner admits in an interview that he doesn't believe homosexuality is righteous (he's a Christian).... or their silly impact on a wholesome instituion like the Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts, fighting for the ability to discuss their gayness... or threatening a small time bakery who didn't want to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding.... or a Church-turned-Hall who didn't want a gay couple giving their vows inside... or the numerous wedding photographers who didn't want to take on a job because they didn't believe in gay marriage...
> 
> The list is endless.
> And none of them are examples of the Right making this an issue...they are just saying "no thanks" and getting backlash for it.
> It's the left who have taken on the "ideology", and the militancy of the homos is the result.
> 
> You can try saying "well those were all discrimination".... but if you did you'd look as stupid as the homos who cry over it.
> 
> People don't have the right to do business in a way that reflects their belief system anymore.
> The queers won't "tolerate" it.


OMG! You mean freedom of speech means that if you say something that people don't like, they can call you on it and use their freedom of expression to protest it? Say it's not so!

I have an idea, change homosexual to Christian in all those instances and see if you see it the same way.

----------


## kilgram

> you ask for an opinion and then you bash the one who shares their opinion and you don't like that.  THAT is a perfect example of how the left works.  And of course you are defending the practice of homosexuality so I think this is a good example of how the left has turned homosexuality into a leftist ideology.


It is a good example of what should be tolerance.

Homosexuality is not an ideology. Homosexuality is sexuality.

And you are using the same arguments as the racists were using against the black people.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> How well do you know your Bible?  How seriously do you take it?
> 
> The Bible has stern words about homosexuality.  The homosexual lobby has obscene taunts to yell at Christians.
> 
> If you're not in either camp, that's your business.  But there is no way a serious Christian can accept the normalization of homosexual practices and behaviors mainstreamed in the culture.


Do you eat shrimp or pork because the Bible is against that too.

----------


## Micketto

> And when will the myth of the liberal leftist media finally die?


Oh ffs... now I know you're being an idiot on purpose.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> What is wrong with wanting societal tolerance? And what is it with conservatives thinking that every time scientists/doctors/researchers disagree with their position that it is some mass conspiracy? And when will the myth of the liberal leftist media finally die?
> 
> What is funny is that somehow schools teaching tolerance of others is now a liberal conspiracy to indoctrinate our children. Now I don't know you well enough to know if you have a mental disorder, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, however, I am curious to know why homosexuality bothers you so much.


I don't see conservatives and Christians being intolerant of homosexuals.   What I see is the homolobby and/or leftists continuing to push the agenda and when Christians say...no....then they are treated intolerantly.    I am all for tolerance.  Especially some tolerance on the part of homosexuals and leftists when I say I don't want to see the country going down this path and I and my children are drug along.  Christians do not teach their children to beat up homosexuals. Someone is doing that but it is not US.   I am seeing Christians bullied by the likes of Dan Savage and the government anti-bullying agenda with no repercussions..   I am seeing blacks and muslims allowed to act with violence against Christians and non-blacks with no repercussions.  So how is it that Christians are called intolerant rather than blacks who are far more intolerant of homosexuals?

The liberal media bias is no myth...they regularly admit it themselves and one would have to be brain dead to fail to miss the bias in the alphabet networks and cable reportage.

----------


## kilgram

> Here we go again. It is just like the equally tiring and ridiculous argument that anyone who disagrees with homosexuality is a latent homosexual.
> 
> You guys spin out these labels and mantras like they are truth. All they are is verbal tactics to suppress freedom of speech and freedom of expression, in conjunction with fear mongering those who disagree into silence. That tactic escalates with the vicious militant arm of the homosexual agendists (the massive liberal leftist bias media) to bring ruin should it go to any sort of a public discussion.
> 
> They bring ruin to those who dissent to purchase the silence of the masses. Ya know, usual liberal leftist tried and true techniques.
> 
> Apply label, make it hurt if the person dares to tear it off...and rinse and repeat.


No, it is not limit freedom of expression. You can be homophobe and have the right to express your homophoby. But you are what you are. 

It is like I am a Communist, a red, or whatever you want to say me. It is a fact. I am proud of it. That are my ideals. I am going to defend my ideals.

But your ideals are restrinting, limiting the freedom of others. You don't want that others have the same rights as you. That is the fact. You cannot like the homosexuality, but don't interfere in their matters.

----------


## kilgram

> I don't see conservatives and Christians being intolerant of homosexuals.   What I see is the homolobby and/or leftists continuing to push the agenda and when Christians say...no....then they are treated intolerantly.    I am all for tolerance.  Especially some tolerance on the part of homosexuals and leftists when I say I don't want to see the country going down this path and I and my children are drug along.  Christians do not teach their children to beat up homosexuals. Someone is doing that but it is not US.   I am seeing Christians bullied by the likes of Dan Savage and the government anti-bullying agenda.   I am seeing blacks and muslims allowed to act with violence against Christians and non-blacks.  So how is it that Christians are called intolerant rather than blacks who are far more intolerant of homosexuals?


Really? You don't see intolerance from Christian/Conservative? Can you read a few of your previous posts?  Or of others?

Bullying agenda? Saying the truth, is not bullying. Only sometimes the truth can hurt to the hearts of people, but nothing else.

----------


## Canadianeye

> OMG! You mean freedom of speech means that if you say something that people don't like, they can call you on it and use their freedom of expression to protest it? Say it's not so!
> 
> I have an idea, change homosexual to Christian in all those instances and see if you see it the same way.


Oh, trust me...I have been an advocate of that for quite some time. I am an atheist, so while I vehemently want to to get in the trenches and bring ruination of businesses and people who espouse liberal leftist causes... I can't get the god fearing conservatives to stop turning the other cheek.

They should be reading up on the not sparing the rod passages.

----------


## Micketto

> OMG! You mean freedom of speech means that if you say something that people don't like, they can call you on it and use their freedom of expression to protest it? Say it's not so!


Look child, I don't care how you want to justify it in your small, immature mind, but when a business owner says _"I'm sorry, I can't let you get married in my hall but you are free to have your reception"_.... and the LBGQueers decide to make it an issue and try their hardest to cost them business all while calling them with death threats.... yes.... I have a problem with it.
You prefer to call threats "free speech", that's on you.

Doesn't matter if the adjective is Christian or Gay... you're defending the intolerance of the homos and getting called on it.

Like I said... I realized you're intentionally acting like a dumb fuck hoping for a reaction..... and that's the end of mine.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> Do you eat shrimp or pork because the Bible is against that too.


this is a topic about homosexuality.  not shrimp.

----------


## Perianne

> I've not ever seen any racist, homophobic or fascist to admit openly that they are that.


Are you homophobic?

----------


## Micketto

Kilgram, at some point you have to stop riding the same bandwagon as the poor, helpless pansises and stop throwing around words like "homophobe", non-stop, which is already misused and you haven't a clue what it even means.

It's cute that you like to stick up for the unimportant.... being one and all.... but taking on their ignorant misused lingo, and using it repeatedly while claiming you aren't gay.... is a bit silly.

----------


## Micketto

> this is a topic about homosexuality.  not shrimp.


Actually it's a non-thread about finding ways to call Christians homophobes.

Because we all know there aren't enough of those threads.

----------

JustPassinThru (09-25-2013)

----------


## kilgram

> Kilgram, at some point you have to stop riding the same bandwagon as the poor, helpless pansises and stop throwing around words like "homophobe", non-stop, which is already misused and you haven't a clue what it even means.
> 
> It's cute that you like to stick up for the unimportant.... being one and all.... but taking on their ignorant misused lingo, and using it repeatedly while claiming you aren't gay.... is a bit silly.


Are you saying that I am gay? 

I am not gay. I am not a woman. I am not black. But I am going to defend their rights with all my forces. I am going to attack all the racists, "machistas" and homophobes that attack the rights of the gays, women or blacks.

Ah, and I know perfectly the meaning of homophobe. Thank you.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> I don't see conservatives and Christians being intolerant of homosexuals.   What I see is the homolobby and/or leftists continuing to push the agenda and when Christians say...no....then they are treated intolerantly.    I am all for tolerance.  Especially some tolerance on the part of homosexuals and leftists when I say I don't want to see the country going down this path and I and my children are drug along.  Christians do not teach their children to beat up homosexuals. Someone is doing that but it is not US.   I am seeing Christians bullied by the likes of Dan Savage and the government anti-bullying agenda with no repercussions..   I am seeing blacks and muslims allowed to act with violence against Christians and non-blacks with no repercussions.  So how is it that Christians are called intolerant rather than blacks who are far more intolerant of homosexuals?
> 
> The liberal media bias is no myth...they regularly admit it themselves and one would have to be brain dead to fail to miss the bias in the alphabet networks and cable reportage.


So you have no problem with gay marriage? You have no problem with a homosexual teaching your children or being in the military?

As for the liberal media bias, it is funny but most liberals I talk to hate mainstream news media because they believe that it is controlled by big business. Go figure.

----------

kilgram (09-25-2013)

----------


## Perianne

If homophobia is the dislike of individuals homos, then no, I am not homophobic.  

If homophobia is the dislike of homosexual behavior, then yes, I am homophobic.

Regardless, I can no more change how I feel about it than homosexuals can change how they feel about each other.  It's ingrained in me; not a choice.

----------


## kilgram

> If homophobia is the dislike of individuals homos, then no, I am not homophobic.  
> 
> If homophobia is the dislike of homosexual behavior, then yes, I am homophobic.
> 
> Regardless, I can no more change how I feel about it than homosexuals can change how they feel about each other.  It's ingrained in me; not a choice.


Well, you can only do a thing. Ignore them. But if you don't like them(don't like the behaviour is don't like the homosexuals). Leave them to live and live your own life.

But if you try to force your beliefs on the rest, then it is as bad as the attitude of Muslim people.

----------


## Perianne

> ...if you don't like them(don't like the behaviour is don't like the homosexuals).


It is not the same.  I very much admire a lady at work who is a lesbian.  I despise her sexual behavior.  Maybe others can't separate the two, but I certainly can.

----------


## Micketto

> (don't like the behaviour is don't like the homosexuals)


I learned in a good pvt school so your grammar is very hard to follow.... are you saying that disliking homosexuality is the same as disliking homosexuals ?!

That's as stupid as your constant cries of "homophobe!".

I hate misuse of the language and dumb claims in online arguments.... but you, as a person, are probably ok.
See?  How hard was that ?

There is a huge difference between hating what someone does, and hating the person themselves.  
But obviously, you can't grasp that.... as shown with this....




> But if you try to force your beliefs on the rest, then it is as bad as the attitude of Muslim people.


So what you whine about people saying about gays.... you say about Muslims.
wtf is your problem with Muslims?

fkn Musliphobe.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> Look child, I don't care how you want to justify it in your small, immature mind, but when a business owner says _"I'm sorry, I can't let you get married in my hall but you are free to have your reception"_.... and the LBGQueers decide to make it an issue and try their hardest to cost them business all while calling them with death threats.... yes.... I have a problem with it.
> You prefer to call threats "free speech", that's on you.
> 
> Doesn't matter if the adjective is Christian or Gay... you're defending the intolerance of the homos and getting called on it.
> 
> Like I said... I realized you're intentionally acting like a dumb fuck hoping for a reaction..... and that's the end of mine.


I'll ignore the ad hominem attacks and instead focus on the numerous errors in your post. I never said that death threats was free speech. I was merely talking about protests. If you were talking about death threats in your post, you should had said so. Are you against the right of people to mount protests?

I'm defending the intolerance of "the homos"? Here I thought I defending the tolerance of homosexuals.

If I was hoping for a reaction, I sure got one out of you.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> It is not the same.  I very much admire a lady at work who is a lesbian.  I despise her sexual behavior.  Maybe others can't separate the two, but I certainly can.


Isn't that like "I admire you but hate everything that you are"?

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Do you eat shrimp or pork because the Bible is against that too.


What I eat is my business.

Where you stick your joint; or where you let your boyfriends put theirs...is your business, also.

When either one of us make demands that our aberrant behavior be accepted...subsidized...given special standing....it becomes everyone's business.

And I don't want it in my face or made my business.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Are you homophobic?


Are we all supposed to pull our capes over our faces, like Dracula shown the cross, at this tiresome meme?

----------


## Perianne

> Isn't that like "I admire you but hate everything that you are"?


I don't think so.  I said I only despise her sexuality.  Sexuality is not everything, though guys seem to think it's all I am good for.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> LOL. AIDS is also heterosexual. Heteros practice oral and anal sex. And sorry, but I don't see neither as deviant sexual activities.


AIDS entered the human chain of infection from bestiality.  It had existed in apes prior to the first known human cases.

SINCE then...the PRIMARY way of infection is through anal sodomy.  The SECOND way of getting infected, has been from needles or blood transfusions from infected persons - some of whom hid their infection or at-risk medical histories.

If we all practiced cannibalism, that would be the third way.

The last major way is hetrosexual contact.  But only male to female, unless there are open sores on the penis.  Female->male transmissons are very, VERY rare.  But in ALL cases where it's transmitted this way...it comes from casual promiscuous sex.




> They don't put "your children" on their sphere.


Yes they do.  There was a wonderful little essay called the Gay Manifesto - put out forty years ago:

We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.





> Homosexuals if you don't know are born even from radical conservative families.


No such thing.  Radicals are not conservative; and conservatives not radical.  

By very definition of the terms.




> They don't choose to be that.


Very often, they're seduced and molested.  Seen it happen.




> As I said other times, if they could choose they would choose not to be homosexuals, because it causes problems, discrimination, danger of prison in some countries and even death in others...


Not a choice _per se;_ it's the result of twisted development sexually; generally in adolescence.

I believe it's a SYMPTOM - of mental illness.  Most "gay" boyos show other, non-sexual, mental aberrance.




> And yes, you are homophobic.


No.  Just honest.  And fed up with the sodomite lobby bullying all America

----------

Perianne (09-25-2013)

----------


## Calypso Jones

> Really? You don't see intolerance from Christian/Conservative? Can you read a few of your previous posts?  Or of others?
> 
> Bullying agenda? Saying the truth, is not bullying. Only sometimes the truth can hurt to the hearts of people, but nothing else.


homosexuality agenda?  Saying the truth is not bullying...  Only sometimes the truth can hurt the conscience of people, and a lot more.

I am not a perfect Christian..i think I've said that before.

----------


## kilgram

Conservative are quite extreme. But well.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Conservative are quite extreme. But well.


By definition, they cannot be.

Light cannot be darkness.  Likewise, conservatives cannot be extreme.  

Because the words mean opposite things.

Anyone other than a leftist drone would KNOW this.

----------


## Perianne

> By definition, they cannot be.
> 
> Light cannot be darkness.  Likewise, conservatives cannot be extreme.  
> 
> Because the words mean opposite things.
> 
> Anyone other than a leftist drone would KNOW this.


Conservatives are referred to as "extremists" by a lot of the media folk.

----------


## texmaster

> I decided instead of derailing the America/Sodom/Gomorrah thread to spin this off into its own thread:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What demands besides want to be able to get married and to be treated like any American are homosexuals asking for? The only change in laws they want is the right to marry and to not be discriminated against. They are not trying to change our language, standards or religious faiths.
> 
> Homosexuals just want to be treated equally under the law. How is that a leftist ideology? Of course looking back at the way conservatives have treated minority groups, maybe it is.


The fallacy is in your first statement.  "What demands besides want to be able to get married and to be treated like any American are homosexuals asking for?"

No one is stopping any gay couple from getting married right now in any state.   No one is treating them differently.   

The battle is government acceptance of their chosen union.

Answer me this very simple question.   What makes homosexuality and only 2 adult member homosexuality so special it should be treated differently and recognized by the state?

Your fallacy is forgetting about the other relationships people engage in that would make the exact same arguments about "loving each other" or "wanting to be treated equally" as you are.

So, my question is still the same.  What makes homosexuality and only 2 adult member homosexuality so  special it should be treated differently and recognized by the state?

----------


## kilgram

> By definition, they cannot be.
> 
> Light cannot be darkness.  Likewise, conservatives cannot be extreme.  
> 
> Because the words mean opposite things.
> 
> Anyone other than a leftist drone would KNOW this.


Conservative are extremist. Racist, homophobe, ultrareligious, sexist. I've seen all this behaviour of self-called conservative here, so yes, they are extremist.

Later there are moderates, rightist but they are moderate. And the Libertarians that are radical, because they go to the roots, but they would not be intolerant like the conservative are.

I am radical. And I am proud of it, by the way. But that conservative cannot be extremist is a lie. Conservative are reactionary, and reactionary forces are extremist by definition.

----------


## kilgram

> The fallacy is in your first statement.  "What demands besides want to be able to get married and to be treated like any American are homosexuals asking for?"
> 
> No one is stopping any gay couple from getting married right now in any state.   No one is treating them differently.   
> 
> The battle is government acceptance of their chosen union.
> 
> Answer me this very simple question.   What makes homosexuality and only 2 adult member homosexuality so special it should be treated differently and recognized by the state?
> 
> Your fallacy is forgetting about the other relationships people engage in that would make the exact same arguments about "loving each other" or "wanting to be treated equally" as you are.
> ...


The same question can be applied for heterosexuals.

What makes heterosexuality and only 2 adult member heterosexuality so special it should be treated differently and recognized by the state?

----------

thedarkdaimon (09-25-2013)

----------


## The XL

> this is a topic about homosexuality.  not shrimp.


It just exposing the fact that religious folk only selectively obey the bible .

----------

thedarkdaimon (09-25-2013)

----------


## texmaster

> The same question can be applied for heterosexuals.
> 
> What makes heterosexuality and only 2 adult member heterosexuality so special it should be treated differently and recognized by the state?


Easy.   All humans gay or straight have the same biological sexual reaction to sexual stimuli.  The body prepares for procreation which requires heterosexual sex so heterosexuality is not only natural and genetic it is scientifically proven to be so.

Now, answer my question.

----------


## The XL

Either the state needs to get out of marriage, or gays and other groups have a perfectly legitimate case for marriage or civil unions.

----------


## Calypso Jones

http://www.westernjournalism.com/top...al-media-bias/  Top 50 examples of liberal media bias.   If I must i'll post the ones from just this year but that's gonna take up a  lot of space.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> *Conservative are extremist. Racist, homophobe, ultrareligious, sexist. I've seen all this behaviour of self-called conservative here, so yes, they are extremist.*
> 
> Later there are moderates, rightist but they are moderate. And the Libertarians that are radical, because they go to the roots, but they would not be intolerant like the conservative are.
> 
> I am radical. And I am proud of it, by the way. But that conservative cannot be extremist is a lie. Conservative are reactionary, and reactionary forces are extremist by definition.


Try dictionary.com.  Find out what "conservative" MEANS.

It's the opposite of what "radical" means.  Conservative is cautious; conservative is staying with what works.

In AMERICAN politics it means returning to the principles of the Founding - because they worked, better than what's being jammed up our _mmm-mmm-mmm_'s now.

In other nations, of course, it will mean other things - because their pasts and successes were different from ours.  But American conservatives MUST be the opposite of radicals - or else they're simply not conservative.




> I am radical. And I am proud of it, by the way.


No you're not.  You're just repeating what a million television sets say every night, on a hundred channels.

That's not radicalism.  That's zombieism.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> It just exposing the fact that religious folk only selectively obey the bible .


if one had ever read the NT they'd know that Christ fulfilled the law and that no food is unclean.     

2.  God doesn't hate shrimp and he doesn't hate homosexuals either...but.  Man was meant for woman and woman was meant for man.   period.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> Easy.   All humans gay or straight have the same biological sexual reaction to sexual stimuli.  The body prepares for procreation which requires heterosexual sex so heterosexuality is not only natural and genetic it is scientifically proven to be so.
> 
> Now, answer my question.


I didn't know marriage was about sex I thought it was about love and commitment.

----------


## The XL

> if one had ever read the NT they'd know that Christ fulfilled the law and that no food is unclean.     
> 
> 2.  God doesn't hate shrimp and he doesn't hate homosexuals either...but.  Man was meant for woman and woman was meant for man.   period.


That's fantastic and all, but law and policy shouldn't be set on religious beliefs.

----------

kilgram (09-26-2013)

----------


## Calypso Jones

well i'm not.   Politically, socially, culturally, scientifically, psychologically, economically, financially, theologically,  traditional marriage is best.

----------


## The XL

> well i'm not.   Politically, socially, culturally, scientifically, psychologically, economically, financially, theologically,  traditional marriage is best.


Conjecture, and irrelevant to boot.

----------

kilgram (09-26-2013)

----------


## Calypso Jones

> That's fantastic and all, but law and policy shouldn't be set on religious beliefs.


YET. THAT is exactly what leftist politicians and the president use when they want us to fund more welfare and social services...and illegal alien immigration.   Funny how that works.

and who was on here a day or so ago, claiming some of us were bearing false witness when we merely stated our view on a matter?

----------


## The XL

> YET. THAT is exactly what leftist politicians and the president use when they want us to fund more welfare and social services...and illegal alien immigration.   Funny how that works.
> 
> and who was on here a day or so ago, claiming some of us were bearing false witness when we merely stated our view on a matter?


I'm not sure of the correlation there, but okay.

I was calling the lot of you Christians out for being anti-Christ in your views and beliefs, but that doesn't mean I think policy should be set by religion.

----------

kilgram (09-26-2013)

----------


## Calypso Jones

> I'm not sure of the correlation there, but okay.
> 
> I was calling the lot of you Christians out for being anti-Christ in your views and beliefs, but that doesn't mean I think policy should be set by religion.



The correlation is hundred percent dead on.  Liberals...who don't believe in a God anyway, use the bible when. it. suits.   And of course they take it out of context..meaning they add to it, or they subtract from it...something that God expressly said is a no-no.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Homosexuals just want to be treated equally under the law. How is that a leftist ideology? Of course looking back at the way conservatives have treated minority groups, maybe it is.


I have no problem with this.  In fact, I support the rights of all Americans under the Constitution and, in this case, the 14th Amendment.  No more, no less.

Just so we're clear, I don't like "hate crime" laws.  A gay can kill me and get 20 years, but if I kill a gay I get life?  That ain't what the 14th Amendment means.

----------


## Calypso Jones

I'm all for a polite society and i'd even hire a homosexual if they were the tops in the field that I needed.   STILL, that does not make me approve of the behavior.   But if he leaves it alone, so will I.  and i'll even be cordial...doubt i'll be asking him to my house for a cookout but okay.    I don't care if they marry...in their own church or come up with some contract thru an attorney.  But marriage, is between a man and a woman.  That is the way it was intended and all cultures agree.    It should tell you something that there are no working matriarchies or homosexuarchies.   :Wink:

----------


## texmaster

> I didn't know marriage was about sex I thought it was about love and commitment.


There you go again.   This isn't about a platonic definition of marriage its about how the state defines marriage.   By your definition no one from pedophilia to polygamy could be excluded from marriage if the only definition is love and commitment. 

Are you incapable of making an argument for law that isn't based solely on feelings and emotions?   I'm still waiting for an answer to my question:

What makes homosexuality and only 2 adult member homosexuality so special it should be treated differently and recognized by the state?

Can you answer it?

----------


## The XL

> The correlation is hundred percent dead on.  Liberals...who don't believe in a God anyway, use the bible when. it. suits.   And of course they take it out of context..meaning they add to it, or they subtract from it...something that God expressly said is a no-no.


Liberals and conservatives both twist the Bible, frequently for political purposes.

But why does that mean the state has a place in heterosexual marriage and not gay marriage.

----------

kilgram (09-26-2013)

----------


## Calypso Jones

> Liberals and conservatives both twist the Bible, frequently for political purposes.
> 
> But why does that mean the state has a place in heterosexual marriage and not gay marriage.


no.  Actual Christians do not and will not 'twist the bible'.  They know the warning.

----------


## Calypso Jones

What's the compromise here...even though democrats will not compromise unless that compromise gives them one or two steps forward.  

Seems as if those in favor of traditional marriage have the edge since 1.  that is the standard handed down since antiquity. 2. It has always been the law of the land both in the legal and traditional sense, and 3, it is the norm.   

Those in favor of traditional marriage have no problem with tolerance or even a sub culture.  We don't want it taught or normalized in schools and with our young people.

Now.  You know what traditionalists want and are willing to do.   What are you willing to do.

----------


## Calypso Jones

whoa...I think in here is the answer to the op.

Via Campus Reform:
Bill Ayers, a professor known for engaging in terrorist activities in the 1970s, is set to speak at Gettysburg College (GC) next Tuesday, Campus Reform has learned.
According to the event’s poster, Ayers will deliver a speech on “queering education” which will be  sponsored by nGender, a program at GC that meets bi-weekly to “dialogue on gender issues,” according to the school’s official website.
Ayers is known for his leadership of the Weather Underground, a group which bombed public buildings in the 1960’s and 1970’s to protest involvement of the United States military in the Vietnam War.
Keep reading…

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> What's the compromise here...


While there are lots of issues to compromise about in modern society, one thing we should not compromise is our Constitution.  We either support our Constitution 100% or we'll all be fucked in the end.  Your call.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> While there are lots of issues to compromise about in modern society, one thing we should not compromise is our Constitution.  We either support our Constitution 100% or we'll all be fucked in the end.  Your call.


Show me, chapter and verse, where sodomite marriage is mandated by the Constitution.

Or any other cultural form, for that matter.

_I_ can show *YOU*...where the "Free expression of Religion" is a right guaranteed to the people.  And all the world's religions forbid homosexuality.

OUR right, to REJECT and FORBID recognition of sodomite sham marriage..._IS_ guaranteed.

----------

Calypso Jones (09-25-2013)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Show me, chapter and verse, where sodomite marriage is mandated by the Constitution.


It's not there.  Show me "chapter and verse" where marriage is even mentioned in the Constitution or that it says it exists only between a man and a woman.

IMHO, it's people like you who chip away at our Constitution to press your own prejudices, but end up weakening the rights of all of us.  I'm not gay, but I seek to protect their rights as citizens in order to protect my own rights.  You are free to call me a "gay-lover" for seeking to protect the rights of all American citizens under the Constitution, but it only reveals you to be the person you are.

----------

kilgram (09-26-2013)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> It's not there.  Show me "chapter and verse" where marriage is even mentioned in the Constitution or that it says it exists only between a man and a woman.
> 
> IMHO, _it's people like you who chip away at our Constitution to press your own prejudices, but end up weakening the rights of all of us._  I'm not gay, but I seek to protect their rights as citizens in order to protect my own rights.  You are free to call me a "gay-lover" for seeking to protect the rights of all American citizens under the Constitution, but it only reveals you to be the person you are.


That's right.  It shows I'm an American conservative, in favor of PRESERVING the basic foundation of the society - the family.  It shows that I'm not some loco-weed who's taking his orders from the social engineers, who of course are very, very smart - they've been to _HAH_-VAHRD.

You make the assertion - that I'm chipping away at the Constitution.  But assertion is not proof.

And it's BEYOND illogical, to assert that PREVENTING social engineers and despots from CHANGING our society, fundamentally - WITH THEIR DICTATES - is somehow eroding a document that has guided us well for over 200 years.

----------


## Calypso Jones

so is it either the left's way or the highway?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> so is it either the left's way or the highway?


Nope.  The power still resides in "We, the People".... or at least about the 55% of them that bother to vote.  

What's the worry?  UN soldier's reading secret markings on the back of highway signs?  LOL.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> .... It shows that I'm not some loco-weed who's taking his orders from the social engineers, who of course are very, very smart - they've been to _HAH_-VAHRD.....


Nice madman rant.  Good luck with that.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> Nice madman rant.  Good luck with that.


I don't see the rant.   I see some good points.

----------


## Rudy2D

> You are free to call me a "gay-lover" for seeking to protect the rights of all American citizens under the Constitution, but it only reveals you to be the person you are.


i'd rather call you a troll.  But I'm not JPT.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Nice madman rant.  Good luck with that.


One of us has been making assertions that he either knows is false, or cannot see to be false because it is HE who is mad.  

And it ain't me.

PREVENTING a top-down social-engineering experiment that has been connected with many collapsing civilizations in the past...PREVENTING that change is not mad; it's not unprecedented; it's not destroying the Constitution.  The Constitution laid power with the sovereign CITIZEN to explicitly PREVENT this sort of insane top-down social dictate.

Let's cut the bullspit, shall we?  We both know you're getting yours from whatever social-media instruction pamphlet or website you got...from whatever agitation group you work for, or works you, or you meet your boyfriends at.  Whatever...they're telling you to post this slop.

And it's third-rate attempted sophistry.  You don't understand...conservatives are conservatives, because they're not stupid enough to be liberals!  Conservatives have been hit with these logical fallacies for YEARS - we know them and we know them to be the mark of dishonest dealers.  DemocraticUnderpants may have the bobble-heads who think this is unassailable logic; but most of us here...conservativism; conservative philosophies...they're not a starting point.  They're a point the inquiring mind has to GET TO!  Liberalism is the mindset of a child; it's where we all start.  And it's where the underperformers stay.

It's where the despot wannabees see opportunity to garner power.  It's where the quick-rich actors and Wall Street traders go to buy absolution.  It's made up of users and drones...the manipulators and the tools.

We, of the Tea Party, of the conservative Republican movement, of boards like these...are neither.  We're traditional Americans.

I for one will discuss anything with you - whether you're a paid instigator or not.  But only on my terms.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> One of us has been making assertions that he either knows is false, or cannot see to be false because it is HE who is mad.  
> 
> And it ain't me.


In your opinion.  This is a public forum.  Many members are lurkers, not posters like you and me.  Their thoughts will be felt at the voting booth.

So who do you think they'll vote for - the reasonable person or the loudmouthed asshole?

----------


## Rudy2D

Give it up, John.  You can't reason with swine.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Give it up, John.  You can't reason with swine.


It isn't Christian to think of people as being swine or other animals.  Shame on you!

----------

kilgram (09-26-2013)

----------


## Rudy2D

> It isn't Christian to think of people as being swine or other animals.  Shame on you!


Just following Jesus' admonition.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> In your opinion.  This is a public forum.  Many members are lurkers, not posters like you and me.  Their thoughts will be felt at the voting booth.
> 
> So who do you think they'll vote for - the reasonable person or the loudmouthed asshole?


Facts are not subject to popularity votes.

I doubt either of us are going to sway the other.  The people sitting on the fence...they'll look and see which argument has weight; which has the ring of Truth; which one raises points they hadn't thought of.

I don't think calling me a loudmouth is going to impress many folks - even if it's true.

----------


## Perianne

Geez, you guys sure like to argue.

How about you all just take my position and call it a draw?

----------

texmaster (09-26-2013)

----------


## Calypso Jones

> Just following Jesus' admonition.



and don't forget that God told Hagar that Ishmael would be a wild ass of a man.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> and don't forget that God told Hagar that Ishmael would be a wild ass of a man.


Quick...someone work Obama's family tree!

----------


## Perianne

> Quick...someone work Obama's family tree!


Obama came from the Philistines.

----------


## Rudy2D

> Quick...someone work Obama's family tree!

----------


## JustPassinThru

:Riot: 



 :Facepalm:

----------


## Canadianeye

> I learned in a good pvt school so your grammar is very hard to follow.... are you saying that disliking homosexuality is the same as disliking homosexuals ?!
> 
> That's as stupid as your constant cries of "homophobe!".
> 
> I hate misuse of the language and dumb claims in online arguments.... but you, as a person, are probably ok.
> See?  How hard was that ?
> 
> There is a huge difference between hating what someone does, and hating the person themselves.  
> But obviously, you can't grasp that.... as shown with this....
> ...


I know this gay businessman and we have been talking and yammering about crap like this for years. Sometimes we agree, some times not. He is emphatically open about his homosexuality.

He freaking burst out laughing when I told him that some people actually call me homophobic. He laughs, because he and I are constantly engaged in the candid conversations regarding these issues, and he actually listens to the points made. He knows I do not have some freaking dumb ass phobia, and he knows the entire nonsense about homophobia has been manipulated into a silencing mechanism.

He is a leftist libtard without a doubt and we always disagree on ideological camps. The _rest_ he has acknowledged many times is just a way to shut people up to the agendists. He also hates the flamboyant gay parades, as he says they give the homosexual community a bad image to the public, etc.

----------


## Roadmaster

> He also hates the flamboyant gay parades, as he says they give the homosexual community a bad image to the public, etc.


 Yes the ones I know do too. I don't bring it up they do. The last one they visited they said some were masturbating in front of children. I don't go to them so I can only say what they do. If people don't see something wrong with this then I can't help them.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> There you go again.   This isn't about a platonic definition of marriage its about how the state defines marriage.   By your definition no one from pedophilia to polygamy could be excluded from marriage if the only definition is love and commitment. 
> 
> Are you incapable of making an argument for law that isn't based solely on feelings and emotions?   I'm still waiting for an answer to my question:
> 
> What makes homosexuality and only 2 adult member homosexuality so special it should be treated differently and recognized by the state?
> 
> Can you answer it?


Marriage is a contract. Children cannot enter into a contract (though in some states, you can get married as young as 15 and in the fairly recent past, it was even younger). Animals cannot enter into contract. Your toaster cannot enter into a contract. Now as far as polygamy is concerned, I guess that some of the same arguments could apply, not that I see polygamy being wrong as long as all parties agree to it (yeah, I'm probably going to get blasted for that statement  :Smiley20:  ), but of course we are not talking about polygamy, we are talking about gay marriage here. So what makes homosexuality so special is should be treated differently and recognized by the state? For the same reasons that heterosexual marriages are.

----------

kilgram (09-26-2013)

----------


## The XL

> Show me, chapter and verse, where sodomite marriage is mandated by the Constitution.
> 
> Or any other cultural form, for that matter.
> 
> _I_ can show *YOU*...where the "Free expression of Religion" is a right guaranteed to the people.  And all the world's religions forbid homosexuality.
> 
> OUR right, to REJECT and FORBID recognition of sodomite sham marriage..._IS_ guaranteed.


You don't have a right to push your beliefs on other people, freedom of religion certainly does not entail that.  

Who gives a shit if you or any other Christian doesn't believe in gay marriage?  No one is forcing you to marry another guy.

----------

kilgram (09-26-2013)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Marriage is a contract. Children cannot enter into a contract (though in some states, you can get married as young as 15 and in the fairly recent past, it was even younger). Animals cannot enter into contract. Your toaster cannot enter into a contract. Now as far as polygamy is concerned, I guess that some of the same arguments could apply, not that I see polygamy being wrong as long as all parties agree to it (yeah, I'm probably going to get blasted for that statement  ), but of course we are not talking about polygamy, we are talking about gay marriage here. So what makes homosexuality so special is should be treated differently and recognized by the state? For the same reasons that heterosexual marriages are.




And just because contracts are legal documents, does not mean ALL contracts are legal documents, legally enforceable.

I can't sell my children to a willing buyer - even if he and I agree on all the terms.

I can't sell a house I don't own free and clear - even though I may have a buyer and even have received payment.

And I cannot marry a person of the same gender as I.  Because that is not marriage as it's been defined since humans could speak.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> You don't have a right to push your beliefs on other people, freedom of religion certainly does not entail that.  
> 
> Who gives a shit if you or any other Christian doesn't believe in gay marriage?  No one is forcing you to marry another guy.


They're not my beliefs - they're the beliefs of all humanity through all civilized history; and only FAILED societies ever rejected them.

Who gives a shit if you want to rework our culture to YOUR childish, deviant, perverted whims?  In times past, you wouldn't be abusing others like this- you'd be locked up or hanged.  Maybe you ought to shut your foul mouth and thank the God that forbids sodomy, that you aren't getting what they still get in Iran and Saudi Arabia.

And then go back to your boyfriend and leave it that way.  Count your blessings, in other words, punk - and you have many.  So don't push it; the society that follows this one, after it collapses, is not gonna be so nice.

----------

Rudy2D (09-27-2013)

----------


## Calypso Jones

> You don't have a right to push your beliefs on other people, freedom of religion certainly does not entail that.  
> 
> Who gives a shit if you or any other Christian doesn't believe in gay marriage?  No one is forcing you to marry another guy.



And Christians are not doing that.  Society has upheld traditional marriage since time began.    So it appears that if Christianity stole all it's ideas from pagan religions then pagan religions had that attitude FIRST.  No one is denying any constitutional rights to any persons but marriage is between a man and woman.  It is the homosexual sub culture that is forcing their beliefs on the rest of us..upsetting the apple cart so to speak.  We are not being forced to marry someone of the same sex but our children are being encouraged to experiment that way and to consider it normal.

time and tradition are on the side of traditionalists.   Now maybe in time, homosexuals can recruit enough people into their ranks of practitioners and supporters and then the US can finish it's swirl and flush.

----------


## The XL

> They're not my beliefs - they're the beliefs of all humanity through all civilized history; and only FAILED societies ever rejected them.
> 
> Who gives a shit if you want to rework our culture to YOUR childish, deviant, perverted whims?  In times past, you wouldn't be abusing others like this- you'd be locked up or hanged.  Maybe you ought to shut your foul mouth and thank the God that forbids sodomy, that you aren't getting what they still get in Iran and Saudi Arabia.
> 
> And then go back to your boyfriend and leave it that way.  Count your blessings, in other words, punk - and you have many.  So don't push it; the society that follows this one, after it collapses, is not gonna be so nice.


It doesn't really matter if 90+ percent of the country believes in some sort of religion, it doesn't mean you have the right to push said garbage on everyone else.  

Believe whatever you want, kid, just keep everyone else the fuck out of it.

----------

kilgram (09-26-2013)

----------


## The XL

> And Christians are not doing that.  Society has done it since time began.    So it appears that if Christianity stole all it's ideas from pagan religions then pagan religions had that attitude FIRST.  No one is denying any constitutional rights to any persons but marriage is between a man and woman.  It is the homosexual sub culture that is forcing their beliefs on the rest of us..upsetting the apple cart so to speak.  We are not being forced to marry someone of the same sex but our children are being encouraged to experiment that way and to consider it normal.


No one is forcing you to marry someone of the same gender.  The state has no right in marriage in the first place, to pretend that it does, and only with heterosexuals, is false.

----------

kilgram (09-26-2013)

----------


## Calypso Jones

> No one is forcing you to marry someone of the same gender.  The state has no right in marriage in the first place, to pretend that it does, and only with heterosexuals, is false.


Apparently it isn't false because that is the way it has always been done...not only in western cultures but in all of them.    I don't care if you get the state out of religion.   Homosexuals would prefer the state in marriage and they want the state to sanction it.   And it's only a matter of time.  Some are already doing it.

Why is this such a hot button issue with you.  Most guys are not very sympathetic to homosexuals, particularly males.

----------


## The XL

> [/COLOR]
> 
> And just because contracts are legal documents, does not mean ALL contracts are legal documents, legally enforceable.
> 
> I can't sell my children to a willing buyer - even if he and I agree on all the terms.
> 
> I can't sell a house I don't own free and clear - even though I may have a buyer and even have received payment.*
> 
> And I cannot marry a person of the same gender as I.  Because that is not marriage as it's been defined since humans could speak.*


Understand that this is an absolutely meaningless statement.  Just because something has been the status quo for a period of time does not mean it's moral, legal, or Constitutional.  See the struggle for black and womens rights.

----------

kilgram (09-26-2013)

----------


## Calypso Jones

> Understand that this is an absolutely meaningless statement.  Just because something has been the status quo for a period of time does not mean it's moral, legal, or Constitutional.  See the struggle for black and womens rights.


surely you are not going to use that old ploy of equating homosexuality with civil rights?

----------


## The XL

> Apparently it isn't false because that is the way it has always been done...not only in western cultures but in all of them.    I don't care if you get the state out of religion*.   Homosexuals would prefer the state in marriage and they want the state to sanction it.*   And it's only a matter of time.  Some are already doing it.
> 
> Why is this such a hot button issue with you.  Most guys are not very sympathetic to homosexuals, particularly males.


And they are wrong to do so.

It's a hot button issue with me because I love freedom and equality, and hate tyranny and bigotry.  It's the same reason I fight very hard against the drug war despite never taking an illegal drug.

----------


## The XL

> surely you are not going to use that old ploy of equating homosexuality with civil rights?


The context in which I compared the two was fine.  The status quo is meaningless and is not a reflection on whether something is legal or Constitutional.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> *And they are wrong to do so.*
> 
> It's a hot button issue with me because I love freedom and equality, and hate tyranny and bigotry.  It's the same reason I fight very hard against the drug war despite never taking an illegal drug.


but they do, so why not discuss that with them?  They have freedom and equality...what you seem to want to do is to give them extra freedom and more equality than the rest of us should have.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> The context in which I compared the two was fine.  The status quo is meaningless and is not a reflection on whether something is legal or Constitutional.


and change for the sake of giving  special interest groups special privileges is not legal or constitutional either.  VERY not constitutional or legal.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> They're not my beliefs - they're the beliefs of all humanity through all civilized history; and only FAILED societies ever rejected them.
> 
> Who gives a shit if you want to rework our culture to YOUR childish, deviant, perverted whims?  In times past, you wouldn't be abusing others like this- you'd be locked up or hanged.  Maybe you ought to shut your foul mouth and thank the God that forbids sodomy, that you aren't getting what they still get in Iran and Saudi Arabia.
> 
> And then go back to your boyfriend and leave it that way.  Count your blessings, in other words, punk - and you have many.  So don't push it; the society that follows this one, after it collapses, is not gonna be so nice.


In ancient Greece homosexuality was tolerated. Sure, that civilization is no longer around, but name one civilization from that time period that is. Rome was accepting of homosexuals but it didn't collapse until after the introduction of Christianity. In Japan, nanshoku has been practiced for 1000s of years and homosexuality had been accepted by the Chinese until the Communists took over. So instead of assuming that everyone should think like you, maybe you should read some history books.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> but they do, so why not discuss that with them?  They have freedom and equality...what you seem to want to do is to give them extra freedom and more equality than the rest of us should have.


What is this extra freedom and equality that gays supposedly want that heterosexuals don't have exactly?

----------


## Calypso Jones

> What is this extra freedom and equality that gays supposedly want that heterosexuals don't have exactly?


anyone can marry.  They just want the law to say that they can marry the same sex.  No.  that is not legal marriage.
They want to sue and financially destroy people who do not want to do business with them.   Those are special laws for a special interest group.

no.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion...9903213c5.html

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> surely you are not going to use that old ploy of equating homosexuality with civil rights?


From Cornell University Law School:

"A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, and assembly; the right to vote; freedom from involuntary servitude; and the right to equality in public places. Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class. Various jurisdictions have enacted statutes to prevent discrimination based on a person's race, sex, religion, age, previous condition of servitude, physical limitation, national origin, and in some instances sexual orientation."

----------


## Calypso Jones

> From Cornell University Law School:
> 
> "A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, and assembly; the right to vote; freedom from involuntary servitude; and the right to equality in public places. Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class. Various jurisdictions have enacted statutes to prevent discrimination based on a person's race, sex, religion, age, previous condition of servitude, physical limitation, national origin, and in some instances sexual orientation."


what's the date on that definition...and i'll wager those last six words were added at a later date.    The left acts as if they are imams going in to change the Koran when it suits their purpose.   It doesn't work like that.

and i'll add...just because Cornell Law school says that does not make it the LAW OF THE LAND.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> In ancient Greece homosexuality was tolerated. Sure, that civilization is no longer around, but name one civilization from that time period that is. Rome was accepting of homosexuals but it didn't collapse until after the introduction of Christianity. In Japan, nanshoku has been practiced for 1000s of years and homosexuality had been accepted by the Chinese until the Communists took over. So instead of assuming that everyone should think like you, maybe you should read some history books.


Perhaps you should try to find some UNREVISED history books.   I have a degree in it.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> anyone can marry.  They just want the law to say that they can marry the same sex.  No.  that is not legal marriage.
> They want to sue and financially destroy people who do not want to do business with them.   Those are special laws for a special interest group.
> 
> no.


So gay marriage should not be legal because it is illegal. Nice circular argument there.

So you are telling me that if an Atheist businessman refused to do business with a Christian you would be ok with that? Anti-discrimination laws are not for special interest groups, they are for everyone.

----------

kilgram (09-26-2013)

----------


## Perianne

> So you are telling me that if an Atheist businessman refused to do business with a Christian you would be ok with that?


I would be okay with that.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> Perhaps you should try to find some UNREVISED history books.   I have a degree in it.


So there's a degree in Unrevised History?

Just kidding. Though I am curious now to where I was wrong. Could you please tell me what part of my history I got wrong.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> I would be okay with that.


What about a liberal businessman discriminating against a conservative or a businessman discriminating against a woman? Would you be ok with those?

----------


## Perianne

> What about a liberal businessman discriminating against a conservative or a businessman discriminating against a woman? Would you be ok with those?


I believe people should have the right to do, or not do, business with anyone.  So, yes, I would be okay with that.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> what's the date on that definition...and i'll wager those last six words were added at a later date.    The left acts as if they are imams going in to change the Koran when it suits their purpose.   It doesn't work like that.
> 
> and i'll add...just because Cornell Law school says that does not make it the LAW OF THE LAND.


I never said it did make it that law of land, I was merely pointing out that gay rights and civil rights are one and the same. The key phrase here is "Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class."

----------


## Canadianeye

> Marriage is a contract. Children cannot enter into a contract (though in some states, you can get married as young as 15 and in the fairly recent past, it was even younger). *Animals cannot enter into contract*. Your toaster cannot enter into a contract. Now as far as polygamy is concerned, I guess that some of the same arguments could apply, not that I see polygamy being wrong as long as all parties agree to it (yeah, I'm probably going to get blasted for that statement  ), but of course we are not talking about polygamy, we are talking about gay marriage here. So what makes homosexuality so special is should be treated differently and recognized by the state? For the same reasons that heterosexual marriages are.


For several decades the* slippery slope* has been denied by the liberal leftist imbeciles...and the hits just keep rolling in.

Cass Sunstein, Obamas ex regulatory czar (whose wife is Samantha Power who has been in entwined in the ME "Obama gameplan" of massive stupidity and full of fail)

Anyway, here's a quote from Cass, who is heading a new role now in the Obama admin:

animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives  Any animals that are entitled to bring suit would be represented by (human) counsel, who would owe guardian-like obligations and make decisions, subject to those obligations, on their clients behalf.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> I believe people should have the right to do, or not do, business with anyone.  So, yes, I would be okay with that.


What if a banker only gave loans to people of the right color or a doctor only operated on those of the correct religion? How about if a shopkeeper charged a particular group more for goods than everyone else? Would that be ok with you?

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> For several decades the* slippery slope* has been denied by the liberal leftist imbeciles...and the hits just keep rolling in.
> 
> Cass Sunstein, Obamas ex regulatory czar (whose wife is Samantha Power who has been in entwined in the ME "Obama gameplan" of massive stupidity and full of fail)
> 
> Anyway, here's a quote from Cass, who is heading a new role now in the Obama admin:
> 
> “animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives … Any animals that are entitled to bring suit would be represented by (human) counsel, who would owe guardian-like obligations and make decisions, subject to those obligations, on their clients’ behalf.”


Yeah, even I have to admit that some liberals are bat-shit crazy. However, it doesn't change anything since an animal still cannot consent to sex and even PETA agrees with that one.

----------


## Roadmaster

> surely you are not going to use that old ploy of equating homosexuality with civil rights?


 People will make an excuse for anything these days. They won't call it rape if a old man has sex with a 15 year old male. All they want to know, did he consent. Soon pedophiles won't be prosecuted because the victim will have to prove they didn't consent. This is another aim for them spreading their messages in school. They know most won't tell because out of fear and shame and if they do mostly likely won't win. Just like in the very old times if a woman dared to say rape and just went into  some dark alley to have an abortion. One of my girl cousins was raped by a man that was mentally unstable while she was skating around the school with a friend when school was out in the summer. She was only ten but that changed her life in many ways. Yes they got the guy but couldn't help her overcome what happened. They didn't ask her if she consented back then like they do these days to young men.  If a guy was caught having sex with a cow they didn't ask the boy if the cow consented, nor would they allow a grown man to get it up in front of children and not be jailed, it's called freedom of expression these days. I guess people these days will call others bigots for anything that they don't agree with. It's just not Christians that believe this way, many people do. Who are these people really fighting for the children, no. They want kids to embrace these lifestyles as normal and experiment. We have so many pedophiles in our country it is embarrassing.  From pimps selling young women for sex under 15, kiddy porn, and people just look away as if it doesn't happen or matter unless they get caught. Some call it freedom from Religion, I call it disturbing. But as long as we are not made to do this it should be ok.

----------

Perianne (09-25-2013)

----------


## Roadmaster

> Yeah, even I have to admit that some liberals are bat-shit crazy. However, it doesn't change anything since an animal still cannot consent to sex and even PETA agrees with that one.


 PETA won't be able to stop it. Too many out there say they were born that way.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> People will make an excuse for anything these days. They won't call it rape if a old man has sex with a 15 year old male. All they want to know, did he consent. Soon pedophiles won't be prosecuted because the victim will have to prove they didn't consent. This is another aim for them spreading their messages in school. They know most won't tell because out of fear and shame and if they do mostly likely won't win. Just like in the very old times if a woman dared to say rape and just went into  some dark alley to have an abortion. One of my girl cousins was raped by a man that was mentally unstable while she was skating around the school with a friend when school was out in the summer. She was only ten but that changed her life in many ways. Yes they got the guy but couldn't help her overcome what happened. They didn't ask her if she consented back then like they do these days to young men.  If a guy was caught having sex with a cow they didn't ask the boy if the cow consented, nor would they allow a grown man to get it up in front of children and not be jailed, it's called freedom of expression these days. I guess people these days will call others bigots for anything that they don't agree with. It's just not Christians that believe this way, many people do. Who are these people really fighting for the children, no. They want kids to embrace these lifestyles as normal and experiment. We have so many pedophiles in our country it is embarrassing.  From pimps selling young women for sex under 15, kiddy porn, and people just look away as if it doesn't happen or matter unless they get caught. Some call it freedom from Religion, I call it disturbing. But as long as we are not made to do this it should be ok.


By law anyone under 18 years old cannot consent. This is how an 18 year old kid can be arrested for having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend even though they are only a few months apart.

----------

kilgram (09-26-2013)

----------


## Roadmaster

> By law anyone under 18 years old cannot consent. This is how an 18 year old kid can be arrested for having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend even though they are only a few months apart.


 It's changing right before you eyes.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> PETA won't be able to stop it. Too many out there say they were born that way.


I don't know, it would be hard to prove in court that an animal gave consent. Unless it was a parrot. "Squak! Polly wants sex. Squak!"  :Big Grin:

----------

Perianne (09-26-2013)

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> It's changing right before you eyes.


I respectfully disagree. I see the laws becoming more restrictive. When parents get arrested for having pictures of their toddler in the bathtub or a teen gets arrested for child porn for sexting pictures of herself to her boyfriend, you know there is a problem.

----------


## Canadianeye

> Yeah, even I have to admit that some liberals are bat-shit crazy. However, it doesn't change anything since an animal still cannot consent to sex and even PETA agrees with that one.


Nope. Sorry. The slippery slope so long denied by liberals doesn't work that way. A man in England married his dog. The shit roll down hill generated from at least 50 years of the modern liberal ideology...inclusive of the homosexual agendists strategies...can only result in MORE downhill societal spiraling, as they press on their foolish ideological path.

I recall arguing at one point, using Justin Beiber as the example.

Imagine Beiber taking his 91 million dollars, and the highest priced lawyers that money can buy, and making a case to the courts about his 40 year old male "soul mate lover"....when he was 13.

If that situation had happened, you would have seen how very thin the line really is. It would have set precedent, and there *arrives* the denied slippery slope, and the entryway to a new level of debauchery in our societies. In all honesty, if you are even a semi rational person, you can see how easily this can...and will...happen.

----------


## texmaster

> Marriage is a contract. Children cannot enter into a contract (though in some states, you can get married as young as 15 and in the fairly recent past, it was even younger)


So now you want to add a new requirement.  So typical of the pro gay marriage crowd.  When you peel away their generic lazy arguments they have to invent new requirements to stay legitimate.

I've heard this tired and inaccurate definition before as well.  Children under the age of consent can work and pay taxes on that work from fast food to supermarkets.  That is entering a contract. The child is being paid for work they promise to perform.   Try again.




> Now as far as polygamy is concerned, I guess that some of the same arguments could apply, not that I see polygamy being wrong as long as all parties agree to it (yeah, I'm probably going to get blasted for that statement  ), but of course we are not talking about polygamy, we are talking about gay marriage here. So what makes homosexuality so special is should be treated differently and recognized by the state? For the same reasons that heterosexual marriages are.


Wrong again.  Heterosexuals have science on their side.  The body's genetic makeup as well as the sexes as I've explained.  You've given zero reason beyond emotion to change law to allow only 2 person adult homosexual marriage and that will continue to be the fallacy of your argument.

----------


## Roadmaster

> I respectfully disagree. I see the laws becoming more restrictive. When parents get arrested for having pictures of their toddler in the bathtub or a teen gets arrested for child porn for sexting pictures of herself to her boyfriend, you know there is a problem.


Most states it's 16 now. Porn you have to be 18 to consent but why is it all over the net? Now there are exceptions now for 12 year olds too having sex. This is just regular laws but you know they are out there selling young woman and men.

----------

texmaster (09-26-2013)

----------


## texmaster

The easist way to defeat the pro gay marriage crowd is to point out the severe lack of scientific basis for their relationship and the overwhelming scientific evidence that supports heterosexual couples.   Use religion and its too easy to defeat.    Stick with the most basic science and the genetic makeup of each gender and compatibility.   Its a little hard for them to justify male homosexual sex when you ask them to define the biological purpose of the anus.  lol

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> The easist way to defeat the pro gay marriage crowd is to point out the severe lack of scientific basis for their relationship and the overwhelming scientific evidence that supports heterosexual couples.   Use religion and its too easy to defeat.    Stick with the most basic science and the genetic makeup of each gender and compatibility.   Its a little hard for them to justify male homosexual sex when you ask them to define the biological purpose of the anus.  lol


You think it's going to help? Homosexuality isn't some choice guys wake up and make one fine summer's day. If the scientific argument falls through, there's always the ethical and emotive ones.

----------

kilgram (09-26-2013)

----------


## kilgram

> There you go again.   This isn't about a platonic definition of marriage its about how the state defines marriage.   By your definition no one from pedophilia to polygamy could be excluded from marriage if the only definition is love and commitment. 
> 
> Are you incapable of making an argument for law that isn't based solely on feelings and emotions?   I'm still waiting for an answer to my question:
> 
> What makes homosexuality and only 2 adult member homosexuality so special it should be treated differently and recognized by the state?
> 
> Can you answer it?


And here we go. LOL

Well, first, polygamy is acceptable. And why not? But there is no social demmand to legalize the polygamy, or to create a polygamic marriage.

Pedophilia does not involve two adults, it is out of argument. Look for another.

----------


## kilgram

> surely you are not going to use that old ploy of equating homosexuality with civil rights?


It is about civil rights. So yes!!!!

----------


## kilgram

> anyone can marry.  They just want the law to say that they can marry the same sex.  No.  that is not legal marriage.
> They want to sue and financially destroy people who do not want to do business with them.   Those are special laws for a special interest group.
> 
> no.
> 
> http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion...9903213c5.html


THey cannot marry with the people that they love. Is it hard to understand, or what?

----------


## Roadmaster

> You think it's going to help? Homosexuality isn't some choice guys wake up and make one fine summer's day. If the scientific argument falls through, there's always the ethical and emotive ones.


 Actually, most that I talked to did. One was going to get married and she left him, the other the same except she cheated on him, another about the same but didn't want children, one was rapped as a child to his teens, and the other said he got more attention from guys. Now those are friends but many in prison say around the same but most were stalked by gay men with the temptation of money or were called names because they didn't fit in to the strong guys. Reason after reason, some say they were just experimenting and looking for something different while dating women, using toys to stimulate them but none will say they were born that way. Would they say that  in public no. The biggest reason is sex. It's easier to pick up a man than a woman and they are not expected to be only with that person. Some still sleep with women too. Besides men are more open to having 5 to 6 people in a room together without getting jealous. Some bond after a while, some don't.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> surely you are not going to use that old ploy of equating homosexuality with civil rights?


We can't exempt sections of society from their fair access to civil rights just because you don't like them.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> Actually, most that I talked to did. One was going to get married and she left him, the other the same except she cheated on him, another about the same but didn't want children, one was rapped as a child to his teens, and the other said he got more attention from guys. Now those are friends but many in prison say around the same but most were stalked by gay men with the temptation of money or were called names because they didn't fit in to the strong guys. Reason after reason, some say they were just experimenting and looking for something different while dating women, using toys to stimulate them but none will say they were born that way. Would they say that  in public no. The biggest reason is sex. It's easier to pick up a man than a woman and they are not expected to be only with that person. Some still sleep with women too. Besides men are more open to having 5 to 6 people in a room together without getting jealous. Some bond after a while, some don't.


Well, I've never met gays like that. They've had homosexual tendencies since high school, and became open in it as soon as the opportunity of adult life presented itself.

The quite simple thing would be to let homos have their civil marriages, and leave the churches that don't want to wed them alone (this would have to be enshrined in legislation, of course). Everyone who disagrees would have to go figure.

----------


## Roadmaster

> THey cannot marry with the people that they love. Is it hard to understand, or what?


Yes you can and could have easily passed civil marriages with all the benefits of married couples. You want people to say it's not a sin, not going to happen. I don't care who you sleep with but don't try to change us to believe the way you do. That's like trying to make us say a woman that sleeps with different men all the time is ok. We are not going to say it is. Mess with our children or Church and it becomes our business.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> Yes you can and could have easily passed civil marriages with all the benefits of married couples. You want people to say it's not a sin, not going to happen. I don't care who you sleep with but don't try to change us to believe the way you do. That's like trying to make us say a woman that sleeps with different men all the time is ok. We are not going to say it is. Mess with our children or Church and it becomes our business.


Equating homosexuality with pedophilia. Wonderful.

----------


## Roadmaster

> Well, I've never met gays like that. They've had homosexual tendencies since high school, and became open in it as soon as the opportunity of adult life presented itself.
> 
> The quite simple thing would be to let homos have their civil marriages, and leave the churches that don't want to wed them alone (this would have to be enshrined in legislation, of course). Everyone who disagrees would have to go figure.


It would have passed a long time ago because there is still free will here. But looking overseas they attack any Church that says no. You live your way and we live ours.

----------


## kilgram

> Yes you can and could have easily passed civil marriages with all the benefits of married couples. You want people to say it's not a sin, not going to happen. I don't care who you sleep with but don't try to change us to believe the way you do. That's like trying to make us say a woman that sleeps with different men all the time is ok. We are not going to say it is. Mess with our children or Church and it becomes our business.


Seriously, I don't care what religious folks believe.

It is about civil rights. And the Church does not have nothing to say on that. It is not necessary to change your beliefs. You can continue believing whatever you want according to your ridiculous books written 2000 years ago.

And a woman that sleeps with different men all the time is ok. If it is what she wants, why no? It's her freedom. Ah, and why did you use the example of a woman? Why not the opposite, a man with many women? Or that does not look so bad? eh?

There is no mess with your children or church. You can continue doing whatever you want in your churches. By the way, do you know that you are looking like a radical Islamist? I enjoy when you prove my point that you are not so different from Islamic.

----------

thedarkdaimon (09-26-2013)

----------


## kilgram

> It would have passed a long time ago because there is still free will here. But looking overseas they attack any Church that says no. You live your way and we live ours.


Where is church attacked? I am from overseas and I don't see this.

----------


## Roadmaster

> Equating homosexuality with pedophilia. Wonderful.


 Yes, I do because I know many that were rapped by older men that were homosexual. Some heterosexual married men too. Don't tell me homosexuals won't pay young men for sex or try to rape them. Some of you are no different than the others.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> It would have passed a long time ago because there is still free will here. But looking overseas they attack any Church that says no. You live your way and we live ours.


And where, exactly, are you referring to?

----------


## kilgram

> Yes, I do because I know many that were rapped by older men that were homosexual. Some heterosexual married men too. Don't tell me homosexuals won't pay young men for sex or try to rape them. Some of you are no different than the others.


Yes, I do because I know many that were rapped by older men that were heterosexual. Don't tell me that heterosexuals won't pay young women for sex or try to rape them. Some of you are no different than the others.

----------

thedarkdaimon (09-26-2013)

----------


## Roadmaster

> It is about civil rights. And the Church does not have nothing to say on that. It is not necessary to change your beliefs. You can continue believing whatever you want according to your ridiculous books written 2000 years ago.


 No it's not it's about silencing us. I will never tell you it's ok and you have no rights in our buildings to get married except in the ones who say yes. They are already just here in the military trying to get the chaplains against this to marry them while there are many that will. You won't be able to undress in front of our children without a fight unless you have a complete sex change.

----------


## Roadmaster

> Yes, I do because I know many that were rapped by older men that were heterosexual. Don't tell me that heterosexuals won't pay young women for sex or try to rape them. Some of you are no different than the others.


 That's the way some men are and I can't change them, but don't try to sell this homosexuals don't do this crap.

----------


## Roadmaster

> And where, exactly, are you referring to?


 The UK, here is just one example. It's has always been a lie that gays are not trying to force Churches into marrying them that do not approve. 

http://www.charismanews.com/world/40...church-wedding

----------


## Trinnity

> *You don't have a right to push your beliefs on other people*, freedom of religion certainly does not entail that.  
> 
> Who gives a shit if you or any other Christian doesn't believe in gay marriage?  No one is forcing you to marry another guy.


So what?  People push their views on each other every damn day. Boo fucking hoo.

Gay rights are based on forcing people to accept perversion as normal, and the harm to society will be very real.

And yet, this is peanuts. Islam is pushing to make us all Muslim or die. It's the big picture that worries me most.

----------

Roadmaster (09-26-2013)

----------


## kilgram

> So what?  People push their views on each other every damn day. Boo fucking hoo.
> 
> Gay rights are based on forcing people to accept perversion as normal, and the harm to society will be very real.
> 
> And yet, this is peanuts. Islam is pushing to make us all Muslim or die. It's the big picture that worries me most.


Perversion? What perversion? It is your view. Are you not trying to force your freak view on the rest? And also what harm to society they do? Can you explain it?

And yeah, if you don't notice you are like the Muslim that you hate so much. Christian freaks that try to force their views on the rest. For good luck, I think Christian freaks or extremist are minority, or I hope.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> The UK, here is just one example. It's has always been a lie that gays are not trying to force Churches into marrying them that do not approve. 
> 
> http://www.charismanews.com/world/40...church-wedding


Yep, and they're not doing very well. Every church and government act so far stops short at actually permitting gay marriage in a Christian environment.

Most gays are more than satisfied to marry at a non-religious venue.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Just following Jesus' admonition.


Do you really think Jesus was lowering himself to name-calling in Matthew 7:6?

Maybe you should take the advice of Matthew 7:5 before demeaning others.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> The UK, here is just one example. It's has always been a lie that gays are not trying to force Churches into marrying them that do not approve. 
> 
> http://www.charismanews.com/world/40...church-wedding


I could sue you for a slight made to me online but that doesn't mean I'll win.   Regardless if that couple wins or loses in Britain, it wouldn't work here because of the First Amendment.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> I never said it did make it that law of land, I was merely pointing out that gay rights and civil rights are one and the same. The key phrase here is "Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class."


That is right - you have the same rights I do.  AND NO MORE.

You have the same qualified right to marry as anyone else does.  Qualified.  You cannot marry a tree; or a dog; or a child.  Or a person of the opposite sex.

Your twisted, infantile logic...would suggest that I'm discriminated against when compared to women, because women can marry men and I cannot!

Put that imbecilic Talking Points pamphlet away - they're for childlike Democrats.  You're dealing with ADULTS here.

----------


## JustPassinThru

Now.

Anyone who took the time, endured the grief...of reading this thing all the way through:  can you see why I brand this as MENTAL ILLNESS?

The argument is illogical; and it's pursued with an insane frenzy.  And just kept PUSHING and PUSHING and PUSHING...I can almost UNDERSTAND why Islamic societies want to put them to death!  They cannot ENDURE this madness and provocation!

You will get a more receptive ear, and less pushback, if you try to pretend to rationality.  And acknowledge, at least, when your argument fails logically.  And then let it go.

----------


## Canadianeye

> The easist way to defeat the pro gay marriage crowd is to point out the severe lack of scientific basis for their relationship and the overwhelming scientific evidence that supports heterosexual couples.   Use religion and its too easy to defeat.    Stick with the most basic science and the genetic makeup of each gender and compatibility.   Its a little hard for them to justify male homosexual sex when you ask them to define the biological purpose of the anus.  lol


I disagree tex. I think the best way is taking the actual histories/events/incidents that were resoundingly predicted would come to fruition and ruin our societies just a couple of generations ago...and pound what took place as predicted, will, and can only, lead to more.

This gives them proof. This gives a rational basis to examine the actual quagmire. This gives them pause. Then, if a rational state arrives....this gives them fear via the understanding.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> The easist way to defeat the pro gay marriage crowd is to point out the severe lack of scientific basis for their relationship and the overwhelming scientific evidence that supports heterosexual couples.   Use religion and its too easy to defeat.    Stick with the most basic science and the genetic makeup of each gender and compatibility.   Its a little hard for them to justify male homosexual sex when you ask them to define the biological purpose of the anus.  lol


I don't think you can persuade crazies.

And we as a culture don't have the stomach to lock these rabble-rousers up.

And the sheeple want peace...peace at any and all costs.

Until the crazy shit-stirrers ARE forced to keep it indoors...we'll have this problem.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> I could sue you for a slight made to me online but that doesn't mean I'll win.   Regardless if that couple wins or loses in Britain, it wouldn't work here because of the First Amendment.


on the contrary.  it IS working here.  And there are recent cases to prove it.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> The easist way to defeat the pro gay marriage crowd is to point out the severe lack of scientific basis for their relationship and the overwhelming scientific evidence that supports heterosexual couples.   Use religion and its too easy to defeat.    Stick with the most basic science and the genetic makeup of each gender and compatibility.   Its a little hard for them to justify male homosexual sex when you ask them to define the biological purpose of the anus.  lol


There is lots of evidence of homosexuality in nature. Besides, what about women with Mayer Rokitansky Kuster Hauser syndrome or men with penile agenesis? They don't have the appropriate sex organs yet they are allowed to get married. Also, did you know that the anus is considered a erogenous zone by sex researchers?

So as you see, there are no reasons at all to be against gay marriage except for your own discomfort over the subject.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> There is lots of evidence of homosexuality in nature.


The only evidence I've seen is better explained as dominance behavior.

Pack animals establish a social order.  And animals can't articulate so they can't ridicule their lesser pack-mates.  Except, of course, to take a beta-male; and go through the motions of copulation.  As if he were a bitch.

Outside of that...I have seen no evidence of homosexual desire.  It's an obvious non-functional behavior.  And even animals that eat feces don't engage in anal sodomy.

----------

texmaster (09-26-2013)

----------


## usfan

When i was a kid in rural missouri, there was a neighbor near by who had a dog.. we called him, 'Old Drive'.  This was a real Horn Dog.  If you got pushed to within his leash, you were gripped in his clutches & sodomized mercilessly.  It was a terrifying experience, & i didn't even know what it was, at the time.  But i have seen bulls & dogs engage in very unnatural acts, so it is not unique to the human species.

Personally, i don't care.  It would be nice if i didn't have to PAY for their lifestyle choices, which seems to be more of the sticking point.  My wife works at a large hotel chain in the spa.  There is a very large percentage of overt gays who work there.  Some are very conservative, politically, which might just be to annoy other gays.. i don't know.  But regarding the OP, it seems to me that the left tries to co-opt ANYTHING & make it part of their coalition.  They try to get both PETA & the cattlemen's association on board.

----------


## texmaster

> There is lots of evidence of homosexuality in nature.


Evidence in nature does not make it natural.   Cannibalism exists in nature too and no one is stupid enough to claim its natural.




> Besides, what about women with Mayer Rokitansky Kuster Hauser syndrome or men with penile agenesis? They don't have the appropriate sex organs yet they are allowed to get married. Also, did you know that the anus is considered a erogenous zone by sex researchers?


Sex researchers now thats an amusing title.   Tell us, what scientific book describes the Anus as a sex organ and not a pooper shooter?




> So as you see, there are no reasons at all to be against gay marriage except for your own discomfort over the subject.


Not only have you not proven homosexuality is natural you can't even get your facts straight about the function of an anus.  Come back when you've actually thought about your answer.

----------


## texmaster

> I disagree tex. I think the best way is taking the actual histories/events/incidents that were resoundingly predicted would come to fruition and ruin our societies just a couple of generations ago...and pound what took place as predicted, will, and can only, lead to more.
> 
> This gives them proof. This gives a rational basis to examine the actual quagmire. This gives them pause. Then, if a rational state arrives....this gives them fear via the understanding.


The only reason I would disagree is that giving them that argument allows them to point to other reasons they believe effected that part of history.  Science and the functions of the body from a biological perspective have no counter argument.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> That is right - you have the same rights I do.  AND NO MORE.
> 
> You have the same qualified right to marry as anyone else does.  Qualified.  You cannot marry a tree; or a dog; or a child.  Or a person of the opposite sex.
> 
> Your twisted, infantile logic...would suggest that I'm discriminated against when compared to women, because women can marry men and I cannot!
> 
> Put that imbecilic Talking Points pamphlet away - they're for childlike Democrats.  You're dealing with ADULTS here.


A marriage is a legal contract. Trees, dogs and children cannot enter into a legal contract. Trees, dogs and children cannot consent to sex. An adult male or female, regardless of sexual orientation, can. That's the difference. And you are being discriminated against if can't marry a man and you want to.

----------


## JustPassinThru

I tell you, it's dominance behavior.

He was the Alpha Dog in his pack...meaning the humans he lived with.  This is something most people don't realize.  When you bring a dog into your home, it will immediately try to assert its dominance over you.  And when it does, you have obedience and discipline problems from the dog...it doesn't take commands from you; YOU are supposed to take the lead from HIM (or her; some Alpha Dogs are bitches).

Going through the motions of sex are the ways dogs show their dominance.  It had nothing to do with actual sex; a dog is no more aroused at the sight of a human than a human is at the sight of a dog.

Brutal owners who beat their dogs get a respite because the dog is no longer an Alpha.  But there's non-violent way of putting the dog back in the pack and asserting yourself as the Alpha:  You take the dog; hold the dog down to the floor.  Gently but firmly.  Hold the head down.  Talk to the dog, in a firm but non-threatening tone.  Look the dog in the eyes as you do this.

Stay in this position for about five minutes.  BELIEVE ME...the dog GETS it!  Behavior change will be almost immediate.  And the leg-humping stops.

----------

usfan (09-26-2013)

----------


## texmaster

> And here we go. LOL
> 
> Well, first, polygamy is acceptable. And why not? But there is no social demmand to legalize the polygamy, or to create a polygamic marriage.
> 
> Pedophilia does not involve two adults, it is out of argument. Look for another.


LOL   Your moronic arguments for gay marriage were based around loving each other.   Now that you've been exposed giving those lazy general arguments you want to add new criteria.  What makes your moral judgment of pedophilia worthy of law over someone else's?   That's been your argument for gay marriage and now you want to hide behind it to keep out a marriage you don't personally like.     All you are doing is denying other groups your new definition of civil rights.

You can't argue against the science I presented which is why you go for these desperate tactics.

----------


## texmaster

> A marriage is a legal contract. Trees, dogs and children cannot enter into a legal contract. Trees, dogs and children cannot consent to sex. An adult male or female, regardless of sexual orientation, can. That's the difference. And you are being discriminated against if can't marry a man and you want to.


I've already proven children can and do enter legal contacts for employment but you ran away from that reality.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> I've already proven children can and do enter legal contacts for employment but you ran away from that reality.


Children can do NOTHING except by consent of parent or guardian.  Including employment.

----------


## texmaster

> Children can do NOTHING except by consent of parent or guardian.  Including employment.


100% false.   Children can baby sit and take jobs at a supermarket without parental consent.   I know.  I've done it.

Try again.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> Evidence in nature does not make it natural.   Cannibalism exists in nature too and no one is stupid enough to claim its natural.


Cannibalism is natural (hell, humans will eat just about anything), just not accepted, at least not in our society, but other societies do accept it.




> Sex researchers now thats an amusing title.   Tell us, what scientific book describes the Anus as a sex organ and not a pooper shooter?


So sex is only allowed if it is with the sex organs? So I take it you don't like oral sex either. Also you must not masterbate since it is not sex organ to sex organ. Oh, does that mean that penis to penis or vulva to vulva contact is ok?




> Not only have you not proven homosexuality is natural you can't even get your facts straight about the function of an anus.  Come back when you've actually thought about your answer.


I did and yet the answer is the same. Homosexuality is natural and the anus, while used to expel waste, can be used in the sexual act.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> I've already proven children can and do enter legal contacts for employment but you ran away from that reality.


 So... marriage is a form of employment? Also, you are forgetting that children cannot consent to sex.

----------


## texmaster

[QUOTE=thedarkdaimon;137764]Cannibalism is natural (hell, humans will eat just about anything), just not accepted, at least not in our society, but other societies do accept it.[/quoite]

LOL  Then rape is natural as murder is natural as well.  Do you even hear yourself?




> So sex is only allowed if it is with the sex organs? So I take it you don't like oral sex either. Also you must not masterbate since it is not sex organ to sex organ. Oh, does that mean that penis to penis or vulva to vulva contact is ok?


so you can't answer the question. Got it.   I dont care what you do with your perosnal life but we are talking about a basis for changing LAW.    YOu can't give a single reason beyond an emotional argument to allow gay marriage and that's the point.   How you get yourself off is not a justification for changing or making law.




> I did and yet the answer is the same. Homosexuality is natural and the anus, while used to expel waste, can be used in the sexual act.


Can be used does not mean nature made it to be used that way which is why you couldn't answer the question.     How you get yourself off is not a reason to change law for everyone.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> 100% false.   Children can baby sit and take jobs at a supermarket without parental consent.   I know.  I've done it.
> 
> Try again.


That you faked consent, does not mean you were able to work without consent.

If your parents did not want you working and called to complain...your baby-sitter employers would have HAD to send you home.  And if your parents wanted to make a legal issue of it...they could have.

Be serious.  In most states, persons under 18 years of age have to have a Work Permit to get a job.  That work permit, where I came from, had to be signed by the principal of the school the child was attending...and both parents.  One if the other was not in the home.

----------


## texmaster

> So... marriage is a form of employment? Also, you are forgetting that children cannot consent to sex.


Based on what?  A law?   You guys already want to change the laws that ban gay marriage.  You can't hide behind one law banning a sexual practice you like then hide behind another law to ban a sexual practice you don't like and claim its about love and commitment or a civil right.

----------


## texmaster

> That you faked consent, does not mean you were able to work without consent.
> 
> If your parents did not want you working and called to complain...your baby-sitter employers would have HAD to send you home.  And if your parents wanted to make a legal issue of it...they could have.
> 
> Be serious.  In most states, persons under 18 years of age have to have a Work Permit to get a job.  That work permit, where I came from, had to be signed by the principal of the school the child was attending...and both parents.  One if the other was not in the home.


I'm being 100% serious.  Show us all the law that babysitters have to get their parent's permission to baby sit.

Go ahead.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> I'm being 100% serious.  Show us all the law that babysitters have to get their parent's permission to baby sit.
> 
> Go ahead.



From Purdue U:
_
For employing minors, the pertinent laws of the state of Indiana and the United States must be followed. Additional regulations are provided to assure compliance and proper employment conditions for Purdue University. The basic provisions of the laws, regulations and procedures and the policy of Purdue University are as follows:_

_Age Restrictions__Employment Certificates__Restricted Hours__Permitted Occupations__Restricted Occupations__Appointments_
*Age Restrictions*_Anyone under eighteen (18) years of age is considered a minor (legal age for employment is 14). Minors under 14 years of age are not permitted in gainful occupations except in domestic service and certain agricultural occupations. It shall be the duty of every department employing minors to post and keep posted in a conspicuous place, a printed notice showing the maximum hours minors are permitted to work in a day and in a week, beginning and closing hours, and time allowed for meals; also a notice must be posted with the names and ages respectively, of minor employees. These forms are available from the Indiana Division of Labor, Bureau of Child Labor, Indianapolis, In 46204, or from a superintendent of schools' office._
*Employment Certificates*_Employment certificates must be obtained for all minors under age 18 except minors who have graduated from high school._

_Minors must obtain a work permit (Intention to Employ/A-1) from the issuing officer at the school they attend.__The employer must complete the form__The minor must get his/her parents' signature on the form__The minor must present the completed Intention to Employ/A-1 card to the issuing officer, along with proof of age.__The employment certificate is completed by the issuing officer, and given to the minor.__At the termination of employment, the minor gives the employment certificate and termination notice to the employer__The employing department must mail the termination notice to the issuing office._
_An employment certificate is not transferable from one job to another or from one department to another. If for some reason the certificate cannot be granted, the employing department will be notified._
_Appointing payroll change forms for employees under eighteen (18) years of age must contain under item 18, the statement that "an employment certificate issued by the superintendent of (name of applicable school district) is on file in the employing department's office and no work assignment will be made to this employee that is in violation of State, Federal and University laws and regulations." No employment certificate is required for a minor to perform certain occupations in agriculture, domestic service, or to serve as a newspaper carrier, caddy on a golf course, actor or performer. Child labor laws do not apply to these occupations._
*Restricted Hours*_Minors 14 and 15 years of age:_
_may work only 3 hours per school day;__may work no more than 18 hours a week when school is in session;__may work no more than 8 hours a day when school is not in session;__may work no more than 40 hours in one week when school is not in session;__cannot start work before 7:00 a.m. or work after 7:00 p.m. (9:00 p.m. from June 1 through Labor Day); and__may not work more than 6 days in one week.__Minors sixteen (16) years of age:_
_may not start work before 6:00 a.m. or may not work after 10:00 p.m.;__may work until 12 midnight, on such nights not followed by school days or during summer when schools are not normally in session, by the written consent of their parent or guardian. Such consent must be on file in the employing department before the minor starts work;__school "drop-outs" may start work at 6:00 a.m. but also must have written consent from their parent or guardian to work past 10:00 p.m., but may not work later than 12 midnight; and__are restricted to not more than 8 hours per day or 40 hours per week and not more than 6 days in a week.__may work only 9 hours per day during the summer__may work 48 hours/week during the summer__Minors seventeen (17) years of age:_
_may work up to 8 hours per day and up to 40 hours per week during summer vacation. With parental permission, the minor may work up to 9 hours per day and/or 48 hours per week. There is no restriction on starting or ending time during summer vacation.__may work until 11:30 p.m. on nights followed by a school day and with written parental permission, the minor may work unlimited hours but not on consecutive school nights or more than 2 school nights per week. On nights during the school year when there is no school the following day, there are no hour restrictions.__may not work before 6:00 a.m.__may not work more than 6 days per week__Exceptions to hours restrictions: Any minor required to obtain a work permit is not restricted by hours if he/she is a high school graduate, has completed an approved vocational or special education program, or has not enrolled in a regular school term._
*Permitted Occupations*_Fourteen (14) years of age. (NOTE: to serve as a guide, not conclusive):_

_office and clerical work, including operation of office machines;__cashiering, selling, modeling, art work, advertising;__assembling order, packing and shelving;__bagging and carrying out customer orders;__errand delivery work by foot, bicycle, and public transportation__cleanup work, including the use of vacuum cleaners and floor waxers; maintenance of grounds, but not the use of power mowers;__kitchen work and other work involved in preparing operation of machines and devices used in the performance of such work, such as but not limited to dishwashers, toasters, dumbwaiters, popcorn poppers, milk shake blenders, and coffee grinders, but not slicers, power saws, etc.__helpers to mechanics and other skilled craftsman, TV and radio repairmen, etc.;__attendants in amusement places; as pin boys in bowling alleys;__nurserymen helpers and greenhouse workers; or__actors, etc._
*Restricted Occupations*_Youth under eighteen (18) years of age must not be employed in jobs or with conditions as follows (NOTE: to serve as guide, not conclusive):_

_hazardous work;__in or around boiler or engine rooms;__occupations of motor-vehicle driver and helper;__involved in operation of power-driven metal forming, punching, or shearing machines;__involved in the operation of bakery machines;__occupations involved in the operation of circular saws, band saws, and guillotine shears;__roofing and hod carriers;__oil and chain moving machinery;__in or about any mine, quarry or excavation;__operation of any elevator, lift or hoisting machines;__in any building construction;__work in or about areas where nitroglycerin, dynamite, dualin, guncotton, gunpowder, or other explosives are manufactured, compounded, or stored;__work on a job that involves exposure to radioactive substances;__engaged in any other occupation dangerous to life or limb or injurious to health or morals;__operate any abrasive, polishing or buffing wheel (except that an apprentice may sharpen tools he uses);__metal finishing, spray painting; or__operation of power driven meat processing machines._

----------


## JustPassinThru

_Occupations in Agriculture No one under sixteen (16) years of age may be employed in agriculture during school hours for the school district in which the employed minor is living; nor in any hazardous conditions. No one under fourteen (14) years of age may be employed, even outside of school hours. Twelve and thirteen year olds may be employed in certain agricultural occupations with parental consent. Proof of age is required. Hazardous conditions in agriculture are those which involve the use of power equipment or toxic chemicals that are experimental in nature or that have been altered or modified in any way for experimental purposes, or any power equipment where moving parts are not properly guarded or where guards have been removed. Pool or Billiard Rooms No one under eighteen (18) years of age may work in any pool or billiard room._

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> LOL  Then rape is natural as murder is natural as well.  Do you even hear yourself?


Rape and murder IS "natural", however we don't accept it as a society. In some societies it is accepted. What I've been trying to show is that the idea of something being natural or not is meaningless. That is not how we make laws.





> so you can't answer the question. Got it.   I dont care what you do with your perosnal life but we are talking about a basis for changing LAW.    YOu can't give a single reason beyond an emotional argument to allow gay marriage and that's the point.   How you get yourself off is not a justification for changing or making law.


Ok, yes, the anus is there to expel poop. I get it, you think anal sex is icky, that is why you are so focused on the anus but said nothing about the mouth and oral sex ('cause like most guys, you probably like blowjobs). But why should we stop two people from getting married just because you find their sex life gross?






> Can be used does not mean nature made it to be used that way which is why you couldn't answer the question.     How you get yourself off is not a reason to change law for everyone.


How does allowing gays to marry affect anyone else in any way? How does gays getting married affect you personally besides you think it is gross?

----------


## JustPassinThru

> How does allowing gays to marry affect anyone else in any way? How does gay getting married affect you personally besides you think it is gross?


You're not interested in a rational discussion on this - you're throwing sand in the gears.

There are whole books on the role of family in a community.  "Family" is not two boyos, their libidos, and a jar of Vaseline.  Family is a man and woman who've decided to pair off and have children together; and the issue of their bond.

Marriage is public celebration of this union.  Blessed by their Creator; as opposed to a drunken encounter; or a brothel transaction.

To make marriage a "celebration" of two twisted persons of the same sex playing Hide-The-Salami...is to make marriage irrelevant.  Which is what the sodomite lobby WANTS to do.  Once irrelevant, the family ceases to be meaningful...and Good, Great GOOBERMINT takes its place.  Which is again what the gay boyos want.

I'm painting in broad strokes here, because I don't have the time and interest in writing another book - and you're not interested in reading any of this.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> You're not interested in a rational discussion on this - you're throwing sand in the gears.
> 
> There are whole books on the role of family in a community.  "Family" is not two boyos, their libidos, and a jar of Vaseline.  Family is a man and woman who've decided to pair off and have children together; and the issue of their bond.
> 
> Marriage is public celebration of this union.  Blessed by their Creator; as opposed to a drunken encounter; or a brothel transaction.
> 
> To make marriage a "celebration" of two twisted persons of the same sex playing Hide-The-Salami...is to make marriage irrelevant.  Which is what the sodomite lobby WANTS to do.  Once irrelevant, the family ceases to be meaningful...and Good, Great GOOBERMINT takes its place.  Which is again what the gay boyos want.
> 
> I'm painting in broad strokes here, because I don't have the time and interest in writing another book - and you're not interested in reading any of this.


Ah, I was wondering when religion would get into this. See, the thing is that not everyone subscribes to your religion and we have this thing called the First Amendment that says that the government can't establish a religion so religious arguments are a moot point. 

HOW is allowing gays to marry going to make the family irrelevant? A 50% divorce rate I think is doing a much better job at it. So, unless you have a logical reason why two consenting adults can't get married, regardless of sex, you have no argument.

----------


## Micketto

> It just exposing the fact that religious folk only selectively obey the bible .


Actually it exposes the "know-it-alls" who have no grasp on old law, vs. new law, and basically no understanding of the Bible... while they try and use it in arguments.

----------


## Micketto

> Originally Posted by kilgram
> 
> 
> I am radical. And I am proud of it
> 
> 
> No you're not.  You're just repeating what a million television sets say every night, on a hundred channels.
> That's not radicalism.  That's zombieism.


HAHA...  excellent pwnage.

Kilgram, for reference... what just happened to you is like a sniper being taken out from behind with a knife in Battlefield !

----------


## Micketto

> That's fantastic and all, but law and policy shouldn't be set on religious beliefs.


Then why are you in the thread harping on "Christians" picking the laws they want to obey?

Losing that one makes you turn around and say "well religious beliefs shouldn't matter" ?

Why not say that in the first place, since your understanding of the Bible and Christianity is lacking.

----------


## Micketto

> whoa...I think in here is the answer to the op.
> 
> Via Campus Reform:Bill Ayers, a professor known for engaging in terrorist activities in the 1970s, is set to speak at Gettysburg College (GC) next Tuesday, Campus Reform has learned.
> According to the events poster, Ayers will deliver a speech on queering education which will be  sponsored by nGender, a program at GC that meets bi-weekly to dialogue on gender issues, according to the schools official website.
> Ayers is known for his leadership of the Weather Underground, a group which bombed public buildings in the 1960s and 1970s to protest involvement of the United States military in the Vietnam War.
> Keep reading


How appropriate.... a terrorist, loved by the left, promoting queerdom.

----------


## Micketto

> We either support our Constitution 100% or we'll all be fucked in the end.


So Constitution or gay sex ?

----------


## Perianne

> "Family" is not two boyos, their libidos, and a jar of *Vaseline*.


Get it right, JPT.  I am pretty sure they use KY Jelly.  lol

----------


## Micketto

> Geez, you guys sure like to argue.
> 
> How about you all just take my position and call it a draw?


And just what is your favorite position ?

----------


## Micketto

> what's the date on that definition...and i'll wager those last six words were added at a later date.    The left acts as if they are imams going in to change the Koran when it suits their purpose.   It doesn't work like that.
> 
> and i'll add...just because Cornell Law school says that does not make it the LAW OF THE LAND.


Noticed that too.
So some college gives their definition... and later revises by adding..._ "oh, and in some cases..."_

No doubt the lgbtQ military protested outside the college and called in death threats until it was revised.

----------


## Micketto

> However, it doesn't change anything since an animal still cannot consent to sex


"I didn't know marriage was about sex I thought it was about love and commitment. 						"





> and even PETA agrees with that one.


Not sure I would lean on PETA to help support my claims... if credibility is of any interest to you.

----------


## Micketto

> Seriously, I don't care what religious folks believe.
> 
> It is about civil rights. And the Church does not have nothing to say on that. It is not necessary to change your beliefs. You can continue believing whatever you want according to your ridiculous books written 2000 years ago.
> 
> And a woman that sleeps with different men all the time is ok. If it is what she wants, why no? It's her freedom. Ah, and why did you use the example of a woman? Why not the opposite, a man with many women? Or that does not look so bad? eh?
> 
> There is no mess with your children or church. You can continue doing whatever you want in your churches. By the way, do you know that you are looking like a radical Islamist? I enjoy when you prove my point that you are not so different from Islamic.



You don't care what religious folks believe....
You constantly get on people for being discriminating...
Yet can't help but always diss Islamists and Muslims anytime you get the chance.

Hypocrisy is a new word for you ?

----------


## Micketto

> Children can do NOTHING except by consent of parent or guardian.  Including employment.


Not sure of any job where a 16 year old has to have a parent sign his application.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> on the contrary.  it IS working here.  And there are recent cases to prove it.


That's news to me.  So which church was forced to marry a gay couple?

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> "I didn't know marriage was about sex I thought it was about love and commitment.                         "


You got me there. What I should have said is Marriage is not ONLY about sex, it is also about love and commitment.




> Not sure I would lean on PETA to help support my claims... if credibility is of any interest to you.


I figured that if even a fanatical animal rights group like PETA wouldn't claim animals can consent, it would show that nobody would make that claim.

----------


## Micketto

> I figured that if even a fanatical animal rights group like PETA wouldn't claim animals can consent, it would show that nobody would make that claim.


PETA would never say animals could consent, because if it could bring pleasure to a human... they are totally against it.

----------

thedarkdaimon (09-26-2013)

----------


## texmaster

> From Purdue U:
> _
> For employing minors, the pertinent laws of the state of Indiana and the United States must be followed. Additional regulations are provided to assure compliance and proper employment conditions for Purdue University. The basic provisions of the laws, regulations and procedures and the policy of Purdue University are as follows:_
> 
> _Age Restrictions__Employment Certificates__Restricted Hours__Permitted Occupations__Restricted Occupations__Appointments_ 
> *Age Restrictions*
> 
> _Anyone under eighteen (18) years of age is considered a minor (legal age for employment is 14). Minors under 14 years of age are not permitted in gainful occupations except in domestic service and certain agricultural occupations. It shall be the duty of every department employing minors to post and keep posted in a conspicuous place, a printed notice showing the maximum hours minors are permitted to work in a day and in a week, beginning and closing hours, and time allowed for meals; also a notice must be posted with the names and ages respectively, of minor employees. These forms are available from the Indiana Division of Labor, Bureau of Child Labor, Indianapolis, In 46204, or from a superintendent of schools' office._
> *Employment Certificates*
> ...


LOL Read your own info.

_except in domestic service and certain agricultural occupations. 

_So the answer is yes they can.  Therefore they can consent.

Thanks for the support.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> That's news to me.  So which church was forced to marry a gay couple?


the church thing has not really gotten here yet but it's coming...

http://youngcons.com/gay-couple-to-s...marrying-them/

actually at this point, churches in this country are re-writing their membership criteria in order to be legal in refusing to marry homosexual couples.   A suit of this nature can destroy a church and that is probably the intent.

BUT, what is here already is homosexual couples suing halls, bakeries, photographers for refusing to engage in the event.   It seems the selfish desires of the homocouple over-rides the first amendment rights of the person they want forced to participate.   Do you want me to post those instances also seeing as you are unaware of them?

----------

texmaster (09-26-2013)

----------


## texmaster

> the church thing has not really gotten here yet but it's coming...
> 
> http://youngcons.com/gay-couple-to-s...marrying-them/
> 
> actually at this point, churches in this country are re-writing their membership criteria in order to be legal in refusing to marry homosexual couples.   A suit of this nature can destroy a church and that is probably the intent.
> 
> BUT, what is here already is homosexual couples suing halls, bakeries, photographers for refusing to engage in the event.   It seems the selfish desires of the homocouple over-rides the first amendment rights of the person they want forced to participate.   Do you want me to post those instances also seeing as you are unaware of them?


You are 100% correct.   That is the end game for homosexual activists.  They count on their supporters being too stupid to see the truth staring them in the face.

----------

Calypso Jones (09-26-2013)

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> the church thing has not really gotten here yet but it's coming...
> 
> http://youngcons.com/gay-couple-to-s...marrying-them/
> 
> actually at this point, churches in this country are re-writing their membership criteria in order to be legal in refusing to marry homosexual couples.   A suit of this nature can destroy a church and that is probably the intent.
> 
> BUT, what is here already is homosexual couples suing halls, bakeries, photographers for refusing to engage in the event.   It seems the selfish desires of the homocouple over-rides the first amendment rights of the person they want forced to participate.   Do you want me to post those instances also seeing as you are unaware of them?


What is it with conservatives and conspiracy theories? Why is it always some secret plot to destroy America with you people? First it is evolution, then global warming, now gays. I mean seriously! Do you think if a hall, bakery or photographer refused a black person or a jewish person that the shit wouldn't also hit the fan? Ok, so maybe that shouldn't happen (a debate for another thread), but that doesn't mean gay people have a secret agenda.

----------


## kilgram

> Now.
> 
> Anyone who took the time, endured the grief...of reading this thing all the way through:  can you see why I brand this as MENTAL ILLNESS?
> 
> The argument is illogical; and it's pursued with an insane frenzy.  And just kept PUSHING and PUSHING and PUSHING...I can almost UNDERSTAND why Islamic societies want to put them to death!  They cannot ENDURE this madness and provocation!
> 
> You will get a more receptive ear, and less pushback, if you try to pretend to rationality.  And acknowledge, at least, when your argument fails logically.  And then let it go.


And now you get surprised when we, the atheists, laicists... say that you, Christians are the same shit as Muslim. Please read your fucking post, and you will see no difference from the Islamic people. You are the same. And as we always say, you have Fatwa envy.

----------


## kilgram

> LOL   Your moronic arguments for gay marriage were based around loving each other.   Now that you've been exposed giving those lazy general arguments you want to add new criteria.  What makes your moral judgment of pedophilia worthy of law over someone else's?   That's been your argument for gay marriage and now you want to hide behind it to keep out a marriage you don't personally like.     All you are doing is denying other groups your new definition of civil rights.
> 
> You can't argue against the science I presented which is why you go for these desperate tactics.


What science? You didn't present any science. Only rubbish. And I am not making any new definition of civil rights, and nothing. I've never changed my strategy.

By the way, I am for the poligamous marriage, are you for that? But the difference is that there is no social demand for this kind of marriage. But if there was, you would see me defending it.

PS: Complete Polygamous: men with men, women with women, men with women, men with men with women with women... and all the combinations possible.

----------


## kilgram

> Originally Posted by thedarkdaimon
> 
> 
> Cannibalism is natural (hell, humans will eat just about anything), just not accepted, at least not in our society, but other societies do accept it.
> 
> 
> LOL  Then rape is natural as murder is natural as well.  Do you even hear yourself?
> 
> 
> ...


Hey the ones that are using the natural argument are you, not us.

I am a cultural and societal person, and the same I believe with the rest of humans. The argument of natural things is absurd, mainly because from the beginning of humanity we've been modifying the whole environment and it is everything except natural.

----------


## Coolwalker

> What science? You didn't present any science. Only rubbish. And I am not making any new definition of civil rights, and nothing. I've never changed my strategy.
> 
> By the way, I am for the poligamous marriage, are you for that? But the difference is that there is no social demand for this kind of marriage. But if there was, you would see me defending it.
> 
> PS: Complete Polygamous: men with men, women with women, men with women, men with men with women with women... and all the combinations possible.


That is fucked up. Who wants to  hear multiple female voices bitchin'? Damn sure not me.

----------


## kilgram

> That is fucked up. Who wants to  hear multiple female voices bitchin'? Damn sure not me.


Well, if you don't want something, just don't do it. Maybe other people like that.

----------


## Roadmaster

> You are 100% correct.   That is the end game for homosexual activists.  They count on their supporters being too stupid to see the truth staring them in the face.


 Look at them in the parades and tell me they care about children. They want people to think they are all nice and won't force anything but we all know it's not the truth. A Christian orphanage moved to another states because they were suing them. When will people realize it's all a lie and they will start demanding and suing Churches. Just look at another country the Greek government has just recognized pedophiles as a population of the disabled, entitled under law to governmental disability compensation and added to the countrys welfare roll.  The children who are the victims of those pedophiles evidently are not. they keep saying don't link us with pedophiles but you know a person who would take it out and masturbate in front of them would. They are trying to force states, it's not about equal it's about taking others rights.

----------

texmaster (09-28-2013)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> LOL Read your own info.
> 
> _except in domestic service and certain agricultural occupations. 
> 
> _So the answer is yes they can.  Therefore they can consent.
> 
> Thanks for the support.


Read it again in context.

Minors under 14 cannot be employed AT ALL except in domestic service and certain agricultural occupations.

But to be employed there, they STILL need work papers.

----------


## Roadmaster

> Well, if you don't want something, just don't do it. Maybe other people like that.


 Yes just like the UK that tried to be nice and allow gay marriage and now being sued and attacked not only from gays but the government. But they said it couldn't happen.

----------


## kilgram

> Yes just like the UK that tried to be nice and allow gay marriage and now being sued and attacked not only from gays but the government. But they said it couldn't happen.


What are you talking about?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> And now you get surprised when we, the atheists, laicists... say that you, Christians are the same shit as Muslim. Please read your fucking post, and you will see no difference from the Islamic people. You are the same. And as we always say, you have Fatwa envy.


If true, then you, "_the atheists, laicists_", would be making the same mistake of condemning an entire group of people for the actions of a few.  Like most Muslims, most Christians mind their own business and focus on getting right with God, not being busy-body authoritarians hypocritically trying to force everyone else to get right with God when they, themselves, are more closely aligned with evil than good. 

Ever notice how the extreme Right-Wingers want smaller government and government to stay out of their personal lives except when it comes to certain button issues such as gays and abortion?  A pretty fucked up attitude IMO.

----------


## kilgram

> If true, then you, "_the atheists, laicists_", would be making the same mistake of condemning an entire group of people for the actions of a few.  Like most Muslims, most Christians mind their own business and focus on getting right with God, not being busy-body authoritarians hypocritically trying to force everyone else to get right with God when they, themselves, are more closely aligned with evil than good. 
> 
> Ever notice how the extreme Right-Wingers want smaller government and government to stay out of their personal lives except when it comes to certain button issues such as gays and abortion?  A pretty fucked up attitude IMO.


I've only met Libertarians that want smaller government and government to stay out of their personal lives, and sorry they are minority. The majority are the Conservative, and that ones are pretty authoritarian. Like most of the ones that I see in these forums.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I've only met Libertarians that want smaller government and government to stay out of their personal lives, and sorry they are minority. The majority are the Conservative, and that ones are pretty authoritarian. Like most of the ones that I see in these forums.


Agreed that "conservatives" are authoritarian, but I also believe the "liberals" are also authoritarian.   

Like online surveys, the voices you hear (read) on forums are usually the loud ones.  Ever notice the lurker to poster ratio of most forums?  I'm guessing it's about 10-1.   This is excluding the 'bots.

----------


## Roadmaster

> most Christians mind their own business and focus on getting right with God, not being busy-body authoritarians


 We do until we are attacked. If they want to be gay fine, and have their civil union but don't try get us to change for them. Now pedophiles of all had better stay away from our children.

----------

JustPassinThru (09-26-2013)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> We do until we are attacked. If they want to be gay fine, and have their civil union but don't try get us to change for them. Now pedophiles of all had better stay away from our children.


This is an excellent observation.  Nobody here is trying to peek through blinders for evidence of violation of Sodomy Statutes.  We are RE-acting to blatant, forcible, vulgar and dishonest attempts to forcibly change the culture.  Force us to pretend to accept and respect and laud the unnatural, unhygenic sex practices of a few.

There are things we don't approve of; but so long as our faces are not ground in it, we can live-and-let-live.  But the pretended militancy of the Right and the Tea Party, is in fact a REACTION to the hard shoving the Princes of Deviance and the social engineers have given to us.

----------

Roadmaster (09-26-2013)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> We do until we are attacked. If they want to be gay fine, and have their civil union but don't try get us to change for them. Now pedophiles of all had better stay away from our children.


I'm good with self-defense and pedophiles should be arrested, prosecuted and given their due sentence.  Are you saying all gays are pedophiles?  If not, then why do you condemn gays who aren't pedophiles with those that are?  Wouldn't that be like someone condemning all Christians for those that bombed abortion clinics and murdered doctors?

----------


## JustPassinThru

> I'm good with self-defense and pedophiles should be arrested, prosecuted and given their due sentence.  Are you saying all gays are pedophiles?  If not, then why do you condemn gays who aren't pedophiles with those that are?  Wouldn't that be like someone condemning all Christians for those that bombed abortion clinics and murdered doctors?


Let's work this through.  I give you one chance; you can prove whether you're a seeker of Truth or if you're an armchair sophist.

Some places...have other values than other places do.  Some places...think abortion is murder.  No matter what you believe, you surely recognize that fact...that values differ from community to community.

That was WHY criminal law was left to the STATES.  If New York wanted to legalize abortion and Nevada legalize prostitution...that was between them and their voters.

With me?

In come the Supremes...and, stroke of a pen, law of the land.  In a closed-door Ouija-Board reading of the Constitution...they found a "right to privacy."  Which somehow doesn't cover my home, my car, my computer or my email...but covers the right to destroy a child before passage through the vagina.

And, having discovered that right...agitators SET UP butcheries in the MIDDLE of places that didn't WANT THEM!  Even in Nevada, whorehouses aren't set up where they're rejected.  They're on the far side of the tracks...out in the dunes, where there's nothing but tumbleweeds.

But, not abortion centers!  Now...people are INFLAMED.  It's the Left's M.O. to PROVOKE people...and provoke, they did.  Nothing could move them...never mind the God of Abraham; the gods of government have ORDERED that the abortionists must have and be whatever and wherever they WANT!

I don't advocate violence.  The bombing and shooting were counterproductive.

But I can identify with the frustration.  And it needn't have happened...the Left SET IT UP, and the more gullible of the faith-based communities fell right into the emotion trap.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> Look at them in the parades and tell me they care about children. They want people to think they are all nice and won't force anything but we all know it's not the truth. A Christian orphanage moved to another states because they were suing them. When will people realize it's all a lie and they will start demanding and suing Churches. Just look at another country the Greek government has just recognized pedophiles as a population of the disabled, entitled under law to governmental disability compensation and added to the countrys welfare roll.  The children who are the victims of those pedophiles evidently are not. they keep saying don't link us with pedophiles but you know a person who would take it out and masturbate in front of them would. They are trying to force states, it's not about equal it's about taking others rights.


Yeah 'cause heterosexuals never do anything obscene in parades!
#95 Mardi Gras.jpg

Oops!

----------


## usfan

> Yeah 'cause heterosexuals never do anything obscene in parades!
> Oops!


It's just different strokes.. you like to look at dicks, i prefer titties!   :Big Grin:

----------


## Calypso Jones

> Yeah 'cause heterosexuals never do anything obscene in parades!
> #95 Mardi Gras.jpg
> 
> Oops!



yes...that is low class no doubt lascivious liberal libertines.       

but that still doesn't alter the fact that what the homosexuals do in their parades is not just lascivious, but perverted, unnatural and obscene.

----------


## Roadmaster

> Yeah 'cause heterosexuals never do anything obscene in parades!
> Attachment 1263
> 
> Oops!


That's your only defense to people masturbating in front of children. No gay parade is acceptable to bring children to. I won't promote any of this.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> That's your only defense to people masturbating in front of children. No gay parade is acceptable to bring children to. I won't promote any of this.


It is not a defense, it is to show that heterosexuals do this kind of crap too. There have been straight men that have masterbated in front of children too, but I don't see you trying to ban all men from children. You are just picking on gays because he don't like them.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> It is not a defense, it is to show that heterosexuals do this kind of crap too. There have been straight men that have masterbated in front of children too, but I don't see you trying to ban all men from children. You are just picking on gays because he don't like them.



Liking the person has nothing to do with it...the practice is filthy and is the cause of disease and death not only to the individual but to society as a whole.   I would be willing to allow them to enjoy themselves till death if they were not about forcing it on society as a whole to accept it as normal and natural.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Let's work this through.  I give you one chance.


My ex-wife loved to play games too and give ultimatums.  I told her to go fuck herself and I actually gave a shit about her.  Give me one reason why I should give a shit about your ego-swollen ass?

----------


## Calypso Jones

> My ex-wife loved to play games too and give ultimatums.  I told her to go fuck herself and I actually gave a shit about her.  Give me one reason why I should give a shit about your ego-swollen ass?


what. the. hell.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> yes...that is low class no doubt lascivious liberal libertines.       
> 
> but that still doesn't alter the fact that what the homosexuals do in their parades is not just lascivious, but perverted, unnatural and obscene.


Disagreed on perverted and unnatural, but agreed on public obscenity.   Regardless if it is a gay parade, Key West's Fantasy Fest or N'awlin's Fat Tuesday, some people need to tone it down a bit.  I don't want to make law about it when public pressure should be enough.  All parades have sponsors and the public can pressure those sponsors to "do the right thing".   Let's not make this anti-gay when what it should be about is simple public decency.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> My ex-wife loved to play games too and give ultimatums.  I told her to go fuck herself and I actually gave a shit about her.  Give me one reason why I should give a shit about your ego-swollen ass?


You can, or not.

But the pro-homosexuality crowd here isn't dealing straight.  Twisting, sophistry, false equivocation have been what I've seen.  It seems they want to inflame, not defend or promote.

I'm not interested in who's yelling the loudest.  Or who creates the most socks.  Or whatever.

Now.  If you don't want to deal with me, that's kewel.  I get tired of these repeated false arguments about the Constitution, about "equal protection," about how homosexuality is the norm in nature, about how homosexuals don't want to recruit kids.  ALL...PROVEN...FALSE.

I'm not interested in who can spin the most clever sophistry.  I deal in facts.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> what. the. hell.


What the fuck?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I'm not interested in who can spin the most clever sophistry.  *I deal in facts.*


Awesome.  Let me know when you plan on starting to do so.  It's clear you have plenty of time to gather facts.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> What the fuck?


oh nothing...just trying to figure out where that came from....I'm still back tracking.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> oh nothing...just trying to figure out where that came from....I'm still back tracking.


I no longer expect rationality from...from those who defend blatant, culturally-sanctioned homosexuality.

I expect drool and spittle and froth and Tourettes-like stammering.

(Need I say more?....)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> oh nothing...just trying to figure out where that came from....I'm still back tracking.


Just read the quote I made of JPT's post.  He's giving an ultimatum.  It's a bullshit bully tactic.  What would you think if I said "I'll give you one chance to make yourself clear or I'll be proven right"?  Wouldn't you think I'm just a piece-of-shit ITG?  Wouldn't you feel compelled to call me on my bullshit ultimatum?

Secondly, I'm reminded of Sam Kinison's rant about not being scared by the Devil because he's been married....twice!

----------


## JustPassinThru

Okay...if you have to explain something to someone _ad nauseum_, what do you make of it, except as a deliberate provocation and disruption?

When you, or someone, takes someone else's words out of context, reduces the argument to a strawman, and then plays ignorant when called on it, it's not discussion.   It's trolling.

I gave you one shot; one, before I tuned out.  You wasted it.

Good on ya.

----------


## Roadmaster

> I no longer expect rationality from...from those who defend blatant, culturally-sanctioned homosexuality.
> 
> I expect drool and spittle and froth and Tourettes-like stammering.
> 
> (Need I say more?....)


It's like some of the media, they don't care if they print something not true even if they know it's not.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> It's like some of the media, they don't care if they print something not true even if they know it's not.


The media is a business.  As such, I think they care if it is true or not, but I also think they'll run something they aren't 100% about just to be the first with the "scoop".  It's a competitive business.  Outright lying is deadly to them, but fucking up is fairly common.  This is why I don't watch Fox News or MSNBC.  They're so anxious to press their own points, they are willing to let fact-checking become secondary.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> The media is a business.  As such, I think they care if it is true or not, but I also think they'll run something they aren't 100% about just to be the first with the "scoop".  It's a competitive business.  Outright lying is deadly to them, but fucking up is fairly common.  This is why I don't watch Fox News or MSNBC.  They're so anxious to press their own points, they are willing to let fact-checking become secondary.


The media are a business ("media" is _plural_) but they have forgotten that.  The nooze biz is the only business where THE CUSTOMER IS WRONG.  The newspapers have insulted readers values and knowledge for three decades; and they're dying.  Likewise, the legacy news outlets on air and cable.

If they really DID think like a business, they'd re-evaluate their model; re-consider why they're being rejected; and then DO something about it!  That's what Fox News did; it's not that they're right-wing; they're obviously NOT.  It's just that they're not deranged LEFT-WING!  And LOOK at what that's done for them!

Imagine a large newspaper with resources, suddenly stop spiking news items for political and social-engineering reasons...and just REPORT THE FLIPPIN' NEWS?  It would make USAToday look like a poor prototype.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> It's just different strokes.. you like to look at dicks, i prefer titties!


Actually, I prefer vulvas, particularly my wife's.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> Liking the person has nothing to do with it...the practice is filthy and is the cause of disease and death not only to the individual but to society as a whole.   I would be willing to allow them to enjoy themselves till death if they were not about forcing it on society as a whole to accept it as normal and natural.


As I have said before, "natural" is a meaningless term since everything that exists can be considered natural. When you talk about disease and death, I assume you are talking about AIDS. You do know that AIDS can be transmitted other ways than anal sex right, including vaginal sex, right?

----------


## usfan

> Actually, I prefer vulvas, particularly my wife's.


I have to agree.. i like your wife's vulva, too.   :Laughing7: 



ok, ok.. that was crass, & i didn't mean it.. you just set it up so perfectly i couldn't resist...   :Wink:

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> I have to agree.. i like your wife's vulva, too.  
> 
> 
> 
> ok, ok.. that was crass, & i didn't mean it.. you just set it up so perfectly i couldn't resist...


I walked into that one!  :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------


## Perianne

_


Guido Barilla sparked international outrage when he said he’d never  feature a gay couple in ads for his firm’s foodstuffs — adding that if  homosexuals don’t like it, they can buy another brand.
_

_“I would never do [a commercial] with a homosexual family, not for  lack of respect, but because we don’t agree with them,” the company  chairman told Italian radio Wednesday evening.
_
_
“Ours is a classic family where the woman plays a fundamental role,”  Barilla, 55, said, adding that if gays “like our pasta and our  advertising, they’ll eat our pasta. If they don’t like it, then they  will not eat it and they will eat another brand.”
_
_
Anger at the remarks boiled over Thursday, with gay-rights activists announcing a boycott of the world’s largest pasta maker.
_
_
Other users blasted Barilla in multiple languages, labeling the brand  “hate pasta” and calling Guido Barilla “horrendously sexist and  homophobic.”
__“Thanks Barilla, another reason to buy quinoa pasta instead of your white flour poison!” tweeted Tif Lowder of Chicago._

http://nypost.com/2013/09/26/barilla...e-elses-pasta/

----------


## Micketto

> You do know that AIDS can be transmitted other ways than anal sex right, including vaginal sex, right?


"Other ways".

Of course... and there are "other ways" a man can get someone else's semen in his mouth.  Like kissing a girl who just blew a guy, or falling face first onto the floor of a sperm bank... but we all know the overwhelming reason a man gets semen in his mouth.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> "Other ways".
> 
> Of course... and there are "other ways" a man can get someone else's semen in his mouth.  Like kissing a girl who just blew a guy, or falling face first onto the floor of a sperm bank... but we all know the overwhelming reason a man gets semen in his mouth.


He's talking about blood-to-blood contact such as a blood transfusion, a medic/nurse with an open wound treating someone who is bleeding and has AIDS.

AIDS is transferred from blood, not just semen although I found your fascination with it to be rather interesting.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> "Other ways".
> 
> Of course... and there are "other ways" a man can get someone else's semen in his mouth.  Like kissing a girl who just blew a guy, or falling face first onto the floor of a sperm bank... but we all know the overwhelming reason a man gets semen in his mouth.


I'm not sure what that has to do with AIDS, but hey, you seem to know a lot about semen in men's mouths.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I'm not sure what that has to do with AIDS, but hey, you seem to know a lot about semen in men's mouths.


Which brings up the research that most homophobes are aroused by homosexual images. 





http://my.psychologytoday.com/files/u47/Henry_et_al.pdf




> The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.


http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...-gay-male-porn



> people often have the most hateful and negative attitudes towards things they secretly crave, but feel that they shouldn't have........Homophobic men were the most sexually aroused by gay male sex acts.


http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-straight-male

----------


## Micketto

> I found your fascination with it to be rather interesting.


No doubt you did.


Anyway,  my "fascination" was a simple example for those who like to say "there are other ways to get infected with AIDS" and don't continue with "but they pale in comparison to the homo lifestyle"

Cute of you to stick up for him tho.

----------


## Calypso Jones

so Psychology Today SEZ...    But who conducted that study, how and where.   And they do a lot of referencing Freud.  and there wouldn't be any political agenda in here would it?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> so Psychology Today SEZ...    But* who conducted that study, how and where.*   And they do a lot of referencing Freud.  and there wouldn't be any political agenda in here would it?


It's the .pdf link.  You just read the PsychToday article, not the study.

----------


## Rudy2D

> They're not my beliefs - they're the beliefs of all humanity through all civilized history; and only FAILED societies ever rejected them.
> 
> Who gives a shit if you want to rework our culture to YOUR childish, deviant, perverted whims?  In times past, you wouldn't be abusing others like this- you'd be locked up or hanged.  Maybe you ought to shut your foul mouth and thank the God that forbids sodomy, that you aren't getting what they still get in Iran and Saudi Arabia.
> 
> And then go back to your boyfriend and leave it that way.  Count your blessings, in other words, punk - and you have many.  So don't push it; the society that follows this one, after it collapses, is not gonna be so nice.


Excellent, JPT.

----------


## wist43

It isn't that homosexuality is being turned into a leftist ideology - it is that it is simply useful to the left in tearing down the society they are attacking.

In order for the left to take over our society, they first needed to destroy the existing culture - in America, that was a Christian culture. Anything that helps in attacking and undermining that foundation is useful to them. Feminism is another excellent vehicle - as is environmentalism.

Does anyone really think the left really gives a shit about women, gays, or the environment?? Those cultural battlefronts are nothing more than that - battlefronts to attack to existing culture. They are simply a means to an end.

----------

texmaster (09-28-2013)

----------


## Roadmaster

> Does anyone really think the left really gives a shit about women, gays, or the environment??


No

----------

texmaster (09-28-2013)

----------


## texmaster

> What science? You didn't present any science. Only rubbish.


Beofre I embarass you for the 2185th time, are you really claiming that sexual reproduction, heterosexual sex and male female anatomy are based on lies?    Really @kilgram?     I'll give you a chance to back out before you embarass yourself yet again.




> And I am not making any new definition of civil rights, and nothing. I've never changed my strategy.


Bullshit.  Your entire side is based on redefining civil rights to include a sexual practice than cannot be proven to be anything more than a choice.




> By the way, I am for the poligamous marriage, are you for that?


Of course not.   Once again its not natural or genetic for sex or reproduction.  Its a lifestyle choice just like homosexuality.   

Did you honestly think that was going to work?  LOL




> But the difference is that there is no social demand for this kind of marriage. But if there was, you would see me defending it.
> 
> PS: Complete Polygamous: men with men, women with women, men with women, men with men with women with women... and all the combinations possible.


Not to you.   You drew the line at pedos.  Why?    What makes your moral judgement on that behavior worthy of you denying them their right to marry?  Don't dodge it again, answer it.

----------


## texmaster

> Read it again in context.
> 
> Minors under 14 cannot be employed AT ALL except in domestic service and certain agricultural occupations.
> 
> But to be employed there, they STILL need work papers.


You still aren't getting it are you.  The very fact ANY minor can work without consent invalidates your claim.     You do realize 15 is still a minor do you not?   So you would be ok with a 43 year old man marrying a 15 year old girl.  After all, by your very definition of that law, she can consent.

And even if you find a state where it doesn't, children consent every single day to wear what they want, eat what they want, drive, participate in sports, etc.

Who are you to claim they cannot consent?    You already lost the point.  Its a shame you can't see it.

----------


## texmaster

> Yeah 'cause heterosexuals never do anything obscene in parades!
> 
> 
> Oops!


Newsflash genius.  There are no heterosexual parades.   There are gay pride parades.

But go ahead and embarass youself.  Name one parade anywhere in the US that touts itself as a straight pride parade.   We'll wait.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> It isn't that homosexuality is being turned into a leftist ideology - it is that it is simply useful to the left in tearing down the society they are attacking.
> 
> In order for the left to take over our society, they first needed to destroy the existing culture - in America, that was a Christian culture. Anything that helps in attacking and undermining that foundation is useful to them. Feminism is another excellent vehicle - as is environmentalism.
> 
> Does anyone really think the left really gives a shit about women, gays, or the environment?? Those cultural battlefronts are nothing more than that - battlefronts to attack to existing culture. They are simply a means to an end.


Those evil leftists, always trying take over our society. Don't they know that the conservatives don't like to share?

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> You still aren't getting it are you.  The very fact ANY minor can work without consent invalidates your claim.     You do realize 15 is still a minor do you not?   So you would be ok with a 43 year old man marrying a 15 year old girl.  After all, by your very definition of that law, she can consent.
> 
> And even if you find a state where it doesn't, children consent every single day to wear what they want, eat what they want, drive, participate in sports, etc.
> 
> Who are you to claim they cannot consent?    You already lost the point.  Its a shame you can't see it.


Actually, in several states, it is legal to marry at 15.

----------


## texmaster

> Actually, in several states, it is legal to marry at 15.


Only with parent's consent.    Are you going to answer the questions?

*So you would be ok with a 43 year old man marrying a 15 year old girl.   After all, by your very definition of that law, she can consent.*


*And even if you find a state where it doesn't, children consent every  single day to wear what they want, eat what they want, drive,  participate in sports, etc.

Who are you to claim they cannot consent?    You already lost the point.  Its a shame you can't see it.*

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> Newsflash genius.  There are no heterosexual parades.   There are gay pride parades.
> 
> But go ahead and embarass youself.  Name one parade anywhere in the US that touts itself as a straight pride parade.   We'll wait.


Um... where did I say that there was? I was just making a point that doing stupid things in parades is not just limited to homosexuals.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> Only with parent's consent.    Are you going to answer the questions?
> 
> *So you would be ok with a 43 year old man marrying a 15 year old girl.   After all, by your very definition of that law, she can consent.*
> 
> 
> *And even if you find a state where it doesn't, children consent every  single day to wear what they want, eat what they want, drive,  participate in sports, etc.
> 
> Who are you to claim they cannot consent?    You already lost the point.  Its a shame you can't see it.*


I'm sorry, what point are you trying make?

----------


## wist43

> Those evil leftists, always trying take over our society. Don't they know that the conservatives don't like to share?


Well, since I'm not a "conservative"... whatever that means these days. Whatever you think it means.

Playing the "he said, she said" con game is so enlightened though, don't you think??

----------


## kilgram

> Beofre I embarass you for the 2185th time, are you really claiming that sexual reproduction, heterosexual sex and male female anatomy are based on lies?    Really @kilgram?     I'll give you a chance to back out before you embarass yourself yet again.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  Your entire side is based on redefining civil rights to include a sexual practice than cannot be proven to be anything more than a choice.


Even if it is a choice, and what? They are free to do that. IT is freedom. Oh, but you don't like freedom. You only want your limited freedom and the rest only be able to enjoy your limited freedom.




> Of course not.   Once again its not natural or genetic for sex or reproduction.  Its a lifestyle choice just like homosexuality.


Wrong again. Prove that is a choice. And let's suppose your thesis. Is there any problem in being able to marry homosexual couples?




> Did you honestly think that was going to work?  LOL


What, the poligamy? I don't know if it was going to work or no, I don't care. But if there is enough people in society demanding this, why not it should be legalized? Why not can a man marry with many women and other men? Why not? If that is what they want, why not?





> Not to you.   You drew the line at pedos.  Why?    What makes your moral judgement on that behavior worthy of you denying them their right to marry?  Don't dodge it again, answer it.


Because children are not adults. It is easy to understand.

----------


## Calypso Jones

some people like to murder.  Why don't we legitimize that too.   Or sex with children?   raping women?

oh but I forget....muslims have legalized all that.

----------

texmaster (09-28-2013)

----------


## Calypso Jones

*What is the meaning of the quote 'Freedom consists not in doing what you like but in having the right to do what you ought'?* 


*The first part is a selfish version of freedom - I'm free so I can do whatever I want for me - that's a misuse and abuse of freedom. 

True freedom exists when people have the ability to do what they SHOULD do. God grants us freedom (the ability) to do the right thing, to make good decisions, to put others before ourselves. If you commit to doing that, then you have found the true joy in freedom... (BTW, that's a manipulation of a quote by Abraham Lincoln)*

----------

JustPassinThru (09-28-2013)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> some people like to murder.  Why don't we legitimize that too.   Or sex with children?   raping women?
> 
> oh but I forget....muslims have legalized all that.


Does this mean  you think allowing gay couples to have have the same legal benefits granted married straight couples to be equivalent to murder, rape and pedophilia?   Seems rather extreme to me.  

Here's the way I see it; once you allow the government to stick it's nose into the personal business of people we don't like such as fags, ******s, spics, kikes and such, then we just made it easier for them to stick their nose into the business of dumbass crackers who hate everyone who isn't exactly like them. 

Seems to me it's a self-defeating strategy in the long run.   People should focus more on getting right with God rather than using their own government to beat others into submission.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> Does this mean  you think allowing gay couples to have have the same legal benefits granted married straight couples to be equivalent to murder, rape and pedophilia?   Seems rather extreme to me.  
> 
> Here's the way I see it; once you allow the government to stick it's nose into the personal business of people we don't like such as fags, ******s, spics, kikes and such, then we just made it easier for them to stick their nose into the business of dumbass crackers who hate everyone who isn't exactly like them. 
> 
> Seems to me it's a self-defeating strategy in the long run.   People should focus more on getting right with God rather than using their own government to beat others into submission.



Max.  you seem to think I am beating someone into submission...not me not anyone I know...not even conservatives or Christians...these things come up for a vote in order to add to the constitution and re-arrange our traditions.    The voters do that.   All of them.  Seeing as America in not a Christian nation, founded on judeo/Christian principles as you guys claim then the anti-theists are as much to blame that homosexuals do not have rights over and above what the constitution declares for all men of equal status.    now either we all have the same rights or some are more equal than others.

----------


## texmaster

> Um... where did I say that there was? I was just making a point that doing stupid things in parades is not just limited to homosexuals.


Which begs the question stupid things are done by heterosexuals in heterosexual parades.   So, where are they?  List them.

----------


## texmaster

> I'm sorry, what point are you trying make?


See you won't even answer the questions because you know you have no ground to stand on.   You were the one who claimed the biggest reason you were against pedos marrying was that children cannot consent.   I asked you the obvious question once your law in one state was found.

*So you would be ok with a 43 year old man marrying a 15 year old girl?

*And of course you ran away from directly answering it.   Don't worry its not a surprise.

The other question which you also ran from after your consent argument was this:*And even if you find a state where it doesn't, children consent every   single day to wear what they want, eat what they want, drive,   participate in sports, etc.

**Who are you to claim they cannot consent?*


Can you answer the questions this time or are you going to run away yet again?

----------


## texmaster

> Even if it is a choice, and what? They are free to do that. IT is freedom. Oh, but you don't like freedom. You only want your limited freedom and the rest only be able to enjoy your limited freedom.


LOL   You just walked into it again.  So I'm against freedom if I believe that laws should not be based around choice lifestyles.   So you must also be fighting for pedos to get married since you are FOR freedom.

How many times are you going to stumble in the same obvious trap?

[quote]Wrong again. Prove that is a choice. And let's suppose your thesis. Is there any problem in being able to marry homosexual couples?[p/quote]

Once again you don't understand how the law works.   Its up to YOU to prove it isn't a choice since YOU want to change the law.   Let's see your evidence.    It will be beyond easy to destroy since I've seen every junk science "study" but go again.




> What, the poligamy? I don't know if it was going to work or no, I don't care. But if there is enough people in society demanding this, why not it should be legalized? Why not can a man marry with many women and other men? Why not? If that is what they want, why not?


Fir the 4th time.  But it has no basis in being natural or genetic.   Why would I allow polygamy when its obvious its a choice when I know by making that call I let in every other sexual relationship no matter what its makeup is to claim they have a right to marry as well.  How do you keep missing this?




> Because children are not adults. It is easy to understand.


Wrong again.  You just claimed that is doesn't matter if a relationship is a choice.   Your personal opinion about children is invalid if that is your only criteria for allowing marriage.

See you can't understand when you use your own personal moral judgement on a relationship you are no different than the people you are attacking which they themselves are doing making moral judgements on relationships they don't like.

The difference is your lazy general arguments *can be applied to any sexual relationship of any makeup*.   That's what you keep missing.  Its *your argument that allows pedo marriage*.   Once you are exposed you want to invent new rules on marriage that stray from your original argument to specifically exclude marriages you don't like because you've figured out even subconsciously your argument can be used by everyone for any kind of marriage.   Thats the fallacy.

----------


## texmaster

> some people like to murder.  Why don't we legitimize that too.   Or sex with children?   raping women?
> 
> oh but I forget....muslims have legalized all that.


Exactly.   Its amazing how they don't see where their arguments lead.

----------


## texmaster

> Does this mean  you think allowing gay couples to have have the same legal benefits granted married straight couples to be equivalent to murder, rape and pedophilia?   Seems rather extreme to me.


Not if you are claiming gays should marry because homosexuals exist in nature.  Every single one of those things exist in nature as well.




> Here's the way I see it; once you allow the government to stick it's nose into the personal business of people we don't like such as fags, ******s, spics, kikes and such, then we just made it easier for them to stick their nose into the business of dumbass crackers who hate everyone who isn't exactly like them. 
> 
> Seems to me it's a self-defeating strategy in the long run.   People should focus more on getting right with God rather than using their own government to beat others into submission.


Race has nothing to do with homosexuality.  Equating the two is an insult to race.   Race is genetic.  Homosexuality is not.   You lesson your argument by pretending the two are equal.

----------


## Roadmaster

> Exactly.   Its amazing how they don't see where their arguments lead.


 Yea I hear Christy R don't know if I spelled it right voted in civil unions and because the government didn't give them all benefits which wasn't the states fault is now being told by the government he has to go against the people and legalize same sex marriage. He will repeal but will he win?

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Even if it is a choice, and what? They are free to do that. IT is freedom. Oh, but you don't like freedom. You only want your limited freedom and the rest only be able to enjoy your limited freedom.


"Freedom" is not license; it is not anarchy.

And other people have THEIR freedoms, too - such as the freedom to condemn what YOU want to do.

The Constitution offers freedom FROM GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE.

It does not give blanket license for sexual deviancy or behaviors offensive to the community.  Sexual or otherwise.

----------


## Roadmaster

> The Constitution offers freedom FROM GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE


 Not happening, judges decide now. He warned us of these.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Not happening, judges decide now. He warned us of these.


Yes.

The Constitution offered those protections.  And the more we veer away from it, the more we lose those protections.

The Constitution does not have any weaponry.  It only works when we all agree to follow it.  If we're no longer accepting of charter government by Rule of Law but only government by mob led by the Cult of Personality...then we have no hope.  

Not even the "gays" who want "equal" (special) treatment.

Today, they're elevated.  In half a generation, they could be the subject of pogroms.  It's a dangerous path they're mincing down...

----------


## Maximatic

> The Constitution offers freedom FROM GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE.


Like hell it does. It offers legislators freedom to make any law they want. That's what happens when you let legislators exist. It doesn't matter what you tell them the rules are. 




> The Constitution does not have any weaponry.  It only works when we all agree to follow it.


Bah

Where's that dumb ass John Adams quote that's been infesting the forum?

It amazes me how people come so close to getting it, and then just... don't.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Like hell it does. It offers legislators freedom to make any law they want. That's what happens when you let legislators exist. It doesn't matter what you tell them the rules are.


Yeah?

What were the first 150 years of the Constitution?  A fluke?

Franklin predicted the Constitution would last for "a generation."  Generally that refers to a quarter-century.  So it lasted six times as long as one of the creators thought it would.

And it is ending as he predicted - with a corrupt, ignorant people who cannot be governed except by despotic means.

As to what the Constitution offers:  Read it.  It sets out the LIMITS on GOVERNMENT.  And it states that all powers not expressly assigned are reserved for the States or the People.

----------


## Maximatic

> Yeah?
> 
> What were the first 150 years of the Constitution?  A fluke?
> 
> Franklin predicted the Constitution would last for "a generation."  Generally that refers to a quarter-century.  So it lasted six times as long as one of the creators thought it would.
> 
> And it is ending as he predicted - with a corrupt, ignorant people who cannot be governed except by despotic means.
> 
> As to what the Constitution offers:  Read it.  It sets out the LIMITS on GOVERNMENT.  And it states that all powers not expressly assigned are reserved for the States or the People.


Sorry, no. The Constitution was murdered when it was just a green, budding nine-year-old. You gotta watch em during war time. They always start telling you that, due to to absolutely no fault of their own, times are hard and we have to make exceptions and sacrifices, and they start looking around for things to sacrifice. Things never go back to the was it was before the war time. Now, they've gotten smart, and figured out that you can just declare war on abstractions. They never have to end. You can have perpetual emergencies. And, where, in the Constitution does it say that no state would ever be allowed to leave the union, under pain of slaughter?

Here, you'll love this thread.

http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...e-Constitution

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Not if you are claiming gays should marry because homosexuals exist in nature.  Every single one of those things exist in nature as well.


Fuck nature.  I'm claiming two consenting adults should be allowed the same benefits under our laws per the 14th Amendment as another two people.  Either we support the Constitution or watch it be chipped away for religious and personal secular reasons.




> Race has nothing to do with homosexuality. Equating the two is an insult to race. Race is genetic. Homosexuality is not. You lesson your argument by pretending the two are equal.


Disagreed that sexuality isn't genetic.  Are you telling me you consciously made a choice between dick or pussy?  Did you do any experimenting before choosing or were you just born that way?  I was born a heterosexual although it didn't manifest itself until puberty.

----------


## Calypso Jones

how long have you had this opinion?

----------


## RMNIXON

Gays as a libertarian movement left the building decades ago. 

Why even bother? 



Anyone who cannot see the forced acceptance of Gay marriage, and gonna get my gay partner/family deal on entitlements, taxes, ect... should take note. The lines have already formed, and they have nothing to do with a personal sex life as none of your business. 

I am already paying the bill!



Now if you want to argue that the government support of the traditional reproductive family was a mistake then lets have that debate. What I don't want to hear is "entitled" and "benefits" as if it were something written in our Constitution under a banner of fairness. Because that never happened.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> how long have you had this opinion?


It's not an opinion.  I just naturally liked girls when I was about 9.   Did you go through a phase of "choice" or did you naturally like men or women?

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> See you won't even answer the questions because you know you have no ground to stand on.   You were the one who claimed the biggest reason you were against pedos marrying was that children cannot consent.   I asked you the obvious question once your law in one state was found.
> 
> *So you would be ok with a 43 year old man marrying a 15 year old girl?
> 
> *And of course you ran away from directly answering it.   Don't worry its not a surprise.
> 
> The other question which you also ran from after your consent argument was this:*And even if you find a state where it doesn't, children consent every   single day to wear what they want, eat what they want, drive,   participate in sports, etc.
> 
> **Who are you to claim they cannot consent?*
> ...


Sorry, I guess I should have answered. No, I would not be ok with a 43 year old man marrying a 15 year old girl. If my 15 year old daughter wanted to marry a 43 year old man, I would not give her my permission, which means, that even in the states where it is allowed, she could not marry him since to marry at 15 REQUIRES parental approval. Your problem is that you don't realize that 'consent' is a legal term. You see, without consent, sex is considered rape and someone under 18 CANNOT consent to sex. That means that even if they said yes and wanted to have sex, if their partner is 18 or older, the partner can be arrested for rape.

Also, someone under 18 cannot enter into a legal contract. They cannot get a loan without an adult cosigner or buy a cellphone on contract. Look it up if you don't believe me.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> Which begs the question stupid things are done by heterosexuals in heterosexual parades.   So, where are they?  List them.


Yes, gays have gay pride parades and heterosexuals don't have have heterosexual pride parades, but so what? If you wanted to have a heterosexual pride parade, you have every right to, there is nothing illegal about it. So, go ahead, get a bunch a people together and have a heterosexual pride parade. You can even do stupid things in it if you wanted to, though if you break any obscenity laws, you will be subject to the same punishments as the gays and lesbians that break the the laws.

----------


## Micketto

> If you wanted to have a heterosexual pride parade, you have every right to, there is nothing illegal about it.


And it will get protested by a bunch of intolerant whiny queers, the media will jump on it and scorn them, a bunch of lidiots will throw out useless words like "homophobes!" and the Mayro, under pressure from the 3%, will shut it down.






> You can even do stupid things in it if you wanted to, though if you break any obscenity laws, you will be subject to the same punishments as the gays and lesbians that break the the laws.


uh.. that's pretty much a gay thing.




As we all know.. these pics are endless....

(This is where you mention Mardis Gras as a defense for the above losers).

(go on).

----------


## Roadmaster

Has anyone noticed the media doesn't show these parades anymore? It's getting bad and I wouldn't bring children to these.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Has anyone noticed the media doesn't show these parades anymore? It's getting bad and I wouldn't bring children to these.


The "media" is composed of several business enterprises.  They're all in it for the money.  While controversy generates viewers, anything that causes viewers to switch the channel or avoid buying a magazine is not going to please their investors.   Ergo, like any business, they'll give their customers what they want and avoid those things that drive customers away.  Pretty simple.

----------


## Maximatic

> The "media" is composed of several business enterprises.  They're all in it for the money.  While controversy generates viewers, anything that causes viewers to switch the channel or avoid buying a magazine is not going to please their investors.   Ergo, like any business, they'll give their customers what they want and avoid those things that drive customers away.  Pretty simple.


It's not that simple. The fcc limits newcomers in broadcasting. It always has. Conglomerates that provide the product known as the news are ultimately owned by a small number of people.

Is it possible to provide that product in a way that influences public opinion in a predetermined way and turns a profit?

Do the owners of those conglomerates not care what people believe?

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Has anyone noticed the media doesn't show these parades anymore? It's getting bad and I wouldn't bring children to these.


Yes.

The mediuh is no longer in business to inform.

They're on a crusade...to disinform and propagandize.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> It's not that simple. The fcc limits newcomers in broadcasting. It always has.


Broadcasting?  Sure.  Cable?  The sky's the limit, muthafucka!!!   You and I could make our own "Crossfuck" channel hashing out the same shit we are now and nobody could stop us.  Do you disagree?

----------


## Maximatic

> Broadcasting?  Sure.  Cable?  The sky's the limit, muthafucka!!!   You and I could make our own "Crossfuck" channel hashing out the same shit we are now and nobody could stop us.  Do you disagree?


No. And the internet helps to. But broadcasting is still a heavy influence, due to habits and brand recognition. Why do you think Ruppert Murdoch keeps his newspapers that have been losing money for years? Just take his word for it. He does it because he believes that they are a force for good in the world. He cares what you believe.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> No. And the internet helps to. But broadcasting is still a heavy influence, due to habits and brand recognition. Why do you think Ruppert Murdoch keeps his newspapers that have been losing money for years? Just take his word for it. He does it because he believes that they are a force for good in the world. He cares what you believe.


Businessmen like Murdoch and Soros are free to throw their money at losing investments.  It's a free country and they can't force anyone to read or watch their bullshit, but it does provide jobs so WTF? 

So what's your main complaint here?

----------


## Maximatic

> Businessmen like Murdoch and Soros are free to throw their money at losing investments.  It's a free country and they can't force anyone to read or watch their bullshit, but it does provide jobs so WTF? 
> 
> So what's your main complaint here?


Your suggestion that consumer preference dictates the content of the news, it's false.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> And it will get protested by a bunch of intolerant whiny queers, the media will jump on it and scorn them, a bunch of lidiots will throw out useless words like "homophobes!" and the Mayro, under pressure from the 3%, will shut it down.


You do realize that when the first gay pride parades started, they were protested and they were scorned and a bunch of idiots threw out useless words 'faggots' and 'queers' right? The difference is that they didn't give up. They fought for the right to express themselves. I guess the gay community is not a bunch of whiners like the heterosexual community.





> uh.. that's pretty much a gay thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As we all know.. these pics are endless....
> 
> (This is where you mention Mardis Gras as a defense for the above losers).
> 
> (go on).


Defend what? Looking at the police officer in the one pict, I would say what they are doing is legal (at least in that picture). Would I like my children to see this? No, no more than I would want my children seeing women flashing their boobs for beads at a Mardi Gras parade or people walking around naked in the Bay to Breakers race or Fremont Solstice parade which is why I don't go do those parades.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Your suggestion that consumer preference dictates the content of the news, it's false.


I do and if it didn't then Air America would still be in business.  Even Rush Limbaugh understands this.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertain...ticle-1.458597



> But while Air America quietly files its Chapter 7 papers, there still are legitimate legacies and lessons from the life and death of a network that was unveiled March 31, 2004, on the bold premise it would be the progressive answer to Rush Limbaugh.
> 
> 
> 1. As Rush said a few days after that debut, you can't build a popular radio show, or network, on ideology – and rightly or wrongly, Air America got the image that it was working from a playbook.
> 
> 
> "First," said Limbaugh, "you have to entertain people. You have to make it interesting to listen. I don't hear any of that."

----------


## Maximatic

> I do and if it didn't then Air America would still be in business.  Even Rush Limbaugh understands this.
> 
> http://www.nydailynews.com/entertain...ticle-1.458597


Hu? You do what? Are you insisting that consumer demand dose dictate the content of the news?

----------


## Calypso Jones

It does not in my opinion.  IF that were the case, the media would lean conservative and would have some semblance of balance.  As it is, they do NOT.     This country whether you choose to recognize it or not, leans conservative.  NOT leftist.   Only the unintelligent are leftists.   :Wink:   booga booga booga.

----------


## Maximatic

> It does not in my opinion.  IF that were the case, the media would lean conservative and would have some semblance of balance.  As it is, they do NOT.     This country whether you choose to recognize it or not, leans conservative.  NOT leftist.   Only the unintelligent are leftists.    booga booga booga.


I think it's silly to think that it does. If you owned a name brand news outlet would you not use it to sway public opinion? It's absurd to think that they don't. You would have to believe that they are different from everyone else, that they don't care what anyone believes, they just want to give you a product you like. _Of course_ they can sway opinion and still turn a profit. You'd also have to believe that they really suck at getting ratings on their news programing while being really good at getting ratings on their other programming. Let's be honest. The opinions held by the personalities on those programs are radical, and consistently so. The ones on the left are always to the left of the mean, and the ones on the right tend to the left. They're a perfect picture of the politicians. Actually, the politicians are a perfect picture of them. And none of them look like normal people.

----------


## texmaster

> You do realize that when the first gay pride parades started, they were protested and they were scorned and a bunch of idiots threw out useless words 'faggots' and 'queers' right? The difference is that they didn't give up. They fought for the right to express themselves. I guess the gay community is not a bunch of whiners like the heterosexual community.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defend what? Looking at the police officer in the one pict, I would say what they are doing is legal (at least in that picture). Would I like my children to see this? No, no more than I would want my children seeing women flashing their boobs for beads at a Mardi Gras parade or people walking around naked in the Bay to Breakers race or Fremont Solstice parade which is why I don't go do those parades.


The difference slick is that Mardi Gras is not a heterosexual pride parade unlike the gay pride parades.  If you've ever been there you would know that.

Thats the difference here.  Try again.

----------


## texmaster

> Yes, gays have gay pride parades and heterosexuals don't have have heterosexual pride parades, but so what? If you wanted to have a heterosexual pride parade, you have every right to, there is nothing illegal about it. So, go ahead, get a bunch a people together and have a heterosexual pride parade. You can even do stupid things in it if you wanted to, though if you break any obscenity laws, you will be subject to the same punishments as the gays and lesbians that break the the laws.


But they are not equal in their vulgarity.  That is a gay culture issue.

----------


## texmaster

> Sorry, I guess I should have answered. No, I would not be ok with a 43 year old man marrying a 15 year old girl. If my 15 year old daughter wanted to marry a 43 year old man, I would not give her my permission, which means, that even in the states where it is allowed, she could not marry him since to marry at 15 REQUIRES parental approval. Your problem is that you don't realize that 'consent' is a legal term. You see, without consent, sex is considered rape and someone under 18 CANNOT consent to sex. That means that even if they said yes and wanted to have sex, if their partner is 18 or older, the partner can be arrested for rape.
> 
> Also, someone under 18 cannot enter into a legal contract. They cannot get a loan without an adult cosigner or buy a cellphone on contract. Look it up if you don't believe me.


I've already proven children can consent   in the very laws you quoted.   Do I have to quote them again?

And there are laws against gay marriage right now which you want to abolish.   Do you even get that you are making personal moral judgments on what laws we keep and what laws we abolish based on your personal beliefs?

So you base your argument on a moral decision.  Exactly how does that make you better than people who make a moral decision  against gay marriage?

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> The difference slick is that Mardi Gras is not a heterosexual pride parade unlike the gay pride parades.  If you've ever been there you would know that.
> 
> Thats the difference here.  Try again.


Did I say it was? So let's recap here. There are no official heterosexual pride parades. Any parade can have objectionable content. Did I miss anything here?

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> But they are not equal in their vulgarity.  That is a gay culture issue.


Vulgarity is relative. You may find two men kissing vulgar but not a heterosexual couple and two women kissing may turn you on.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> I've already proven children can consent   in the very laws you quoted.   Do I have to quote them again?


Prove to me that a child can consent to sex without parental permission. Show an actual statute, law or court case that says this.




> And there are laws against gay marriage right now which you want to abolish.   Do you even get that you are making personal moral judgments on what laws we keep and what laws we abolish based on your personal beliefs?
> 
> So you base your argument on a moral decision. Exactly how does that make you better than people who make a moral decision against gay marriage?


Well, duh!  :Moron:  How the fuck do you think people choose which laws are acceptable? It certainly isn't logic. If it was logic, there would be no laws against gay marriage. Now I don't believe myself better than people who are against gay marriage, I just think my arguments are better than theirs, since there is really only two arguments against gay marriage, religious (God forbids it) and the ick factor (it grosses you out). Which one is your argument?

----------


## Roadmaster

> Vulgarity is relative. You may find two men kissing vulgar but not a heterosexual couple and two women kissing may turn you on.


 I don't find any that do and why are they allowed to show this much in parades? It's wrong and vulgar.

----------


## Roadmaster

> Prove to me that a child can consent to sex without parental permission. Show an actual statute, law or court case that says this.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, duh!  How the fuck do you think people choose which laws are acceptable? It certainly isn't logic. If it was logic, there would be no laws against gay marriage. Now I don't believe myself better than people who are against gay marriage, I just think my arguments are better than theirs, since there is really only two arguments against gay marriage, religious (God forbids it) and the ick factor (it grosses you out). Which one is your argument?


They think being with a 13 year old is fine as long as he consents. The left will rally around this person also and defend him but if he was not a homosexual, then it would be all over the press as sick. We see it wrong in both cases.

----------

texmaster (10-02-2013)

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> They think being with a 13 year old is fine as long as he consents. The left will rally around this person also and defend him but if he was not a homosexual, then it would be all over the press as sick. We see it wrong in both cases.


What is this "left" you speak with such enraged vigor about? Do you see any left-wingers on this forum rallying around the highly contentious cause of legalized pedophilia? Does the mainstream left promote kiddie-fiddling now?

----------

thedarkdaimon (10-01-2013)

----------


## Roadmaster

> What is this "left" you speak with such enraged vigor about? Do you see any left-wingers on this forum rallying around the highly contentious cause of legalized pedophilia? Does the mainstream left promote kiddie-fiddling now?


 The mainstream left does and sees nothing wrong with men going to girls dressing rooms.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> The mainstream left does and sees nothing wrong with men going to girls dressing rooms.


Source all these assertions.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Hu? You do what? Are you insisting that consumer demand dose dictate the content of the news?


My apologies.  I forgot who I was dealing with.  Most people will understand my point.  I'm truly sorry you do not.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> It does not in my opinion.  IF that were the case, the media would lean conservative and would have some semblance of balance.  As it is, they do NOT.     This country whether you choose to recognize it or not, leans conservative.  NOT leftist.   Only the unintelligent are leftists.    booga booga booga.


Your opinion, like your vote, does matter.  Why is Fox News #1?  Because of Murdoch or because of viewers and advertising dollars?

----------

thedarkdaimon (10-01-2013)

----------


## Roadmaster

> Source all these assertions.


 Where would I start from the Man/boy association of gays to this: Bishop is on a crusade in South Africa to have   "age of sexual consent laws" abolished, and he is looking for help from NAMBLA   to accomplish his goal. He says children must be empowered "by teaching them   about loving relationships at an early age, and giving them the opportunity to   make an informed decision about having [sex]." He also approves of incest,   noting, "Two women psychologists in America say the healthiest introduction to   sex for a child should be with their [sic] parents, because it is less   threatening and the emotional intimacy more comfortable."   Many gays want to lower the age of consent. When the scouts were attacked, it was a convicted child molester that lead this attack.

----------

texmaster (10-02-2013)

----------


## kilgram

> Where would I start from the Man/boy association of gays to this: Bishop is on a crusade in South Africa to have   "age of sexual consent laws" abolished, and he is looking for help from NAMBLA   to accomplish his goal. He says children must be empowered "by teaching them   about loving relationships at an early age, and giving them the opportunity to   make an informed decision about having [sex]." He also approves of incest,   noting, "Two women psychologists in America say the healthiest introduction to   sex for a child should be with their [sic] parents, because it is less   threatening and the emotional intimacy more comfortable."   Many gays want to lower the age of consent. When the scouts were attacked, it was a convicted child molester that lead this attack.


Source.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> I don't find any that do and why are they allowed to show this much in parades? It's wrong and vulgar.


I guess it has to do with one man's drink is another man's poison so to speak.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> Your opinion, like your vote, does matter.  Why is Fox News #1?  Because of Murdoch or because of viewers and advertising dollars?


It always surprises me when conservatives, who claim they are so pro-business, have such little understanding of business.

----------


## Maximatic

> Your suggestion that consumer preference dictates the content of the news, it's false.





> I do and if it didn't then Air America  would still be in business.  Even Rush Limbaugh understands this.





> Hu? You do what? Are you insisting that consumer demand dose dictate the content of the news?





> My apologies.  I forgot who I was dealing  with.  Most people will understand my point.  I'm truly sorry you do  not.


Just tell yourself whatever makes you feel better.

----------


## Perianne

> It always surprises me when conservatives, who claim they are so pro-business, have such little understanding of business.


Why would that matter?  I can support whomever I wish without having to know all about them or their business, right?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> It always surprises me when conservatives, who claim they are so pro-business, have such little understanding of business.


It's because ideology trumps education in US politics.  That goes both ways, but is most strongly felt on the Right.  The main reason why, to paraphrase Reagan, I didn't leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Why would that matter?  I can support whomever I wish without having to know all about them or their business, right?


If you're going comment on something, shouldn't you know something about it?  This shouldn't be a law, but it plays directly into the "uninformed voter" meme.  

I've offered an alternative to the "land owner voter" meme in support of honorable military service as a means to both voting and serving as a political leader.   If that were true, several of our forum members wouldn't qualify.

----------


## Roadmaster

> Source.


   NAMBLA  What does this stand for? That about says it all.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> NAMBLA  What does this stand for? That about says it all.


Sex with minors is illegal and should remain that way.  What does this have to do with gay or straight marriage?

----------


## Perianne

> If you're going comment on something, shouldn't you know something about it?  This shouldn't be a law, but it plays directly into the "uninformed voter" meme.


I disagree with you, Max.  I am going to venture out and say I know a hellavu lot more about medicine than most people.  Probably more than 99%.  But that does not mean that people without medical knowledge shouldn't be able to comment on medicine.

----------


## Roadmaster

> Sex with minors is illegal and should remain that way.  What does this have to do with gay or straight marriage?


 Because the gays are trying to end the age laws.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I disagree with you, Max.  I am going to venture out and say I know a hellavu lot more about medicine than most people.  Probably more than 99%.  But that does not mean that people without medical knowledge shouldn't be able to comment on medicine.


An agreeable point as far as it goes.   The difference is a non-medical person such as me commenting on how our medical system works or my experiences with a medical treatment and me commenting on your expertise as a medical expert...me telling you the proper way to set up an intravenous line after watching a Youtube video as my sole experience.

If I did such a thing, would you think me well informed or an ignorant asshole?

----------


## Maximatic

> I disagree with you, Max.  I am going to venture out and say I know a hellavu lot more about medicine than most people.  Probably more than 99%.  But that does not mean that people without medical knowledge shouldn't be able to comment on medicine.


Should we be allowed to run your practice?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Because the gays are trying to end the age laws.


"The gays", "the Left", "the Right", "the government", "the media".  Yea, I've heard it numerous times including as a reason why a terrorist group flew airplanes into a couple of buildings.  Blaming an entire group for the actions of a few as justification to hate them is bullshit reasoning.  It says more about the hater than the group.  

I disagree with NAMBLA and any other group which seeks to legitimize sex with minors.  Straight, gay or sideways.  WTF does this have to do with the application of the 14th Amendment?

----------


## Roadmaster

> "The gays", "the Left", "the Right", "the government", "the media".  Yea, I've heard it numerous times including as a reason why a terrorist group flew airplanes into a couple of buildings.  Blaming an entire group for the actions of a few as justification to hate them is bullshit reasoning.  It says more about the hater than the group.  
> 
> I disagree with NAMBLA and any other group which seeks to legitimize sex with minors.  Straight, gay or sideways.  WTF does this have to do with the application of the 14th Amendment?


Mainstream media of the left has no problems with NAMBLA. Look at how they went to Polanski defense a 12 year old girl he called a hooker, still no reason to drug her and have sex with her.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Mainstream media of the left has no problems with NAMBLA. Look at how they went to Polanski defense a 12 year old girl he called a hooker, still no reason to drug her and have sex with her.


Sorry, but I don't see it that way. Sure, some Hollywood types defended Polanski but to make a conspiracy theory that all of media is working together to undermine our nation seems nutty to me.

----------


## Perianne

> An agreeable point as far as it goes.   The difference is a non-medical person such as me commenting on how our medical system works or my experiences with a medical treatment and me commenting on your expertise as a medical expert...me telling you the proper way to set up an intravenous line after watching a Youtube video as my sole experience.
> 
> If I did such a thing, would you think me well informed or an ignorant asshole?





> Should we be allowed to run your practice?


I am not at all sure what we are talking about.  I don't pretend to know how someone should run their business.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> Because the gays are trying to end the age laws.


NAMBLA has a membership of about 1,000 people. There is an estimated 10 million homosexuals in the United States. That means NAMBLA represents .01% of the gay community. The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation have both condemned NAMBLA. So unless you have some other proof that gays are trying to end the age laws, my advice would be to stop posting such ridiculous accusations so it doesn't appear that you are completely ignorant.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> They think being with a 13 year old is fine as long as he consents. The left will rally around this person also and defend him but if he was not a homosexual, then it would be all over the press as sick. We see it wrong in both cases.


Like the way the media and the left defended Jerry Sandusky. Oh wait, the media crucified him. Never mind. 

Oh, and a 13 year old cannot consent to sex, by law.

----------

Max Rockatansky (10-01-2013)

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> I don't find any that do and why are they allowed to show this much in parades? It's wrong and vulgar.


Might have to do with the First Amendment. Phelps and his clan can protest at funerals and gays can wear giant phalluses in parades. May not like it, but it is the price we pay for having free speech.

----------


## Roadmaster

> Might have to do with the First Amendment. Phelps and his clan can protest at funerals and gays can wear giant phalluses in parades. May not like it, but it is the price we pay for having free speech.


He can but he has to be far away in NC. They didn't show up for the last one. Protest at funerals is low.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> He can but he has to be far away in NC. They didn't show up for the last one. Protest at funerals is low.


Fortunately, they have become sort of a joke as of late. I heard that the only ones still protesting are the actual family, all the other church members have left.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Because the gays are trying to end the age laws.


Yes.

And homosexual pornography...I don't know how it is today; but twenty years in San Francisco I came across some, for sale in racks.  Let's put it this way:  The boys there were probably of age.  They certainly were chosen because they did NOT look like it.  Now it's against the law to present a woman as an underage girl, even if she's of legal age.  But this law is conveniently not enforced when it came to homosexual-themed porn.

----------


## Roadmaster

> Fortunately, they have become sort of a joke as of late. I heard that the only ones still protesting are the actual family, all the other church members have left.


 I wasn't aware they had any membership out of the dems family that went. They aren't affiliated with the Baptist.

----------


## Roadmaster

> Yes.
> 
> And homosexual pornography...I don't know how it is today; but twenty years in San Francisco I came across some, for sale in racks.  Let's put it this way:  The boys there were probably of age.  They certainly were chosen because they did NOT look like it.  Now it's against the law to present a woman as an underage girl, even if she's of legal age.  But this law is conveniently not enforced when it came to homosexual-themed porn.


Yes but many will tell you they are like this because of a homosexual wanting them at that age. So they are doing the same to these.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I am not at all sure what we are talking about.  I don't pretend to know how someone should run their business.


Racism and I agree with Rand Paul when it comes to the Civil Rights Act and business.  People like JPT, employed or not, have a right to be racist assholes, but people like me have a right to say they can go fuck themselves.  It's a free country.  :Big Grin:

----------


## Roadmaster

> *Students Taught about Homosexual Foreplay Disguised As Tolerance*This is what happens when you turn educating our youth over to special interest groups


      A school district in Maine is apologizing after middle school students learned about homosexual foreplay during what was supposed to be a “Diversity Day” presentation
“I don’t want my child taught heterosexual foreplay, let alone homosexual foreplay,”  said an outraged parent Kristy Howard.
The principal of Gorham Middle School sent a letter to parents apologizing for the graphic nature of the presentation by PRYSM, Proud Rainbow Youth of Southern Maine

----------


## Maximatic

> I am not at all sure what we are talking about.  I don't pretend to know how someone should run their business.


You and Max were talking about one thing. I presented something else to the situation. The posts that mater are the ones below, not the ones you compared.

In your analogy, the voters are equated with the ones commenting on medicine. I'm suggesting that the people who comment on medicine would need to have some influence on the practice for in to be a valid comparison. But that's not a very important point. The more important, more subtle point is that we allow people who have no experience in or education of, and are in every other way unqualified to do so, to run our lives.




> I disagree with you, Max.  I am going to venture  out and say I know a hellavu lot more about medicine than most people.   Probably more than 99%.  But that does not mean that people without  medical knowledge shouldn't be able to comment on medicine.





> Should we be allowed to run your practice?

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> Where would I start from the Man/boy association of gays to this: Bishop is on a crusade in South Africa to have   "age of sexual consent laws" abolished, and he is looking for help from NAMBLA   to accomplish his goal. He says children must be empowered "by teaching them   about loving relationships at an early age, and giving them the opportunity to   make an informed decision about having [sex]." He also approves of incest,   noting, "Two women psychologists in America say the healthiest introduction to   sex for a child should be with their [sic] parents, because it is less   threatening and the emotional intimacy more comfortable."   Many gays want to lower the age of consent. When the scouts were attacked, it was a convicted child molester that lead this attack.


Right. And most left-wingers think like this?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> A school district in Maine is apologizing after middle school students learned about homosexual foreplay during what was supposed to be a “Diversity Day” presentation
> “I don’t want my child taught heterosexual foreplay, let alone homosexual foreplay,”  said an outraged parent Kristy Howard.
> The principal of Gorham Middle School sent a letter to parents apologizing for the graphic nature of the presentation by PRYSM, Proud Rainbow Youth of Southern Maine


I remember this incident when it first came out (no pun intended) last year:  http://www.christianpost.com/news/mi...te-talk-84459/




> Gorham Middle School's Civil Rights team invited the Proud Rainbow Youth of Southern Maine (PRYSM) to speak to students about gender diversity and the difficulties lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) youth face as a result of discrimination, NBC affiliate WLBZ reports. During a question and answer session at the end of the presentation, however, the discussion turned to sex.
> 
> Some of the teachers reported the incident to the school's principal, Robert Riley, saying they felt uncomfortable with what was said during the presentation but didn't respond immediately because the comments were made so quickly.
> 
> In addition to an apology letter that was later sent from the school to parents, Riley also wrote about the controversy in a blog post from Monday titled, "It's Been a Long Week." *He says it is unfortunate that one negative occurrence during Diversity Day has detracted from the important issues that were discussed in the 16 other presentations, each of which was delivered three times that day.
> *
> "There is no excuse for what happened," Riley said in his blog. "It happened, and it happened quickly in response to an honest student question. The results of which we are all very aware. We will be more vigilant in the future to make sure this does not happen again, but the idea of Diversity Day program is still very important to us as a Middle School."


I'm guessing PRYSM won't be invited back this year.

----------


## texmaster

> Did I say it was? So let's recap here. There are no official heterosexual pride parades. Any parade can have objectionable content. Did I miss anything here?


Yes.  That homosexual pride parades are full of nudity and vulgarity and there are no heterosexual pride parades to relate it to.

----------


## texmaster

> Vulgarity is relative. You may find two men kissing vulgar but not a heterosexual couple and two women kissing may turn you on.


No.  Parading nude and simulating sex scenes in public  in front of children is vulgar.

----------


## texmaster

> Prove to me that a child can consent to sex without parental permission. Show an actual statute, law or court case that says this.


This is the last time I'm going to provide you the same information.

Page 20 of this thread.

_Anyone  under eighteen (18) years of age is considered a minor (legal age for  employment is 14). Minors under 14 years of age are not permitted in  gainful occupations except in domestic service and certain agricultural  occupations_

Say it with me.  Children can consent.





> Well, duh!  How the fuck do you think people choose which laws are acceptable? It certainly isn't logic. If it was logic, there would be no laws against gay marriage. Now I don't believe myself better than people who are against gay marriage, I just think my arguments are better than theirs, since there is really only two arguments against gay marriage, religious (God forbids it) and the ick factor (it grosses you out). Which one is your argument?



You really are slow aren't you.   You are no different than people who are against gay marriage because both are making a moral judgement on behavior so quit pretending your opinion is more special or more worthy of consideration when at least the people against gay marriage have science on their side when it comes to biological factors and reproduction which do not exist in homosexuality.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

http://lwd.dol.state.nj.us/labor/wag..._law.html#2212


> Minors may also engage in employment in domestic service performed outside of school hours or during school vacations *with the permission of the minor's parents or legal guardian*, in a residence other than the minor's own home. Nothing in this act shall be construed to apply to the work of a minor engaged in domestic service or agricultural pursuits performed outside of school hours or during school vacations in *connection with the minor's own home and directly for his parents or legal guardian.*


http://www.twc.state.tx.us/ui/lablaw...eralExemptions



> *General Exemptions*When a business is owned or operated by a parent or legal custodian, the parent or custodian may employ their own children at any age to work any hours, so long as the work is non-hazardous (not prohibited) and the child works under the parent or custodian’s direct supervision.
> In addition, Texas Child Labor Law does not apply to employment of a child who is:
> 
> Engaged in non-hazardous casual employment that will not endanger the safety, health or well-being of the child and to which a parent or legal custodian has consented
> Casual employment is work that is unscheduled and nonrecurring.Non-hazardous employment involves work that neither the federal government nor TWC have determined is dangerous to the safety, health or well-being of a child. For more information, see the sections below about prohibited and permitted occupations.11 years or older delivering newspapers on a newspaper route (exemption does not include direct sales)16 years or older engaged in the direct sale of newspapers to the general publicParticipating in a school-supervised and school-administered work-study program approved by TWCEmployed through a rehabilitation program supervised by a county judgeEmployed in agriculture during a period when the child is not legally required to be attending school
> Employment in agriculture means engaged in producing crops or livestock and includes:
> Cultivating and tilling the soilProducing, cultivating, growing, and harvesting an agricultural or horticultural commodityDairyingRaising livestock, bees, fur-bearing animals, or poultry

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> This is the last time I'm going to provide you the same information.
> 
> Page 20 of this thread.
> 
> _Anyone  under eighteen (18) years of age is considered a minor (legal age for  employment is 14). Minors under 14 years of age are not permitted in  gainful occupations except in domestic service and certain agricultural  occupations_
> 
> Say it with me.  Children can consent.



I said "Prove to me that a child can *consent to sex* without parental permission. Show an actual statute, law or court case that says this." 

I'm not sure if your computer screen is messed up, your glasses are missing or you are just purposely ignoring that part, but employment laws have nothing to do with sexual consent.





> You really are slow aren't you.   You are no different than people who are against gay marriage because both are making a moral judgement on behavior so quit pretending your opinion is more special or more worthy of consideration when at least the people against gay marriage have science on their side when it comes to biological factors and reproduction which do not exist in homosexuality.


What does reproduction have to do with marriage? Where is it written that the couple have to be able to have children? Why would it even matter?

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> Yes.  That homosexual pride parades are full of nudity and vulgarity and there are no heterosexual pride parades to relate it to.


Of course not, there are NO heterosexual pride parades. However, there are parades which heterosexuals participate in that do have nudity.




> No. Parading nude and simulating sex scenes in public in front of children is vulgar.


I agree, but since it continues, it is obviously not against the law.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Of course not, there are NO heterosexual pride parades. However, there are parades which heterosexuals participate in that do have nudity.


True.  Oddly, women love showing their breasts at many of these plus other events such as concerts, spring break and other events.  Usually alcohol is involved. 

I'd post pictures, but while showing dead, mutilated bodies is the norm in the US, showing female nipple is _Verboten_.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> True.  Oddly, women love showing their breasts at many of these plus other events such as concerts, spring break and other events.  Usually alcohol is involved. 
> 
> I'd post pictures, but while showing dead, mutilated bodies is the norm in the US, showing female nipple is _Verboten_.


Ain't that the truth! The bugs me to no end that parents let their kids watch Saw and Hostel, but then throw a fit when Janet Jackson has her "wardrobe malfunction".

----------

Max Rockatansky (10-02-2013)

----------


## Perianne

> True.  Oddly, women love showing their breasts at many of these plus other events such as concerts, spring break and other events.


Showing breasts is a lot different than some guy showing his pimpled, hairy ass.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Showing breasts is a lot different than some guy showing his pimpled, hairy ass.


I agree.  I'd rather see a women's breasts, but many Americans still go bonkers if one is flashed in public or, OMG, broadcast television.

----------


## Perianne

> I agree.  I'd rather see a women's breasts, but many Americans still go bonkers if one is flashed in public or, OMG, broadcast television.


I've seen countless breasts.  None of them appeal to me and I don't want to see any of them.  Plus, children watch TV and are in public.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Showing breasts is a lot different than some guy showing his pimpled, hairy ass.


It's ALSO not universal.  It's pretty-much limited to drunken university-coed trash...the campus-mattress kind.  Odd, isn't it, that the educated and liberal...going to a place that's supposed to elevate them above the working class...are the ones acting like whores?

As a rule women don't do that.  Women don't WANT to do that.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I've seen countless breasts.  None of them appeal to me and I don't want to see any of them.  Plus, children watch TV and are in public.


I think that's the point Dark Daimon was making; Key West's Fantasy Fest, N'awlin's Fat Tuesday and about any area hosting Spring Break features young women (and older.  I have pix!) showing off their titties.  I'm not offended, but some are.  So, as DD was trying to point out, why the double standard?  It's okay for heterosexual females to show off their boobs, but not okay for homosexual males to wear assless chaps?   

Some would say neither is appropriate and I'd be good with that, but don't just blame the gays for such behavior.   Others, such as myself, would say it's okay, but only in certain venues as a courtesy to easily offended people.

----------

thedarkdaimon (10-02-2013)

----------


## Calypso Jones

WHo said it was acceptable for any of it?    No one is excusing that behavior in New Orleans or elsewhere.   And mostly...aren't the regular men and women engaging in that behavior liberals anyway?

----------


## JustPassinThru

> WHo said it was acceptable for any of it?    No one is excusing that behavior in New Orleans or elsewhere.   And mostly...aren't the regular men and women engaging in that behavior liberals anyway?


They're drunken degenerates.

That's the kind of people we pay to give university educations to.  Drunks and wastrels and the promiscuous.

----------


## Perianne

> It's okay for heterosexual females to show off their boobs, but not okay for homosexual males to wear assless chaps?


Have ya ever seen a man in assless chaps?  Heaven knows I love men, but I do not want to see their hairy butts.  I think it is for shock value.  I can't even imagine a homo wanting to see a man's ass in chaps.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Have ya ever seen a man in assless chaps?  Heaven knows I love men, but I do not want to see their hairy butts.  I think it is for shock value.  I can't even imagine a homo wanting to see a man's ass in chaps.


It's all for shock value...for jamming it in yer face.

Thats what these degenerate parades are for; and why they love crashing St. Patrick's Day parades.  It's ALSO the driving force behind this "Gay""Marriage" obscenity.

It's what homosexuals DO - they can't control it.  Any more than Bawney Fwank could keep from running a homosexual escort service out of his townhouse.  They're COMPELLED to behave in destructive ways.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Have ya ever seen a man in assless chaps?  Heaven knows I love men, but I do not want to see their hairy butts.  I think it is for shock value.  I can't even imagine a homo wanting to see a man's ass in chaps.


Only in the movies.  I'd wear them for you, but you don't seem interested.  :Frown:

----------

Perianne (10-02-2013)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> WHo said it was acceptable for any of it?    *No one is excusing that behavior in New Orleans or elsewhere.*   And mostly...aren't the regular men and women engaging in that behavior liberals anyway?


Then why is it allowed?  Why is no one here complaining about it?

I dare you to go to N'awlins on Fat Tuesday and call them Cajuns a bunch of liberals.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> It's all for shock value...for jamming it in yer face.
> 
> Thats what these degenerate parades are for; and why they love crashing St. Patrick's Day parades.  It's ALSO the driving force behind this "Gay""Marriage" obscenity.
> 
> It's what homosexuals DO - they can't control it.  Any more than Bawney Fwank could keep from running a homosexual escort service out of his townhouse.  They're COMPELLED to behave in destructive ways.


And African-Americans can't help being criminals and Latinos can't help being lazy and Italians can't help being womanizers and Jews can't help being tightwads... etc, etc, etc...

Yeah, we can go through the whole list of stereotypes but let me you in on a secret. You cannot judge an entire group by the actions of a few. To do so is a logical fallacy.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Then why is it allowed?  Why is no one here complaining about it?
> 
> I dare you to go to N'awlins on Fat Tuesday and call them Cajuns a bunch of liberals.


It isn't allowed.  Hundreds are arrested in New Orleans every Mardi Gras for just that.

The laws are, or were:  No exposing of the privates.  No baring of the buttocks.  Women may not bare the breasts; nor may female impersonators or transsexuals.

There aren't enough police in all of Louisiana to deal with 50,000 drunken college kids.  They do what they can; they have priorities.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> And African-Americans can't help being criminals and Latinos can't help being lazy and Italians can't help being womanizers and Jews can't help being tightwads... etc, etc, etc...
> 
> Yeah, we can go through the whole list of stereotypes but let me you in on a secret. You cannot judge an entire group by the actions of a few. To do so is a logical fallacy.


Generalizing is an easy way to grasp essential facts and truths.  I don't need to stick my finger into EVERY wall outlet...to understand that most of them will electrocute me.  I generalize.

I don't need to visit EVERY ghetto in America...to know they're all pretty nasty.  Four cities' worth was enough.

And so on.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> WHo said it was acceptable for any of it?    No one is excusing that behavior in New Orleans or elsewhere.   And mostly...aren't the regular men and women engaging in that behavior liberals anyway?


You know, when I was going to college, the wildest girls were the ones from strict religious homes who would go crazy when they got their first taste of freedom.

Hey Calypso, did you ever go to college?  :Wink:

----------

Gerrard Winstanley (10-03-2013)

----------


## fyrenza

@ OP/OP Question :

tl/dnr  and  "Yes."

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> Generalizing is an easy way to grasp essential facts and truths.  I don't need to stick my finger into EVERY wall outlet...to understand that most of them will electrocute me.  I generalize.
> 
> I don't need to visit EVERY ghetto in America...to know they're all pretty nasty.  Four cities' worth was enough.
> 
> And so on.


But people are not wall outlets are they? We were not manufactured on an assembly line. Each of us has a mind of his or her own. One of my pet peeves is people assuming that they can judge an entire group based on a few members. Hell, if I did that I would think that all conservatives were ignorant asses, but I don't. I give everyone the benefit of the doubt.

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> @ OP/OP Question :
> 
> tl/dnr  and  "Yes."


I would like to reply, but I'm not sure what you are saying. I only know two languages, English and Bad English. (Brownie point for anyone who knows where that is from).

----------


## littlejohn

> I decided instead of derailing the America/Sodom/Gomorrah thread to spin this off into its own thread:
> 
> What demands besides want to be able to get married and to be treated like any American are homosexuals asking for? The only change in laws they want is the right to marry and to not be discriminated against. They are not trying to change our language, standards or religious faiths.
> 
> Homosexuals just want to be treated equally under the law. How is that a leftist ideology? Of course looking back at the way conservatives have treated minority groups, maybe it is.


Hello @thedarkdaimon , you have touched several areas, any one of which deserves its own discussion. Good question. 
Any American. A couple of things on that. I (for one, just me) would not know where to start if I were to set out to describe how "any American" was treated. That is not a straight forward concept, and has a pretty wide variance. One of the most problematic wrinkles arises due to the implementation of the very thing that is hoped for in the scenario you described. what follows is not a statement of whether discrimination is good or bad, but focuses on the fact that the implementation has become a zero sum game, where people have to win and lose in order to accomplish the numbers scheme central to the system used to measure the result. Plainly stated, if you are an American who loses due to a minority hiring quota, (a quota which does not work in your favor i.e. "we aint hiring your kind today") then in effect you have been denied work based strictly on your race. (or whatever the quota was about - gender happens too ) So, on any given day, some American is not being treated worth a shit. Again, I am not going to try to make any claims about the right or wrong of that, only to point out that "treated like any American" is complicated. I will advance this one more step then get off of it, more good stuff in your question to yack about. The regional factor. Using the example above, not only has the individual above been denied work based solely on their race/gender, they may or may not access to recourse. (double whammy for having a bad day ) If our victim in the example above is from one of the southern regions, retribution can be applied with impunity and protection under the law denied. Retribution is becoming more popular each day. I will cite the mayor of San Antonio Texas and his city council attempting to pass a law that would disallow anyone the right to hold public office or work on city contracts if it could be shown that they had *ever spoken or otherwise demonstrated disapproval of homosexualism. So that would include every Muslim and Christian in San Antonio. As is plain, this is another situation where the implementation of the alleged fairness algorithm fails miserably. In essence trading one set of winners and losers for a different set. thus, on any given day, how an American is being treated... depends on a lot of things. 
I agree with you that conservative thinking very often includes a different approach and philosophy regarding the relationship between the majority and the minority. Conservative thinking is slower to react and has a much larger dimension of "show me why this is a good idea." In a typical example a conservative thought process may go something like this .. "If I am about to do something that impacts the livelihood and happiness of 96 people for the sake of 4, I need to see more rationale." that is what conservative means. Think it through and move ahead with caution. The conservative mindset in itself does not inherently contain any pre-judgment, only deeper and slower evaluation. Thus conservative is not actually the opposite or antithesis of liberal, in that a conservative approach can be taken which ultimately arrives at a liberal conclusion. In the case of the Mayor of San Antonio, the key objection from the public was *not to be singled out  and denied access to jobs based on political alignment. Some Americans were working on not being treated badly. Zero sum. On any given day. My guess as to why the "left" gets to be identified with the homosexualists (i.e. why is homosexualism a leftist ideology?) stems from the fact that the homosexualists use the political correctness infrastructure to advance their cause. In my experience, the quote/unquote "left" are clearly identified as the owners of the political correctness infrastructure. I don't know if that is a legitimate correlation but it is pervasive. So, on any given day , most of America is getting treated like shit, and much of it is backlash from paying a penalty established by a civil rights privilege/ So, if homosexuals want to jump in here with the rest of us and get slapped around by the government ... that  is great. If they want laws which afford them a guarantee of happiness , (e.g. you shall not dare speak or do unto me under penalty of law) then I would say we are dealing with an unrealistic expectation. 

thanks for the opportunity to give my $0.02 ---

----------


## fyrenza

> I would like to reply, but I'm not sure what you are saying. I only know two languages, English and Bad English. (Brownie point for anyone who knows where that is from).


Well, it was too long, by the time I entered the scene,

but in answer to the OP : Yes, it's a dumbOrat trick to ensnare the unsuspecting.

The answer to your posit :  "Fifth Element"

----------


## fyrenza

> But people are not wall outlets are they? We were not manufactured on an assembly line. Each of us has a mind of his or her own. One of my pet peeves is people assuming that they can judge an entire group based on a few members. Hell, if I did that I would think that all conservatives were ignorant asses, but I don't. I give everyone the benefit of the doubt.


Sooner or later, pal,

you're going to come to grips with the FACT that if YOU can't do for yourself?

You're gonna die.

And this little inconvenient FACT :

To actually have any chance of protecting yourself, and what you hold dear?

You're going to HAVE to ... "profile" others.

But, shucks!  We've done THAT, all of our lives, eh?

----------


## fyrenza

It's one of the LOGICAL TRUTHS of our lives ~

we don't INVITE disaster ~
it must disguise itself to survive,

so we have to LOOK at the Facts,
and think about BEING some con-man,
in order to know them, when we see them.

Shuckers, the old black folks used to call 'em;
Hucksters, in the next iteration;
and now, Con(wo)Men.

How sad that ^that^ sort of life would even be considered "a life."

----------


## thedarkdaimon

> Sooner or later, pal,
> 
> you're going to come to grips with the FACT that if YOU can't do for yourself?
> 
> You're gonna die.
> 
> And this little inconvenient FACT :
> 
> To actually have any chance of protecting yourself, and what you hold dear?
> ...


There's a huge difference between seeing danger in a group of African-American youths wearing gangster clothes and flashing gang signs walking toward you in the ghetto at night and thinking that all African-Americans are criminals just as there is a huge difference in thinking that the guy with the flamboyant, effeminate manner and wearing an ascot is gay versus thinking all gays are child molesters.

Yes, we profile people everyday, but a profile is just a first impression and shouldn't be used make public policy.

----------


## Trinnity

*DENVER (CBS4) -* The owner of a bakery in Lakewood said he will no longer sell wedding cakes after the Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled he did discriminate against a gay couple when he refused to sell them a cake.
Jack Phillips owns Masterpiece Cakeshop. In 2012, David Mullins and Charlie Craig went to the shop to order a cake for their upcoming wedding reception. They planned to marry in Massachusetts and have a reception in Colorado.

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2014/05/3...mination-case/

----------


## Micketto

> *DENVER (CBS4) -* The owner of a bakery in Lakewood said he will no longer sell wedding cakes after the Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled he did discriminate against a gay couple when he refused to sell them a cake.
> Jack Phillips owns Masterpiece Cakeshop. In 2012, David Mullins and Charlie Craig went to the shop to order a cake for their upcoming wedding reception. They planned to marry in Massachusetts and have a reception in Colorado.
> 
> http://denver.cbslocal.com/2014/05/3...mination-case/


Good for him.

Couple: "Can you make us a cake with a, ahem, bride and groom on it?" 
Baker:  "Sure!"

Gay couple: "Can you make us a cake with a bride and bride on it?"
Baker:  "Sorry, I don't do wedding cakes".


I don't blame him.  And good for him on standing on his principles.

----------


## Roadmaster

> *DENVER (CBS4) -* The owner of a bakery in Lakewood said he will no longer sell wedding cakes after the Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled he did discriminate against a gay couple when he refused to sell them a cake.
> Jack Phillips owns Masterpiece Cakeshop. In 2012, David Mullins and Charlie Craig went to the shop to order a cake for their upcoming wedding reception. They planned to marry in Massachusetts and have a reception in Colorado.
> 
> http://denver.cbslocal.com/2014/05/3...mination-case/


I would have made it just not correctly. That will stop them from asking.

----------


## Reverend

> You are homophobic. Purely homophobic. And yes, there is fear. There is fear to them. There is the fear that they could have their lives like you. You are afraid that homosexuals be able to marry and that they enjoy the same rights as you. You are homophobic. Like it or not.
> 
> Obviously like all fascists, racists or homophobic you deny the fact that you are homophobic. I've not ever seen any racist, homophobic or fascist to admit openly that they are that.


Your hair is on fire.

----------


## Reverend

> You don't have a right to push your beliefs on other people...


Neither do you.

----------


## Reverend

> Equating homosexuality with pedophilia. Wonderful.


The Catholic Church's scandals about "pedophile Priests" was homosexual in nature.

----------


## Reverend

> And it will get protested by a bunch of intolerant whiny queers, the media will jump on it and scorn them, a bunch of lidiots will throw out useless words like "homophobes!" and the Mayro, under pressure from the 3%, will shut it down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uh.. that's pretty much a gay thing.
> ...


That is an image I didn't need in my head.

----------


## Reverend

> Good for him.
> 
> Couple: "Can you make us a cake with a, ahem, bride and groom on it?" 
> Baker:  "Sure!"
> 
> Gay couple: "Can you make us a cake with a bride and bride on it?"
> Baker:  "Sorry, I don't do wedding cakes".
> 
> 
> I don't blame him.  And good for him on standing on his principles.


At some point I expect my church to stop performing wedding ceremonies because of this.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

The First Amendment and the separation of Church and State is what would prevent religions from having to do something because it's politically correct.  Eroding that separation, no matter how well intentioned, by religious followers, specifically Protestants, will not end well.  


http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html



> To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
> 
> Gentlemen
> 
> The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
> 
> Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
> 
> I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
> ...

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> The Catholic Church's scandals about "pedophile Priests" was homosexual in nature.


Celibacy, innit.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Celibacy, innit.


That false priests cannot or will not adhere to the standards - and their vows - does not mean the standards, or the Church that sets them, are evil.

It kinda makes the false priests evil.

Much like a cop that abuses his power, or a politician that violates his trust, doesn't make those POSITIONS bad - but the abusers bad.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> That false priests cannot or will not adhere to the standards - and their vows - does not mean the standards, or the Church that sets them, are evil.
> 
> It kinda makes the false priests evil.
> 
> Much like a cop that abuses his power, or a politician that violates his trust, doesn't make those POSITIONS bad - but the abusers bad.


No. What makes the Church evil is when it attempts to cover the bastards' crimes up.

----------


## Reverend

> No. What makes the Church evil is when it attempts to cover the bastards' crimes up.


No, it makes the church merciful, which is something some people on earth will never have and will never receive.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> No, it makes the church merciful, which is something some people on earth will never have and will never receive.


Child molesters don't merit mercy. They merit being strung up by the ballsack. Frankly, it's a sick and twisted belief system which can even contemplate extending clemency to such monsters.

----------


## Micketto

> No, it makes the church merciful, which is something some people on earth will never have and will never receive.


Merciful to whom?  The perp?

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Merciful to whom?  The perp?


Institutions always work to protect themselves and their own.  It's a universal human trait...often wrong but a normal instinct.

That is not along the level as, say, a command by the Prophet to Kill the Infidel; or by modern mullahs to stone pregnant women who renounce the "Holy" "Faith."

No, the Church's response to the false priests who came in and did atrocities, was wrong but a normal first reaction.  It was merciful but mercy directed to the wrong party.

That doesn't make the Church evil - only those who oversee it flawed, as all humans are.

----------


## Reverend

> Child molesters don't merit mercy. They merit being strung up by the ballsack. Frankly, it's a sick and twisted belief system which can even contemplate extending clemency to such monsters.


That is why you'd damn well better hope there is no God, because that is just about how much mercy you will get from Him. How in the hell do you know what goes on in anybody's mind other than your own hate filled brain pan?

Maybe you'd rather we just behead them in public like a certain other religion?

----------


## Reverend

> Merciful to whom?  The perp?


To everybody.

----------


## Reverend

> Institutions always work to protect themselves and their own.  It's a universal human trait...often wrong but a normal instinct.
> 
> That is not along the level as, say, a command by the Prophet to Kill the Infidel; or by modern mullahs to stone pregnant women who renounce the "Holy" "Faith."
> 
> No, the Church's response to the false priests who came in and did atrocities, was wrong but a normal first reaction.  It was merciful but mercy directed to the wrong party.
> 
> That doesn't make the Church evil - only those who oversee it flawed, as all humans are.


The church handled it poorly. They should have defrocked the perpetrators and ex-communicated them in the first place, it would have saved them a lot of trouble. Unfortunately, the people who are taught that they themselves have received mercy and should also grant mercy. If there is one thing secular people don't understand, it's mercy. Unfortunately, they were dealing with recidivists who would not or could not stop. It was a bad situation all the way around.

I had a conversation with a guy about prison ministry a while back. He asked me very pointedly if I forgave the murderers I was serving. My response was that I have to. He holds that against me and probably always will. But go to a priest for confession and you will never not be forgiven.

We find ourselves in situations like this all the time, often not to the secular public's liking, whether it's wartime or peacetime. It's not easy to forgive, but it is the kindest thing you can do - _for yourself_. Forgiveness is not for your enemy, it's for you. Unforgiveness turns us into those hate filled bastards we all detest.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> That is why you'd damn well better hope there is no God, because that is just about how much mercy you will get from Him. How in the hell do you know what goes on in anybody's mind other than your own hate filled brain pan?


Hatred of rapist dregs is unjustified now, is it? Is that what the old men in Rome are telling you nowadays?

The god who's ready to forgive child molesters and their enabler fat cats, whilst condemning me for simply pointing out that they're scum, isn't a figure worthy of any rational man's respect.



> Maybe you'd rather we just behead them in public like a certain other religion?


I would say Islam has something going for it in this regard. Unfortunately, the Muslims actually worship one of these fucks.

----------


## Reverend

> Hatred of rapist dregs is unjustified now, is it? Is that what the old men in Rome are telling you nowadays?


You're not hurting anyone but yourself. There is nothing you can do to hurt any of those priests we are talking about, you are just drinking your own poison and hoping the other guy will die. But don't take my word for it, ask any shrink, they'll tell you the same thing. 

It is a never ending source of amazement to me the amount of hatred and resentment human beings can generate against someone they don't even know who has never harmed them.




> The god who's ready to forgive child molesters and their enabler fat cats, whilst condemning me for simply pointing out that they're scum, isn't a figure worthy of any rational man's respect.


He's ready to forgive everybody, _including_ you. You can't really tell him who to forgive and not forgive.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> You're not hurting anyone but yourself. There is nothing you can do to hurt any of those priests we are talking about, you are just drinking your own poison and hoping the other guy will die. But don't take my word for it, ask any shrink, they'll tell you the same thing. 
> 
> It is a never ending source of amazement to me the amount of hatred and resentment human beings can generate against someone they don't even know who has never harmed them.


Bin Laden never harmed me, so I guess my disenchantment with him is completely unjustified, right?

It's a never-ending source of amazement to me how the Catholic Church can dress it's own crippling hypocrisies in ecclesiastical formality and theological hoo-ha and still convince otherwise intelligent individuals that everything's just business as usual.

----------


## Reverend

> Bin Laden never harmed me, so I guess my disenchantment with him is completely unjustified, right?


It has nothing to do with "justification". It's about your impotence to do anything about it. If we can believe our president, he is already dead, you can't kill him again. You can either move on or stew in your own juices. The culture that gave rise to an Usama bin Ladin sounds more like you than it does me or the church.

They need to hate, according to one writer.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> It has nothing to do with "justification". It's about your impotence to do anything about it. If we can believe our president, he is already dead, you can't kill him again. You can either move on or stew in your own juices. The culture that gave rise to an Usama bin Ladin sounds more like you than it does me or the church.
> 
> They need to hate, according to one writer.


Sorry? Am I the one apologizing for kiddy-fiddlers? That sounds Islamic enough.

----------


## Reverend

> Sorry? Am I the one apologizing for kiddy-fiddlers? That sounds Islamic enough.


No, you're the hater of people you don't even know. That sounds pretty jihad to me.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> No, you're the hater of people you don't even know. That sounds pretty jihad to me.


That argument's bull, Rev. You're just trying to cover your churchmen's asses.

----------


## Reverend

> That argument's bull, Rev. You're just trying to cover your churchmen's asses.


You're just refusing to give up hating. It's poisoned your soul, it comes across in all of your posts. If you don't hear anything else I say, at least hear that. It's not necessary and it's not healthy.

Do I want justice? Yes, but do I know enough to bring about justice? No, I don't know everything. I have had plenty of things against plenty of people, real people, people in my own life. The church isn't perfect, God knows I know that. But it's what we have. New ones will come in to replace the old ones, maybe we'll get it right this time.

Time to move on.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> You're just refusing to give up hating. It's poisoned your soul, it comes across in all of your posts. If you don't hear anything else I say, at least hear that. It's not necessary and it's not healthy.


I hear what you're saying. I just think it's twisted by confirmation bias.

----------


## Reverend

> I hear what you're saying. I just think it's twisted by confirmation bias.


Re-read my post, I edited it. I am not biased, I have no connection with the RCC. I just think this truth is worth telling.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> Re-read my post, I edited it. I am not biased, I have no connection with the RCC. I just think this truth is worth telling.


This is the abuse of tens of thousands of kids that we're talking about, enabled and concealed by a runaway Church establishment. We really can't just move on. Forgiveness is an honorable principle, but only the victims have a right to administer it, and to suggest we set out to understand why these people abused the power vested in them to such sickening, intolerable ends flirts with exoneration.

----------


## Reverend

> This is the abuse of tens of thousands of kids that we're talking about, enabled and concealed by a runaway Church establishment. We really can't just move on. Forgiveness is an honorable principle, but only the victims have a right to administer it, and to suggest we set out to understand why these people abused the power vested in them to such sickening, intolerable ends flirts with exoneration.


"Runaway church establishment" - pffft. 

There are children abused everywhere, by the guy next door, the little league coach, the scoutmaster, the list goes on and on. A personal friend of mine was abused by a neighbor. I myself was abducted, although I don't remember what happened, but I have heard. And that wasn't the first time I would be taken and dropped off in some distant spot without even knowing where I was. The second time was for money, a man promised to pay me for work and dumped me in the middle of nowhere. I was very young but the first time I heard that all men are evil without God's touch I was convinced that Christianity was the Truth, and there is nobody more convinced than I am that it would be better for those guys to have stones tied around their necks and thrown into the sea. So don't accuse me of partiality. 

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. Perpetrators have their problems, too. Child abusers often come from other child abusers. I have worked in mental hospitals and prisons, I have seen the other side. Organizations, too, have their problems. By all means, send all the guilty to prison if necessary, but my work doesn't end there. I have the commission to visit the prisoner and the sick, to redeem them if possible, or at least offer redemption - and forgiveness. 

You know I am not a bleeding heart liberal, I am a thinking person and reason tells me that I can't carry the weight of the world on my shoulders. I have to commit the sinners, criminals, and abusers to God, or I will lose my mind - AND my soul.

I was in a prison once for a service. We had a Jesus doll that was made like a Raggedy Ann doll, and one of the prisoners, a teenager (they were all teenagers), had taken quite a shine to it and spent the whole service hugging it. I looked at that kid and wondered what the hell had happened to him. I wondered if he had ever even had a childhood. I never heard the answer, that haunts me to this day. I think all those kids were in for murder, this was a max security prison. Still, my job is to bind the wounds where I find them.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I hear what you're saying. I just think it's twisted by confirmation bias.


Confirmation bias has been a failing of many people regardless of their religious beliefs.   It does, however, help discern those who have the confidence of their convictions and those who have to keep telling themselves to believe a certain set of idea because they don't really believe it deep down.



> This is the abuse of tens of thousands of kids that we're talking about, enabled and concealed by a runaway Church establishment. We really can't just move on. Forgiveness is an honorable principle, but only the victims have a right to administer it, and to suggest we set out to understand why these people abused the power vested in them to such sickening, intolerable ends flirts with exoneration.


Agreed we can't just overlook not only the abuse of children, but the cover-up of that abuse by an institution that relies on trust, faith and truth among its members.  

Understanding why people abuse power is easy.  It's self-serving.  While forgiveness may rest with the victims, fixing an institution guilty of abuse, rests with the leadership.  Although it took a few Popes to do it, I think Pope Francis is the first one to take make an honest, self-less attempt to do so.

----------

