# Politics and News > Rants, Opinions, Observations >  Being "shoved in your face"

## Taylor

Its not uncommon for people to bitch and complain that homosexuality is being shoved in their face, right? So like for example people think that by seeing two gay people walking down the street holding hands that they are is shoving gayness in peoples faces. That kissing in public is shoving gayness in peoples faces. That having a equality sticker on the back of their car is shoving gayness in peoples faces. That getting married in the field of view of other people is shoving gayness in other peoples faces. That flying a rainbow flag is shoving gayness into other peoples faces.

Tell me....if an equality sticker is shoving gayness in your face then is a jesus fish sticker shoving christianity into other peoples faces? If two gay people kiss on a public bench is shoving gayness in your face then when two straight do it is that also shoving straightness into other peoples face? If two gay people walking down the street is shoving gayness in your face then when straight people walk down the street holding hands is that not doing the same to others? If flying a rainbow flag is shoving gayness into your face then is flying a confederate flag or any other flag that carries a message shoving that in your face too?

How about this novel concept....none of it is shoving anything in your face, it's just freedom. Get over it.

----------


## NuYawka

So a horse walks into a bar. 


Bartender asks: "Why the long face?"

----------

Daily Bread (05-04-2015),Dos Equis (05-06-2015),East of the Beast (05-06-2015),garyo (05-04-2015)

----------


## HoneyBee

> So a horse walks into a bar. 
> 
> 
> Bartender asks: "Why the long face?"




 :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------

NuYawka (05-04-2015)

----------


## NaturalBorn

Indoctrinating our children in the schools, on cartoons and TV shows, perversion parades of half naked (if we are lucky) perverts, some even dressed as nuns, etc. THESE are the 'in your face' actions that are an affront to decent people.  None of what you claim are.

----------

Daily Bread (05-04-2015),Dos Equis (05-06-2015),East of the Beast (05-06-2015),garyo (05-04-2015),Luca (05-06-2015),Old Ridge Runner (05-04-2015),Rutabaga (05-04-2015)

----------


## Taylor

> Indoctrinating our children in the schools, on cartoons and TV shows, perversion parades of half naked (if we are lucky) perverts, some even dressed as nuns, etc. THESE are the 'in your face' actions that are an affront to decent people.  None of what you claim are.


meh it's just freedom. Parents indoctrinate their kids with all sorts of hate everyday across the country and the world but god forbid they are taught to accept people as equals.

----------


## NaturalBorn

> meh it's just freedom. Parents indoctrinate their kids with all sorts of hate everyday across the country and the world but god forbid they are taught to accept people as equals.


The key word is highlighted....

----------

Old Ridge Runner (05-04-2015),Rutabaga (05-04-2015)

----------


## Micketto

I agree none of the things you mentioned are what people claim they are.... but it certainly does take place.

Is targeting a known Christian baker and attempting to order a gay wedding cake and being refused then calling the media, calling the lawyers, calling in death threats, protesting, insulting and ultimately ruining the baker's business.... "shoving it in their face" ?

Sure seems like it to me.

I don't know if Christians have done that, but I certainly am open to being corrected.






Did I mention how soft and cute your little kitten is ?

----------

garyo (05-04-2015),HoneyBee (05-04-2015),Luca (05-06-2015),Old Ridge Runner (05-04-2015),patrickt (05-04-2015)

----------


## Katzndogz

When perversion is the equal of decency we have turned a corner into evil.

----------

GreenEyedLady (05-06-2015)

----------


## patrickt

The examples in the OP are fantasies created to justify his own bad behavior.

Yes, gays and Christians do "get in your face" but the examples he gives for either or silly. A proselytizing nitwit ringing my doorbell and disturbing me is a selfish, self-centered idiot who's personal needs trumps, in his or her mind, my peace. A gay who demands that a baker bake him a cake or face the wrath of the liberals is getting in your face. What kind of friggin' idiot would eat a cake that someone was forced to bake?

I get tired of the confrontation. Bugger off.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

Queers are insane and breaking the laws of both God and Nature.  Christians are happy and merely want you to share the "good news".  Christians don't sue me because I won't take a Bible Tract, queers will and maybe even burn down your house if they lose the court case.

----------

garyo (05-04-2015),Old Ridge Runner (05-04-2015)

----------


## QuaseMarco

Correction: The poster is a young female.

----------

Taylor (05-04-2015)

----------


## Micketto

> Correction: The poster is a young female.


I hope so... or my fantasies have all been a giant lie  :Frown:

----------

DeadEye (05-04-2015),Taylor (05-04-2015)

----------


## patrickt

> Queers are insane and breaking the laws of both God and Nature.  Christians are happy and merely want you to share the "good news".  Christians don't sue me because I won't take a Bible Tract, queers will and maybe even burn down your house if they lose the court case.


Religious fanatics are insane and have no good news to share. They don't want to burn my house down but they do want me to burn in hell for eternity. They also told my 5-year old daughter I'd be going to hell. Why? They're mean spirited. 

I've never had a gay person ring my doorbell to proselytize for being gay. I never had a gay person lie to gain admittance to my house so they could preach. I'm old enough to remember businesses being forced to close on Sunday because being open offended Christians and then the hypocrites whine when Jews close their business on Saturday.

----------


## Micketto

> The examples in the OP are fantasies created to justify his own bad behavior.


I don't really think she was trying to justify anything, I really do see the same thing she does.

There are people, as you know, who will make comments about things being forced on them when they aren't.
The examples given in the OP are some of the things I've read from others.
There is a current thread here about a private school now allowing transgenders and someone said this is being "forced on America" or something.

There are certainly cases where one side or the other is shoving things in each others' faces... it's just that the OP didn't happen to list any, like you said.

I have a feeling the OP would agree about the baker/florist/photographer examples.
Just wish they would have included them in the first place.

----------


## Rutabaga

statiscally,,taylor has a much greater chance of being raped or killed by a black person than being harmed by a religious one...

funny how that works...

----------


## Micketto

> statiscally,,taylor has a much greater chance of being raped or killed by a black person than being harmed by a religious one...
> 
> funny how that works...


I'm religious... define "harmed"   :Wink:

----------


## Trinnity

Tay, it's just gross seeing two guys kissing in public.

----------

FirstGenCanadian (05-05-2015)

----------


## patrickt

> statiscally,,taylor has a much greater chance of being raped or killed by a black person than being harmed by a religious one...
> 
> funny how that works...


Statistically you're more likely to be murdered by a friend or a family member whether you're a Christian or not.

Statistically, you are far more likely to be raped or murdered by a person of your race than a person of another race whether they're Christians or not.

It isn't funny how that works. You're comment about blacks vs. Christians doesn't work at any level and totally ignores black Christians.

----------


## NaturalBorn

> Religious fanatics are insane and have no good news to share. They don't want to burn my house down but they do want me to burn in hell for eternity. They also told my 5-year old daughter I'd be going to hell. Why? They're mean spirited. 
> 
> I've never had a gay person ring my doorbell to proselytize for being gay. I never had a gay person lie to gain admittance to my house so they could preach. I'm old enough to remember businesses being forced to close on Sunday because being open offended Christians and then the hypocrites whine when Jews close their business on Saturday.



Christians do NOT want you to burn in Hell, that is why they rang your doorbell.

----------

Old Ridge Runner (05-04-2015)

----------


## NuYawka

Besides, there's no such thing as Hell anyway.

----------

sotmfs (05-04-2015)

----------


## Sheldonna

> Its not uncommon for people to bitch and complain that homosexuality is being shoved in their face, right? So like for example people think that by seeing two gay people walking down the street holding hands that they are is shoving gayness in peoples faces. That kissing in public is shoving gayness in peoples faces. That having a equality sticker on the back of their car is shoving gayness in peoples faces. That getting married in the field of view of other people is shoving gayness in other peoples faces. That flying a rainbow flag is shoving gayness into other peoples faces.
> 
> Tell me....if an equality sticker is shoving gayness in your face then is a jesus fish sticker shoving christianity into other peoples faces? If two gay people kiss on a public bench is shoving gayness in your face then when two straight do it is that also shoving straightness into other peoples face? If two gay people walking down the street is shoving gayness in your face then when straight people walk down the street holding hands is that not doing the same to others? If flying a rainbow flag is shoving gayness into your face then is flying a confederate flag or any other flag that carries a message shoving that in your face too?
> 
> How about this novel concept....none of it is shoving anything in your face, it's just freedom. Get over it.


Wrong, as usual.  You're batting 1,000, Tay.  The leftist morons re: their agenda IS shoving this crap in our faces daily and 24/7.  And all it's doing is turning us AGAINST that "cause" or agenda item.  Case in point:  I used to have a lot of gay friends back before they politicized their "gayness".  Emphasis on "used to".

----------

NuYawka (05-04-2015)

----------


## Sheldonna

> Besides, there's no such thing as Hell anyway.


Imagine your surprise......

----------

Old Ridge Runner (05-04-2015)

----------


## Katzndogz

Businesses were subject to blue laws and being closed on Subday was never because it offended Christians.    Christians aren't affected by what you do on Sunday.   Blue laws were to protect Christians right to attend church on Sunday.    It was also to make sure people had at least one day off.  

I have never seen any one whining that a Jewish business was closed on Saturday?  Do you whine because a Jewish business is closed on Saturday?   Have you ever seen a Jewish business closed on Saturday?  My neighborhood is all Jews.  We have a thriving little retail business district.   Nothing is closed on Saturday.   Every one of those businesses employ non Jews who are very happy to work Saturday.  The restaurants all advertise Shabbat meals.  

I see a profound amount of supposition going on.

----------

Old Ridge Runner (05-04-2015),Rutabaga (05-04-2015)

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> Besides, there's no such thing as Hell anyway.



You've never met my exwife.

----------

NaturalBorn (05-04-2015),NuYawka (05-04-2015),Old Ridge Runner (05-04-2015),Rutabaga (05-04-2015)

----------


## NaturalBorn

> Besides, there's no such thing as Hell anyway.



You hope.

----------


## NuYawka

> You've never met my exwife.


LOL, I stand corrected.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

Queers ain't normal.  And that is a fact.

Now, I know all of you candy asses are going to ask me what's normal and if you have to ask  that question then you ain't normal either.

----------

NuYawka (05-04-2015),Old Ridge Runner (05-04-2015)

----------


## NuYawka

> You hope.


No, I'm sure. 

Same thing with the Easter Bunny & Santa Claus.

----------


## Sheldonna

> No, I'm sure. 
> 
> Same thing with the Easter Bunny & Santa Claus.


Well, if it turns out that you're wrong about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, no pain/no gain.  But......

if you're wrong about the existence of Hell.....

you're pretty much screwed.  (lol)

----------

NuYawka (05-04-2015),Old Ridge Runner (05-04-2015)

----------


## NaturalBorn

> No, I'm sure. 
> 
> Same thing with the Easter Bunny & Santa Claus.


This is a lie.  I say that because you would need to look everywhere in the universe and beyond to verify your claim.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

As a famous movie once said "The devil's greatest victory is convincing people he does not exist"

----------

Old Ridge Runner (05-04-2015)

----------


## NuYawka

> This is a lie.  I say that because you would need to look everywhere in the universe and beyond to verify your claim.


Well, in all actuality, the North Pole is but only a few thousand miles from here in Hotlanta. I could cover that in a couple of weeks.

----------


## NaturalBorn

> Well, in all actuality, the North Pole is but only a few thousand miles from here in Hotlanta. I could cover that in a couple of weeks.



But once you got to the North Pole, you'd not know if Hell moved to Hotlanta.  So not only do you have to look everywhere, but you'd have to look everywhere all at once, and know what to look for, so you would have to know everything and that is the definition of God.  So you need to be omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent and that would make you god  and you can no longer than say God does not exist.

----------


## NuYawka

> But once you got to the North Pole, you'd not know if Hell moved to Hotlanta.  So not only do you have to look everywhere, but you'd have to look everywhere all at once, and know what to look for, so you would have to know everything and that is the definition of God.  So you need to be omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent and that would make you god  and you can no longer than say God does not exist.


Dammit. 

 :Angry:

----------


## NaturalBorn

> Dammit.



God doesn't talk like that.

----------

NuYawka (05-04-2015)

----------


## garyo

> Its not uncommon for people to bitch and complain that homosexuality is being shoved in their face, right? So like for example people think that by seeing two gay people walking down the street holding hands that they are is shoving gayness in peoples faces. That kissing in public is shoving gayness in peoples faces. That having a equality sticker on the back of their car is shoving gayness in peoples faces. That getting married in the field of view of other people is shoving gayness in other peoples faces. That flying a rainbow flag is shoving gayness into other peoples faces.
> 
> Tell me....if an equality sticker is shoving gayness in your face then is a jesus fish sticker shoving christianity into other peoples faces? If two gay people kiss on a public bench is shoving gayness in your face then when two straight do it is that also shoving straightness into other peoples face? If two gay people walking down the street is shoving gayness in your face then when straight people walk down the street holding hands is that not doing the same to others? If flying a rainbow flag is shoving gayness into your face then is flying a confederate flag or any other flag that carries a message shoving that in your face too?
> 
> How about this novel concept....none of it is shoving anything in your face, it's just freedom. Get over it.



Your entire posting is ludicrous, every point you make is of your opinion, completely subjective. I don't care if the Gays marry Billy Goats but when they force their way onto those that don't agree with them then they can go to Queer Hell, heterosexual's (normal people) are entitled to their freedom too.

----------

NuYawka (05-04-2015),Old Ridge Runner (05-04-2015),Sheldonna (05-05-2015)

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> meh it's just freedom. Parents indoctrinate their kids with all sorts of hate everyday across the country and the world but god forbid they are taught to accept people as equals.


It is up to the parents to teach their children when it comes to sexuality.  It is not up to some teacher who has an agenda to indoctrinate them into a life of perversion or to tolerate that which their parents have told the child is wrong.

----------


## NuYawka

> It is up to the parents to teach their children when it comes to sexuality.  It is not up to some teacher who has an agenda to indoctrinate them into a life of perversion or to tolerate that which their parents have told the child is wrong.


And if the parents are perverted......

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> And if the parents are perverted......


It is still the parents choice, not some teacher with an agenda.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> But once you got to the North Pole, you'd not know if Hell moved to Hotlanta.  So not only do you have to look everywhere, but you'd have to look everywhere all at once, and know what to look for, so you would have to know everything and that is the definition of God.  So you need to be omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent and that would make you god  and you can no longer than say God does not exist.



You mean that if you know everything that makes you God?  Are you telling me my ex wife really was God????

----------

NuYawka (05-04-2015)

----------


## NuYawka

> It is still the parents choice, not some teacher with an agenda.


I agree 100%.
I'm just saying that if the parents are perverted as well, then the child will almost certainly be messed up for life.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

You know that is another issue.  It is impossible for both partners in a same sex relationship to have genetic ties to the child.  One only partner is ever the parent (and maybe neither would be).  I suppose we will create a new culture to account for this, queer women having babies for queer men and queer men impregnating queer women.

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> I agree 100%.
> I'm just saying that if the parents are perverted as well, then the child will almost certainly be messed up for life.


We see quite a bit of that today.  Even here in these hills it is not angelic.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> I agree 100%.
> I'm just saying that if the parents are perverted as well, then the child will almost certainly be messed up for life.



I only know one person who was raised in a same sex household.  He is as screwed up as they come.  Even if he finds having sex with a male abhorrent how do you carry that over to your parents?  The truth is I believe many of them become bisexual.  But as Woody Allen once said, that doubles your chances of a date on Friday night doesn't it.

----------


## Micketto

> Your entire posting is ludicrous, every point you make is of your opinion, completely subjective. I don't care if the Gays marry Billy Goats but when they force their way onto those that don't agree with them then they can go to Queer Hell, heterosexual's (normal people) are entitled to their freedom too.


We have all seen posts from people who claim a simple bumper sticker, or rainbow flag is "shoving homosexuality in our faces".
A lot of them here.. but elsewhere too.

The examples Tay presented are a good example of them.  

I find it just as ridiculous when someone says "Jesus loves you" and they are accused of "shoving religion down my throat!".
It happens.

I don't think Tay was saying gays and Christians don't ever shove things in peoples' faces.... I just think she was trying to say there are a lot of ridiculous examples where that accusation is used... but falls flat.

Not speaking for her, but based on how I read the OP... it seems silly for people to get angry at her.

----------

Taylor (05-04-2015)

----------


## NuYawka

> We have all seen posts from people who claim a simple bumper sticker, or rainbow flag is "shoving homosexuality in our faces".
> A lot of them here.. but elsewhere too.
> 
> The examples Tay presented are a good example of them.  
> 
> I find it just as ridiculous when someone says "Jesus loves you" and they are accused of "shoving religion down my throat!".
> It happens.
> 
> I don't think Tay was saying gays and Christians don't ever shove things in peoples' faces.... I just think she was trying to say there are a lot of ridiculous examples where that accusation is used... but falls flat.
> ...


Lol, you just wanna play with her kitty-kat.

----------

Rutabaga (05-04-2015)

----------


## sooda

> I only know one person who was raised in a same sex household.  He is as screwed up as they come.  Even if he finds having sex with a male abhorrent how do you carry that over to your parents?  The truth is I believe many of them become bisexual.  But as Woody Allen once said, that doubles your chances of a date on Friday night doesn't it.


Many men raised in traditional households are control freaks or lousy in bed... so its pretty silly to make sweeping statements. IMO.

----------


## Micketto

> Many men raised in traditional households are control freaks or lousy in bed



I think you meant to post this in the "least favorite part about being gay" thread.

----------


## reason10

> Its not uncommon for people to bitch and complain that homosexuality is being shoved in their face, right? So like for example people think that by seeing two gay people walking down the street holding hands that they are is shoving gayness in peoples faces. That kissing in public is shoving gayness in peoples faces. That having a equality sticker on the back of their car is shoving gayness in peoples faces. That getting married in the field of view of other people is shoving gayness in other peoples faces. That flying a rainbow flag is shoving gayness into other peoples faces.
> 
> Tell me....if an equality sticker is shoving gayness in your face then is a jesus fish sticker shoving christianity into other peoples faces? If two gay people kiss on a public bench is shoving gayness in your face then when two straight do it is that also shoving straightness into other peoples face? If two gay people walking down the street is shoving gayness in your face then when straight people walk down the street holding hands is that not doing the same to others? If flying a rainbow flag is shoving gayness into your face then is flying a confederate flag or any other flag that carries a message shoving that in your face too?
> 
> How about this novel concept....none of it is shoving anything in your face, it's just freedom. Get over it.


Homosexuality is an abomination. It is sick and perverted. It is a disease. And most of the Earth's religion condemn it. 
Here's an idea: You wanna pork another guy? Fine. Keep it behind closed doors where decent people don't have to watch.

----------

Old Ridge Runner (05-05-2015)

----------


## Micketto

> Homosexuality is an abomination. It is sick and perverted. It is a disease.


Actually it's just sin... like premarital sex, etc.

Which is why:




> And most of the Earth's religion condemn it.



But I have a question....




> Here's an idea: You wanna pork another guy? Fine. Keep it behind closed doors where decent people don't have to watch.


How often have you had to watch two men having sex ?!

----------


## NaturalBorn

> And if the parents are perverted......


That is not for YOU to decide.  The kids are their kids.

----------

patrickt (05-04-2015)

----------


## garyo

> We have all seen posts from people who claim a simple bumper sticker, or rainbow flag is "shoving homosexuality in our faces".
> A lot of them here.. but elsewhere too.
> 
> The examples Tay presented are a good example of them.  
> 
> I find it just as ridiculous when someone says "Jesus loves you" and they are accused of "shoving religion down my throat!".
> It happens.
> 
> I don't think Tay was saying gays and Christians don't ever shove things in peoples' faces.... I just think she was trying to say there are a lot of ridiculous examples where that accusation is used... but falls flat.
> ...


I'm not a bit angry with her, just expressing my opinion, and you are perfectly welcome to express yours anytime to me, I like your Avatar.

----------


## Corruptbuddha

> meh it's just freedom. Parents indoctrinate their kids with all sorts of hate everyday across the country and the world but god forbid they are taught to accept people as equals.



Let me give you an example.  While sitting in a park with my grandson, I saw two gay guys kiss.  I looked away with a 'blech' and they got all pissed off.  Now, understand, the 'blech' was basically a visceral reaction to seeing something gross.  Like when you see a dead thing on the side of the road.  I could no more control it than one can control a yawn as it was a reaction from my gut.  Anyway...these two gays followed me and my grandson out of the park all the way to my truck yelling and screaming that I was 'raising him to hate' and that I was a bigot.

I never wanted to punch two people more that these two idiots.

Visceral reactions are just that VISCERAL.

----------

NaturalBorn (05-04-2015),Old Ridge Runner (05-05-2015)

----------


## Rutabaga

> I'm religious... define "harmed"


using a dull butterknife to remove the head from the torso..

----------


## Rutabaga

> Statistically you're more likely to be murdered by a friend or a family member whether you're a Christian or not.
> 
> Statistically, you are far more likely to be raped or murdered by a person of your race than a person of another race whether they're Christians or not.
> 
> It isn't funny how that works. You're comment about blacks vs. Christians doesn't work at any level and totally ignores black Christians.




statisticall black men rape white women far more than white men rape black women...its plausible some of the black rapists identify as christian...ergo my post.

----------


## Rutabaga

> Many men raised in traditional households are control freaks *or lousy in bed...* so its pretty silly to make sweeping statements. IMO.



you must be an expert..

----------

NaturalBorn (05-04-2015),Old Ridge Runner (05-05-2015)

----------


## Rutabaga

> Let me give you an example.  While sitting in a park with my grandson, I saw two gay guys kiss.  I looked away with a 'blech' and they got all pissed off.  Now, understand, the 'blech' was basically a visceral reaction to seeing something gross.  Like when you see a dead thing on the side of the road.  I could no more control it than one can control a yawn as it was a reaction from my gut.  Anyway...these two gays followed me and my grandson out of the park all the way to my truck yelling and screaming that I was 'raising him to hate' and that I was a bigot.
> 
> *I never wanted to punch two people more that these two idiots.
> *
> Visceral reactions are just that VISCERAL.


you should have challenged them to a duel...

back to back,,,on 3 turn and start slapping... :Headbang:

----------


## East of the Beast

> you must be an expert..


she specializes in horizontal refreshment

----------


## sooda

> you must be an expert..


You mean that you didn't know that women talk?

----------


## Daily Bread

Gay men have to start somewhere  ! Is that "somewhere" as a pedophile ? . That's what's *WRONG* buddy !

----------


## Katzndogz

> I only know one person who was raised in a same sex household.  He is as screwed up as they come.  Even if he finds having sex with a male abhorrent how do you carry that over to your parents?  The truth is I believe many of them become bisexual.  But as Woody Allen once said, that doubles your chances of a date on Friday night doesn't it.


I know several people who have been raised in same sex families.  I watched them grow up in these families.   They have the same kind of dysfunctions as those raised in single parent households.  They have difficulties relating to those of the opposite sex of the parent or parents.  For instance a man raised in a two parent male household is never going to begin to understand a woman's relationship with her own mother.

----------


## Rickity Plumber

I do not have a problem with stickers, holding hands and other LIGHT forms of affection. I have a problem with gays acting GAY! You know, speech alterations, walking like a gay dude with a plug up somewhere, walking, talking, and acting all gay like. 

THAT is in my face and I am sick of it. I do not flaunt my sexuality anywhere in public even though I love looking at fine looking women.

Sorry if you do not like my attitude with this but I am tired of being politically correct and frankly, I am done with it. Don't like my PC? Too bad for ya.

----------

East of the Beast (05-04-2015),NuYawka (05-04-2015)

----------


## Micketto

> I'm not a bit angry with her, just expressing my opinion, and you are perfectly welcome to express yours anytime to me, I like your Avatar.


Ok, my bad.  You seemed a bit perturbed, I just read it wrong.
There is some old lady here that seems to tell her off every time she starts a thread.

As for my avatar... I am in love with it.

----------

Taylor (05-04-2015)

----------


## Micketto

> using a dull butterknife to remove the head from the torso..


Oh... I was going in a _totally_ different direction....

----------


## patrickt

> Christians do NOT want you to burn in Hell, that is why they rang your doorbell.


They are desperate to have me burn in hell because it justifies their belief. They ring my doorbell to pester me for their own benefit.

----------


## patrickt

> Businesses were subject to blue laws and being closed on Subday was never because it offended Christians.    Christians aren't affected by what you do on Sunday.   Blue laws were to protect Christians right to attend church on Sunday.    It was also to make sure people had at least one day off.  
> 
> I have never seen any one whining that a Jewish business was closed on Saturday?  Do you whine because a Jewish business is closed on Saturday?   Have you ever seen a Jewish business closed on Saturday?  My neighborhood is all Jews.  We have a thriving little retail business district.   Nothing is closed on Saturday.   Every one of those businesses employ non Jews who are very happy to work Saturday.  The restaurants all advertise Shabbat meals.  
> 
> I see a profound amount of supposition going on.


I see a profound amount of supposition going on. B&H Photo closes for Saturday and for the High Holy days and the bitching on their website is amazing.

And, ordering all businesses to close so Christians can go to church makes sense to you. Does it make sense, to you, that police officers and firemen and ambulance personnel and doctors and nurses get Sunday off if they're Christians.

----------


## NaturalBorn

> They are desperate to have me burn in hell because it justifies their belief. They ring my doorbell to pester me for their own benefit.



You obvioously slammed the door in their face before you heard or understood what they had to say.

----------


## Dan40

> Its not uncommon for people to bitch and complain that homosexuality is being shoved in their face, right? So like for example people think that by seeing two gay people walking down the street holding hands that they are is shoving gayness in peoples faces. That kissing in public is shoving gayness in peoples faces. That having a equality sticker on the back of their car is shoving gayness in peoples faces. That getting married in the field of view of other people is shoving gayness in other peoples faces. That flying a rainbow flag is shoving gayness into other peoples faces.
> 
> Tell me....if an equality sticker is shoving gayness in your face then is a jesus fish sticker shoving christianity into other peoples faces? If two gay people kiss on a public bench is shoving gayness in your face then when two straight do it is that also shoving straightness into other peoples face? If two gay people walking down the street is shoving gayness in your face then when straight people walk down the street holding hands is that not doing the same to others? If flying a rainbow flag is shoving gayness into your face then is flying a confederate flag or any other flag that carries a message shoving that in your face too?
> 
> How about this novel concept....none of it is shoving anything in your face, it's just freedom. Get over it.



Would you say that a <<REMOVED>> starting a thread promoting her abnormality is "in your face?"

----------


## Taylor

> Would you say that a <<REMOVED>> starting a thread promoting her abnormality is "in your face?"


No I wouldn't, and FYI im actually in a "normal" relationship with a guy at the moment so you should be happy, you know, since other peoples relationships affect you personally and all.

----------


## Taylor

> We have all seen posts from people who claim a simple bumper sticker, or rainbow flag is "shoving homosexuality in our faces".
> A lot of them here.. but elsewhere too.
> 
> The examples Tay presented are a good example of them.  
> 
> I find it just as ridiculous when someone says "Jesus loves you" and they are accused of "shoving religion down my throat!".
> It happens.
> 
> I don't think Tay was saying gays and Christians don't ever shove things in peoples' faces.... I just think she was trying to say there are a lot of ridiculous examples where that accusation is used... but falls flat.
> ...


Look at that, a person who actually reads! Thanks  :Smile:

----------


## Rutabaga

> Oh... I was going in a _totally_ different direction....



you got a different idea of being "harmed"?

what do you prefer?

----------


## Katzndogz

> Many men raised in traditional households are control freaks or lousy in bed... so its pretty silly to make sweeping statements. IMO.


I am so glad that you finally came out as someone with first hand experience who knows what many men do in bed.   You finally can impart the benefit of your experience with these many men.

----------


## FirstGenCanadian

> Its not uncommon for people to bitch and complain that homosexuality is being shoved in their face, right? So like for example people think that by seeing two gay people walking down the street holding hands that they are is shoving gayness in peoples faces. That kissing in public is shoving gayness in peoples faces. That having a equality sticker on the back of their car is shoving gayness in peoples faces. That getting married in the field of view of other people is shoving gayness in other peoples faces. That flying a rainbow flag is shoving gayness into other peoples faces.
> 
> Tell me....if an equality sticker is shoving gayness in your face then is a jesus fish sticker shoving christianity into other peoples faces? If two gay people kiss on a public bench is shoving gayness in your face then when two straight do it is that also shoving straightness into other peoples face? If two gay people walking down the street is shoving gayness in your face then when straight people walk down the street holding hands is that not doing the same to others? If flying a rainbow flag is shoving gayness into your face then is flying a confederate flag or any other flag that carries a message shoving that in your face too?
> 
> How about this novel concept....none of it is shoving anything in your face, it's just freedom. Get over it.


You know, for a society that is so paranoid about the Government invading their privacy, why would they want their bedroom escapades on the evening news?

In respect for the OP, I don't care who/what you bring home at night.  It's none of my business, nor a topic I am likely to bring up.  Whether you're homo/hetero/trans/bi-sexual.  Personally, I don't bring up my sex life, for the very reason that it's no ones business (save the person I am with, and the angry neighbours who like to complain about the noise).




> No I wouldn't, and FYI im actually in a "normal" relationship with a guy at the moment so you should be happy, you know, since other peoples relationships affect you personally and all.


Are you really believing the rhetoric you spouted in the OP?  
With that post, you killed your own convictions.  Highlighted area says it all.  Say what it is.  Either you believe all sexual preferences are "Normal", in which case you should be stating that you are in a Heterosexual relationship.  Otherwise you believe Normal is Heterosexual, and the others are aberrant.

----------

NuYawka (05-05-2015),Rutabaga (05-05-2015)

----------


## Micketto

> Are you really believing the rhetoric you spouted in the OP?  
> With that post, you killed your own convictions.  Highlighted area says it all.  Say what it is.  Either you believe all sexual preferences are "Normal", in which case you should be stating that you are in a Heterosexual relationship.  Otherwise you believe Normal is Heterosexual, and the others are aberrant.


She was being sarcastic.  Saying she was in a "normal" relationship, so people here could rest easy... and exhale.

----------

Taylor (05-05-2015)

----------


## sooda

> I am so glad that you finally came out as someone with first hand experience who knows what many men do in bed.   You finally can impart the benefit of your experience with these many men.


Women do talk ... ...

----------


## Micketto

> I see a profound amount of supposition going on. B&H Photo closes for Saturday and for the High Holy days and the bitching on their website is amazing.


As a photographer, I happen to be very familiar with B&H (the company more than the web site).  But  I have never seen a forum on their web site.   It may be there... but where ?  
Where exactly are you reading all this "bitching" ?





> Does it make sense, to you, that police officers and firemen and ambulance personnel and doctors and nurses get Sunday off if they're Christians.


Those aren't businesses, and... Christians who work within those professions, who want Sundays off, either have it arranged in their schedules or don't really care if they get Sundays off.

Hospitals and fire stations don't close down if some Christians have the day off.

----------


## Libhater

> Its not uncommon for people to bitch and complain that homosexuality is being shoved in their face, right? So like for example people think that by seeing two gay people walking down the street holding hands that they are is shoving gayness in peoples faces. That kissing in public is shoving gayness in peoples faces. That having a equality sticker on the back of their car is shoving gayness in peoples faces. That getting married in the field of view of other people is shoving gayness in other peoples faces. That flying a rainbow flag is shoving gayness into other peoples faces.
> 
> Tell me....if an equality sticker is shoving gayness in your face then is a jesus fish sticker shoving christianity into other peoples faces? If two gay people kiss on a public bench is shoving gayness in your face then when two straight do it is that also shoving straightness into other peoples face? If two gay people walking down the street is shoving gayness in your face then when straight people walk down the street holding hands is that not doing the same to others? If flying a rainbow flag is shoving gayness into your face then is flying a confederate flag or any other flag that carries a message shoving that in your face too?
> 
> How about this novel concept....none of it is shoving anything in your face, it's just freedom. Get over it.


Is your username Tay or Gay? I just love how these abnormal alternative lifestyles become such pressing issues these days as the rest of the world is literally falling apart at the seams.

----------


## Micketto

> Is your username Tay or Gay?


T A Y spells Tay.

You're welcome.

----------

Taylor (05-05-2015)

----------


## Taylor

> You know, for a society that is so paranoid about the Government invading their privacy, why would they want their bedroom escapades on the evening news?
> 
> In respect for the OP, I don't care who/what you bring home at night.  It's none of my business, nor a topic I am likely to bring up.  Whether you're homo/hetero/trans/bi-sexual.  Personally, I don't bring up my sex life, for the very reason that it's no ones business (save the person I am with, and the angry neighbours who like to complain about the noise).
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really believing the rhetoric you spouted in the OP?  
> With that post, you killed your own convictions.  Highlighted area says it all.  Say what it is.  Either you believe all sexual preferences are "Normal", in which case you should be stating that you are in a Heterosexual relationship.  Otherwise you believe Normal is Heterosexual, and the others are aberrant.


Uh yeah, the "normal" was sarcasm which is why it was in quotations.

----------


## Taylor

> Is your username Tay or Gay? I just love how these abnormal alternative lifestyles become such pressing issues these days as the rest of the world is literally falling apart at the seams.


If it's not a pressing issue for people such as yourself why do you go out of your way to suppress the lifestyle? I've read nonsense from so many people on here talking about gay people will pretty much ruin society and so it seems pretty important to you all.

----------


## NuYawka

> If it's not a pressing issue for people such as yourself why do you go out of your way to suppress the lifestyle? I've read nonsense from so many people on here talking about gay people will pretty much ruin society and so it seems pretty important to you all.


YOU're the one that always brings this up. Then you await our expected responses and then complain about them. 


Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

----------


## Taylor

> YOU're the one that always brings this up. Then you await our expected responses and then complain about them. 
> 
> 
> Wash. Rinse. Repeat.


oh oh yeah that's what I do. Because you guys need ME to create these topic for you to bitch and moan about LGBT day in and day out here. Can you answer the questions in my first post?

----------

Micketto (05-05-2015)

----------


## NaturalBorn

Are you concerned that people who engage in homosexual activities have statistically shorter lifespans due to disease, homicide and suicide?  Are you concerned that child molestations are often (mostly) perpetrated by perverts who prefer homosexual sex with children? Are you concerned that the gub'mint is taking away people's rights by forcing them to abide by the wishes of a minority?  What if that minority was a group that YOU disagree with forcing their agenda on majority groups to which you belong?

----------

NuYawka (05-05-2015)

----------


## Micketto

> Are you concerned that people who engage in homosexual activities have statistically shorter lifespans due to disease, homicide and suicide?  Are you concerned that child molestations are often (mostly) perpetrated by perverts who prefer homosexual sex with children? Are you concerned that the gub'mint is taking away people's rights by forcing them to abide by the wishes of a minority?  What if that minority was a group that YOU disagree with forcing their agenda on majority groups to which you belong?


So here's the issue with all that...

A non-Christian, homosexual, who happens to be in love... would realize they (like heteros) just have to try and avoid disease and not kill anyone, including themselves.  I don't think there are homosexuals who are not "concerned" about child molestation, nor do I think homosexuals see your rights being taken away just because they want the same ones.

I'm not even arguing against you, but if you looked at it from their point of view... none of that stuff is what some people say it is.

My issues come when they start affecting businesses.
But turning these examples you've given into some sort of affront against you and others.... is exactly what the OP is talking about.

----------


## NaturalBorn

> So here's the issue with all that...
> 
> A non-Christian, homosexual, who happens to be in love... would realize they (like heteros) just have to try and avoid disease and not kill anyone, including themselves.  I don't think there are homosexuals who are not "concerned" about child molestation, nor do I think homosexuals see your rights being taken away just because they want the same ones.
> 
> I'm not even arguing against you, but if you looked at it from their point of view... none of that stuff is what some people say it is.
> 
> My issues come when they start affecting businesses.
> But turning these examples you've given into some sort of affront against you and others.... is exactly what the OP is talking about.



My first post on this thread was about what I find is the "in your face" crap foisted on the mostly Christian, mostly traditional Americans.

The lifespan of people who engage in homo sex is significantly shorter for both males and females.  That is a shame and the NIH should develop Public Service Announcements warning people of this deadly practice.

As far as rights, I see NO abridgement of rights for any minority group of individuals in this country.  Of course there are instances of individuals  abusing another person's civil rights, but that is rare when considered against the norm.

----------


## Micketto

> My first post on this thread was about what I find is the "in your face" crap foisted on the mostly Christian, mostly traditional Americans.


Ok, I read your first post. The one mentioning indoctrination.  
I understand the school reference.  And yes I know it certainly happens.  
But TV shows and parades are just viewable entities... I don't see them as "indoctrination".
Annoying? sure.





> The lifespan of people who engage in homo sex is significantly shorter for both males and females.


If someone showed me that a new study proves that heterosexual sex with a female will shorten my life.... I wouldn't change a thing.
A shorter life just isn't an issue.





> As far as rights, I see NO abridgement of rights for any minority group of individuals in this country.  Of course there are instances of individuals  abusing another person's civil rights, but that is rare when considered against the norm.


But, from their point of view, they don't have the 'right' to marry their same gender (in every state).

I honestly don't care if they ever get that right or not... but you have to look at things from the other side's POV if you want to make an effective argument.

That's really all I'm trying to express.

----------


## NaturalBorn

> Ok, I read your first post. The one mentioning indoctrination.  
> I understand the school reference.  And yes I know it certainly happens.  
> But TV shows and parades are just viewable entities... I don't see them as "indoctrination".
> Annoying? sure.


If you do not consider the TV, movies, etc. to be indoctrination then explain why Madison Avenue spends 100's of billions of dollars in advertisements?




> If someone showed me that a new study proves that heterosexual sex with a female will shorten my life.... I wouldn't change a thing.
> A shorter life just isn't an issue.


The NIH already broadcasts and prints PSAs on tobacco use, excessive drinking, drug abuse for some reason.




> But, from their point of view, they don't have the 'right' to marry their same gender (in every state).
> 
> I honestly don't care if they ever get that right or not... but you have to look at things from the other side's POV if you want to make an effective argument.
> 
> That's really all I'm trying to express.


No, I do not have to look at anything from someone else's POV.  Do you believe they have to look at my POV and comply?  Marriage has never been between same sex couples.  Changing the definition of a legal and religious term to shoehorn their aberrant sex practices into normal civil society is absurd and an AFFRONT.

----------

Rutabaga (05-05-2015)

----------


## Micketto

> If you do not consider the TV, movies, etc. to be indoctrination then explain why Madison Avenue spends 100's of billions of dollars in advertisements?


Because of the definition of the word.
If you choose to watch a parade with gay people in it, that is different than being taught to accept them.





> The NIH already broadcasts and prints PSAs on tobacco use, excessive drinking, drug abuse for some reason.


Would you stop having sex if the NIH said celibacy prolongs life ?
No one cares about lifespan.  So that's a poor argument.





> No, I do not have to look at anything from someone else's POV.  Do you believe they have to look at my POV and comply?


You didn't read the entire sentence.  I said _"if you want to make an effective argument"_.
If you don't care to, that's fine... don't look at it from their POV.
But that leaves you as part of the problem the OP pointed out in the first place.

----------


## NaturalBorn

> Because of the definition of the word.
> If you choose to watch a parade with gay people in it, that is different than being taught to accept them.


Parades are on public streets and not secluded away from children.  Public obscenity is a criminal offense.  





> Would you stop having sex if the NIH said celibacy prolongs life ?
> No one cares about lifespan.  So that's a poor argument.


Strawman argument.  There is no such NIH report, but the medical stats confirm early death from homo sex.




> You didn't read the entire sentence.  I said _"if you want to make an effective argument"_.
> If you don't care to, that's fine... don't look at it from their POV.
> But that leaves you as part of the problem the OP pointed out in the first place.


How do I become the problem when the issue is about individuals demanding special treatment?

----------


## Rutabaga

> You mean that you didn't know that women talk?


not with a full mouth.

----------


## Sheldonna

> You know, for a society that is so paranoid about the Government invading their privacy, why would they want their bedroom escapades on the evening news?
> 
> In respect for the OP, I don't care who/what you bring home at night.  It's none of my business, nor a topic I am likely to bring up.  Whether you're homo/hetero/trans/bi-sexual.  Personally, I don't bring up my sex life, for the very reason that it's no ones business (save the person I am with, and the angry neighbours who like to complain about the noise).
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really believing the rhetoric you spouted in the OP?  
> With that post, you killed your own convictions.  Highlighted area says it all.  Say what it is.  Either you believe all sexual preferences are "Normal", in which case you should be stating that you are in a Heterosexual relationship.  Otherwise you believe Normal is Heterosexual, and the others are aberrant.


Logic escapes lefties.

----------


## Rutabaga

> She was being sarcastic.  Saying she was in a "normal" relationship, so people here could rest easy... and exhale.


are you tays mother?

i ask because you seem to speak for her,,,and thats ok,,id just like to know the relationship...

----------

NuYawka (05-05-2015)

----------


## Katzndogz

As Tay has already said she was a lesbian wouldn't that normal relationship be with a woman.   Ordinarily I don't gossip about others.  This is just a clarification.

----------


## Dan40

> No I wouldn't, and FYI im actually in a "normal" relationship with a guy at the moment so you should be happy, you know, since other peoples relationships affect you personally and all.


A switch hitter.  Unable to decide your sexuality is also abnormal.

----------


## Rutabaga

> T A Y spells Tay.
> 
> You're welcome.


soooo,,interesting,,,now you actually reply to posts to taylor...

dont you see how some might confuse you with a sock?

who am i replying to, micketto or tay?

does it make a difference?

----------

NuYawka (05-05-2015)

----------


## Micketto

> Parades are on public streets and not secluded away from children.


Stop attending them.
I agree they are juvenile, disgusting, against my beliefs and blatantly sexual.... so I don't go.
Thus... no "indoctrination".





> Strawman argument.  There is no such NIH report, but the medical stats confirm early death from homo sex.


Was neither a strawman nor an argument.  It was a simple question.
No one cares about your lifespan argument... the same way you wouldn't.
Get it?





> How do I become the problem when the issue is about individuals demanding special treatment?


The issue is about people becoming dramatic in their claims about homosexuality being forced upon them in cases where it's not.
The "shoved in your face" topic that the thread is about.

----------


## Taylor

> As Tay has already said she was a lesbian wouldn't that normal relationship be with a woman.   Ordinarily I don't gossip about others.  This is just a clarification.


No actually I said that I am attracted to both and have had boyfriends and girlfriends.

----------


## Taylor

> A switch hitter.  Unable to decide your sexuality is also abnormal.


My sexuality is that I am a girl that can be attracted to both guys and other girls. I can't help it if I see an attractive guy and watch him as he walks by or the same for an attractive girl. In most cases it's the best of both worlds. If I ever end up in a long term relationship then i'll cross that bridge when the time comes, but as for now i'm digging my current boyfriend but i'm still good friends with the girl I was with for a while, mainly when I first joined this site for a time perspective. I have no issues with it either way, it's my love life and it doesn't affect anybody else.

----------


## Taylor

> Logic escapes lefties.


again, it was just sarcasm when I put "normal in quotation marks.

----------


## Micketto

> soooo,,interesting,,,now you actually reply to posts to taylor...


I was helping someone spell someone else's username.  
Seemed obvious to me.... not to everyone I guess.
Have you never responded to someone when they were asking a question of another ?





> dont you see how some might confuse you with a sock?


Sure, based on the age of most of the people in this thread, I can certainly understand the propensity toward confusion.


Are you angry that someone dares point out the stupidity behind a bunch of old people picking on a 20 year old girl just because she believes differently?

Rhetorical, of course... I don't really give a fk.

----------


## Rutabaga

> If it's not a pressing issue for people such as yourself why do you go out of your way to suppress the lifestyle? I've read nonsense from so many people on here talking about gay people will pretty much ruin society and so it seems *pretty important to you all.*


*


*im part of "all" and have expressed nothing about gay lifestyle...

i remain as always on the subject blissfully ambivalent and can state in no uncertain terms i am as interested in gay lifestyles as gays are interested in mine...

that being said...there have always been homosexuals and there always will be,,best to accept that as just another biological fact...

i take no "pride" in being hetero...its not a choice,,i dont think being gay is a choice either, thus theres nothing to be "proud" of...

false pride leads to discontent...be proud of your accomplishments/success...sexual identity is nothing to be proud of, nor imo. ashamed...

im neither proud nor ashamed of any of the daily physiological fuctions i perform...one can tolerate but not embrace the gay lifestyle...as it should be.

----------


## Micketto

> again, it was just sarcasm when I put "normal in quotation marks.


They don't care what the truth is.

Old bitties are bitties.

----------


## HoneyBee

I am confused now. Old people cannot disagree with the young? It's a new day in Jericho.

----------


## Micketto

> I am confused now. Old people cannot disagree with the young? It's a new day in Jericho.


Of course they can, and always will.  No one is saying otherwise.   
Apparently the young is not allowed to defend another young's position... amongst a group of old people trying their best to pick her apart.   :Wink: 

To the point that some idiot tried to imply that I am both people.

----------


## Rutabaga

> I was helping someone spell someone else's username.  
> Seemed obvious to me.... not to everyone I guess.
> Have you never responded to someone when they were asking a question of another ?
> 
> 
> you seem angry that i questioned you,,,why is that?
> 
> personally,,i hate it when some dipshit tries to speak for me...like they know better what im thinking than i do...
> 
> ...

----------


## Rutabaga

> Of course they can, and always will.  No one is saying otherwise.   
> Apparently the young is not allowed to defend another young's position... amongst a group of old people trying their best to pick her apart.  
> 
> *To the point that some idiot tried to imply that I am both people.*


*
*


so* thats* what has your panties all in a bunch...

you said you were "helping" someone spell "tay"...

*really?
*
i dont think so,,i think you were being snarky...

i like snarky...i *really* like snark, because im good at it, and at times it needs to be done...

if snark is what you want,,i'll be your huckelberry... :Headbang:

----------


## Libhater

> If it's not a pressing issue for people such as yourself why do you go out of your way to suppress the lifestyle? I've read nonsense from so many people on here talking about gay people will pretty much ruin society and so it seems pretty important to you all.


Where do you see me going out of my way to suppress this alternative lifestyle? Can't say that the queer lifestyle of you dykes on bikes is necessarily ruining our society, but I can say for sure that nothing positive from your lifestyle can be attributed to natural family cohesion, to morality, to flaunting your gayness out in public in front of impressionable children, or in taking up so much time trying to gain the media spotlight for your fear of being oppressed. Methinks you're trying to take the limelight away from our dear oppressed inner city blacks as they seek societal reparations from our government.

Here is my top 3 list of societal losers:

1.   Black racists or black race baiters.... e.g. Barack Hussein Obama, Al Sharpton, Eric Holder

2.   Feminazis.... Insecure ugly queer women who seek the spotlight out of fear of total rejection by the public and by heterosexual men...e.g. the (NAG) 
      National Association Gals gang led by Rosie O'Donnell  

3.   White liberal men who contemplate getting a sex change so as to help balance out that inner woman in them that has a yearning to address political
      issues and problems in a more level headed manner during their monthly menstrual cycle when they're at the top of their game.

----------

Dan40 (05-05-2015)

----------


## reason10

> How often have you had to watch two men having sex ?!


If it's all the same to you, I'd like to finish up my limited trips around the sun without seeing that, ever. I'd like to also finish them up without seeing a pedophile in action. I'd like to not see someone shooting a healthy horse. I'd like not to see and elephant taking a shit in the jungle. I'd like to not see manatees fucking.

You know. The basics.

----------


## reason10

> Where do you see me going out of my way to suppress this alternative lifestyle? Can't say that the queer lifestyle of you dykes on bikes is necessarily ruining our society, but I can say for sure that nothing positive from your lifestyle can be attributed to natural family cohesion, to morality, to flaunting your gayness out in public in front of impressionable children, or in taking up so much time trying to gain the media spotlight for your fear of being oppressed. Methinks you're trying to take the limelight away from our dear oppressed inner city blacks as they seek societal reparations from our government.
> 
> Here is my top 3 list of societal losers:
> 
> 1.   Black racists or black race baiters.... e.g. Barack Hussein Obama, Al Sharpton, Eric Holder
> 
> 2.   Feminazis.... Insecure ugly queer women who seek the spotlight out of fear of total rejection by the public and by heterosexual men...e.g. the (NAG) 
>       National Association Gals gang led by Rosie O'Donnell  
> 
> ...


You pretty much have it right. I couldn't add a single thing. And that NEVER happens.

----------


## Micketto

> If it's all the same to you, I'd like to finish up my limited trips around the sun without seeing that, ever. .


That's fine with me.   I don't blame you and I don't plan on ever seeing it either.

It's just when you said:




> Here's an idea: You wanna pork another guy? Fine. Keep it behind closed doors where decent people don't have to watch.


I couldn't help but wonder why anyone would ever "have to" watch.

----------


## NaturalBorn

> Stop attending them.
> I agree they are juvenile, disgusting, against my beliefs and blatantly sexual.... so I don't go.
> Thus... no "indoctrination".


They are PUBLIC streets and travelling on public streets, with no intention of watching the parade is not a guarantee onew will not be exposed to that perversion.




> Was neither a strawman nor an argument.  It was a simple question.
> No one cares about your lifespan argument... the same way you wouldn't.
> Get it?


As I stated, tobacco usage and other health risks are regularly advertised/warned against.  Same thing here.




> The issue is about people becoming dramatic in their claims about homosexuality being forced upon them in cases where it's not.
> The "shoved in your face" topic that the thread is about.


You may be too young to remember back when the pervs would scream, "What happens in my bedroom is my business, only."  I agree.  Keep it in your bedroom and out of my living room, off my streets and out of my grandkids' classrooms.


We should be able to agree on that.

----------

FirstGenCanadian (05-05-2015),GreenEyedLady (05-06-2015)

----------


## Sheldonna

> again, it was just sarcasm when I put "normal in quotation marks.


Odd, then.....that you neither recognize nor apparently appreciate sarcasm coming from others here.

----------

FirstGenCanadian (05-05-2015),Rutabaga (05-05-2015)

----------


## Rutabaga

> They are PUBLIC streets and travelling on public streets, with no intention of watching the parade is not a guarantee onew will not be exposed to that perversion.
> 
> 
> 
> As I stated, tobacco usage and other health risks are regularly advertised/warned against.  Same thing here.
> 
> 
> 
> You may be too young to remember back when the pervs would scream, "What happens in my bedroom is my business, only."  I agree.  Keep it in your bedroom and out of my living room, off my streets and out of my grandkids' classrooms.
> ...




i bet neither has been to a gay pride parade or the gay holloween parade in SF...


i think it would be a real "eyeopener" to them...

i find these facinating,,,im always struck by how little self-respect they display..

i wouldnt change it...but someday,,they will themselves...

----------


## NaturalBorn

> i bet neither has been to a gay pride parade or the gay holloween parade in SF...
> 
> 
> i think it would be a real "eyeopener" to them...
> 
> i find these facinating,,,im always struck by how little self-respect they display..
> 
> i wouldnt change it...but someday,,they will themselves...



Just let me know when the beastiality parade is so I can stay on the East (Right) Coast.

----------


## FirstGenCanadian

> She was being sarcastic.  Saying she was in a "normal" relationship, so people here could rest easy... and exhale.





> Uh yeah, the "normal" was sarcasm which is why it was in quotations.


You both missed the point.  If the OP is to send a message about freedoms of choice, then stand up for your convictions, and say what you mean without remorse or complexity.

As far as your relationship situation, you are in a normal relationship.  Theres no two ways about it.  As normal is defined as conforming to the standard or the common type ;usual ;notabnormal ;regular ;natural.  If only 10% of the population is gay, then that would be abnormal.  

As @Trinnity stated before two guys kissing is gross.  In other words there's a physical repulsion to a lot of gay interaction.  Furthermore, as I have said in multiple threads, its about activity that should be behind closed doors.  No one is allowed to have sex in the eyes of the public.  We all do it.  But that activity is private.  So again what makes a person gay, is really no ones business.  Its just a form of attention seeking that is prevalent throught human history, IMO.

----------

NuYawka (05-06-2015)

----------


## Micketto

> You both missed the point.  If the OP is to send a message about freedoms of choice, then stand up for your convictions, and say what you mean without remorse or complexity.
> 
> As far as your relationship situation, you are in a normal relationship. Theres no two ways about it.


The sarcasm in her comment, which you can't seem to grasp, was her way of making fun of those here who say homosexual relationships aren't "normal".

As for "remorse"... I doubt you'll see any in her comments, for good reason.

You're trying to turn her flippant response into a very convoluted, inapplicable life lesson.

----------


## FirstGenCanadian

> The sarcasm in her comment, which you can't seem to grasp, was her way of making fun of those here who say homosexual relationships aren't "normal".
> 
> As for "remorse"... I doubt you'll see any in her comments, for good reason.
> 
> You're trying to turn her flippant response into a very convoluted, inapplicable life lesson.


It was already pointed out that you failed to see what sarcasm is...so just because you think you know what the word means, I suggest you look it up.  ""<-(these little marks that were placed around the word normal are called quotation marks, not sarcasm marks.  That would mean a quotation, not sarcasm.  Also, sarcasm comes from a tone in the voice.  Kinda hard to reproduce on a text chat forum.)

Secondly, are you the official spokesperson for @Tay?

If one has to make a point of saying in a "normal" relationship, to quell the opposition, then that would be remorse.  Now you want to throw in irrelevancies.  This is a sad attempt to discredit what I have said.  You have failed twice now to defend your position on the points I have made in response to the OP.  Typical liberal hop mentality.

----------

NuYawka (05-06-2015),Rutabaga (05-06-2015)

----------


## Taylor

> It was already pointed out that you failed to see what sarcasm is...so just because you think you know what the word means, I suggest you look it up.  ""<-(these little marks that were placed around the word normal are called quotation marks, not sarcasm marks.  That would mean a quotation, not sarcasm.  Also, sarcasm comes from a tone in the voice.  Kinda hard to reproduce on a text chat forum.)
> 
> Secondly, are you the official spokesperson for @Tay?
> 
> If one has to make a point of saying in a "normal" relationship, to quell the opposition, then that would be remorse.  Now you want to throw in irrelevancies.  This is a sad attempt to discredit what I have said.  You have failed twice now to defend your position on the points I have made in response to the OP.  Typical liberal hop mentality.


Oh for fucks sake people. I consider all of my relationships regardless of the length or gender or purpose to be normal. I do not care what you or others think of my relationships, my relationships do not impact your lives. I was being sarcastic with the quotation marks because most of the people here consider anything but a straight relationship to be abnormal. There is alot of hypocrisy with many conservatives and religious people and it was pointed out in my opening post. Plain and simple, if you consider an equality sticker to be in your face and pushing an agenda then so is your jesus fish. If you consider two gay people sharing a kiss on a park bench to be in your face then it is no different from when two straight people do it. There are other examples but regardless of how simple and true the examples are most of the people here are so tunnel visioned and will misinterpret everything that isn't in their pre approved internal spiel that it won't matter. The truth is that the conservative mindset is much more in my face and in the face of millions of others than the LGBT will ever be.

----------


## Micketto

> It was already pointed out that you failed to see what sarcasm is...


Pointed out by me telling you it was sarcasm.... just before the OP herself told you it was sarcasm?
While you still try to tell the OP it wasn't sarcasm...

Yeah...Ok.





> ""<-(these little marks that were placed around the word normal are called quotation marks, not sarcasm marks.


They were used to signify sarcasm.... (as explained by the person who used them).





> That would mean a quotation, not sarcasm.  Also, sarcasm comes from a tone in the voice.  Kinda hard to reproduce on a text chat forum.)


Which is one way quotations are often used.  And which is apparently also why you can't seem to understand it... even when multiple people have explained it to you.





> Secondly, are you the official spokesperson for @Tay?


No, but the sarcasm was blatantly obvious so I tried to explain that to you to keep you from ranting endlessly about it.

Didn't work.





> This is a sad attempt to discredit what I have said.


What you have said is irrelevant.
All you've done is attempt to tell the OP that she used sarcasm incorrectly.





> You have failed twice now to defend your position on the points I have made in response to the OP.


Wasn't my OP.. so I have nothing to defend.





> Typical liberal hop mentality.


What does that even mean.... ?!


ffs... lol

----------


## Micketto

> most of the people here are so tunnel visioned and will misinterpret everything that isn't in their pre approved internal spiel that it won't matter.



They didn't like your message so they attacked you instead.

When people are not secure in their own belief system and can't deny what's being said, they will talk around the words someone is saying and attack _how_ they said them.

Liberals do it too.  It's human nature. 



I'm just glad someone explained what these " " are.

----------


## East of the Beast

Who are you to redefine what is normal?

----------


## Micketto

> Who are you to redefine what is normal?


Serious question.... who is trying to redefine "normal" ?

----------


## East of the Beast

> Serious question.... who is trying to redefine "normal" ?


Tay apparently.She considers any of her relationships gay or otherwise as normal.Of course she is a product of the culture.

----------


## Micketto

> Tay apparently.She considers any of her relationships gay or otherwise as normal.Of course she is a product of the culture.


Oh, ok... I saw you had replied to the original OP.  

I thought maybe you were jumping on her sarcastic use of the word, like some of the goofs here, which is why I asked.


I think you answered your own question, though.
Seems to me that the product of a culture (if that's what she is), would likely find that culture "normal".


But, lest anyone be inclinced to whine about me some more... I wasn't speaking for Tay    :Wink:

----------


## Dos Equis

> Oh for fucks sake people. I consider all of my relationships regardless of the length or gender or purpose to be normal. I do not care what you or others think of my relationships, my relationships do not impact your lives. I was being sarcastic with the quotation marks because most of the people here consider anything but a straight relationship to be abnormal. There is alot of hypocrisy with many conservatives and religious people and it was pointed out in my opening post. Plain and simple, if you consider an equality sticker to be in your face and pushing an agenda then so is your jesus fish. If you consider two gay people sharing a kiss on a park bench to be in your face then it is no different from when two straight people do it. There are other examples but regardless of how simple and true the examples are most of the people here are so tunnel visioned and will misinterpret everything that isn't in their pre approved internal spiel that it won't matter. The truth is that the conservative mindset is much more in my face and in the face of millions of others than the LGBT will ever be.


You are correct, both the Jesus sticker and the gay sticker are advertisements for their respective causes.

Those with the Jesus sticker are proud of who and what they believe in, a poor many who stood up to the world powers and who is now the most famous of people in the history of mankind.  He is not famous because he became wealthy, or conquered vast lands, or had any worldly power.  He was only made famous by the words he gave us and example he lived by and ultimately gave his life for what he preached.  Who else is like him?

And those with the gay stickers are proud of gay sex and tend to despise Jesus.

We should all elevate and proclaim to others what we believe in.  After all, it's all we have.

----------


## East of the Beast

> Oh, ok... I saw you had replied to the original OP.  
> 
> I thought maybe you were jumping on her sarcastic use of the word, like some of the goofs here, which is why I asked.
> 
> 
> I think you answered your own question, though.
> Seems to me that the product of a culture (if that's what she is), would likely find that culture "normal".
> 
> 
> But, lest anyone be inclinced to whine about me some more... I wasn't speaking for Tay


Which speaks to the general decline of our society.

----------


## Taylor

> Which speaks to the general decline of our society.


Or speaks to the advancement of it

----------


## Taylor

> Who are you to redefine what is normal?


Same question could be asked of you

----------


## East of the Beast

> Or speaks to the advancement of it


which speaks to your depravity

----------


## East of the Beast

> Same question could be asked of you


I do not define it. Our Creator,yours and mine defines it.Look @Tay you are young and driven by emotion and the physical desires that only occur in our youth.One day hopefully you'll live long enough to see the foolishness of what seems right to you now.

I do not hate you.I feel sorry for you because you are lost and don't even know it.What you think is freedom is in reality shackles of temporary,fleeting,empty pleasure.

----------

GreenEyedLady (05-06-2015),NuYawka (05-06-2015)

----------


## Micketto

> I do not define it. Our Creator,yours and mine defines it.Look @Tay you are young and driven by emotion and the physical desires that only occur in our youth.One day hopefully you'll live long enough to see the foolishness of what seems right to you now.
> 
> I do not hate you.I feel sorry for you because you are lost and don't even know it.What you think is freedom is in reality shackles of temporary,fleeting,empty pleasure.




Now, if you will all turn to page 237 in your hymnals....

----------


## Taylor

> which speaks to your depravity


Who I have sex with in the privacy of my own home or in a room somewhere doesn't define me as a person nor is it your place, or anyone else really, to judge me for what I do behind closed doors in private. Outside of my "depravity" I have done alot of good things for others and I will continue to do that whenever I have the extra time when I'm not working paycheck to paycheck to do it.

----------


## Taylor

> I do not define it. Our Creator,yours and mine defines it.Look @Tay you are young and driven by emotion and the physical desires that only occur in our youth.One day hopefully you'll live long enough to see the foolishness of what seems right to you now.
> 
> I do not hate you.I feel sorry for you because you are lost and don't even know it.What you think is freedom is in reality shackles of temporary,fleeting,empty pleasure.


You don't need to feel sorry for me. Other than me trying to make a little more money to help my living situation out I'm a pretty happy and caring person that rarely imposes onto others or is mean to others. If we have the same creator then I would hope that if he is able to create the universe then he has the perceived power to look past my sex life and see the other 99% of me that also defines me. FYI I also don't think God really cares about who I sleep with.

----------


## NuYawka

> Or speaks to the advancement of it


Really? 

If everyone 'progressed/advanced' to being gay, Humans would cease to exist. 

That means extinction, not "advancement". 



smh smh

----------

FirstGenCanadian (05-06-2015),GreenEyedLady (05-06-2015)

----------


## Taylor

> Really? 
> 
> If everyone 'progressed/advanced' to being gay, Humans would cease to exist. 
> 
> That means extinction, not "advancement". 
> 
> 
> 
> smh smh


thats what you took from that? Wow we are way off from each other. Advancement meaning acceptance of people that are different from yourself.

----------


## Micketto

> Really? 
> 
> If everyone 'progressed/advanced' to being gay, Humans would cease to exist. 
> 
> That means extinction, not "advancement". 
> 
> 
> 
> smh smh



She's clearly not gay.  

_If_ she is bisexual, then what does that do for your extinction argument ?

----------


## NuYawka

> thats what you took from that? Wow we are way off from each other. Advancement meaning acceptance of people that are different from yourself.


Acceptance of people different from myself? Oh, okay. 

Btw, I've been married for the past ten years to a black woman from a whole 'nother country and culture. Does that count?

----------

FirstGenCanadian (05-06-2015)

----------


## Taylor

> Acceptance of people different from myself? Oh, okay. 
> 
> Btw, I've been married for the past ten years to a black woman from a whole 'nother country and culture. Does that count?


Thats awesome, but it doesn't relate to this argument. Think about it this way, wouldn't it have pissed you off if people passed laws to ban that marriage due to differences between what's considered normal and what you personally love and want to spend your life with?

----------


## Taylor

> She's clearly not gay.  
> 
> _If_ she is bisexual, then what does that do for your extinction argument ?


It does nothing, and to pretend that human existence will be put into question because of gay marriage and gay people is just cray cray.

----------


## Katzndogz

Not human existence.  Simply our civilization's existence.

----------


## Trinnity

> which speaks to your depravity


*Don't make personal attacks on other members.*

----------


## Katzndogz

I personally don't care who is depraved as long as the depravity is benign.  Depravity doesn't become toxic until it is accepted as normal behavior.

----------


## NuYawka

> Thats awesome, but it doesn't relate to this argument. Think about it this way, wouldn't it have pissed you off if people passed laws to ban that marriage due to differences between what's considered normal and what you personally love and want to spend your life with?


It's not that a law was passed to ban gay marriage.... The law defined marriage as between a man and a woman. 
THAT'S the difference here. 

If you don't think that's the case, then who's to stop me from marrying a beer can?

----------


## Micketto

> It's not that a law was passed to ban gay marriage.... The law defined marriage as between a man and a woman. 
> THAT'S the difference here.


Laws exist in many states that ban gay marriage... "Constitutional Amendments".

Not for or against, just trying to keep the facts alive in the discussion.

----------


## NuYawka

> Laws exist in many states that ban gay marriage... "Constitutional Amendments".
> 
> Not for or against, just trying to keep the facts alive in the discussion.


Facts, shmacts, I have pizza on the way and that's all that matters right now.

----------


## NuYawka

> Laws exist in many states that ban gay marriage... "Constitutional Amendments".
> 
> Not for or against, just trying to keep the facts alive in the discussion.


Btw, I didn't imply that there weren't/aren't laws banning gay marriage. My point was that it's not the point.

----------


## Taylor

> I personally don't care who is depraved as long as the depravity is benign.  Depravity doesn't become toxic until it is accepted as normal behavior.


Nah you care either way otherwise you'd be ok with people being happily married regardless of their gender.

----------


## Taylor

> It's not that a law was passed to ban gay marriage.... The law defined marriage as between a man and a woman. 
> THAT'S the difference here. 
> 
> If you don't think that's the case, then who's to stop me from marrying a beer can?


If some random person or group of people deemed that you couldn't marry a black person from a different country or culture because it went against their religious or moral beliefs wouldn't you be pissed? Wouldn't you fight that? Two consenting adults being told by other people and by law that they can't marry all because another group says it goes against their personal beliefs.

----------


## NuYawka

> If some random person or group of people deemed that you couldn't marry a black person from a different country or culture because it went against their religious or moral beliefs wouldn't you be pissed? Wouldn't you fight that? Two consenting adults being told by other people and by law that they can't marry all because another group says it goes against their personal beliefs.


Lol, I'm a man, men really have no need to marry in the first place. It's women that always want to marry, so I really wouldn't/couldn't care less.  :Smile:

----------

FirstGenCanadian (05-06-2015)

----------


## Micketto

> Lol, I'm a man, men really have no need to marry in the first place. It's women that always want to marry, so I really wouldn't/couldn't care less.


Does your wife know that if she wanted to marry you, but it was illegal, you wouldn't care or try to change that ?


 :Wink:

----------

NuYawka (05-06-2015)

----------


## Taylor

> Lol, I'm a man, men really have no need to marry in the first place. It's women that always want to marry, so I really wouldn't/couldn't care less.


Ah come on guy we are actually sorta getting along and talking about this so the least you could do is answer my question somewhat seriously.

----------


## HoneyBee

> If some random person or group of people deemed that you couldn't marry a black person from a different country or culture because it went against their religious or moral beliefs wouldn't you be pissed? Wouldn't you fight that? Two consenting adults being told by other people and by law that they can't marry all because another group says it goes against their personal beliefs.



I get pissed because a group of atheists don't want a crèche in the town square!

----------


## NuYawka

> Ah come on guy we are actually sorta getting along and talking about this so the least you could do is answer my question somewhat seriously.


I actually was being serious. 



What was the question again?

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> It's not that a law was passed to ban gay marriage.... The law defined marriage as between a man and a woman. 
> THAT'S the difference here. 
> 
> If you don't think that's the case, then who's to stop me from marrying a beer can?



Foreign or domestic?

----------

NuYawka (05-06-2015)

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

By the way, laws banning gay marriage do not tell people who they can fall in love with but who they can enter into an arrangement that is culturally disgusting in every culture known to mankind.  Show me any culture that routinely accepts same sex unions and defines them as a "marriage".  Calling a same sex paring a "marriage" undercuts our moral principles and weakens the family as a unit.  (Two queers cannot produce children without an outside party, it just can't be done) and like it or not the family is the buidling block of society and stability.

----------

East of the Beast (05-06-2015),GreenEyedLady (05-06-2015),NuYawka (05-06-2015)

----------


## NuYawka

> Foreign or domestic?


LOL, good one.

----------


## Corruptbuddha

> By the way, laws banning gay marriage do not tell people who they can fall in love with but who they can enter into an arrangement that is culturally disgusting in every culture known to mankind.  Show me any culture that routinely accepts same sex unions and defines them as a "marriage".  Calling a same sex paring a "marriage" undercuts our moral principles and weakens the family as a unit.  (Two queers cannot produce children without an outside party, it just can't be done) and like it or not the family is the buidling block of society and stability.



In my mind, the thing is this.  Since the federal government codifies marriage into LAW, then that law applies to ALL citizens.  It's just that simple.  If any two people can enter into a legal contract, which is what a marriage is as far as GOVERNMENT is concerned, then any other two citizens share that right.

Now, if you want to change that....then get government OUT of marriage and any other RELIGIOUS activity.

Good luck with that.

Also, trying to compare any other cultures with America is a non starter as America is exceptional and unique in many of it's rights and privileges.

----------

Taylor (05-06-2015)

----------


## Taylor

> By the way, laws banning gay marriage do not tell people who they can fall in love with but who they can enter into an arrangement that is culturally disgusting in every culture known to mankind.  Show me any culture that routinely accepts same sex unions and defines them as a "marriage".  Calling a same sex paring a "marriage" undercuts our moral principles and weakens the family as a unit.  (Two queers cannot produce children without an outside party, it just can't be done) and like it or not the family is the buidling block of society and stability.


Then explain marriages when couples decide to never have kids and just spend their lives fucking, traveling, eating, partying and enjoying each other's company. How does that build society, improve morals and enhance the family unit? I'm sure you have no problem with that though as long as they aren't "queer" right?

----------

Micketto (05-06-2015)

----------


## Micketto

> just spend their lives fucking, traveling, eating


_{sigh}_.... The life.

----------

NuYawka (05-06-2015),Taylor (05-06-2015)

----------


## Corruptbuddha

> Then explain marriages when couples decide to never have kids and just spend their lives fucking, traveling, eating, partying and enjoying each other's company. How does that build society, improve morals and enhance the family unit? I'm sure you have no problem with that though as long as they aren't "queer" right?



Actually, people who do this is today's society are looked down upon as well.  How many time do you think a couple like this would be called selfish and asked 'When they are going to have kids'?

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

Government has gotten involved in marriage as a method of protecting both parties and the children.  As far as government is concerned marriage is merely a contract between two people.  Change the perception to allowing queers to enter into a "domestic contract" with all the rights and privileges of a "marriage" and I think that can be sold a lot easier than trying to pretend calling it a marriage is socially acceptable.  It isn't and it never will be.  

Based on my experiences by the way, I believe all homosexuals are mentally unbalanced.

----------


## Corruptbuddha

> a contract between two people


As you say.  And if the government 'permits' via a license, that contract to exist between two of it's citizens, then it must permit it for ALL it's citizens.

And I'm not discussing it on it's moral or social merits...merely on its legality.

To create a law that expressly prohibits activity in one group of people that is permitted in another group is, by definition, discrimination.  And while you and I can discriminate all we want....the GOVERNMENT MUST NOT.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> Then explain marriages when couples decide to never have kids and just spend their lives fucking, traveling, eating, partying and enjoying each other's company. How does that build society, improve morals and enhance the family unit? I'm sure you have no problem with that though as long as they aren't "queer" right?



No I don't have any problem with that.  Why do you have a problem with that?  Its the same tired argument, if 1 person doesn't follow the rules then get rid of the rules.  You are trying to make a perversion (two men or two women having sex with each other) on a equal footing with deciding not to have children.  

A married couple who decide not to have children can always change their mind or have it changed for them by God, two queers can never produce an offspring without a third party.  

You want to have sex with other men, be my guest, just don't pervert the institution of marriage because you hate yourself and want validation from straight society.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> As you say.  And if the government 'permits' via a license, that contract to exist between two of it's citizens, then it must permit it for ALL it's citizens.
> 
> And I'm not discussing it on it's moral or social merits...merely on its legality.
> 
> To create a law that expressly prohibits activity in one group of people that is permitted in another group is, by definition, discrimination.  And while you and I can discriminate all we want....the GOVERNMENT MUST NOT.


No, I will never accept that God is not the final arbiter of right and wrong and two same sex couples copulating is wrong.  

End of argument.

----------


## Micketto

> No I don't have any problem with that.  Why do you have a problem with that?  Its the same tired argument, if 1 person doesn't follow the rules then get rid of the rules.  You are trying to make a perversion (two men or two women having sex with each other) on a equal footing with deciding not to have children.  
> 
> A married couple who decide not to have children can always change their mind or have it changed for them by God, two queers can never produce an offspring without a third party.  
> 
> You want to have sex with other men, be my guest, just don't pervert the institution of marriage because you hate yourself and want validation from straight society.



It doesn't really matter how you try and twist it, the procreation argument is a huge failure in the argument against SSM.

----------


## NaturalBorn

> Nah you care either way otherwise you'd be ok with people being happily married regardless of their gender.


Is English your first language?

*MAR'RIAGE*, n. [L.mas, maris.] 
The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children. 
Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled. Heb.13. 

1. A feast made on the occasion of a marriage. The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king, who made a marriage for his son. Matt.22. 
2. In a scriptural sense, the union between Christ and his church by the covenant of grace. Rev.19.

----------

FirstGenCanadian (05-06-2015)

----------


## Taylor

> No I don't have any problem with that.  Why do you have a problem with that?  Its the same tired argument, if 1 person doesn't follow the rules then get rid of the rules.  You are trying to make a perversion (two men or two women having sex with each other) on a equal footing with deciding not to have children.  
> 
> A married couple who decide not to have children can always change their mind or have it changed for them by God, two queers can never produce an offspring without a third party.  
> 
> You want to have sex with other men, be my guest, just don't pervert the institution of marriage because you hate yourself and want validation from straight society.


I don't have a problem at all with people marrying and never having kids, I'd be fine with that myself. Christianity and religion itself didn't create marriage. It existed prior to it and it even exists in nature with different types if animals being mates for life. Consensual marriage of any kind, gay or straight, does nothing to you or your religion or even marriage. Marriage is a commitment and nothing more. The rest is just crazy religious shit that you should force only onto yourself.

----------


## Taylor

> Is English your first language?
> 
> *MAR'RIAGE*, n. [L.mas, maris.] 
> The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children. 
> Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled. Heb.13. 
> 
> 1. A feast made on the occasion of a marriage. The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king, who made a marriage for his son. Matt.22. 
> 2. In a scriptural sense, the union between Christ and his church by the covenant of grace. Rev.19.


A religious definition of marriage is meaningless in a society full of a variety of people of different religions, backgrounds, cultures and so on.

----------


## NaturalBorn

> A religious definition of marriage is meaningless in a society full of a variety of people of different religions, backgrounds, cultures and so on.


This is Webster's Dictionary, not a religious book.

----------


## Taylor

> This is Webster's Dictionary, not a religious book.


Written by a human being based on the times it was written. It can be changed by humans and ultimately changed in a dictionary.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

Why do homosexuals want to "marry" in the first place when for 1000's of years, across all cultures they never had that option?  They want marriage so they can say look, I am not different from you.  Well, Percy, you are different from me and I for one of millions will never see you as anything other than a perverted sick little person.

----------


## Taylor

> Why do homosexuals want to "marry" in the first place when for 1000's of years, across all cultures they never had that option?  They want marriage so they can say look, I am not different from you.  Well, Percy, you are different from me and I for one of millions will never see you as anything other than a perverted sick little person.


Why do you care if two other consenting adults are married? Are you the protector of marriage? Do you have authority over others?

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> I don't have a problem at all with people marrying and never having kids, I'd be fine with that myself. Christianity and religion itself didn't create marriage. It existed prior to it and it even exists in nature with different types if animals being mates for life. Consensual marriage of any kind, gay or straight, does nothing to you or your religion or even marriage. Marriage is a commitment and nothing more. The rest is just crazy religious shit that you should force only onto yourself.



It is a cultural norm that is not unique to any specific religion or group.  Homosexual "marriage" is an attack on cultural norms.  Nothing more, nothing less.

----------

GreenEyedLady (05-06-2015)

----------


## Taylor

> It is a cultural norm that is not unique to any specific religion or group.  Homosexual "marriage" is an attack on cultural norms.  Nothing more, nothing less.


Norms are products of the times, nothing more, nothing less

----------


## sooda

> This is Webster's Dictionary, not a religious book.



Marriage  isn't necessarily a religious covenant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

----------


## NaturalBorn

> Written by a human being based on the times it was written. It can be changed by humans and ultimately changed in a dictionary.



Show me a dictionary definition prior to the homo-nazi attempts to redefine the term, say anything prior to 1970.  That gives you 4,930 years of human history to attempt to find the answer.

----------


## sooda

> Show me a dictionary definition prior to the homo-nazi attempts to redefine the term, say anything prior to 1970.  That gives you 4,930 years of human history to attempt to find the answer.


In law marriage is a contract between two parties.. Sometimes it is sanctified by a religious ceremony and other times it is not. Both parties have to consent so you can't marry a dog or a can of beer because neither can consent.

----------


## East of the Beast

> *Don't make personal attacks on other members.*


 @Trinnity I think I tempered that remark in another post.Are we now on PC speech? Could I say I thought she was depraved? That's not an attack that's an observation.Actually I take offense that you saw fit to intervene in such a way.Have you reprimanded Tay for mocking of my beliefs?

----------


## East of the Beast

> In my mind, the thing is this.  Since the federal government codifies marriage into LAW, then that law applies to ALL citizens.  It's just that simple.  If any two people can enter into a legal contract, which is what a marriage is as far as GOVERNMENT is concerned, then any other two citizens share that right.
> 
> Now, if you want to change that....then get government OUT of marriage and any other RELIGIOUS activity.
> 
> Good luck with that.
> 
> Also, trying to compare any other cultures with America is a non starter as America is exceptional and unique in many of it's rights and privileges.


Who gave the government the right to refine marriage? I would submit that they have no right. Thus "gay marriage" is not marriage at all it is just a civil arrangement.

----------

Dr. Felix Birdbiter (05-06-2015)

----------


## NaturalBorn

WHy the need to call cohabitation, marriage in the first place?  Draft a legal contract for all the perceived benefits of marriage, then petition the government for any remaining benefits not now available.  Since the goal is not to "be married" but to force, in your face, acceptance and to destroy the traditional family unit, that would not meet the goal.

----------

GreenEyedLady (05-06-2015)

----------


## Micketto

Ironic that I see a bunch of legal gibberish, religious grandstanding and gay marriage obsession being shoved in the OP's face.


You know... the actual topic of the thread.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> Norms are products of the times, nothing more, nothing less


This norm has been around 1000's of years

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> In law marriage is a contract between two parties.. Sometimes it is sanctified by a religious ceremony and other times it is not. Both parties have to consent so you can't marry a dog or a can of beer because neither can consent.




Why?

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

By the way, if an objection to gay marriage is strictly a religious construct how many gay marriages were performed in Soviet Russia or Communist China under Mao, both atheist states.  What about Nazi Germany under Hitler, a culture that defined the State as the highest moral authority.  Was gay marriage prevalent in those cultures?  

"Marriage" is not just a religious more, it is fundamental to the preservation of the society

----------

East of the Beast (05-06-2015),GreenEyedLady (05-06-2015)

----------


## Taylor

> This norm has been around 1000's of years


Yeah well so was human sacrifice but thankfully society evolved

----------


## HoneyBee

> Ironic that I see a bunch of legal gibberish, religious grandstanding and gay marriage obsession being shoved in the OP's face.
> 
> 
> You know... the actual topic of the thread.



Who invited the conversation?

----------


## Taylor

> Show me a dictionary definition prior to the homo-nazi attempts to redefine the term, say anything prior to 1970.  That gives you 4,930 years of human history to attempt to find the answer.


If it's written by a human hand and it can be changed by a human hand.

----------


## Taylor

> @Trinnity I think I tempered that remark in another post.Are we now on PC speech? Could I say I thought she was depraved? That's not an attack that's an observation.Actually I take offense that you saw fit to intervene in such a way.Have you reprimanded Tay for mocking of my beliefs?


Lol

----------


## Sheldonna

> Who invited the conversation?


Shh!  No logic/reality, please.  Can't get in the way of that "poor me/poor her" victimization bullchit....lol.

----------

East of the Beast (05-06-2015),GreenEyedLady (05-06-2015)

----------


## East of the Beast

> meh it's just freedom. Parents indoctrinate their kids with all sorts of hate everyday across the country and the world but god forbid they are taught to accept people as equals.


It's always just freedom with your crowd ....OTOH it's hate when you don't agree with it.

----------


## Taylor

> It's always just freedom with your crowd ....OTOH it's hate when you don't agree with it.


It's tough love and understanding when you don't agree though right?

----------


## East of the Beast

> It's tough love and understanding when you don't agree though right?


I don't deal in platitudes.

----------


## Trinnity

> @Trinnity I think I tempered that remark in another post.Are we now on PC speech? Could I say I thought she was depraved? That's not an attack that's an observation.Actually I take offense that you saw fit to intervene in such a way.Have you reprimanded Tay for mocking of my beliefs?


I won't discuss this with you on the thread.

----------


## Micketto

> Who invited the conversation?


The topic or what's being argued instead ?

----------


## East of the Beast

> I won't discuss this with you on the thread.


Since I don't do PM's.We'll just let the dog lie.I'm movin' on and it's all good.

----------


## NaturalBorn

> If it's written by a human hand and it can be changed by a human hand.



Show us an example of "marriage" that was written different in the past which writing can no longer be changed.

----------


## Trinnity

> Since I don't do PM's.We'll just let the dog lie.I'm movin' on and it's all good.


That's your call, of course. Political forums aren't for the thin-skinned or quitters. Should you change your mind, you'll always be welcome here.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> If it's written by a human hand and it can be changed by a human hand.


It was written by God's hand...and man can and will still change it.  It doesn't mean it is good..Just means man is wicked and willful.


Proverbs 14:12


…11The house of the wicked will be destroyed, But the tent of the upright will flourish. *12There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.* 13Even in laughter the heart may be in pain, And the end of joy may be grief.…
Cross References

Romans 6:21
What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death!

Proverbs 12:15
The way of fools seems right to them, but the wise listen to advice.

Proverbs 16:25
There is a way that appears to be right, but in the end it leads to death

----------

Dr. Felix Birdbiter (05-06-2015)

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> It doesn't really matter how you try and twist it, the procreation argument is a huge failure in the argument against SSM.



. The only biological purpose of any living creature is to reproduce and perpetuate the species.  The fact that some can but won't is not germane to the issue, its the fact that homosexuals can't and therefore add nothing to the prime directive - be fruitful and multiply.  Perhaps those who elect to forego children should not be "married" either since they add nothing either.

----------

NuYawka (05-07-2015)

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> If it's written by a human hand and it can be changed by a human hand.



So, to you right and wrong are not absolutes.  If human hand decides slavery is an ok thing you would be alright with that?

----------

NuYawka (05-07-2015)

----------


## East of the Beast

> That's your call, of course. Political forums aren't for the thin-skinned or quitters. Should you change your mind, you'll always be welcome here.


What!? I meant moving on from the argument.I'm not going anywhere.

----------


## Trinnity

> What!? I meant moving on from the argument.I'm not going anywhere.


Darn right you aren't. It wouldn't be the same without you.  :Love7:

----------


## Katzndogz

> Nah you care either way otherwise you'd be ok with people being happily married regardless of their gender.


I care only if that marriage is accepted as legitimate and a nomal marriage.    That's when it becomes poisonous.

----------


## FirstGenCanadian

> Who I have sex with in the privacy of my own home or in a room somewhere doesn't define me as a person nor is it your place, or anyone else really, to judge me for what I do behind closed doors in private. Outside of my "depravity" I have done alot of good things for others and I will continue to do that whenever I have the extra time when I'm not working paycheck to paycheck to do it.


Which is what I said.  Sexuality is personal business.  Therefore the OP is irrelavent, since announcing that your gay is nothing more then grandstanding for attention.  People openly pray, and that is acceptable.  Including the well wishes that people tend to impart on other people with prayer.  What sexual preference a person has is pertaining to ones own self.  Therefore selfish.  Who you have sex with does not have any affect in the world as a whole, except the sexual partner.  Therefore, shoving ones personal sex life in another ones face is rude, and obnoxious.  Praying for someones well being is polite, and selfless.  Even if you don't believe, its nice someone will try for you.




> Wasn't my OP.. so I have nothing to defend.


You interjected yourself, which makes you involved.  Or are you just trolling?  If you can't handle the topic, don't get involved.




> They didn't like your message so they attacked you instead.
> 
> When people are not secure in their own belief system and can't deny what's being said, they will talk around the words someone is saying and attack _how_ they said them.
> 
> Liberals do it too. It's human nature. 
> 
> I'm just glad someone explained what these " " are.


No where in my posts attacked Tay.  I attacked the OP.  That's allowed.




> FYI I also don't think God really cares about who I sleep with.


So why should the rest of the planet care who sleeps with who?




> Thats awesome, but it doesn't relate to this argument. Think about it this way, wouldn't it have pissed you off if people passed laws to ban that marriage due to differences between what's considered normal and what you personally love and want to spend your life with?


Actually, has a lot to do with the OP.  A freedom that previously was't available to him not all that long ago.  But where are those bumper stickers, and parades?  Even you didn't see the relevance.




> _{sigh}_.... The life.


If you think thats all there is to life, are you in for a shock...




> No I don't have any problem with that. Why do you have a problem with that? Its the same tired argument, if 1 person doesn't follow the rules then get rid of the rules. You are trying to make a perversion (two men or two women having sex with each other) on a equal footing with deciding not to have children.  
> 
> A married couple who decide not to have children can always change their mind or have it changed for them by God, two queers can never produce an offspring without a third party.  
> 
> You want to have sex with other men, be my guest, just don't pervert the institution of marriage because you hate yourself and want validation from straight society.


I disagree, if they want to be married they should do so.  Not in a church that doesn't agree with such a union.  But from the Government, who holds the power to marry people, aswell as cowtoe to the demands of the public. 




> It's tough love and understanding when you don't agree though right?


IMO you don't really understand those terms as of yet.  But as you have stated all throught this thread, you apparently want to change even the spoken langauge to suit your own cause(s).  Again, I believe the OP is flawed, and lacks relevant basis for the arguement.  You want to compare selfish gratification, with a belief system.  Not even in the same ball park.  

Here it is in a nutshell.  Sex is self serving.  Period.  No one should care about homosexuality or any other sexuality (save those involving innocence, and non consensual), because it shouldn't be anywhere, but in the presence of the two (+) people involved in the act, and in private.  End of story.

----------


## Taylor

> I don't deal in platitudes.


uh huh

weak

----------


## Taylor

> I care only if that marriage is accepted as legitimate and a nomal marriage.    That's when it becomes poisonous.


I find the argument to keep two people from being married just to suit someone else's religious beliefs to be more poisonous than two people getting married.

----------


## Taylor

> It was written by God's hand...and man can and will still change it.  It doesn't mean it is good..Just means man is wicked and willful.
> 
> 
> Proverbs 14:12
> 
> 
> 11The house of the wicked will be destroyed, But the tent of the upright will flourish. *12There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.* 13Even in laughter the heart may be in pain, And the end of joy may be grief.
> Cross References
> 
> ...


religion doesn't and shouldn't decide legal contracts approved and issued by the government such as marriage.

----------


## Taylor

> Show us an example of "marriage" that was written different in the past which writing can no longer be changed.


marriage existed prior to christianity. If you don't believe that then that's on you but it's fact. Over the centuries the church has done of a lot of influential things both good and bad when it comes to policy and even our culture, but that doesn't mean that it should still influence it today.

----------


## Taylor

> Which is what I said.  Sexuality is personal business.  Therefore the OP is irrelavent, since announcing that your gay is nothing more then grandstanding for attention.  People openly pray, and that is acceptable.  Including the well wishes that people tend to impart on other people with prayer.  What sexual preference a person has is pertaining to ones own self.  Therefore selfish.  Who you have sex with does not have any affect in the world as a whole, except the sexual partner.  Therefore, shoving ones personal sex life in another ones face is rude, and obnoxious.  Praying for someones well being is polite, and selfless.  Even if you don't believe, its nice someone will try for you.


Praying for someone's well being is polite and selfless sure but praying for someones soul because they are gay or something like that is just being a self righteous jerk in my opinion. Also my OP is not talking about grandstanding or announcing you are gay. It was making simple comparisons to the everyday actions of straight people but yet fir gay people it's considered grandstanding.





> So why should the rest of the planet care who sleeps with who?


they shouldn't, but yet millions of people do care and actively try to limit others from having the same relationship opportunity as them simply because of their own personal religious beliefs. You could easily reverse that question and ask why should the rest of the planet care about your religious beliefs.





> Actually, has a lot to do with the OP.  A freedom that previously was't available to him not all that long ago.  But where are those bumper stickers, and parades?  Even you didn't see the relevance.


the equality sticker would back up that movement, and they had whole marches based on civil rights which would include getting rid of the stigma attached to interracial marriage. 





> I disagree, if they want to be married they should do so.  Not in a church that doesn't agree with such a union.  But from the Government, who holds the power to marry people, aswell as cowtoe to the demands of the public.


this I actually agree with. If a church says that they wouldn't agree with the union in that building then that should be respected, although I would argue that even the preacher is a sinner based on their own beliefs that everybody is a sinner and so maybe that preacher should be a little less hypocritical.




> IMO you don't really understand those terms as of yet.  But as you have stated all throught this thread, you apparently want to change even the spoken langauge to suit your own cause(s).  Again, I believe the OP is flawed, and lacks relevant basis for the arguement.  You want to compare selfish gratification, with a belief system.  Not even in the same ball park.


I don't want to change language all I am saying is that the websters dictionary does not decide for eternity what marriage is while also using religion as part of the definition when marriage existed before todays religions. A person's personal religious beliefs shouldn't be deciding the relationships and legal contracts of other citizens.




> Here it is in a nutshell.  Sex is self serving.  Period.  No one should care about homosexuality or any other sexuality (save those involving innocence, and non consensual), because it shouldn't be anywhere, but in the presence of the two (+) people involved in the act, and in private.  End of story.


Sex is normal and natural, and homosexuality exists and has existed for as long as sexuality has existed both in humanity and nature. Whether or not you believe it shouldn't be anywhere is irrelevant because it does exist.

----------


## East of the Beast

> *marriage existed prior to christianity*. If you don't believe that then that's on you but it's fact. Over the centuries the church has done of a lot of influential things both good and bad when it comes to policy and even our culture, but that doesn't mean that it should still influence it today.


 God made it so  from the beginning.

----------


## East of the Beast

Gays, like parasites, have undeservedly attached their quest for the acceptance of their depravity to legitimate social causes.That in and of itself defrauds those causes of their honor.

----------


## FirstGenCanadian

> Praying for someone's well being is polite and selfless sure but praying for someones soul because they are gay or something like that is just being a self righteous jerk in my opinion. Also my OP is not talking about grandstanding or announcing you are gay. It was making simple comparisons to the everyday actions of straight people but yet fir gay people it's considered grandstanding.


Again, the differences between what is public, and private.  Opinion, expression, association, and belief are entitlements here in Canada.  I believe they are similar in the US.  Sex is not an entitlement.  Nor is it usually a spectator sport, unless it's porn.  Which prior to the accepting of the LGBTI movement, was primarily heterosexual, and was condemned.  Outside of that the movement is not just promoting the rights of LGBTI, but they are actively recruiting people.  Mostly vulnerable teens, who for the first time are dealing with hormones, and don't understand why they become aroused at inappropriate times.  The posters in Canadian High Schools which claim if you are being aroused in the presence of same sexed individuals you may be gay.  This causes confusion, and IMO is predatory.  




> they shouldn't, but yet millions of people do care and actively try to limit others from having the same relationship opportunity as them simply because of their own personal religious beliefs. You could easily reverse that question and ask why should the rest of the planet care about your religious beliefs.


I don't have religious beliefs.  This was instigated by Miketto, but not a fact.  I do have beliefs, but not a religion, and I do have an personal issue with LGBTI movement shoving their sexuality in my face.  If there was a Heterosexual shoving their sex life in my face, I have the same issue.  I have an issue with members of the same sex.  And being a visual person I don't want to imagine or see them naked, it makes me physically ill.




> the equality sticker would back up that movement, and they had whole marches based on civil rights which would include getting rid of the stigma attached to interracial marriage.


Yet it still exists.  My point here was you dismissed it, claiming it had no baring in the conversation (argument as you put it).




> this I actually agree with. If a church says that they wouldn't agree with the union in that building then that should be respected, although I would argue that even the preacher is a sinner based on their own beliefs that everybody is a sinner and so maybe that preacher should be a little less hypocritical.


Valid statement.  I agree that any person who claims that someone will go to hell for something is overstepping their position.  Preachers are supposed to preach the word of God, not make God's decisions for Him.




> I don't want to change language all I am saying is that the websters dictionary does not decide for eternity what marriage is while also using religion as part of the definition when marriage existed before todays religions. A person's personal religious beliefs shouldn't be deciding the relationships and legal contracts of other citizens.


Thus my statement of the LGBTI members should be getting married in the eyes of the law, and not the eyes of the church.  So we can agree here.




> Sex is normal and natural, and homosexuality exists and has existed for as long as sexuality has existed both in humanity and nature. Whether or not you believe it shouldn't be anywhere is irrelevant because it does exist.


I believe you misunderstood my statement here.  I am not saying that homosexuality should not or does not exist.  I am saying it is no one's business, and therefore deserves no lime light.  They want the right to marry, seek that right from the Government, not the church.  Provided that they can do that, they should have no parades and bumper stickers, just because of a sexual preference.  Even you have stated in prior posts that who you sleep with is no ones business.  This is absolutely correct, and I couldn't agree more.  At the same time I don't want a mental picture of what happens behind closed doors, because someone feels it necessary to announce that they escaped their closet.  It rapes my brain.  I am not the only one, nor does it only affect heterosexuals.  There are Homosexuals that are sickened by members of the opposite sex.  Thus my statement that it's not something that should be made public.  If anyone wants to know a sexual preference of a person, they can ask.

----------


## Dos Equis

> Thats awesome, but it doesn't relate to this argument. Think about it this way, wouldn't it have pissed you off if people passed laws to ban that marriage due to differences between what's considered normal and what you personally love and want to spend your life with?


Why is a secular state passing laws about what is normal sex and what is not?  

Why is a secular state involved in marriage at all?

----------


## Micketto

> . The only biological purpose of any living creature is to reproduce and perpetuate the species.  The fact that some can but won't is not germane to the issue, its the fact that homosexuals can't and therefore add nothing to the prime directive - be fruitful and multiply.  Perhaps those who elect to forego children should not be "married" either since they add nothing either.


It's too bad that you would want to stomp all over the rights of people who can't physically have children and decide to adopt instead.

Apparently a man and a woman can not be in a beneficial relationship unless children are involved?

Were you trapped into marriage?  Does this attitude stem from you knocking her up and you took the noble route?   lol

Seems quite silly to say a man and woman should not be married unless they plan on having children.

Especially those who marry and then find out later they can't reproduce.

Immediate forced divorce?
Is that your plan?

----------


## Micketto

> Gays, like parasites, have undeservedly attached their quest for the acceptance of their depravity to legitimate social causes.That in and of itself defrauds those causes of their honor.


Do you have examples?

Curious as to what you mean.

----------


## East of the Beast

> Do you have examples?
> 
> Curious as to what you mean.


Do you deny that so called gay rights have been equated to the civil rights struggle of black Americans? If you do,then you are either living under a rock or you're not paying attention.

----------


## Micketto

> Do you deny that so called gay rights have been equated to the civil rights struggle of black Americans? If you do,then you are either living under a rock or you're not paying attention.


I agree wholeheartedly and have happily told some off for doing so.
(you should see me at PF)  :Wink: 

But I was asking about your earlier claim.

Is that your only example ?

----------


## East of the Beast

> I agree wholeheartedly and have happily told some off for doing so.
> (you should see me at PF) 
> 
> But I was asking about your earlier claim.
> 
> Is that your only example ?


what earlier claim?

----------


## East of the Beast

> uh huh
> 
> weak


That's a pretty weak comeback on your part as well

----------


## East of the Beast

This thread is turning into quick sand,the more I struggle to get out of it the more it pulls me in..........somebody throw me a rope.

----------


## Micketto

> what earlier claim?


The one I responded to when I asked for examples.... to which you then listed an example.

----------


## Micketto

> This thread is turning into quick sand,the more I struggle to get out of it the more it pulls me in..........somebody throw me a rope.


Well, to be fair, the thread was about faux-victimization and things being "shoved in my face".

A few of you decided to argue endlessly against gay marriage instead.

----------


## East of the Beast

> Well, to be fair, the thread was about faux-victimization and things being "shoved in my face".
> 
> A few of you decided to argue endlessly against gay marriage instead.


That's part and parcel of any discussion .The OP I believe began the gay marriage discussion to begin with.........anywho I'm going to extricate myself from the proceedings in this thread.Metaphorically speaking it's a pain in the ass.

----------


## Trinnity

> This thread is turning into quick sand,the more I struggle to get out of it the more it pulls me in..........somebody throw me a rope.


Oh, you didn't go there....




I kid. I kid.

----------

East of the Beast (05-07-2015)

----------


## Micketto

> That's part and parcel of any discussion .


Of course.
I was just hoping people would respond to the OP, because even as a Christian Conservative, I see the very same thing.
All people on all sides do it, but it is an interesting topic.





> The OP I believe began the gay marriage discussion to begin with


It actually started a few pages in. Like post #42: gay couples with children and growing from there.
That was even before some reminisced about watching other men having sex... claiming they were forced  :Wink: 

The OP simply mentioned marriage as one of her many examples of the "in your face" complaints.

----------


## NaturalBorn

> I find the argument to keep two people from being married just to suit someone else's religious beliefs to be more poisonous than two people getting married.



Marriage is a religious ceremony.  The ONLY reason marriage became a civil contract was to collect taxes.  Sign a contract, power of attorney, assign beneficiaries, etc. and forget about changing the legal millennia old terminology to absolve you of your sin and shame.

----------

East of the Beast (05-07-2015)

----------


## sooda

> Marriage is a religious ceremony.  The ONLY reason marriage became a civil contract was to collect taxes.  Sign a contract, power of attorney, assign beneficiaries, etc. and forget about changing the legal millennia old terminology to absolve you of your sin and shame.


Marriage has always been a contract first... all through history.

----------


## NuYawka

> religion doesn't and shouldn't decide legal contracts approved and issued by the government such as marriage.


Like it or not, religion is lumped in together with our government. 

Just look at all your coins and dollars.

----------


## Micketto

> Like it or not, religion is lumped in together with our government. 
> 
> Just look at all your coins and dollars.


That has nothing to do with contracts... where religion is not reflected.

----------


## Corruptbuddha

> Like it or not, religion is lumped in together with our government. 
> 
> Just look at all your coins and dollars.


In God We Trust wasn't on our money until the Civil War.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

What the hell, let them marry and then be forced to pay alimony like the rest of us.

----------


## Micketto

> What the hell, let them marry and then be forced to pay alimony like the rest of us.


So you've backpedaled from your "No Children, No Wedding" stance?

----------


## Karl

> Its not uncommon for people to bitch and complain that homosexuality is being shoved in their face, right? So like for example people think that by seeing two gay people walking down the street holding hands that they are is shoving gayness in peoples faces. That kissing in public is shoving gayness in peoples faces. That having a equality sticker on the back of their car is shoving gayness in peoples faces. That getting married in the field of view of other people is shoving gayness in other peoples faces. That flying a rainbow flag is shoving gayness into other peoples faces.
> 
> Tell me....if an equality sticker is shoving gayness in your face then is a jesus fish sticker shoving christianity into other peoples faces? If two gay people kiss on a public bench is shoving gayness in your face then when two straight do it is that also shoving straightness into other peoples face? If two gay people walking down the street is shoving gayness in your face then when straight people walk down the street holding hands is that not doing the same to others? If flying a rainbow flag is shoving gayness into your face then is flying a confederate flag or any other flag that carries a message shoving that in your face too?
> 
> How about this novel concept....none of it is shoving anything in your face, it's just freedom. Get over it.


Well it really doesn't but we still got some backwards folks in this country that are stuck a couple generations ago but they are starting to die off and eventually the younger people will be like the baby boomers or the Voting block

----------


## East of the Beast

> Well it really doesn't but we still got some backwards folks in this country that are stuck a couple generations ago but they are starting to die off and eventually the younger people will be like the baby boomers or the Voting block


When that happens Hell won't be far behind

----------

