# News & Current Events > Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies >  Why "protecting marriage" is retarded

## Josh_LA

I love when people say 

*Oh I don't mind if **** get together and become unions, and give them equal rights, just don't call it marriage, that'll destroy marriage!*

That, by it's own admission, is a word game.

So by this logic, we shouldn't call dogs cats, or it'll destroy cats. We shouldn't call women $#@!s, or that'll destroy women's rights.

How exactly do you preserve or protect the sanctity or sanity of an institution when it's not naturally held up? (Not saying it's not, but if you fear using the wrong word can destroy an institution, it's a sign it can't hold up otherwise).

Are we such a society that cares more about semantics than practicality? Why are we so afraid to say "I just hate gays and I don't think they should be treated like people" if that's how we truly feel?

Why play word games when it's really a matter of superiority, pride and jealousy? Surely, straight couples worked really hard and paid taxes to get their marriage rights and it's not fair gays get them just by voting, right? I can understand, because that's how I was told we shouldn't allow wetbacks into our country to get the same rights we worked our lives for.



*All I'm saying is, there's nothing wrong with hating gays just because you feel like it, but don't be such a pussy afraid to admit it. Don't rephrase your bias and hatred as if it's something greater you care about for some religious or moral reason you owe society.* 
*
You really want to protect marriage? Let's see you act and speak out against celebrity marriage, early marriage, divorce, serial monogamy, cohabitation.*

----------


## sidster

I see you have been seeing the "Protect Marriage" (a.k.a., Yes on Prop8) ads
on here.

----------


## Josh_LA

> I see you have been seeing the "Protect Marriage" (a.k.a., Yes on Prop8) ads
> on here.


yeah, click them here and there, waste their money.

----------


## hillertexas

http://www.wordorigins.org/index.php...onth_marriage/



> The heart of the issue is one of semantics. What exactly do we mean by the word marriage? Regular readers of Wordorigins.org are no doubt aware that a word’s meaning is determined by usage, not etymology. If we extend the meaning of marriage to include gay unions, then that is what the word means.

----------


## Josh_LA

> http://www.wordorigins.org/index.php...onth_marriage/


but gays will never be respected unless and until they are respected and accepted, doesn't matter if they're legally called marriage or given the same rights, whether society wants to recognize their unions is another issue altogether. 

just like even when slavery was illegal and blacks were free, nothing stopped white men from spitting on blacks since it was socially acceptable. When government enforces values, it's tyranny, when values shape the government, it's freedom.

----------


## sidster

> yeah, click them here and there, waste their money.


Josh, you wouldn't happen to work for or have worked for E!?

----------


## hillertexas

> but gays will never be respected unless and until they are respected and accepted, doesn't matter if they're legally called marriage or given the same rights, whether society wants to recognize their unions is another issue altogether. 
> 
> just like even when slavery was illegal and blacks were free, nothing stopped white men from spitting on blacks since it was socially acceptable. When government enforces values, it's tyranny, when values shape the government, it's freedom.


word

----------


## Josh_LA

> Josh, you wouldn't happen to work for or have worked for E!?


I wish

----------


## Grimnir Wotansvolk

Aye, the gender neutrality of marriage is so flabbergastingly common-sensical.

Marriage is a concept that has reverberated throughout human culture, encompassing civilizations that either didn't come into contact with one another or that can't even be traced to one another except in the remotest way. I'd say it's about as rooted in the tradition of civilized human society as the criminalization of murder and theft.

The idea that it's strictly between a man and a woman, however, is a religious concept. And with the understanding that Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on the principles of liberty and peace, then one should understand it doesn't on marriage either. At least not in a society which professes itself to be a cultural melting pot that spurns coercive homogenity.

If you want to keep gays from marrying, at least have the decency to amend the constitution to establish us an official theocracy.

And on that note, there's also glaring hypocrisy among the anti-gay crowd, as homosexuals aren't committing any special sin that most normal people - most christians - haven't committed themselves. If you want to criminalize gay marriage, _be consistent._  Along with that should go divorce, premarital sex, etc.

----------


## Josh_LA

> If you want to keep gays from marrying, at least have the decency to amend the constitution to establish us an official theocracy.


Agreed, which would consistently make divorce, cohabitation somewhat illegal too.

----------


## Josh_LA

> And with the understanding that Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on the principles of liberty and peace, then one should understand it doesn't on marriage either. At least not in a society which professes itself to be a cultural melting pot that spurns coercive homogenity.


Obviously people who consider Christianity to have (or should have) a monopoly over American culture and freedom don't think we are either a melting pot, nor should we allow any competition to the principles of marriage.

----------


## bj72

Wow, this is a biased thread so far....and fairly hateful without understanding all the reasons people might support Prop 8. 

The issue is much bigger than "protecting marriage" or "gay rights", the issue at stake is really *freedom of religion.
*
This issue has been twisted. Ultimately I have to side with Prop 8. I realize I'll likely get flamed, but please hear me out. I see both sides of this issue. 

I have a younger brother who is gay. I love him dearly, his partner is a nice man, and while I do not agree with their choice, it is not my decision to make. While he knows I do not approve of his choice, he also knows that does not affect my love for him, and they both are welcome into our home. I disapprove with the choice to follow this lifestyle or the act, but still love the person. I've had plenty of gay friends, co-workers, and neighbors over the years. I'm sure there are things they do not approve of in my life, it does not mean they hate me, and vice versa. If something were to happen to him, his partner would never be shunned by our family. 

I happen to believe in the Bible and while I would not call myself a Christian (I disagree with many pagan derived "church" practices), I do believe in the "New Testament" as well as the "Old Testament". It is pretty clear in both where the Bible stands on this issue...it is against G-d's law. However, it is also pretty clear that the church has not exactly shown love on this matter over the years, so I can see how we got here and the backlash. The Bible lists other sins too, but you don't see a lot of people shunning others in quite the same way. The whole point is we all fall short of G-d's will....G-d's laws are to guide & protect us....I have enough on my plate where I fall short...it is not mine to judge someone else where they are falling short...that is G-d's job. We are supposed to lift each other up in love, and still strive to follow His law. However, that doesn't mean one has to put their stamp of approval on something that has clearly been listed as a sin in the Bible. We have become way too PC in this area. The Bible is clear that it is against G-d's will...that is the problem I have with trying to label what should be a "civil union" as a marriage before G-d. I do not have a problem with civil unions giving all the same rights as a marriage for I realize not everyone believes in G-d, or if they do, not all try to follow him in the same way. Not everyone believes in the Bible as G-d's word. Therefore, as a society that is for freedom of religion, we should allow people to not choose religion. However, we are society that was founded on freedom _of_ religion, not freedom _from_ religion. The camp that wants people to say no to prop 8 does not want freedom of religion...they want freedom from religion. They want to basically outlaw any religion that does not approve of their own religious or world view and persecute those that practice it. That doesn't sound too different from what they are accusing the other side of now does it?

By redefining marriage, many religions are set up for religious persecution. How can a Minister or a Rabbi whom believes the Bible's passages on this matter marry a same-sex couple in good conscience? Or let them utilize their facilities for the ceremony? They can't as that would be approving of the act. However, if they refuse to marry a same-sex couple then there is now a chance they could be sued. Where is the religious freedom this country was founded under? 

Recently a first grade class was bused during school hours to see their teacher get married at city hall to her partner. CA schools should get back to teaching reading, writing, arithmetic, history and civics, since they are not stellar in those areas, and get out of social issues. Without Prop 8, textbooks and curriculum will be changed here in public schools. While that may not bother some, what is worrisome (besides the fact CA is broke and that'll cost a bit of money) is those who do not religiously agree with their children being taught that it is okay, now have no choice. While they can discuss their disagreement at home, the schools have children for 40 hours a week to indoctrinate them. Parents have less time to counter in the evenings and on weekends. I realize this will thrill some same-sex couples. I get they have been dealing with this in reverse for years. However, the answer isn't to persecute the opposite way....the answer is this is a personal, family issue...not government's role to sway one way or another. 

"California public schools have been told they must be “gay friendly". But it will not stop with public schools. Just north of the border in Quebec, the government told a Mennonite school that it must conform to provincial law regarding curriculum—a curriculum that teaches children that homosexuality is a valid lifestyle. How long will it be before the U.S. government goes after private schools?"

I have no problem with CA schools acknowledging that their are many types of families. They already have been doing this with gusto for some time. But to force private schools (or homeschools) to teach against what is written in the Bible is going too far. What is next? Will CA ban the Bible as a book that promotes "hate crime"? Seriously. If that is what is coming for CA, and as the saying goes, as CA goes, so goes the nation....what is this nation coming to? Bible burnings and forced assimilation into either no religion, or only a state approved religious system? 

"Proposition 8 places into the California Constitution the same language that voters already passed by 61% of the vote in 2000. This is necessary to overturn an outrageous California Supreme Court decision that overturned Proposition 22.

Proposition 8 is simple and straightforward.  It contains the same 14 words that were previously approved in 2000 by over 61% of California voters: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

Because four activist judges in San Francisco wrongly overturned the people’s vote, we need to pass this measure as a constitutional amendment to restore the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman."

The people voted, the CA courts decided the people's vote doesn't matter. Where is the justice there? If this was reversed...there would be outrage. 

Prop 8 is not about gay rights, and it isn't really about protecting marriage as a religious institution..."marriage" is just a word. It is about religious freedom and freedom of speech. 

If gays are really worried about gay rights, then push for civil unions and for civil unions to have the same rights as marriage. If they believe civil unions do not have the same federal level privileges (which is another whole reason we shouldn't have so many federal programs...), it is simple.....as much as I still think this is a state's issue, why not have a federal amendment...that defines marriage between a man and woman (to religious protect it) and also defines civil union partnerships to be equal to marriage in all legal matters. Or better yet, define all marriages the same for federal purposes but give language to clearly protect the religious freedoms of individuals and organizations that do not wish to perform or teach same-sex marriage...as well as parents who do not wish to teach "same-sex" couplings as Biblically correct to their children. No one is saying they will teach hate....they are just saying they have a right to disagree on Biblical grounds. Then gay couples are protected legally, and religious freedoms of those who choose not to perform or teach same-sex marriage are equally protected. Same-sex couples could still have a religious ceremonies in churches that ascribe to that philosophy (as some churches do not teach the whole Bible or view it as literal), but what this would do would protect individuals, families, parents, churches, etc., who follow G-d's laws from being sued by same-sex couples insisting they be married at that church or synagogue, or organizations insisting it be taught to all children from K-12 at all schools....or else.

I fear we are a culture crippled by political correctness. We no longer are allowed to disagree on any issue without being labeled "hateful".  I love my brother, I love my neighbors, it is not my business what they do in this matter (that is between them and G-d), but I just want the freedom to teach my children what the Bible says on this matter without being labeled hateful. I teach them to love and respect others....even if they do not agree with their ways. My children know that others make different decisions. When they become of age, they will have to make their own decisions. I may not agree with them all, but again, that is their journey between them and G-d. 

Josh...I agree with you when you say "When government enforces values, it's tyranny, when values shape the government, it's freedom." However both sides are currently asking the government to enforce values, both sides currently want their own form of tyranny.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Wow, this is a biased thread so far....and fairly hateful without understanding all the reasons people might support Prop 8. 
> 
> The issue is much bigger than "protecting marriage" or "gay rights", the issue at stake is really *freedom of religion.
> *
> This issue has been twisted. Ultimately I have to side with Prop 8. I realize I'll likely get flamed, but please hear me out. I see both sides of this issue. 
> .


Oh, so this is biased and fairly hateful, but YOU are the one siding with a semantic protection act.

*Yes, it's about freedom of religion, since when was it illegal to hate gays and say Jesus died for sins?*

----------


## Josh_LA

> "California public schools have been told they must be gay friendly". But it will not stop with public schools. Just north of the border in Quebec, the government told a Mennonite school that it must conform to provincial law regarding curriculuma curriculum that teaches children that homosexuality is a valid lifestyle. How long will it be before the U.S. government goes after private schools?".


Gays and atheists have suffered enough of Christian PC BS for 200 years, it's about time we get to say "if you don't like *** fitlhy California, GET THE $#@! OUT"

----------


## Josh_LA

> The people voted, the CA courts decided the people's vote doesn't matter. Where is the justice there? If this was reversed...there would be outrage.


That's exactly what courts are SUPPOSED to do , balance power. You're not against court decisions, you're against them when they're against you. What about when legislators passed a gay marriage bill and Arnold vetoed it? It's all about balance and checking!

How would you like it if people voted FOR gay marriage AND the courts confirmed it, AND the legislators approved it? You'd be crying tyranny, what matters to you is not the process, it's the result!

----------


## SeanEdwards

What's retarded is thinking that two men or two women, can fulfill the roles of both mother and father for a child.

----------


## Josh_LA

> If gays are really worried about gay rights, then push for civil unions and for civil unions to have the same rights as marriage. If they believe civil unions do not have the same federal level privileges (which is another whole reason we shouldn't have so many federal programs...), it is simple.....as much as I still think this is a state's issue, why not have a federal amendment...that defines marriage between a man and woman (to religious protect it) and also defines civil union partnerships to be equal to marriage in all legal matters. Or better yet, define all marriages the same for federal purposes but give language to clearly protect the religious freedoms of individuals and organizations that do not wish to perform or teach same-sex marriage...as well as parents who do not wish to teach "same-sex" couplings as Biblically correct to their children. No one is saying they will teach hate....they are just saying they have a right to disagree on Biblical grounds. Then gay couples are protected legally, and religious freedoms of those who choose not to perform or teach same-sex marriage are equally protected. Same-sex couples could still have a religious ceremonies in churches that ascribe to that philosophy (as some churches do not teach the whole Bible or view it as literal), but what this would do would protect individuals, families, parents, churches, etc., who follow G-d's laws from being sued by same-sex couples insisting they be married at that church or synagogue, or organizations insisting it be taught to all children from K-12 at all schools....or else.
> .


Not that I WANT gays to call themselves people or call their unions marriage, but what's the harm? Why is it so important to protect a word? Isn't that basically making thought and speech illegal?

While you fear Christians can be prosecuted for spewing hate among gays, why is it OK to make it the other way around to make gays spewing their marriages illegal?

Aren't all speeches and all hatred equal under law?

----------


## Josh_LA

> What's retarded is thinking that two men or two women, can fulfill the roles of both mother and father for a child.


what's retarded is to think they're worse than having no parents at all or having just one.

----------


## ItsTime

but but but god hates gaysssssssssssssssss

----------


## Josh_LA

> but but but god hates gaysssssssssssssssss


Don't blame God, just admit YOU (not you, but those who say God) hate gays, and there's nothing wrong with that, how cowardly for men to hide behind God to speak their own mind.

----------


## SeanEdwards

> what's retarded is to think they're worse than having no parents at all or having just one.


I think in some ways it's equivalent to having one parent. Maybe a tiny bit better, in that there may be more financial resources available. However, like a single-parent family, the gay family lacks individuals of both genders in caregiver roles for the child. This denies the child the opportunity to form relationships with both a mother and father.

But the proponents of gay marriage dismiss this concern out of hand, and insist that their notion of family is equal in all respects to a traditional family structure. Maybe they're right. I have my doubts because I think children probably do benefit from having close relationships with a mother and a father. However, what's undeniable is that this notion of gay families for childrearing is a relatively new societal development. It amounts to a grand experiment being conducted on a generation of children. In that respect it's similar to the grand experiment that has been under way with single-mother families.

I'm not persuaded that the societal embrace of single-mother families has been very good for society at all. I have similar doubts about this new move towards society endorsing gay families. That's why I will be voting in favor of prop 8 in California. I can support some kind of changes to the law to recognize homosexual couples, primarily in terms of inheritance law, visitation rights, etc. But I can't support the agenda of elevating the gay family as equal to a traditional family for the purposes of childrearing.

----------


## lucius

> I think in some ways it's equivalent to having one parent. Maybe a tiny bit better, in that there may be more financial resources available. However, like a single-parent family, the gay family lacks individuals of both genders in caregiver roles for the child. This denies the child the opportunity to form relationships with both a mother and father.
> 
> *But the proponents of gay marriage dismiss this concern out of hand, and insist that their notion of family is equal in all respects to a traditional family structure.* Maybe they're right. I have my doubts because I think children probably do benefit from having close relationships with a mother and a father. However, what's undeniable is that this notion of gay families for childrearing is a relatively new societal development. It amounts to a grand experiment being conducted on a generation of children. In that respect it's similar to the grand experiment that has been under way with single-mother families.
> 
> *I'm not persuaded that the societal embrace of single-mother families has been very good for society at all. I have similar doubts about this new move towards society endorsing gay families.* That's why I will be voting in favor of prop 8 in California. I can support some kind of changes to the law to recognize homosexual couples, primarily in terms of inheritance law, visitation rights, etc. But I can't support the agenda of elevating the gay family as equal to a traditional family for the purposes of childrearing.


What individuals do in their bedrooms is no business of mine, but this is what I teach my children:

Broken/retarded humans make the best employees/civillians/serfs...

This minority lifestyle is Applied Eugenics: don't breed/die young/easier to control.

Created/promoted like any other policy agenda (look to compulsory public education).

Study it, you may see, or not:

Here are a few sources:

Dennis Altman's 'The Homosexualization of America': How the cultural elite "reinvent human nature, reinvent themselves."..."promiscuity and 'impersonal sex' are determined more by social possibilities than by inherent differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals, or even between men and women."

'After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 1990's', by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen: the blueprint activists used to implement this campaign using media and vast money to radicalize America-by processes known as desensitization, jamming and conversion. 

Robert Jay Lifton's 'Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism': the Chinese are the original masters of desensitization, jamming and conversion, Kirk/Madsen mirror it almost word-for-word. 

'Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far' by Charles W. Socarides, M.D.: interesting/logical Darwinian argument.

All hinges on this Rockefeller funded 'junk science' done by this freak pedophile named Kinsey:

Kinsey's Pedophiles: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...46628970&hl=en

ps: Promoting single parent family is policy agenda as well.

----------


## bj72

> That's exactly what courts are SUPPOSED to do , balance power. You're not against court decisions, you're against them when they're against you. What about when legislators passed a gay marriage bill and Arnold vetoed it? It's all about balance and checking!
> 
> How would you like it if people voted FOR gay marriage AND the courts confirmed it, AND the legislators approved it? You'd be crying tyranny, what matters to you is not the process, it's the result!


Josh, you are as impossible to have a conversation with on this subject, as it is to have with Christian evangelicals when I try to point out that our Constitution and freedom of religion should protect gay rights. I am not saying gay marriage should be illegal. I'm saying that the current trend to embrace it here is fascist in the opposite direction....have we learned nothing?

Under our Constitution I have no problem with gay marriage if it doesn't usurp religious freedom. Unfortunately what is being pushed right now does. 

"Gays and atheists have suffered enough of Christian PC BS for 200 years, it's about time we get to say "if you don't like *** fitlhy California, GET THE $#@! OUT"

Wow, again, that is not what I believe or am saying. Little hostile aren't we? If the people of CA vote no, that is another matter. But the people didn't vote no in 2000. If the tide has turned, then yes for those living here as CA residents...that is their choice to leave. However, what about those of us who do not have a choice to leave? I still then have a problem with then being labeled a "hater" for following the Bible when teaching my children from it. Again, I teach them G-d says not to commit the act...along with a lot of other things we aren't supposed to do. I do not say G-d hates them, and definitely make it clear we are to love our fellow man. BTW, I do not have a choice currently to "get out" of CA if I were to be persecuted on this matter....my husband is fighting for your freedom of speech to hurl hostile words at me. If my husband has to serve to protect that freedom, then perhaps at least states that pass sweeping legislation to impose their view on the public could allow military members and their children to go by their home state rules....I simply will make sure our domicile is with a state that protects our freedom to teach (that doesn't necessarily mean it will be a state that trounces on gays freedom either).

"Don't blame God, just admit YOU (not you, but those who say God) hate gays, and there's nothing wrong with that, how cowardly for men to hide behind God to speak their own mine."

Hey, I didn't say G-d hated gays. He doesn't. I don't. I'm not saying there aren't Christians that do and spout off wrongly. Heck, I'm sure there are atheists, agnostics, and other religions  that do. I'm sure in reverse there are gays who hate anyone that are not gay or do not wholly support and jump up and down for their cause. Please don't lump all that believe the Bible at it's word as people who hate gays. If we could come together on this issue more we could move ahead in on our country on other freedoms.

The Bible, G-d's Word, makes it clear that the act is not in his will. Never says he hates the person. BTW, I didn't write this....G-d did through Moses, so take it up with one of them.

Vayikra (Leviticus) 18:22 "You are not to go to bed with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination." 

BTW, before that it goes into a lot of other things we are not to do...have sex with a close relative, your mother, your father, stepparents, siblings, grandchildren, neighbors wife, during time of niddah (menstruation...betting a lot of "Christians" don't follow that either),...etc. Verses 6-21 go into detail on all these things. Right after verse 22 it says not to have sexual relations with any animal and thus become unclean with it. It says in Vayikra (Leviticus) 18:29-30 "For those who engage in any of these disgusting practices, whoever they may be, will be cut off from their people. So keep my charge not to follow any of these abominable customs that others before you have followed and thus defile yourselves by doing them. I am Adonai your God." 

Again, I didn't write the words, they are in the Bible, G-d gave them to Moses. Take it up with Him. It also says in Vayikra (Leviticus) 19:17-19 "Do not hate your brother in your heart, but rebuke your neighbor frankly, so that you won't carry sin because of him. Don't take vengeance on or bear a grudge against any of your people; rather, love your neighbor as yourself; I am Adonai. Observe my regulations".

This would mean that people who do hate those who are not following the words written in the Bible are also committing a sin. G-d despises the acts He has forbidden, not the people. King David committed adultery...G-d dealt with him for his sin...King David later repented, but there were still consequences. G-d didn't hate him....he loved him still. But never did G-d change His mind and teach what David did was okay, or now good to go...

I simply am arguing that CA is making this a no-win situation right now. Those on the so-called left are hostile that gay marriage is not accepted on all levels...from government, to school, to religious institutions and home. Those on the so-called right do not want to acknowledge that not everyone acknowledges there is a G-d, much less then of course follow his words. 

Can't we all just get along? Why can't we protect both gay's rights to follow what they want (and those who are Christians...leave it up to G-d to deal with accordingly)....and also protect free speech and the right to teach our children from G-d's word. If that means some mention in public schools, fine, but to then encroach into private schools, places of worship and homes is unconstitutional. 

As for schools and this issue, children ultimately will have the choice to follow or not when they are adults. In the meantime, children really should not be exploring heterosexual, homosexual or any type of sexual relationship till they are adults anyway....when they are more emotionally ready. They should concentrate on being children, the three rs (along with history, science, art, music, etc), and learning to be productive (age appropriate chores, or later jobs) & fiscally responsible. 

When those who are practicing alternate lifestyles come up with legislation that protects their freedom here (which again, is fine, they will have to answer to G-d, not man) as well as religious & parental freedoms, I'll gladly sign on board. 

Unfortunately, that will never come. The majority are not learning from history. The pendulum swings one way, then the other. They haven't done that yet and therefore are just going to start a new wave of persecution in the opposite direction. One would think maybe the gay community would have a little more empathy for this concept. However I guess getting sweeping "revenge" on those who simply utilize the same book as others that spew hate is okay. 

I'd hope a supposed fellow RP supporter could see the brainwashing on both sides of the argument. You clearly see the problems on the so-called social "right", but still can't yet see equal problems on the "left"? This, like many other issues in this country (abortion, military, etc), is not a matter of either the "left" or "right" being correct. The answer is somewhere in the middle. This is just another way to keep us all enslaved. Give one side "power" over the other for a little while to make them feel like they have control....back and forth (like the two major parties switching back and forth for decades)...when in fact none of us really has freedom...most are too distracted and bickering to see the truth...at this rate we the people will never overcome oppression and get back to our Constitution.

----------


## dannno

This is a free speech issue. I should be able to call my religious ceremony whatever I want. This is a religious rights issue.

There is some fear-mongering coming from the yes on Prop 8 side, saying that religions will lose their tax exempt status if they don't marry gay people and gay marriage will HAVE to be taught in schools. Well, those actions may be lies or truth, but they are certainly fascist.. but so is saying that someone else can't have a gay marriage. 

Why can't we just stop being fascist??

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> This is a free speech issue. I should be able to call my religious ceremony whatever I want. This is a religious rights issue.
> 
> There is some fear-mongering coming from the yes on Prop 8 side, saying that religions will lose their tax exempt status if they don't marry gay people and gay marriage will HAVE to be taught in schools. Well, those actions may be lies or truth, but they are certainly fascist.. but so is saying that someone else can't have a gay marriage. 
> 
> Why can't we just stop being fascist??


You could also call it an individual rights issue.  If 2 individuals want to engage in a legal ceremony, they should not need permission from the state.   We can't stop being fascist because Woodrow Wilson ensured that fascism should be the American way, and noone challenged him properly.

----------


## bj72

> This is a free speech issue. I should be able to call my religious ceremony whatever I want. This is a religious rights issue.
> 
> There is some fear-mongering coming from the yes on Prop 8 side, saying that religions will lose their tax exempt status if they don't marry gay people and gay marriage will HAVE to be taught in schools. Well, those actions may be lies or truth, but they are certainly fascist.. but so is saying that someone else can't have a gay marriage. 
> 
> Why can't we just stop being fascist??


I really do not care if people have a religious ceremony or call it that.

Prop 8 side has a point...it isn't fear-mongering or lies....there has been precedent now set to force actions in the other direction in other states and countries. That is why the "protect marriage" legislation is gaining ground. The education system here in CA is downright hostile to those with beliefs in some areas. Prop 8, and like proposals, wouldn't have nearly as much traction if this weren't the case. Many people like myself are now caught between both sides. Ultimately, I need to be able to teach my children our beliefs without having them taken from the home by "well-meaning" govt officials that state I can't teach from the Bible due to their warped interpretation of what I might be teaching, or disagreement with the Bible all together. 

We just need to leave each other alone on these matters...instead we have modern day witch hunts.

I agree, we need to stop being fascist and start protecting both sides. Yet, I haven't really seen anyone doing that yet....

----------


## bj72

> You could also call it an individual rights issue.  If 2 individuals want to engage in a legal ceremony, they should not need permission from the state.   We can't stop being fascist because Woodrow Wilson ensured that fascism should be the American way, and noone challenged him properly.



So true  

Much of this could be settled by abolishing the IRS, setting up a VAT tax, having our government spend less, and allowing true freedom of choice in education. 

I hope to see this one day, but unfortunately I think in reality it will never happen as too many people even on this forum can't see beyond the smoke and mirrors.

----------


## Josh_LA

> I think in some ways it's equivalent to having one parent. Maybe a tiny bit better, in that there may be more financial resources available. However, like a single-parent family, the gay family lacks individuals of both genders in caregiver roles for the child. This denies the child the opportunity to form relationships with both a mother and father.


You're saying that as if every other child in the world had a choice or is 100% satisfied with their parents. Denies a child? Who owes a child ANY care or love?

It may be just as good/bad as a single parent, so what can be worse to have an extra helper for money or company?

----------


## Josh_LA

> I really do not care if people have a religious ceremony or call it that.
> 
> Prop 8 side has a point...it isn't fear-mongering or lies....there has been precedent now set to force actions in the other direction in other states and countries. That is why the "protect marriage" legislation is gaining ground. The education system here in CA is downright hostile to those with beliefs in some areas. Prop 8, and like proposals, wouldn't have nearly as much traction if this weren't the case. Many people like myself are now caught between both sides. Ultimately, I need to be able to teach my children our beliefs without having them taken from the home by "well-meaning" govt officials that state I can't teach from the Bible due to their warped interpretation of what I might be teaching, or disagreement with the Bible all together. 
> 
> We just need to leave each other alone on these matters...instead we have modern day witch hunts.
> 
> I agree, we need to stop being fascist and start protecting both sides. Yet, I haven't really seen anyone doing that yet....


If you want to protect your children from the corrupt liberal education system, KEEP THEM OUT, PERIOD. Don't wait for them to teach that gay marriage is ok and Mexican border jumpers are our equals when they're already teaching evolution, sharing is caring, and refusing to lead prayer.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Hey, I didn't say G-d hated gays. He doesn't. I don't. I'm not saying there aren't Christians that do and spout off wrongly. Heck, I'm sure there are atheists, agnostics, and other religions  that do. I'm sure in reverse there are gays who hate anyone that are not gay or do not wholly support and jump up and down for their cause. Please don't lump all that believe the Bible at it's word as people who hate gays. If we could come together on this issue more we could move ahead in on our country on other freedoms.


Right, I don't hate murder or blacks either, but I won't teach my child to be black or a murderer, just because I don't like it, doesn't mean it's wrong, but I get to teach what I want to my kids, right?

----------


## Josh_LA

> Can't we all just get along?


How exactly is introducing a leglislation based on a democratic vote for protecting an institution by semantics and thought crime "getting along"?

----------


## Josh_LA

> What individuals do in their bedrooms is no business of mine, but this is what I teach my children:
> 
> Broken/retarded humans make the best employees/civillians/serfs...
> 
> This minority lifestyle is Applied Eugenics: don't breed/die young/easier to control.
> 
> Created/promoted like any other policy agenda (look to compulsory public education).
> 
> Study it, you may see, or not:
> ...


*Obviously you've not seen Idiocracy.*

Respecting retards as people makes societies and minorities WORSE, its only in our PC filter today that we find it wrong to say NOT ALL LIVES ARE EQUAL AND NOT ALL LIVES ARE BETTER THAN DEATH (just ask Henry). *Dying young is BAD for slavery,* slave owners WANT their machines to last as long as they can. *Breeding CREATES slaves*, unless a person is intelligent enough to control himself, you're much easier to control when you're in need of help for your children than when you're alone. *WRONG ON ALL COUNTS FOR SLAVERY.*

Nobody "PROMOTES" single families as if it's better than married couples, they promote respect for single families as appreciation and "better than nothing".

----------


## Josh_LA

> Again, I didn't write the words, they are in the Bible, G-d gave them to Moses. Take it up with Him.


I agree, you didn't write them , so you shouldn't have any responsibility for following it. Ain't it nice to have somebody else take credit for good things your preach?

----------


## bj72

> How exactly is introducing a leglislation based on a democratic vote for protecting an institution by semantics and thought crime "getting along"?


I don't get what you are saying here....

Are you trying to say that enacting legislation by democratic vote to protect marriage is protecting "an institution" of  "semantics" and by doing so makes alternative lifestyles "thought crimes"? 

If so, then again, look at the other side. There are already "thought crimes" being enforced on those who do not agree with gay marriage....arguably also an "institution of semantics". If they would cease stop doing so, maybe as many people wouldn't feel the legislation necessary.

----------


## dannno

> If so, then again, look at the other side. There are already "thought crimes" being enforced on those who do not agree with gay marriage....arguably also an "institution of semantics". If they would cease stop doing so, maybe as many people wouldn't feel the legislation necessary.


Please list and I will give you a better way to deal with these issues than "banning" a word. 


This situation is fricking stupid. I just got an e-mail from my mom:


"Already in CA when you take out a marriage license it now says "Party 1" and "Party 2" instead of "Husband" and "Wife".
There will be a cascade of lawsuits that will cost taxpayers money.
Churches will be forced to have same sex marriages or their tax status will be changed.
One lawsuit that has already come to court and been decided makes it mandatory for all health clinics in CA to perform invitro(sic) fertilization for same sex couples even if the clinic doesn't believe in it. Just like in MA the Catholic Church dissolved its adoption agencies because they are forced to give babies to same sex couples."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI-GjWY-WlA




WTF?!!

It seems like a vote "Yes" or "No" is a vote for fascism 

Either that, or there is some major scare mongering going on here.

----------


## bj72

> I agree, you didn't write them , so you shouldn't have any responsibility for following it. Ain't it nice to have somebody else take credit for good things your preach?


By your logic then, gee, none of us needs to follow the Constitution either or any laws. We didn't write them...so we shouldn't have any responsibility for following them either?

That wasn't what I was saying, but good try.

Your last few posts...well let's just say I do not think you have really a logical train of thought to your arguments....that or they need to be expressed more clearly (and correct spelling would help too). Perhaps it is a level of off or dry sarcasm I'm not catching online...can't tell.

"If you want to protect your children from the corrupt liberal education system, KEEP THEM OUT, PERIOD. Don't wait for them to teach that gay marriage is ok and Mexican border jumpers are our equals when they're already teaching evolution, sharing is caring, and refusing to lead prayer."

They already teach gay marriage as not just okay, but a valid option to Kindergarten and 1st graders in CA schools, there is no waiting...it is here and has been here. Clearly you are not as current on this topic as you think you may be...

I'm not sure where you add the "Mexican border jumpers are our equals when they're already teaching evolution, sharing is caring, and refusing to lead prayer." into this discussion at all. It is off topic. For the record I'm against _illegal_  immigration, but not against the people themselves (regardless of country or race)...just immigrate legally. I'd prefer prayer not be led by teachers or administrators in public school...whose prayer, what type? It is not a place for public schools but private religious schools and homeschools. However students should feel free to pray by themselves or with other students in a group if they like. "Sharing is caring", uh? Lost me there as I'm guessing this refers to a program vs actual meaning "sharing is caring"... Evolution....yes they only teach evolution in many schools, heaven forbid they teach about intelligent design and creation as competing ideas as well and let children decide for themselves. Again, the matter is choice. My children are learning about creation, intelligent design and evolution. We teach them what the Bible says, but ultimately they get to choose. They know about gay marriage....eventually they get a choice. However, at their age (7, 5, and 1)....it doesn't need to be front and center. If they read the Bible growing up and want to go a different way, then that is their choice. However, it is the moral compass to which we guide them....everyone espouses to some idea of morality whether they think they do or not. 

I'm not sure if you are really for one side or another or just playing devil's advocate. To be honest, since I do teach at home, nurse a baby, run a household, etc....don't have a whole lot of time to go back and forth on this. I'm guessing you are in your teens or twenties and have a bit more time....if so, I remember the days....wasn't that long ago. It's been fun nonetheless.

BTW, our children are out of the public school system to get a diverse education. No dry textbooks, but instead read real books and encyclopedias from a variety of view points. I'm teaching them to think, not be brainwashed from the "left" or "right". They'll eventually read the Constitution, Federalist papers, and eventually the Communist Manifesto (so they can understand the difference), as well as about all forms of government. They probably run into people of various ages, race, and political views more often then most public or private school children. My problem is what is being adopted by the public education system is not just staying there; there are those who feel it needs to be "enforced" at other levels, to include private schools and religious institutions.

Just curious, where do/did you go to school: public institution, private institution, or "private school" at home?

I did find the comment quoted below to lucius interesting. I think I've seen you argue this before...alluding to eugenics being okay. Perhaps you are with the "over-population" crowd too. Have you read 'A Brave New World' and 'A Brave New World Revisited' by Aldus Huxley? If not, suggest you do. Introducing sex-ed concepts from K & 1 grades doesn't help the world become free from slavery either. Anyway, I'd beg to differ on one of your comments, I think for some they may be easier to control when they are "in need of help for your children"....but that is assuming parents need help for their children. I could argue I've seen just as many people that are alone that are just as dependent on that same "help" that enslaves them. For some, children are the "wake-up" call that produces a great understanding of freedom and therefore then fight even harder to establish a new lineage of education in that matter.

Even still...I'll try to check out Idiocracy some time....from the Wikipedia it looks a fun "B" rated movie. And, because I do follow the Bible, and am the mothering typeif the SHTF and you were to migrate up from LA and come to my door (in peace) looking for helpI would gladly feed you and help you not become dependent on the systemdespite our differences on Prop 8....just come sporting a RP t-shirt so I know it is you, okay 

"Obviously you've not seen Idiocracy.

Respecting retards as people makes societies and minorities WORSE, its only in our PC filter today that we find it wrong to say NOT ALL LIVES ARE EQUAL AND NOT ALL LIVES ARE BETTER THAN DEATH (just ask Henry). Dying young is BAD for slavery, slave owners WANT their machines to last as long as they can. Breeding CREATES slaves, unless a person is intelligent enough to control himself, you're much easier to control when you're in need of help for your children than when you're alone. WRONG ON ALL COUNTS FOR SLAVERY."

----------


## bj72

> Please list and I will give you a better way to deal with these issues than "banning" a word. 
> 
> 
> This situation is fricking stupid. I just got an e-mail from my mom:
> 
> 
> "Already in CA when you take out a marriage license it now says "Party 1" and "Party 2" instead of "Husband" and "Wife".
> There will be a cascade of lawsuits that will cost taxpayers money.
> Churches will be forced to have same sex marriages or their tax status will be changed.
> ...



Yes Danno....a vote "Yes" or "No" is a vote for fascism here....that is what I am saying! We are damned either way. Gotta love CA. Glad I'm only here for a few years (I hope at least).

There is not scare mongering going on....there have already been cases in Canada, Mass, CA, etc. Without Prop 8 people feel like they have no freedom of religion.  I'm not saying Prop 8 is the right answer, but I can see how it came about....backs are against the wall on this one. I know a lot of people teaching at home that are out campaigning for it that normally would not have taken such a stance.

Josh...if you are reading, you can breathe a sigh of relief...I'm not voting for Prop 8...

I'm an AZ resident. Thank G-d I do not have to vote on it. I really think it is lose-lose scenario and unfortunately one that seems to being sweeping the country.

----------


## SimpleName

> Are we such a society that cares more about semantics than practicality? Why are we so afraid to say "I just hate gays and I don't think they should be treated like people" if that's how we truly feel?


One HUGE irritation. Barack Obama LOVES to pull this one. I remember the MTV/MySpace forum when he was asked about it. He hesitated, struggling to contrive some sort of no-lose answer as he usually does, and then spewed that he does "not believe in gay marriage. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. But what I do support is civil unions." I flipped out and turned off the TV for the rest of the night. If you do not like gays getting married, JUST SAY SO! Stop the civil union nonsense. "Protecting marriage" is a petty, trivial phrase that is simply politics at its best.

----------


## Josh_LA

> One HUGE irritation. Barack Obama LOVES to pull this one. I remember the MTV/MySpace forum when he was asked about it. He hesitated, struggling to contrive some sort of no-lose answer as he usually does, and then spewed that he does "not believe in gay marriage. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. But what I do support is civil unions." I flipped out and turned off the TV for the rest of the night. If you do not like gays getting married, JUST SAY SO! Stop the civil union nonsense. "Protecting marriage" is a petty, trivial phrase that is simply politics at its best.


thanks very much!!

----------


## Josh_LA

> Yes Danno....a vote "Yes" or "No" is a vote for fascism here....that is what I am saying! We are damned either way. Gotta love CA. Glad I'm only here for a few years (I hope at least).


That's not how things work in producing props. Voting YES is almost always an introduction of new laws and new regulations. When in doubt, you're usually told to vote NO, and let it come again in case it's so good an idea.

----------


## Josh_LA

> By your logic then, gee, none of us needs to follow the Constitution either or any laws. We didn't write them...so we shouldn't have any responsibility for following them either?


Yes, exactly. 

You should be held accountable for EVERYTHING you do and say, regardless of whether you authored the saying. You should be accountable for what you do regardless of whether it's against the law, the Bible, the COnstitution or your stupid excuse.

----------


## Josh_LA

> "If you want to protect your children from the corrupt liberal education system, KEEP THEM OUT, PERIOD. Don't wait for them to teach that gay marriage is ok and Mexican border jumpers are our equals when they're already teaching evolution, sharing is caring, and refusing to lead prayer."
> 
> They already teach gay marriage as not just okay, but a valid option to Kindergarten and 1st graders in CA schools, there is no waiting...it is here and has been here. Clearly you are not as current on this topic as you think you may be...


Actually, I AM, I just don't have a problem with it. Teaching children gays are OK is no worse than teaching blacks and Hispanics are to be treated equally. Unless "protecting marriage" specifically makes it illegal to teach what marriage is in schools, it's useless. So either you make it a thought crime, or you're not making any difference.

----------


## ItsTime

> Please list and I will give you a better way to deal with these issues than "banning" a word. 
> 
> 
> This situation is fricking stupid. I just got an e-mail from my mom:
> 
> 
> "Already in CA when you take out a marriage license it now says "Party 1" and "Party 2" instead of "Husband" and "Wife".
> There will be a cascade of lawsuits that will cost taxpayers money.
> Churches will be forced to have same sex marriages or their tax status will be changed.
> ...


I think that is where the term "liberal fascism" comes from

----------


## Josh_LA

> Just curious, where do/did you go to school: public institution, private institution, or "private school" at home?


I went to school in a public insitution, and I was fortunate enough to have good parents that taught me better things. I don't believe our education is either completely bad or completely good, there are both.

----------


## Josh_LA

> I think that is where the term "liberal fascism" comes from


can we have a discussion without using the terms Fascism, Nazi, Statist, Bureaucrat, Hitler, Communist??

I tried using "hatred" to describe the worst of us, do we need to resort to comparison when things are so bad already?

----------


## dannno

Well I'm voting "No" but it just pisses me off because I know if the vote goes that direction I'm going to have to then put effort into protecting people's freedom of religion from misguided homosexuals and greedy attorneys

----------


## Josh_LA

> I'm not sure if you are really for one side or another or just playing devil's advocate. To be honest, since I do teach at home, nurse a baby, run a household, etc....don't have a whole lot of time to go back and forth on this. I'm guessing you are in your teens or twenties and have a bit more time....if so, I remember the days....wasn't that long ago. It's been fun nonetheless.


I do take a side, I believe the whole debate is hatred and equality, wrapped in semantics. I don't believe there's anything wrong with hatred or equality, and surely lots of it has to do with the fact society and laws ALREADY favor and encourage marriage, thus gays want the same. I believe semantic debate is hypocritical and blinds us from the real issues. I believe people should speak their mind, not back their beliefs with religious teachings if what they say is indeed reasonable.




> I did find the comment quoted below to lucius interesting. I think I've seen you argue this before...alluding to eugenics being okay. Perhaps you are with the "over-population" crowd too. Have you read 'A Brave New World' and 'A Brave New World Revisited' by Aldus Huxley? If not, suggest you do. Introducing sex-ed concepts from K & 1 grades doesn't help the world become free from slavery either. Anyway, I'd beg to differ on one of your comments, I think for some they may be easier to control when they are "in need of help for your children"....but that is assuming parents need help for their children. I could argue I've seen just as many people that are alone that are just as dependent on that same "help" that enslaves them. For some, children are the "wake-up" call that produces a great understanding of freedom and therefore then fight even harder to establish a new lineage of education in that matter.


I'm not exactly with the overpopulation crowd, but I do believe that it's not wrong to consider some style of eugenics, some style of population control IF some facts are present and IF there are some good results. It's not black and white, we should allow gray areas. 

My point is, when you have a child, you're much easier to control because you have a reason to care for another thing, a new worry, a hostage against you someday. This does NOT work the same for other people, but I do believe not breeding and dying young are BAD for slavery.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Well I'm voting "No" but it just pisses me off because I know if the vote goes that direction I'm going to have to then put effort into protecting people's freedom of religion from misguided homosexuals and greedy attorneys


fights are never over that easily. but you should understand that voting YES on propositions almost always introduces new laws and more government power.

----------


## Pericles

I must be an idiot for jumping into this thread because any sort of rational public policy is not the real goal for proponents and opponents. Both want to force their views on other citizens.

Consider this -
1. This is a state issue unless the Constitution is amended.

2. Each religion or group with a viewpoint can define marriage, as they wish, but already established precedent (Mormons) is that the civil view will be the rule.

3. The civil rule has been the minimum requirement to show how property rights and responsibilities are transferred from generation to generation (creation of legal heirs), within a cultural framework limitation (no incest - however incest might be defined).

4. Changing the principle of marriage from one male one female definition to a civil right that belongs to a person has the following implications because the definition changes from minimum necessity to produce children.
(A) Why is the limit two people?
(B) Are incest limits then a violation of civil rights? Two brothers OK, two sisters OK, brother and sister not OK?

I suggest that if you answer in the affirmative to either (A) or (B), your interest in the matter is other than a civil rights issue.

----------


## nodope0695

Do I agree with gay marriage, or the gay lifestyle as a whole?  NO.  But that doesn't mean if for me, or the government, to tell people how to live.  If two gays want to get married, does it threaten my life, liberty, property? NO.

Therefore, if they want to do it, then let 'em.  It is not for me to judge - that is for a higher power.

----------


## lucius

> *Obviously you've not seen Idiocracy.*
> 
> Respecting retards as people makes societies and minorities WORSE, its only in our PC filter today that we find it wrong to say NOT ALL LIVES ARE EQUAL AND NOT ALL LIVES ARE BETTER THAN DEATH (just ask Henry). *Dying young is BAD for slavery,* slave owners WANT their machines to last as long as they can. *Breeding CREATES slaves*, unless a person is intelligent enough to control himself, you're much easier to control when you're in need of help for your children than when you're alone. *WRONG ON ALL COUNTS FOR SLAVERY.*
> 
> Nobody "PROMOTES" single families as if it's better than married couples, they promote respect for single families as appreciation and "better than nothing".





> 'The means is knowledge. The end is control. Beyond this remains only one issue: *Who will be the beneficiary?*' 
> 
> - Author unkown, Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars


In Brave New World Revisited, Aldous Huxley more succinctly defined this epistemological cartel: 




> “The older dictators fell because they could never supply their subjects with enough bread, enough circuses, enough miracles, and mysteries. Under a scientific dictatorship, education will really work' with the result that most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution. There seems to be no good reason why a thoroughly scientific dictatorship should ever be overthrown.” 
> 
> - Huxley, Brave New World Revisited, 116


This is the ultimate objective of the elite: an oligarchy legitimized by arbitrarily anointed expositors of 'knowledge' or, in Huxley's own words, a *'scientific dictatorship.'* 

I see this argument as a facet of a scientific dictatorship, which is being weaved around us. Start with a few definitions:

*retard*: check: slow the growth or development of.

*policy agenda* is a list of subjects or problems to which people inside and outside government are paying serious attention to at any given time. 

*The premise of a scientific dictatorship is that there are elite who create/shape/direct policy agenda.* 

It is also policy agenda to have a 90% reduction of world population within two generations--mortality is not a factor.

Redefine retard as "inability to bond with a member of the opposite sex for purposes of procreation." Destroying marriage and family was a plank in their Communist Manifesto (1848) and now is part of this NWO. The agenda is to destroy all "forces of collective strength" for control. 

*Can you spot a trend?*

The American marriage rate has dropped almost 50% since 1970. Thirty seven percent of American children do not live with both biological parents, the highest percentage among Western nations, compared to 9% in 1965. 

Almost 40% of children were born out of wedlock in 2005 compared to 8% in 1965. 

Only one-in-four households consist of married couples with children, compared to two-in-four in 1960. 

"The United States has the weakest families in the Western world because we have the highest divorce rate and the highest rate of solo parenting," says Rutgers Sociology Professor David Popenoe.

*Let's talk about this minority lifestyle:*

Marriage has been redefined to include gays despite the fact that only ten percent avail themselves. Let's say that generously four percent of the population is gay. (Ten percent of that is .4% ) 

*It's not about extending "equal rights" to .4% of the population*, but about *redefining 'norms' of society, ie. more social engineering*.




> A[strategy] might be to fight for same sex marriage and its benefits, and then, once granted, redefine the institution completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution." 
> 
> – Michelangelo Signorile, "Bridal Wave," OUT Magazine, December/January 1994, p.161


Once again Josh, not 'what if's', but 'what is'...

Original sources:




> Dennis Altman's 'The Homosexualization of America': How the cultural elite "reinvent human nature, reinvent themselves."..."promiscuity and 'impersonal sex' are determined more by social possibilities than by inherent differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals, or even between men and women."
> 
> 'After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 1990's', by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen: the blueprint activists used to implement this campaign using media and vast money to radicalize America-by processes known as desensitization, jamming and conversion. 
> 
> Robert Jay Lifton's 'Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism': the Chinese are the original masters of desensitization, jamming and conversion, Kirk/Madsen mirror it almost word-for-word. 
> 
> 'Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far' by Charles W. Socarides, M.D.: interesting/logical Darwinian argument.
> 
> All hinges on this Rockefeller funded 'junk science' done by this freak pedophile named Kinsey:
> ...


Source: Henry Makow, Ph.D.

----------


## SeanEdwards

> You're saying that as if every other child in the world had a choice or is 100% satisfied with their parents. Denies a child? Who owes a child ANY care or love?


The parents of the child owe care and love. And in addition, the community at large has a responsibility to protect the child, just as it has a responsibility to protect the lives and rights of everyone.




> It may be just as good/bad as a single parent, so what can be worse to have an extra helper for money or company?


The problem is that we do not need society giving the stamp of approval to these experiments in alternative child rearing strategies. Sure, broken families will happen, and some children will experience dysfunctional family situations, but that is no justification for the state to proclaim that any and all child rearing environments are equally desirable. Gay families are going to happen, as they do now, by circumstance. But we don't need the state jumping in and propagandizing at everyone that families with mothers and fathers are passe, and not really important anymore. They've already gaffled several generations by making it socially acceptable for women to become single mothers. This move to legitimize gay "marriage" is just more of the same politically correct social engineering foolishness.

----------


## SeanEdwards

> You're saying that as if every other child in the world had a choice or is 100% satisfied with their parents. Denies a child? Who owes a child ANY care or love?


The parents of the child owe care and love. And in addition, the community at large has a responsibility to protect the child, just as it has a responsibility to protect the lives and rights of everyone.




> It may be just as good/bad as a single parent, so what can be worse to have an extra helper for money or company?


The problem is that we do not need society giving the stamp of approval to these experiments in alternative child rearing strategies. Sure, broken families will happen, and some children will experience dysfunctional family situations, but that is no justification for the state to proclaim that any and all child rearing environments are equally desirable. Gay families are going to happen, as they do now, by circumstance. But we don't need the state jumping in and propagandizing at everyone that families with mothers and fathers are passe, and not really important anymore. They've already gaffled several generations by making it socially acceptable for women to become single mothers. This move to legitimize gay "marriage" is just more of the same politically correct social engineering foolishness.

----------


## H Roark

The problem and irony here is that much of the so-called Libertarians defending gay marriage can't admit that they are arguing in favor of more government encroachment.  *The bottom line is that you are still seeking the governments approval in something that they should not be involved with in the first place*.  I'm with those that seek the abolishment of this association between marriage and government, are you?  You can't move forward if you're working backwards.

Please dispose of your old Newspeak dictionary in the memory hole and make sure to pick the new edition with the updated word "marriage"

----------


## Josh_LA

> The problem and irony here is that much of the so-called Libertarians defending gay marriage can't admit that they are arguing in favor of more government encroachment.  *The bottom line is that you are still seeking the governments approval in something that they should not be involved with in the first place*.  I'm with those that seek the abolishment of this association between marriage and government, are you?  You can't move forward if you're working backwards.
> 
> Please dispose of your old Newspeak dictionary in the memory hole and make sure to pick the new edition with the updated word "marriage"



THANK YOU. But I don't find it ironic, some libertarians are just stupid.

----------


## Josh_LA

> The parents of the child owe care and love. And in addition, the community at large has a responsibility to protect the child, just as it has a responsibility to protect the lives and rights of everyone.


Yes, less enforce that. No communities don't owe any protection, only socialists believe that.




> The problem is that we do not need society giving the stamp of approval to these experiments in alternative child rearing strategies. Sure, broken families will happen, and some children will experience dysfunctional family situations, but that is no justification for the state to proclaim that any and all child rearing environments are equally desirable. Gay families are going to happen, as they do now, by circumstance. But we don't need the state jumping in and propagandizing at everyone that families with mothers and fathers are passe, and not really important anymore. They've already gaffled several generations by making it socially acceptable for women to become single mothers. This move to legitimize gay "marriage" is just more of the same politically correct social engineering foolishness.


We sure don't need the state to jump in and promote ANY type of family, adopted, single, or gay, the state does not owe any child any type of family, it's not the state's fault the child's parents died or walked away. Nor is it anybody's fault some nice people are willing to be good parents (that are better than nothing). Children have no rights to choose what they want, if they don't like it they can run away and feed themselves.

There is no legitimizing gay marriage any more than there is respect for gay lifestyle, either gays are people, or they are not, what difference does it make whether gays are married or not? They obviously love another and love sex as much as we do.

So we should make it UNACCEPTABLE to make women single mothers, and make some incentive for women who marry men just for the sake of marriage (guess what, that's called taking advantage of socialism, which many gays ARE going for)?

----------


## Josh_LA

> I must be an idiot for jumping into this thread because any sort of rational public policy is not the real goal for proponents and opponents. Both want to force their views on other citizens.


agreed, which is why I don't think a Proposition is going to do anything, certainly nothing good and nothing to further liberty.

----------


## Josh_LA

> In Brave New World Revisited, Aldous Huxley more succinctly defined this epistemological cartel: 
> \.


Just because I see a trend doesn't mean I agree it's completely bad. 

What Huxley wrote, what Hitler used, what Sanger promoted, are not all bad things.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The problem and irony here is that much of the so-called Libertarians defending gay marriage can't admit that they are arguing in favor of more government encroachment.  *The bottom line is that you are still seeking the governments approval in something that they should not be involved with in the first place*.  I'm with those that seek the abolishment of this association between marriage and government, are you?  You can't move forward if you're working backwards.
> 
> Please dispose of your old Newspeak dictionary in the memory hole and make sure to pick the new edition with the updated word "marriage"


Sad when so-called libertarians argue for any kind of "legal" marriage.  From my understanding of laissez-faire, government has no damn business being involved with marriage anyway.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Sad when so-called libertarians argue for any kind of "legal" marriage.  From my understanding of laissez-faire, government has no damn business being involved with marriage anyway.


Not sad, some people just believe their freedom is threatened by gays or their future is doomed if gays are equally protected and respected.

----------


## lucius

> Just because I see a trend doesn't mean I agree it's completely bad...


*The ultimate goal is to redefine the family so potentially it could include government minders/more government intervention, not a new idea, old as Plato's Republic.*

"Destroy the family and you destroy society." V.I. Lenin 

"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together. ...Whatever its ultimate meaning, *the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process.* ...Families have supported oppression by separating people into small, isolated units, unable to join together to fight for common interests."  Linda Gordon, Function of the Family, WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969 

"*In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them.* -- Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman.




> ...What Huxley wrote, what Hitler used, what Sanger promoted, are not all bad things.


Too rich: gays, fascism and theosophy, starting to sound like the "Pink Swastika" (ISBN: 0964760932). 

*Utopian Dreams are always psychotic.*

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The problem and irony here is that much of the so-called Libertarians defending gay marriage can't admit that they are arguing in favor of more government encroachment.  *The bottom line is that you are still seeking the governments approval in something that they should not be involved with in the first place*.  I'm with those that seek the abolishment of this association between marriage and government, are you?  You can't move forward if you're working backwards.
> 
> Please dispose of your old Newspeak dictionary in the memory hole and make sure to pick the new edition with the updated word "marriage"


Seems to me that the true libertarian would not want to redefine marriage-seeing as it is a religious institution.  He would want to keep the government from meddling with it so it can thrive by itself.  

Marriage licensing is absolute statism.

----------


## Josh_LA

> *The ultimate goal is to redefine the family so potentially it could include government minders/more government intervention, not a new idea, old as Plato's Republic.*
> 
> "Destroy the family and you destroy society." V.I. Lenin 
> 
> "The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together. ...Whatever its ultimate meaning, *the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process.* ...Families have supported oppression by separating people into small, isolated units, unable to join together to fight for common interests."  Linda Gordon, Function of the Family, WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969 
> 
> "*In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them.* -- Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman.
> 
> 
> ...


The Pink Swastika is homophobic propaganda that's made to discredit Hitler and his Christian connections. And whatever the ultimate goal is, what matters more is what a person experiences on his personal level.

----------


## Freedom 4 all

I don't see gay marriage as a violation of freedom of religion as there's nothing illegal about being a homophobe.  This is about their rights, not yours and a gay marriage law affects the religious community in no way.  There are many very legitimate freedom of religion rights being lost left and right in America for Christians but this isn't one of them.  Try taxpayer funded abortion or publicly funded gay schools and argue that you shouldn't have to pay for what you consider a sin.  Now if churches were going to be reprimanded for not marrying gays, then I'd agree with you.

----------


## lucius

> The Pink Swastika is *homophobic* propaganda that's made to discredit Hitler and his Christian connections...


Robert Jay Lifton, in his classic text on thought control in totalitarian China, discussed the *"thought-terminating cliche" as a tactic to ensure conformity*. He spoke of compressing "far-reaching and complex problems" into "brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases" that *prevent real analysis*. *Homophobia has been reduced to just such a thought-terminating cliche*.

By attributing any opposition to their views to homophobia, *activists attempt to short-circuit engaging with the arguments*. However, given that we do not live in a totalitarian regime, all it achieves is to undermine the effectiveness of the term where there is real anti-gay discrimination. *It becomes merely a bullying tactic*.

*Original sources from up-thread*:

Dennis Altman's 'The Homosexualization of America': How the cultural elite "reinvent human nature, reinvent themselves."..."promiscuity and 'impersonal sex' are determined more by social possibilities than by inherent differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals, or even between men and women."

*'After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 1990's'*, by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen: *the blueprint activists used to implement this campaign* using media and vast money to radicalize America-by processes known as desensitization, jamming and conversion. 

Robert Jay Lifton's *'Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism*': the Chinese are the original masters of desensitization, jamming and conversion, Kirk/Madsen mirror it almost word-for-word. 

'Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far' by Charles W. Socarides, M.D.: interesting/logical Darwinian argument.

*All hinges on this Rockefeller funded 'junk science' done by this freak pedophile named Kinsey*:

Kinsey's Pedophiles: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...46628970&hl=en

*Josh, are you an activist, or just believe?*


Source: Breda O'Brien

----------


## sidster

> Almost 40% of children were born out of wedlock in 2005 compared to 8% in 1965.


so, what exactly is that saying? That ...
they had better condoms in 1960s than now?people are more fertile now than they were in the 60s?less shotgun-marriages lately? (due to stricter gun control laws?)more homosexual sex in the 60s vs now?a bigoted statement about illegal immigrants now vs then?...

----------


## Josh_LA

> so, what exactly is that saying? That ...
> they had better condoms in 1960s than now?people are more fertile now than they were in the 60s?less shotgun-marriages lately? (due to stricter gun control laws?)more homosexual sex in the 60s vs now?a bigoted statement about illegal immigrants now vs then?...


more blacks, Hispanics, white trash are taught that abortion is wrong but sex outside of marriage is forgiveable.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Robert Jay Lifton, in his classic text on thought control in totalitarian China, discussed the *"thought-terminating cliche" as a tactic to ensure conformity*. He spoke of compressing "far-reaching and complex problems" into "brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases" that *prevent real analysis*. *Homophobia has been reduced to just such a thought-terminating cliche*.


Ok, I'm not against analysis, in fact, I'm all for it.

I'm not against homophobia, I just don't use it as an excuse to oppose gay marriage, protect traditional family and oppose Hitler's anti-Jewish policies. 

If you truly have a problem with gays, fine, I don't care if you have careful analysis, scientific study or just your bigotry because it feels good. There's nothign wrong with hating gays, but why wrap the argument in so complex terms when it's simply a matter of semantics? 

Why worry about conspiratorial goals to destroy society when destruction is done on so many other levels?

If we seriously have a problem with treating gays like people, let's treat them like animals and slaves, but don't pretend like they have rights while calling what they can get separate but equal. 

I don't care what Rockefeller, NWO, Huxley or Hitler wants to do, I care what matters to ME, yes, I'm a selfish $#@! and it's all about me. If I have rights, good, if others don't, f- them. I don't care about gays, but I don't care about defining marriage to make religious idiots happy either.

----------


## Josh_LA

> *All hinges on this Rockefeller funded 'junk science' done by this freak pedophile named Kinsey*:


Ok, so it's wrong to say homophobia but it's ok to say Kinsey is a freak pedophile?

For the record, I have no problem with freaks, pedophiles, ****, or murderers, just as long as they don't harm me. If society or other people decide these people should be pushed into an oven and fried, so be it. I do have a problem with hypocrisy, dishonesty and using reason to justify very basic emotions. 

*If homosexuality is a freedom too far, LETS CRIMINALIZE IT, don't pretend it's not a crime but keep them in a velvet rope.*

----------


## Josh_LA

> By attributing any opposition to their views to homophobia, *activists attempt to short-circuit engaging with the arguments*. However, given that we do not live in a totalitarian regime, all it achieves is to undermine the effectiveness of the term where there is real anti-gay discrimination. *It becomes merely a bullying tactic*.


So tell me please, how is the intention of the Pink Swastika ANYTHING BUT telling us:

1. Hitler was evil
2. Hitler's buttboys were ****
3. **** are evil, because Hitler used them
4. Don't blame racism, anti-Semitism, and totalitarianism on Christianity, Nazis were ****

Would the book have been written to glorify Hitler or vindicate gays? Of course not, it was taking advantage of a person's kneejerk reaction. 

The book had obvious pre-assumed opposition to both gays and Hitler.

----------


## lucius

> so, what exactly is that saying? That ...
> they had better condoms in 1960s than now?people are more fertile now than they were in the 60s?less shotgun-marriages lately? (due to stricter gun control laws?)more homosexual sex in the 60s vs now?a bigoted statement about illegal immigrants now vs then?...


So, how about government subsidized it and we got more of it? Go to a local section-8 housing complex and observe:
 Marriage rates began to decline following the massive expansion of welfare programs in the 1960s and the advent of no-fault divorce in the 1970s. And as marriage rates declined, the rate of out-of-wedlock births exploded. Cohabiting couples have twice the breakup rate of married couples, greater fracturing upon society.

But ultimately this: 

"Destroy the family and you destroy society." V.I. Lenin

*The ultimate goal is to redefine the family so potentially it could include government minders/more government intervention, not a new idea, old as Plato's Republic.*

----------


## lucius

> So tell me please, how is the intention of the Pink Swastika ANYTHING BUT telling us:
> 
> 1. Hitler was evil
> 2. Hitler's buttboys were ****
> 3. **** are evil, because Hitler used them
> 4. Don't blame racism, anti-Semitism, and totalitarianism on Christianity, Nazis were ****
> 
> Would the book have been written to glorify Hitler or vindicate gays? Of course not, it was taking advantage of a person's kneejerk reaction. 
> 
> The book had obvious pre-assumed opposition to both gays and Hitler.


Once again, little but attitude. Back it up. Is your source, '...because I say'?

----------


## Josh_LA

> Once again, little but attitude. Back it up. Is your source, because I say?


Yeah, since you know better, let's hear you tell me.

My source is not because you say, it's because I believe and because I don't care what others say.

----------


## Josh_LA

> But ultimately this: 
> 
> "Destroy the family and you destroy society." V.I. Lenin
> 
> *The ultimate goal is to redefine the family so potentially it could include government minders/more government intervention, not a new idea, old as Plato's Republic.*


How is gay marriage going to destroy family when gays don't make families? (thus not making bad families)

Gays don't have children unless they adopt, in which case children are already in need, nobody gives a child to gays when they have a fully functional family.

Are you saying government should SUBSIDIZE family?

----------


## lucius

> Ok, I'm not against analysis, in fact, I'm all for it.
> 
> I'm not against homophobia <snip>...


Little but attitude:

What is ridiculous is the tremendous amounts of tax-payer resources catering to this minority lifestyle. That in itself is indicative of underlying social engineering on a massive scale:

*It's not about extending "equal rights" to .4% of the population, but about redefining 'norms' of society, ie. more social engineering.*

----------


## lucius

> Ok, so it's wrong to say homophobia but it's ok to say Kinsey is a freak pedophile?...


Kinsey was what he was, which included pedophilia. I personally don't share your tolerance for pedophilia. But his work, which I call junk science, was used as a cornerstone to justify major shifts in society. 

Kinsey's Pedophiles: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...46628970&hl=en

----------


## Josh_LA

> Little but attitude:
> 
> What is ridiculous is the tremendous amounts of tax-payer resources catering to this minority lifestyle. That in itself is indicative of underlying social engineering on a massive scale.


I'm against tax payer resources catering to ANYBODY, but tell me some things we do for gays that they don't deserve (I'll probably agree, but point them out for me anyway).

----------


## Josh_LA

> Kinsey was what he was, which included pedophilia. I personally don't share your tolerance for pedophilia. But his work, which I call junk science, was used as a cornerstone justify major sifts in society. 
> 
> Kinsey's Pedophiles: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...46628970&hl=en


So you're a bigot, fine.

Maybe you can tell us what and why society should be what it was (and not what Kinsey turned it to be), without using religious morals or socialistic consequences. (or if not, tell me the best you can)

----------


## SeanEdwards

> So you're a bigot, fine.
> 
> Maybe you can tell us what and why society should be what it was (and not what Kinsey turned it to be), without using religious morals or socialistic consequences. (or if not, tell me the best you can)


Looking back through your commentary in this thread, I'd say you're the $#@!ing bigot. Judgmental, stupid, and obnoxious, pretty much sums you up. Have a nice day.

----------


## lucius

> *So you're a bigot, fine.*
> 
> Maybe you can tell us what and why society should be what it was (and not what Kinsey turned it to be), without using religious morals or socialistic consequences. (or if not, tell me the best you can)


Too rich Josh! 

*You are calling me a bigot, because I am not beholden to pedophilia?* Maybe there is something to this quote:

Elizabeth Birch, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, tells us: "[*Homosexuals] hold sacred seeds. . . . [T]o be gay, lesbian, bisexual, or struggle around gender is literally a gift from God and we [homosexuals] have an enormous amount to teach this nation."*

Nope, more social engineering/NWO Eugenics...

----------


## Josh_LA

> Looking back through your commentary in this thread, I'd say you're the $#@!ing bigot. Judgmental, stupid, and obnoxious, pretty much sums you up. Have a nice day.


*I'm a bigot and damn proud of it, at least I admit it!*

----------


## Josh_LA

> Too rich Josh! 
> 
> *You are calling me a bigot, because I am not beholden to pedophilia?* Maybe there is something to this quote:
> 
> Elizabeth Birch, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, tells us: "[*Homosexuals] hold sacred seeds. . . . [T]o be gay, lesbian, bisexual, or struggle around gender is literally a gift from God and we [homosexuals] have an enormous amount to teach this nation."*
> 
> Nope, more social engineering/NWO Eugenics...


**** don't hold sacred seeds, or any seeds. What's wrong with eugenics? And yes I'm calling you a bigot, I guess you have nothing to say about it.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Too rich Josh! 
> 
> Nope, more social engineering/NWO Eugenics...


You have not yet explained what's wrong with eugenics (eugenics kills off slaves, not create them), what we should do to gays and what threat is destroying the society before Kinsey done to you (or why it should be what it was).

----------


## heavenlyboy34

You guys might like this article http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/25/gay...ion/index.html  about gay adoption.

----------


## SeanEdwards

> You guys might like this article http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/25/gay...ion/index.html  about gay adoption.


Interesting article. While I don't think I agree with James Dobson on much, I think he was exactly correct when he states in this article:




> "The two most loving women in the world cannot provide a daddy for a little boy, any more than the two most loving men can be complete role models for a little girl."


That's really all that needs to be said on the subject of gay parenting. It's irrefutable. Biology does matter. We're a species that has male and female members, and those members are not interchangeable or irrelevant. Both are equally important and necessary for reproduction. And because of that fact, both genders are important for providing role-models of a viable reproductive social organization for children.

Edit:

Furthermore, the objections to this concept seem to primarily revolve around homosexuals demanding equal treatment for themselves. Asserting their equal right to heterosexuals to be parents. The implication being that to deny homosexuals an equal right to be parents, is somehow a slight or insult towards the homosexual individual. To oppose the concept of gay parenting is thus cast as blatant anti-homosexual bigotry.

But that completely misses the point. This is not about the rights of adults to be parents, it's about the right of children to have parents. Every human being starts existence out of a genetic union of a man and woman. This societal move towards denying that reality, and turning parenthood into some fundamental right of every adult regardless of their suitability or ability to be a parent, is like trying to legislate fantasy.

It reminds me of this scene:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c

----------


## Josh_LA

> Interesting article. While I don't think I agree with James Dobson on much, I think he was exactly correct when he states in this article:
> 
> 
> 
> That's really all that needs to be said on the subject of gay parenting. It's irrefutable. Biology does matter. We're a species that has male and female members, and those members are not interchangeable or irrelevant. Both are equally important and necessary for reproduction. And because of that fact, both genders are important for providing role-models of a viable reproductive social organization for children.
> 
> Edit:
> 
> Furthermore, the objections to this concept seem to primarily revolve around homosexuals demanding equal treatment for themselves. Asserting their equal right to heterosexuals to be parents. The implication being that to deny homosexuals an equal right to be parents, is somehow a slight or insult towards the homosexual individual. To oppose the concept of gay parenting is thus cast as blatant anti-homosexual bigotry.
> ...


I've NOT yet heard somebody tell me (no matter how pro-gay they are) that gay parents are equally as good as straight parents. We already know that, so let's bar gays from adopting children and leave these children without parents, sure, you can hunt them down, then what? Throw them in prison? Fine them? What if they're dead or drug addicts?

Adoption certainly is another issue than marriage, but since when have we cared more about children then ourselves? If you care so much about protecting children from gay parents, *NOBODY IS STOPPING YOU FROM ADOPTING THEM YOURSELF, IF YOU DON'T DO IT, SHUT UP.*

----------


## Josh_LA

> . To oppose the concept of gay parenting is thus cast as blatant anti-homosexual bigotry.


*Call it bigotry or tolerance or love, whatever, it is what it is.* There's nothing wrong with saying gays shouldn't be parents, *JUST SAY IT*. But the issue is not only not about adoption, but like I said earlier, nobody's every asked a child whether they get to chose their parents anyway. I'm not against banning gays from being parents, but I'm not for leaving children with no parents either. *So if we had an abundance of straight parents adopting children and we'd still give gays equal priority, maybe I'll care a little, until then, ....enough.*

You have a good time saying how bad or wrong it is to be single parents as if we don't know, as if the cases chose single parents over double parents. You say what's wrong with gay parents as if the alternative was a hundred couples waiting and they only get it because of affirmative action.

----------


## SeanEdwards

> I've NOT yet heard somebody tell me (no matter how pro-gay they are) that gay parents are equally as good as straight parents.


Well that's because you simply aren't listening.

Here's a quote from the article posted by heavenlyboy34:




> "We're not moms, we're not heterosexual. We're not biological parents," Rob Calhoun said. But "we're totally equal and just as loving as female parents, as straight parents, and biological parents."
> 
> "Love makes a family, not biology or gender," he added.


And this is not a unique, aberrant attitude. This is straight out of the homosexual agenda playbook. These activists have the goal of knocking the traditional family structure off its pedastal, and replacing it with whatever weird family experiments that individuals can conceive of, without regard to the impact these experiments may have on the children subjected to them.

And I'll say that they may be right. Maybe the traditional man/woman arrangement for raising families is defunct. But the homosexual activists have not yet proved that fact. They've simply rested their case on their supposed equal right to be parents, and left it at that. The obvious defense of the traditional family is that it has stood the test of time. Gay families have not stood that test of time. Their aim is a grand social experiment in changing the nature of families. A similar experiment has been under way for the past 40 years or so with single-mother families and that experiment has been disastrous for two generations of children who don't have fathers. Do we really need more of this crap? I don't think so.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Well that's because you simply aren't listening.
> 
> Here's a quote from the article posted by heavenlyboy34:
> 
> 
> 
> And this is not a unique, aberrant attitude. This is straight out of the homosexual agenda playbook. These activists have the goal of knocking the traditional family structure off its pedastal, and replacing it with whatever weird family experiments that individuals can conceive of, without regard to the impact these experiments may have on the children subjected to them.
> 
> And I'll say that they may be right. Maybe the traditional man/woman arrangement for raising families is defunct. But the homosexual activists have not yet proved that fact. They've simply rested their case on their supposed equal right to be parents, and left it at that. The obvious defense of the traditional family is that it has stood the test of time. Gay families have not stood that test of time. Their aim is a grand social experiment in changing the nature of families. A similar experiment has been under way for the past 40 years or so with single-mother families and that experiment has been disastrous for two generations of children who don't have fathers. Do we really need more of this crap? I don't think so.


Gay are entitled to their opinions, but we don't need to agree with it. What one person says is NOT representative of all gays. And certainly it's oversimplified to say that there's an agenda playbook, much like a conspiracy plan. 

Gay families have indeed not stood the test of time, nor have American families, nor have interracial families, nor have divorces. You have to be retarded to think that people will turn gay or see gays as equal just because they're given equal rights, as if people see blacks as people just because blacks are protected under the law. 

Do we need more of this crap? No we don't, we don't need blacks to be treated like people either, what did we lose when we chained blacks as slaves and kept them separate but equal?

I'm not equating blacks to gays, I am saying gays are gays, blacks are blacks, they don't become what they are not by legal mandate, nor does society have to accept them if we simply chose not to. Blacks are not safe and free today because slavery and discrimination is illegal, they are safe because white men are nice, if white men (being the majority in numbers they are) decided to lynch blacks for fun, there's nothing that can be done, not even with the law (punishment would be too late).

Social norms DO change, and it's not always a bad thing. You don't prevent changes by playing semantics or complaining about wrongs, you create change by promoting what's good, and compete with what is bad. If gay couples are bad, LET'S SEE SOME MORE STRAIGHT MARRIAGES, STRAIGHT ADOPTS, STRAIGHT COUPLES STAYING TOGETHER, let's see some "straight power" make gays irrelevant and negligible, but they are NOT, so until then,... enough!

----------


## dannno

I don't get what SeanEdwards point is. I mean, I agree with him that a mother and father are generally optimal for parental arrangements, but certainly he has to concede that SOME gay parents are better than SOME straight parents.. I mean there are some really bad straight parents out there..

Anyway, I see no problem with giving straight couples first priority, but as the article states there are 65,000 kids in custody of gay parents.. where would they be otherwise? Can you say "hard knock life" ?

----------


## SeanEdwards

> I don't get what SeanEdwards point is. I mean, I agree with him that a mother and father are generally optimal for parental arrangements, but certainly he has to concede that SOME gay parents are better than SOME straight parents.. I mean there are some really bad straight parents out there..


Yes, of course I recognize that fact. Some straight parents have no business raising children.




> Anyway, I see no problem with giving straight couples first priority, but as the article states there are 65,000 kids in custody of gay parents.. where would they be otherwise? Can you say "hard knock life" ?


My concern basically boils down to standing in family court matters. I do not agree that homosexual families are equally suitable for raising children, and I do not want the courts to treat such unions as if they are equal. At the same time, I'm not interested in having the state take children away from their gay parent(s). I just don't want society moving down a path of sanctioning these arrangements, just as I'm opposed to society sanctioning single-mother families. These are "broken" family environments, in my opinion. And while such situations are inevitable, that doesn't mean they should be desirable and celebrated.

----------


## Josh_LA

> I don't get what SeanEdwards point is. I mean, I agree with him that a mother and father are generally optimal for parental arrangements, but certainly he has to concede that SOME gay parents are better than SOME straight parents.. I mean there are some really bad straight parents out there..
> 
> Anyway, I see no problem with giving straight couples first priority, but as the article states there are 65,000 kids in custody of gay parents.. where would they be otherwise? Can you say "hard knock life" ?


He's saying he prefers straight parents over gay parents and two parents over single parents, as if anybody does not. He doesn't say whether he's willing to do something about it, but points out the obvious wrongs like there's better choices.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Yes, of course I recognize that fact. Some straight parents have no business raising children.


That's exactly why it's unfair to prejudge couples based on their orientation when many straight parents have no business raising children, you think we'd give gay priority if more qualified straight couples were available? (how available are you yourself?)

----------


## SeanEdwards

> Do we need more of this crap? No we don't, we don't need blacks to be treated like people either, what did we lose when we chained blacks as slaves and kept them separate but equal?


WTF are you talking about? 

Is this yet another effort to paint a preference for traditional families as tantamount to racism? Stupid $#@!ing crap.

----------


## Josh_LA

> These are "broken" family environments, in my opinion. And while such situations are inevitable, that doesn't mean they should be desirable and celebrated.


Ok, we know what you're NOT for, how about what you ARE for? 

What SHOULD we do about these broken families?

Yes, because its inevitable, we should realize it, recognize it, and deal with it. That doesn't mean celebrate it, it means presenting it as last resort or something better than nothing, and appreciating.

Nobody celebrates living in a cardboard box, but giving somebody a cardboard box to live in is better than nothing.

----------


## Josh_LA

> WTF are you talking about? 
> 
> Is this yet another effort to paint a preference for traditional families as tantamount to racism? Stupid $#@!ing crap.


no, there's a difference between common sense and racism.

BUT, we moved away from racism and segragation, and look what we got?

If we move away from traditional family, what would we get?

We don't WANT to move away from traditional family, but some things are inevitable and it's an alternative to much worse situations (division, neglect, individualism, hatred)

You can certainly argue life was better when racism was acceptable, nothing wrong with that.

----------


## SeanEdwards

> Nobody celebrates living in a cardboard box, but giving somebody a cardboard box to live in is better than nothing.


I just want the proponents of this crap idea to stop trying to convince me that a cardboard box is a $#@!ing mansion.

"The cardboard box has equal rights!"

----------


## lucius

> ...yes I'm calling you a bigot, I guess you have nothing to say about it.


What didn't you understand about this?




> Too rich Josh! 
> 
> *You are calling me a bigot, because I am not beholden to pedophilia?*...


Seriously, buy a vowel...

*Kinsey's Pedophiles*: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...46628970&hl=en

----------


## Josh_LA

> I just want the proponents of this crap idea to stop trying to convince me that a cardboard box is a $#@!ing mansion.
> 
> "The cardboard box has equal rights!"


a cardboard box has equal rights as a house, but nobody is calling it a mansion, even IF we call it a mansion, it's still not preferred for those who know what a real mansion is. So why do you care if idiots call a cardbox a mansion when you know they can call it the Playboy Mansion or the White House and you'd still not want to live in it?

----------


## Josh_LA

> What didn't you understand about this?


what's wrong with pedophilia? Should it be a thought crime? Should pedophiles have rights as humans? What's your intolerance all about?

----------


## lucius

> what's wrong with pedophilia?...


*According to Kinsey’s pedophiles, who became “trained observers” in his reports [Kinsey’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Male], signs of “orgasm” for children as young as infants included “violent cries,” “loss of color,” and an “abundance of tears.--What’s wrong with this picture Josh?*

[These are my comments]

*From the Special Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations July 2-9, 1954 [Reece Committee, 83rd Congress], p. 69:*

“It does not matter that the report [Kinsey’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Male] is unscientific, the important thing is that it be publicized and serve as a basis for reform of sexual behavior and laws which deal with violations of sexual mores.”

The Committee wonders whether The Rockefeller Foundation, which made the Kinsey study possible by the investment of substantial funds, is proud of its work. Research of this type, of which there is much outside the sex field, seems predicated upon the premise that what is wrong with our society is that our moral codes are seriously in need of re-study and revision.

These excerpts from Professor Hobbs’ testimony before this Committee are illuminating (Hearings, p. 124):

The Chairman. As I understand, you are raising a question about the scientific approach which Dr. Kinsey made in conducting this research in the first place, and then some of his comments and conclusions which he wrote into his report, which did not necessarily arise from the basis of his research which he had made? [Actually, Kinsey didn’t verify anything. Child molesters with whom he corresponded with supposedly “documented the existence of sexual capacity in children.” Kinsey took them at their word, and dressed up their findings as “science.”]

Dr. Hobbs. Yes, sir.

The Chairman. And which might have damaging effect on the psychology of the people, particularly the young people of the country. [The irony…]

Dr. Hobbs. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And at the same time undertaking to give to the country the overall impression that his findings and his comments were based upon a scientific study which had been made, as the basis of a grant. [This junk science: Kinsey’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Male]

Dr. Hobbs. Yes, sir; a scientific study of the type by implication which you have in physics and chemistry, and, therefore, its conclusions cannot be challenged. [After the suppression of this report, it took almost 30 years for academics to mount a serious challenge to Kinsey. In 1981, when Judith Reisman exposed Kinsey’s pseudoscience…talk about absurd belief structures]

The Chairman. Enumerating in the preface that it was made by a grant from one of the foundations giving it further prestige, possibly, that it was of scientific value, and so forth. [The Rockefeller Foundation]

Dr. Hobbs. That would be correct. I have a statement to that effect to show that very type of influence, which I will come to a little bit later. [Rockefeller and influence, small wonder…]”

*Aversion to child-adult sexual contacts, Kinsey’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Male maintained, is “culturally conditioned.” Pedophiles don’t harm children in most cases, the Indiana University professor argued, but the “hysteria” caused by police, parents, and others in authority does.* According to Kinsey’s pedophiles, who became “trained observers” in his reports, signs of “orgasm” for children as young as infants included “violent cries,” “loss of color,” and an “abundance of tears.” This wasn’t science. This was Pedophiles rationalizing their criminal behavior.

*Question?*

*According to Kinsey’s pedophiles, who became “trained observers” in his reports, signs of “orgasm” for children as young as infants included “violent cries,” “loss of color,” and an “abundance of tears.--What’s wrong with this picture Josh?*

*Kinsey's Pedophiles*: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...46628970&hl=en

----------


## Josh_LA

> *According to Kinseys pedophiles, who became trained observers in his reports, signs of orgasm for children as young as infants included violent cries, loss of color, and an abundance of tears.--Whats wrong with this picture Josh?*


About as wrong as murdering and kidnapping children, the wrong is in the behavior, not the mentality. But I asked you a question, what should we do to pedophiles? I think we should lynch them if they harm anybody innocent, how about you?

----------


## lucius

> About as wrong as murdering and kidnapping children, the wrong is in the behavior, not the mentality. But I asked you a question, what should we do to pedophiles? I think we should lynch them if they harm anybody innocent, how about you?


I do not believe in lynching nor the death penalty; prison is sufficient for crimes with actual victims. 

Iconoclastic: Kinseys *revolutionary* _Sexual Behavior in the Human Male_ was nothing more than cooked/junk-science furthering a facet of an overall malefic 'policy agenda', brought to you by the Rockefeller Foundation with generous subsidizes of US government tax exempt status--1954 US Congressional Reece Committee.

----------


## Bunkerbuilder

I didn't have the time to read through the entire thread so if I am duplicating someone I apologize. 

Protecting marriage is retarded because its protection of a institution that government licenses and controls. 

We are pro freedom minded people right ? 

We dont need government permission to be married. 

Most pastors, Ministers, priests, ETC will not marry a man and woman without a licence. this is because they have accepted the secular mark of the beast and accepted his tax advantage IE 503c and or 508 non profit status. 

In doing this they must do as government says and this means telling couples they need a licence before they can be married. 

This is hog wash. 

This Crap needs to be changed we need our freedoms back in this respect and a lot of other areas. 

I will post more info on this in the morrow if its requested and I have time.

----------


## nodope0695

> but gays will never be respected unless and until they are respected and accepted, doesn't matter if they're legally called marriage or given the same rights, whether society wants to recognize their unions is another issue altogether. 
> 
> just like even when slavery was illegal and blacks were free, nothing stopped white men from spitting on blacks since it was socially acceptable. When government enforces values, it's tyranny, when values shape the government, it's freedom.


Stupid, ludicrous comparison.  Homosexuals are nothing like black slaves.  Sexual orientation is not a race, or a nationality.  Homosexuality is a preference, a choice, and a lifestyle.  It is NOT and ethnic group.

What is it with militant gays?  Who are they to push their agenda on people like me who happen to disagree with the life style?  Does my disagreement equate to intolerance?  Does my disagreement with gays violate their rights?  NO.  Their insistence that I accept the gay life style IS intolerant, and goes against the idea of freedom of speech, and of ideas.  

You'll not hear me insist to a gay person that they accept my heterosexuality.  They deserve no more rights than anybody else, and are protected by laws just like everybody else.  To assume gays should be given some sort of preference or extra protection (such as "hate crime" laws), is ridiculous.  The blacks were angry, and rightly so, because they were NOT being given the rights they deserve under our Constitution (however, affirmative action is wrong, and seeks extra rights and preferences based on race, thus defeating the purpose of equal rights altogether).

You state, "...but gays will never be respected unless and until they are respected and accepted."  Why should I accept a life style I find wrong?  I am free to associate with whoever I want, and I choose not to associate with gays.  Does that mean I hate them?  No.  Does that mean I give a $#@! if they get married?  No.  I just disagree with it.  But I also don't propose to convert any of them to my way of thinking because they're free to do as they will so long as they don't violate anybody else's rights.  

Is it respect the gays are looking for?  That sir, is relative, and its earned.  If you expect people to respect people based solely on their sexual preference, you'll be waiting a long time.  Why not leave sexuality out of it and let people base their opinion on merit, abilities, and character?  Who gives a $#@! if you like men or women?

The entire gay agenda is much like Jesse Jackson's race-brokering organization.  It seeks out prejudice for the sole sake of perpetuating it.  Its done for money, influence, intimidation, preferential treatment, and for headlines.  The gay movement practices the very thing it claims to hate:  Intolerance.  By forcing their beliefs and lifestyle down our throats, by accusing people who disagree with them of being bigoted or intolerant, the gays have resorted to the very behavior they claim to combat.

Go your own way, but don't attempt to drag me with you, or to label me a bigot if I disagree with your route.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Stupid, ludicrous comparison.  Homosexuals are nothing like black slaves.  Sexual orientation is not a race, or a nationality.  Homosexuality is a preference, a choice, and a lifestyle.  It is NOT and ethnic group.
> 
> Go your own way, but don't attempt to drag me with you, or to label me a bigot if I disagree with your route.


Ok, but is it more or less ok to hate gays than it is to hate blacks?

If I hate blacks am I a bigot for not being dragged into your Marxist tolerance of blacks as people?

----------


## Josh_LA

> The entire gay agenda is much like Jesse Jackson's race-brokering organization.  It seeks out prejudice for the sole sake of perpetuating it.  It’s done for money, influence, intimidation, preferential treatment, and for headlines.  The gay movement practices the very thing it claims to hate:  Intolerance.  By forcing their beliefs and lifestyle down our throats, by accusing people who disagree with them of being bigoted or intolerant, the gays have resorted to the very behavior they claim to combat.


And so you see the comparison.

Just because there's an idiot black agenda doesn't mean all blacks are in on it, just because there's a Zionist lobby doesn't mean all Jews are guilty of it, just because there's a sick ass *** agenda doesn't mean all gays are with it.

----------


## Josh_LA

> I do not believe in lynching nor the death penalty; prison is sufficient for crimes with actual victims.


SO you're a bigot who doesn't believe in justice, but that's just my opinion. 

So what should we do to gays? What are victims of gays?

----------


## nodope0695

> And so you see the comparison.
> 
> Just because there's an idiot black agenda doesn't mean all blacks are in on it, just because there's a Zionist lobby doesn't mean all Jews are guilty of it, just because there's a sick ass *** agenda doesn't mean all gays are with it.


 
Agreed.  And my point was to compare the more radical fringe of the gay agenda with Jessi Jackson's race-brokering.  The connection is there alone.  

If Man A is gay, and Man B is straight, and both are assaulted and injured, why should Man A be protected by MORE rights than Man B?  Weren't they both assaulted?  Aren't they allready protected by the same laws? The person doing the assault is guilty nonetheless, and should be held accountable for the ACT not the sexual persuasion of the victim.

But what the gays want is EXTRA protection such as "Hate Crime" laws.  Its complete bull$#@!.

----------


## nodope0695

> Ok, but is it more or less ok to hate gays than it is to hate blacks?
> 
> If I hate blacks am I a bigot for not being dragged into your Marxist tolerance of blacks as people?


I don't hate gays. I don't hate anybody...well, I do hate Bush and his cronies....I disagree with the lifestyle, just as I disagree with the gangsta, hiphop lifestyle. Disagreement does not equate to hate (hey, I rhymed that!).

It takes too much energy to hate. Indifference is more of how I feel about such things most of the time. Of course, I'm realistic. Some people do hate gays and blacks...but not me. I speak only for myself on this issue.  As long as you don't hurt anybody, then go along with your pursuits...thats my libertarian streak showing.

----------


## Indy4Chng

This is a pretty interesting thread.  I am not in Cali, but right next door so I like to keep an eye on them as Oregon tries to copy a lot of their worst idea.  I thought for sure I would want to see this fail... but protecting freedom of religion is more important than a marriage license and I am starting to switch sides.  Knowing California all religion freedom will be gone after this bill passes and they will force statewide curriculum down even private schools throats and they will use this for hate crime legislation.  That scary enought to vote yes.  But both side seem like they will use it for fascism in the future, if they were to win.

----------


## nodope0695

> Agreed, which would consistently make divorce, cohabitation somewhat illegal too.


It wasn't so long ago that both were damn near illegal...Fifty years ago, cohabitation was a serious taboo.

----------


## Josh_LA

> It wasn't so long ago that both were damn near illegal...Fifty years ago, cohabitation was a serious taboo.


yeah, let's go back to that.

----------


## Josh_LA

> But what the gays want is EXTRA protection such as "Hate Crime" laws.  Its complete bull$#@!.


I agree, hate laws are bull$#@!. 

ANd I don't see how protecting marriage is anything but making "hate crime against trad marriage" a hate crime.

----------


## Josh_LA

> It takes too much energy to hate. Indifference is more of how I feel about such things most of the time. Of course, I'm realistic. Some people do hate gays and blacks...but not me. I speak only for myself on this issue.  As long as you don't hurt anybody, then go along with your pursuits...thats my libertarian streak showing.


Agreed, is letting gays marry hurting you? Nobody asked you to agree with their marriage, their sex life, or call them "two married men" when you get to say "filthy **** to who deserve hell".

----------


## xd9fan

Josh, Marriage is my religion's sacrament (we started it first)  

The state wants to redefine it "for me and everyone"

to me this is a clear violation of church and state.  simply really.....


letting the state redefine religious practise....is retarded (and dangerous)

----------


## Reason

Definitely voting NO on prop 8

----------


## .Tom

I think marriage should be nothing more than a religious ceremony. The legal part of it should be open to any parties of any size. I don't care if it's a guy and a girl, two guys, two girls, four guys and eight girls, three guys and a tranny, etc. The government shouldn't be involved in marriage in the first place. But if you want to sign a legal contract than sign a legal contract and mind your own business.

----------


## TonySutton

It saddens me that we waste all of these resources arguing the wrong issue.  The issue should not be "should we allow gays to marry" the issue should be "why is the government in the marriage business"

When we get the government out of the marriage business and end all of the automatic special rights (via law) associated with marriage.  Then marriage can be the personal ceremony between to parties.  

The major driving force behind gay marriage is the over 1000 federal benefits and protection tied to marriage.  I am sure each state has even more benefits and protections tied to marriage.  It is easy for me to understand why two people would want these same protections and benefits to apply to their relationship if they are willing to make the civil commitment.

Now, can we please vote no to more government regulation and return to fighting for freedom

----------


## The_Orlonater

$#@! the government, and disgusting religious influence on it. How dare the totalitarians say whether homosexuals can marry. There are homosexual couples who have raised great kids. I don't mind if you want to practice your stupid religious ceremony, just don't direct it on my life. 

I despise the religious culture, and I will always be disgusted with it. If any of you try to censor what I say on these forums(mods)then wouldn't that be hypocrisy on the freedom of speech part?

----------


## The_Orlonater

> Josh, Marriage is my religion's sacrament (we started it first)  
> 
> The state wants to redefine it "for me and everyone"
> 
> to me this is a clear violation of church and state.  simply really.....
> 
> 
> letting the state redefine religious practise....is retarded (and dangerous)


What if some gay marriage church or group allows gays to get married?

----------


## Josh_LA

> Josh, Marriage is my religion's sacrament (we started it first)  
> 
> The state wants to redefine it "for me and everyone"
> 
> to me this is a clear violation of church and state.  simply really.....
> 
> 
> letting the state redefine religious practise....is retarded (and dangerous)


BULL$#@!

Nobody is asking you to accept **** as married

Just like nobody is forcing me to accept blacks as people even though legally blacks are defined as people equally as whites are.

Nobody is forcing Jewish synagogues to recognize gentiles as married, so why is it a problem that states recognize gays as married or give driver licenses to chimps?

----------


## Josh_LA

> $#@! the government, and disgusting religious influence on it. How dare the totalitarians say whether homosexuals can marry. There are homosexual couples who have raised great kids. I don't mind if you want to practice your stupid religious ceremony, just don't direct it on my life. 
> 
> I despise the religious culture, and I will always be disgusted with it. If any of you try to censor what I say on these forums(mods)then wouldn't that be hypocrisy on the freedom of speech part?


funny how they can use EVERY WORD for *****

"Sex"
"couples"
"love"
"relationship"

but "just not marriage", how holy,....$#@!!

----------


## Josh_LA

> What if some gay marriage church or group allows gays to get married?


they do, nobody seems to care

----------


## Josh_LA

> I think marriage should be nothing more than a religious ceremony. The legal part of it should be open to any parties of any size. I don't care if it's a guy and a girl, two guys, two girls, four guys and eight girls, three guys and a tranny, etc. The government shouldn't be involved in marriage in the first place. But if you want to sign a legal contract than sign a legal contract and mind your own business.


the context of this proposition is seriously semantics

it's saying that you can't call two **** or dykes "married", doesn't say they can't be called something else and still get all the rights.

this is no different than "separate but equal"

Why is it a problem to call it the same thing if they're going to be treated equally?

It's either separate and unequal, or equal and equal. Calling blacks blacks but giving them the same rights is unnecessary, why not call them people like we call whites people?

----------


## Conservative Christian

*"If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congresss constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a same sex marriage license issued in another state. This Congress, I was an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts jurisdiction. If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state.

Having studied this issue and consulted with leading legal scholars, including an attorney who helped defend the Boy Scouts against attempts to force the organization to allow gay men to serve as scoutmasters, I am convinced that both the Defense of Marriage Act and the Marriage Protection Act can survive legal challenges and ensure that no state is forced by a federal courts or another states actions to recognize same sex marriage....In contrast to a constitutional amendment, the Marriage Protection Act requires only a majority vote of both houses of Congress and the presidents signature to become law. The bill already has passed the House of Representatives; at least 51 senators would vote for it; and the president would sign this legislation given his commitment to protecting the traditional definition of marriage. Therefore, those who believe Congress needs to take immediate action to protect marriage this year should focus on passing the Marriage Protection Act.

Because of the dangers to liberty and traditional values posed by the unexpected consequences of amending the Constitution to strip power from the states and the people and further empower Washington, I cannot in good conscience support the marriage amendment to the United States Constitution. Instead, I plan to continue working to enact the Marriage Protection Act and protect each states right not to be forced to recognize a same sex marriage."

--Ron Paul*

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html

----------


## BeFranklin

> Oh, so this is biased and fairly hateful, but YOU are the one siding with a semantic protection act.
> 
> *Yes, it's about freedom of religion, since when was it illegal to hate gays and say Jesus died for sins?*


Gays hate Christians not the other way around.  And they hate marriage because by natural law they can not reproduce, which is the nature of the sin.

All this is about is hating Christians, and like most bullies you see on playgrounds, then say its the other kids that really did it.

Christians in this country aren't going to take this much more.  When real Christians are railed up, they are the most dangerous of people.  They aren't afraid to die in defense of what is right, they have faith, and God is constantly at their side.

----------


## BeFranklin

> Lesbians, condoms go wild in attack on Christian church
> Making out at pulpit, shouting blasphemies in front of children
> 
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=80743
> Posted: November 11, 2008
> 9:07 pm Eastern
> By Bob Unruh
> 
> Worshippers at a Bible-teaching church in Lansing, Mich., were stunned Sunday when members of a pro-homosexual, pro-anarchy organization named Bash Back interrupted their service to fling propaganda and condoms around the sanctuary, drape a profane banner from the balcony and feature two lesbians making out at the pulpit.
> ...





> An angry mob of homosexual activists in Southern California attacked an elderly bespectacled woman carrying a cross then shouted her down during a live TV interview as she tried to explain to a reporter her defense of the state's new marriage amendment.
> 
> "WE SHOULD FIGHT! WE SHOULD FIGHT!" screams one  protester as the woman, identified as Phyllis Burgess, stands calmly with a reporter waiting to be interviewed.
> 
> In the live interview by KPSP-TV in Palm Springs, another protester yells, "GET OUT OF HERE," and the reporter tells her anchor team back at the station, "As you can see we are being attacked."
> ...
> Burgess barely had arrived when the cross was knocked from her hand then stomped on the ground.
> 
> About 10 minutes later, the on-scene reporter, Kimberly Cheng, tried repeatedly to complete her interview.
> ...


Do you still doubt that its odd to see a bunch of people attack old ladies and worship services?  Or that this is cowardly perverse behavior?  
Here's some more.

School holds surprise 'Gay' Day for kindergartners
Parents outraged at public elementary's secretive 'coming out' event 




> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Posted: October 22, 2008
> 9:34 pm Eastern
> 
> 
> By Chelsea Schilling
> © 2008 WorldNetDaily 
> 
> 
> ...





> More gay activistism - up your alley
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=71616
> San Francisco fest features public sex with no arrests
> 'This is what the gay agenda is all about'
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Posted: August 07, 2008
> Police officer on the streets, but apparently told not to enforce publicly nudity or indecency rules, during the recent "Up Your Alley" homosexual festival 
> 
> Nude men engaged in multiple instances of public sex on a municipal street while police officers, on foot and bicycle, congregated nearby making no attempt to enforce public indecency regulations, according to a report on the latest homosexual-fest in San Francisco.


Since the article above didn't provide pictures, and its hard to believe that something like this would go on in broad daylight without any of the media reporting it, *I mean, this is about what you do in the privacy of your own home, right!* I looked for pictures online.

Found some.  It was worse than the article.  I think what I found most disgusting about the sodomites was the area where someone was wearing a t-shirt that said "toliet pig", and eating/drinking excriment and urine while onlookers were in line.

It might have been this site.  I'm not going to go through it again.  It was sickening.

http://www.zombietime.com/up_your_al...8/part_1_full/

Pedophile Priests - most massive coverup of pedophiles by any organization in history just occured.  
How could you get away with raping boys except decadance and again by not reporting the truth?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...ophile+priests

----------


## billjarrett

I haven't looked through ALL the pages here (jumped around and scanned a few), but I didn't see the conclusion I came to after thinking hard about this, so figured I'd add it.

The main reason, from what I've understood, that homosexuals want to marry is for the benefits of marriage. After looking through my constitution, I don't see any part where it says that the government should be involved in marriage in any way shape or form. This includes basing their "benefits" off of it, in my opinion.

My ideal solution would be to leave actual marriage up to the church. Some may want to marry gays, others may not, that's their domain. But, as far as the benefits are concerned, I believe that whats mine is mine. If I am paying for two adults for health insurance, why does it necessarily have to be a spouse? Why not a platonic roommate, or a homeless guy? It's my benefit, I'm paying for it (with possible help from my company), but it's mine. Let me give it to whom I want. 

As far as the government issues go, they have all their crap like taxes, social security, etc all tied up in marriage. I don't believe they should have taxes or social security at all, but if they must, why base them on marriage? People should pay taxes as individuals, and I don't see anything wrong with a one off transfer of a benefit you are due.

I'd say if the government and corporations would stay out of marriage completely, and stop basing their policies and benefits on it, this would be a non issue. Once again, government involvement is the problem, not the answer.

Hopefully this made some sense...

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> i haven't looked through all the pages here (jumped around and scanned a few), but i didn't see the conclusion i came to after thinking hard about this, so figured i'd add it.
> 
> The main reason, from what i've understood, that homosexuals want to marry is for the benefits of marriage. After looking through my constitution, i don't see any part where it says that the government should be involved in marriage in any way shape or form. This includes basing their "benefits" off of it, in my opinion.
> 
> My ideal solution would be to leave actual marriage up to the church. Some may want to marry gays, others may not, that's their domain. But, as far as the benefits are concerned, i believe that whats mine is mine. If i am paying for two adults for health insurance, why does it necessarily have to be a spouse? Why not a platonic roommate, or a homeless guy? It's my benefit, i'm paying for it (with possible help from my company), but it's mine. Let me give it to whom i want. 
> 
> As far as the government issues go, they have all their crap like taxes, social security, etc all tied up in marriage. I don't believe they should have taxes or social security at all, but if they must, why base them on marriage? People should pay taxes as individuals, and i don't see anything wrong with a one off transfer of a benefit you are due.
> 
> I'd say if the government and corporations would stay out of marriage completely, and stop basing their policies and benefits on it, this would be a non issue. Once again, government involvement is the problem, not the answer.
> ...


+9999

----------


## Danke

> The main reason, from what I've understood, that homosexuals want to marry is for the benefits of marriage. After looking through my constitution, I don't see any part where it says that the government should be involved in marriage in any way shape or form. This includes basing their "benefits" off of it, in my opinion.
> 
> My ideal solution would be to leave actual marriage up to the church. Some may want to marry gays, others may not, that's their domain. But, as far as the benefits are concerned, I believe that whats mine is mine. If I am paying for two adults for health insurance, why does it necessarily have to be a spouse? Why not a platonic roommate, or a homeless guy? It's my benefit, I'm paying for it (with possible help from my company), but it's mine. Let me give it to whom I want. 
> 
> As far as the government issues go, they have all their crap like taxes, social security, etc all tied up in marriage. I don't believe they should have taxes or social security at all, but if they must, why base them on marriage? People should pay taxes as individuals, and I don't see anything wrong with a one off transfer of a benefit you are due.
> 
> .


And this is where most fail in these type of discussions.  Social Security, Income Taxes are voluntary, hence extrinsic to these types of Constitutional arguments.

The government has great leeway in such matters as they are not Constitutional matters as in equal protection.

You don't need the government to marry.  Only if you wish to be granted the benefits of holding such license.  But, many (mostly men) are realizing the pitfalls of that and are opting out.

You have the unlimited ability to contract.  If you wish to contract with 3 partners, have at it.  But if you want a government licenses, then you will have to stick with one partner of the opposite sex.

----------


## BeFranklin

Wouldn't change anything at all. (FYI I don't believe in marriage licenses).  Gays would still push for hate crime legislation against churches, forced teaching of elementary school kids about homosexuality (the last is probably what sent California over the edge on voting against gay marriage), anti-discrimination laws (for instance you are in a church that doesn't hire homosexaul preachers, you are part of the boyscouts) etc.  

Although this argument has been framed one way, the intolerance is coming from one side - the one pushing for special laws from government.  The same thing is what caused the rise of the brownshirts in Nazi germany.  Homosexuals were alienated from society by the nature of their sin, so they wanted to force everyone to their way.  But nature itself decries it.




> In fact, the Nazi Party began in a gay bar in Munich, and Ernst Roehm, Hitler's right hand in the early days of Nazism, was well-known for his taste in young boys. William Shirer says in his definitive "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich," not only that Roehm was "important in the rise of Hitler," but also "like so many of the early Nazis, a homosexual."


Although it seems PC to accept that what you do in your own bedroom in the privacy of your home is your business, the more likely affect of the current tide is a new rise of homosexual brownshirt like intolerance, forced re-education of kids (already happening), and attacks against churches.

----------


## BeFranklin

> And this is where most fail in these type of discussions.  Social Security, Income Taxes are voluntary, hence extrinsic to these types of Constitutional arguments.
> 
> The government has great leeway in such matters as they are not Constitutional matters as in equal protection.
> 
> You don't need the government to marry.  Only if you wish to be granted the benefits of holding such license.  But, many (mostly men) are realizing the pitfalls of that and are opting out.
> 
> You have the unlimited ability to contract.  If you wish to contract with 3 partners, have at it.  But if you want a government licenses, then you will have to stick with one partner of the opposite sex.


You shouldn't have to have a license to marry (and it didn't use to exist).   Similarly, you shouldn't be forced to change your definition of marriage, that it is between one man and one woman for the purpose of procreating - "and they become one flesh".

However, this won't change the problem because

a) Unless you get rid of all taxes, there is always going to be a reason to tax married couples raising children less.  From my point of view, homosexual activists are some of the most self-serving, greedy sc*b*kets, and will always try to dip their hand into the children's jar.  And yeah, that probably has two meanings 

b) So much of homosexuality is based on rape.   They will continue to look for ways to "do in" those they hate.  This doesn't change the forced education of children into the gay lifestyle, hate laws to silence critics, discrimination rights to attack faith based organizations, etc etc.  Marriage rights is an excuse to provoke, its not the real reason.  I could be wrong about that.  But I'm not.  Look at the other things.

----------


## Ninja Homer

First, I have to admit that I only read the OP and the last page or so of this thread, so sorry if this has been said already.

Once you know the facts about marriage licenses, it's very easy to see that the whole concept of government being involved in marriages is a sham.

Marriage licenses didn't exist until after slavery was abolished.  The first marriage licensing laws were only for interracial couples that wanted to get married.  These laws were basically created because white fathers didn't want their sons or daughters marrying ex-slaves, bringing shame to their families.

Later on, everybody was calling for equal rights.  So what they did to make it equal was make marriage licenses required for everybody, rather than just getting rid of marriage license laws all together.  Rather than making everybody free to marry according to their religion, they set it up so that everybody goes into contract with government when they get married.

Now when 2 people get married, it isn't just between them; the government is also a partner.  Any products as a result of that marriage are the property of those 2 people and the government (here's where the scary-wrong stuff happens).  *If there are children produced as a result of this marriage, the government takes partial ownership of them.*  That's right, read it again, the government takes partial ownership of all children born in this country.  If a child is born out of wedlock, it is considered a common law marriage, and the government takes partial ownership of the children that way.  Children the government owns are given a serial # (social security #) at birth, and the government collects a percentage of the profits that child makes for their entire life... that's what taxes are.

Homosexuals have a good thing going.  I really don't understand why they want in on the marriage license scam.  I understand there are certain issues such as inheritances going to next of kin rather than their gay life partner, but they should be fighting to change those broken systems rather than fighting to be included in the marriage license scam.  The government would absolutely love it if homosexuals are allowed to marry, because then they can take possession of their children.  With technological advances in birthing techniques, "test tube babies" may be the only people born in the US who could be legally free, and the government would love to close this loophole.

It's the typical problem-solution method.  They get the media to create the problem (homosexuals aren't equal because they can't get legally married) then offer a solution, and the people will demand it, not understanding what the hell they're asking for.

Anyway, to make a long story short, the only sensible way for everybody to have equal marriage rights is to get the government the hell out of the marriage business, and leave it to religions or just to individuals to make up their own minds.

----------


## BeFranklin

> The government would absolutely love it if homosexuals are allowed to marry, because then they can take possession of their children.


Thats the problem with homosexuals getting married because they biologically can't do the whole purpose of getting married, children.    Even test tube babies would only be 1 partner, and certainly not natural birth.

Gays should stop being infantile, and blaming everyone else for the basic biological function of nature.  

And many people who are gay were raped as kids; or as someone has put it, homosexuals aren't born, they are recruited.  This is something that should be treated, not applauded.

----------


## chwisch87

As a gay man myself, i personally find that marriage should be no business of the state but a private contract between however many people want to enter it. However that being said, there are many state and federal benefits to marriage. Such as spousal privilege and hospital visitation but more importantly taxes. Heterosexual couples can file jointly on their income tax statements and thus pay substantially less than their homosexual counterparts. Gay couples (lesbians notably) have and raise children all the time and many longitudinal studies show that there is no adverse effect on the children. If you believe otherwise that children should be raised in only your ideal situation then you must give also that children must then be placed and only raised in homes you see as idea. Therefore you take away the right of people to raise children and give essentially ownership of that child to the state. I do not want a civil union as to me separate is not and never will be equal. I will not bow down to the irrational belief in the equivalent of a flying spaghetti monster in the sky.

----------


## Feenix566

> Surely, straight couples worked really hard and paid taxes to get their marriage rights and it's not fair gays get them just by voting, right? I can understand, because that's how I was told we shouldn't allow wetbacks into our country to get the same rights we worked our lives for.


Nobody _works_ for their rights. Human rights are something you're born with. Like Thomas Jefferson said, they're self-evident.

Homosexuals are born with the same exact rights as everyone else. We ignore that fact at our society's peril.

However: marriage is not a right. Marriage is two things: a religious institution, and a contract. Freedom of religion is a right. So the government has no place being involved in any religious institution. Property ownership and equal protection under the law are also rights, so the government has no place distinguisihing between any two individuals on any basis as far as enforcement of proerty rights are concerned. So from both religious and contractual perspectives, the government has no place saying one group of people can get married and another cannot.

----------


## chwisch87

However Feenix when we have a government-marriage under equal protection then yes gay couples have a right and there is no way to logically/philosophically prove gay couples shouldn't be entitled to marriage baring in mind that there are certain rights that comes with marriage (marriage penalty). While yes you can say that marriage shouldn't be a product of government involvement  but while it is, then the government does have a say in it.

----------


## G-Wohl

> I fear we are a culture crippled by political correctness. We no longer are allowed to disagree on any issue without being labeled "hateful".  I love my brother, I love my neighbors, it is not my business what they do in this matter (that is between them and G-d), but I just want the freedom to teach my children what the Bible says on this matter without being labeled hateful. I teach them to love and respect others....even if they do not agree with their ways. My children know that others make different decisions. When they become of age, they will have to make their own decisions. I may not agree with them all, but again, that is their journey between them and G-d. 
> 
> Josh...I agree with you when you say "When government enforces values, it's tyranny, when values shape the government, it's freedom." However both sides are currently asking the government to enforce values, both sides currently want their own form of tyranny.


No. NO! Wrong, wrong wrong.

The Constitution protects your right to practice your crazy, bigoted, hateful religion, but that's it. It doesn't garner you any right to practice it "without being labeled hateful." If you want to practice your religion and preach god and other biblical nonsense, that's your right as a citizen, but there is absolutely no conditional statement in the Constitution that demands you be allowed to practice your religion without being scorned by more open-minded individuals. We also have freedoms to speak our minds and label anybody hateful as we please.

Currently, there is no federal law saying that gay marriage is illegal. That means that, by default, gay marriage is legal in this country. That's simply what the 10th amendment says. The states have to in turn disallow or allow gay marriage in order to have any proper ruling on the matter. That's the state's prerogative. 

There's a more complicated issue involved, however, once we reach the issue of state's rights. Marriage, in context of the states, is simply a contract. It's a service, provided by the state, that validates a contract between two people. If gay people are unable to use this service like the rest of the citizens of that state can, then the issue of equal public treatment arises. Gay people pay taxes to fund the marriage services in their state, just like straight people do. If they are denied this service because of their race, then they are in turn not being treated equally by a governmental service that is, by law, required to never discriminate based on race/gender/orientation/nationality/etc.

All constitutionalists and libertarians, therefore, must recognize the inherent right, under most cases, that gay people have to marry. They have the right to call it whatever the hell they want, just as the bigoted and backwards churches have the right to deny a gay couple their services in conducting a marriage ceremony (which, of course, is meaningless without state validation, which is what the actual debate should be about).

----------


## SeanEdwards

> We also have freedoms to speak our minds and label anybody hateful as we please.


That on it's own would be fine, but with the state passing anti-discrimination laws, and treating bigotry as a crime, calling someone hateful goes way beyond mere free speech. Instead it has become a virtual criminal accusation. Our society does not allow individuals the freedom to hate. 




> If gay people are unable to use this service like the rest of the citizens of that state can, then the issue of equal public treatment arises.


This is an entirely false statement. Marriage rights are the same for everyone. Everyone IS treated equally, because everyone has exactly the same right to get married. Gay people can get married. They just don't get to redefine marriage, which is the union of one man and one woman.




> Gay people pay taxes to fund the marriage services in their state, just like straight people do. If they are denied this service because of their race, then they are in turn not being treated equally by a governmental service that is, by law, required to never discriminate based on race/gender/orientation/nationality/etc.


And blind people pay taxes that support building streetlights that they can't use also. Big freaking deal. For that matter, consider the injustice towards single people that get none of these tax perks and other incentives offered by the state to families.

Oh, and gayness is not a race.




> All constitutionalists and libertarians, therefore, must recognize the inherent right, under most cases, that gay people have to marry.


They have that right, same as everyone else. Nobody is saying gay people can't marry, just that they must find a person of the opposite gender, just like everyone else, in order to do so.

----------


## dannno

> They have that right, same as everyone else. Nobody is saying gay people can't marry, just that they must find a person of the opposite gender, just like everyone else, in order to do so.



The point is that the state is differentiating between the man and the woman and only allowing certain parties to make the contract. That is discrimination now matter how you look at it. 

If marriage licenses were initially created to control inter-racial marriage, then why haven't we abolished state marriage licenses? They seem to be only used to control who can and cannot get married. Always have, always will. It's always been about discrimination.




> consider the injustice towards single people that get none of these tax perks and other incentives offered by the state to families.


I have. It's wrong. That is precisely why the state should not be involved in marriage.





> And blind people pay taxes that support building streetlights that they can't use also. Big freaking deal. For that matter, consider the injustice towards single people that get none of these tax perks and other incentives offered by the state to families.


Bologna. The blind man benefits from the street lights because it allows their seeing eye dog to walk them home or to the store at night. The street lights allow the blind man's caretaker to walk down the street so they can come over and take care of them at night. It allows the blind man to be illuminated so that the police or watchful citizens can see if he is being robbed, deterring potential criminals.

----------


## Emrys359

First off it isnt a question of semantics at all. That is simply what politics has turned it into. Government does join people in the union of marraige god does. Therefore who marries who is none of your damn business nor is it the place of any political figure to decide who is allowed to love who or how they are allowed to show that love. In a world with so little love and so much selfishness I would think that for me or you or anyone else to say anyone else should be denied that love or to bind themselves together through that love is, if we are to believe that god is all about love, a sin and perhaps the lowest and most vile of all sins. I mean honestly. Is there some valid argument as to why one man should be allowed to decide who another man loves or how? Dont get me wrong. Im not gay and to be honest gay people tend to wierd me out. But the truth is the truth even if it wierds me out or I dont like it. Simple as that. 


   There is a valid argument that children who grow up with same sex parents could have thier morality and ideologies run a little wonky from that atmosphere and upbringing. However this is not the issue at all as it seems to me that most people seem to turn it to when the issue of gay marraige is discussed. Why? Because we all know in our hearts that who the other man loves and what he does about it is none of your damn business and certainly not the governments and quite frankly Im ashamed that this is even considered a political issue at all. But Im not suprised. Because while your spending your energy imposing your will (when I say you I mean those who support this idea) on others who either dont know or dont give a damn what you think there are political entities trying to take away your country and lets get this straight because it is the most important thing on earth right now when it comes to politics. They are winning. 


   So to anyone who agrees that this is even a real issue my best advice to you is to get your head out of your ass, stop looking at that tree and lets fix the forrest.



IMHO

E.









> I love when people say 
> 
> *Oh I don't mind if **** get together and become unions, and give them equal rights, just don't call it marriage, that'll destroy marriage!*
> 
> That, by it's own admission, is a word game.
> 
> So by this logic, we shouldn't call dogs cats, or it'll destroy cats. We shouldn't call women $#@!s, or that'll destroy women's rights.
> 
> How exactly do you preserve or protect the sanctity or sanity of an institution when it's not naturally held up? (Not saying it's not, but if you fear using the wrong word can destroy an institution, it's a sign it can't hold up otherwise).
> ...

----------


## chwisch87

> a) Unless you get rid of all taxes, there is always going to be a reason to tax married couples raising children less.  From my point of view, *homosexual activists are some of the most self-serving, greedy sc*b*kets*, and will always try to dip their hand into the children's jar.  And yeah, that probably has two meanings 
> 
> b) *So much of homosexuality is based on rape.*   They will continue to look for ways to "do in" those they hate.  This doesn't change the forced education of children into the gay lifestyle, hate laws to silence critics, discrimination rights to attack faith based organizations, etc etc.  Marriage rights is an excuse to provoke, its not the real reason.  I could be wrong about that.  But I'm not.  Look at the other things.


WHAT? As a gay man i can tell you i don't go around raping people and I as self serving as anyone else? Of course i am looking out for me; i am not a slave to the commune. There is no "hate laws" in the united states. You have the freedom of speech otherwise the KKK wouldn't exist and they would all be in jail dummy. WTF is the gay lifestyle anyway?

EDIT - 


> And many people who are gay were raped as kids; or as someone has put it, homosexuals aren't born, they are recruited.  This is something that should be treated, not applauded.


 You are more WAY off the mark there buddy. Homosexuals are not raped a children and recuited ... its pretty much hard science that being gay is something you are born with in peer reviewed studies. There is no way to change it. They (reparative therapy crowd) can teach you to hate yourself but they cannot change you. We live in a age of reason and peer reviewed research. All major medical and mental health organizations say homosexuality is a perfectly nature part of the being human.

----------


## SeanEdwards

> The point is that the state is differentiating between the man and the woman and only allowing certain parties to make the contract. That is discrimination now matter how you look at it.


Yeah? And I can't marry my sibling, no matter how much I may want to. Which I don't, but IF I did I would be denied that option just as two same-sex people are denied the option. So quit waving the bull$#@! discrimination charge in my face. It's not discrimination because everyone is treated equally in regards to marriage. Marriage has certain standards that must be met to be called marriage, and one of those is a requirement that the parties be different genders.

The fact is that it's the gay marriage activists that are trying to change the status quo here. This is not a case of straight people seeking out gay people to punish them, this is gay marriage activists demanding that an institution that has existed for thousands of years be modified to suit some notion of fairness or to boost their self-esteem and make them feel accepted by society. That is not the purpose of marriage, and it is not the job of society to make gay people feel all warm and fuzzy and admired.

Gay relationships are not, and can not EVER be equal to traditional marriage, no matter what name they are given. An apple does not equal an orange, no matter how much the apple whines about it. A gay man can never be a mother, and a lesbian woman can never be a father. That's not bigotry, it's natural law. The gay marriage activists should be protesting their own DNA, not the institution of marriage.

----------


## Truth Warrior

*What the hell different do you expect from a retarded government that ALWAYS has been?*

----------


## chwisch87

> Yeah? And I can't marry my sibling, no matter how much I may want to. Which I don't, but IF I did I would be denied that option just as two same-sex people are denied the option. So quit waving the bull$#@! discrimination charge in my face. It's not discrimination because everyone is treated equally in regards to marriage. Marriage has certain standards that must be met to be called marriage, and one of those is a requirement that the parties be different genders.
> 
> The fact is that it's the gay marriage activists that are trying to change the status quo here. This is not a case of straight people seeking out gay people to punish them, this is gay marriage activists demanding that an institution that has existed for thousands of years be modified to suit some notion of fairness or to boost their self-esteem and make them feel accepted by society. That is not the purpose of marriage, and it is not the job of society to make gay people feel all warm and fuzzy and admired.
> 
> Gay relationships are not, and can not EVER be equal to traditional marriage, no matter what name they are given. An apple does not equal an orange, no matter how much the apple whines about it. A gay man can never be a mother, and a lesbian woman can never be a father. That's not bigotry, it's natural law. The gay marriage activists should be protesting their own DNA, not the institution of marriage.


Marriage wasn't even the marriage we think of as today until recently. It used to be that you are married off as a family bond. Today we marry for love. In what way is a gay relationship not equal to a heterosexual one? (IE they can't have kids) ... so then we should only give marriage licenses to only people who can have kids? What exactly can a heterosexual couple do that a gay couple can't? There is no reason not to ... it doesn't affect the standing of a heterosexual sexual marriage for a gay one to exist. Bob and Sue are not going to get divorced for Dan and Bill (those blasted happy ass gays next door) got married? If you want to quote natural law (which you are wrong) homosexuality (couples) occurs throughout the animal kingdom.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> marriage wasn't even the marriage we think of as today until recently. It used to be that you are married off as a family bond. Today we marry for love. In what way is a gay relationship not equal to a heterosexual one? (ie they can't have kids) ... So then we should only give marriage licenses to only people who can have kids? What exactly can a heterosexual couple do that a gay couple can't? There is no reason not to ... It doesn't affect the standing of a heterosexual sexual marriage for a gay one to exist. Bob and sue are not going to get divorced for dan and bill (those blasted happy ass gays next door) got married? If you want to quote natural law (which you are wrong) homosexuality (couples) occurs throughout the animal kingdom.


qft!

----------


## SeanEdwards

> In what way is a gay relationship not equal to a heterosexual one?


In what way is my fictional relationship with a sibling not equal? Society won't allow me to marry a sister, *BECAUSE IT'S NOT A REPRODUCTIVELY VIABLE FAMILY STRUCTURE*. See the connection yet?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> In what way is my fictional relationship with a sibling not equal? Society won't allow me to marry a sister, *BECAUSE IT'S NOT A REPRODUCTIVELY VIABLE FAMILY STRUCTURE*. See the connection yet?


No, that amorphous set of individuals called "society" really doesn't care if you marry your sister. (people used to intermarry in their families all the time, and noone cared-even in this country).  It's only government that cares.  If the government can create the fiction of a "normal family" in your psyche, then they can easily control other aspects of your life. 

You should read up on European royalty.  They inbred regularly to maintain the "purity" of the family bloodline.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Gays hate Christians not the other way around.  And they hate marriage because by natural law they can not reproduce, which is the nature of the sin.
> 
> All this is about is hating Christians, and like most bullies you see on playgrounds, then say its the other kids that really did it.
> 
> Christians in this country aren't going to take this much more.  When real Christians are railed up, they are the most dangerous of people.  They aren't afraid to die in defense of what is right, they have faith, and God is constantly at their side.


what's wrong with hating Christians? Hating nature? And hating normal people? 

Who cares what **** hate? They don't pay your bills! Let them hate all they want, they can't harm you.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Christians in this country aren't going to take this much more.  When real Christians are railed up, they are the most dangerous of people.  They aren't afraid to die in defense of what is right, they have faith, and God is constantly at their side.


I agree, religious nutjobs stop at nothing. No better than Zionist Jews and Muslim terrorists, people who put God and religion before humanity.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Do you still doubt that its odd to see a bunch of people attack old ladies and worship services?  Or that this is cowardly perverse behavior?  
> Here's some more.
> 
> School holds surprise 'Gay' Day for kindergartners
> Parents outraged at public elementary's secretive 'coming out' event 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If you're saying gay people should be treated like animals and slaughtered like the way PETA wouldn't approve of, I have no problem. But just admit you have a problem with **** and you don't want them treated like normal people.

Don't be so PC to say "they just can't get married" as if that's going to protect your children's future.

*You think all other things they teach in school is OK?*
Such as black people are humans?
Evolution is a fact?
Condoms and abortion are acceptable when you have pre-marital sex?

----------


## Josh_LA

> Wouldn't change anything at all. (FYI I don't believe in marriage licenses).  Gays would still push for hate crime legislation against churches, forced teaching of elementary school kids about homosexuality (the last is probably what sent California over the edge on voting against gay marriage), anti-discrimination laws (for instance you are in a church that doesn't hire homosexaul preachers, you are part of the boyscouts) etc.  
> 
> Although this argument has been framed one way, the intolerance is coming from one side - the one pushing for special laws from government.  The same thing is what caused the rise of the brownshirts in Nazi germany.  Homosexuals were alienated from society by the nature of their sin, so they wanted to force everyone to their way.  But nature itself decries it.
> 
> 
> 
> Although it seems PC to accept that what you do in your own bedroom in the privacy of your home is your business, the more likely affect of the current tide is a new rise of homosexual brownshirt like intolerance, forced re-education of kids (already happening), and attacks against churches.


*How about waiting until the hate crime agenda comes out, THEN GET DEFENSIVE?* Your logic is basically, prevent hate crime laws by making them first.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Similarly, you shouldn't be forced to change your definition of marriage, that it is between one man and one woman for the purpose of procreating - "and they become one flesh".


Who's being forced to accept the new legal definition of marriage? 

NOT ME. I don't care what the law says.
*
You agree with the law on everything? F you (F yourself, seriously)!*

I don't agree with the law on many things :
1. Statutory rape is not rape
2. Black people are not people even though the law says so
3. Adopted children are not real parent/children relationship
4. I am a human being, not a 'citizen'
5. Calling marijuana a 'drug' does not make it an exclusive right to pharmacists


The law's definitions NEVER force you to accept it. EVER.

----------


## Josh_LA

> \
> 
> And many people who are gay were raped as kids; or as someone has put it, homosexuals aren't born, they are recruited.  This is something that should be treated, not applauded.


Why not kill them so we don't have to worry about it at all?

----------


## Josh_LA

> Nobody _works_ for their rights. Human rights are something you're born with. Like Thomas Jefferson said, they're self-evident.
> 
> Homosexuals are born with the same exact rights as everyone else. We ignore that fact at our society's peril.
> 
> However: marriage is not a right. Marriage is two things: a religious institution, and a contract. Freedom of religion is a right. So the government has no place being involved in any religious institution. Property ownership and equal protection under the law are also rights, so the government has no place distinguisihing between any two individuals on any basis as far as enforcement of proerty rights are concerned. So from both religious and contractual perspectives, the government has no place saying one group of people can get married and another cannot.


Jefferson is not my God, I don't take everything he says as gospel truth.

You can say you have rights all you want, see if you say the same thing when I have a gun to your head (not a threat, just telling you rights mean nothing unless exercised and recognized).

----------


## Josh_LA

> Our society does not allow individuals the freedom to hate.


Yes it DOES, and it should CONTINUE.

Making **** married legally does not take away your right to hate them or speak out against them. *You have EVERY RIGHT AND EVERY OBLIGATION to teach your kids to hate ****, that's the right and natural thing to do (or if it's not, you're still free to anyway.*

----------


## Josh_LA

> There is a valid argument that children who grow up with same sex parents could have thier morality and ideologies run a little wonky from that atmosphere and upbringing. 
> E.


Yes, and there's an even better argument that children who don't have parents grow up even worse.

So your options are:

*biological parents that are good
*biological parents that are trailer drunk
*adopted straight parents who use you for tax cuts
*adopted single parent who uses you for company
*adopted gay parents who can be any of the above, but given the social stigma, probably are expected to act more upright with all the pressure.
*no parents.

Keep in mind it's NOBODY'S FAULT that a child has no parents, our society has no problem *letting these children starve to death as we OWE THEM NOTHING.* Giving them gay parents is an alternative to leaving them to rot and die, if they have a problem with that, they are more than free to choose. Until more straight parents step up to the plate, you can shut up about how lousy **** and dykes are at being parents. Let's see you do better.

----------


## DamianTV

So, if you were hurt in an accident, and a *** saved your life, would you be pissed off at them for being a *** that saved your life?

And what is it with people that really believe that the paperwork of marriage has become more important than the people themselves?  Sounds like the excuse of the military where the paperwork is more important of the person.  We've changed the definitions of marriages so much that I think we have lost sight of what marriage is supposed to mean.  Union of two people.

----------


## dannno

> In what way is my fictional relationship with a sibling not equal? Society won't allow me to marry a sister, *BECAUSE IT'S NOT A REPRODUCTIVELY VIABLE FAMILY STRUCTURE*. See the connection yet?


No, because people who cannot reproduce due to medical problems are still allowed to get married.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Yeah? And I can't marry my sibling, no matter how much I may want to. Which I don't, but IF I did I would be denied that option just as two same-sex people are denied the option.


*
But you shouldn't be denied that option.* Nobody has business telling you who you can't sleep with, who you can't live with, who you can't have children with and who you can't file joint tax returns with. 

We don't ask any married couple if they intend to have children, have sex every month or use condoms to prevent AIDS, so why are **** automatically guilty of it all? (or why is allowing **** to marry legally suddenly seen as advocating all of it?)

YES, I am saying anybody should have the right to marry a slice of pie of their child or their dog. Marrying does not mean having sex, it just means living together and filing taxes together as far as the government can ask. If we're so upset that **** will be encouraged to stay flaming, we ought to discourage marriage too, or we'd be encouraging sex without reproduction, or.....SEX, tell your children that!

----------


## Josh_LA

> In what way is my fictional relationship with a sibling not equal? Society won't allow me to marry a sister, *BECAUSE IT'S NOT A REPRODUCTIVELY VIABLE FAMILY STRUCTURE*. See the connection yet?


By this logic, no couple who intends to reproduce can be married, and any couple who has stopped reproducing within their potential (which are most of them), cannot stay married. 

Elderly couples who no longer reproduce or create family structures cannot be considered viable either.

----------


## Josh_LA

> The point is that the state is differentiating between the man and the woman and only allowing certain parties to make the contract. That is discrimination now matter how you look at it. 
> 
> If marriage licenses were initially created to control inter-racial marriage, then why haven't we abolished state marriage licenses? They seem to be only used to control who can and cannot get married. Always have, always will. It's always been about discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> I have. It's wrong. That is precisely why the state should not be involved in marriage.


Exactly, and somehow letting the state define marriage is protecting marriage or protecting freedom




> Bologna. The blind man benefits from the street lights because it allows their seeing eye dog to walk them home or to the store at night. The street lights allow the blind man's caretaker to walk down the street so they can come over and take care of them at night. It allows the blind man to be illuminated so that the police or watchful citizens can see if he is being robbed, deterring potential criminals.


And yes, we SHOULD treat people equally regardless of relationship status, broadening the definition of marriage, and reducing the significance of the term is EXACTLY THAT. We are MORE equal when words mean LESS. Thats why we stopped using words like "Negro" "African American" and now just call all people "people".

----------


## SeanEdwards

> By this logic, no couple who intends to reproduce can be married, and any couple who has stopped reproducing within their potential (which are most of them), cannot stay married. 
> 
> Elderly couples who no longer reproduce or create family structures cannot be considered viable either.


No, even though the elderly couple may be too old to breed, their dual gender family structure still represents the reproductively viable and natural family unit, even if their specific family is not capable of reproduction.

----------


## SeanEdwards

> *
> But you shouldn't be denied that option.* Nobody has business telling you who you can't sleep with, who you can't live with, who you can't have children with and who you can't file joint tax returns with.


But most of that stuff you list does not require a marriage license. Denying me the right to marry a sister, doesn't mean I can't do all the stuff you listed, except for the tax filing bit. And the tax filing bit which goes with a marriage license is a reflection of society placing a stamp of approval upon my choice of relationship, and to some degree underwriting it. Society doesn't have to bow to my wishes to underwrite my weird fictional incestuous family. If society deems that an incestuous family (or a gay one) is not the family model that deserves community approval or underwriting then society doesn't need to support such families.

It's not a matter of equal rights. Civil marriage is a society endorsed license, with specific requirements for issuance that apply to everyone equally. Just like a drivers license. Or a pilot's license. Or a license to practice medicine. Plenty of people are denied the right to prescribe drugs, and it doesn't matter if the denied person feels they should be allowed to prescribe drugs. Nor does it matter if that person thinks their brand of home-school medicine is equally as good as the traditional medical education. If they don't meet the license requirements, then they don't get the license.

Society can't really stop people from committing incest, if that's what they want to do. But society sure as hell can refuse to endorse and legitimize such behavior.

----------


## BeFranklin

> EDIT -  You are more WAY off the mark there buddy. Homosexuals are not raped a children and recuited ... its pretty much hard science that being gay is something you are born with in peer reviewed studies. There is no way to change it. They (reparative therapy crowd) can teach you to hate yourself but they cannot change you. We live in a age of reason and peer reviewed research. All major medical and mental health organizations say homosexuality is a perfectly nature part of the being human.


A) This is one example of why the gay agenda has to be fought.  This isn't science, and anyone that loves the truth has to fight what is wrong.

B) If you didn't have to recruit, you wouldn't be forcing kids in kindergarten to study homosexaulity.  This is appaling, and I am going to start advocating that the sodomy laws are enforced again because of it.  I see few have talked about any of these issues of FORCED hiring of gays in religious groups and FORCED subjecting of little kids to gay ininitiatives.  And all the while, they have the gall while pushing these laws to claim that the other side is intolorent.  You've provoked people for the last time.  This isn't about the privacy of your bedroom, and the buck stops here.

C) I'm not off the mark.  A large % of gay men are raped as kids.  Homosexuality is a perversion that should be treated as it used to be.  Even if it is legal, like a drug addiction, that doesn't mean it is good or doesn't need to be treated.

D) The tax credits are intended to be used to have children.  If you want to narrow their use so it is only for those who are raising a family, that is fine.  But this is just another example of gay people raping kids and taking what belongs to the kids, and that includes forcing children in kindergarten to learn about their behavior, or forcing their way into boyscout clubs.  Leave the kids alone.

E) Homosexuality is a perverse behavior, not a physical characteristic.  Although some have asked when it will end, and if bestaility will be the next protected right, I don't think it is necessary.  I think you just need to actually post the facts for once, without framing the questions, and without baiting people as a religious test vs if you will accept my perverse behavior.  

The below is an example of what gay activists have been pushing for - the freedom to drink urine from people pissing in public.  Yes, there is a reason this behavior has traditionally been illegal, condemned, and treated.  Why don't some of you supporting this tell me how the below fits into your scheme of things?  Looks to me like a complete breakdown in whatever political scheme you are following:  




> Since the article above didn't provide pictures, and its hard to believe that something like this would go on in broad daylight without any of the media reporting it, I mean, this is about what you do in the privacy of your own home, right! I looked for pictures online.
> 
> Found some. It was worse than the article. I think what I found most disgusting about the sodomites was the area where someone was wearing a t-shirt that said "toliet pig", and eating/drinking excriment and urine while onlookers were in line.
> 
> It might have been this site. I'm not going to go through it again. It was sickening.
> 
> More gay activistism - up your alley
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=71616
> Typical San Fransico Fair - Being forced on your school kids soon
> http://www.zombietime.com/up_your_al...8/part_1_full/

----------


## BeFranklin

> In what way is my fictional relationship with a sibling not equal? Society won't allow me to marry a sister, *BECAUSE IT'S NOT A REPRODUCTIVELY VIABLE FAMILY STRUCTURE*. See the connection yet?


QFT.

The gay activists are pushing this to provoke, as a means of hate, and to steal tax credits that are suppose to be used to encourage and help in the raising of families, something which is in the interest of the country.

And what they want protected is perversity, as seen in the link I posted above of an example of a san fransico fair - or a noisome gay bar.

----------


## BeFranklin

> I agree, religious nutjobs stop at nothing. No better than Zionist Jews and Muslim terrorists, people who put God and religion before humanity.


_"Who mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."_ 

This is why I will encourage everyone to leave and only deal with fellow Christians.  It is impossible for you to mutually pledge your sacred honor to someone that has none.

The foundation has to be strong if you want to build on it.  God doesn't care about the number, he will give the victory regardless.  Like I was saying to someone else today, all we are doing is wasting our time arguing with a bunch of people who are attacking the basic faith of America and hurling insults - I can get that from the left anytime.

Those who are fellow Christians - Hear me out: There are enough problems out there that we need to stop being lured back into places like this that is diluting our speech.  Darkness can't walk with light, and we have more important things to do.

----------


## BeFranklin

> *How about waiting until the hate crime agenda comes out, THEN GET DEFENSIVE?* Your logic is basically, prevent hate crime laws by making them first.


Maybe I'm better read on foreign news then you are.  It has already happened in england, and the NWO is global in nature.

Also, I read history as well.  The nazi brownshirts were likewise composed of homosexual 'activists'.  There is a reason that they are being recruited for that side of the agenda, and why the attacks on the church and the old woman with the cross just occured.

----------


## BeFranklin

> *
> But you shouldn't be denied that option.* !


In a completely unrelated thread, which has nothing to do with this issue, I noticed you are given to sophism and not looking at the real world and how things actually work.  If you are being truely objective, you'd have an objective you were trying to accomplish...  and a measure for what works and what doesn't.

Case in point, there is a good reason in law that siblings are restricted from marrying is their children are much more likely to suffer from genetic problems.  Thats the real world reason, and again its about protecting children.

I despise the people on this thread who have hated the children and been pc.  You've got two choices here, a strong america or a weak america of diseases like aids, the most putrid sort of sex in public, few children, decadence, and death.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Are you suggesting that you want to stop homosexuals' "assault" on culture by "assaulting" them in return?  Don't you see that you are just perpetuating a vicious cycle of repression?  It's fair enough to oppose militant homosexuals (because they often impose on others), but there's no justification for stepping on others' right to exist and do what they please (assuming they don't harm others).  

2 of my best friends in music school were gay, but they didn't threaten my life/liberty/property.  I don't see anything to be gained by using physical/government force against them.  

I've never seen a story of gay parents harming their adopted children.  Could you cite an example for me?  There are numerous examples of hetero couples who abuse their children (and others' children).  This is one reason the Amber Alert was invented.  Are their crimes more acceptable?  

I'm in agreement with you in some of the things you mentioned (the gay agenda being forced into schools, boy scouts, etc.).  However, these militant gays are in the minority-just like the catholic priests who have a reputation for molesting boys (they settled a large lawsuit only a few years ago). 

If you want to live in a free country, you have to accept people you don't like.  I don't like rap, for example, but I respect others' right to enjoy it. (please don't twist this and make it sound like I'm justifying pedophilia or any other harmful activity, btw-I'm not.)

Just my 2 cents.
~heavenlyboy34~




> A) This is one example of why the gay agenda has to be fought.  This isn't science, and anyone that loves the truth has to fight what is wrong.
> 
> B) If you didn't have to recruit, you wouldn't be forcing kids in kindergarten to study homosexaulity.  This is appaling, and I am going to start advocating that the sodomy laws are enforced again because of it.  I see few have talked about any of these issues of FORCED hiring of gays in religious groups and FORCED subjecting of little kids to gay ininitiatives.  And all the while, they have the gall while pushing these laws to claim that the other side is intolorent.  You've provoked people for the last time.  This isn't about the privacy of your bedroom, and the buck stops here.
> 
> C) I'm not off the mark.  A large % of gay men are raped as kids.  Homosexuality is a perversion that should be treated as it used to be.  Even if it is legal, like a drug addiction, that doesn't mean it is good or doesn't need to be treated.
> 
> D) The tax credits are intended to be used to have children.  If you want to narrow their use so it is only for those who are raising a family, that is fine.  But this is just another example of gay people raping kids and taking what belongs to the kids, and that includes forcing children in kindergarten to learn about their behavior, or forcing their way into boyscout clubs.  Leave the kids alone.
> 
> E) Homosexuality is a perverse behavior, not a physical characteristic.  Although some have asked when it will end, and if bestaility will be the next protected right, I don't think it is necessary.  I think you just need to actually post the facts for once, without framing the questions, and without baiting people as a religious test vs if you will accept my perverse behavior.  
> ...

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Case in point, there is a good reason in law that siblings are restricted from marrying is their children are much more likely to suffer from genetic problems.  Thats the real world reason, and again its about protecting children.


I strongly disagree with this.  There is no logical reason the state should be involved in this.  Marriage rights/contracts/agreements should settled only be between individuals and religious institutions.  The state can only be reasonably  involved if a crime occurs.  And even then, private law enforcement is more effective and acceptable/palatable to the principles of liberty.

----------


## BeFranklin

> Are you suggesting that you want to stop homosexuals' "assault" on culture by "assaulting" them in return?  Don't you see that you are just perpetuating a vicious cycle of repression?  It's fair enough to oppose militant homosexuals (because they often impose on others), but there's no justification for stepping on others' right to exist and do what they please (assuming they don't harm others).  
> 
> 2 of my best friends in music school were gay, but they didn't threaten my life/liberty/property.  I don't see anything to be gained by using physical/government force against them.  
> 
> I've never seen a story of gay parents harming their adopted children.  Could you cite an example for me?  There are numerous examples of hetero couples who abuse their children (and others' children).  This is one reason the Amber Alert was invented.  Are their crimes more acceptable?  
> 
> I'm in agreement with you in some of the things you mentioned (the gay agenda being forced into schools, boy scouts, etc.).  However, these militant gays are in the minority-just like the catholic priests who have a reputation for molesting boys (they settled a large lawsuit only a few years ago). 
> 
> If you want to live in a free country, you have to accept people you don't like.  I don't like rap, for example, but I respect others' right to enjoy it. (please don't twist this and make it sound like I'm justifying pedophilia or any other harmful activity, btw-I'm not.)
> ...


How can forced schooling of kindergarten kids be something "a minority" of gay activists support when it is being introduced into the state school systems everywhere?  That isn't a minority of gays, that is a major agenda push.  If you agree that that is wrong, you should start protesting now.

On a forum like this, how vices are dealt with have differing opinions.  Some will advocate that everything like prostitution, pornography, drug use, homosexuality should be completely legal, and others may argue for decrimininalizing them - for instance, they are associated with fines, are illegal for those under the age of consent, or you can be sued in court by those you adversely affect - for instance street walkers in front of your place of business.

I'm of the latter group.  I am not entirely persaded we should put the sodomy laws back on the books, however, I don't find things like rapes, school indoctrinition, diseases, and public sex kosher.  They badly effect the public.

I believe the drug war should be finished.  I mean people shouldn't be imprisoned for drugs; however I still believe that drugs shouldn't be sold in stores, and there should be fines and rehabitation programs for addicts.  Since we have a drug war, this would be a lot better.  I also believe that sodomy should be regulated, there shouldn't be gay bars or glory holes, and there should be treatment programs just like there use to be.  However, since there isn't a sodomy war, and the brownshirts are riding our country, this seems to provide less to some people EVEN though I believe in the exact same solutions for both sets of vices.

I've had gay friends too.  That doesn't mean I didn't think it was a perverse sin that was harming them.  The entire society is being harmed by its own sins.  You are as friendly as you can be with people despite their sins.  And some of these people aren't being very friendly..  They just attacked a church.  They just pushed a little old lady down at a protest.  They just passed legislation to force kids to learn the gay way.  They just tried to ram forced marriage re-definition down our throats.  That despite the public perversity they have enganged in, including the sodomy in the parks, diseases like aids, things which also directly lead to all the gay rapes of boys we've had recently.  


And, mentioning militant homosexuals, reminds me of information on the pink swastika.

Like it or not, no matter how much we want equal rights and peace for all, a large portion of the homosexual activists are on the far left, and opposed in general to most of what we believe.  You're going to be fighting them regardless of whether it is on this issue or not.

You should look at history for what happened.  I found the below site interesting, because it talks about how to Nazi party used the homosexual movement to get its start.  What I found from the site is mainly that its probably a good place to recruit people that already feel alienated from society, and who want to 'start a new world order' and who are also willing to lash out at traditional institutions.  This particular paragraph caught my eye:




> One of the keys to understanding both the rise of Nazism and the later persecution of some homosexuals by the Nazis is found in this early history of the German "gay rights" movement. For it was the CS which created and shaped what would become the Nazi persona, and it was the loathing which these "Butches" held for effeminate homosexuals ("Femmes") which led to the internment of some of the latter in slave labor camps in the Third Reich.


I think this tends to show that homosexuals may split up into the "rapers" and the "raped", which is one way to deal with being raped as a child.  Regardless if that supports what I said earlier in this thread, this site is one of many that shows how the Nazi party got started from the homosexual movement in germany, and we ought to learn something from it.

http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/lively.html

----------


## BeFranklin

> I strongly disagree with this.  There is no logical reason the state should be involved in this.  Marriage rights/contracts/agreements should settled only be between individuals and religious institutions.  The state can only be reasonably  involved if a crime occurs.  And even then, private law enforcement is more effective and acceptable/palatable to the principles of liberty.


There is every reason to forbid having children from a couple that is closely related who may cause birth defects in their children.  And religious institutes have traditionally forbidden this type of marriage.

And genetic defects is IMHO the reason that is has existed that way for thousands of years.  Also, if you do cause a birth defect, you are guilty of a crime against that child now because there was reasonable suspicion that it might occur and you didn't take due care.  And it isn't true that a government can only be involved after a crime occurs.  If there is reasonable belief that a crime is about to occur, there is reason to send the posse on its way over.  If you think someone is *about* to shoot you, you can defend yourself.

This is what I was saying about arguing from a limited set of principles without taking into account real world considerations.  It tends to lead to sophistry and throwing out the baby with the bathwater.  Historical examples are better.

----------


## BeFranklin

> Rising spontaneously in the 1890s as an informal hiking and camping society, the Wandervogel became an official organization at the turn of the century, similar to the Boy Scouts. From early on, however, the Wandervogel was dominated and controlled by the pederasts of the CS. CS co-founder Wilhelm Janzen was its chief benefactor, and its leadership was rife with homosexuality. In 1912, CS theorist Hans Blueher wrote The German Wandervogel Movement as an Erotic Phenomenon which told how the organization was used to recruit young boys into homosexuality.


This was a boyscout like organization that the gay activists took over in germany.

----------


## Josh_LA

> How can forced schooling of kindergarten kids be something "a minority" of gay activists support when it is being introduced into the state school systems everywhere?  That isn't a minority of gays, that is a major agenda push.  If you agree that that is wrong, you should start protesting now.


You say that as if you agree with forced schooling on everything else except gay education. As if no parents disagree with what their children are taught, as if it's illegal to teach your kids racism while 99.99% of schools officially teach racism as a crime.

And yes, I AM protesting, by not playing their game, by keeping my children out of school, by teaching my children that ignorance & hatred is good, knowledge & tolerance is evil.

----------


## BeFranklin

> The "grandfather of gay rights" was a homosexual German lawyer named Karl Heinrich Ulrichs. Ulrichs had been molested at age 14 by his male riding instructor. Instead of attributing his adult homosexuality to the molestation, however, Ulrich devised in the 1860s what became known as the "third sex" theory of homosexuality. Ulrichs' model holds that male homosexuals are actually female souls trapped within male bodies. The reverse phenomenon supposedly explains lesbianism. Since homosexuality was an innate condition, reasoned Ulrichs, homosexual behavior should be decriminalized. An early follower of Ulrichs coined the term "homosexual" in an open letter to the Prussian Minister of Justice in 1869.


Umm, sounds just like this thread.

----------


## Josh_LA

> No, even though the elderly couple may be too old to breed, their dual gender family structure still represents the reproductively viable and natural family unit, even if their specific family is not capable of reproduction.


why isn't it more natural to have polygamy?

----------


## BeFranklin

> You say that as if you agree with forced schooling on everything else except gay education. As if no parents disagree with what their children are taught, as if it's illegal to teach your kids racism while 99.99% of schools officially teach racism as a crime.
> 
> And yes, I AM protesting, by not playing their game, by keeping my children out of school, by teaching my children that ignorance & hatred is good, knowledge & tolerance is evil.


No, I didn't say that, or as if.

----------


## Josh_LA

> But most of that stuff you list does not require a marriage license. Denying me the right to marry a sister, doesn't mean I can't do all the stuff you listed, except for the tax filing bit. And the tax filing bit which goes with a marriage license is a reflection of society placing a stamp of approval upon my choice of relationship, and to some degree underwriting it.


No, all it means when you are given a license is you agree you will act like you're in a relationship, you can lie for all we care, so this "approval" is meaningless. Society CAN and SHOULD give any two people who can enjoy the convenience or incentives of filing joint taxes (or not filing at all) to do so. *So legally, that's all the marriage license IS, a stamp of approval you can file your taxes jointly and visit in a hospital, even if you hate each other!*

Just like T-Mobile allows "couple plans" for any two people who know each other and agree to pay the plan.

*Why SHOULDN'T any two people be allowed a marriage/couple/paired up license?* Why should only straight, reproducing, non-anal heterosexual couples be given a privelege?

----------


## Josh_LA

> maybe i'm better read on foreign news then you are.  It has already happened in england, and the nwo is global in nature.
> 
> Also, i read history as well.  The nazi brownshirts were likewise composed of homosexual 'activists'.  There is a reason that they are being recruited for that side of the agenda, and why the attacks on the church and the old woman with the cross just occured.


*
oh no, nazis again!

Pink swastika propaganda.*

----------


## BeFranklin

> No, all it means when you are given a license is you agree you will act like you're in a relationship, you can lie for all we care, so this "approval" is meaningless. Society CAN and SHOULD give any two people who can enjoy the convenience or incentives of filing joint taxes (or not filing at all) to do so. *So legally, that's all the marriage license IS, a stamp of approval you can file your taxes jointly and visit in a hospital, even if you hate each other!*
> 
> Just like T-Mobile allows "couple plans" for any two people who know each other and agree to pay the plan.
> 
> *Why SHOULDN'T any two people be allowed a marriage/couple/paired up license?* Why should only straight, reproducing, non-anal heterosexual couples be given a privelege?


So you are saying you do support income taxes for indivuals, even if its unconstitutional, as long as gays are let in on the tax credits too?  

Just felt like returning the same.

----------


## BeFranklin

> *
> oh no, nazis again!
> 
> Pink swastika propaganda.*


Its not propaganda.

----------


## Josh_LA

> In a completely unrelated thread, which has nothing to do with this issue, I noticed you are given to sophism and not looking at the real world and how things actually work.  If you are being truely objective, you'd have an objective you were trying to accomplish...  and a measure for what works and what doesn't.
> 
> Case in point, there is a good reason in law that siblings are restricted from marrying is their children are much more likely to suffer from genetic problems.  Thats the real world reason, and again its about protecting children.
> 
> I despise the people on this thread who have hated the children and been pc.  You've got two choices here, a strong america or a weak america of diseases like aids, the most putrid sort of sex in public, few children, decadence, and death.


I DO have an objective, it's to challenge artificial and unnecessary norms that are in conflict of freedom. It's to allow society to self destruct if all we have are stupid values that are breakable upon disbelief.

The law should NOT restrict anybody from marrying, marrying means nothing in the law's eyes, it only means they file joint taxes, and have rights to visit. It says nothing about love, children, sex or otherwise.

I am not interested in protecting children, sorry I grew up lucky or wasn't aborted. Unless you set a better example of protecting children or taking care of children that people seem to neglect, keep the preaching to your own.

I definitely want a strong America, that's why I'm a eugenicist & social Darwinist. And **** don't hurt us, they die and never have children.

----------


## Josh_LA

> So you are saying you do support income taxes for indivuals, even if its unconstitutional, as long as gays are let in on the tax credits too?  
> 
> Just felt like returning the same.


I don't believe in the Constitution, I believe in freedom, and equality.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Its not propaganda.


you gotta have something better to say than comparing **** to Hitler and stuff you stole from the Pink Swastika, as if Nazis didn't have Christians, as if Nazis didn't use Christianity as a driving force to persecute **** and Jews.

----------


## BeFranklin

> you gotta have something better to say than comparing **** to Hitler and stuff you stole from the Pink Swastika, as if Nazis didn't have Christians, as if Nazis didn't use Christianity as a driving force to persecute **** and Jews.


I could post all day since your information is wrong.

----------


## BeFranklin

> I am not interested in protecting children, sorry I grew up lucky or wasn't aborted. Unless you set a better example of protecting children or taking care of children that people seem to neglect, keep the preaching to your own.
> 
> I definitely want a strong America, that's why I'm a eugenicist & social Darwinist. And **** don't hurt us, they die and never have children.


This explains it all.  Just as sick as I thought.

----------


## Josh_LA

> I posted more then you, and could post all day since your information is wrong.  At least post a link to refute   But this is the way it was.


you post a bunch of gay activism, which is fair enough, disgusting. but I agree that would be the time to get defensive. so there's no argument there. 

that's far different from using legislation to "protect" a socially constructed institution that can be "destroyed" simply by using the wrong word. 

that though, is still quite different than talking about how Nazis had **** in their ranks. What didn't Nazis have? (Yes, they even had Jews) Whether they used ******ry to recruit members is irrelevant, people are either recruited by **** or recruited by people like you, out of fearmongering. I don't play this stupid game, I'm here to say **** can go to hell for all I care, and people who bother to worry about them are just insecure about themselves.

Yes, I am saying that if you are afraid of retards infecting your brain, you're retarded. Not saying that if you hate retards you're a retard.  If you're afraid of dictatorship, you're afraid you're going to become one of them, doesn't mean you are one, but it means you can't stand on your feet (or trust others to).

----------


## Josh_LA

> This explains it all.  Just as sick as I thought.


Yep, I really care about how sick you think I am. Stronger America you asked?

----------


## BeFranklin

> you post a bunch of gay activism, which is fair enough, disgusting. but I agree that would be the time to get defensive. so there's no argument there. 
> 
> that's far different from using legislation to "protect" a socially constructed institution that can be "destroyed" simply by using the wrong word. 
> 
> that though, is still quite different than talking about how Nazis had **** in their ranks. What didn't Nazis have? (Yes, they even had Jews) Whether they used ******ry to recruit members is irrelevant, people are either recruited by **** or recruited by people like you, out of fearmongering. I don't play this stupid game, I'm here to say **** can go to hell for all I care, and people who bother to worry about them are just insecure about themselves.
> 
> Yes, I am saying that if you are afraid of retards infecting your brain, you're retarded. Not saying that if you hate retards you're a retard.  If you're afraid of dictatorship, you're afraid you're going to become one of them, doesn't mean you are one, but it means you can't stand on your feet (or trust others to).


Ok, so you said you are a eugenistics and a social dawanists who doesn't believe in the constitution and hates **** and Christians.  Anything else?

----------


## Josh_LA

> This explains it all.  Just as sick as I thought.


*hey, at least I'm honest about my hatred and beliefs.* You're willing to say what's wrong with gays but not willing to say they're not equal or don't deserve to be treated equally.

Chill kids, I don't hate gay people for being gay, I don't waste time and energy hating anybody. But there's nothing wrong if somebody's stupid enough to hate people just for the fun of it either.* Hatred and stupidity is OK, dishonesty and hypocrisy is NOT.*

----------


## BeFranklin

> *hey, at least I'm honest about my hatred and beliefs.* You're willing to say what's wrong with gays but not willing to say they're not equal or don't deserve to be treated equally.
> 
> Chill kids, I don't hate gay people for being gay, I don't waste time and energy hating anybody. But there's nothing wrong if somebody's stupid enough to hate people just for the fun of it either.* Hatred and stupidity is OK, dishonesty and hypocrisy is NOT.*


I've said the whole thread I think that homosexuality is a perversion,  and the sodomy laws should be put back in place at least to include things such as shutting down gay bars and glory holes, etc.  Also, its a problem that ought to be treated.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Ok, so you said you are a eugenistics and a social dawanists who doesn't believe in the constitution and hates **** and Christians.  Anything else?


not quite. but almost there.

I'm a eugenicist as I believe in improving generations, and genetics has a lot to do with a person's future. 

I'm a social Darwinist, as opposed to a social Marxist.

I don't believe in the Constitution, it's just a piece of paper, it took brave men with guns who killed people to actually make this piece of paper worth a look, and that's the price of freedom.

I don't hate ****, but there's nothing wrong if I do.

I don't hate Christians, I hate when anybody doesn't think. This can include ****, communists, Jews, Muslims or Christians.

----------


## Josh_LA

> I've said the whole thread I think that homosexuality is a perversion,  and the sodomy laws should be put back in place at least to include things such as shutting down gay bars and glory holes, etc.  Also, its a problem that ought to be treated.


so what would be the appropriate punishment for sodomy? If sodomy is a crime, it'd be illegal to do it in the privacy of your own home as well, right? Mr. Constitution?

----------


## BeFranklin

> so what would be the appropriate punishment for sodomy? If sodomy is a crime, it'd be illegal to do it in the privacy of your own home as well, right? Mr. Constitution?


Local laws don't have anything to do with the US constitution.  There is also a difference between crimes - which put you in jail, and fines, which put you out of business.  I already posted what I believe in general about vices.

This whole thread is anything but the privacy of your own home, in fact it shows the hypocricy of that original idea as it has run its course - now its about forcing kids to be taught about homosexuality in kindergarten, forced re-definition of marriage, hate crime legislation, etc etc.

If a drug addict has a serious problem with his mental stability, for instance he is seeing pink elephants and is a danger to himself and others, a judge can issue an order forcing him to go to treatment.   Same thing should be done with homosexuals spreading diseases in public places.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Local laws don't have anything to do with the US constitution.  There is also a difference between crimes - which put you in jail, and fines, which put you out of business.  I already posted what I believe in general about vices.
> 
> This whole thread is anything but the privacy of your own home, in fact it shows the hypocricy of that original idea as it has run its course - now its about forcing kids to be taught about homosexuality in kindergarten, forced re-definition of marriage, hate crime legislation, etc etc.
> 
> If a drug addict has a serious problem with his mental stability, for instance he is seeing pink elephants and is a danger to himself and others, a judge can issue an order forcing him to go to treatment.   Same thing should be done with homosexuals spreading diseases in public places.


*so local laws can conflict with the Constitution is what you're saying.* But if something is good and right, as you believe, WHY SHOULDN'T we have sodomy laws on the federal level?

Children being taught anything in public schools is bad enough, I don't think teaching them about **** is much worse. I'm angry enough they're taught to treat blacks like people. 

I'm definitely opposed to hate crime legislation, and this case isn't one of them.

Why should we bother letting drug addicts and **** live if they are certain to be of any worry? Obviously you're willing to give them the benefit of doubt that they're OK until proven guilty (which is hypocritical in my standards).

So if lesbians don't spread diseases, we should encourage lesbian behavior, not only do they never get pregnant and never need abortion, they'll never get the nasty anal diseases we fear so much. Lesbians hardly (if ever) rape anybody (yes, there was a recent documentary called "She stole my voice" about it). What harm to dykes do to society? I can understand **** are filthy, but please tell me what's wrong with dykes that the government should worry about?

----------


## BeFranklin

Nope, that wasn't what I was saying.

----------


## chwisch87

> I've said the whole thread I think that homosexuality is a perversion,  and the sodomy laws should be put back in place at least to include things such as shutting down gay bars and glory holes, etc.  Also, its a problem that ought to be treated.


Isn't that Totalitarianism? You are using the government as a end to your means? 

Lets just get some things out of the way shall we ... 

Homosexuality IS NOT a choice. According the the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association and the American Medical Association and many others. No reputable human sciences organization says homosexuality is a choice. Since 1972 Homosexuality has been not apart of the list of mental disorders. It is not curable or treatable. Anyone who says differently is lying and has probably been disbarred from practice therapy if they ever had a license in the first place. 

Heterosexuals can spread STD's as much as Gay people (notably men) can. Just because you are straight doesn't mean you can't get HIV ... 

You may wrongly believe homosexuality is perversion (on the bases of a 2000 year old book i guess) but using laws to discriminate against homosexuals is wrong on all levels. You are not affected in any way by what gay people do, therefore you have no right to say otherwise. It is NOT your place to say what is right and wrong as you are not the moral arbiter of anyone except yourself. If you don't like gay people then i suggest you don't kiss another man and leave me the hell alone.

----------


## Emrys359

ROFL. Its funny how in a post where I was saying its none of you damn business who marries who, I then go on to say that there is some valid argument to single sex parents raising kids BUT THAT IS A DIFFERENT ARGUMENT and the only thing you reply to is the parenting thing. Typical. 


First off since you want to focus on what is not the issue here Ill respond. I didnt say it was bad for single sex parents to raise kids. I said there is some valid argument. That means in my head I havent decided. 


Second I dont want to hear any crap about how there are so many kids up for adoption its hard to find parents for them. There are several waiting lists for parents who want to adopt. The only kids who have problems fiding parents are the ones who are too old. Most people want babies. So thats bull$#@!. 


Im offended compleatly by your ignorance. Who do we owe something to if not our children?


Finally I never said anything about **** and dykes. Those are your words and you use them because you dont have the intellect to find better words. In my opinion these words are just as bad as ****** and only serve to opress people esspecially when they are used BY gay people. Get your head out of your ass.


As far as shutting up. Good luck with that... I say what I think and ANY man who wants to take that RIGHT from me had better pack a damn lunch.


This is pretty much all I have to say about this. I came to this forum looking to see if there is anyone willing to stand up for thier country yet. I chose this post as the one to respond to because I had just had this discussion with friends and I figured I would start here. But you sir are obviously a simple creature driven by your emotions and not your intellect as is obvious by most of your replies in this thread. Arguing with you is just about equal to cow tipping on my waste of time-o-meter. Thank you for the debate.









> Yes, and there's an even better argument that children who don't have parents grow up even worse.
> 
> So your options are:
> 
> *biological parents that are good
> *biological parents that are trailer drunk
> *adopted straight parents who use you for tax cuts
> *adopted single parent who uses you for company
> *adopted gay parents who can be any of the above, but given the social stigma, probably are expected to act more upright with all the pressure.
> ...

----------


## Josh_LA

> ROFL. Its funny how in a post where I was saying its none of you damn business who marries who, I then go on to say that there is some valid argument to single sex parents raising kids BUT THAT IS A DIFFERENT ARGUMENT and the only thing you reply to is the parenting thing. Typical.


I never said there wasn't a valid argument to prefer some parents over others. Just admit some people are not equal, simple as that




> First off since you want to focus on what is not the issue here Ill respond. I didnt say it was bad for single sex parents to raise kids. I said there is some valid argument. That means in my head I havent decided. 
> 
> 
> Second I dont want to hear any crap about how there are so many kids up for adoption its hard to find parents for them. There are several waiting lists for parents who want to adopt. The only kids who have problems fiding parents are the ones who are too old. Most people want babies. So thats bull$#@!.


If that were true, we shouldn't worry about gay people waiting in line if the line is so long, and certainly it isn't long enough to make gays irrelevant, and who's fault is that?




> Im offended compleatly by your ignorance. Who do we owe something to if not our children?


I don't care if you're offended, go F yourself. And yes, I am saying we owe NOBODY ANYTHING.




> Finally I never said anything about **** and dykes. Those are your words and you use them because you dont have the intellect to find better words. In my opinion these words are just as bad as ****** and only serve to opress people esspecially when they are used BY gay people. Get your head out of your ass.


I used those words to make sure I'm not accused of defending gays and not afraid to offend gays. And yes, that's just as bad as ****** and kike, which I say too. 




> As far as shutting up. Good luck with that... I say what I think and ANY man who wants to take that RIGHT from me had better pack a damn lunch.


My point was, unless you're doing something better than adopting children by gays, your opinion is meaningless.





> This is pretty much all I have to say about this. I came to this forum looking to see if there is anyone willing to stand up for thier country yet. I chose this post as the one to respond to because I had just had this discussion with friends and I figured I would start here. But you sir are obviously a simple creature driven by your emotions and not your intellect as is obvious by most of your replies in this thread. Arguing with you is just about equal to cow tipping on my waste of time-o-meter. Thank you for the debate.


not a debate if you walk away. 

If you have intellect and something to say, be my guest and show yourself, like Mr. BeFranklin did.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I've said the whole thread I think that homosexuality is a perversion,  and the sodomy laws should be put back in place at least to include things such as shutting down gay bars and glory holes, etc.  Also, its a problem that ought to be treated.


Can you "cure" nature? 
*Australia rocked by 'lesbian' koala revelation*

----------


## Feenix566

> Jefferson is not my God, I don't take everything he says as gospel truth.
> 
> You can say you have rights all you want, see if you say the same thing when I have a gun to your head (not a threat, just telling you rights mean nothing unless exercised and recognized).


If you violate my rights, I still have them. They've just been violated. Just because you chose to ignore them, that doesn't mean they're not there. Rights exist in an objective sense. They are the basis of objective moral truth. If you use your gun to violate my rights, what you have done is wrong, whether anyone recognizes it as such or not.

----------


## dannno

> Can you "cure" nature? 
> *Australia rocked by 'lesbian' koala revelation*


Damn you! I was about to post that..


Lemme post it up here..





> Australia rocked by 'lesbian' koala revelation 
> Sunday Feb 25, 2007
> Roger Dobson
> 
> 
> *Female koalas indulge in lesbian "sex sessions", rejecting male suitors and attempting to mate with each other, sometimes up to five at a time, according to researchers.
> 
> The furry, eucalyptus-eating creatures appear to develop this tendency for same-sex liaisons when they are in captivity. In the wild, they remain heterosexual.*
> 
> ...



So does that mean humans are in "captivity" ??

----------


## Josh_LA

> If you violate my rights, I still have them. They've just been violated. Just because you chose to ignore them, that doesn't mean they're not there. Rights exist in an objective sense. They are the basis of objective moral truth. If you use your gun to violate my rights, what you have done is wrong, whether anyone recognizes it as such or not.


if all you can do is speak out about it, have fun. I'm sure people who died under communist regimes loved saying their life was being violated, that helped them big time.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Damn you! I was about to post that..
> 
> 
> Lemme post it up here..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So does that mean humans are in "captivity" ??


Yes, any human being who is not acting within his own "nature", is in captivity. Some are born and uncureably pedophiles, rapists and murderers, anybody who stands in their way is violating nature.

----------


## dannno

> Yes, any human being who is not acting within his own "nature", is in captivity. Some are born and uncureably pedophiles, rapists and murderers, anybody who stands in their way is violating nature.


But they said that the homosexuality didn't exist in nature. 

Does that mean there might also be less pedophiles, rapists and murderers in 'nature'? Maybe 'captivity' is the major cause of some or all of these things?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Yes, any human being who is not acting within his own "nature", is in captivity. Some are born and uncureably pedophiles, rapists and murderers, anybody who stands in their way is violating nature.



The conditions you mentioned involve a psychology that motivates people to harm others.  Homosexuals are not inherently inclined to harm others.  I think you're trying to infer from the article that homosexuality, as a genetic trait, is harmful somehow.  This is clearly not true from the evidence put forth in the koala study or any other study on this subject (to my knowledge).

----------


## Josh_LA

> But they said that the homosexuality didn't exist in nature. 
> 
> Does that mean there might also be less pedophiles, rapists and murderers in 'nature'? Maybe 'captivity' is the major cause of some or all of these things?


"They" are retarded, probably say that evolution isn't true, or if it's true we should kill each other like animals do.

I don't blame captivity for much, I believe in responsibility.

What IS true, is that homosexuality is not nature's common and preferred method of reproduction and survival. Which means, homosexuals are not normal people, sure, so what?

----------


## Josh_LA

> The conditions you mentioned involve a psychology that motivates people to harm others.  Homosexuals are not inherently inclined to harm others.  I think you're trying to infer from the article that homosexuality, as a genetic trait, is harmful somehow.  This is clearly not true from the evidence put forth in the koala study or any other study on this subject (to my knowledge).


No, it doesn't matter whether somebody has  the inherent motivation to harm another, if it's his nature, we should let it happen. Captivating anybody is harmful as well. (but we as societies decide that captivating pedophiles is OK because hurting children is wrong).

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> "They" are retarded, probably say that evolution isn't true, or if it's true we should kill each other like animals do.
> 
> I don't blame captivity for much, I believe in responsibility.
> 
> What IS true, is that homosexuality is not nature's common and preferred method of reproduction and survival. Which means, homosexuals are not normal people, sure, so what?



Exactly.  Neither are diabetics, the deaf, or the blind.  The point is that all these individual people are born with natural rights, and statist incursion on them is inherently wrong.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Exactly.  Neither are diabetics, the deaf, or the blind.  The point is that all these individual people are born with natural rights, and statist incursion on them is inherently wrong.


well, this is where I'd disagree. I don't believe people are born with rights, especially positive rights, which would fuel leftist socialist arguments. I believe people are born with the ability to demand and fight for their rights (and those who don't don't).

----------


## SeanEdwards

> There is every reason to forbid having children from a couple that is closely related who may cause birth defects in their children.  And religious institutes have traditionally forbidden this type of marriage.


This social taboo against incestuous families does not rest upon any kind of holy scripture, it is a societal reaction to natural law. You don't need religion to recognize that these families structures that are incompatible with our biology are messed up. This is why an atheist like myself does not need relgious teaching to recognize that families should reflect the natural order defined by our biology. You don't need to look to "god" for answers, when the answer is right there between your legs.


edit:

Polygamist families are more justifiable than homosexual families. At least the polygamist structure reflects a family organization that can be reproductively successful. The children of polygamist families are at least being exposed to a lifestyle that may facilitiate their own future efforts at forming a reproductive relationship. What are the children of gay family's learning about viable social contracts that facilitate reproduction?

----------


## Josh_LA

> This social taboo against incestuous families does not rest upon any kind of holy scripture, it is a societal reaction to natural law. You don't need religion to recognize that these families structures that are incompatible with our biology are messed up. This is why an atheist like myself does not need relgious teaching to recognize that families should reflect the natural order defined by our biology. You don't need to look to "god" for answers, when the answer is right there between your legs.
> 
> 
> edit:
> 
> Polygamist families are more justifiable than homosexual families. At least the polygamist structure reflects a family organization that can be reproductively successful. The children of polygamist families are at least being exposed to a lifestyle that may facilitiate their own future efforts at forming a reproductive relationship. What are the children of gay family's learning about viable social contracts that facilitate reproduction?


I agree polygamist families are more natural, unmarried families are even more natural. By this logic, we should have no problem legally recognizing any polygamous union as "marriage", or any two people as "married" regardless of what they do. Trailer trash & promiscuity is  the best reflection of being reproductively successful, have babies and don't take care of them.

Is it  a bit hypocritical that you're willing to talk about adopting children, yet worry about whether couples have children? If having children biologically were moral, wouldn't it be immoral to adopt children?

Children of gay families learn what everybody learns, that gays are people, and straight people are normal. Having sex gives you babies and babies cost money. Is any gay person denying these facts or intending to teach children otherwise?

----------


## chwisch87

Listen, studies show that children raised in gay families turn out just fine with no side effects as compared to heterosexual ones. 

If you are going to make wild claims at least have tangible research to back it up.

----------


## Conservative Christian

> This social taboo against incestuous families does not rest upon any kind of holy scripture, it is a societal reaction to natural law. You don't need religion to recognize that these families structures that are incompatible with our biology are messed up. This is why an atheist like myself does not need relgious teaching to recognize that families should reflect the natural order defined by our biology. You don't need to look to "god" for answers, when the answer is right there between your legs.


BINGO! I'm completely fed up with homosexual sheeple blaming societal attitudes on homosexuality on "big, bad Christians". They ignorantly ASSume that anybody opposed to homosexuality and the gay power movement, is a drooling religious fanatic with Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson posters plastered all over the walls of their home.

The militant atheist and communist dictator, Leonid Brezhnev, who resided over the officially atheist Soviet state for many years---once stated in an official speech to his fellow atheist and communist party cohorts---that homosexuality would NOT be tolerated in the Soviet Union.

In fact, for many decades, a substantial number of homosexuals were sent to Soviet forced labor camps, simply because they were homosexuals.

In many PAGAN parts of the world, where Christianity has never even seen the light of day, homosexuals have been frequently imprisoned, killed etc. over the centuries.

----------


## ItsTime

> In many PAGAN parts of the world, where Christianity has never even seen the light of day, homosexuals have been frequently imprisoned, killed etc. over the centuries.


Can you name a few?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> well, this is where I'd disagree. I don't believe people are born with rights, especially positive rights, which would fuel leftist socialist arguments. I believe people are born with the ability to demand and fight for their rights (and those who don't don't).


If one isn't born with natural rights, why would one fight for them?  If rights were bestowed by "society" or some other abstraction, then said abstraction would naturally keep them hidden from individuals.  Thus, the Enlightenment would never have occurred, and the dark ages would never have ended.  I agree with your point about positive rights. 

You also assume that man is irrational.  When the prevailing attitude of a group of people is rational and sane, and natural order spontaneously occurs.  Behold, the playground.  When children get together to play games, they don't do so at random.  They understand that they must respect the rights and privileges of one another in order to function properly and effectively.  

Since man is innately capable of understanding personal and interpersonal relationships, it follows that a system of rights would develop.  

So you see, proper functionality of individuals in a larger group requires that everyone owns themselves and their legitimate property.  Everything else spring from that.

If I'm being too vague, let me know.

~heavenlyboy~

----------


## lucius

^^

----------


## lucius

``

----------


## lucius

> Lets just get some things out of the way shall we ...


Excellent, lets cut to the chase--*Your minority, degenerative, life choice is based upon junk-science funded by the Rockefeller Foundation as was discovered by the 1954 United States Congressional Reece Committee*:

*From the Special Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations July 2-9, 1954, p. 69:*

*It does not matter that the report [Kinseys Sexual Behavior in the Human Male] is unscientific*, the important thing is that it be publicized and serve as a basis for reform of sexual behavior and laws which deal with violations of sexual mores.

*The Committee wonders whether The Rockefeller Foundation, which made the Kinsey study possible by the investment of substantial funds, is proud of its work.* Research of this type, of which there is much outside the sex field, seems predicated upon the premise that what is wrong with our society is that our moral codes are seriously in need of re-study and revision.

These excerpts from Professor Hobbs testimony before this Committee are illuminating (Hearings, p. 124):

The Chairman. As I understand, you are raising a question about the scientific approach which Dr. Kinsey made in conducting this research in the first place, and then some of his comments and conclusions which he wrote into his report, which did not necessarily arise from the basis of his research which he had made?

Dr. Hobbs. Yes, sir.

The Chairman. *And which might have damaging effect on the psychology of the people, particularly the young people of the country*. [The irony]

Dr. Hobbs. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And at the same time undertaking to give to the country the *overall impression that his findings and his comments were based upon a scientific study* which had been made, as the basis of a grant. [This junk science: Kinseys Sexual Behavior in the Human Male]

Dr. Hobbs. *Yes, sir; a scientific study of the type by implication which you have in physics and chemistry, and, therefore, its conclusions cannot be challenged*. [After the suppression of this report, it took almost 30 years for academics to mount a serious challenge to Kinsey. In 1981, when Judith Reisman exposed Kinseys pseudosciencetalk about absurd belief structures]

The Chairman. Enumerating in the preface that it was made by a grant from one of the foundations giving it *further prestige, possibly, that it was of scientific value,* and so forth. [The Rockefeller Foundation]

Dr. Hobbs. That would be correct. I have a statement to that effect to show that very type of influence, which I will come to a little bit later. [Rockefeller and influence, small wonder]




> Homosexuality IS NOT a choice. According the the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association and the American Medical Association and many othersSince 1972 Homosexuality has been not apart of the list of mental disorders...


More Rockefeller money and influence:

targeted the members of a worldly priesthood, the psychiatric community, and neutralized them with a radical redefinition of homosexuality itself. *In 1972 and 1973 they co-opted the leadership of the American Psychiatric Association and, through a series of political maneuvers, lies and outright flim-flams, they "cured" homosexuality overnight-by fiat.* They got the A.P.A. to say that same-sex sex was "not a disorder." It was merely "a condition"-as neutral as lefthandedness. 

Charles W. Socarides, M.D., clinical professor of psychiatry at Albert Einstein College of Medicine/Montefiore Medical Center in New York.




> Heterosexuals can spread STD's as much as Gay people (notably men) can


The risks associated with *homosexual conduct* are so drastic, in fact, that U.S. health regulations prohibit men who have sex with men (MSM) and women who have had sex with MSM, *from even donating blood*. 

Consider that, according to the Food and Drug Administration, MSM, *have an HIV prevalence 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first time blood donors and 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors.* 

Adults and children who engage in homosexual conduct, especially males, are also susceptible, at an *astronomical rate, to nearly all other forms of sexually transmitted disease (STD).* For example, the Hepatitis B virus is about five to six times more prevalent among gays, and Hepatitis C is twice as common. 

But perhaps most shocking are todays syphilis rates among homosexual men and adolescents. A recent study conducted by the *Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that although homosexuals comprise only a fraction of the population (one to two percent), they account for an epidemic 64 percent of all syphilis cases.*

"Gay" Sex Kills by Matt Barber




> You may wrongly believe homosexuality is perversion (on the bases of a 2000 year old book i guess...


No, I dont need a 2000 year old book, just look with your own eyes at this public display at the *2008 Up Your Alley Fair in San Francisco*: http://www.zombietime.com/up_your_al...full/index.php




> How the hell do you discriminate against a PERSONAL PREFERENCE????????
> 
> CIVIL UNIONS ARE THE SAME THING!!!!!!!  ITS THE NAME, "MARRIAGE" THAT THE GAYS WANT.  *THEIR AIM IS TO REDEFINE MARRIAGE AND PUSH THEIR PERSONAL CHOICE ON STRAIGHT PEOPLE*.  They cry about intolerance, yet don't practice what the $#@! they preach....


This is correct and here is the gay activist's playbook:



*'After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 1990's'*, by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen: the blueprint activists used to implement this campaign using media and vast money to radicalize America-by processes known as desensitization, jamming and conversion.

To understand the techniques gay activist use (same as the Chinese), see this book:

Robert Jay Lifton's *'Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism'*: the Chinese are the original masters of desensitization, jamming and conversion, Kirk/Madsen mirror it almost word-for-word. 

*For more understanding on this push of an eugenic lifestyle (die earlier/don't have children) among the straight, read this book:*

Dennis Altman's *'The Homosexualization of America'*: How the cultural elite "reinvent human nature, reinvent themselves."..."promiscuity and 'impersonal sex' are determined more by social possibilities than by inherent differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals, or even between men and women." 

Know that this whole movement hinges upon junk science, done by this freak pedophile named Kinsey, funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, small wonder:

Watch *Kinsey's Pedophiles*: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...46628970&hl=en

What individuals do in their bedrooms is no business of mine, but it is important to understand this malefic facet of our social-engineering.

----------


## BeFranklin

Thanks Lucius, lots of good information in there.

----------


## BeFranklin

> Excellent, lets cut to the chase--*Your minority, degenerative, life choice is based upon junk-science funded by the Rockefeller Foundation as was discovered by the 1954 United States Congressional Reece Committee*:
> 
> *From the Special Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations July 2-9, 1954, p. 69:*
> 
> *It does not matter that the report [Kinseys Sexual Behavior in the Human Male] is unscientific*, the important thing is that it be publicized and serve as a basis for reform of sexual behavior and laws which deal with violations of sexual mores.
> 
> *The Committee wonders whether The Rockefeller Foundation, which made the Kinsey study possible by the investment of substantial funds, is proud of its work.* Research of this type, of which there is much outside the sex field, seems predicated upon the premise that what is wrong with our society is that our moral codes are seriously in need of re-study and revision.
> 
> These excerpts from Professor Hobbs testimony before this Committee are illuminating (Hearings, p. 124):
> ...


..

----------


## heavenlyboy34

The argument I put forth was not about safety-it was about individual liberty to be as "stupid" as one wants.  If you want to ban homosexual "marriage" (or its equivalent) because it is risky, then you will naturally open up a pandora's box of statist evils.  It will not end well, I warn you.  If you welcome the government into your personal life, the intrusions will never, ever end.

----------


## BeFranklin

> The argument I put forth was not about safety-it was about individual liberty to be as "stupid" as one wants.  If you want to ban homosexual "marriage" (or its equivalent) because it is risky, then you will naturally open up a pandora's box of statist evils.  It will not end well, I warn you.  If you welcome the government into your personal life, the intrusions will never, ever end.


Funny how we haven't had homosexual marriage for 200 years since the founding of this country, and we had more freedom then than we do now

----------


## Conservative Christian

*Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences

by Dr. Judith Reisman*




> *"In 1948, the Institute for Sex Research at Indiana University was led by eugenicist Alfred C. Kinsey, whose sex research shook America's moral foundation and launched the 1960's Sexual Revolution. Fifty years later new revelations confirm Dr. Judith's Reisman's 1981 expose of scientific fraud and criminally derived data contained in the publicly funded Kinsey Reports. Dr. Reisman's revealed that Kinsey conducted human experiments in a soundproof laboratory built to his specifications at Indiana University, and that the sexual abuse of at least 317 infants and young boys was scientific protocol for Kinsey's 1948 report. Dr. Reisman discloses for the first time the ongoing consequences to the American people and the world based on Kinsey's deliberately skewed research."*
> 
> http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archi...rimes_c_1.html

----------


## adara7537

So, I haven't read this whole thread, but um, how many of you actually know any gay people?

And wtf is this $#@!??

THEIR AIM IS TO REDEFINE MARRIAGE AND PUSH THEIR PERSONAL CHOICE ON STRAIGHT PEOPLE. They cry about intolerance, yet don't practice what the $#@! they preach....

I suppose if you are talking about activists specifically perhaps?!?!? Of course I have never met a gay activist......just regular old gay people...

----------


## BeFranklin

> So, I haven't read this whole thread, but um, how many of you actually know any gay people?
> 
> And wtf is this $#@!??
> 
> THEIR AIM IS TO REDEFINE MARRIAGE AND PUSH THEIR PERSONAL CHOICE ON STRAIGHT PEOPLE. They cry about intolerance, yet don't practice what the $#@! they preach....
> 
> I suppose if you are talking about activists specifically perhaps?!?!? Of course I have never met a gay activist......just regular old gay people...





> No, I don’t need a 2000 year old book, just look with your own eyes at this public display at the 2008 Up Your Alley Fair in San Francisco: http://www.zombietime.com/up_your_al...full/index.php


Why don't you click on that: regular old gay people in a regular old city that is now gay.  Tens of thousands go to these festivals.  Its disease laden sickness.

And yes, I've known a few gay people.  They've all told me about public sex in parks, public sex in bathrooms, and one was a practicing witch, so this is pretty standard.  Although I did know them, the last few years I've been pretty horrified with what is going on, so I'm going to avoid anyone that tells me they're gay from now on.  Get your life straightened out first.

----------


## BeFranklin

> Posted: November 11, 2008
> Christian missionary Gary Stevenson and his family 
> 
> Christian missionary Gary Stevenson thought the pink, gift-wrapped bag he found on his doorstep was a present left for one of his toddler daughters, but when he brought it inside his home, the bomb within the bag exploded.


Add to other news above.  Its going the same way as the Nazi brownshirts.

----------


## BeFranklin

> Before World War II, radical artistic movements – such as the Dadaists (who were deliberately anti-art and anti-sense) – and political groups such as the Communists flourished in Berlin. The city, famous throughout the world for its relaxed attitude towards sex, was also the centre of Germany's gay community. 
> 
> In addition, the German capital was the site of the Institute for Sexual Science. This had been founded in 1919 by pioneering sexologist and homosexual reformer Magnus Hirschfeld (1868-1935). His term to describe homosexuals – 'the third sex' – was in common use in the city at the time.


Ie - The Kinsey institute for today.  The more I keep reading this, the more the parallels are *exactly* the same.  And we seem destined to repeat it because the history has been obscured for political purposes.




> As they were during the Weimar period, 1918-1933, psychiatry and academia have been hijacked and pressed into the service of establishing homosexualism as the basis of a new Kultur. Professor Hans Blueher, a practicing physician whose specialty was psychiatry, was accepted by the Nazis as the apostle and higher authority of a new social order. Blueher’s school held that male homosexual lovemaking is in itself a good thing and spiritually energizing. Blueher’s teaching became popular in Nazi circles during the period between the two World Wars and promoted the idea that a well-regulated ritual of homosexualism was a unique force capable of creating the State and assuring its leadership. The resulting creed relegated women to a purely biological function and eliminated the family as a constituent cell in the community.


IE sounds that gay slang of "tolerance" today - 'breeders'.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Funny how we haven't had homosexual marriage for 200 years since the founding of this country, and we had more freedom then than we do now


Yeah, that's the issue that started the slippery slope.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> So, I haven't read this whole thread, but um, how many of you actually know any gay people?
> 
> And wtf is this $#@!??
> 
> THEIR AIM IS TO REDEFINE MARRIAGE AND PUSH THEIR PERSONAL CHOICE ON STRAIGHT PEOPLE. They cry about intolerance, yet don't practice what the $#@! they preach....
> 
> I suppose if you are talking about activists specifically perhaps?!?!? Of course I have never met a gay activist......just regular old gay people...



I've known several gays.  They were just regular people, though.  Looking over the thread, it seems that the anti-gay people here are specifically referring to militant gays.  If that's the case, I agree with them.  These gays _don't_ mind their own business, and are quite frankly annoying.

----------


## Josh_LA

> BINGO! I'm completely fed up with homosexual sheeple blaming societal attitudes on homosexuality on "big, bad Christians". They ignorantly ASSume that anybody opposed to homosexuality and the gay power movement, is a drooling religious fanatic with Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson posters plastered all over the walls of their home.
> 
> The militant atheist and communist dictator, Leonid Brezhnev, who resided over the officially atheist Soviet state for many years---once stated in an official speech to his fellow atheist and communist party cohorts---that homosexuality would NOT be tolerated in the Soviet Union.
> 
> In fact, for many decades, a substantial number of homosexuals were sent to Soviet forced labor camps, simply because they were homosexuals.
> 
> In many PAGAN parts of the world, where Christianity has never even seen the light of day, homosexuals have been frequently imprisoned, killed etc. over the centuries.


What lucius and BeFranklin did was EXACTLY THAT, just because some gay perverts had a mark in history of crime does not mean all **** among us are the same. Otherwise you can say the same for all whites and all Christians based on Ted Haggard.

Who cares if pagans killed gays? Does that make it less OK? Are you suggesting that sharing common grounds of being less aggressive than pagans makes you saint?

----------


## Josh_LA

> Funny how we haven't had homosexual marriage for 200 years since the founding of this country, and we had more freedom then than we do now


YEah of course, we had the freedoms  to lynch blacks and beat women (rule of thumb), we had the freedoms to invade other countries without Congressional approval (people didn't have phones to call their Reps anyway), we had the freedoms to kill each other over secession. *I'd love to go back to that.* (no, not sarcastic, I really do!)

The fact ANYBODY wants to get legally married shows their submission to the system of social slavery. A free person doesn't want to be labeled married or gay for better or worse.

----------


## BeFranklin

> What lucius and BeFranklin did was EXACTLY THAT, just because some gay perverts had a mark in history of crime does not mean all **** among us are the same. Otherwise you can say the same for all whites and all Christians based on Ted Haggard.
> 
> Who cares if pagans killed gays? Does that make it less OK? Are you suggesting that sharing common grounds of being less aggressive than pagans makes you saint?


All murderers murder.  All thieves steal.  All homosexuals homosexual-ate.

Its an action, not a physical characteristic.  And that action is always wrong.

----------


## G-Wohl

Can everyone stop referring to homosexuals as "****"? It's extremely offensive and a hateful word - it certainly doesn't give any legitimacy to your already extremely ignorant and illegitimate argument to begin with.




> All murderers murder. All thieves steal. All homosexuals homosexual-ate.
> 
> Its an action, not a physical characteristic. And that action is always wrong.


Oh?

If somebody murders you, your rights have just been violated. When somebody steals from you, your rights have just been violated. What rights of mine are being violated if a gay couple is "homosexual-ating"?

Life, liberty, and property. Which of those are being violated by homosexuality?

You're either bigot, a Theocrat, or a socialist. Pick one.

----------


## Josh_LA

> All murderers murder.  All thieves steal.  All homosexuals homosexual-ate.
> 
> Its an action, not a physical characteristic.  And that action is always wrong.


that action is always wrong?

So what? Taxation is theft and abortion is murder, who cares?

By this logic, all liars lie, and???

----------


## Josh_LA

> You're either bigot, a Theocrat, or a socialist. Pick one.


I actually have respect for bigots, as long as they're honest about it

I have no respect for idiots and retards.

----------


## lucius

> *Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences
> 
> by Dr. Judith Reisman*





> "In 1948, the Institute for Sex Research at Indiana University was led by eugenicist Alfred C. Kinsey, whose sex research shook America's moral foundation and launched the 1960's Sexual Revolution. Fifty years later new revelations confirm Dr. Judith's Reisman's 1981 expose of scientific fraud and criminally derived data contained in the publicly funded Kinsey Reports. Dr. Reisman's revealed that Kinsey conducted human experiments in a soundproof laboratory built to his specifications at Indiana University, and that the sexual abuse of at least 317 infants and young boys was scientific protocol for Kinsey's 1948 report. Dr. Reisman discloses for the first time the ongoing consequences to the American people and the world based on Kinsey's deliberately skewed research."
> 
> http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archi...rimes_c_1.html


A malefic aspect of our social-engineering, an overall Rockefeller pushed 'policy agenda' based upon junk-science [Kinsey’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Male]: *The elite push this "gay" lifestyle/social-engineering, for it is applied eugenics, generally a reduce lifespan , don't have children and easier to control.*

----------


## lucius

^^

----------


## lucius

> What lucius...did was EXACTLY THAT...


*Bull$#@! Josh*,

You are ignorant to this malefic aspect of our social-engineering, an overall Rockefeller pushed 'policy agenda' based upon junk-science, which is what I am pointing out: *The elite push this "gay" lifestyle/social-engineering, for it is applied eugenics, generally a reduce lifespan , don't have children and easier to control.*  

It is not my concern what you do with your property, but with what I now understand, I pity this life-choice like I would pity an individual who has crack addiction. Note--I am in full agreement for being able to buy 'jumbo-ten packs' of crack cocaine at your local convenience store, but *I am not going to try to normalize the abnormal and say this is a positive lifestyle like what is now 'policy agenda' inculcating our K12 educational systems.* 

So take another swing at the piñata, Josh, last one missed:




> Lets just get some things out of the way shall we ...


Excellent, lets cut to the chase--*Your minority, degenerative, life choice is based upon junk-science funded by the Rockefeller Foundation as was discovered by the 1954 United States Congressional Reece Committee*:

*From the Special Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations July 2-9, 1954, p. 69:*

*It does not matter that the report [Kinseys Sexual Behavior in the Human Male] is unscientific*, the important thing is that it be publicized and serve as a basis for reform of sexual behavior and laws which deal with violations of sexual mores.

*The Committee wonders whether The Rockefeller Foundation, which made the Kinsey study possible by the investment of substantial funds, is proud of its work.* Research of this type, of which there is much outside the sex field, seems predicated upon the premise that what is wrong with our society is that our moral codes are seriously in need of re-study and revision.

These excerpts from Professor Hobbs testimony before this Committee are illuminating (Hearings, p. 124):

The Chairman. As I understand, you are raising a question about the scientific approach which Dr. Kinsey made in conducting this research in the first place, and then some of his comments and conclusions which he wrote into his report, which did not necessarily arise from the basis of his research which he had made?

Dr. Hobbs. Yes, sir.

The Chairman. *And which might have damaging effect on the psychology of the people, particularly the young people of the country*. [The irony]

Dr. Hobbs. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And at the same time undertaking to give to the country the *overall impression that his findings and his comments were based upon a scientific study* which had been made, as the basis of a grant. [This junk science: Kinseys Sexual Behavior in the Human Male]

Dr. Hobbs. *Yes, sir; a scientific study of the type by implication which you have in physics and chemistry, and, therefore, its conclusions cannot be challenged*. [After the suppression of this report, it took almost 30 years for academics to mount a serious challenge to Kinsey. In 1981, when Judith Reisman exposed Kinseys pseudosciencetalk about absurd belief structures]

The Chairman. Enumerating in the preface that it was made by a grant from one of the foundations giving it *further prestige, possibly, that it was of scientific value,* and so forth. [The Rockefeller Foundation]

Dr. Hobbs. That would be correct. I have a statement to that effect to show that very type of influence, which I will come to a little bit later. [Rockefeller and influence, small wonder]




> Homosexuality IS NOT a choice. According the the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association and the American Medical Association and many othersSince 1972 Homosexuality has been not apart of the list of mental disorders...


More Rockefeller money and influence:

targeted the members of a worldly priesthood, the psychiatric community, and neutralized them with a radical redefinition of homosexuality itself. *In 1972 and 1973 they co-opted the leadership of the American Psychiatric Association and, through a series of political maneuvers, lies and outright flim-flams, they "cured" homosexuality overnight-by fiat.* They got the A.P.A. to say that same-sex sex was "not a disorder." It was merely "a condition"-as neutral as lefthandedness. 

Charles W. Socarides, M.D., clinical professor of psychiatry at Albert Einstein College of Medicine/Montefiore Medical Center in New York.




> Heterosexuals can spread STD's as much as Gay people (notably men) can


The risks associated with *homosexual conduct* are so drastic, in fact, that U.S. health regulations prohibit men who have sex with men (MSM) and women who have had sex with MSM, *from even donating blood*. 

Consider that, according to the Food and Drug Administration, MSM, *have an HIV prevalence 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first time blood donors and 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors.* 

Adults and children who engage in homosexual conduct, especially males, are also susceptible, at an *astronomical rate, to nearly all other forms of sexually transmitted disease (STD).* For example, the Hepatitis B virus is about five to six times more prevalent among gays, and Hepatitis C is twice as common. 

But perhaps most shocking are todays syphilis rates among homosexual men and adolescents. A recent study conducted by the *Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that although homosexuals comprise only a fraction of the population (one to two percent), they account for an epidemic 64 percent of all syphilis cases.*

"Gay" Sex Kills by Matt Barber




> You may wrongly believe homosexuality is perversion (on the bases of a 2000 year old book i guess...


No, I dont need a 2000 year old book, just look with your own eyes at this public display at the *2008 Up Your Alley Fair in San Francisco*: http://www.zombietime.com/up_your_al...full/index.php




> How the hell do you discriminate against a PERSONAL PREFERENCE????????
> 
> CIVIL UNIONS ARE THE SAME THING!!!!!!!  ITS THE NAME, "MARRIAGE" THAT THE GAYS WANT.  *THEIR AIM IS TO REDEFINE MARRIAGE AND PUSH THEIR PERSONAL CHOICE ON STRAIGHT PEOPLE*.  They cry about intolerance, yet don't practice what the $#@! they preach....


This is correct and here is the gay activist's playbook:



*'After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 1990's'*, by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen: the blueprint activists used to implement this campaign using media and vast money to radicalize America-by processes known as desensitization, jamming and conversion.

To understand the techniques gay activist use (same as the Chinese), see this book:

Robert Jay Lifton's *'Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism'*: the Chinese are the original masters of desensitization, jamming and conversion, Kirk/Madsen mirror it almost word-for-word. 

*For more understanding on this push of an eugenic lifestyle (die earlier/don't have children) among the straight, read this book:*

Dennis Altman's *'The Homosexualization of America'*: How the cultural elite "reinvent human nature, reinvent themselves."..."promiscuity and 'impersonal sex' are determined more by social possibilities than by inherent differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals, or even between men and women." 

Know that this whole movement hinges upon junk science, done by this freak pedophile named Kinsey, funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, small wonder:

Watch *Kinsey's Pedophiles*: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...46628970&hl=en

What individuals do in their bedrooms is no business of mine, but it is important to understand this malefic facet of our social-engineering.

----------


## Conservative Christian

> A malefic aspect of our social-engineering, an overall Rockefeller pushed 'policy agenda' based upon junk-science [Kinseys Sexual Behavior in the Human Male]: *The elite push this "gay" lifestyle/social-engineering, for it is applied eugenics, generally a reduce lifespan , don't have children and easier to control.*


You are correct. 

Far and away the main reason most ***** want their marriages legally recognized, is so they can pressure and even sue the local, county, state and federal governments for the same taxpayer-funded "benefits" that married heterosexual couples get.

In fact, you'll frequently hear ***** and liberals openly preaching that **** couples should get the same taxpayer-funded "benefits" as hetero couples.

Hetero couples shouldn't be getting them in the first place, so two wrongs don't make a right. We should eliminate most of the "benefits" for hetero couples, rather than extending them to **** couples, which would only create an even larger and expanding social/welfare constituency.

The other primary reason, is so they can force those same governments to grant them legal access to children through adoption. Which is the only way they can substantially "grow" the gay power movement and lifestyle.

----------


## BeFranklin

> If somebody murders you, your rights have just been violated. When somebody steals from you, your rights have just been violated. What rights of mine are being violated if a gay couple is "homosexual-ating"?
> 
> Life, liberty, and property. Which of those are being violated by homosexuality?


Nope, not all laws that exist involve a non-consensual victim and requires a punishment - look around you.  Homosexuality is an act that objectively and clearly from the facts endangers the participants and the society as a whole.  It is an unnatural use of organs that increases the risk of medical conditions to the participants, and the spread of disease between the partipants and the society as a whole.  Or another way to put it, the participants are "abusers of men".

As such, it deserves to be illegal in a similar way as reckless driving, or if someone is insanely hitting himself in the head.  Treatment.  Fines.  Illegal to introduce children to.  
It is insane to  think something like this deserves special status, which is causing disease, rape, and public acts of violence and indency.  Even eliminating uncessary laws, laws like reckless driving would remain.  This is similar in nature.  

And although these are mild corrective laws, and not really part of my original message - I said it is perverse, I did not say anything about legality, I'm sure the gay supporters would scream their heads off.  Let them scream.  It shouldn't be applauded, it shouldn't be enshrined in marriage, it should be regulated like cigettes aren't sold for children over the counter, and driving badly on the roads will get you pulled over.  Same solution that should be in place for any vice - fines for nuances, illegal for children, orders for endangerment or lawsuits for those affected.   Jail time?  Only if they start morphing into the nazi brownshirts and its a national emergency.  That may happen, I'm not joking.  Most of the homosexual activists are extreme left and tend that way.

And per my original message, which was not quoted, it is *always* wrong.   I didn't say it is always illegal.  There are plenty of things that are wrong that aren't illegal and/or involve anyone else.  Lying is always wrong, but it isn't always illegal.  Homosexuality is *always* a perversion.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Nope, not all laws that exist involve a non-consensual victim and requires a punishment - look around you.  Homosexuality is an act that objectively and clearly from the facts endangers the participants and the society as a whole.  It is an unnatural use of organs that increases the risk of medical conditions to the participants, and the spread of disease between the partipants and *the society as a whole*.  Or another way to put it, the participants are "abusers of men".
> 
> As such, it deserves to be illegal in a similar way as reckless driving, or if someone is insanely hitting himself in the head.  Treatment.  Fines.  Illegal to introduce children to.  It is insane to  think something like this deserves special status, which is causing disease, rape, and public acts of violence and indency.  Even eliminating uncessary laws, laws like reckless driving would remain.  This is similar in nature.
> 
> And per my original message, which was not quoted, it is *always* wrong.  I didn't say it is always illegal.  There are plenty of things that are wrong that aren't illegal and/or involve anyone else.  Lying is always wrong, but it isn't always illegal.  Homosexuality is *always* a perversion.


Your other points are pretty good, but I maintain that society is an amorphous group of _individuals_, not a legal entity unto itself.  If you bring forth specific _individuals_ who can be called "victims", you will have a more convincing case.

----------


## BeFranklin

> Your other points are pretty good, but I maintain that society is an amorphous group of _individuals_, not a legal entity unto itself.  If you bring forth specific _individuals_ who can be called "victims", you will have a more convincing case.


Although the case for eliminating all victimless crimes is appealing, I'm going to argue that not all functions of government or society can in the real world be run that way.  I'm taking a middle ground.  Crimes are one thing that can result in jail time.  Regulations are something else that can result in fines, restrictions of public use or sales, how minors are approached or dealt with, and court orders.  Vices should go in the second catagory.  So should failure to pay a tax.  

In which case, I'm all for private prosecution, and eliminating public prosecution completely and all crimes against the state.  Regulations would be handled by fines, court orders, and civil courts.  I'm guessing many people haven't even heard of private prosecution, but it use to be common, and its a big barrior to preventing the growth of the state.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Although the case for eliminating all victimless crimes is appealing, I'm going to argue that not all functions of government or society can in the real world be run that way.  I'm taking a middle ground.  Crimes are one thing that can result in jail time.  Regulations are something else that can result in fines, restrictions of public use or sales, how minors are approached or dealt with, and court orders.  Vices should go in the second catagory.  So should failure to pay a tax.  
> 
> In which case, I'm all for private prosecution, and eliminating public prosecution completely and all crimes against the state.  Regulations would be handled by fines, court orders, and civil courts.  I'm guessing many people haven't even heard of private prosecution, but it use to be common, and its a big barrior to preventing the growth of the state.


Cool.  Would you agree then, that private agencies who specialize in certain types of issues (theft, murder, etc) would be more competent to deal with regulations disputes than one centralized/government run entity (thus creating competition for arbiters who are competent)?

----------


## BeFranklin

> Cool.  Would you agree then, that private agencies who specialize in certain types of issues (theft, murder, etc) would be more competent to deal with regulations disputes than one centralized/government run entity (thus creating competition for arbiters who are competent)?


I'm not for private agencies really apart from the people.  We need to bring back *the posse* called by sheriefs who are elected by the people, *the hue and cry* for sponteneous organization when a crime is being commited, *the militia* for the county, and more common use of *citizens arrest*, and eliminate the police force entirely - which is essentially a standing army and not at all like the traditional sherieff and peaceful system we once had.  When only the posse, hue and cry - which requires a seeable crime against someone, citizens arrest,  and militia for large scale threats are used, the ability to pass endless state crimes pretty much vanishes.  They require a standing policie force to be effectively enforced.  Else only normal crimes are going to be recognized.

----------


## chwisch87

lucius how about we stop with crazy conspiracy theories and stick to real facts. I am not a degenerate nor have I spoken to the validity to kenseys reasearch nor talking about men who engage in high risk behavior. They do not represent the gay population and make up a very small part of it. I never chose to be gay btw thanks but f u. I am on my phone do I will respond to you crazy lies and misconseptions later.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I'm not for private agencies really apart from the people.  We need to bring back *the posse* called by sheriefs who are elected by the people, *the hue and cry* for sponteneous organization when a crime is being commited, *the militia* for the county, and more common use of *citizens arrest*, and eliminate the police force entirely - which is essentially a standing army and not at all like the traditional sherieff and peaceful system we once had.  When only the posse, hue and cry - which requires a seeable crime against someone, citizens arrest,  and militia for large scale threats are used, the ability to pass endless state crimes pretty much vanishes.  They require a standing policie force to be effectively enforced.  Else only normal crimes are going to be recognized.


I totally agree, my friend.

----------


## lucius

> lucius how about we stop with *crazy conspiracy theories* and stick to real facts...


If you do not understand the significance that Rockefeller funded junk-science, *Kinseys Sexual Behavior in the Human Male* served as a basis for reform of sexual behavior across this country, i.e. normalizing the abnormal; nor the immense power wielded by government subsidized, tax-exempt foundations, such as the Rockefeller Foundation, we will have little to debate. 

Nice attempt at jamming, with the thought terminating cliché conspiracy theory; its old hat around here: 

"The use of conspiracy theory is a derogatory epithet. It is something the propagandists have deeply embedded [into the collective American psyche] and has been perfected over the decades. It is a useful tool to eliminate articulate dissent, other points of view, and information that might be inconvenient for policy agenda." 

Chris Sanders, Political Economist--Sanders Research

----------


## Conservative Christian

*Kinsey's Pedophiles:*

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...46628970&hl=en


.

----------


## Conservative Christian

*Kinsey's Attic: The Shocking Story of how One Man's Perversion Changed the World*

by Dr. Judith Reisman

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Kin...1824605/?itm=3






> *"Dr. Alfred Kinseyoften referred to as the father of the sexual revolutionhas long been associated with the scientific research into human sexuality. Indeed, his work became the bedrock on which current social policy on sexual matters rests.
> 
> In Kinseys Attic, Judith Reisman counters the massive public affinity for Kinsey and his colleagues and sheds light on the lurid truth regarding his research and the negative effects it has had on American society. Indeed, this darker legacy of Kinseys work has resulted in the return of Western culture to the practices of ancient sexual religious cults: the sexual abuse of women, pedophilia, ritual child sacrifice, sadism, bestiality, and numerous other perversions.
> 
> Brought into public view are the Kinsey teams abuse of its research subjects, including children, and the general climate of perversion and excess that masked itself as scientific research. The sources of the ideology that guided his studies into sexuality are explored, leading to the conclusion that his research was designed to achieve predetermined ends: ending Western laws that favor women and children, in particular those pertaining to fornication, breach of promise, adultery, statutory rape, rape, obscenity, abortion, sex education, homicide, and sodomy.
> 
> Kinseys Attic also investigates the effects of his research on our culture, exposing the societal, governmental, and religious organizations that propagate his ideology. Reisman also explains the effects of mass media on the spread of the sexual revolution and the governments manipulation of the research data that proves the devastating effects on Kinsean ideology.
> 
> Readers will be astonished at the extent to which Kinseys ideas have been able to subtly work their way into the accepted beliefs and practices of our culture."*

----------


## adara7537

> Why don't you click on that: regular old gay people in a regular old city that is now gay.  Tens of thousands go to these festivals.  Its disease laden sickness.
> 
> And yes, I've known a few gay people.  They've all told me about public sex in parks, public sex in bathrooms, and one was a practicing witch, so this is pretty standard.  Although I did know them, the last few years I've been pretty horrified with what is going on, so I'm going to avoid anyone that tells me they're gay from now on.  Get your life straightened out first.


You are ridiculous and ignorant. 

Heterosexuals don't have sex in public places? They don't practice witchcraft? So you steer clear of heterosexual people too RIGHT?

Oh no!! TENS OF THOUSANDS go to festivals???? Oh my!!! No!!! My question is what in the hell are you doing looking at web sites like that if you are opposed to homosexuality? 

The funny thing is that I have never heard of this festival and I have plenty of gay friends. Even funnier still is the gay friends I happen to be with hadn't heard of it either but somehow Mr. Homophobe here has and has links to pictures and everything-LOLOLOL!! And funnier still is they find it disgusting too because they aren't into BDSM, water sports, or old white guys.

Stop lumping people together.

----------


## chwisch87

> If you do not understand the significance that Rockefeller funded junk-science, *Kinsey’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Male* served as a basis for reform of sexual behavior across this country, i.e. normalizing the abnormal; nor the immense power wielded by government subsidized, tax-exempt foundations, such as the Rockefeller Foundation, we will have little to debate. 
> 
> Nice attempt at jamming, with the thought terminating cliché ‘conspiracy theory’; it’s old hat around here: 
> 
> "The use of ‘conspiracy theory’ is a derogatory epithet. It is something the propagandists have deeply embedded [into the collective American psyche] and has been perfected over the decades. It is a useful tool to eliminate articulate dissent, other points of view, and information that might be inconvenient for policy agenda." 
> 
> Chris Sanders, Political Economist--Sanders Research


I realize some Ron paul supporters are nuts but the fact of the matter is Kinsey is considered today to be bad science, if you actually paid attention to real science you would know this.

Furthermore, just because he got funding from the Rockefeller organization or who the hell ever you are referring too and you someone see some sort of 'new world order' crap is just stupid. I am sorry but you are an idiot and hardly even worth my time. You sit in a basement trying to make conspiracy theories. Do you even realize how stupid this sounds? You are suggesting that a group infiltrated an organization to normalize homosexuality to make everyone gay because they are easier to control ... ... WHAT?

Edit- I am sorry but this whole idea that in 1972 the APA was somehow politically ... idk ... whatever the hell to change the DSM to exclude homosexuality is just stupid. Its a myth promoted by the ex-gay jesus crowd and an outright lie. I have an idea ... go talk to a real psychologist.

----------


## BeFranklin

> You are ridiculous and ignorant. 
> 
> Heterosexuals don't have sex in public places? They don't practice witchcraft? So you steer clear of heterosexual people too RIGHT?
> 
> Oh no!! TENS OF THOUSANDS go to festivals???? Oh my!!! No!!! My question is what in the hell are you doing looking at web sites like that if you are opposed to homosexuality? 
> 
> The funny thing is that I have never heard of this festival and I have plenty of gay friends. Even funnier still is the gay friends I happen to be with hadn't heard of it either but somehow Mr. Homophobe here has and has links to pictures and everything-LOLOLOL!! And funnier still is they find it disgusting too because they aren't into BDSM, water sports, or old white guys.
> 
> Stop lumping people together.


There is no public group sex of urine drinking $#@! eating hetersexuals protected by the government in any place I am aware of in the United States.  That is illegal.  Clearly, the homosexual activists have achieved something unique here - special status to break the laws in San Fransico for perverse, disease causing behavior.

These fairs seem to be pretty common in San Fransico.   The rest of your comments along the line of how dare I know about it, go put my head in the sand ignored.

Here is an article on it.  The San Franscio government accepts and condones the festival - Where homosexual activism is trying to take us.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=71616




> "Consider how liberal government authorities like Mayor [Gavin] Newsom have corrupted the men in blue by stipulating that police not prosecute public nudity and indecency at homosexual festivals," said a report from Americans for Truth on the graphic activities documented at the event.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				"What honor can there be in protecting the public practice of heinous perversions and nudity in the city's streets? The shame of pandering politicians is transferred to the cops who were intended to be guardians of the law and public order," said the organizer's chief, Peter LaBarbera.
> 			
> ...


Here's another story from the last few days like the the old lady getting knocked down, the church worship service invaded, the missionary who received a bomb.  




> Owners of a Web site that specializes in advice and information for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints say their site was attacked the day following passage of Proposition 8 by people they believe opposed the measure.
> Scott Proctor of Meridian magazine said the site was hacked into early Nov. 5, and its home page was replaced with "horrible, explicit lesbians films placed all over the cover." Engineers took the site down immediately after the break-in was discovered, he said.


This response is like that of a rapist bully.  It is exactly that.  2 out or 4 of the response have been that, one has been attempted murder, and one has been assault on an old lady.  50% of the responses were to rape.  That tells me a lot.

----------


## chwisch87

Ok this whatever street festival actually doesn't happen anymore to my knowledge. But look, i am not saying that homosexuals shouldn't be arrested for public sex ... come on. Besides most of the gay men who do that are people are older ones who still live in closet with sham marriages to woman. 

Younger gays AKA me who live openly don't do $#@! like that nor do any other things you seem to have an issue with. Again STOP lumping us all together.

----------


## lucius

> I realize some Ron paul supporters are nuts..


Your response was light; you bring little but derision and attitude--predictable.




> ...the fact of the matter is *Kinsey is considered today to be bad science*, if you actually paid attention to real science you would know this


It took almost 30 years for academics to mount a serious challenge to Kinsey. In 1981, when Judith Reisman exposed Kinseys pseudosciencetalk about absurd belief structures.




> I am sorry but this whole idea that in 1972 the APA was somehow politically ... idk ... whatever the hell to change the DSM to exclude homosexuality is just stupid...


More Rockefeller money and influence, here is a quote by *Charles W. Socarides, M.D., clinical professor of psychiatry at Albert Einstein College of Medicine/Montefiore Medical Center in New York.*:

targeted the members of a worldly priesthood, the psychiatric community, and neutralized them with a radical redefinition of homosexuality itself. *In 1972 and 1973 they co-opted the leadership of the American Psychiatric Association and, through a series of political maneuvers, lies and outright flim-flams, they "cured" homosexuality overnight-by fiat.* They got the A.P.A. to say that same-sex sex was "not a disorder." It was merely "a condition"-as neutral as lefthandedness. 

*You seem to be rather ignorant; buy a vowel, better yet, here are a few books:*

Read *After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 1990's*, by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. 

That book turned out to be the blueprint gay activists would use in their campaign to normalize the abnormal through a variety of social engineering techniques once cataloged by Robert Jay Lifton in his seminal work, *Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of Brainwashing in China*. 

In their book Kirk and Madsen urged that gay activists adopt the very strategies that helped change the political face of the largest nation on earth. The authors knew the techniques had worked in China. All they needed was enough media-and enough money, which was provided by large foundations, such as the Rockefeller--to put them to work in the United States. And they did. These activists got the media and the money to radicalize America-*by processes known as desensitization, jamming and conversion*. 

The gay activists aims are for a redefinition of marriage. Gay activists now routinely name themselves as often and as publicly as possible as they wish to be defined. They strive to make the language used to describe them indicate that same-sex couples are "families" with the same values and child-rearing potential as heterosexuals. Paula Ettelbrick, legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund proposes: "The norm in this society should be recognizing families in the way that they are self-defined." Just how far can repositioning of this idea go? Elizabeth Birch, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, tells us: "[Gays] hold sacred seeds. . . . [T]o be gay, lesbian, bisexual, or struggle around gender is literally a gift from God and we [gays] have an enormous amount to teach this nation.", which leads to another book, Dennis Altman's *The Homosexualization of America*. 

In 1982 Altman, himself gay, reported with an air of elation that more and more Americans were thinking like gays and acting like gays. There were engaged, that is, "in numbers of short-lived sexual adventures either in place of or alongside long-term relationships." Altman cited the heterosexual equivalents of gay saunas and the emergence of the swinging singles scene as proofs that "promiscuity and 'impersonal sex' are determined more by social possibilities than by inherent differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals, or even between men and women."

*The elite push this lifestyle/social-engineering, for it is applied eugenics, generally a reduce lifespan , don't have children and easier to control.* 

*Once again, it is not my business what people do in the privacy of their homes*, but I now understand why this degenerative lifestyle is being promoted by the elite, which was initially discovered by the 1954 U.S. Congressional Reece Committee.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> I realize some Ron paul supporters are nuts but the fact of the matter is Kinsey is considered today to be bad science, if you actually paid attention to real science you would know this.
> 
> Furthermore, just because he got funding from the Rockefeller organization or who the hell ever you are referring too and you someone see some sort of 'new world order' crap is just stupid. I am sorry but you are an idiot and hardly even worth my time. You sit in a basement trying to make conspiracy theories. Do you even realize how stupid this sounds? You are suggesting that a group infiltrated an organization to normalize homosexuality to make everyone gay because they are easier to control ... ... WHAT?
> 
> Edit- I am sorry but this whole idea that in 1972 the APA was somehow politically ... idk ... whatever the hell to change the DSM to exclude homosexuality is just stupid. Its a myth promoted by the ex-gay jesus crowd and an outright lie. I have an idea ... go talk to a real psychologist.


*"It ain't so much the things we don't know that hurts us, as it is the things we do know that ain't true."*

----------


## Josh_LA

> You are correct. 
> 
> Far and away the main reason most ***** want their marriages legally recognized, is so they can pressure and even sue the local, county, state and federal governments for the same taxpayer-funded "benefits" that married heterosexual couples get.


You're a parrot who doesn't even stop to think for one minute

Eugenics aims for HIGHER life expectancy, HEALTHIER people, and LESS homosexuality, some may have misapplied eugenics and some may have misused homosexuality for their ends, but nothing is inherently wrong with eugenics. You are quick to point out the wrongs of homosexuality and "gay agenda" pushing while giving theocratic bigotry a blind pass. You think all gays are guilty of Rockafeller's social engineering and all religious moralists are free from it. Correct me please?

----------


## Josh_LA

> *Kinsey's Attic: The Shocking Story of how One Man's Perversion Changed the World*
> 
> by Dr. Judith Reisman
> 
> http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Kin...1824605/?itm=3


I don't need you to lecture how filthy pedophiles and gays are, but what they do is none of my business and whether they are free to marry and be considered normal does not make it so. 

I am deeply offended by treated blacks as human beings, but it's not illegal for me or anybody to think blacks are animals, so I don't care what the law says about blacks, I am free to disagree (so will you be). I don't complain there's some pro-black, anti-white, anti-racist agenda conspiratorily working for eugenics. In fact I know if eugenics were implimented, we can probably get rid of blacks and gays. *So don't talk like eugenics will push ******ry or negro lifestyle on humans when it's EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE IF ANYTHING.*

Neither blacks nor gays are naturally, historically of the power, so if nature took its course or humans embraced the fittest, gays would certainly NOT be of the advantage. Your arguments are nothing but the real sense of the word, homoPHOBIA, an irrational and unjustified fear and hatred of homosexuals.

----------


## Natalie

Here are pictures from what went on at the "Up Your Alley Fair" in San Francisco this Year:

Warning: NSFW!

http://www.zombietime.com/up_your_al...art_1_blurred/

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Here are pictures from what went on at the "Up Your Alley Fair" in San Francisco this Year:
> 
> Warning: NSFW!
> 
> http://www.zombietime.com/up_your_al...art_1_blurred/


 ewwww!!!! icky!

----------


## Danke

> ewwww!!!! icky!


Where the boys are!

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Where the boys are!



LOL!  I don't think these particular boys are waiting for Ms. Francis.

----------


## Danke

> LOL!  I don't think these particular boys are waiting for Ms. Francis.


True, but were there any women there?

----------


## Josh_LA

> True, but were there any women there?


that's just SICK!

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> True, but were there any women there?



I only saw 2 in the entire slide show.

----------


## Danke

> I only saw 2 in the entire slide show.


You viewed the entire slide show.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You viewed the entire slide show.


Looking through what the posters post before commenting...I'm crazy that way.

----------


## FountainDew

I'm hesitant to post input cuz I didn't read the entire debated thread, but here's my opinion. Clearly, its a freedom of religion vs gay rights battle. The problem rests with the state not issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples. Which is understandable because only a church has the right to perform ceremonial marriage. 

The definition of *civil union*, _n., a legal joining of two individuals that confers all the legal rights of marriage, but lacking a spiritual or religious dimension. In use since at least 1992_

Why not have gay rights activists fight for the expansion of civil union laws? That way churches can keep their freedom, and gays can be "married" minus the ceremony. If the church in your local area agree to wed same sex couples, then the state can still issue a civil union license and the couple can also have their ceremony too. Everyone's happy.

----------


## Josh_LA

> I'm hesitant to post input cuz I didn't read the entire debated thread, but here's my opinion. Clearly, its a freedom of religion vs gay rights battle. The problem rests with the state not issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples. Which is understandable because only a church has the right to perform ceremonial marriage. 
> 
> The definition of *civil union*, _n., a legal joining of two individuals that confers all the legal rights of marriage, but lacking a spiritual or religious dimension. In use since at least 1992_
> 
> Why not have gay rights activists fight for the expansion of civil union laws? That way churches can keep their freedom, and gays can be "married" minus the ceremony. If the church in your local area agree to wed same sex couples, then the state can still issue a civil union license and the couple can also have their ceremony too. Everyone's happy.


excuse me? *Religious freedom VERSUS gay rights?* Why can't gay rights be protected as a religion? Only a church has the right to perform marriage ceremonies? What about synangogues and temples? What about gay churches? What about mock churches? Are they breaking anybody's copyright monopoly by competing with churches to perform weddings?

*Why not have gay rights activists fight for the expansion of civil union laws?* Because "civil union" is a term that's only different in name, much like calling black people "black people" instead of just calling them "people"

Why should they be called something different unless legally they have to be treated differently? Why should they be "separate BUT equal" not "separate" or "equal"? I am NOT  saying gay people should be treated equally, I am saying, we should be open about our bias and hatred, not dress it up and disguise it.

*"Churches can keep their freedom" (or else they may lose it)*  is a lie, churches ALWAYS HAVE AND ALWAYS WILL have the freedom to deny gays marriage just like synagogues deny gentiles marriage and Mormon Temples deny non-Mormons. Furthermore, just like how black people can still be hated, society is still free to hate gays and gay couples even if they are legally equal.

Just because black people are given full human rights as whites and called "people" rather than "black people", does not force anybody to see them as people, you are (and certainly I am) free to believe blacks are dirty, stinky subhuman beasts (and teach your children that), if you feel like it.
*
No rights of any religious bigots are violated by giving marriage licenses to gays, just like nobody's rights are violated if I gave driver licenses to monkeys or gave drinking licenses to dogs.*

----------


## FountainDew

> excuse me? *Religious freedom VERSUS gay rights?* Why can't gay rights be protected as a religion? Only a church has the right to perform marriage ceremonies? What about synangogues and temples? What about gay churches? What about mock churches? Are they breaking anybody's copyright monopoly by competing with churches to perform weddings?
> 
> *Why not have gay rights activists fight for the expansion of civil union laws?* Because "civil union" is a term that's only different in name, much like calling black people "black people" instead of just calling them "people"
> 
> Why should they be called something different unless legally they have to be treated differently? Why should they be "separate BUT equal" not "separate" or "equal"? I am NOT  saying gay people should be treated equally, I am saying, we should be open about our bias and hatred, not dress it up and disguise it.
> 
> *"Churches can keep their freedom" (or else they may lose it)*  is a lie, churches ALWAYS HAVE AND ALWAYS WILL have the freedom to deny gays marriage just like synagogues deny gentiles marriage and Mormon Temples deny non-Mormons. Furthermore, just like how black people can still be hated, society is still free to hate gays and gay couples even if they are legally equal.
> 
> Just because black people are given full human rights as whites and called "people" rather than "black people", does not force anybody to see them as people, you are (and certainly I am) free to believe blacks are dirty, stinky subhuman beasts (and teach your children that), if you feel like it.
> ...


One question to your rebuttal. If rights were amended giving same-sex couples the right to be wed, would you sue your church for not performing a wedding for you and your same-sex partner?

I dislike grouping individuals as much as anyone here, but unfortunately that's the system we live in. Without causing direct conflict between two self-proclaimed groups, separation is necessary to a degree. In a perfect world, "Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims." - Dr. Paul

----------


## Josh_LA

> One question to your rebuttal. If rights were amended giving same-sex couples the right to be wed, would you sue your church for not performing a wedding for you and your same-sex partner?
> 
> I dislike grouping individuals as much as anyone here, but unfortunately that's the system we live in. Without causing direct conflict between two self-proclaimed groups, separation is necessary to a degree. In a perfect world, "Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims." - Dr. Paul


*Would I sue?* Maybe if I had nothing better to do, which I can today to any synagogue that denies my right to marry gentiles in their building. But I would have no case, frivolous lawsuits are 100% legal but almost always dismissed because there are no victims and is a waste of everybody's time. What do I gain by suing a synagogue (other than the entertainment of annoying bigoted Jews)? *NOTHING.* 

So to answer in short, NO I WOULD NOT SUE anybody for denying gays married, just like racist people today are free to deny that interracial couples are married or blacks are people. Nobody sues racists for being bigots, so why should religious bigots get sued?

----------

