[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
b) is itself absurd. [/quote]
Nope. It’s absurd to make gay rights a faddish vehicle for ‘equal rights’ in consideration of consenting adults, only to turn around and say you have no plans to offer such ‘freedom’ and recognition to any and all forms of arrangements imaginative consenting adults can come up with. See, that involves discrimination. You’re one form of human relationship less of a ‘bigot’ than myself. But, still a ‘bigot.’
[quote]Sloth wrote:
You know that wealth/mobility gap?
Stop trying to equate unequal things, and salvage what’s left. Reverse it before it’s too late, if isn’t already. The traditional family was our lifeblood. [/quote]
Well, in the eyes of “progressivism”, that has to be an inequality that has to be cured. I mean, not every gets married, so not everyone gets the (unfair) benefits that marriage provides.
The only “progressive” remedy I see - assuming intellectual consistency - is to tax this inequality out of existence or get rid of marriage altogether. “Progressives For The Marriage Tax - We are the 49%!” - something like that, maybe. The unmarried have-nots need to be protected from the married have-mores who apparently are selfishly hoovering up all the wealth.
It’s time for action!
[quote]Sloth wrote:<<< The traditional family was our lifeblood. [/quote]Oh yes it was. Ya know what’s funny? The inescapable truth of this does not even require a self conscious theologically aware mind to be plainly comprehended. It is so manifestly obvious that once the history is known? One must intentionally delude themselves to escape it. The stable biblical family unit and the stable United States are absolutely synonymous. The country and the faithful family, consisting of one man and one woman for life and their children, inextricably rise or fall together.
OhhhhLEEEEnaaaa. Hello? I know you’re still out there. You never knew the God I know. Not for a second.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
b) is itself absurd. [/quote]
Nope. It’s absurd to make gay rights a faddish vehicle for ‘equal rights’ in consideration of consenting adults, only to turn around and say you have no plans to offer such ‘freedom’ and recognition to any and all forms of arrangements imaginative consenting adults can come up with. See, that involves discrimination. You’re one form of human relationship less of a ‘bigot’ than myself. But, still a ‘bigot.’
[/quote]
Homosexuality is not an imaginitive arrangement. Your ignorance in this matter is astounding. Gay marriage doesn’t open the flood gates to stupidity any more than heterosexual marriage does.
Again, no one in my country has married their mother, horse, bag of potatoes, fence post, car, or hunting dog. The written law (via the civil marriage act) defines marriage as the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others. The common law (case law)adds sexual, and romantic components (among others). Which by virtue of extension exclude drinking buddies (no sex), animals (bestiality is illegal), mother / daughter (incest is illegal), and a multitude of other potential “imaginitive arrangements”.
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
b) is itself absurd. [/quote]
Nope. It’s absurd to make gay rights a faddish vehicle for ‘equal rights’ in consideration of consenting adults, only to turn around and say you have no plans to offer such ‘freedom’ and recognition to any and all forms of arrangements imaginative consenting adults can come up with. See, that involves discrimination. You’re one form of human relationship less of a ‘bigot’ than myself. But, still a ‘bigot.’
[/quote]
Homosexuality is not an imaginitive arrangement. Your ignorance in this matter is astounding. Gay marriage doesn’t open the flood gates to stupidity any more than heterosexual marriage does.
Again, no one in my country has married their mother, horse, bag of potatoes, fence post, car, or hunting dog. The written law (via the civil marriage act) defines marriage as the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others. The common law (case law)adds sexual, and romantic components (among others). Which by virtue of extension exclude drinking buddies (no sex), animals (bestiality is illegal), mother / daughter (incest is illegal), and a multitude of other potential “imaginitive arrangements”.[/quote]
Bigotry
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
…Again, no one in my country has married their mother, horse, bag of potatoes, fence post, car, or hunting dog…[/quote]
Your Civil Marriage Act is relatively young, only 6 1/2 years old. No disrespect to you personally but you are a naive fool to think 20 - 30 years from now, or less, you won’t have all manner of multiple marriage demands from your populace.
If you are willing to put this up for wager just let me know.
As it is, one of Canada’s redemptive measures that help keep it from sliding into a virtual dead society is your massive immigration policies. Immigrants, many of them with traditional marriage cultures, keep your country alive and growing, my friend. Not “progressive” idiocy.[/quote]
Yup we let alot of folks in. This isn’t new in the last 6 years, so I fail to see the connection. Must be something that makes them want to come here, and than stay though. Maybe it’s that progressive idiocy.
People can ASK all they want, but it doesn’t mean they’ll get it. That’s what the reasonable limits clause in the charter of rights and freedomes is for. I’m actually more surprised that the U.S. didn’t have gay marriage first, since that clause makes it easier for courts / government to restrict people’s freedome here than there.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
the progressive idiocy is not the drawing card, it’s the relative ease of entry.[/quote]
Ease of entry doesn’t keep them here, and they’re not exactly jumping the fence to get a more conservative culture on the other side of the border once they’re here. The most imigrant laden areas aren’t brimming with conservative support either. If anything, the imigrants are what keep this country leaning so far to the left. There’s plenty of “promised lands” around the first world, and any one of them will look real good to someone from the third world.
Regardless, that’s a topic for another time. Imigration is nothing new, and is in no way linkable to gay marriage, since it’s been going on at the same rate for many many years prior to it’s legalization. It’s also legal in Holland, Belguim, Norway, Sweden, etc… and they seem to be doing just fine aswell.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:<<< The traditional family was our lifeblood. [/quote]Oh yes it was. Ya know what’s funny? The inescapable truth of this does not even require a self conscious theologically aware mind to be plainly comprehended. It is so manifestly obvious that once the history is known? One must intentionally delude themselves to escape it. The stable biblical family unit and the stable United States are absolutely synonymous. The country and the faithful family, consisting of one man and one woman for life and their children, inextricably rise or fall together.
OhhhhLEEEEnaaaa. Hello? I know you’re still out there. You never knew the God I know. Not for a second.
[/quote]
lol. Traditional American family values are laughable in light of the fact that we NEVER had “family values” the way countries such as China did. As you just said, when you think family, you think a man and a woman for life and their children. If you were in India or China or many other countries, you’d be considered a very sad, destitute case for only having a family consisting of that.
“Family”, in those and many other countries, consisted of at least three generations of relatives living in the same house. If you got married, your wife would come live with you in your parents house and you all worked together to raise kids. In fact, your grandparents arguably would have more rights to your kids than you did. Everything you did was for the honor of your family
In other countries, mothers followed their daughters into a new family and were a full parent to their daughters children. In still other countries, if you were a woman, all of your brothers would raise your kids. So it’s pretty uneducated to claim that America ever had “strong family values” in light of what a measly family that consisted of, in addition to the “do it yourself”, individualistic attitude the US has always promoted. It’s also ridiculous to claim that “a man and woman” are the best example of a strong family. I would much rather have 3 generations of relatives to go to, as a child, than just one man and one woman.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:<<< The traditional family was our lifeblood. [/quote]Oh yes it was. Ya know what’s funny? The inescapable truth of this does not even require a self conscious theologically aware mind to be plainly comprehended. It is so manifestly obvious that once the history is known? One must intentionally delude themselves to escape it. The stable biblical family unit and the stable United States are absolutely synonymous. The country and the faithful family, consisting of one man and one woman for life and their children, inextricably rise or fall together.
OhhhhLEEEEnaaaa. Hello? I know you’re still out there. You never knew the God I know. Not for a second.
[/quote]
lol. Traditional American family values are laughable in light of the fact that we NEVER had “family values” the way countries such as China did. As you just said, when you think family, you think a man and a woman for life and their children. If you were in India or China or many other countries, you’d be considered a very sad, destitute case for only having a family consisting of that.
“Family”, in those and many other countries, consisted of at least three generations of relatives living in the same house. If you got married, your wife would come live with you in your parents house and you all worked together to raise kids. In fact, your grandparents arguably would have more rights to your kids than you did. Everything you did was for the honor of your family
In other countries, mothers followed their daughters into a new family and were a full parent to their daughters children. In still other countries, if you were a woman, all of your brothers would raise your kids. So it’s pretty uneducated to claim that America ever had “strong family values” in light of what a measly family that consisted of, in addition to the “do it yourself”, individualistic attitude the US has always promoted. It’s also ridiculous to claim that “a man and woman” are the best example of a strong family. I would much rather have 3 generations of relatives to go to, as a child, than just one man and one woman.
[/quote]
Very true… in general, there have almost never been real family values in the States or in Canada… only the values for free sex and making money… but it’s irrelevant to the government not accepting or accepting lesbian marriage…
[quote]Oleena wrote:<<< It’s also ridiculous to claim that “a man and woman” are the best example of a strong family. I would much rather have 3 generations of relatives to go to, as a child, than just one man and one woman. >>>[/quote]Really? Your rudder’s been hit, your main mast is danglin and you’re a sitting duck for a full broadside now sweetie. You’re not an idiot, but this is a plain stoopid, undisciplined and unforced error right here. Think. Please?
So to those saying that homosexuality is not a disorder, is not a sign of a decaying moral backbone, show your evidence, not heresay, not politically suppressed studies. people present you others like you in the world with facts and they are dismissed and the person demonized, it was done with the APA committee for the DSM twice, and even with one of the most prominent Roman historians in the world.
There is no reason with people with an agenda, you are proving it astoundingly.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
Society, religion, and their resulting morals have ALWAYS changed. There was no “golden era” that we’re moving away from. There was just a different set of physical needs which had different corresponding social answers. Your religion evolved out of those needs and has changed constantly throughout the ages to keep up with the changing needs of each new generation.
I know you are going to argue fervently against this and keep the wool over your own eyes. The fact that you continue to ignore all of the data regarding the development of your own religion and how it’s changed throughout the years (even before this country was founded) has pretty much cured me of my internet addiction.
Thank you.
Now go on back to your regularly scheduled, delusional, self-validating and congratulatory programming.
[/quote]
this is absolutely wrong, this saga has played in many societies in history, in which they were built on moral conduct similar that of the biblical christian and found in our constitution, later to be destroyed in part by the moral decay of society, one sign of which being the rise and prominence of sexual immorality. Rome is a perfect example.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:<<< The traditional family was our lifeblood. [/quote]Oh yes it was. Ya know what’s funny? The inescapable truth of this does not even require a self conscious theologically aware mind to be plainly comprehended. It is so manifestly obvious that once the history is known? One must intentionally delude themselves to escape it. The stable biblical family unit and the stable United States are absolutely synonymous. The country and the faithful family, consisting of one man and one woman for life and their children, inextricably rise or fall together.
OhhhhLEEEEnaaaa. Hello? I know you’re still out there. You never knew the God I know. Not for a second.
[/quote]
I can see this in my own life, I work in vaccines, but also bought and old farm house and some land, we have a small organic farm specializing in sustainable agriculture (not to be confused with the UN idea of sustainability). I moved my parents in with us as well and it has been such a blessing to have that additional layer of the family unit there as well. So much so that we are trying to find a way to move my wife parents out with us as well. probably build two more small homes to create some space. But a strong family is so important. My parents have been married for 55 years, my wife’s for 42 years, we have been married 7 years. We have 3 small children and 1 on the way.
Whoever came up with the term it takes a village to raise a baby was a lazy worthless parent. It only takes a moral strong mother and father. realizing there are some circumstances, deaths or reprehensible partners, but this is the truth as the norm. The stat about families and the decay in the ghetto’s and areas without a strong family consensus, only further bolsters what Push, Trib and TB are Saying.
But hey the progressive mantra, don’t let pesky facts get in the way of furthering your agenda.
Americans are hilarious when it comes to these kind of issues.
In the Uk, civil partnerships have been legal now for just over 8 years…funny thing is though, most people I know are still straight, most people I know have either had OR plan to have kids, get married etc & even more shockingly, Mr Cameron has not YET unveilled plans to legalise sex with pre-pubescent children OR goats etc (I mean, don’t get me wrong, even though the media is pretty much obsessed with convincing everyone their is an horrendous-paedo-monster on every steet corner…I’m sure it’ll happen…In a milion month of Sundays!!!).
The only that’s really changed is, in the past gays would have either: A) Been far more likely to be gay on the ‘down low’ OR B) Accepted that they must (rather sadly) try & fit with the: Find yourself a wife & knock out a few kiddies model…only to eventually tumble out of the closet, 20+ years later.
Of course, in 100+ years time, most of the hardcore religious loons will be long gone & we can find something else to argue over.
Ah yes, Sloth is at it again, trying to fling the word “bigot” around until it has no meaning.
I get it - the relationship between being against gay marriage and being a bigot could confuse some people. So, I’ll try to explain it. Listen up, Thunderbolt, Push, (and could somebody get this to Sloth since he blocked me in a fit of bitchassery?):
Most people who oppose gay marriage oppose it on some form of “Gay = bad”. This is bigoted.
Therefore, mose people who oppose gay marriage are bigots. But this is not to say that they are bigots because they oppose gay marriage, but that they oppose gay marriage because they are bigots.
2a. So every time Sloth says “If you oppose incestuous or polyamorous marriage, you’re a bigot
too!”… He’s being stupid.
2b. So when Thunderbolt points out that his gay friend (whose opinion only matters when it echoes
Thunderbolts opinions) opposes gay marriage, and says “My gay friend must be a bigot too!”…
He’s being equally dense.
Some people oppose gay marriage on grounds other than “Gay = bad”. These people are not bigots.
Sometimes the minority (non-bigots who oppose gay marriage) are mislabled as the majority (bigots who oppose gay marriage). This is unfortunate, and undeserved, and should not happen.
But could we PLEASE stop acting like there is no connection between opposing gay marriage and being a bigot when the VAST, VAST majority of people who oppose gay marriage ALSO just “happen” to believe that homosexuality is wrong/immoral/sinful? Please?
[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
Americans are hilarious when it comes to these kind of issues.
In the Uk, civil partnerships have been legal now for just over 8 years…funny thing is though, most people I know are still straight, most people I know have either had OR plan to have kids, get married etc & even more shockingly, Mr Cameron has not YET unveilled plans to legalise sex with pre-pubescent children OR goats etc (I mean, don’t get me wrong, even though the media is pretty much obsessed with convincing everyone their is an horrendous-paedo-monster on every steet corner…I’m sure it’ll happen…In a milion month of Sundays!!!).
The only that’s really changed is, in the past gays would have either: A) Been far more likely to be gay on the ‘down low’ OR B) Accepted that they must (rather sadly) try & fit with the: Find yourself a wife & knock out a few kiddies model…only to eventually tumble out of the closet, 20+ years later.
Of course, in 100+ years time, most of the hardcore religious loons will be long gone & we can find something else to argue over. [/quote]
There you go bringing common sense into this… This is the internet - let the feces hurling resume…
Homosexuality is contradictory in it’s nature. We’re raised on a steady diet of reward for good behavior. “If I do my homework, take my vitamins, get a good job, marry a pretty girl, and above all, go to church every sunday, then my reward is to be deemed morally superior to everyone who hasn’t done these things.” The gays are “cheating the system” - they’re getting away with stuff that I busted my ass for and believed in for all these years. And we can’t have that, now can we. We want so desperately to ascribe all manner of evil doings to homosexuals and when it turns out to be no more true than anyone else, we turn to the “old standby”… You’re evil bc God says so. The famous last resort of desperate men. I personally give religion more credit then that, but if that’s your cup of tea, whatever.
[quote]twinexperience wrote:
[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
Americans are hilarious when it comes to these kind of issues.
In the Uk, civil partnerships have been legal now for just over 8 years…funny thing is though, most people I know are still straight, most people I know have either had OR plan to have kids, get married etc & even more shockingly, Mr Cameron has not YET unveilled plans to legalise sex with pre-pubescent children OR goats etc (I mean, don’t get me wrong, even though the media is pretty much obsessed with convincing everyone their is an horrendous-paedo-monster on every steet corner…I’m sure it’ll happen…In a milion month of Sundays!!!).
The only that’s really changed is, in the past gays would have either: A) Been far more likely to be gay on the ‘down low’ OR B) Accepted that they must (rather sadly) try & fit with the: Find yourself a wife & knock out a few kiddies model…only to eventually tumble out of the closet, 20+ years later.
Of course, in 100+ years time, most of the hardcore religious loons will be long gone & we can find something else to argue over. [/quote]
There you go bringing common sense into this… This is the internet - let the feces hurling resume…
Homosexuality is contradictory in it’s nature. We’re raised on a steady diet of reward for good behavior. “If I do my homework, take my vitamins, get a good job, marry a pretty girl, and above all, go to church every sunday, then my reward is to be deemed morally superior to everyone who hasn’t done these things.” The gays are “cheating the system” - they’re getting away with stuff that I busted my ass for and believed in for all these years. And we can’t have that, now can we. We want so desperately to ascribe all manner of evil doings to homosexuals and when it turns out to be no more true than anyone else, we turn to the “old standby”… You’re evil bc God says so. The famous last resort of desperate men. I personally give religion more credit then that, but if that’s your cup of tea, whatever. [/quote]
Again all interjection of hearsay, no evidence. nothing concrete. He shows as much common sense as blood letting to cure the cold.
Aside from the morality as defined by the God of the bible, there is also an innate and basic morality understood by man. The problem is some do not have the tools to rise above impulses and act in a moral manner.
There is black and white, there is right and wrong, this whole concept of relativism and trying to redefine truths is just another symptom of the larger disease.