I don't care if a person is homosexual, I've known both and am comfortable around them. What I object to feverishly is the notion and their insistence that homosexuality be taught in the elementary and Jr. high schools. High school is fine, 15-18 yr olds are better equipped to decide for themselves. Younger than that, leave it alone.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Gay Marriage
- Thread starter ARogueTrader
- Start date
Turok when I wrote what I wrote I expected such a simple correction. I wrote it for effect. Yes gays have a right to attempt restructure our society and I have just as much right to not wants parts of it restructured. That was my point. It is not anti gay to want to preserve the the status quo with regard to marriage and other issues.
But the point about ignoring the movement is just weird reasoning. What else should I ignore? Should I ignore excess taxation, terrorism, anti-religious movements. Should I ignore impairments of my liberty. Should I ignore pollution. When I can act to preserve the status quo without being called by some pejorative name?
Do you want me to bend over while hillary clinton types attempt to restructure the world to their vision. I say no.
But the point about ignoring the movement is just weird reasoning. What else should I ignore? Should I ignore excess taxation, terrorism, anti-religious movements. Should I ignore impairments of my liberty. Should I ignore pollution. When I can act to preserve the status quo without being called by some pejorative name?
Do you want me to bend over while hillary clinton types attempt to restructure the world to their vision. I say no.
The basic rule for living together harmoniously in a society is to allow a maximum of personal liberties, up to the point where they infringe upon other people's rights. Or stated another way: "Your right to swing your fist ends at the point where it meets my face."
Does this restructuring of society - the "gay agenda" - infringe on your rights, impair your liberty, or adversely affect you the same way that pollution, excess taxation, or terrorism do?
Does this restructuring of society - the "gay agenda" - infringe on your rights, impair your liberty, or adversely affect you the same way that pollution, excess taxation, or terrorism do?
Quote from jem:
Being pro marrriage for man and a women is not anti gay. When I lived in a community with a lot of gays I had gay friends and numerous gay acquaintiances. I have got no problem with gays. But I am getting pissed at the ones who are not satisfied restruturing their society but trying to restructure mine. A marriage is between one man and one women.
Why not just lobby for gayiage or even take over a new word like elite or something. This is my ashley were "elite".
I tend to agree, while my arguments may seem to indicate I support gay "marriage", I support civil unions. I think that pushing the "marriage" term is a political mistake. But I do think that a same sex couple that bonds, commit to each, and is prepared to make a legally binding committment to each other, like I have with my wife, ought to be accorded some of the distinctions, protections, and obligations that our laws give hetero couples. In the service of not promoting a gay lifestyle, but in offering individual and pair stability.
Slamma:
>I tend to agree, while my arguments may seem to
>indicate I support gay "marriage", I support civil unions.
>I think that pushing the "marriage" term is a political
>mistake.
We either exactly or almost exactly agree. I DO support gay "marriage". At the same time, I think pushing the "marriage" term is a poltical mistake at this time and supporting civil unions would be where I would put my active support if I were into such a thing.
I think pushing the actual marriage term is going to backfire on them in a very unfavorable way.
JB
>I tend to agree, while my arguments may seem to
>indicate I support gay "marriage", I support civil unions.
>I think that pushing the "marriage" term is a political
>mistake.
We either exactly or almost exactly agree. I DO support gay "marriage". At the same time, I think pushing the "marriage" term is a poltical mistake at this time and supporting civil unions would be where I would put my active support if I were into such a thing.
I think pushing the actual marriage term is going to backfire on them in a very unfavorable way.
JB
Jem:
>But the point about ignoring the movement is
>just weird reasoning.
When it has no impact on one it isn't weird at all. The thread here isn't about the teaching of any sexual philosophy in grade schools. It isn't about the adoption of kids by gays. It's about *gay marriage*. They are already living together...having sex, adopting children, etc. Two people of the same sex being given the access to that legal status only HELPS you personally because the only change is they PAY MORE TAXES.
>What else should I ignore? Should I ignore excess
>taxation, terrorism, anti-religious movements. Should
>I ignore impairments of my liberty. Should I ignore
>pollution.
I specifically stated in my post that the reason this one should be ignored is because IT DOESN'T EFFECT YOU!!!. Are you unable to grasp that concept?
Excess taxation...effects you. Terrorism...effects you. Anti-religous movements...depends, but lets say yes so as to not get off track. Impairments of your liberties...yes by defintion. Two people in an exisiting relationship swearing their love in front of a judge...NO EFFECT.
JB
>But the point about ignoring the movement is
>just weird reasoning.
When it has no impact on one it isn't weird at all. The thread here isn't about the teaching of any sexual philosophy in grade schools. It isn't about the adoption of kids by gays. It's about *gay marriage*. They are already living together...having sex, adopting children, etc. Two people of the same sex being given the access to that legal status only HELPS you personally because the only change is they PAY MORE TAXES.
>What else should I ignore? Should I ignore excess
>taxation, terrorism, anti-religious movements. Should
>I ignore impairments of my liberty. Should I ignore
>pollution.
I specifically stated in my post that the reason this one should be ignored is because IT DOESN'T EFFECT YOU!!!. Are you unable to grasp that concept?
Excess taxation...effects you. Terrorism...effects you. Anti-religous movements...depends, but lets say yes so as to not get off track. Impairments of your liberties...yes by defintion. Two people in an exisiting relationship swearing their love in front of a judge...NO EFFECT.
JB
"The basic rule for living together harmoniously in a society is to allow a maximum of personal liberties, up to the point where they infringe upon other people's rights. Or stated another way: "Your right to swing your fist ends at the point where it meets my face."
"Does this restructuring of society - the "gay agenda" - infringe on your rights, impair your liberty, or adversely affect you the same way that pollution, excess taxation, or terrorism do?"
This is one of the most astute posts that I have read in quite some time on this thread. Props to Diode for being as articulate and insightful as ever!
"Does this restructuring of society - the "gay agenda" - infringe on your rights, impair your liberty, or adversely affect you the same way that pollution, excess taxation, or terrorism do?"
This is one of the most astute posts that I have read in quite some time on this thread. Props to Diode for being as articulate and insightful as ever!
turok
I know you are attempting to bait me. And is this same attitude that is so disingenuous about the whole gay marriage agenda.
I know you must have read Greorge Orwell. If my reference to George Orwell is to subtle. How about this.
I did not get married until I was 35, because I was not willing to make that kind of commitment, I was concerned I would fail to live up to my version and many other versions of what people think about when they say marriage.
What I was concerned about committing too. Does not involve anyone but one man and one women. By changing that definition you are changing what I am. A married person. What I committed too. What I am raising my family in. Married may mean many different things to many people but it has boundries.
Can you understand that. Do you want me to go on. Or do you understand that now.
I now you are a smart person and that is why I find your innocent little baiting to be disgusting.
If gays make and institution of gayiage. Over time it will come to stand for things. Perhaps very good things. But they should develop rules and expectations of stability or monogamy. I challege them to make something more stable than marriage.
I know you are attempting to bait me. And is this same attitude that is so disingenuous about the whole gay marriage agenda.
I know you must have read Greorge Orwell. If my reference to George Orwell is to subtle. How about this.
I did not get married until I was 35, because I was not willing to make that kind of commitment, I was concerned I would fail to live up to my version and many other versions of what people think about when they say marriage.
What I was concerned about committing too. Does not involve anyone but one man and one women. By changing that definition you are changing what I am. A married person. What I committed too. What I am raising my family in. Married may mean many different things to many people but it has boundries.
Can you understand that. Do you want me to go on. Or do you understand that now.
I now you are a smart person and that is why I find your innocent little baiting to be disgusting.
If gays make and institution of gayiage. Over time it will come to stand for things. Perhaps very good things. But they should develop rules and expectations of stability or monogamy. I challege them to make something more stable than marriage.