Political Crossfire Forums

[RealRepublicanArmy]

Ewrue The Veracious wrote: RealRepublicanArmy wrote: The American family institution is going through a cultural decline, just as the Roman family structure did right after the Empire climaxed. Though we may not get the pleasure of public funded orgy houses, we will reap the negatives of our lack of family values. the AMF is an organization that trys to preserve the pillars of our civilization. and whatr ever happend to that perverted orgy having roam i seem to remember the end of some 1000 year-old empire but i must be mistaken.

Well I am glad to see you know something of the arguably greatest Empire that ever existed, but I'm sorry to say I was joking about the orgies. Don't get your bible in a bunch.

[The Impeacher]

Carl wrote: The Impeacher wrote: anywho, "tolerance" is what would happen if people respected each others rghts and freedoms.

So, "to tolerate" is the same as "to respect" ?

I had always thought that implicit in the term "tolerance" was the idea of graciously enduring something less than ideal.

first off, note the use of "quotes"

secondly, why should anyone else have to give a s**t about your so-called "ideals"?

[Carl]

The Impeacher wrote: first off, note the use of "quotes"

Okay, so you were being sarcastic?

The Impeacher wrote: secondly, why should anyone else have to give a s**t about your so-called "ideals"?

They shouldn't. Fortunately for them I made no reference to my ideals, but only to the implicit idea inside the phrase "to tolerate".

Which was the point. Have you anything to contribute to the point?

[Etienne]

Carl wrote: Etienne wrote: It sounds like gender is more important to you than love, honor, and commitment...

Marriage, intrinsically, is defined by gender. Love, honor, and commitment are tertiary to what marriage is. One need not be married to love, honor, and commit.

As regards rights, however, the thing you claimed was offended, there is no such offense. All Americans of whatever persuasion have absolutely equal rights under the law as regards marriage. It's not an issue of rights.

So words now only have 1 meaning?

Quote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4081999.stm

In a number of countries in Europe, the status of "registered partnership" has been established.

In 1989, Denmark became the first country to institute legislation granting registered same-sex partners the same rights as married couples. Church weddings are not allowed.

Norway, Sweden and Iceland all enacted similar legislation in 1996, and Finland followed suit six years later.


The Netherlands became the first country to offer full civil marriage rights to gay couples in 2001.

In neighbouring Belgium gay marriages were allowed in 2003.

Spain, too, legalised full marriage for gay couples in June 2005, despite fierce opposition from the Roman Catholic Church. Gay married couples can also adopt children.

Germany has allowed same-sex couples to register for "life partnerships" since 2001. The law only gives couples the same inheritance and tenants' rights as heterosexual married couples.

France in 1999 introduced a civil contract called the Pacs, which gives some rights to cohabiting couples, regardless of sex. These do not include the full rights of marriage, notably over taxes, inheritance and adoption. In 2004, a mayor conducted the country's first gay marriage, but it was later nullified by a court.

In Luxembourg, a law on civil partnerships largely inspired by the French model was introduced in 2004.

In Britain, legislation came into force in December 2005 giving same-sex couples in registered partnerships similar rights to married couples, in areas such as pensions, property, social security, and housing.

Looks like some Europeans have changed the definition of marriage.

Fine...let's get away from these semantics...let's call these relationships Civil Unions.

See my other post concerning Civil Unions...

[Ewrue The Veracious]

RealRepublicanArmy wrote: Ewrue The Veracious wrote: The Impeacher wrote: Ewrue The Veracious wrote: The Impeacher wrote: uh oh,

looks like CRASH is the big winner. i guess hollywood as a TOLERANCE AGENDA... damn hollywood pushing their "let's all get along" agenda.

:lol:


YOU KNOW IT'S HARD OUT HERE FOR A PIMP!!! never herad of crash what is it about.

and hollywoods definition of tollerance is intolerant to itsself and is meaningless. tollerance is never going to be an across the board idea.

well,

i dont think i like you much, that's fer sure... ;)

anywho, "tolerance" is what would happen if people respected each others rghts and freedoms.

i'd like to think that that SHOULD be an across the board idea/ you are being in tolerant of me there are things that cannot be ever tolorated such as murder rape theft or any of these so across the board tolorence is compleate anarchey.

how can you say you don't like a person baised on a few words and ideals it seems you are the most intollerant. i just want people to behave you want me to think like you that is lack of tolerance.

It is quite easy to dislike a person baised on a few of his words or ideals. If I hear a white person say, "we need to help the n*ggers of this country," I won't like him. If I hear someone say, the queers are pushing their agenda on us, I won't like him, because he is obviously ignorant and if you want to call me intolerant cuz I discriminate against hateful ideologies, go ahead. you are in a point in which you don't understand the language any longer the Klue Klux Klan is pushing for the rights to live in a country free of having to share everything with peoples of differant ethnical back grounds. they are segragationists. hatered is just a counterculture not the ideal. the queer agenda is doing the opposite they are saying you will accept us and we will take your sacramints and you are going to sit there and enjoy it. i don't hate queers they are people and if i hated them i would be a lesser christian. i just stated that merrage is defined between man and woman. not that all queers should die. not that they should be locked up or that they should even be declined a position in a company because of it. i just simply stated that marrage is a sacrament created by religion not state and ferther more is not a right to any person in the united states. what is so hate ful about that statemet mr. holyer than thou

[Ewrue The Veracious]

Etienne wrote: Carl wrote: Etienne wrote: It sounds like gender is more important to you than love, honor, and commitment...

Marriage, intrinsically, is defined by gender. Love, honor, and commitment are tertiary to what marriage is. One need not be married to love, honor, and commit.

As regards rights, however, the thing you claimed was offended, there is no such offense. All Americans of whatever persuasion have absolutely equal rights under the law as regards marriage. It's not an issue of rights.

So words now only have 1 meaning?

Quote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4081999.stm

In a number of countries in Europe, the status of "registered partnership" has been established.

In 1989, Denmark became the first country to institute legislation granting registered same-sex partners the same rights as married couples. Church weddings are not allowed.

Norway, Sweden and Iceland all enacted similar legislation in 1996, and Finland followed suit six years later.


The Netherlands became the first country to offer full civil marriage rights to gay couples in 2001.

In neighbouring Belgium gay marriages were allowed in 2003.

Spain, too, legalised full marriage for gay couples in June 2005, despite fierce opposition from the Roman Catholic Church. Gay married couples can also adopt children.

Germany has allowed same-sex couples to register for "life partnerships" since 2001. The law only gives couples the same inheritance and tenants' rights as heterosexual married couples.

France in 1999 introduced a civil contract called the Pacs, which gives some rights to cohabiting couples, regardless of sex. These do not include the full rights of marriage, notably over taxes, inheritance and adoption. In 2004, a mayor conducted the country's first gay marriage, but it was later nullified by a court.

In Luxembourg, a law on civil partnerships largely inspired by the French model was introduced in 2004.

In Britain, legislation came into force in December 2005 giving same-sex couples in registered partnerships similar rights to married couples, in areas such as pensions, property, social security, and housing.

Looks like some Europeans have changed the definition of marriage.

Fine...let's get away from these semantics...let's call these relationships Civil Unions.

See my other post concerning Civil Unions... not all words just that one. and england has pissed on their hgeratige by extending a sacrament to those who missed the point of it. i am not aginst civil unions but that is not amerrage. they shouldn't be allowed to adopt children or other things that would prove socilly damageing. i have heared all they seem to want is visitation rights and to be allowed to inherit their civil unions assats fine i am okay with that. but they shouldn't be allowed to stomp on the sacraments of the church.

[Ewrue The Veracious]

RealRepublicanArmy wrote: Ewrue The Veracious wrote: The Impeacher wrote: Ewrue The Veracious wrote: The Impeacher wrote: uh oh,

looks like CRASH is the big winner. i guess hollywood as a TOLERANCE AGENDA... damn hollywood pushing their "let's all get along" agenda.

:lol:


YOU KNOW IT'S HARD OUT HERE FOR A PIMP!!! never herad of crash what is it about.

and hollywoods definition of tollerance is intolerant to itsself and is meaningless. tollerance is never going to be an across the board idea.

well,

i dont think i like you much, that's fer sure... ;)

anywho, "tolerance" is what would happen if people respected each others rghts and freedoms.

i'd like to think that that SHOULD be an across the board idea/ you are being in tolerant of me there are things that cannot be ever tolorated such as murder rape theft or any of these so across the board tolorence is compleate anarchey.

how can you say you don't like a person baised on a few words and ideals it seems you are the most intollerant. i just want people to behave you want me to think like you that is lack of tolerance.

It is quite easy to dislike a person baised on a few of his words or ideals. If I hear a white person say, "we need to help the n*ggers of this country," I won't like him. If I hear someone say, the queers are pushing their agenda on us, I won't like him, because he is obviously ignorant and if you want to call me intolerant cuz I discriminate against hateful ideologies, go ahead. you are in a point in which you don't understand the language any longer the Klue Klux Klan is pushing for the rights to live in a country free of having to share everything with peoples of differant ethnical back grounds. they are segragationists. hatered is just a counterculture not the ideal. the queer agenda is doing the opposite they are saying you will accept us and we will take your sacramints and you are going to sit there and enjoy it. i don't hate queers they are people and if i hated them i would be a lesser christian. i just stated that merrage is defined between man and woman. not that all queers should die. not that they should be locked up or that they should even be declined a position in a company because of it. i just simply stated that marrage is a sacrament created by religion not state and ferther more is not a right to any person in the united states. what is so hate ful about that statemet mr. holyer than thou

[RealRepublicanArmy]

Ewrue The Veracious wrote: RealRepublicanArmy wrote: Ewrue The Veracious wrote: The Impeacher wrote: Ewrue The Veracious wrote: The Impeacher wrote: uh oh,

looks like CRASH is the big winner. i guess hollywood as a TOLERANCE AGENDA... damn hollywood pushing their "let's all get along" agenda.

:lol:


YOU KNOW IT'S HARD OUT HERE FOR A PIMP!!! never herad of crash what is it about.

and hollywoods definition of tollerance is intolerant to itsself and is meaningless. tollerance is never going to be an across the board idea.

well,

i dont think i like you much, that's fer sure... ;)

anywho, "tolerance" is what would happen if people respected each others rghts and freedoms.

i'd like to think that that SHOULD be an across the board idea/ you are being in tolerant of me there are things that cannot be ever tolorated such as murder rape theft or any of these so across the board tolorence is compleate anarchey.

how can you say you don't like a person baised on a few words and ideals it seems you are the most intollerant. i just want people to behave you want me to think like you that is lack of tolerance.

It is quite easy to dislike a person baised on a few of his words or ideals. If I hear a white person say, "we need to help the n*ggers of this country," I won't like him. If I hear someone say, the queers are pushing their agenda on us, I won't like him, because he is obviously ignorant and if you want to call me intolerant cuz I discriminate against hateful ideologies, go ahead. you are in a point in which you don't understand the language any longer the Klue Klux Klan is pushing for the rights to live in a country free of having to share everything with peoples of differant ethnical back grounds. they are segragationists. hatered is just a counterculture not the ideal. the queer agenda is doing the opposite they are saying you will accept us and we will take your sacramints and you are going to sit there and enjoy it. i don't hate queers they are people and if i hated them i would be a lesser christian. i just stated that merrage is defined between man and woman. not that all queers should die. not that they should be locked up or that they should even be declined a position in a company because of it. i just simply stated that marrage is a sacrament created by religion not state and ferther more is not a right to any person in the united states. what is so hate ful about that statemet mr. holyer than thou

Ok, so by your own admission, so me being hateful against ideologies like neo-nazism and gay bashers is similar to the KKK? I don't see the parallel. There is no segretation in what I am saying, I just plain don't like hateful ideologies.

So the "queers" are threatening to take your sacraments? Well buddy I live in San Francisco, and I can say there is no "queer agenda" and your just extremely paranoyd. Also, stop using the word queer, it has a negative connotation and don't pretend it doesn't. It's the same as saying the "darkies".

I don't argue marriage isn't between a man and a woman, I don't know why you are telling me that. And yes, it is spelled marriage.

"not all queers should die." Well jeez, you plan on letting SOME live? How incredibly generous of you! Our founding fathers would be proud to see the tolerance at work by the religion which many of them dispised in the first place.

Your last 4 sentences make reference to gay marriage and how marriage is between a man and a woman. I don't disagree, so why are you arguing that with me, as it is completely off topic of what we were discussing. I never once brought up gay marriage.

Since you brought up how tolerant your religion is, and how being intolerant would make you less of a Christian, I thought I'd bring up some fun facts!

1. What punishment did God say is mandatory for an unruly child?

Correct answer: D. (Stoning To Death) "And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die" (Deuteronomy 21:20-21). "For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death" (Mark 7:10). "And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death" (Exodus 21:15). "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death (Exodus 21:17)."

2. What is God's punishment for women who wear showy jewelry and clothing?

Correct answer: C. (Ugliness, misery and death) "In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments about their feet, and their cauls, and their round tires like the moon. The chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers, The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings, The rings, and nose jewels. The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins, The glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the vails. And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; and burning instead of beauty. Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy might in the war. And her gates shall lament and mourn: and she being desolate shall sit upon the ground" (Isaiah 3:17-26).

5. What is the punishment for a single mother having a boy out of wedlock?

Correct answer: D. (The woman may not be punished but the child and his descendants will go straight to Hell) "A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord: even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord" (Deuteronomy 23:2).

[Etienne]

Ewrue The Veracious wrote: not all words just that one. and england has pissed on their hgeratige by extending a sacrament to those who missed the point of it. i am not aginst civil unions but that is not amerrage. they shouldn't be allowed to adopt children or other things that would prove socilly damageing. i have heared all they seem to want is visitation rights and to be allowed to inherit their civil unions assats fine i am okay with that. but they shouldn't be allowed to stomp on the sacraments of the church.

They aren't trying to stomp on the sacraments of the church. They want equal protection under the law. They want their relationships recognized by the State.

And gays adopting children...

Quote: http://naic.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/f_gay/f_gayb.cfm

"Children will develop problems growing up in an 'unnatural' lifestyle."

Courts have expressed concern that children raised by gay and lesbian parents may have difficulties with their personal and psychological development, self-esteem, and social and peer relationships. Because of this concern, researchers have focused on children's development in gay and lesbian families.

The studies conclude that children of gay or lesbian parents are no different than their counterparts raised by heterosexual parents. In "Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents," a 1992 article in Child Development, Charlotte Patterson states, "Despite dire predictions about children based on well-known theories of psychosocial development, and despite the accumulation of a substantial body of research investigating these issues, not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents."

Psychiatrist Laurintine Fromm, of the Institute of Pennsylvania Hospital, agrees with that finding. "[The] literature...does not indicate that these children fare any worse [than those of heterosexual parents] in any area of psychological development or sexual identity formation. A parent's capacity to be respectful and supportive of the child's autonomy and to maintain her own intimate attachments, far outweighs the influence of the parent's sexual orientation alone."

Quote: http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/11824res19990406.html

Research Overview of Lesbian and Gay Parenting1

All of the research to date has reached the same unequivocal conclusion about gay parenting: the children of lesbian and gay parents grow up as successfully as the children of heterosexual parents. In fact, not a single study has found the children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged because of their parents' sexual orientation. Other key findings include:

Quote: http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/parents.html

Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents

As the social visibility and legal status of lesbian and gay parents has increased, three major concerns about the influence of lesbian and gay parents on children have been often voiced (Falk, 1994; Patterson, Fulcher & Wainright, 2002). One is that the children of lesbian and gay parents will experience more difficulties in the area of sexual identity than children of heterosexual parents. For instance, one such concern is that children brought up by lesbian mothers or gay fathers will show disturbances in gender identity and/or in gender role behavior. A second category of concerns involves aspects of children's personal development other than sexual identity. For example, some observers have expressed fears that children in the custody of gay or lesbian parents would be more vulnerable to mental breakdown, would exhibit more adjustment difficulties and behavior problems, or would be less psychologically healthy than other children. A third category of concerns is that children of lesbian and gay parents will experience difficulty in social relationships. For example, some observers have expressed concern that children living with lesbian mothers or gay fathers will be stigmatized, teased, or otherwise victimized by peers. Another common fear is that children living with gay or lesbian parents will be more likely to be sexually abused by the parent or by the parent's friends or acquaintances.

Results of social science research have failed to confirm any of these concerns about children of lesbian and gay parents (Patterson, 2000, 2004a; Perrin, 2002; Tasker, 1999). Research suggests that sexual identities (including gender identity, gender-role behavior, and sexual orientation) develop in much the same ways among children of lesbian mothers as they do among children of heterosexual parents (Patterson, 2004a). Studies of other aspects of personal development (including personality, self-concept, and conduct) similarly reveal few differences between children of lesbian mothers and children of heterosexual parents (Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; Tasker, 1999). However, few data regarding these concerns are available for children of gay fathers (Patterson, 2004b). Evidence also suggests that children of lesbian and gay parents have normal social relationships with peers and adults (Patterson, 2000, 2004a; Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; Tasker, 1999; Tasker & Golombok, 1997). The picture that emerges from research is one of general engagement in social life with peers, parents, family members, and friends. Fears about children of lesbian or gay parents being sexually abused by adults, ostracized by peers, or isolated in single-sex lesbian or gay communities have received no scientific support. Overall, results of research suggest that the development, adjustment, and well-being of children with lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from that of children with heterosexual parents.

Studies indicate that children raised by homosexuals fare no worse than children raised by heterosexuals.

[Carl]

Etienne wrote: So words now only have 1 meaning?

Marriage, in this context, has one definition. It really doesn't matter if a government allows same-gender "marriages", marriage predates government as we know it, and has witnessed the rise and fall of many governments.

Calling it a 'Marriage' does not make it so. It's an exercise in self-deception. There is an idea intrinsic to the term Marriage, that idea remains unchanged, despite what any government might do.

Those gays can pretend that they are married, but "Gay Marriage" remains a contradiction in terms.

And as regards rights, which you claim were being denied, you remain factually incorrect. Every American has identical rights, under identical terms, with regard to marriage.

[Etienne]

Carl wrote: Etienne wrote: So words now only have 1 meaning?

Marriage, in this context, has one definition. It really doesn't matter if a government allows same-gender "marriages", marriage predates government as we know it, and has witnessed the rise and fall of many governments.

Calling it a 'Marriage' does not make it so. It's an exercise in self-deception. There is an idea intrinsic to the term Marriage, that idea remains unchanged, despite what any government might do.

Those gays can pretend that they are married, but "Gay Marriage" remains a contradiction in terms.

And as regards rights, which you claim were being denied, you remain factually incorrect. Every American has identical rights, under identical terms, with regard to marriage.

Are homosexual relationships recognized by the State? Do they receive the same benefits awarded to heterosexual marriages?

If not, then why aren't they recognized? What valid reason do you offer to deny homosexuals in loving committed relationships the benefits awarded to heterosexual marriages?

[Gremlin]

I see this gay marriage thing going on almost forever, sad really.
Just give them the same rights and call it something else and be done with it already.

[Carl]

Etienne wrote: What valid reason do you offer to deny homosexuals in loving committed relationships the benefits awarded to heterosexual marriages?

I have not yet offered any opinon on benefits.

The benefits that accrue to the married are external to what Marriage is. They are offered by agencies for whatever reasons those agencies desire to offer them. But the benefits are not what defines the idea, or the term, Marriage.

Gays, or anyone for that matter, can have whatever they can entice any agency to offer them, for whatever reasons they can think up that are persuasive to them.

But gays cannot be "Married", for Marriage is a purely heterosexual idea. Intrinsic to that idea is the expression of the duality of nature, as represented by human gender. Gay is not a third gender.

[Etienne]

Carl wrote: Etienne wrote: What valid reason do you offer to deny homosexuals in loving committed relationships the benefits awarded to heterosexual marriages?

I have not yet offered any opinon on benefits.

The benefits that accrue to the married are external to what Marriage is. They are offered by agencies for whatever reasons those agencies desire to offer them. But the benefits are not what defines the idea, or the term, Marriage.

Gays, or anyone for that matter, can have whatever they can entice any agency to offer them, for whatever reasons they can think up that are persuasive to them.

But gays cannot be "Married", for Marriage is a purely heterosexual idea. Intrinsic to that idea is the expression of the duality of nature, as represented by human gender. Gay is not a third gender.

Let me repost what I said earlier...

Let's call Civil Unions social contract between two consenting unrelated adults, who love and honor each other, and are committed to each other. Civil Unions will be recognized by the State, and will be performed by a Justice of the Peace. Marriages will be religious ceremonies, conducted in a religious setting, and performed by a religious leader. However they will not be recognized by the State, and therefore will not receive societal benefits awarded to Civil Unions.

This is a win-win for everyone. Gays get their relationships recognized by the State, and marriage remains a religious sacrament.

Would you be OK with this?

[The Impeacher]

Carl wrote: The Impeacher wrote: first off, note the use of "quotes"

Okay, so you were being sarcastic?

The Impeacher wrote: secondly, why should anyone else have to give a s**t about your so-called "ideals"?

They shouldn't. Fortunately for them I made no reference to my ideals, but only to the implicit idea inside the phrase "to tolerate".

Which was the point. Have you anything to contribute to the point?

no, you clearly stated tolerate means conditions "less than ideal".

what, excatly, is less than ideal? you were the one who brought it up, so why dont you explain your significant contribution to my point?

do you have some issues with other people's freedom, friend? do you think "tolerance" means settling for "less than"? it seems that you do, otherwise i see no reason why you would have brought it up?

please clarify.

[The Impeacher]

Carl wrote:

But gays cannot be "Married", for Marriage is a purely heterosexual idea. Intrinsic to that idea is the expression of the duality of nature, as represented by human gender. Gay is not a third gender.

marriage is a legal concept, not a law of nature.

[Gnostic]

Carl wrote: Etienne wrote: What valid reason do you offer to deny homosexuals in loving committed relationships the benefits awarded to heterosexual marriages?

I have not yet offered any opinon on benefits.

The benefits that accrue to the married are external to what Marriage is. They are offered by agencies for whatever reasons those agencies desire to offer them. But the benefits are not what defines the idea, or the term, Marriage.

Gays, or anyone for that matter, can have whatever they can entice any agency to offer them, for whatever reasons they can think up that are persuasive to them.

But gays cannot be "Married", for Marriage is a purely heterosexual idea. Intrinsic to that idea is the expression of the duality of nature, as represented by human gender. Gay is not a third gender.

Marriage is purely a hetero idea? Says who? You?

Why is it then that so many gay couples desire marriage? Are they just clowning around? :roll:

The Repubs and the Dems both claim to want to encourage family values and strengthen relationships and households in America. But they use that rhetoric only to ingratiate themselves in further with the christian and do-gooder crowds for votes. It's obvious they could'nt care less about any of that, because if they did they would'nt DISCRIMINATE against people who wish for only the same. And these are people who are NOT going to change, are in long lasting life-long loving and caring relationships that make MANY hetero relationships look empty by comparison. How many abusive straight relationships are there? How many do you hear coming out of the gay community? Go check your local court records sometime, it may be an eye opener for you.

But the point is, it's nothing but pure discrimination and bigotry to deny responsible, hard working and contributing members of society the full priveleges and rights of marriage that any other HUMAN BEING can get, regardless of sex. And it's really none of your business what sex they are anyway......you're not sleeping with them, are you? So why should it even matter? Tell me ONE SINGLE THING that makes you any better than they are, or any more entitled to recite vows to another person. I bet you personally can't, without justifying it with governmental intrusionist policies put in place by puritans and hypocrites that are a product from the Dark Ages.

[connermt]

Ewrue The Veracious wrote: Why do hollywood producers insist on only markiting and produsing movies about Queers. why must everything inthe world include less than .1% of the population every T.V. show has a queer on it there have been several movies about queer shepards in wyoming. I lived in wyoming there are now queers there lots of shepards however, but that is beside the point. the more crap that media pumps out about queers the more i dislike their cause. the best thing for queers to do is keep it to them selves and quit forcing your belifes down our throughts or i might just start focing my catholic views down your throat.
I understand your point. Here are a couple points of my own:
1) TV people will make ANYTHING that they think will produce $; they have just jumped on the GAY BAND WAGGON recently, something else will come their way & they will jump on that
2) I can't speak for anyone you know, but TV is only 'pushing' something down your throat that you are letting them. If you don't want to watch gay TV shows/movies, then don't. I don't like to see maxi-pad comercials on the TV at dinner time, but they are there. Some things (in this case TV commercials about a gay movie or TV show) you have to live with.
3) Again, I can't speak for you, but one could say the same thing about 'forcing catholic views' down our throats. I see church shows on TV all the time, I see bilboards on the road, commercials on the radio, 'church people' getting involved in politics to make certain things illegal because they believe a certain way, etc.
So before you (or anyone) says anything about people forcing gay things down our throats, look at what the religios people are doing as well. I would say, if it were a contest of who is showving the most down our throats, the 'church' (catholics, christianity, etc) are winning

[LibertySword06]

I only read the first few posts but I really think that our media companies in this country are really trying to make homosexuallity appear socially acceptable. I don't really care who another person decides to have sex with. However I don't broadcast / make public my own sexual experiences or preferences. If I have a one night stand with some girl from a local bar. It is not like I go into every queers home and put on every channel the whole night from buying her a drink to getting oral sex.

My point is short and clear, I really dislike and think its unappropriate for homosexuality to be promoted the way it is on television and movies. Its so sad when young girls now think its okay socially to like and have sex with other girls (adolescents and up) If thats who they are fine, but I know that a long time ago (before I was born) if that was who you were, you didnt think it was okay and you didn't make it public knowlege and march around town with a damn rainbow flag and talk about how you were oppressed!

[StrangerWitCandy]

Carl wrote: Etienne wrote: So words now only have 1 meaning?

Marriage, in this context, has one definition. It really doesn't matter if a government allows same-gender "marriages", marriage predates government as we know it, and has witnessed the rise and fall of many governments.

Calling it a 'Marriage' does not make it so. It's an exercise in self-deception. There is an idea intrinsic to the term Marriage, that idea remains unchanged, despite what any government might do.

Those gays can pretend that they are married, but "Gay Marriage" remains a contradiction in terms.

And as regards rights, which you claim were being denied, you remain factually incorrect. Every American has identical rights, under identical terms, with regard to marriage.

By your logic divorce cannot exist. Believe it or not, marriage has not remained an unchanged institution over time. Quite the contrary actually.