Political Crossfire Forums

[connermt]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: connermt wrote: Quote: Homosexuality challenges the very notion of patriarchal society that has sustained the society for generation after generation. It challenges the patriarchal society by seeking to redefine the gender roles. Indeed, if homosexuality is accepted, the very foundation of the society will be altered in that patriarchy will be challenged in its supremacy.
This point is baseless. Many other societies have same sex marriage & are doing fine :roll:

Doing fine by what measures? If anything, these societies are morally decadant places.

connermt wrote: Quote: Frankly, Homosexuals already have the same level of legal protection as others. They, however, want to push beyond these existing legal protections in an attempt to foster social tolerance for themselves.... Being that you are gay I am sure you are an expert in this matter. They do NOT have the same level of protection. Only stupid people see it this way (if the shoe fits...)

Yes, I'm an expert on this matter and I can tell this is a case of "give them an inch, they want a mile". :x

connermt wrote: Quote: ...One has to wonder why sexual orientation should become part of the legal equality. Exactly, why does it? Why can't people be considered equal? Thanks for making that point!

What point is that? It's clear that sexual orientation should be excluded from the definition of equality.

connermt wrote: Quote: Ok, let's look at this from a sociological point of view: every single member of the society is disciplined by the society in subtle ways to behave in certain ways. I don't see why homosexuals seek intervention from the state to escape this disciplining force of the society. I am glad things have changed over the past 200 years in this country & I am glad you had no say in those changes. Go buy a woman, get in your horse drawn carriage, go back to your mountain shack & live your life as the hermit you should be.

It's quite clear that many have been conditioned from an early age to accept homosexuality as normal. That's a clear problem, which should be dealt with. Demonizing homosexuality is a good way to turn the tide.

connermt wrote: Quote: One could be a homosexual and not practice homosexuality. I don't see anything wrong with not practicing homosexuality. That is a choice many have made. but that doesn't mean it is the only choice available.

So the others who don't make that choice should be prepared to live with the consequences of them practicing homosexuality.

connermt wrote: Quote: It's a lesson to prevent their lifestyle from challenging the existing patriarchy in the society. Again, if you or anyone else beats their children they should be dealt with accordingly. If you beat your children for the sake of society you are stupid & sick

No one is advocating abuse here. What is being advocated is discipline and enforcing moral values.

connermt wrote: Quote: Again, it's very simple. The patriarchy has driven the society for many many years, but suddenly there are these people with an agenda that want to destroy patriarchy and the consequences will be grave for the society. Crazy ramblings of a paranoid person. NEWS FLASH: Gays just didn't SUDDENLY appear Captain Obvious.... :wink:

Yes, certainly, but they were in the closet for many years. Now they are forcing the whole society to live by their rules and tolerate them.

connermt wrote: Quote: The marriage of homosexuals, however, challenges and alters this institution. Of course it does, but you still have not proven that it is negative in any way. No one can because it isn't negative.

Of course, the promiscous sodomites will attempt to portray their ways as something positive, but people should know better and not fall for it.

http://www.bibleprobe.com/homosexuality.htm

UrielsFyre wrote: I am a virtuous person. Just, not by the standards YOU deem to be virtuous.

Oh, and I am only a university student for 4 more weeks. After that, I will have finished my Master's.

Congrats, I hope that leads to a more virtuous life for you. :tu:

The Underground wrote: The patriarchal society has already been mostly done away with. Most families share decisions, some dads stay at home, some moms stay at home. "Gender roles" are so 20th century.

The patriarchal society is pretty much alive these days. It has just come under pressure by the forces of the progressive movement. Weakening the progressives is the key to achieving anything notable.


Quote: Doing fine by what measures? If anything, these societies are morally decadant places. They are doing fine - you are one to speak of morality :roll:

Quote: Yes, I'm an expert on this matter and I can tell this is a case of "give them an inch, they want a mile". <-- ignorant comment - nothing else to say about this

Quote: What point is that? It's clear that sexual orientation should be excluded from the definition of equality. Ugh - this just shows your lack of any piece of intelligence. DoI have to actually show you? So be it: You said:'one has to wonder why sexual orientation should become part of the legal equality'. That is exactly my point; sexuality should have no (see 0) weight on being treated equal. Therefore, everyone should be treated equal regardless of their sexuality.

Quote: It's quite clear that many have been conditioned from an early age to accept homosexuality as normal. That's a clear problem, which should be dealt with. Demonizing homosexuality is a good way to turn the tide. Good grief... are you really this ignorant or do you just like to hear yourself talk? This is only a problem to you & people like you which are the minority & getting smaller everyday (thanks to stupid rants like yours). I guess we should say thank you for that!

Quote: So the others who don't make that choice should be prepared to live with the consequences of them practicing homosexuality. There are consequences for EVERYTHING in life, regardless of a person's sexuality. Life in general isn't easy, regardless of gay or straight. Hate filled, frightened people like yourself make it difficult for everyone.

Quote: No one is advocating abuse here. What is being advocated is discipline and enforcing moral values. Twice you specifically spoke of BEATING. Beating someone is NOT discipline. To disciplining someone who you THINK is gay is beyond stupid.

Quote: Yes, certainly, but they were in the closet for many years. Now they are forcing the whole society to live by their rules and tolerate them. No one is forcing anyone to live by their rules or tolerate anyone. Are you really that dense in the head? Is it really possilbe that people in the 21st century are a crazy as you?!? In regards to marriage, gay people just want to same legal rights that straight people have.

Quote: Of course, the promiscous sodomites will attempt to portray their ways as something positive, but people should know better and not fall for it. Since you are referring to sodomites, I gather you are referring to Sodom & Gamora in the OT? If memory serves, S&G was filled with people doing all sorts of things - gay & straight alike.


I sincerly hope you are doing this rant just to hear yourself talk - I hope you are not this ignorant. If you are, please stay in you mountain hut with your sister/wife. I am sure you would feel most comfortable in this environment.
:tu:

[Conserv\Traditionalist]

The Bible has had a major effect on America. To say otherwise would be to remain ignorant of the effect the Bible on our leaders (past and present),
our values, our people, and our way of life. Of our forefathers, the Bible was the most read book.

[connermt]

ConservTraditionalist wrote: The Bible has had a major effect on America. To say otherwise would be to remain ignorant of the effect the Bible on our leaders (past and present),
our values, our people, and our way of life. Of our forefathers, the Bible was the most read book.

Personally, I don't dispute that the Bible was (& is) very influential in American life & culture. And isn't it still the most read book in the world?!?
The Toyota Camry is the best selling car in the US & has had a profound effect on American society & economics. That doesn't mean it is the right car for everyone nor is it the best car out there. Maybe for a family, it is the best car. But not for a car enthusiast. The same can (& is being )said of the Bible. Everyone has a right in this country to belief in what they want (& buy what car they want), but NO ONE has the right to force their beliefs (or automotive choice) on someone else.

[Conserv\Traditionalist]

You're right, but we do have the right to vote on our beliefs. Everyone does.

[connermt]

Conserv\Traditionalist wrote: You're right, but we do have the right to vote on our beliefs. Everyone does.

See, that's a problem - VOTING on your beliefs. My beliefs are mine regardless of what the vote shows to be the majority view point. Placing religious ideals into gov't pratice may work with a small community, but when it increases in size AND we are told we have free religious beliefs - all are welcome - THEN you can't put your religious views into gov't any longer, because you are taking your religious beliefs & placing them onto others who don't share that same view point.
That is one problem with America today - trying to place a religious ideal (one or more ideals) into pratice when not everyone beliefs these ideals are correct &/or just.

[ToonArmyIsComing]

The Underground wrote: You dear sir are a homophobic bigot.

No, I'm not a homophobic bigot, but I sure sounded like one. I apologize.

connermt wrote: I sincerly hope you are doing this rant just to hear yourself talk - I hope you are not this ignorant. If you are, please stay in you mountain hut with your sister/wife. I am sure you would feel most comfortable in this environment. :tu:

I apologize. I was just arguing for the sake of better understanding what the homophobic family groups are all about. This thread really had educational value.

I have no ill feelings towards the homosexuals as I am a closet bi myself.

UrielsFyre wrote: I am a virtuous person. Just, not by the standards YOU deem to be virtuous.

I think I owe an apology to you as well. I am sure that you are a virtuous person. Hope you didn't take all the BS that I said seriously.

[spearsy23]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: The Underground wrote: You dear sir are a homophobic bigot.

No, I'm not a homophobic bigot, but I sure sounded like one. I apologize.

connermt wrote: I sincerly hope you are doing this rant just to hear yourself talk - I hope you are not this ignorant. If you are, please stay in you mountain hut with your sister/wife. I am sure you would feel most comfortable in this environment. :tu:

I apologize. I was just arguing for the sake of better understanding what the homophobic family groups are all about. This thread really had educational value.

I have no ill feelings towards the homosexuals as I am a closet bi myself.

UrielsFyre wrote: I am a virtuous person. Just, not by the standards YOU deem to be virtuous.

I think I owe an apology to you as well. I am sure that you are a virtuous person. Hope you didn't take all the BS that I said seriously.

*scratches head* erm... o...kay.

[ToonArmyIsComing]

The Underground wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote: The Underground wrote: You dear sir are a homophobic bigot.

No, I'm not a homophobic bigot, but I sure sounded like one. I apologize.

connermt wrote: I sincerly hope you are doing this rant just to hear yourself talk - I hope you are not this ignorant. If you are, please stay in you mountain hut with your sister/wife. I am sure you would feel most comfortable in this environment. :tu:

I apologize. I was just arguing for the sake of better understanding what the homophobic family groups are all about. This thread really had educational value.

I have no ill feelings towards the homosexuals as I am a closet bi myself.

UrielsFyre wrote: I am a virtuous person. Just, not by the standards YOU deem to be virtuous.

I think I owe an apology to you as well. I am sure that you are a virtuous person. Hope you didn't take all the BS that I said seriously.

*scratches head* erm... o...kay.

I was actually surprised with the strong reaction that my first post got in this thread as it was supposed to be sarcasm and I thought people will realize it considering that I post a lot here. I guess none of you has ever seen any of my posts. :!oops: :-|

[spearsy23]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: I was actually surprised with the strong reaction that my first post got in this thread as it was supposed to be sarcasm and I thought people will realize it considering that I post a lot here. I guess none of you has ever seen any of my posts. :!oops: :-|
:!oops: We really need a sarcasm emoticon :roll: :-| :wink: :bang: :blah: :gdgf: :ah:

[Conserv\Traditionalist]

connermt wrote: ConservTraditionalist wrote: You're right, but we do have the right to vote on our beliefs. Everyone does.

See, that's a problem - VOTING on your beliefs. My beliefs are mine regardless of what the vote shows to be the majority view point. Placing religious ideals into gov't pratice may work with a small community, but when it increases in size AND we are told we have free religious beliefs - all are welcome - THEN you can't put your religious views into gov't any longer, because you are taking your religious beliefs & placing them onto others who don't share that same view point.
That is one problem with America today - trying to place a religious ideal (one or more ideals) into pratice when not everyone beliefs these ideals are correct &/or just.

Are you not voting on your beliefs? Beliefs and ideas will always be connected to how we vote. There is no such thing as an amoral government. Governments themselves are founded on beliefs of the people who make them and different people have different beliefs on the way government should work.

The United States government is unique in that the people can influence the government indirectly. The majority may seem to rule, but the checks and balances protect everyone. Look at it this way, without beliefs, no one would need to vote.

Have a belief on government finances? Vote on it.
Have a belief on the military? Vote on it.
Government changes in education? Vote on it.

Feel the need to protect society, your family, your way of life?
Well.... Vote on it.

[Enoch]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: The Underground wrote: You dear sir are a homophobic bigot.

No, I'm not a homophobic bigot, but I sure sounded like one. I apologize.

connermt wrote: I sincerly hope you are doing this rant just to hear yourself talk - I hope you are not this ignorant. If you are, please stay in you mountain hut with your sister/wife. I am sure you would feel most comfortable in this environment. :tu:

I apologize. I was just arguing for the sake of better understanding what the homophobic family groups are all about. This thread really had educational value.

I have no ill feelings towards the homosexuals as I am a closet bi myself.

UrielsFyre wrote: I am a virtuous person. Just, not by the standards YOU deem to be virtuous.

I think I owe an apology to you as well. I am sure that you are a virtuous person. Hope you didn't take all the BS that I said seriously.
Thank you for the apology, I appreciate that.

I have seen you post in may threads, but I have also seen people change their points of view on things. We had no choice but to take you at your word. And, if I must be blunt and honest here, this thread has removed a lot of respect I have had for you as a poster. It will be quite some time before I am able to believe what you post on here. I don't trust people who feel the need to lie and mislead to get a point across, or serve an educational value.

[ToonArmyIsComing]

UrielsFyre wrote: Thank you for the apology, I appreciate that.

I have seen you post in may threads, but I have also seen people change their points of view on things. We had no choice but to take you at your word. And, if I must be blunt and honest here, this thread has removed a lot of respect I have had for you as a poster. It will be quite some time before I am able to believe what you post on here. I don't trust people who feel the need to lie and mislead to get a point across, or serve an educational value.

That's fair. I think I deserve that as I probably took it too far. I apologize once again.

Though, I did find a lot of anti-gay websites that made me fall out of my chair laughing/crying when I was trying to articulate the "let's ostracize the gays" master plan. For example:

"Ford Motor Company has proven its commitment to the homosexual agenda by sponsoring a TV program featuring a passionate kiss between two lesbians." taken from: http://www.boycottford.com/

*scratching head* :shock: :-|

And much to my dismay, these groups are actually increasingly successful:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0705-03.htm

[spearsy23]

UrielsFyre wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote: The Underground wrote: You dear sir are a homophobic bigot.

No, I'm not a homophobic bigot, but I sure sounded like one. I apologize.

connermt wrote: I sincerly hope you are doing this rant just to hear yourself talk - I hope you are not this ignorant. If you are, please stay in you mountain hut with your sister/wife. I am sure you would feel most comfortable in this environment. :tu:

I apologize. I was just arguing for the sake of better understanding what the homophobic family groups are all about. This thread really had educational value.

I have no ill feelings towards the homosexuals as I am a closet bi myself.

UrielsFyre wrote: I am a virtuous person. Just, not by the standards YOU deem to be virtuous.

I think I owe an apology to you as well. I am sure that you are a virtuous person. Hope you didn't take all the BS that I said seriously.
Thank you for the apology, I appreciate that.

I have seen you post in may threads, but I have also seen people change their points of view on things. We had no choice but to take you at your word. And, if I must be blunt and honest here, this thread has removed a lot of respect I have had for you as a poster. It will be quite some time before I am able to believe what you post on here. I don't trust people who feel the need to lie and mislead to get a point across, or serve an educational value.
See that's the problem i don't generally look at poster across threads unless they are obvious nut jobs *cough*robodoon tookie*cough* or take the same view as me on alot of issues. And then there's scholar, and a few others that are just memorable.

[Sage Orator]

Quote: I do know that a slippery slope will happen so long as it slides through the courts and not through the legislature. Consider Romer, specifically Scalia's scathing dissent, and you will come to the same conclusion. The writer of the above calling this argument a fallacy and 'proving' it is a fallacy by using fallacies himself (but but but murderers get married!) gave me quite a chuckle. In truth it is wholly valid to pointout that the exact same arguments in favor of gay marriage have bee and continue to be used in justifying the subjectation of women through polygamous relationships, and, considering Romer and say, the Utah Constitution... well, it is a matter of years before it all comes to a head.
Quote: Why "civil union"? What would that pervent? Nothing. Polygamy would still be allowed if this went through the courts. It is frankly undeniable. I believe it is also near certianity that incest would be "legalized" and a high probabolity that laws against beastiality ruled unconstitutional.
Well this is an interesting point. The facts are though that all of the countries that legalized same sex marriage did not have polygamy follow. Though I haven't researched it I believe that this is true for countries who allow civil unions as well. It is certainly deniable, though it seems like this would happen using certain logic, it has yet to do so. Also, same sex marriage has not been used for the advancement of polygamy. Sodomy being legalized has been used more often.

Quote: The author comes up with a few other numbers that are questionable, starts talking about how the world would be better off with less people, calls marriage a "right," and has all sorts of other problems, but I'm at work.
Quote: Homosexuals can "marry." Just probabbly not whom they want. Too bad, I want a rich powerful woman. I can't marry whomever I want either.
Marriage is certainly a right. Although we are not allowed to say certain things about people without proof it is still a Constitutional right. As I have stated recently, this is not about the right to marry a certain individual, it is about the right to marry a gender. There is a huge difference.

[connermt]

Conserv\Traditionalist wrote: connermt wrote: ConservTraditionalist wrote: You're right, but we do have the right to vote on our beliefs. Everyone does.

See, that's a problem - VOTING on your beliefs. My beliefs are mine regardless of what the vote shows to be the majority view point. Placing religious ideals into gov't pratice may work with a small community, but when it increases in size AND we are told we have free religious beliefs - all are welcome - THEN you can't put your religious views into gov't any longer, because you are taking your religious beliefs & placing them onto others who don't share that same view point.
That is one problem with America today - trying to place a religious ideal (one or more ideals) into pratice when not everyone beliefs these ideals are correct &/or just.

Are you not voting on your beliefs? Beliefs and ideas will always be connected to how we vote. There is no such thing as an amoral government. Governments themselves are founded on beliefs of the people who make them and different people have different beliefs on the way government should work.

The United States government is unique in that the people can influence the government indirectly. The majority may seem to rule, but the checks and balances protect everyone. Look at it this way, without beliefs, no one would need to vote.

Have a belief on government finances? Vote on it.
Have a belief on the military? Vote on it.
Government changes in education? Vote on it.

Feel the need to protect society, your family, your way of life?
Well.... Vote on it.

My fault - I should have been more clear.
Most everyone's beliefs are based on some type of religious influence (I would assume probably 99% of people but that's JMO).
But religion, as a whole, has no place in a gov't that allows freedom of religion, simply because morality is individual - you can't force it successfully on the masses. So voting on a religious belief (only), has a negative effect on a gov't that encourages freedom of religion.

[Darkharmony]

I don't want to analyze that essay but I'll give my 2 cents:

Homosexuality is meaningless in nature. The whole point of nature is to pro-create and continue the species. Homosexuals are (wasting sperm and eggs so to speak :lol: ) Anyway, as we all know the church is also opposed to gays. Some extreme gay-activists have even said that God is homophobic.

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13.

With scriptures like those I don't blame them!

[Conserv\Traditionalist]

That's a strange way to put it, Darkharmony, but the people in question believe themselves to be that way naturally. So they fall in love with someone and naturally want to get married. No matter if there is no natural way to pro-create, they think they have found thier role in life and seek to play it out.

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Darkharmony wrote: Homosexuality is meaningless in nature. The whole point of nature is to pro-create and continue the species. Homosexuals are (wasting sperm and eggs so to speak :lol: ) Anyway, as we all know the church is also opposed to gays. Some extreme gay-activists have even said that God is homophobic.

I am often amused by people claiming that something is against the nature as if they fully understand the nature ... human beings have been doing things that have nothing to do with nature or are even against nature for a long time now. I don't see why when it comes to homosexuality, the "nature" argument comes out.

Besides, you know that homosexual behaviors have been observed in animals. Is that against nature too? :?

[spearsy23]

Conserv\Traditionalist wrote: That's a strange way to put it, Darkharmony, but the people in question believe themselves to be that way naturally. So they fall in love with someone and naturally want to get married. No matter if there is no natural way to pro-create, they think they have found thier role in life and seek to play it out.

Are you attracted to women? When did you decide to be attracted to women?

Homosexuals can reproduce at a faster rate than hetero's can, think about it two gay guys impregnating two different surogat mothers :think:

[Conserv\Traditionalist]

The Underground wrote: ConservTraditionalist wrote: That's a strange way to put it, Darkharmony, but the people in question believe themselves to be that way naturally. So they fall in love with someone and naturally want to get married. No matter if there is no natural way to pro-create, they think they have found thier role in life and seek to play it out.

Are you attracted to women? When did you decide to be attracted to women?

Homosexuals can reproduce at a faster rate than hetero's can, think about it two gay guys impregnating two different surogat mothers :think:

Did I say something wrong here? I don't think so but maybe I did.
In away I guess I just defended homosexuals.

If you look on some of my posts I believe that I haven't been pounding on
the "choice of sexuality" debate as much as others.

Why is it that homosexuals claim that they are truly in love and then those
that defend homosexuality condone cheating on their homosexual partners as a way of reproducing?

Think about it, two gays have sex with two lesbians and reproduce just as
fast as two pairs of heteros. Let us put to rest that useless debate.

Please realize that the "fundamentalist" here is not always attacking.
I would much rather see understanding of both sides.

Best wishes to you all.