Post Reply
Page 55 of 70  •  Prev 1 ... 53 54 55 56 57 ... 70 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Federal court rules centerpiece of gay marriage law unconstitutional
2 years ago  ::  Jun 17, 2012 - 7:37PM #541
amcolph
Posts: 17,387

Jun 17, 2012 -- 7:15PM, Bodean wrote:


Jun 17, 2012 -- 7:06PM, amcolph wrote:


LOL!


 


In other words, SSM is bad because THE LEFT approves of it and it is a foot in the door for the rest of their EVIL AGENDA.


 





I was hoping for a more engaged response.  But ... I see.


Evil is in the eyes of the beholder .. is it not??  I may think Leftism is less than ideal, with bad outcomes ... but many, do not see it that way.


I respect that they have their own opinion ... even though I disagree with it, I can still respect it.



The "Right" actually has many good ideas.  I'm just afraid of the weird religion.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 17, 2012 - 7:44PM #542
TENAC
Posts: 25,663

Jun 17, 2012 -- 6:28PM, costrel wrote:


Jun 17, 2012 -- 4:41PM, TENAC wrote:

A man and a woman in a monogamous marriage is the most stabilizing structure in society today and historically.  You have no other example of that in an alterntive combination.  But the emotion of inequity and guilt the left lives with is hard to overcome.


I disagree. I think that the extended family, the clan, the tribe, and the colony (such as a Hutterite Colony) are the most stabalizing family structures in society, today and historically, and these structures exist in societies that practice monogamy, polygamy, and/or polyandry. The modern American nuclear family of one man, one woman, and a few children is a disaster, as we see witnessed time and time again, not only in the wake of a divorce or the sickness or death of one of the two parents, but also on a daily basis when both parents are healthy and working and trying and struggling to support themselves and their children. Extended families that include parents, children, aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents, great-grandparents, and other close and distant relatives (such as additional husbands and wives), all living either together in the same dwelling or within the same community is the most successful and stabalizing family structure. And like I said, this kind of structure exists regardless of whether those families are monogamous, polygamous, or polyandrous. I am not sure why conservatives favor the ruinous one man, one woman American nuclear family, but I have to correct you and remind you that it is not the most stabalizing family structure -- not today or historically.




Well, those Hoots, seems they never overcame the colony status.  I dont think you can rightly hold them up as an example of a successful society.  I believe they have pretty well peaked.  Now if that is your measure of success, I am sure they have a few openings.


I am not going to argue, nor look up the Hooterites.  I will give you that.  Tell me, do they tolerate ssm?  Are they into it?  How's it working for them?


I absolutely agree that extended families being part of the make up of the strength in the US.  How many extended homosexual familes do you reckon there are?   I seriously doubt you find any beyond one, maybe two generations.  It is simply not a successful societal model.



I pointed out in an earlier post that most of the destruction of the family in this country can be laid on the feet of no fault divorce.  Re no responsibility divorce.

Any man can count the seeds in an apple....
.......but only God can count the apples in the seeds.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 17, 2012 - 7:45PM #543
TENAC
Posts: 25,663

Jun 17, 2012 -- 7:06PM, amcolph wrote:


LOL!


 


In other words, SSM is bad because THE LEFT approves of it and it is a foot in the door for the rest of their EVIL AGENDA.


 




You're getting there, but EVIL AGENDA, those are your words.


But that is the typical modus operandi for liberalism.

Any man can count the seeds in an apple....
.......but only God can count the apples in the seeds.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 17, 2012 - 7:54PM #544
amcolph
Posts: 17,387

Jun 17, 2012 -- 7:45PM, TENAC wrote:


Jun 17, 2012 -- 7:06PM, amcolph wrote:


LOL!


 


In other words, SSM is bad because THE LEFT approves of it and it is a foot in the door for the rest of their EVIL AGENDA.


 




You're getting there, but EVIL AGENDA, those are your words.


But that is the typical modus operandi for liberalism.



What?  No sense of humor, TENAC?  Why am I not surprised.


But I would rather have an inexperienced and marginally effective president like Obama than anybody who owes anything at all to the Religious Right.


It might be a good thing for the country right now to have an experienced businessman at the helm right now--even a pirate like Romney, if he can remember to keep the prosperity of the country in mind rather than just the prosperity of his buddies.


But just watch: he'll have to pander to the religious extremists in his choice of running mate just like McCain did.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 17, 2012 - 7:58PM #545
TENAC
Posts: 25,663

Jun 17, 2012 -- 7:54PM, amcolph wrote:


Jun 17, 2012 -- 7:45PM, TENAC wrote:


Jun 17, 2012 -- 7:06PM, amcolph wrote:


LOL!


 


In other words, SSM is bad because THE LEFT approves of it and it is a foot in the door for the rest of their EVIL AGENDA.


 




You're getting there, but EVIL AGENDA, those are your words.


But that is the typical modus operandi for liberalism.



What?  No sense of humor, TENAC?  Why am I not surprised.


But I would rather have an inexperienced and marginally effective president like Obama than anybody who owes anything at all to the Religious Right.


It might be a good thing for the country right now to have an experienced businessman at the helm right now--even a pirate like Romney, if he can remember to keep the prosperity of the country in mind rather than just the prosperity of his buddies.


But just watch: he'll have to pander to the religious extremists in his choice of running mate just like McCain did.




Awww....you're mistaken.


Romney's not religious,


he's Mormon.

Any man can count the seeds in an apple....
.......but only God can count the apples in the seeds.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 17, 2012 - 8:08PM #546
amcolph
Posts: 17,387

Jun 17, 2012 -- 7:58PM, TENAC wrote:


Jun 17, 2012 -- 7:54PM, amcolph wrote:


But I would rather have an inexperienced and marginally effective president like Obama than anybody who owes anything at all to the Religious Right.


It might be a good thing for the country right now to have an experienced businessman at the helm right now--even a pirate like Romney, if he can remember to keep the prosperity of the country in mind rather than just the prosperity of his buddies.


But just watch: he'll have to pander to the religious extremists in his choice of running mate just like McCain did.




Awww....you're mistaken.


Romney's not religious,


he's Mormon.




LOL!


But that means he'll have to pick a fundythumper for a running mate and I'll be stuck to vote for Obama again, alas.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 17, 2012 - 8:17PM #547
TENAC
Posts: 25,663

Jun 17, 2012 -- 8:08PM, amcolph wrote:


Jun 17, 2012 -- 7:58PM, TENAC wrote:


Jun 17, 2012 -- 7:54PM, amcolph wrote:


But I would rather have an inexperienced and marginally effective president like Obama than anybody who owes anything at all to the Religious Right.


It might be a good thing for the country right now to have an experienced businessman at the helm right now--even a pirate like Romney, if he can remember to keep the prosperity of the country in mind rather than just the prosperity of his buddies.


But just watch: he'll have to pander to the religious extremists in his choice of running mate just like McCain did.




Awww....you're mistaken.


Romney's not religious,


he's Mormon.




LOL!


But that means he'll have to pick a fundythumper for a running mate and I'll be stuck to vote for Obama again, alas.




lol....tell ya what.


I'll stay home if you will.


Deal?Wink

Any man can count the seeds in an apple....
.......but only God can count the apples in the seeds.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 17, 2012 - 8:18PM #548
mecdukebec
Posts: 14,582

Jun 17, 2012 -- 8:08PM, amcolph wrote:


Jun 17, 2012 -- 7:58PM, TENAC wrote:


Jun 17, 2012 -- 7:54PM, amcolph wrote:


But I would rather have an inexperienced and marginally effective president like Obama than anybody who owes anything at all to the Religious Right.


It might be a good thing for the country right now to have an experienced businessman at the helm right now--even a pirate like Romney, if he can remember to keep the prosperity of the country in mind rather than just the prosperity of his buddies.


But just watch: he'll have to pander to the religious extremists in his choice of running mate just like McCain did.




Awww....you're mistaken.


Romney's not religious,


he's Mormon.




LOL!


But that means he'll have to pick a fundythumper for a running mate and I'll be stuck to vote for Obama again, alas.




I heard the senior pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas say, this past week on BBC Newshour, that "78% of [funda-]evangelicals don't believe Mormons are Christian."    I don't know how the Wingogelical Coalition can stay together, this cycle, without a War for them to embrace, i.e. IRQ, "in God's name," or a putative candidate, Willard, the Etcha-Sketch, who has, as I heard SEN McCain on ABC's "This Week," today on podcast say, that R-money was just the guy to do it all, without really explaining why.


Milquetoast Wingoism has become the reality, at least for now. 

*******

"Wesley told the early Methodists to gain all they could and save all they could so that they could give all they could. It means that I consider my money to belong to God and I see myself as one of the hungry people who needs to get fed with God’s money. If I really have put all my trust in Jesus Christ as savior and Lord, then nothing I have is really my own anymore."
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 18, 2012 - 12:14PM #549
Cesmom
Posts: 4,665

Jun 17, 2012 -- 7:01PM, Bodean wrote:


Jun 16, 2012 -- 7:22PM, amcolph wrote:


In any case, why do you assume that allowing the fraction of that 2-3% of the population who are gay and want to marry to do so will cause heterosexual marriage to decline or cease?





Amcoph .. I don't think, IMO, that anyone believes that having Homosexuals marry would have much on an impact on society .. in and of itself.  As I said before, and will repeat.


What is at stake, IMO,  is the general perspectives of society.  For example .. is it ok to have sex before marriage ... or ..... safe sex considerations like using condums.  It is "socially acceptable" to live together, or is this frowned upon by society.  Multiple wives?? ... Multiple Marriages and divorces? .. etc.


In general, the "collective perspectives" of the LEFT, lead to a decrease in Marriage.  That is the case in Europe, and that is the case here in the US.  Thus, we are left with choosing a path to take, based on individual feelings about what is best for society's future.


So, in the "general perspective", are we going to be a society that accepts all forms of attractions and relationships as normal and healthy, or are we going to be a society that promotes lasting marriage, defined as a man and woman, as the ideal.


In my mind, this is the question?? [..IMO, as in, I"m no expert, just based on my observations and conversations with people about the topic].   It's not about Gay Rights.  As I've repeatedly stated, I support equal rights among all peoples with respect to the law.  If Gays want to be "married", that is their business, but if society is going to be strong armed in to recognizing their uinons as "marriage" [ie., equal to what is accepted as Traditional Marriage], then by default, it goes against the position stated above .... "are we going to be a society that promotes lasting marriage defined as a man and woman, as the ideal".


I'll repeat, this is about "perspectives" .. not rights.  I'd think the Gay Community would run into no problem in establshing a legal precedent with regards to a "union contract", issued by the State, for a measly $50, that confers executorship rights, ownership rights, benefits rights, etc.  But, where they are running into a road block, is this idea that SSM is on the same level as Traditional Marriage. [the majority of people do not hold this view, and as such, it is not the view of society]


As noted by Coontz, referenced ad nauseum here, Marriage evolves to fit society's views.  This is not the case for Gay Marriage.  Marriage is not evolving to fit Society's view on the idea of Gay Marriage, but rather, ideologues are trying to evolve society's views to fit their definition of what is or should be, by pushing Gay Marriage on society, whether it like it or not.  And .. that is the source of the resistence.




If all that is at stake is the general perception of society, then it makes sense for people to stop fighting the idea of same sex marriage legalization.  After all, the other examples you gave, such as living together and having sex before marriage, are still frowned upon by a large segement of our society, in spite of the fact that they are completely legal.  Legalization doesn't force acceptance.

Our need to learn should always outweigh our need to be right

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

More people would learn from their mistakes if they weren't so busy denying them.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 19, 2012 - 12:22PM #550
Do_unto_others
Posts: 8,650

Jun 17, 2012 -- 7:01PM, Bodean wrote:


Jun 16, 2012 -- 7:22PM, amcolph wrote:


In any case, why do you assume that allowing the fraction of that 2-3% of the population who are gay and want to marry to do so will cause heterosexual marriage to decline or cease?





Amcoph .. I don't think, IMO, that anyone believes that having Homosexuals marry would have much on an impact on society .. in and of itself.  As I said before, and will repeat.



One would NEVER get that impression from the alarmist claptrap that gets posted here from the frabid frightwing.,


Jun 17, 2012 -- 7:01PM, Bodean wrote:

What is at stake, IMO,  is the general perspectives of society.  For example .. is it ok to have sex before marriage ... or ..... safe sex considerations like using condums.  It is "socially acceptable" to live together, or is this frowned upon by society.  Multiple wives?? ... Multiple Marriages and divorces? .. etc.



And WHAT, precisely, does ANY of that have to do with the Constitutionality of same-gender marriage?


Jun 17, 2012 -- 7:01PM, Bodean wrote:

In general, the "collective perspectives" of the LEFT, lead to a decrease in Marriage.  That is the case in Europe, and that is the case here in the US.



Balderdash. As usual.


Jun 17, 2012 -- 7:01PM, Bodean wrote:

  Thus, we are left with choosing a path to take, based on individual feelings about what is best for society's future.



Why does it always seem that this is only about what the 'right' believes is "best for society's future"???


Jun 17, 2012 -- 7:01PM, Bodean wrote:

So, in the "general perspective", are we going to be a society that accepts all forms of attractions and relationships as normal and healthy, or are we going to be a society that promotes lasting marriage, defined as a man and woman, as the ideal.



But of course, we DON'T accept "ALL forms of attractions and relationships as normal and healthy. Coersion, under-aged relationships, etc. are observably unhealthy. Same-gender relationships between consenting adults, meanwhile, are both normal and healthy.


Jun 17, 2012 -- 7:01PM, Bodean wrote:

It's not about Gay Rights.



Well, that much is true, since there's no such thing as "Gay Rights", only EQUAL rights - and gay citizens are still denied them.


Jun 17, 2012 -- 7:01PM, Bodean wrote:

As I've repeatedly stated, I support equal rights among all peoples with respect to the law.



You not only do NOT "support equal rights", you've proven repeatedly here that you are dead set against them, vis a vis gay citizens.


Jun 17, 2012 -- 7:01PM, Bodean wrote:

If Gays want to be "married"



But we don't want to be "married"; we want to be - and are getting - married, without the smarm quotes.


Jun 17, 2012 -- 7:01PM, Bodean wrote:

that is their business



And yet you keep making  it your business. Or trying to.


Jun 17, 2012 -- 7:01PM, Bodean wrote:

 but if society is going to be strong armed in to recognizing their uinons as "marriage" [ie., equal to what is accepted as Traditional Marriage], then by default, it goes against the position stated above .... "are we going to be a society that promotes lasting marriage defined as a man and woman, as the ideal".



As already rebutted above, this is only about what YOU believe and to heck with the rest of us. Too bad.


Jun 17, 2012 -- 7:01PM, Bodean wrote:

I'll repeat, this is about "perspectives" .. not rights. 



And repeating a lie doesn't make it any "truer". 


Jun 17, 2012 -- 7:01PM, Bodean wrote:

I'd think the Gay Community would run into no problem in establshing a legal precedent with regards to a "union contract", issued by the State, for a measly $50, that confers executorship rights, ownership rights, benefits rights, etc.



That "legal precedent" - it's called MARRIAGE.


Jun 17, 2012 -- 7:01PM, Bodean wrote:

  But, where they are running into a road block, is this idea that SSM is on the same level as Traditional Marriage.



Yep. Equal is equal.


Jun 17, 2012 -- 7:01PM, Bodean wrote:

[the majority of people do not hold this view, and as such, it is not the view of society]



That is nothing but your opinion. You're welcome to it, but you can't have your own facts. And, the last half-dozen consecutive national polls say otherwise. Not that justice should ever be subjected to a popularity contest to begin with.


Jun 17, 2012 -- 7:01PM, Bodean wrote:

Marriage evolves to fit society's views.



You seem to hate that.


Jun 17, 2012 -- 7:01PM, Bodean wrote:

by pushing Gay Marriage on society, whether it like it or not.  And .. that is the source of the resistence.




If you disagree with Gay Marriage", then don't have one. You're perfectly free not to. Reading your tripe, one gets the impression you 'believe' otherwise.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 55 of 70  •  Prev 1 ... 53 54 55 56 57 ... 70 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook