@belias360 The West Wing does that a lot. It's great fun to watch really, especially with topics like gayrights and such. It often portraits the foolishness of the entire argument by making characters that you KNOW to be intelligent and open-minded look like narrow-minded bigots. In this case, C.J. Craig if I'm not mistaken ^^ Great fun :)
@Watchamacalitful It was a response to someone saying the USA is a christian nation ... because it was founded by christian pilgrims - I was just pointing out that it wasn't ...
@radicallyalyssa Actually, even if you go by the numbers what you are saying is quite nonsensical. The largest religious based colonization number was 20,000 settlers ... the British alone shipped 50,000 convicts to America ... I guess the USA was a nation under criminals then? (That was sarcasm to point out the fallacy of your point). Your ignorance of history is utterly baffling!
The founding fathers were primarily deist and agnostic. Most were in no form 'Christian'. "Under god" was not added to the pledge of allegiance until 1954. The US never was and never will be a 'Christian' Country.
@radicallyalyssa Wrong! Most of that was added a lot later than the founding of the country ... even money didn't have the those words till the early 20th century ... so no the US did NOT start out as a nation under god.
@pubuman Yes it did. The pilgrims left England to find RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. They wanted to worship GOD under THEIR OWN rule. Not the king of England's, who was a TYRANT and wanted them to worship him over their God. Don't be daft.
@radicallyalyssa The nation (USA) was founded much later than that ... So no, it didn't ... if you are going to state that the pilgrims founded the USA then you have no concept of history, and if you are going to claim that, one can argue the USA was founded by native americans, which would make the USA a country under a completely different "god" ...
@pubuman In no way, shape, or form did the native Americans build the country we live in today. It was the colonists, because they were actually the people who removed the natives and built their own colonies over the land. So yes, they did begin the United States, only it was once called the Thirteen Colonies. If you're seriously saying that they had nothing to do with the beginning of the US, then I'm wasting my time talking to an idiot.
@radicallyalyssa I'm not saying they had nothing to do with the beginning of the US, I'm saying they weren't the ones that founded the nation of the USA, since the colonies were still under British rule and taxed by the British. Furthermore European colonies existed BEFORE the pilgrim based colonies, and these were hugely successful. So no, they didn't begin the USA. Your lack of historical knowledge is disturbing!
@pubuman It's like you're saying, "It wasn't the complete United States until they admitted Alaska and Hawaii into the Union, which was 1959." Your move.
@radicallyalyssa Wrong again, when the nation was founded it was as a united country and not as independent colonies (as it was before then). If you are going to draw the line at European colonization, then the credit should also go to the French, Spanish and the Dutch - and these had nothing to do with religion ...
@radicallyalyssa And anyway, I was addressing the point you made about having things like "under God" in official things, by pointing out that they were added a lot later than when the nation was founded ... by religious pressure and meddling I might add ...
i think that limiting marriage to a man and a woman is gender discrimination. what so a woman can marry a man but when a man wants to do it hes an abomination. this is the 21st century people, i can't believe people discriminate against me just because im a man. i deserve my rights.
@TheKenny4292 yes - so that tells us that according to the silly old old testament everyone is damned. what a waste of time. to even THINK lustful thoughts is a sin? Oh dear oh dear...
@blueray1969 Now don't mock the system. It IS important for a LOT of people and it should be met with acceptance, not derision. If you decline them their right to believe, then they may rightfully decline you YOUR right NOT to believe. Don't go there, just nod and smile. They are, for the most part, not hurting anyone. It's the fanatics that you can't stand. And thats perfectly legitimate, but don't assume every believer is a fanatic.
@TheKenny4292 I picked up a leaflet at a rally (or maybe in a supermarket) once that said people that quote from any 2,000 year old propaganda book are twats. It was there, in black and white, so it must be true right?
@TheKenny4292 " The bible describes you as one who has been blinded by Satan." im sorry i must have mislead you, you seem to think that i think your old book holds any truth. well i dont. think of it as the same how u feel about every other religious text out there or the harry potter series. it holds the same weight with me. " You are the enemy of God, " y thank you 8^) -"I will pray that you quit being an idiot." i wont pray however i hope the same for u.
@TheKenny4292 "The scriptures are filled with scientific facts" "Have you ever told a lie? - yes and u just did also. and ill save u some time in response. i have a idea where ur going with this, yes i have, yes i have looked at other women with lust while married and acted on it, yes i have stolen, use ur lords name in vain, i have even denied the holy spirit. however if u are correct and there is a heaven/hell. I'd rather go to hell with my integrity then sell my soul to get to heaven.
@TheKenny4292 "that are absolutely harmonious with each other." that tends to happen when they are edited to be that way. y don't we look at the other gospels that didn't make it in? oh want u wont. "fulfilled prophecy," ha u funny good luck proving that those "prophecies" went altered after the fact over 1500 years when most people couldn't read except those in charge of the church, oh wait its already been proven that the text have been altered/ mistranslated/ misunderstood but u wont.
@TheKenny4292 "Can something bring itself into existence? No, it cannot, that is illogical. That means that something MUST have brought the universe into existence. " ah this again ok for the sake lets say ur right however prove its your god and not Thor or Zeus or the million other gods people have believed, killed, enslaved, tortured, persecuted. also religious people will sit back and be like will "what created that, what created that?" and when we say IDK oh then its god. B.S.
@TheKenny4292 if its because they are crazy, violated a law then thats what happens.and im personally working towards the world turning away from magic or flying genies (ie. gods) anyway so thats good news.
@TheKenny4292 that crap only works if you believe in your desert god, i don't believe in your god so you're threats are empty. just like if someone threatened me with Hades or Zeus's rules and punishment. i don't believe in them there for i don't bother.
@TheKenny4292 also id like to make a point. with the amount of galaxies out there the possibility of alien life is high, right? but if i said i was in telepathic communication with a alien ruler id be locked up to protect myself, so y aren't u lock up? huh how come when people say they talk to god we dont have them evaluated just like crazy people who think aliens are talking to them or the gov. planted microchips in their brain to control their thoughts. ?
@TheKenny4292 wtf does that have to do with anything? no one knows how it all started that's what research and science are trying to figure out. but lets say for a second that sure something created everything you don't know what that something is no one does so how can you go around threatening people with torture and damnation when you don't know.
@TheKenny4292 Irrelevant question. Hell doesn't exist, just like Santa, the easter Bunny, 14th Imam or the tooth-fairy don't.
If there was the SLIGHTEST proof of hell, then I'd re-evaluate my position, based on verifiable facts. But there is none, so I don't bother worrying about a simple mind-control trick for simple-minded plebeians.
The fact that YOU do indicates that you are gullible, ignorant and willfully stupid. A good religious person, in other words...
@TheKenny4292 Fuck off. Take your magic mystery man bullshit and shove it RIGHT up your ass with the BuyBull. Preferably sideways.
You drooling religious retards deserve being pissed on from great height, because you're JUST stupid enough to think it's the "Lords Blessing" and drink it up.
You swallowed all the other nonsensical crap, after all...
@TheKenny4292 It's a bummer for you, then, that hell doesn't exist, just like your imaginary friend doesn't.
How wretched it must be to be you and the other happy-clapping mindless idiots of your suicidal death cult, groveling in front of a naked Jew on a bronze ages torture device.
You people REALLY should get a life. Instead of craving death so you can be with your Invisible Man.
The bible says a lot of things, despite being a faithful christian i realise the problem with the bible is that it was written in a social context that is different to that which exists today. It is therefore inherently likely that some of the views are impositions of the social reality of the time rather then religious doctrine. As a result in my own opinion it is therefore wrong to demand of others a moral code that they do not believe irrespective of our own oppositition
if people are against gays in the military for any kind of sexual based reasons, (spread of STI's, distracted form actual duty, whatever) then they should ban women in the military too as majority of the army is heterosexual men. If you believe that straight men and women can serve side by side without sexuality being an issue then believe me that straights and gays can serve side by side too.
Seth MacFarlane (the creator of family guy) said it best: If you're sitting at home in your T-shirt, watching TV and worrying about whether somebody on the front lines defending your freedom is gay, you're the worst kind of asshole
i remember this scene in the episode...all the time convinced the man has a problem that they never even stepped away to think the problem might be something else entirely...It was SUCH a powerful scene!!! Thank you for sharing!
Lots of misconceptions out there about what the "Founding Fathers" believed. They were almost exclusively "Deists" - meaning that they did NOT believe in a personal god (one that intervenes in the day-to-day affairs of people). They were also extremely wary and fearful of organized religions and they're propensity for enslaving men.
can someone PLEASE tell me why it's a problem for homosexuals to be in the military? or, why people of the same gender are not allowed to marry? why is homosexuality such a big deal (and don't use the Bible as an excuse, because it clearly states: "TO EACH HIS OWN", besides....we're not supposed to incorporate ANY religion in our policy making system)?
These are serious questions, somebody please help me to better understand.
@OokamiDiamond1992 Many people have been socially conditioned to view homosexuality as something that's wrong; it's similar to how people use to view interracial relationships. There really is nothing wrong with being gay or dating a person of another race, people have just been raised to view it that way.
@iDoRimjob i really do appreciate you answering my question. i myself chose not to live up to societies standards so i am a bit ignorant to the way society's mind works. if the treatment of homosexuals corresponds so well with the treatment of interracial relationships, way back when, then why don't people realize that and leave each other alone? i honestly don't understand why what another person does with their own life matters to another person.
@OokamiDiamond1992 I'm not sure if anyone has answered - if they have, sorry to bother you. The ban on homosexuals in the military is due to the belief that homosexual men either would distract the other men, or would be distracted by them. Of course, this is illogical now as women are allowed to serve (I don't mean to offend anyone, but statistically, heterosexuals are the majority, so women serving would be more of a distraction. In my opinion, this makes the argument irrational).
@OokamiDiamond1992 Just to finish the military thing, there is possibly a fear of VD (all armies are always afraid of VD, and it's possible they believe that homosexuals are more likely to spread it. Just a possible).
As for the others, there are no logical reasons I can see to limit the human rights of an individual because of the gender they like to get freaky with. Hate, fear, or some pathetic attempt to feel powerful are the only reasons I can come up with.
@OokamiDiamond1992 It's not because of religion, it's because ever since the second world war America has been more and more afraid of spies. Because of that, special military operations (including reconnaissance missions) are ONLY given to soldiers that are married and have children. Back in the cold war, it was only possible to fly an SR-71 if you were married, because if you fled to the USSR with the intel you gained, you'd have to leave your loved once.
@OokamiDiamond1992 well around the world armies allow gay people to serve their country, Israel is one of those countries, and guess what? every excuse for not allowing them has been debunked by facts, this is simply what you get when you let religion dictate politics together with corporate greed that feeds of the religious bullshit
What about non-Christian people, you can't possibly believe your religious "laws" apply to them,do you? Do Jewish laws apply to you ? How about Muslim? Hindu? Buddhist? Shinto? No? So why should your CHOSEN beliefs apply to people who DO NOT choose your belief system? That is beyond illogical.......
Actually yes, religious laws already do apply to non-religious people. That's why murder, theft, rape, etc are all illegal. So my chosen beliefs are less than your chosen beliefs simply because they are derived from God's word? Your chosen beliefs on the environment apply to me. Your chosen beliefs on taxation apply to me. Can I be exempt from your chosen beliefs? Can I refuse to obey the laws passed by those you voted for?
@BelieveIt1051 "religious laws already do apply to non-religious people. That's why murder, theft, rape, etc are all illegal"
Point of order - those are not exclusively religious laws. No human society can exist, even on the tribal level, without a prohibition on such acts. They are universal codes of conduct for every philosophy and culture that has ever existed. They predate the earliest known forms of religion and can be seen operating in other species such as wolves.
Yes they are exclusively religious laws. All those things are commonplace in most third world countries even today, but especially back then. And don't bring animals into a discussion on morality. Even if they could comprehend such matters, I can point to dozens of animals that eat their own young, have sex with other species, murder their neighbors, etc.
@BelieveIt1051 The reason they are more common in third world nations and in the past is because we have developed more effective enforcement mechanisms, not because rules prohibiting such behavior were absent.
My point with animals is that those which live in a social structure similar to humans also display what can only be described as moral behavior with one another despite the absence of any formalized moral code. Moral behavior predates moral philosophy, in our species as well as others.
Oh no, I'm not talking about some machete wielding psycho deep in the Congo somewhere, I'm talking about in somewhat developed countries. Look at China, The Sudan, Iran, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, or Mexico. Most of the killing is done by those in power, or those who are rich enough to bribe their way out of trouble. The early 40's Nazi Germany. They had plenty of law enforcement. The problem was they had no moral foundation, and so they persecuted millions of innocent people.
God's law is crucial to a functioning civilization. The Founding Fathers knew this. They knew that you could not separate God from the law. Let me ask you this. What defines right and wrong if you eliminate God as the ultimate authority over man?
Animals display raw instinct. They display behaviors that can benefit them and their offspring, and they display behaviors that can be a terrible detriment to themselves, their offspring, and their species. Animals aren't relevant to this discussion.
@BelieveIt1051 It seems we both acknowledge society cannot exist without a moral code and that if this code is inadequate problems will arise. But I see this code as developing naturally as human beings learned to cooperate with each other and function as a society. And this code continues to change and develop in response to the changing needs of our society.
Formalized moral philosophies, including religion, merely justify existing moral laws, they do not originate them.
The Constitution? Ah, so then by your rationale, if Congress and the States were to amend the Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman, that would make same-sex "marriage" immoral and wrong, correct?
In the bible Abraham has Sarah as a wife and then takes on her maid Hagar so he can have children. In the story of Jacob he has 2 wives and he has children by their maid servants as well. That's 3 women in total. How can you day that marriage is between a man and a woman in accordance with the bible, when the bible constantly shows men with multiple marriages. If the bible is that contradictory, then can't you say that it's wrong about gays too??
@st8rtrek I'm not a Pro-religion person but I'm just saying that Abraham and all those guys were Jews, not Christians and it is also Old Testament. At no point in the New Testament is there advocation for polygamy.
Just because The Bible showed polygamy doesn't mean it condoned it. Never once did God condone polygamy. In fact he condemned it and Jesus clearly stated that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman.
Wow fighting on the internet. good thing i gave that up. or else i would have no time for anything else. try giving up the fights. it will make you feel better.
For those of you who state that pedophilia is the same as homosexuality, you need to remember that we're talking about consenting adults. Adults. All states except Mississippi require persons to be 18 without consent from their parents to get married. In Mississippi, it is 21. So I wouldn't worry pedophiles getting the same rights.
Second, you fail to realize that homosexuality is not about same sex people performing the act of sex, but people of the same sex being in love.
WHAT?!?!?! States are discriminating against people who want to marry based on their age?!?! Why that's a violation of their civil rights! Marriage equality for everyone! We need marriage equality for all people! Ya know black people were once considered to be unfit to enter into contracts such as marriage. Do you want to go back to those days? You're not racist are you? No? Then you must be in favor of child/adult "marriage". Prove this isn't about two people of different ages being in love.
@BelieveIt1051 So by the same token your six year old, or 12 year old, or whatever can drink in a bar, enlist in the military, get a driver's license, can enter into a contract, can be sued...
Marriage isn't defined by any of those things. So by your logic, people who can't do any of those things can't get married either! That's no different from that line the bigots would use about same-sex couples not being able to have children. :p
well said, Bairn. schools are not to create factory tools, but educated, complete people who can think for themselves. the US Chamber is a far-right group with zero business in our schools.
Gays have married for decades, it has been legally recognized recently, of COURSE equality is their right, the sleazy stunt of claiming that if gays marry we will have to allow you to marry 26 people, your sister or your cat is not just insulting but proven wrong. it isnt "marriage" it's marriage, as real and valid as any other.
Actually you're wrong all around. First, same-sex "marriage" has only been legal since April Fool's Day 2001, and that began in The Netherlands. Since then polygamy has been accepted there! Yes, Victor de Bruijn married his wife, then entered a civil union with another thus allowing the same marital benefits to go to all three. They also recognize Muslim polygamist "marriages". Sibling "marriage" is assured too, since same-sex "marriage" activists argue that marriage is not based on procreation.
@BelieveIt1051 Lie. Same sex marriage (It is NOT "marriage" it is marriage) has been around for DECADES, it was only legally RECOGNIZED on that date. The LIE that polygamy goes along is PROVEN in several US states. Raising straw man arguments because there is no legitimate argument against equality is truly pathetic. Marriage is NOT based on procreation, jackass, it is based on LOVE. I work for a church, have done COUNTLESS weddings, have NEVER asked "you're having kids, right??"
So you consider unknown ceremonies in remote butt-cracks of the planet to be "marriages"? Okay, but I would think you'd have to go further back than a few decades. When you say decades you must mean between 20 and 90 years since any less would be a decade and any more would be a century. Now as I recall my history studies the world was busy fighting world wars, economic problems, drugs, etc between 1920 and 1990. Not much talk of homosexuality during those years let alone same-sex "marriage".
@BelieveIt1051 Wow, you're truly a KKK bigot. Remote buttcracks? No, THE UNITED STATES. Jim Crow laws not recognizing the marriages doesn't change that they ARE MARRIED. People have been married for DECADES, and your bigoted laws will NOT change that.
I'm saying other countries are butt-cracks. We don't recognize shit they do as being valid or legitimate, including same-sex "marriage". You speak of laws, yet do you realize there is no law stating that people have the right to marry the same sex? In order for the government to recognize same-sex "marriages" there must be a law saying that marriage includes same-sex couples. It does not. Marriage is defined as the union of 1 man and 1 woman. Therefore marriage does not include same-sex couples.
@BelieveIt1051 Ah, so you hate gays AND foreigners, got it. The law DOES say that marriage is a right. Marriage is NOT defined as "1 man and 1 woman" in LEGITIMATE law, these newly born "marriage protection" rules written in haste by panicking bigots are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Marriage DOES include same-sex couples.
I don't hate any person. I do hate it when anyone breaks the law though.
Really? And where does the law say that marriage is a right?
The newly born marriage amendments are nothing more than laws which secure the same definition of marriage that has existed for thousands of years. Marriage has always been defined as a 1 man 1 woman union.
Point to any law or historic example of when marriage was ever described as the union of two males or two females.
@BelieveIt1051 YOU LIAR!!! Saying gays are a "threat" to children, comparing them to child molesters, blasphemously saying that God supports your evil discrimination against them, THESE ARE ACTS OF HATE.
Marriage has NOT always been defined as "1 man 1 woman", for CENTURIES people married more than one woman, more than one man, we've CHANGED it's provisions many times over the years. And "we've always done it this way" is the WORST excuse for continuing something bad.
Also, marriage is about having kids. One of the major reasons it was created in the first place was to establish a strong foundation on which to start a family. Redefining marriage to suit a relationship type where procreation is impossible will in fact remove that reason from marriage. Thus, same-sex "marriage" would destroy the institution of marriage.
Also, I'm sure the reason why this church you mentioned doesn't ask that is because those they marry are of opposite sexes.
@BelieveIt1051 That's crap. Marriage is about love and committment. Couples who never have children are JUST as married. Couples who CANNOT have children are just as married. We're talking human beings, not breed stock. Having children is NOT why marriage exists, love and committment is. This is NOT redefining marriage, it's just ending a pointless discrimination. It is NOT "marriage" it is MARRIAGE, as valid and real as any other. And the reason it's not mentioned is THAT'S NOT WHY THEY MARRY.
Marriage is about love and commitment between a man and woman, not the same sex. It's also about providing a stable foundation for starting a family, which only opposite sex couples can do. So if you say it's not about kids, then you've just destroyed the meaning of marriage and you've opened the door to incestuous, polygamous, child/adult, and human/animal/object "marriage".
Besides, homosexuality isn't love, nor are most homosexuals capable of commitment. You're trying to redefine marriage.
@BelieveIt1051 SICK BIGOTED LIES. Marriage is about love and committment PERIOD. Saying it's ONLY for straight people is discrimination for NO REASON AT ALL.
It's a despicable, scummy LIE to claim this discrimination "protects children". There is not a single child better off because of it.
Homosexuality is as much love as heterosexuality is. Saying they're not capable of committment is a KKK lie, that traditionally gays have more partners is caused by YOUR bigotry. Marriage can change that.
It's about love and commitment, period? So if it can be found that a child and an adult are capable of love and commitment, then you would be in favor of child/adult "marriage"?
By they way, I never said it was only for straight people. Homosexuals can marry someone of the opposite sex too ya know.
Children are better off not being around homosexuals and their deviant ideas and behaviors. All credible medical and psychiatric organizations prove this.
@BelieveIt1051 Ah, the bigoted, hateful LIE of comparing gay people to child molesters, you will play all the KKK games, won't you. A child is INCAPABLE of making that decision, obviously, so NO child adult marriage is NOT comparable.
Now, the despicable LIE that this type of bigot is "protecting marriage" is PROVEN with the idiotic line that gays can "marry someone of the opposite sex", in other words, marry someone they do NOT love and are NOT attracted to. YOU are desecrating marriage.
And no, a "marriage" between two people of the same sex is not a true marriage because marriage is the union of 1 man and 1 woman. That is it's meaning and definition. That is its very essence. Homosexual relationships are on the same level as incestuous and polygamist relationships. They are far beneath heterosexual relationships. It's sewer level actually.
@BelieveIt1051 Lie. A gay couple is JUST as married as any other. The ESSENCE of marriage, the DEFINITION of marriage is about love and committment, it's no more limited to heterosexuals than it is to same race couples. The bigotry of comparing them to incest or polygamy is the SAME stunt they used to oppose interracial marriage. They are NOT beneath heterosexual relationships, that comment, the comment about "sewer level" is the definition of bigotry, a KKK worthy comment.
Yeah, and true love can only be had between 1 man and 1 woman.
Now if such a concept is not limited to heterosexuals, then what makes it limited to heterosexuals and homosexuals? What about bisexuals? Why won't you allowed them to "marry" the ones they love? Because unless you're in favor of polygamous "marriage" then that's exactly what you're doing. You are telling bisexuals they must choose heterosexuality or homosexuality and give up their current sexuality in order to conform to marriage!
@BelieveIt1051 KKK lies. A gay couple loves one another JUST as much as a straight couple. You insult true love with the insane and despicable LIE that it's only for heterosexuals. AGAIN you bring up the IRRELEVENT nonsense of marrying more than one person, because there IS no legitimate reason to oppose marriage equality for gays, you change the subject. This has NOTHING to do with polygamy.
Same-sex "marriage" will lead directly to polygamy, and I can prove it. We say homosexuals have equal rights now because they can marry in the same way heterosexuals do, to one consenting human adult of the opposite sex who is not of close blood relationship. This is a fact. Now your side argues this is unacceptable because it's unfair to tell homosexuals to change "who they are" in order to conform to marriage. That marriage must conform to fit their sexual preference. Right?
@BelieveIt1051 What is wrong with polygamy? Three consenting adults want to live as a family what's wrong with that? Is there some intrinsic value that makes monogamy more moral than polygamy? If 2 why not 3? Why not 4?
@BelieveIt1051 First of all, there is nothing inherently immoral about chaos, or disfunction from that matter. How does it hurt children? How is it damaging to the spouses involved? So I have 86 wives. If I told them I was a polygamist and if I love them all I am not decieving them. If they are free to pursue other relationships I am not demanding anything unequal from them. If we have a compact to raise children together as a large family or tribe how are the children harmed?
It hurts children by splitting them up among multiple parental figures and forcing them to compete with half siblings. It confuses them as to who their parents are and what their family is.
It hurts spouses because they must compete with other "wives" or "husbands" for the love and affection of the "spouse". The "love" is divided up among the "spouses". Marriage is about a man and woman putting all their love and commitment into each other.
@BelieveIt1051 That is something that Can happen but not an intrinsic flaw in a polygamous system. Several North American tribes had social systems similar to large families, where every child had as many mothers as there were women in the tribe. These tribes endured for Thousands of years, so it clearly didn't lead to the end of society. I'm looking for a Moral reason why polygamy or gay marriage is intrinsically wrong.
You could say that to your "wives" but it would be deception because you wouldn't really love any of them. If you don't care about your "wife" putting her love into someone else, then you don't really love her. If you love someone other than your "wife" then you don't really love her. That's like saying a male who cheats on his wife really loves her. Marriage is about bonding 1 man and 1 woman in true love, not the division of people's love among various people.
@BelieveIt1051 Says you. Does a father with two children by necessity love one more than another? Can not he love them both equally? And if he can, why not love two women? Furthermore, the idea of monogmy is not a universal one. Many cultures, ancient and modern practice polygamy. A man who cheat on his wife IS decieving her. If he and his wife agree to an open relationship freely, there is no deception and therefore no immoral conduct.
@BelieveIt1051 First off, it's not "marriage" it's marriage, as real as yours or mine. Secondly it's a PROVEN lie that it will NOT lead to "polygamy", there are SEVERAL states where gay marriage is recognized in NONE has it led to this straw man argument. It's a LIE to claim gays have equal rights now, marriage is one of SEVERAL areas they're discriminated against. It's not just unfair to tell gays to change who they are it is IMPOSSIBLE. Marriage isn't changing, POINTLESS discrimination is over
Their so-called union is not marriage. It's trash. It's meaningless. Marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. What homosexuals have is nothing like marriage, and their relationship type itself is unnatural and vile. I'd say it's a little bit beneath incest, which is also vile.
I just proved that same-sex "marriage" will lead to polygamy because next in line will be the bisexuals claiming the equal right to marry 1 man and 1 woman.
Again, you need to learn the meaning of "straw man".
@BelieveIt1051 Lie. It is a marriage. Calling it "trash" is just hate, a KKK lie. It's as meaningful as your marriage or mine. What they have is EXACTLY like what straights have, love and committment, and your hate in calling it "vile" is like saying "black people are nasty". You're just as bigoted, just as immoral as the worst racist. Calling it "unnatural" is a PROVEN lie. EVERY credible source says it's perfectly natural.
You did NOT prove it will lead to polygamy, it's been proven it WONT
Homosexuals are Americans aren' they? So how can you say they don't have equal rights now? What about homosexuals who keep their private lives to themselves and live like heterosexuals? How are they being denied any rights? So prove that homosexuals are being denied any rights, or go home.
Homosexuals can marry in the same way everyone else does. So you're wrong. Next.
Again, if it's unfair to ask homos to change to fit marriage, then what about bisexuals?
@BelieveIt1051 They do NOT have equal rights. Are they allowed to marry? NO. Have hate crimes protection and equal rights in court? NO. Do straights get fired for being straight? NO.
Gays can NOT marry in the same way, you lying Nazi. I married the person I love, they can NOT. It is NOT the same, you insult marriage with this sick lie.
And you repeat the nasty slur, while pretending to be a Christian.
Bisexuals marrying is not an issue, you're desperately flailing with straw men.
So let's assume we change marriage to include same-sex relationships. But then what about bisexuals, who as you know are attracted to both sexes? By your same illogic, isn't it also unfair to tell them they must forsake "who they are" and choose either opposite or same-sex "marriage"? And so under Equal Protection we will have to redefine "marriage" again so that bisexuals can "marry" two people. Polygamy. I can also prove how your argument leads to incestuous "marriage".
@BelieveIt1051 There's nothing "illogic" about equality. No, it is NOT redefining marriage, which will continue to mean EXACTLY the same thing, and this pathetic "slippery slope" trash has been PROVEN false in several states with gay marriage, where NOBODY has married 3 people, their sister, or their cat.
Your abstract concept of "equality" is a delusion.
Marriage means the union of 1 man and 1 woman. If you wish to expand it to 2 people of the same sex, then you must redefine it. Thus, it would be a redefinition. It's unfortunate that you are unable to understand the definitions of words. That's why you'll always lose these kinds of debates.
Same-sex "marriage" has only been allowed in some states for 6 years, which is not enough time for other movements to push their marriage agendas.
The other movements to expand marriage further will only start once the same-sex "marriage" movement has ended. If they were to start now then it would hurt the current movement, which is acting as the vanguard to all the other movements. They'll wait for the same-sex "marriage" movement to establish a legal precedent which they can use to advance their own agendas.
The slippery slope is proved true using the same arguments used today to justify an expansion of marriage to same-sex couples.
@BelieveIt1051 Again these are PROVEN lies. We've had marriage equality for gays for YEARS and NOBODY has married 12 people, their sister, or their cat. These are still just desperate straw men arguments, because NO legitimate reason to oppose marriage equality exists, NOBODY has EVER been harmed by gays marrying. The "slippery slope" argument is a lie and nothing but, and this has been PROVEN.
Comparing interracial couples to incestuous or polygamous couples was a stunt the racist pulled back then? I don't think so. If you actually knew history you'd know their argument had to do with mixing races. In fact the Supreme Court found their ban to be a violation of rights because it was based soley on skin color prejudice. So you're wrong again.
Actually the definition of bigotry is "stubborn, unwavering in opinion or belief". And are you saying polygamy is sewer level? Are you prejudice?
@BelieveIt1051 Yes, it was. WORD FOR WORD. "If we allow these unnatural couples to marry, we will be forced to allow people to marry multiple partners, or their own family members, or even people of the SAME SEX!" It was a lie then, it's a lie now. I've taught history for years, don't pretend I don't know history, you'll make an even bigger clown of yourself. It WAS based on prejudice, and so is THIS, prejudice against gays is the ONLY reason to oppose equality. Polygamy is IRRELEVENT.
Those words weren't used back then because we had interracial marriage before that. The interracial marriage bans were enacted after interracial marriages had been going on and were recognized as valid for centuries. No the argument was that races were meant to be kept separate and that mixing would destroy the white race. That was the extent of the democrat argument for interracial marriage bans. There was never any talk of it leading to polygamy. You're ill informed. But that is true of today.
@BelieveIt1051 Lie. It is EXACTLY the same excuses WORD FOR WORD. "If we allow interracial marriage, we'll have to allow incest!" The pathetic LIE that it would damage and destroy the "sanctity of marriage", EXACTLY the same pathetic lie we get now. There ABSOLUTELY WAS talk that it would lead to polygamy. I'm NOT ill informed, I know this topic very, very well. YOU are ill informed, and bigoted as all hell.
Prove that those arguments were ever used in any of the state legislatures that passed their interracial marriage bans, or any of the court cases where the bans were challenged. Put up or shut up.
Besides that, I already proved that same-sex "marriage" will lead directly to polygamy. You have not refuted this fact.
Of course, this is because you're a bigot. You are bigoted against morality and natural law. You're blind, intolerant, and full of hate. You're also a homophobe.
@BelieveIt1051 Hilarious lies. In fact it has been PROVEN that gay marriage will NOT lead to polygamy, you proved NOTHING of the sort. How many polygamous marriages are there in Massachusetts? ZERO. In Iowa? ZERO. California? NOT ONE.
Calling me a bigot while I fight against YOUR bigotry is a typical desperate stunt. I am NOT intolerant, NOT full of hate, NOT a homophobe. You are all of those things.
@BelieveIt1051 The "radical homosexual agenda" as far as I can see it is an attempt to win equal protection under the law. It's not an attempt to control what straight people do. Your problem is their daring to suggest they are equal to you but you're not honest enough to admit that. Instead, you bury yourself behind talking points that someone else gave you.
They already are equal to me in regards to the law. They are pushing for special rights. Hate crime laws give them special protection over me. Their efforts in the courts also tell us what to do. It says that we can't vote on a public policy, that we must go with whatever their super minority wants.
And I don't get talking points from anyone. I'm the one who everyone else steals from. I've been refuting your side since you were just another brainwashed teenager in the public school system.
@BelieveIt1051 I'm not brainwashed, but thanks for your concern. LGBT persons are not protected at the federal level from discrimination in the private sector. Over half of the states do not protect against discrimination based on orientation (nolo.com). I have no idea what you mean when you say that LGBT persons are requesting rights "over you." continued...
So what? No one is protected from discrimination in the private sector, and rightfully so. There is nothing wrong with discrimination, which simply means "to tell the difference between". The problem is prejudice and unlawful treatment, which every citizen is protected against in the public square.
The special rights homosexuals want are preferential treatment in society. They want marriage redefined to suit their preferences against the will of the majority. Cont. →
@BelieveIt1051 Sorry, the law is not an instrument to affect the court of public opinion. No law will be enough to give what NOM is really after. As far as the school, students should be made aware that LGBT persons exist and that they deserve respect. Groups like Gay/Straight Education Network attempt to do this which, of course, invites storm of disinformation and slander from social conservatives. Not surprising.
NO4M is not trying to legally protect marriage for the sake of changing public opinion. They are trying to legally secure it against activist judges who overturn laws at their own whim. They, I, and others like us know full well that government is NOT a valid or Constitutional tool of social reform. The views of society must be left to the PEOPLE to change through open debate and dialogue.
Now, if society wants same-sex "marriage", then let the people vote it into law.
@BelieveIt1051 So, the Supreme Court decision in Loving vs. Virginia in 1967 was completely wrong-headed in your opinion? Your position is really luxurious considering the current tendencies of the American majority.
No it wasn't wrong-headed because that was a different ballpark completely. First, the interracial marriage restrictions that were enacted were actual bans that existed as a redefinition to marriage. Before that, marriages had been taking place between different races for centuries. Second, the only reason for the restrictions being created in the first place was to segregate the races, which was a clear violation of the 14th Amendment. It was based soley on racism.
Finally, the best part about the Loving ruling, is it actually confirmed marriage as a 1 man 1 woman union. It said it is a right because it is essential to our very existence and survival. Well, the only relationship that fits that description is the 1 man 1 woman union. So in fact the courts have already ruled that it is a 1 man 1 woman union.
School kids shouldn't be taught LGBT anything. They should be educated and trained in the knowledge and skill that will make them successful in the workplace. Social matters are the responsibility of the parents to teach their own children. And I'm always amused when liberals say we should teach kids about immoral sexualities but MUST NEVER teach kids about the Bible. No, never our values, only their idea of "values". So you get to teach them about anal sex but we can't teach about abstinence.
@BelieveIt1051 Starting from the second sentence--well, my friend, corporate America and the US Chamber of Commerce salute you. Are you serious? The purpose of education should be to create responsible, knowledgeable, and independent students. Instead we are growing a crop of purely vocational students who, even if they stir from their apathy, don't have the tools to know when someone is taking them for a ride.
Creating responsible, knowledgeable, and independent students is the purpose of parents, not schools. Teachers are not babysitters and they aren't mentors who can be trusted with a student's personal concerns.
@BelieveIt1051 On marriage: during the 1990s relatively few in the LGBT pol. groups were asking for the title. Most were interested in what initially would happen with civil partnership laws. Civil partnerships ended up being more of a hassle than an asset. Many LG couples were disolving them because they were useless at best and detrimental, esp, taxes, at worst. State governments, hospitals and other institutions often didn't care to train their employees on these laws and the process unkempt.
Yeah, that was their foot in the door. That's all. They have always been after the title of marriage. California is proof of this. They still have even to this day, and law that allows people of any sex to enter into civil unions that carry the SAME legal benefits and privilages as marriage. All they lack is the title. Yet the homosexual activists proved that this was not enough for them. They will not stop until society promotes their sexual preferences and behaviors.
@BelieveIt1051 The dominant culture, which writes the history books, keeps a death grip on definitions. I see the desire for marriage by some LGB groups as an expediency to meet dominant culture on its own terms. I'm personally revolted by the history of marriage which has a long rap-sheet of offenses against human dignity. LGBT action groups are trying to secure the promises that were made by failing CP laws by speaking the lingua franca of marriage. It's not a love affair w/ the term.
The dominant culture writes nothing. History has been preserved by great Americans through the ages. Only recently have the homosexual activists tried rewritting history. They pick historical figures who are long dead and try to inject their own beliefs into them. Like saying Lincoln was homosexual who had sex with other males in his log cabin simply because it was common back then for males to sleep in the same bed, sometimes 4 at a time. They ignore the fact that he was married with children.
@BelieveIt1051 I'm sorry but your last sentence is patently absurd. Evidence of marriage and begetting of children can certainly be supportive of heterosexual orientation but it in no way outrules the possibility of a bisexual or homosexual orientation. Historical frauds and erasure of undesirables from public memory are common actions of dominant cultures. Your canon preserved by "great Americans" is no less prone.
It does rule out homosexual relationships because two people of the same sex cannot reproduce among themselves. The court ruling was clear as to why marriage was considered a civil right, and that's because of its relation to procreation.
Also, I never said American history wasn't prone to present day alteration. In fact I said it was prone, which is all the more reason to study history and preserve it.
The history of marriage has a long rap-sheet of offenses against human dignity? Ah, more homosexual activist deception. See, they lie about the history of marriage and slander it in order to argue that it should be reduced to their level. In America, marriage has always been between 1 man and 1 woman. In human history, it started out as that but was then redefined by some "cultures". Now, what a few groups of people in other parts of the world do with that institution makes no difference to us.
@BelieveIt1051 True, in America, monogamy was the sanctioned standard. Utah was forced to accept it in order to be included in the union. The rap sheet I had in mind actually included marriage in America. Marriage was real swell--if you were a (white) man. As late as the mid 19th c. married women couldn't own property, sign contracts or control their wages. Must of really sucked if your man was beating you
The fact that women couldn't do this or that is because of the civil laws of the time, not because of the definition of marriage. It just so happened that government did not recognize women as being equal citizens under the Constitution, which was wrong, but still, that had nothing to do with marriage. However, laws against assault or domestic violence did exist and were enforced.
It's like today. Marriage still means the same as it did, but culture has changed. Spousal roles have changed too.
@BelieveIt1051 Yes, marriage has changed significantly. Historically, the main drive for marriage has been finances and political ties, even in America. The reason I brought up these "outdated" modes of the institution was to counter your argument that marriage has always been this great institution in America and that bad marriage ideas came from non-western countries.
The reasons why people marry is irrelevant to the qualifications of marriage.
That was one example of a bad marriage qualification (which isn't supported by the record as a definite fact). Assuming it existed, it wasn't considered bad during that era because teens of that era were learned and mature by that age. Assuming that was the marital age, then a redefinition of marriage occurred in order to be consistent with the good of society. This only proves that the people get to define marriage.
Also, I never said marriage could not be redefined. I said it could be only through a valid legal process, which is through the people or their elected representatives.
But let's examine the idea that marriage was once redefined in America at all in regards to age. Assuming that it is true that children could marry back then, this would not be a matter of marriage's definition, because what was changed to prevent this? It wasn't the marriage law. No one wrote an amendment redefining marriage...
No, rather what would have been changed are the laws regarding informed consent and contracts. So what would have changed is not the marriage law or definition, but rather the laws regarding legal contracts and what age was allowed to enter into legal contracts. Since marriage is a legal contract, obviously the marital age would be raised as an extension of the contract law. So what would have been redefined is not marriage, but rather what society considers an adult to be.
@BelieveIt1051 19th century American law also wasn't too keen on protecting children. Age of sexual consent in most states was 10, 7 if you lived in Delaware. If you were a 14 yo boy in 1930 and wanted to work out your Romeo and Juliet fantasy, you could marry a 12 yo girl. Kicker: must be OK with mum an
I thought the husband was going to be all "fuck gay rights" but it turns out he's more than supportive. Cool XD.
belias360 1 month ago
@belias360 The West Wing does that a lot. It's great fun to watch really, especially with topics like gayrights and such. It often portraits the foolishness of the entire argument by making characters that you KNOW to be intelligent and open-minded look like narrow-minded bigots. In this case, C.J. Craig if I'm not mistaken ^^ Great fun :)
--Chunky
Chunkyzar 3 weeks ago
Go on a video talking about gays in the military. Read an argument about the colonization of America.
How the fuck does that work?
Watchamacalitful 5 months ago 3
@Watchamacalitful It was a response to someone saying the USA is a christian nation ... because it was founded by christian pilgrims - I was just pointing out that it wasn't ...
pubuman 3 months ago
Dude, the colonists went to America for religious freedom to worship God. Are you seriously going to find a way to explain how that's false, too?
radicallyalyssa 5 months ago
@radicallyalyssa A particular set of colonists did ... a whole bunch of other colonists did not ... how ignorant are you of history?
pubuman 5 months ago
@radicallyalyssa Are you saying that the pilgrim colonies were the first European colonies that started building the United States? Really?!
pubuman 5 months ago
@radicallyalyssa Actually, even if you go by the numbers what you are saying is quite nonsensical. The largest religious based colonization number was 20,000 settlers ... the British alone shipped 50,000 convicts to America ... I guess the USA was a nation under criminals then? (That was sarcasm to point out the fallacy of your point). Your ignorance of history is utterly baffling!
pubuman 5 months ago
@radicallyalyssa well religious freedom for them, if you differed from their beliefs you were killed and called an agent of Satan
saxaphonedude 2 months ago
Wonderful
Lestat1966 6 months ago
Omg!!!
What movie is this!?!
Somebody, I beg of you.
Please respond!
DaiKozui 6 months ago
@DaiKozui it's a show called "the west wing." it was on NBC forever ago. it's been off the air for many years.
glitterfly49 6 months ago
The US started out as a nation under God. Why do you think God is written everywhere on government buildings?
radicallyalyssa 6 months ago
@radicallyalyssa Alas, but which 'god'?
The founding fathers were primarily deist and agnostic. Most were in no form 'Christian'. "Under god" was not added to the pledge of allegiance until 1954. The US never was and never will be a 'Christian' Country.
octavebasse8 6 months ago 2
@radicallyalyssa Wrong! Most of that was added a lot later than the founding of the country ... even money didn't have the those words till the early 20th century ... so no the US did NOT start out as a nation under god.
pubuman 6 months ago
@pubuman Yes it did. The pilgrims left England to find RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. They wanted to worship GOD under THEIR OWN rule. Not the king of England's, who was a TYRANT and wanted them to worship him over their God. Don't be daft.
radicallyalyssa 5 months ago
@radicallyalyssa The nation (USA) was founded much later than that ... So no, it didn't ... if you are going to state that the pilgrims founded the USA then you have no concept of history, and if you are going to claim that, one can argue the USA was founded by native americans, which would make the USA a country under a completely different "god" ...
pubuman 5 months ago
@pubuman In no way, shape, or form did the native Americans build the country we live in today. It was the colonists, because they were actually the people who removed the natives and built their own colonies over the land. So yes, they did begin the United States, only it was once called the Thirteen Colonies. If you're seriously saying that they had nothing to do with the beginning of the US, then I'm wasting my time talking to an idiot.
radicallyalyssa 5 months ago
@radicallyalyssa I'm not saying they had nothing to do with the beginning of the US, I'm saying they weren't the ones that founded the nation of the USA, since the colonies were still under British rule and taxed by the British. Furthermore European colonies existed BEFORE the pilgrim based colonies, and these were hugely successful. So no, they didn't begin the USA. Your lack of historical knowledge is disturbing!
pubuman 5 months ago
@pubuman It's like you're saying, "It wasn't the complete United States until they admitted Alaska and Hawaii into the Union, which was 1959." Your move.
radicallyalyssa 5 months ago
@radicallyalyssa Wrong again, when the nation was founded it was as a united country and not as independent colonies (as it was before then). If you are going to draw the line at European colonization, then the credit should also go to the French, Spanish and the Dutch - and these had nothing to do with religion ...
pubuman 5 months ago
@radicallyalyssa And anyway, I was addressing the point you made about having things like "under God" in official things, by pointing out that they were added a lot later than when the nation was founded ... by religious pressure and meddling I might add ...
pubuman 5 months ago
Ok,then,THAT went well,hahahaha!
popazz1 7 months ago
i think that limiting marriage to a man and a woman is gender discrimination. what so a woman can marry a man but when a man wants to do it hes an abomination. this is the 21st century people, i can't believe people discriminate against me just because im a man. i deserve my rights.
thewhatsit104 7 months ago
Damn, I had to go back like 20 pages to find comments on THE ACTUAL SCENE!!!!
mlc2005 7 months ago 2
@mlc2005
so could u tell me what episode this is pls?
sykr23 6 months ago
@sykr23: It's from the first season: "Take Out the Trash Day."
mlc2005 6 months ago
@mlc2005
thanks
sykr23 6 months ago
I LOVE THIS SCENE!!!!!!!!!
mlc2005 7 months ago
schooled. nuff said
sleekcartim 7 months ago
@TheKenny4292 "I will pray that you quit being an idiot." How very "Christian" of you. Typical.
wesj1989 7 months ago
@TheKenny4292 yes - so that tells us that according to the silly old old testament everyone is damned. what a waste of time. to even THINK lustful thoughts is a sin? Oh dear oh dear...
blueray1969 7 months ago
@blueray1969 Now don't mock the system. It IS important for a LOT of people and it should be met with acceptance, not derision. If you decline them their right to believe, then they may rightfully decline you YOUR right NOT to believe. Don't go there, just nod and smile. They are, for the most part, not hurting anyone. It's the fanatics that you can't stand. And thats perfectly legitimate, but don't assume every believer is a fanatic.
Chunkyzar 7 months ago
@Chunkyzar HMMMM..........that's a very good point, well made.
blueray1969 7 months ago
@TheKenny4292 I picked up a leaflet at a rally (or maybe in a supermarket) once that said people that quote from any 2,000 year old propaganda book are twats. It was there, in black and white, so it must be true right?
blueray1969 8 months ago
@TheKenny4292 " The bible describes you as one who has been blinded by Satan." im sorry i must have mislead you, you seem to think that i think your old book holds any truth. well i dont. think of it as the same how u feel about every other religious text out there or the harry potter series. it holds the same weight with me. " You are the enemy of God, " y thank you 8^) -"I will pray that you quit being an idiot." i wont pray however i hope the same for u.
Heavygunnerairsoft 8 months ago
@TheKenny4292 "The scriptures are filled with scientific facts" "Have you ever told a lie? - yes and u just did also. and ill save u some time in response. i have a idea where ur going with this, yes i have, yes i have looked at other women with lust while married and acted on it, yes i have stolen, use ur lords name in vain, i have even denied the holy spirit. however if u are correct and there is a heaven/hell. I'd rather go to hell with my integrity then sell my soul to get to heaven.
Heavygunnerairsoft 8 months ago 3
@TheKenny4292 "that are absolutely harmonious with each other." that tends to happen when they are edited to be that way. y don't we look at the other gospels that didn't make it in? oh want u wont. "fulfilled prophecy," ha u funny good luck proving that those "prophecies" went altered after the fact over 1500 years when most people couldn't read except those in charge of the church, oh wait its already been proven that the text have been altered/ mistranslated/ misunderstood but u wont.
Heavygunnerairsoft 8 months ago
@TheKenny4292 "Can something bring itself into existence? No, it cannot, that is illogical. That means that something MUST have brought the universe into existence. " ah this again ok for the sake lets say ur right however prove its your god and not Thor or Zeus or the million other gods people have believed, killed, enslaved, tortured, persecuted. also religious people will sit back and be like will "what created that, what created that?" and when we say IDK oh then its god. B.S.
Heavygunnerairsoft 8 months ago
@TheKenny4292 if its because they are crazy, violated a law then thats what happens.and im personally working towards the world turning away from magic or flying genies (ie. gods) anyway so thats good news.
Heavygunnerairsoft 8 months ago
@TheKenny4292 that crap only works if you believe in your desert god, i don't believe in your god so you're threats are empty. just like if someone threatened me with Hades or Zeus's rules and punishment. i don't believe in them there for i don't bother.
Heavygunnerairsoft 8 months ago
@TheKenny4292 also id like to make a point. with the amount of galaxies out there the possibility of alien life is high, right? but if i said i was in telepathic communication with a alien ruler id be locked up to protect myself, so y aren't u lock up? huh how come when people say they talk to god we dont have them evaluated just like crazy people who think aliens are talking to them or the gov. planted microchips in their brain to control their thoughts. ?
Heavygunnerairsoft 8 months ago
@TheKenny4292 wtf does that have to do with anything? no one knows how it all started that's what research and science are trying to figure out. but lets say for a second that sure something created everything you don't know what that something is no one does so how can you go around threatening people with torture and damnation when you don't know.
Heavygunnerairsoft 8 months ago
@TheKenny4292 Irrelevant question. Hell doesn't exist, just like Santa, the easter Bunny, 14th Imam or the tooth-fairy don't.
If there was the SLIGHTEST proof of hell, then I'd re-evaluate my position, based on verifiable facts. But there is none, so I don't bother worrying about a simple mind-control trick for simple-minded plebeians.
The fact that YOU do indicates that you are gullible, ignorant and willfully stupid. A good religious person, in other words...
allieron 8 months ago
@TheKenny4292 Fuck off. Take your magic mystery man bullshit and shove it RIGHT up your ass with the BuyBull. Preferably sideways.
You drooling religious retards deserve being pissed on from great height, because you're JUST stupid enough to think it's the "Lords Blessing" and drink it up.
You swallowed all the other nonsensical crap, after all...
allieron 8 months ago
@TheKenny4292 It's a bummer for you, then, that hell doesn't exist, just like your imaginary friend doesn't.
How wretched it must be to be you and the other happy-clapping mindless idiots of your suicidal death cult, groveling in front of a naked Jew on a bronze ages torture device.
You people REALLY should get a life. Instead of craving death so you can be with your Invisible Man.
allieron 8 months ago
@TheKenny4292
The bible says a lot of things, despite being a faithful christian i realise the problem with the bible is that it was written in a social context that is different to that which exists today. It is therefore inherently likely that some of the views are impositions of the social reality of the time rather then religious doctrine. As a result in my own opinion it is therefore wrong to demand of others a moral code that they do not believe irrespective of our own oppositition
Fragileone1 9 months ago
People are scared of what they don't understand and they hate what they are scared of!
Bigbobber1958 9 months ago
if people are against gays in the military for any kind of sexual based reasons, (spread of STI's, distracted form actual duty, whatever) then they should ban women in the military too as majority of the army is heterosexual men. If you believe that straight men and women can serve side by side without sexuality being an issue then believe me that straights and gays can serve side by side too.
promophobe69 11 months ago 28
Amen, brother.
jamie32501 11 months ago
Seth MacFarlane (the creator of family guy) said it best: If you're sitting at home in your T-shirt, watching TV and worrying about whether somebody on the front lines defending your freedom is gay, you're the worst kind of asshole
Cirvantes123 1 year ago 83
@Cirvantes123 Defending your freedom from who?
harry426 3 months ago
i remember this scene in the episode...all the time convinced the man has a problem that they never even stepped away to think the problem might be something else entirely...It was SUCH a powerful scene!!! Thank you for sharing!
acceptanceisbliss 1 year ago 3
Lots of misconceptions out there about what the "Founding Fathers" believed. They were almost exclusively "Deists" - meaning that they did NOT believe in a personal god (one that intervenes in the day-to-day affairs of people). They were also extremely wary and fearful of organized religions and they're propensity for enslaving men.
u627428 1 year ago
I like this scene it's a good scene well acted shot and written all in all a good scene.
Sorry am I off topic?
dionysus17 1 year ago
can someone PLEASE tell me why it's a problem for homosexuals to be in the military? or, why people of the same gender are not allowed to marry? why is homosexuality such a big deal (and don't use the Bible as an excuse, because it clearly states: "TO EACH HIS OWN", besides....we're not supposed to incorporate ANY religion in our policy making system)?
These are serious questions, somebody please help me to better understand.
OokamiDiamond1992 1 year ago 88
@OokamiDiamond1992 Many people have been socially conditioned to view homosexuality as something that's wrong; it's similar to how people use to view interracial relationships. There really is nothing wrong with being gay or dating a person of another race, people have just been raised to view it that way.
iDoRimjob 1 year ago 2
@iDoRimjob i really do appreciate you answering my question. i myself chose not to live up to societies standards so i am a bit ignorant to the way society's mind works. if the treatment of homosexuals corresponds so well with the treatment of interracial relationships, way back when, then why don't people realize that and leave each other alone? i honestly don't understand why what another person does with their own life matters to another person.
OokamiDiamond1992 1 year ago
@OokamiDiamond1992 I'm not sure if anyone has answered - if they have, sorry to bother you. The ban on homosexuals in the military is due to the belief that homosexual men either would distract the other men, or would be distracted by them. Of course, this is illogical now as women are allowed to serve (I don't mean to offend anyone, but statistically, heterosexuals are the majority, so women serving would be more of a distraction. In my opinion, this makes the argument irrational).
hansellius 1 year ago
@OokamiDiamond1992 Just to finish the military thing, there is possibly a fear of VD (all armies are always afraid of VD, and it's possible they believe that homosexuals are more likely to spread it. Just a possible).
As for the others, there are no logical reasons I can see to limit the human rights of an individual because of the gender they like to get freaky with. Hate, fear, or some pathetic attempt to feel powerful are the only reasons I can come up with.
Hope I helped.
hansellius 1 year ago
@OokamiDiamond1992 It's not because of religion, it's because ever since the second world war America has been more and more afraid of spies. Because of that, special military operations (including reconnaissance missions) are ONLY given to soldiers that are married and have children. Back in the cold war, it was only possible to fly an SR-71 if you were married, because if you fled to the USSR with the intel you gained, you'd have to leave your loved once.
crazygamer156 1 year ago
@OokamiDiamond1992 I don't know, I'm in the military and I don't see why it's a problem. I never cared about someone's sex life.
AnchorsAweigh2010 1 month ago
@OokamiDiamond1992 well around the world armies allow gay people to serve their country, Israel is one of those countries, and guess what? every excuse for not allowing them has been debunked by facts, this is simply what you get when you let religion dictate politics together with corporate greed that feeds of the religious bullshit
tweetdezweet 3 weeks ago
@OokamiDiamond1992
I can give you a multitude of answers many anti-LGBT spokespeople have given the past few years, but it's easier to give you the shortest answer:
There isn't.
NyxFTW 1 week ago
What about non-Christian people, you can't possibly believe your religious "laws" apply to them,do you? Do Jewish laws apply to you ? How about Muslim? Hindu? Buddhist? Shinto? No? So why should your CHOSEN beliefs apply to people who DO NOT choose your belief system? That is beyond illogical.......
SeattleRexx 1 year ago 101
Actually yes, religious laws already do apply to non-religious people. That's why murder, theft, rape, etc are all illegal. So my chosen beliefs are less than your chosen beliefs simply because they are derived from God's word? Your chosen beliefs on the environment apply to me. Your chosen beliefs on taxation apply to me. Can I be exempt from your chosen beliefs? Can I refuse to obey the laws passed by those you voted for?
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 "religious laws already do apply to non-religious people. That's why murder, theft, rape, etc are all illegal"
Point of order - those are not exclusively religious laws. No human society can exist, even on the tribal level, without a prohibition on such acts. They are universal codes of conduct for every philosophy and culture that has ever existed. They predate the earliest known forms of religion and can be seen operating in other species such as wolves.
studentofsmith 1 year ago
Yes they are exclusively religious laws. All those things are commonplace in most third world countries even today, but especially back then. And don't bring animals into a discussion on morality. Even if they could comprehend such matters, I can point to dozens of animals that eat their own young, have sex with other species, murder their neighbors, etc.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 The reason they are more common in third world nations and in the past is because we have developed more effective enforcement mechanisms, not because rules prohibiting such behavior were absent.
My point with animals is that those which live in a social structure similar to humans also display what can only be described as moral behavior with one another despite the absence of any formalized moral code. Moral behavior predates moral philosophy, in our species as well as others.
studentofsmith 1 year ago
Oh no, I'm not talking about some machete wielding psycho deep in the Congo somewhere, I'm talking about in somewhat developed countries. Look at China, The Sudan, Iran, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, or Mexico. Most of the killing is done by those in power, or those who are rich enough to bribe their way out of trouble. The early 40's Nazi Germany. They had plenty of law enforcement. The problem was they had no moral foundation, and so they persecuted millions of innocent people.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
God's law is crucial to a functioning civilization. The Founding Fathers knew this. They knew that you could not separate God from the law. Let me ask you this. What defines right and wrong if you eliminate God as the ultimate authority over man?
Animals display raw instinct. They display behaviors that can benefit them and their offspring, and they display behaviors that can be a terrible detriment to themselves, their offspring, and their species. Animals aren't relevant to this discussion.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 It seems we both acknowledge society cannot exist without a moral code and that if this code is inadequate problems will arise. But I see this code as developing naturally as human beings learned to cooperate with each other and function as a society. And this code continues to change and develop in response to the changing needs of our society.
Formalized moral philosophies, including religion, merely justify existing moral laws, they do not originate them.
studentofsmith 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 "What defines right and wrong if you eliminate God as the ultimate authority over man?"
That's simple: It's called the United States Constitution. If you want a theocracy, move to Iran.
olyguy2000 1 year ago 4
@olyguy2000
The Constitution? Ah, so then by your rationale, if Congress and the States were to amend the Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman, that would make same-sex "marriage" immoral and wrong, correct?
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@SeattleRexx just wanted to let you know that I quoted this as my Facebook status. Thank you.
jgroban87 11 months ago
@SeattleRexx something ive been saying for years!
Rhall7191 11 months ago
@SeattleRexx Exactly. That's why the US is Secular and does not have a state belief.
Trickishismael360 7 months ago
@AnimaTempli OI get what you're saying, but that's cherry picking.
If people are going to interpret the Bible as law you can't just pick and chose which parts are real and which aren't
st8rtrek 1 year ago
@believeit1051
In the bible Abraham has Sarah as a wife and then takes on her maid Hagar so he can have children. In the story of Jacob he has 2 wives and he has children by their maid servants as well. That's 3 women in total. How can you day that marriage is between a man and a woman in accordance with the bible, when the bible constantly shows men with multiple marriages. If the bible is that contradictory, then can't you say that it's wrong about gays too??
st8rtrek 1 year ago
@st8rtrek I'm not a Pro-religion person but I'm just saying that Abraham and all those guys were Jews, not Christians and it is also Old Testament. At no point in the New Testament is there advocation for polygamy.
AnimaTempli101 1 year ago
Just because The Bible showed polygamy doesn't mean it condoned it. Never once did God condone polygamy. In fact he condemned it and Jesus clearly stated that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
Wow fighting on the internet. good thing i gave that up. or else i would have no time for anything else. try giving up the fights. it will make you feel better.
TrueAgnosticMetal 1 year ago
For those of you who state that pedophilia is the same as homosexuality, you need to remember that we're talking about consenting adults. Adults. All states except Mississippi require persons to be 18 without consent from their parents to get married. In Mississippi, it is 21. So I wouldn't worry pedophiles getting the same rights.
Second, you fail to realize that homosexuality is not about same sex people performing the act of sex, but people of the same sex being in love.
jezmez68 1 year ago
WHAT?!?!?! States are discriminating against people who want to marry based on their age?!?! Why that's a violation of their civil rights! Marriage equality for everyone! We need marriage equality for all people! Ya know black people were once considered to be unfit to enter into contracts such as marriage. Do you want to go back to those days? You're not racist are you? No? Then you must be in favor of child/adult "marriage". Prove this isn't about two people of different ages being in love.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 So by the same token your six year old, or 12 year old, or whatever can drink in a bar, enlist in the military, get a driver's license, can enter into a contract, can be sued...
LadyNightthorn 1 year ago
Marriage isn't defined by any of those things. So by your logic, people who can't do any of those things can't get married either! That's no different from that line the bigots would use about same-sex couples not being able to have children. :p
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
well said, Bairn. schools are not to create factory tools, but educated, complete people who can think for themselves. the US Chamber is a far-right group with zero business in our schools.
PrisonerNumber9653 1 year ago
Gays have married for decades, it has been legally recognized recently, of COURSE equality is their right, the sleazy stunt of claiming that if gays marry we will have to allow you to marry 26 people, your sister or your cat is not just insulting but proven wrong. it isnt "marriage" it's marriage, as real and valid as any other.
PrisonerNumber9653 1 year ago
Actually you're wrong all around. First, same-sex "marriage" has only been legal since April Fool's Day 2001, and that began in The Netherlands. Since then polygamy has been accepted there! Yes, Victor de Bruijn married his wife, then entered a civil union with another thus allowing the same marital benefits to go to all three. They also recognize Muslim polygamist "marriages". Sibling "marriage" is assured too, since same-sex "marriage" activists argue that marriage is not based on procreation.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 Lie. Same sex marriage (It is NOT "marriage" it is marriage) has been around for DECADES, it was only legally RECOGNIZED on that date. The LIE that polygamy goes along is PROVEN in several US states. Raising straw man arguments because there is no legitimate argument against equality is truly pathetic. Marriage is NOT based on procreation, jackass, it is based on LOVE. I work for a church, have done COUNTLESS weddings, have NEVER asked "you're having kids, right??"
PrisonerNumber9653 1 year ago
So you consider unknown ceremonies in remote butt-cracks of the planet to be "marriages"? Okay, but I would think you'd have to go further back than a few decades. When you say decades you must mean between 20 and 90 years since any less would be a decade and any more would be a century. Now as I recall my history studies the world was busy fighting world wars, economic problems, drugs, etc between 1920 and 1990. Not much talk of homosexuality during those years let alone same-sex "marriage".
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 Wow, you're truly a KKK bigot. Remote buttcracks? No, THE UNITED STATES. Jim Crow laws not recognizing the marriages doesn't change that they ARE MARRIED. People have been married for DECADES, and your bigoted laws will NOT change that.
PrisonerNumber9653 1 year ago
I'm saying other countries are butt-cracks. We don't recognize shit they do as being valid or legitimate, including same-sex "marriage". You speak of laws, yet do you realize there is no law stating that people have the right to marry the same sex? In order for the government to recognize same-sex "marriages" there must be a law saying that marriage includes same-sex couples. It does not. Marriage is defined as the union of 1 man and 1 woman. Therefore marriage does not include same-sex couples.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 Ah, so you hate gays AND foreigners, got it. The law DOES say that marriage is a right. Marriage is NOT defined as "1 man and 1 woman" in LEGITIMATE law, these newly born "marriage protection" rules written in haste by panicking bigots are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Marriage DOES include same-sex couples.
PrisonerNumber9653 1 year ago
I don't hate any person. I do hate it when anyone breaks the law though.
Really? And where does the law say that marriage is a right?
The newly born marriage amendments are nothing more than laws which secure the same definition of marriage that has existed for thousands of years. Marriage has always been defined as a 1 man 1 woman union.
Point to any law or historic example of when marriage was ever described as the union of two males or two females.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 YOU LIAR!!! Saying gays are a "threat" to children, comparing them to child molesters, blasphemously saying that God supports your evil discrimination against them, THESE ARE ACTS OF HATE.
Marriage has NOT always been defined as "1 man 1 woman", for CENTURIES people married more than one woman, more than one man, we've CHANGED it's provisions many times over the years. And "we've always done it this way" is the WORST excuse for continuing something bad.
PrisonerNumber9653 1 year ago
Also, marriage is about having kids. One of the major reasons it was created in the first place was to establish a strong foundation on which to start a family. Redefining marriage to suit a relationship type where procreation is impossible will in fact remove that reason from marriage. Thus, same-sex "marriage" would destroy the institution of marriage.
Also, I'm sure the reason why this church you mentioned doesn't ask that is because those they marry are of opposite sexes.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 That's crap. Marriage is about love and committment. Couples who never have children are JUST as married. Couples who CANNOT have children are just as married. We're talking human beings, not breed stock. Having children is NOT why marriage exists, love and committment is. This is NOT redefining marriage, it's just ending a pointless discrimination. It is NOT "marriage" it is MARRIAGE, as valid and real as any other. And the reason it's not mentioned is THAT'S NOT WHY THEY MARRY.
PrisonerNumber9653 1 year ago
Marriage is about love and commitment between a man and woman, not the same sex. It's also about providing a stable foundation for starting a family, which only opposite sex couples can do. So if you say it's not about kids, then you've just destroyed the meaning of marriage and you've opened the door to incestuous, polygamous, child/adult, and human/animal/object "marriage".
Besides, homosexuality isn't love, nor are most homosexuals capable of commitment. You're trying to redefine marriage.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 SICK BIGOTED LIES. Marriage is about love and committment PERIOD. Saying it's ONLY for straight people is discrimination for NO REASON AT ALL.
It's a despicable, scummy LIE to claim this discrimination "protects children". There is not a single child better off because of it.
Homosexuality is as much love as heterosexuality is. Saying they're not capable of committment is a KKK lie, that traditionally gays have more partners is caused by YOUR bigotry. Marriage can change that.
PrisonerNumber9653 1 year ago
It's about love and commitment, period? So if it can be found that a child and an adult are capable of love and commitment, then you would be in favor of child/adult "marriage"?
By they way, I never said it was only for straight people. Homosexuals can marry someone of the opposite sex too ya know.
Children are better off not being around homosexuals and their deviant ideas and behaviors. All credible medical and psychiatric organizations prove this.
Homosexuality is death.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 Ah, the bigoted, hateful LIE of comparing gay people to child molesters, you will play all the KKK games, won't you. A child is INCAPABLE of making that decision, obviously, so NO child adult marriage is NOT comparable.
Now, the despicable LIE that this type of bigot is "protecting marriage" is PROVEN with the idiotic line that gays can "marry someone of the opposite sex", in other words, marry someone they do NOT love and are NOT attracted to. YOU are desecrating marriage.
PrisonerNumber9653 1 year ago
And no, a "marriage" between two people of the same sex is not a true marriage because marriage is the union of 1 man and 1 woman. That is it's meaning and definition. That is its very essence. Homosexual relationships are on the same level as incestuous and polygamist relationships. They are far beneath heterosexual relationships. It's sewer level actually.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 Lie. A gay couple is JUST as married as any other. The ESSENCE of marriage, the DEFINITION of marriage is about love and committment, it's no more limited to heterosexuals than it is to same race couples. The bigotry of comparing them to incest or polygamy is the SAME stunt they used to oppose interracial marriage. They are NOT beneath heterosexual relationships, that comment, the comment about "sewer level" is the definition of bigotry, a KKK worthy comment.
PrisonerNumber9653 1 year ago
Yeah, and true love can only be had between 1 man and 1 woman.
Now if such a concept is not limited to heterosexuals, then what makes it limited to heterosexuals and homosexuals? What about bisexuals? Why won't you allowed them to "marry" the ones they love? Because unless you're in favor of polygamous "marriage" then that's exactly what you're doing. You are telling bisexuals they must choose heterosexuality or homosexuality and give up their current sexuality in order to conform to marriage!
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 KKK lies. A gay couple loves one another JUST as much as a straight couple. You insult true love with the insane and despicable LIE that it's only for heterosexuals. AGAIN you bring up the IRRELEVENT nonsense of marrying more than one person, because there IS no legitimate reason to oppose marriage equality for gays, you change the subject. This has NOTHING to do with polygamy.
PrisonerNumber9653 1 year ago
Same-sex "marriage" will lead directly to polygamy, and I can prove it. We say homosexuals have equal rights now because they can marry in the same way heterosexuals do, to one consenting human adult of the opposite sex who is not of close blood relationship. This is a fact. Now your side argues this is unacceptable because it's unfair to tell homosexuals to change "who they are" in order to conform to marriage. That marriage must conform to fit their sexual preference. Right?
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 What is wrong with polygamy? Three consenting adults want to live as a family what's wrong with that? Is there some intrinsic value that makes monogamy more moral than polygamy? If 2 why not 3? Why not 4?
Monolith21000 1 year ago
Why not 87?
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 Why not indeed?
Monolith21000 1 year ago
Because that's not a family. It's chaos. It's disfunction. It hurts children. It's damaging to the "spouses" involved.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 First of all, there is nothing inherently immoral about chaos, or disfunction from that matter. How does it hurt children? How is it damaging to the spouses involved? So I have 86 wives. If I told them I was a polygamist and if I love them all I am not decieving them. If they are free to pursue other relationships I am not demanding anything unequal from them. If we have a compact to raise children together as a large family or tribe how are the children harmed?
Monolith21000 1 year ago
There is when you intentionally create it.
It hurts children by splitting them up among multiple parental figures and forcing them to compete with half siblings. It confuses them as to who their parents are and what their family is.
It hurts spouses because they must compete with other "wives" or "husbands" for the love and affection of the "spouse". The "love" is divided up among the "spouses". Marriage is about a man and woman putting all their love and commitment into each other.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 That is something that Can happen but not an intrinsic flaw in a polygamous system. Several North American tribes had social systems similar to large families, where every child had as many mothers as there were women in the tribe. These tribes endured for Thousands of years, so it clearly didn't lead to the end of society. I'm looking for a Moral reason why polygamy or gay marriage is intrinsically wrong.
Monolith21000 1 year ago
You could say that to your "wives" but it would be deception because you wouldn't really love any of them. If you don't care about your "wife" putting her love into someone else, then you don't really love her. If you love someone other than your "wife" then you don't really love her. That's like saying a male who cheats on his wife really loves her. Marriage is about bonding 1 man and 1 woman in true love, not the division of people's love among various people.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 Says you. Does a father with two children by necessity love one more than another? Can not he love them both equally? And if he can, why not love two women? Furthermore, the idea of monogmy is not a universal one. Many cultures, ancient and modern practice polygamy. A man who cheat on his wife IS decieving her. If he and his wife agree to an open relationship freely, there is no deception and therefore no immoral conduct.
Monolith21000 1 year ago
@Monolith21000 If that worked both way's it might be alright with the two paries agrrement.
forlovessake 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 First off, it's not "marriage" it's marriage, as real as yours or mine. Secondly it's a PROVEN lie that it will NOT lead to "polygamy", there are SEVERAL states where gay marriage is recognized in NONE has it led to this straw man argument. It's a LIE to claim gays have equal rights now, marriage is one of SEVERAL areas they're discriminated against. It's not just unfair to tell gays to change who they are it is IMPOSSIBLE. Marriage isn't changing, POINTLESS discrimination is over
PrisonerNumber9653 1 year ago
Their so-called union is not marriage. It's trash. It's meaningless. Marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. What homosexuals have is nothing like marriage, and their relationship type itself is unnatural and vile. I'd say it's a little bit beneath incest, which is also vile.
I just proved that same-sex "marriage" will lead to polygamy because next in line will be the bisexuals claiming the equal right to marry 1 man and 1 woman.
Again, you need to learn the meaning of "straw man".
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 Lie. It is a marriage. Calling it "trash" is just hate, a KKK lie. It's as meaningful as your marriage or mine. What they have is EXACTLY like what straights have, love and committment, and your hate in calling it "vile" is like saying "black people are nasty". You're just as bigoted, just as immoral as the worst racist. Calling it "unnatural" is a PROVEN lie. EVERY credible source says it's perfectly natural.
You did NOT prove it will lead to polygamy, it's been proven it WONT
PrisonerNumber9653 1 year ago
Homosexuals are Americans aren' they? So how can you say they don't have equal rights now? What about homosexuals who keep their private lives to themselves and live like heterosexuals? How are they being denied any rights? So prove that homosexuals are being denied any rights, or go home.
Homosexuals can marry in the same way everyone else does. So you're wrong. Next.
Again, if it's unfair to ask homos to change to fit marriage, then what about bisexuals?
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 They do NOT have equal rights. Are they allowed to marry? NO. Have hate crimes protection and equal rights in court? NO. Do straights get fired for being straight? NO.
Gays can NOT marry in the same way, you lying Nazi. I married the person I love, they can NOT. It is NOT the same, you insult marriage with this sick lie.
And you repeat the nasty slur, while pretending to be a Christian.
Bisexuals marrying is not an issue, you're desperately flailing with straw men.
PrisonerNumber9653 1 year ago
So let's assume we change marriage to include same-sex relationships. But then what about bisexuals, who as you know are attracted to both sexes? By your same illogic, isn't it also unfair to tell them they must forsake "who they are" and choose either opposite or same-sex "marriage"? And so under Equal Protection we will have to redefine "marriage" again so that bisexuals can "marry" two people. Polygamy. I can also prove how your argument leads to incestuous "marriage".
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 There's nothing "illogic" about equality. No, it is NOT redefining marriage, which will continue to mean EXACTLY the same thing, and this pathetic "slippery slope" trash has been PROVEN false in several states with gay marriage, where NOBODY has married 3 people, their sister, or their cat.
PrisonerNumber9653 1 year ago
Your abstract concept of "equality" is a delusion.
Marriage means the union of 1 man and 1 woman. If you wish to expand it to 2 people of the same sex, then you must redefine it. Thus, it would be a redefinition. It's unfortunate that you are unable to understand the definitions of words. That's why you'll always lose these kinds of debates.
Same-sex "marriage" has only been allowed in some states for 6 years, which is not enough time for other movements to push their marriage agendas.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
The other movements to expand marriage further will only start once the same-sex "marriage" movement has ended. If they were to start now then it would hurt the current movement, which is acting as the vanguard to all the other movements. They'll wait for the same-sex "marriage" movement to establish a legal precedent which they can use to advance their own agendas.
The slippery slope is proved true using the same arguments used today to justify an expansion of marriage to same-sex couples.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 Again these are PROVEN lies. We've had marriage equality for gays for YEARS and NOBODY has married 12 people, their sister, or their cat. These are still just desperate straw men arguments, because NO legitimate reason to oppose marriage equality exists, NOBODY has EVER been harmed by gays marrying. The "slippery slope" argument is a lie and nothing but, and this has been PROVEN.
PrisonerNumber9653 1 year ago
Comparing interracial couples to incestuous or polygamous couples was a stunt the racist pulled back then? I don't think so. If you actually knew history you'd know their argument had to do with mixing races. In fact the Supreme Court found their ban to be a violation of rights because it was based soley on skin color prejudice. So you're wrong again.
Actually the definition of bigotry is "stubborn, unwavering in opinion or belief". And are you saying polygamy is sewer level? Are you prejudice?
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 Yes, it was. WORD FOR WORD. "If we allow these unnatural couples to marry, we will be forced to allow people to marry multiple partners, or their own family members, or even people of the SAME SEX!" It was a lie then, it's a lie now. I've taught history for years, don't pretend I don't know history, you'll make an even bigger clown of yourself. It WAS based on prejudice, and so is THIS, prejudice against gays is the ONLY reason to oppose equality. Polygamy is IRRELEVENT.
PrisonerNumber9653 1 year ago
Those words weren't used back then because we had interracial marriage before that. The interracial marriage bans were enacted after interracial marriages had been going on and were recognized as valid for centuries. No the argument was that races were meant to be kept separate and that mixing would destroy the white race. That was the extent of the democrat argument for interracial marriage bans. There was never any talk of it leading to polygamy. You're ill informed. But that is true of today.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 Lie. It is EXACTLY the same excuses WORD FOR WORD. "If we allow interracial marriage, we'll have to allow incest!" The pathetic LIE that it would damage and destroy the "sanctity of marriage", EXACTLY the same pathetic lie we get now. There ABSOLUTELY WAS talk that it would lead to polygamy. I'm NOT ill informed, I know this topic very, very well. YOU are ill informed, and bigoted as all hell.
PrisonerNumber9653 1 year ago
Prove that those arguments were ever used in any of the state legislatures that passed their interracial marriage bans, or any of the court cases where the bans were challenged. Put up or shut up.
Besides that, I already proved that same-sex "marriage" will lead directly to polygamy. You have not refuted this fact.
Of course, this is because you're a bigot. You are bigoted against morality and natural law. You're blind, intolerant, and full of hate. You're also a homophobe.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 Hilarious lies. In fact it has been PROVEN that gay marriage will NOT lead to polygamy, you proved NOTHING of the sort. How many polygamous marriages are there in Massachusetts? ZERO. In Iowa? ZERO. California? NOT ONE.
Calling me a bigot while I fight against YOUR bigotry is a typical desperate stunt. I am NOT intolerant, NOT full of hate, NOT a homophobe. You are all of those things.
PrisonerNumber9653 1 year ago
This was shockingly brilliant. I love this!
mlc2005 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 The "radical homosexual agenda" as far as I can see it is an attempt to win equal protection under the law. It's not an attempt to control what straight people do. Your problem is their daring to suggest they are equal to you but you're not honest enough to admit that. Instead, you bury yourself behind talking points that someone else gave you.
bairn75 1 year ago
They already are equal to me in regards to the law. They are pushing for special rights. Hate crime laws give them special protection over me. Their efforts in the courts also tell us what to do. It says that we can't vote on a public policy, that we must go with whatever their super minority wants.
And I don't get talking points from anyone. I'm the one who everyone else steals from. I've been refuting your side since you were just another brainwashed teenager in the public school system.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 I'm not brainwashed, but thanks for your concern. LGBT persons are not protected at the federal level from discrimination in the private sector. Over half of the states do not protect against discrimination based on orientation (nolo.com). I have no idea what you mean when you say that LGBT persons are requesting rights "over you." continued...
bairn75 1 year ago
So what? No one is protected from discrimination in the private sector, and rightfully so. There is nothing wrong with discrimination, which simply means "to tell the difference between". The problem is prejudice and unlawful treatment, which every citizen is protected against in the public square.
The special rights homosexuals want are preferential treatment in society. They want marriage redefined to suit their preferences against the will of the majority. Cont. →
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 Sorry, the law is not an instrument to affect the court of public opinion. No law will be enough to give what NOM is really after. As far as the school, students should be made aware that LGBT persons exist and that they deserve respect. Groups like Gay/Straight Education Network attempt to do this which, of course, invites storm of disinformation and slander from social conservatives. Not surprising.
bairn75 1 year ago
NO4M is not trying to legally protect marriage for the sake of changing public opinion. They are trying to legally secure it against activist judges who overturn laws at their own whim. They, I, and others like us know full well that government is NOT a valid or Constitutional tool of social reform. The views of society must be left to the PEOPLE to change through open debate and dialogue.
Now, if society wants same-sex "marriage", then let the people vote it into law.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 So, the Supreme Court decision in Loving vs. Virginia in 1967 was completely wrong-headed in your opinion? Your position is really luxurious considering the current tendencies of the American majority.
bairn75 1 year ago
No it wasn't wrong-headed because that was a different ballpark completely. First, the interracial marriage restrictions that were enacted were actual bans that existed as a redefinition to marriage. Before that, marriages had been taking place between different races for centuries. Second, the only reason for the restrictions being created in the first place was to segregate the races, which was a clear violation of the 14th Amendment. It was based soley on racism.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
Finally, the best part about the Loving ruling, is it actually confirmed marriage as a 1 man 1 woman union. It said it is a right because it is essential to our very existence and survival. Well, the only relationship that fits that description is the 1 man 1 woman union. So in fact the courts have already ruled that it is a 1 man 1 woman union.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
School kids shouldn't be taught LGBT anything. They should be educated and trained in the knowledge and skill that will make them successful in the workplace. Social matters are the responsibility of the parents to teach their own children. And I'm always amused when liberals say we should teach kids about immoral sexualities but MUST NEVER teach kids about the Bible. No, never our values, only their idea of "values". So you get to teach them about anal sex but we can't teach about abstinence.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 Starting from the second sentence--well, my friend, corporate America and the US Chamber of Commerce salute you. Are you serious? The purpose of education should be to create responsible, knowledgeable, and independent students. Instead we are growing a crop of purely vocational students who, even if they stir from their apathy, don't have the tools to know when someone is taking them for a ride.
bairn75 1 year ago
Creating responsible, knowledgeable, and independent students is the purpose of parents, not schools. Teachers are not babysitters and they aren't mentors who can be trusted with a student's personal concerns.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 On marriage: during the 1990s relatively few in the LGBT pol. groups were asking for the title. Most were interested in what initially would happen with civil partnership laws. Civil partnerships ended up being more of a hassle than an asset. Many LG couples were disolving them because they were useless at best and detrimental, esp, taxes, at worst. State governments, hospitals and other institutions often didn't care to train their employees on these laws and the process unkempt.
bairn75 1 year ago
Yeah, that was their foot in the door. That's all. They have always been after the title of marriage. California is proof of this. They still have even to this day, and law that allows people of any sex to enter into civil unions that carry the SAME legal benefits and privilages as marriage. All they lack is the title. Yet the homosexual activists proved that this was not enough for them. They will not stop until society promotes their sexual preferences and behaviors.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 The dominant culture, which writes the history books, keeps a death grip on definitions. I see the desire for marriage by some LGB groups as an expediency to meet dominant culture on its own terms. I'm personally revolted by the history of marriage which has a long rap-sheet of offenses against human dignity. LGBT action groups are trying to secure the promises that were made by failing CP laws by speaking the lingua franca of marriage. It's not a love affair w/ the term.
bairn75 1 year ago
The dominant culture writes nothing. History has been preserved by great Americans through the ages. Only recently have the homosexual activists tried rewritting history. They pick historical figures who are long dead and try to inject their own beliefs into them. Like saying Lincoln was homosexual who had sex with other males in his log cabin simply because it was common back then for males to sleep in the same bed, sometimes 4 at a time. They ignore the fact that he was married with children.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 I'm sorry but your last sentence is patently absurd. Evidence of marriage and begetting of children can certainly be supportive of heterosexual orientation but it in no way outrules the possibility of a bisexual or homosexual orientation. Historical frauds and erasure of undesirables from public memory are common actions of dominant cultures. Your canon preserved by "great Americans" is no less prone.
bairn75 1 year ago
It does rule out homosexual relationships because two people of the same sex cannot reproduce among themselves. The court ruling was clear as to why marriage was considered a civil right, and that's because of its relation to procreation.
Also, I never said American history wasn't prone to present day alteration. In fact I said it was prone, which is all the more reason to study history and preserve it.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
The history of marriage has a long rap-sheet of offenses against human dignity? Ah, more homosexual activist deception. See, they lie about the history of marriage and slander it in order to argue that it should be reduced to their level. In America, marriage has always been between 1 man and 1 woman. In human history, it started out as that but was then redefined by some "cultures". Now, what a few groups of people in other parts of the world do with that institution makes no difference to us.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 True, in America, monogamy was the sanctioned standard. Utah was forced to accept it in order to be included in the union. The rap sheet I had in mind actually included marriage in America. Marriage was real swell--if you were a (white) man. As late as the mid 19th c. married women couldn't own property, sign contracts or control their wages. Must of really sucked if your man was beating you
bairn75 1 year ago
The fact that women couldn't do this or that is because of the civil laws of the time, not because of the definition of marriage. It just so happened that government did not recognize women as being equal citizens under the Constitution, which was wrong, but still, that had nothing to do with marriage. However, laws against assault or domestic violence did exist and were enforced.
It's like today. Marriage still means the same as it did, but culture has changed. Spousal roles have changed too.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 Yes, marriage has changed significantly. Historically, the main drive for marriage has been finances and political ties, even in America. The reason I brought up these "outdated" modes of the institution was to counter your argument that marriage has always been this great institution in America and that bad marriage ideas came from non-western countries.
bairn75 1 year ago
The reasons why people marry is irrelevant to the qualifications of marriage.
That was one example of a bad marriage qualification (which isn't supported by the record as a definite fact). Assuming it existed, it wasn't considered bad during that era because teens of that era were learned and mature by that age. Assuming that was the marital age, then a redefinition of marriage occurred in order to be consistent with the good of society. This only proves that the people get to define marriage.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
Also, I never said marriage could not be redefined. I said it could be only through a valid legal process, which is through the people or their elected representatives.
But let's examine the idea that marriage was once redefined in America at all in regards to age. Assuming that it is true that children could marry back then, this would not be a matter of marriage's definition, because what was changed to prevent this? It wasn't the marriage law. No one wrote an amendment redefining marriage...
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
No, rather what would have been changed are the laws regarding informed consent and contracts. So what would have changed is not the marriage law or definition, but rather the laws regarding legal contracts and what age was allowed to enter into legal contracts. Since marriage is a legal contract, obviously the marital age would be raised as an extension of the contract law. So what would have been redefined is not marriage, but rather what society considers an adult to be.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 19th century American law also wasn't too keen on protecting children. Age of sexual consent in most states was 10, 7 if you lived in Delaware. If you were a 14 yo boy in 1930 and wanted to work out your Romeo and Juliet fantasy, you could marry a 12 yo girl. Kicker: must be OK with mum an