Kawasaki Concours Forum
Mish mash => Open Forum => Topic started by: voileauciel on June 26, 2015, 12:39:22 PM
-
Not sure if this is the right place for it, since GLBTQ issues never really seem to be discussed in this forum, but after 31 years of being treated like a second class citizen, it's nice to know that's no longer the case. Marriage equality has been guaranteed in all 50 States by a 5-4 Supreme Court decision.
I'm sure not everyone here will agree with this, and that's ok, we're humans, we disagree with each other from time to time. However, for those of us that this directly effects, it's nice to finally join the club and be able to share our lives with the ones we love, enjoying full legal protection at the same level as our heterosexual counterparts.
To any and all in this group and elsewhere that helped in the fight to bring our country to this monumental decision today, I thank you from the bottom of my heart. :D
-
I live in San Francisco, I'm happy to see that they will now begin to get the same respect we all do when it comes to marriage and hopefully all that comes with it. I can't even imagine having a loved one, who you had lived with for 20 years, being in the hospital and being told you're not family, you can't visit.
Its about time.
-
I am happy for those that were affected by this - congratulations!! I consider myself a traditionalist and a Christian, but I firmly believe on not judging someone because of their orientation. I won't claim to be non-judgmental either, but I will judge if a person is honest, has integrity, kindhearted.
-
I am happy for those that were affected by this - congratulations!! I consider myself a traditionalist and a Christian, but I firmly believe on not judging someone because of their orientation. I won't claim to be non-judgmental either, but I will judge if a person is honest, has integrity, kindhearted.
I like your style. I wish there were more people like you. The world would be a better place.
-
My mother told me if I didn't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.
All I will say is that I think the SCOTUS got it wrong.
Sorry to rain on the parade but everyone gets to have an opinion ... this is mine.
-
Don't care if queers marry or not, but the should not be allowed to raise children.
Mother and a father.
-
An odd thing happened to me today. I went to a ballgame and they started to play the anthem. I just could not get myself to stand for it. Instead I walked out and went to the rest room.
-
I knew this thread was doomed.
Too many people just can't help themselves.
-
Don't care if :censored: marry or not, but the should not be allowed to raise children.
Mother and a father.
There are quite a few :censored: up kids running around that were 'raised' by a mother and father. Who's to say it can't be done better just because the couple is not man and woman?
I censored your posts when quoted because I felt you used the word in a derogatory manner. If that was not your intent, I apologize.
-
An odd thing happened to me today. I went to a ballgame and they started to play the anthem. I just could not get myself to stand for it. Instead I walked out and went to the rest room.
I hope that was sarcasm or a joke.
-
People this is right on the cusp of getting locked. Discussion is fine. Derogatory comments are not. >:(
-
An odd thing happened to me today. I went to a ballgame and they started to play the anthem. I just could not get myself to stand for it. Instead I walked out and went to the rest room.
You couldn't stand for our anthem? You should have stayed in the restroom...
-
Why shouldn't gays have mothers in law, too?
The CotUS already gave gays these "rights". No law was needed.
Stil think its wrong. The Bible says a man ought not to lay with another man, mm.
I HAD a brother who was gay.
-
You couldn't stand for our anthem? You should have stayed in the restroom...
+10. I agree....
but he didn't say how long he spent there, or why, really...
I think its time this made its way to the arena...
where those with narrow or closed minds regarding human rights can be bashed, without reprise, just as they themselves bash those that deserve their rights to be upheld.
-
Its called progress, in 20 years time we will all be wondering what the fuss was about, and hopefully the HR will be focusing on more important issues.
-
We will see but the fact that it is still out here, not <yet> needing any moderation (apparently in the opinions of the moderators) speaks volumes for the behavior and general population of this forum IMO. My compliments to all who have kept this thread open this long. Or rather, I guess, those who could have closed or moved it already and did not. ;)
:thumbs:
Brian
I think its time this made its way to the arena...
where those with narrow or closed minds regarding human rights can be bashed, without reprise, just as they themselves bash those that deserve their rights to be upheld.
-
Its called progress, in 20 years time we will all be wondering what the fuss was about, and hopefully the HR will be focusing on more important issues.
Like beer in every household.
-
Its called progress, in 20 years time we will all be wondering what the fuss was about, and hopefully the HR will be focusing on more important issues.
I remember when an unwed couple couldn't rent an apartment together. In twenty years polygamy will be legalized to cover the bisexuals who want a husband and a wife.
I bring this up because in God's eyes heterosexual cohabitation out of marriage is a sin, just like homosexualality, coveting, stealing, etc. Our laws were based on biblical views but that is now changing. Making something legal doesn't make it not a sin though.
-
You know, in the application of Title IX to college athletics many colleges and universities closed down some men's programs. This was done to meet the equal rights requirement for college athletics.
I suppose that we could apply that same method to the rights allowed to married men and women in opposite sex marriages that a government issued license guarantees since giving gay people those same rights seems to be a sticking point. (I believe, after all, that the SCOTUS decision probably applies only to those rights guaranteed by the marriage license since the government MUST stay of out the religious aspect of marriage. It seems as though some people think that having the same legal rights somehow casts some of the religiosity of opposite sex marriage onto gay marriage. This is probably not the case.)
For instance, we could outlaw purchasing health insurance for your opposite sex spouse through your employer as long as it's outlawed for same sex spouses. Opposite sex partners should have no say in the medical treatment for an incapacitated spouse as long as a same sex spouse has no say. Survivors rights to common property should be abolished for opposite sex marriages also.
Given our divorce rate and the legal costs of divorce, this particular solution may be workable. Save marriage for the religious and do away with marriage licenses altogether. Separate marriage from any legal rights at all.
-
So, I'm a devout atheist and my fiancé is a verrry Christian-oriented woman. We would have no right to marry then??
There is no one who cannot be defined as some sort of minority based upon some kind of "difference".
Everyone has something "different", be it physical, psychological, philosophical, behavioral, or a combination thereof. Everyone can be discriminated against by someone else at sometime. When it is allowed against "them", then some day it will be allowed against you. All it takes is a small swing in the political pendulum.
-
I remember when an unwed couple couldn't rent an apartment together. In twenty years polygamy will be legalized to cover the bisexuals who want a husband and a wife.
I bring this up because in God's eyes heterosexual cohabitation out of marriage is a sin, just like homosexualality, coveting, stealing, etc. Our laws were based on biblical views but that is now changing. Making something legal doesn't make it not a sin though.
who's god? and by that I ask you your god, or someone else's god?
there is a specific declination of a division of church and state, and that, by the constitution shall never be crossed...
legal precedence in our United States has no obligation to the word spoken by anyone's specific "god".
this is the basis of our society.
when you lay your "god's" word out, and expect everyone to tow down to it because it is your god... you are doing exactly what led to the creation and the fighting that was what was being done prior to the creation of what "our government" was founded to abolish... it was freedom, and freedom from any and all persecution.
wake up.
and when you want to toss out the religion card, against gay and lesbian relations...
well, if it ain't in the big ten, it aint a problem...
oh, and all those christian ideals, were actually jewish ideals, and vice versa...
man, this gets to ba a real conundrum doesn't it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments)
lot'sa angst, and homophobia going on... I bet there is also a lot of racial undertones still brewing also...
maybe folks ought to accept good people by face value, and quit putting badges on others, making them a hated person...
you never know who's blood might save your life, when you are unconscious, and dying.. just saying.
or, we could go back to simply burning witches....
http://youtu.be/k3jt5ibfRzw (http://youtu.be/k3jt5ibfRzw)
-
We don't burn witches any more?
-
What we can learn from this is that it has been declared from on high the proper and accepted line of thought has now been given to the unwashed masses and any deviating from this line of thought are branded racist, bigot, homophobe climate change deniers and we only burn opposition witches.
-
Personal beliefs aside, this is a States rights issue, as that's where marriage licenses are issued.
-
lot'sa angst, and homophobia going on... I bet there is also a lot of racial undertones still brewing also...
maybe folks ought to accept good people by face value, and quit putting badges on others, making them a hated person
-----------------------------------------
What we can learn from this is that it has been declared from on high the proper and accepted line of thought has now been given to the unwashed masses and any deviating from this line of thought are branded racist, bigot, homophobe climate change deniers and we only burn opposition witches.
Statements like this are simply discriminatory and often violate the very premise(s) being defended by either side.
This debate has been raging for a while now in our culture and in this thread. Aside from my opinions on this specific subject at hand, I am disturbed by statements like these from both sides of the issue. Its classic 'ad hominem'.
'Homophobia' is a badge. 'On high' is sarcastic. Both are condescending and a form of a shout down meant to minimize the other person rather than defend / debate the view.
People have a right to their own beliefs. Debate should be civil and without name calling to minimize the other side. Just because someone doesn't agree with a view doesn't mean they are inferior or that their views are potentially punishable 'hate speech'.
If someone questions it or wants to debate it logically, there should not be a minimizing or a shout down. Its bullying and is verbal witch burning, just one from the other side.
This method carried to its natural conclusion means those with the largest pitchfork and torch mob will win, regardless of what natural / moral / legal code is at hand or may be violated.
This is happening on both sides of just about ANY subject within our culture and is DANGEROUS. We ALL have the right to our beliefs and freedom of expression (at least so far).
I have no problem with people stating their beliefs and opinions. I'm always curious to know the thought processes and basis they went through to arrive there. If I disagree with it, its OK. I don't hate you and I'm not a villain. Its HAS to be OK for someone to disagree with or question your line of thought - whatever it may be.
Rue the day that we are forced / punished / fined to avoid speaking against or questioning the Fuhrer of any line of thought.
-
who's god? and by that I ask you your god, or someone else's god?
there is a specific declination of a division of church and state, and that, by the constitution shall never be crossed...
legal precedence in our United States has no obligation to the word spoken by anyone's specific "god".
this is the basis of our society.
when you lay your "god's" word out, and expect everyone to tow down to it because it is your god... you are doing exactly what led to the creation and the fighting that was what was being done prior to the creation of what "our government" was founded to abolish... it was freedom, and freedom from any and all persecution.
wake up.
and when you want to toss out the religion card, against gay and lesbian relations...
well, if it ain't in the big ten, it aint a problem...
oh, and all those christian ideals, were actually jewish ideals, and vice versa...
man, this gets to ba a real conundrum doesn't it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments)
lot'sa angst, and homophobia going on... I bet there is also a lot of racial undertones still brewing also...
maybe folks ought to accept good people by face value, and quit putting badges on others, making them a hated person...
you never know who's blood might save your life, when you are unconscious, and dying.. just saying.
or, we could go back to simply burning witches....
http://youtu.be/k3jt5ibfRzw (http://youtu.be/k3jt5ibfRzw)
Did I say anything hurtful or hateful in my post? I don't think so. If you don't believe in God, then you don't believe in Sin. All I said was that changing man's law doesn't change God's law. My views are mine and yours are yours. You just have to accept that and be tolerant of others viewpoints.
-
-----------------------------------------
Statements like this are simply discriminatory and often violate the very premise(s) being defended by either side.
This debate has been raging for a while now in our culture and in this thread. Aside from my opinions on this specific subject at hand, I am disturbed by statements like these from both sides of the issue. Its classic 'ad hominem'.
'Homophobia' is a badge. 'On high' is sarcastic. Both are condescending and a form of a shout down meant to minimize the other person rather than defend / debate the view.
People have a right to their own beliefs. Debate should be civil and without name calling to minimize the other side. Just because someone doesn't agree with a view doesn't mean they are inferior or that their views are potentially punishable 'hate speech'.
If someone questions it or wants to debate it logically, there should not be a minimizing or a shout down. Its bullying and is verbal witch burning, just one from the other side.
This method carried to its natural conclusion means those with the largest pitchfork and torch mob will win, regardless of what natural / moral / legal code is at hand or may be violated.
This is happening on both sides of just about ANY subject within our culture and is DANGEROUS. We ALL have the right to our beliefs and freedom of expression (at least so far).
I have no problem with people stating their beliefs and opinions. I'm always curious to know the thought processes and basis they went through to arrive there. If I disagree with it, its OK. I don't hate you and I'm not a villain. Its HAS to be OK for someone to disagree with or question your line of thought - whatever it may be.
Rue the day that we are forced / punished / fined to avoid speaking against or questioning the Fuhrer of any line of thought.
My whole post was meant to be sarcastic. 'On high' ,if you need it explained, is your 'betters' handing down opinions as law and deciding which line of thinking is the Official Government Approved line.
-
Well, from a religious perspective, priests and preachers are already protected. You can't (yet) force them to ignore their religious beliefs to perform a same-sex wedding. It will be interesting to see if others are afforded similar protections. Should a cake baker, photographer, wedding planner, etc. be sued if they refuse their services to a same-sex couple? What about those people's rights? Are their beliefs now diminished? Would a "We Reserve The Right to Refuse Service" sign be all they need? I'd be wary about forcing some one to take my photos- probably have all the heads cut off. Would you eat a cake made by a person who was forced to bake it? I think the SCOTUS is on a slippery slope, very close to trampling over the whole church/state separation. The debate is far from over, and a whole lot of unintended consequences are sure to pop up.
-
My whole post was meant to be sarcastic. 'On high' ,if you need it explained, is your 'betters' handing down opinions as law and deciding which line of thinking is the Official Government Approved line.
Yes, that was obvious. I got the sarcasm immediately upon reading it.
I do agree with the point itself you were making, and made the same point with my comment:
Rue the day that we are forced / punished / fined to avoid speaking against or questioning the Fuhrer of any line of thought.
I still affirm that it has to, no NEEDS to be OK to have differing points of view without the vilifying.
The alternative has been lived out in the past and is brutal.
-
I've been married 39 years to the same woman and it has absolutely nothing to do with some license I got from the state of NM. I haven't looked at it since the day I got it. I have no idea where that piece of paper even is.
-
To the ones who are opposed to this, based purely on Biblical rules, how do you feel about the following?
25 things the Bible forbids (but we still do) (http://list25.com/25-normal-things-the-bible-forbids-but-we-still-do/)
To those offering words of support, thank you so very kindly for it. To those against this, if my relationship with another human being makes you uncomfortable, I'm not the problem, you are.
-
To the ones who are opposed to this, based purely on Biblical rules, how do you feel about the following?
25 things the Bible forbids (but we still do) (http://list25.com/25-normal-things-the-bible-forbids-but-we-still-do/)
To those offering words of support, thank you so very kindly for it. To those against this, if my relationship with another human being makes you uncomfortable, I'm not the problem, you are.
You are absolutely right. I have a government problem and using personal freedom as a pawn in a chess game of population control as this marriage issue has been used is another brick in the wall. There are those who realize and use turmoil and chaos as a means to power. Unfortunately I don't think this is over.
-
To the ones who are opposed to this, based purely on Biblical rules, how do you feel about the following?
25 things the Bible forbids (but we still do) (http://list25.com/25-normal-things-the-bible-forbids-but-we-still-do/)
To those offering words of support, thank you so very kindly for it. To those against this, if my relationship with another human being makes you uncomfortable, I'm not the problem, you are.
Its not a logical argument to me to say that if all do not adhere to a particular standard, it somehow negates that standard, if that's what you are getting at.
The question leads to broader questions lying at the heart of all this.
What is moral, and who defines it?
Is there an absolute moral code or not?
Does one's answers to those questions hold true universally or selectively?
-
To the ones who are opposed to this, based purely on Biblical rules, how do you feel about the following?
25 things the Bible forbids (but we still do) (http://list25.com/25-normal-things-the-bible-forbids-but-we-still-do/)
To those offering words of support, thank you so very kindly for it. To those against this, if my relationship with another human being makes you uncomfortable, I'm not the problem, you are.
I'm truly happy for you. You certainly never needed my approval and you shouldn't need the governments approval either.
You are absolutely correct when you say some are going to be uncomfortable and that is their problem. But as long as these uncomfortable people do not force their problem upon you, they have every right to be uncomfortable. The unintended consequence of this SCOTUS decision (or maybe it is intended) is that many will use this as an excuse to force others to go against their beliefs.
-
I'm truly happy for you. You certainly never needed my approval and you shouldn't need the governments approval either.
You are absolutely correct when you say some are going to be uncomfortable and that is their problem. But as long as these uncomfortable people do not force their problem upon you, they have every right to be uncomfortable. The unintended consequence of this SCOTUS decision (or maybe it is intended) is that many will use this as an excuse to force others to go against their beliefs.
Walk a mile in another man's shoes before you judge him. Life as a gay person growing up in this country was not easy. Some got beaten for it (myself included.) Some were murdered. Some had their futures destroyed. Others took their own lives because they just couldn't stand how they were being treated.
It's a sad and sorry state of affairs when a government has to step in to tell an entire country to treat others with respect and equality, but if that's what's needed (see also: slavery, segregation, and women's suffrage) then so be it. Not one GLBTQ person who fought for this wanted anything more than to be treated with the same respect and decency that our straight counterparts already enjoyed.
This decision has zero effect on the vast majority of this country's population. For those of us that it benefits, I think you'll see in the coming years that the positive effects will massively outweigh the negatives. Ascribing anything else to this is pure hubris.
-
I do not believe the courts rule on moral issues, only legal ones. Is there a legal code for all? Yes, the constitution has served us well for a couple of centuries now and, at least in my opinion, continues to do so. I think of it as the giant 'rule book' on what is permissible, what is not and what the state (in this case, 'the state' being the entire gov't on all levels, collectively) has no ability to pronounce judgement over.
Going forward with this thought, the case in question was a challenge based on the fourteenth amendment, which among other things, guarantees 'equal protection under the law' (partial quote: "....,nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."). So if 'the state' (the entire gov't or any part) provides a protection (any general benefit or consequence) to anyone or any group, then it must provide those same protections to all persons or groups. In the end, there just is no way around that that I can see and this case really could not have gone any other way given that amendment.
Of course any person or group can oppose this, not like it, hate it outright, protest against it and so forth. We still have freedom of speech and thought (though 'political correctness' is masking that fact). What this ruling does is apply 'the rules of the game' (the Constitution of the US) to individuals and a group (same- sex people wanting the benefits and recognition of marriage) that others (opposite- sex married couples) have been recognized by the same 'rulebook'.
So as always, these discussions just about instantly become about what some like, what some do not like, what is good, what is bad and so forth but in the end (no pun intended given the material being discussed..... and a gigantic Easy Boys!) it is really a pretty simple legal question about whether or not one group can be excluded from rights clearly given to other groups. For me, this generates no emotion at all nor does it effect my thoughts and opinions, it merely answers the relatively simple legal questions 1) do we have a law for this? Yep, fourteenth amendment to the Constitution. Is it being applied correctly, and if not, what would be the remedy? I believe the highest court has answered both of those questions in the only way that it could given the circumstances.
And, at no extra cost, we all get to read the brilliant and scathing dissenting opinion of Antonin Scalia on this ruling- always a pleasure to get a peek into such a brilliant mind (whether he is right or wrong, he is ALWAYS eloquent and superb in writing or speaking IMO).
Brian
<snip>
The question leads to broader questions lying at the heart of all this.
What is moral, and who defines it?
Is there an absolute moral code or not?
Does one's answers to those questions hold true universally or selectively?
-
This ruling is symptomatic of the cultural change underway for decades now, with both sides highly opposed.
This was way more than about extending rights. There were no rights to extend without a redefinition of a significant cultural norm. That redefinition is the issue and source of division.
I agree with the opinion that this will convolute and become far-fetched as this carries out to its natural conclusion and unintended consequences unfold.
-----------
I agree that legal is not moral, but they should be intrinsically linked or legal becomes corrupt.
It seems invalid circular reasoning to say the removal of a standard is warranted, simply because some aren't adhering to it any more.
If you carry that out to 'don't kill, don't steal' it becomes absurd.
The big question remains: What is moral and who decides? What is the foundation of that? Is it relative / subjective or absolute?
-
I agree with the opinion that this will convolute and become far-fetched as this carries out to its natural conclusion and unintended consequences unfold.
I don't know if I should laugh at this or feel genuinely threatened.
-
Walk a mile in another man's shoes before you judge him. Life as a gay person growing up in this country was not easy. Some got beaten for it (myself included.) Some were murdered. Some had their futures destroyed. Others took their own lives because they just couldn't stand how they were being treated.
It's a sad and sorry state of affairs when a government has to step in to tell an entire country to treat others with respect and equality, but if that's what's needed (see also: slavery, segregation, and women's suffrage) then so be it. Not one GLBTQ person who fought for this wanted anything more than to be treated with the same respect and decency that our straight counterparts already enjoyed.
This decision has zero effect on the vast majority of this country's population. For those of us that it benefits, I think you'll see in the coming years that the positive effects will massively outweigh the negatives. Ascribing anything else to this is pure hubris.
I never judged you and I meant it when I said I was truly happy for you.
-
I never judged you and I meant it when I said I was truly happy for you.
Wasn't saying you were. That was to everyone, not just you.
-
To the ones who are opposed to this, based purely on Biblical rules, how do you feel about the following?
25 things the Bible forbids (but we still do) (http://list25.com/25-normal-things-the-bible-forbids-but-we-still-do/)
To those offering words of support, thank you so very kindly for it. To those against this, if my relationship with another human being makes you uncomfortable, I'm not the problem, you are.
Sin is sin. Many Christians try to ignore the fact, but it doesn't change it. We all sin and fall short. No one said it would be easy. The sin of Homosexuality is no different in the eyes of the Lord than the sin of greed or pride. Trying to normalize it doesn't make it any different. If all so called Christians started having affairs and decided that was the new norm, it wouldn't change what God says.
I am a sinner, but I don't try and normalize or justify my sin. I try to be better but will continue to fall short. I am so glad that I don't live under the LAW of the Old Testament.
-
Well, I think it is not an extension of rights (I would call it personal liberties but that is a small matter) but merely another group brought under the umbrella of specific rights. The fourteenth amendment dates back to 1868 and originally written and adopted as part of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendment group addressing the end of slavery and the current state of the black man in the US. Nevertheless, that is NOT what the words say: they specifically say: "....nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.". This amendment has probably had more unintended consequences than virtually all others combined but again, it is the law of the land until such time as it is specifically overturned or limited by another amendment to the constitution.
So to me, as far as legal status, legal rulings and the 'law of the land', it is about nothing beyond the law, and not even any new laws at that, merely the application of a very old one.
As to your moral issue or question, I have absolutely no opinion on that. Further, I do not particularly care about the moral factors so it is not likely I will be forming an opinion about it anytime soon. :D
As far as morals in general, I believe each group of people (each 'society') defines that for themselves. Because such groups overlap, it inevitably results in clashes of what two different groups believe to the the 'correct' moral answer.
In fact, I guess our thinking is about 180 degrees apart here; as long as the issue(s) is legal, and there is a legal means to address it, things <generally> are fairly straightforward. When the law gets mixed up with different group morals is when things become very muddy and basically the law is not able, again in my opinion, to render any resolution that could be regarded as 'correct' in a general sense. Abortion is such an issue and I believe our judicial system has done a fantastic job of walking that oh so slippery slope: abortion is not to be interfered with in the US until such time as the fetus is considered a viable life, able to live outside the mother, at which point it (he / she) has become a citizen of the US and subject to our laws and (here comes the important part) our protections, the one at point here is freedom from being killed. Again, this is not a moral judgement in any way in my opinion, simply a legal one and the only one the legal system could possibly have generated. I do not believe it is within the grasp of the gov't of the US to dictate moral decisions and by grasp I mean both the ability as well as having the right to do so.
I absolutely do agree wtih you about this ruling being the result of cultural change and would not have been possible, say, 30 years ago. Still, I believe this cultural change has mererly allowed the law to be cited and applied in this particular case and morality can be left out of the supreme court ruling.
My youngest son is now looking at the US Supreme Court's docket and planning on attending a hearing if he can find one coming up that he finds interesting. The case of 'Worcester v. Georgia' would probably be of interest to him but I think he missed that one.... :-)
Brian
This ruling is symptomatic of the cultural change underway for decades now, with both sides highly opposed.
This was way more than about extending rights. There were no rights to extend without a redefinition of a significant cultural norm. That redefinition is the issue and source of division.
I agree with the opinion that this will convolute and become far-fetched as this carries out to its natural conclusion and unintended consequences unfold.
-----------
I agree that legal is not moral, but they should be intrinsically linked or legal becomes corrupt.
It seems invalid circular reasoning to say the removal of a standard is warranted, simply because some aren't adhering to it any more.
If you carry that out to 'don't kill, don't steal' it becomes absurd.
The big question remains: What is moral and who decides? What is the foundation of that? Is it relative / subjective or absolute?
-
I don't know if I should laugh at this or feel genuinely threatened.
It truly wasn't intended to evoke or imply either. No threat in it at all. At first blush, your comment does have a touch of ad hominem diversion from the discussion. If I'm misreading that forgive me.
I'm just saying that if we define something by popular opinion alone, its going to get convoluted because of the differences of opinions. Nothing is fixed, everything becomes negotiable through redefinition.
Although not in the ruling's language, by omission we're now discriminating against any other arrangement of people / beings that cohabitate together in what they feel is a 'family', but that do not fit into this latest definition rendered by the SC ruling. Maybe they don't believe in marriage at all, but still wish to be recognized as a family and have rights extended to them through special redefinition.
That's all I meant by convoluted - in that it will extend out to additional issues that were not initially contemplated.
These definitions for this will vary as widely as the opinions on the matter. Additional definitions will likely be sought and probably granted and written into rulings. If I'm wrong I'll admit it. But I believe it will play out.
This has only just begun the legal redefinition(s) of what marriage and family is.
Edited to add 'of' and 'were'
-
Did I say anything hurtful or hateful in my post? I don't think so. If you don't believe in God, then you don't believe in Sin. All I said was that changing man's law doesn't change God's law. My views are mine and yours are yours. You just have to accept that and be tolerant of others viewpoints.
when I asked the question "who's god" it wasn't to disparage, it was to make a point.
I never said anything about a god or religion I profess, and that is not the point that should be used, by our elected government, to make any laws.
the main thing I do support is that no matter what our individual religious beliefs are, as a conglomerate of peoples from the whole world, as a country, we simple could not accept the single edged blade of rights and laws, restricting someones rights on their sanctaty of "marriage".
I have zero issue with the SCOTUS decision, and find it holds to the true foundation of our society, which is ever changing, but based on rights of individuals to live in a manner that can be equal for all, not just some.
this was missed in my comments. And constitutional law, simply cannot be based on someones belief that something is a sin.
the phrase "all men are created equal....." is slightly outdated, and could be written today as " all people are created equall....", I,m all for that being corrected also.... maybe someday....
just glad we have surpassed the Orwellian state of "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"...
our nation was founded on the premis that those people, who were escaping religious persecution, came to the America's and their descendents all raped, plundered and pilliaged this beautiful new place, molding it into a "perfect"(as they saw it) society...
if boatloads of Druids had landed here, might have made an interesting difference.
having been curious, I thought to do a little search, to educate myself.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_homosexuality
if its on wiki, it has to be true, just joking.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgfQ9o2-9BM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgfQ9o2-9BM)
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgfQ9o2-9BM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgfQ9o2-9BM)
:rotflmao: ..."starting tomorrow".. double :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
-
:rotflmao:
-
:rotflmao:
That explains everything....
Brian
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgfQ9o2-9BM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgfQ9o2-9BM)
-
the phrase "all men are created equal....." is slightly outdated, and could be written today as " all people are created equall....", I,m all for that being corrected also.... maybe someday....
In the eyes of animal activists, it should read all creatures are created equal. Different people with different viewpoints.
-
In the eyes of animal activists, it should read all creatures are created equal. Different people with different viewpoints.
Different strokes for different folks?
-
Different strokes for different folks?
I think stroking was in that list of 25 sins...and my mother lied. I am certainly not blind yet, and have tested her theory many many times ;D
-
love doesn't always win....http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/29/black-lives-matter-protesters-disrupt-chicago-gay-pride-parade/ (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/29/black-lives-matter-protesters-disrupt-chicago-gay-pride-parade/)
BLACK LIVES MATTER PROTESTERS DISRUPT CHICAGO GAY PRIDE PARADE
Chicago’s 47th annual gay pride parade was disrupted several times by the usual city disruptions — gang activity, gunshots, and drunks — but the event was also disrupted by a car driving into a group of bystanders. Then there was an even larger interruption by “black lives matter” protesters.
Just about every Chicago parade these days features gunfire in the perimeters as gangs clash with police and drunks have probably been a parade disruption since forever. But this year a man tried to drive into the parade route, ramming his car into some bystanders — but not hurting anyone seriously.
Police swarmed the vehicle, smashed in the rear window and yanked out the driver, a middle-aged white man, and arrested him. Chicago police have released no details on the man’s identity nor his motivations for ramming the barricades for the parade.
But by far the biggest disruption was from a large group of “black lives matter” protesters. The group was joined by members of the black queer community of Chicago who announced the disruption on their website.
After noting that they had “purposefully disrupted the Chicago Pride Parade,” the queer group explained their reasoning.
“We do so,” the group said, “because our people are dying at the hands of police, military and state-funded militias around the globe. We do so because we refuse to be tokenized by the same corporations that sponsor state violence, refuse a living wage and profit off our poverty. We do so because young queer people need a better outlet to celebrate themselves than a mire of consumption and sexual violence.”
The queer group was also attacked by the “black lives matter” protesters who held signs and walked as a group to push their own message.
-
My question has always been- Why was Civil Union not good enough and it had to be a "Marriage"? It just seems that the civil union would have taken any religion completely out of the equation. Also a civil union would give any adult the opportunity to share property and benefits with any other adult whether gay or not, like a care giver to an elderly or handicapped parent/child. It would seem that would be more across the board equality than the present decision. I would also think that traditional married couples would also have to include a civil union agreement along with their marriage certificate so the church would have its tradition, and the state would have its legal contract. That would assure the separation of the two. So was the "marriage" terminology really nothing more than something just to flaunt in the face of religion or is there some other purpose to it that I don't understand?
-
So this is all about constitutionally protected rights, correct? Does that mean those at the forefront of this battle for basic human rights support others rights to voice disagreement or are they hypocrites?
All I'm saying is this is a big world and lots of different ways for us to live our lives, as long as we aren't harming others. Is this current search for rights respectful of those who voice disagreement, and are you willing to protect that right to disagree? Steve
-
My question has always been- Why was Civil Union not good enough and it had to be a "Marriage"? It just seems that the civil union would have taken any religion completely out of the equation. Also a civil union would give any adult the opportunity to share property and benefits with any other adult whether gay or not, like a care giver to an elderly or handicapped parent/child. It would seem that would be more across the board equality than the present decision. I would also think that traditional married couples would also have to include a civil union agreement along with their marriage certificate so the church would have its tradition, and the state would have its legal contract. That would assure the separation of the two. So was the "marriage" terminology really nothing more than something just to flaunt in the face of religion or is there some other purpose to it that I don't understand?
“Separate but equal” was often the argument used in favor of racial segregation in schools. Ever since the landmark Brown v. Board of Education ruling in 1954, the Supreme Court has consistently found separate-but-equal laws to be unconstitutional.
-
I think stroking was in that list of 25 sins...and my mother lied. I am certainly not blind yet, and have tested her theory many many times ;D
Now that's funny ;D :rotflmao: :chugbeer:
Live and let live.
-
Enough of this legal and moral wrangling- I will ask the question we all really want to know..... who is the lucky guy? I mean the other lucky guy....
Brian
-
Enough of this legal and moral wrangling- I will ask the question we all really want to know..... who is the lucky guy? I mean the other lucky guy....
Brian
No one currently. This wasn't about me, personally, believe it or not. This was on behalf of the 10 million+ GLBTQ Americans who benefit from this. Maybe someday I'll find myself a husband, but right now I'm in no rush. The single life is treating me just fine. 8)
-
I think stroking was in that list of 25 sins...and my mother lied. I am certainly not blind yet, and have tested her theory many many times ;D
That explains my cataracts.
-
So this is all about constitutionally protected rights, correct?
Actually there is no protection of marriage at all, either gay or straight, written into the Constitution. And of course, written into the Constitution is that rights not covered by the Constitution is to be covered by the states. So should this indeed be a state's rights issue as the Fed has no dog in this race?
-
For this particular case at this particular time with this particular court...it's been decided. States cannot ban gay marriage. However, one can always bring a new case to the court or the legislative branch can enact a new law with or without the President's signature assuming they have the votes...which I don't think that they do. So all the gnashing of teeth is not going to affect anything except wearing out your teeth. It's over and done.
-
It's not over until churches are forced to perform marriages contrary to church doctrine.
-
Can you name a church that's been forced to do that? I don't believe anything in this ruling was aimed at churches.
-
It is my belief that is the next battle.
-
It is my belief that is the next battle.
I do not think that forcing churches to perform marriages contrary to church doctrine itself is the next battle. But what has already begun is the battle to remove their non-profit tax status unless they do.
-
It is my belief that is the next battle.
Gary, I just can't see that happening. But if it does, I'll buy you lunch and a beer.
-
Gary, I just can't see that happening. But if it does, I'll buy you lunch and a beer.
No church is required to do anything they don't want to do. Most GLBTQ folks (myself included) don't even want to get married in a church.
I find it interesting how so many angry white guys completely gloss over reality and ascribe their own beliefs on top of it. The world didn't end. Nothing has changed, except now we're all equal before the eyes of the law. Some just don't like the idea of us "non-traditional" folks sharing society with them. Thankfully, that generation is dying off now, so hopefully mine won't have to contend with this nastiness and cruelty for much longer.
-
Can you name a church that's been forced to do that? I don't believe anything in this ruling was aimed at churches.
This particular scenario couldn't have happened yet without this new ruling, so no. But in 2010 a Catholic Adoption charity was forced out of operation in a similar scenario.
Agree with gPink, its coming. Only a matter of time.
This issue is / was not about rights. Its about redefinition and legally forcing others to condone and approve or be punished.
Here's what's coming: Don't say something construed to be non PC, or there will be an outcry, your job is gone and fines levied. (already happened to public figures, sports stars and entertainers, and attempted against privately held businesses). If you are an activist on the correct side, no worries. Say anything with impunity.
Vitriolic speech is / will be used to malign those accused of vitriolic speech.
Labels are / will be attached to those accused of labeling.
Intolerance is / will be extended against those accused of being intolerant, all using definitions the accusers get to define.
Remember 'mean spirited' in the political realm a few elections ago? Blatant attempt at a shut down of public discourse. Its right out of the same playbook.
Witness Canada who ventured into this area with 'anti hate speech' laws. Seems to have recently been ruled unconstitutional within their framework of law, but the attempt was there and in place for many years nonetheless. It was designed to limit vitriolic speech, as defined by those who didn't want to hear any of it. Do I want to hear vitriolic speech, even if its against something I don't believe in? No. However it is dangerous territory to legislate and penalize if 'free speech' is a tenent within your framework, particularly so when it is conditional.
All that is required here in the US is for a ruling. Just 5 people out of 9 get to make the call.
Other definitions will also be sought and probably granted.
-
And right on queue is a label: 'angry white guys completely gloss over reality and ascribe their own beliefs on top of it.'
This ruling is not a surprise. Its a logical natural progression of what's been underway for a long time in western culture.
Interesting read are the works of Francis Schaeffer. In the early 50's he predicted every major social change within the cultural confusion that's occurred since the 60's including this latest ruling. First God out of schools and public discourse. Social unrest, military failures and moral laxness. Abortion leading to talk of euthanasia. Cities collapsing, economic faltering, fatherless children, poverty and urban decline. He got it all right, including the order in which it would occur and the reasons why they occurred. (disclaimer: I listed them in no particular order).
Its wasn't really hard for him to do. The progression is predictable. There is nothing new under the sun that hasn't happened before. There are laws higher than man's, the violation of which can be clearly observed through history. Many refer to this as Natural Law. Others, me included, refer to it as God's law.
What is remarkable about Schaeffer is how good he is at expressing things as an intellectual in a way we can all grasp. He is not threatening, but welcoming. While I can't guarantee you'll agree with his conclusions, you will find his logic intact and his premises crystal clear from which you can decide for yourself. Be forewarned that it is not quick reading.
-
Clearly this thread needs to be moved into the Arena now.
-
Why, everyone appears to be very civil in the discourse.
-
Civility is not the reason for the Arena.
Its the focus of the threads.
-
Point taken. Maybe should've gone there after first post?
-
motonerd14, I'm not angry with you or anyone else.
Would gladly share a meal or sit around a campfire with you.
As far as I'm concerned, we're just sharing our thoughts on important yet differing ideas.
If you or anyone else sees it as beyond that, I apologize.
-
Actually there is no protection of marriage at all, either gay or straight, written into the Constitution. And of course, written into the Constitution is that rights not covered by the Constitution is to be covered by the states. So should this indeed be a state's rights issue as the Fed has no dog in this race?
I'm going to browse all over the place with my comments here for a second, so hang with me.
The statement above is true. Marriage is not an issue for the Federal government, but one that should have been decided in the individual states, per the COTUS. Personally, I believe that a marriage contract is a church issue and there should in turn be a government equivalent "legal partnership" that could be extended to every couple of any persuasion. The legal partnership would provide the legal status of the couple. The church contract would have no legal status, but only a moral one for those of that persuasion. Just my thoughts on the issue. Hope they make sense.
If it's all about being able to love the person you want to spend the rest of your life with, why can't I marry my sister if we want? Or, what if I fall in love with one half of a lesbian couple (assuming one of them is actually heterosexual)? Why can't all three of us get married?
On another note, I believe that the COTUS intent was a "freedom OF religion", not "freedom FROM religion". That's a "practice what you wish" concept, not the "you can't do that religious stuff here" concept that's been adopted. The COTUS states that the government cannot establish nor sponsor a specific religion. It also doesn't say that religious people should not be involved in government.
I have several close gay friends. I don't force my religious beliefs upon them. It's their life, they can do as they wish as long as that doesn't infringe upon mine. They don't force their gay beliefs upon me. That brings us to the whole "you have to bake me a gay wedding cake" issue. Where is the baker's right to refuse service?
But now that we're talking about each state now being required to recognize the laws and licenses of every other state, does a Concealed Carry Permit issued in Texas have legal standing in Washington DC, Chicago, or NYC?
I could probably drone on all day, but I've got work to do. Let the flaming begin!
-
No church is required to do anything they don't want to do. Most GLBTQ folks (myself included) don't even want to get married in a church.
I find it interesting how so many angry white guys completely gloss over reality and ascribe their own beliefs on top of it. The world didn't end. Nothing has changed, except now we're all equal before the eyes of the law. Some just don't like the idea of us "non-traditional" folks sharing society with them. Thankfully, that generation is dying off now, so hopefully mine won't have to contend with this nastiness and cruelty for much longer.
Now you'll maybe learn that you and others who truly wanted equality and to be left alone are pawns to be used and forgotten when your cause is used up.
-
Civility is not the reason for the Arena.
Its the focus of the threads.
Civility is the exact reason for the Arena. If the focus of the thread bothers you don't push the button.
-
All of the "politically correct " nonsense is the cause of the downward spiral we see going on.
I think most folks are cool with the whole "Live and let live" thing but tend to recoil when things are "stuffed down their throats". (No pun intended.) What happened to the rights those trampled by the "offended"? Let's take cigarette smoking as an example. People were "offended" by smokers in restaurants. Instead of not patronizing restaurants that allowed smoking the whined to politicians and now smoking isn't permitted in ANY restaurants. The owners can't even operate their businesses as they see fit because of the "offended". The same with bars. And airlines.
If someone refuses to serve me because I'm white, or have tattoos, or a beard, or whatever, I DON'T CARE. I will spend my money elsewhere. Simple solution. The "offended" ought to try it instead of calling the news station and a lawyer.
The world don't end because your feelings got hurt. The world ends when you die. Until then you've got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man and give some back. That goes for me as well. I'm sure I have more beat downs in store, but I assure you, I give as good as I get.
-
"Angry white guys"..... interesting and quite telling. Why would you even mention skin color in this thread, and in that context? I believe it shows that you are, in fact, an angry guy yourself. You claim such behavior is based on your being homosexual, discrimination(s), past experience(s) and so forth but really, I think it is just you and your nature.
In a really odd way, what you have 'achieved', both through this court ruling as well as the general trend of much more exposure (Easy Boys- especially some of you boys!) of 'alternate lifestyles' is a fair degree of general annoyance and avoidance mixed in with what may be (and may not be) a general social acceptance. The more you (collectively, not you as an individual) rant, the more disdain you generate from the general population, at least a large segment of it IMO.
And now that you mention GLBTQ, I have to go look up what the 'Q' means. Makes me long for the olden' days when people were only came in two flavors- normal and..... not normal. :rotflmao:
And now for some levity: a good friend of my wife and mine has come out as transgendered; he is going down the path to become a woman. When he told us, I was so shocked I could not even make a joke and that is truly a rare happening. But fortunately I recovered quickly and a few days later, when he came to my house to help move a wood stove, I asked him if he took his pill that day (estrogen along with a testosterone inhibitor apparently- his claim is that he is losing muscle mass by the day). He said yes and I suggested he should have skipped it as the stove was quite heavy. :-) But the really funny thing was when he told a married friend that he has known for 30 years. When he spilled the beans as it were, the friend responded by saying that actually, he was gay. When I heard the story, I pointed out that his friend had 'trumped' him and by quite a lot. 'G' comes first and 'T' comes last in GLBT so I suggested he try doing something to move 'up the ladder' so to speak and not get so badly pummelled in the future.... :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
Brian
No church is required to do anything they don't want to do. Most GLBTQ folks (myself included) don't even want to get married in a church.
I find it interesting how so many angry white guys completely gloss over reality and ascribe their own beliefs on top of it. The world didn't end. Nothing has changed, except now we're all equal before the eyes of the law. Some just don't like the idea of us "non-traditional" folks sharing society with them. Thankfully, that generation is dying off now, so hopefully mine won't have to contend with this nastiness and cruelty for much longer.
-
Can you name a church that's been forced to do that? I don't believe anything in this ruling was aimed at churches.
In England. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/07/gay-couple-sue-church-of-england_n_3714609.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/07/gay-couple-sue-church-of-england_n_3714609.html)
-
. Thankfully, that generation is dying off now, so hopefully mine won't have to contend with this nastiness and cruelty for much longer.
Now then, what if the above quote was made by one of those "angry white guys" towards the GLBTQ community? Are you trying to assign a different set of standards of tolerance than what you yourself actually adhere to? Seems you've labeled a large part of the population now, and quite negatively, yet you want those who don't happen to share your passion for your life choices to stop using labels.
*edited to fix a typo
-
In England. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/07/gay-couple-sue-church-of-england_n_3714609.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/07/gay-couple-sue-church-of-england_n_3714609.html)
That's not here. That's there. So I'm putting my hands over my ears and humming so that I can't see that post.
Civility is not the reason for the Arena.
Its the focus of the threads.
That's in the eye's of the admin or Rick. I could be fine with this and T or Rick could send it on it's way. We're really crazy like that. And it would be fine. However, it hasn't been sent on it's way so here we are.
Clearly this thread needs to be moved into the Arena now.
No it doesn't...why do you want it moved to the Arena?
In England. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/07/gay-couple-sue-church-of-england_n_3714609.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/07/gay-couple-sue-church-of-england_n_3714609.html)
Huffington Post eh? They are totally reliable aren't they? As of 2014 the same date or so, they were still thinking about it. As far as I know, and you'll need more proof than Huffington, they have not followed through with that. I can't find anything to say that they actually followed through with it. Just another Internet speculation.
However, Denmark, now that's an entirely different barrel of fish.
I can't resist the challange so I stopped humming and put my hands over my eyes.
-
This is quickly becoming a pointless discussion and an open opportunity for everyone to take pot-shots at one another.
It's really telling that I came here to celebrate something that meant so much to me and so many of you managed to **** all over it.
I'm done here.
-
It would seem to me that you've been around long enough to know the the many and varied personalities here would give this a thorough discussion. And '**** all over it' is in the eye of the beholder.
-
I'm done here.
I'm done here.
Is this the same person? :o ??? :-\
If so, finally both threads make sense to me now... :) :chugbeer:
-
:finger_fing11:
-
Is this the same person? :o ??? :-\
If so, finally both threads make sense to me now... :) :chugbeer:
As far as I know it's two different individuals.
-
This is quickly becoming a pointless discussion and an open opportunity for everyone to take pot-shots at one another.
It's really telling that I came here to celebrate something that meant so much to me and so many of you managed to **** all over it.
I'm done here.
Well, that's what happens here with controversial subjects when left to their own devices. I could have moved it at the get go to the Arena where only a few would have had visibility to it (not you) but decided to leave it here for more of a wider discussion. I think it went well, as just in real life there are pros and cons to everything. I don't consider that it was **** all over. It was discussed fairly. You may not agree with some of the points brought out, but this is the US. We have a diverse population with varying view points. Some of those points get heated but what the heck. I really don't want you to leave however that is totally up to you.
-
I disagree- I think most of the shots were well aimed. :-)
I also disagree with your intent- I believe you came here, to a motorcycle forum you rarely participate in, to at the least make a political statement and at the outside, proverbially 'rub their noses in it' to those who have a different point of view.
I too am a bit surprised at this thread though.... it has been quite well behaved and courteous, especially given the polarizing nature of the subject. In fact, as far as I know, nothing had to be edited and only one person used any language that required replacing letters with asterisks. ;)
If tomorrow the US gov't passes, say, gun legislation that favors whatever side of that you are on, and you go to, say, a plumbing forum and start a thread about it named something like "safety wins!" or "civil liberties win" (depending on which way it went of course), then you just have to know it is going to generate powerful emotional responses from both sides of the gallery.
Brian
This is quickly becoming a pointless discussion and an open opportunity for everyone to take pot-shots at one another.
It's really telling that I came here to celebrate something that meant so much to me and so many of you managed to **** all over it.
I'm done here.
-
Nope- the first guy's name is Chris and his interests included motorcycling and homosexuality. The second guy's name is Juan if I remember correctly and his interests include motorcycling and.... well, actually I cannot tell what his interests are. My name is Brian and my interests include motorcycling and animal parts (not THOSE animal parts though). Your name is Jay and your interests included motorcycling and colors.
:rotflmao:
Brian
Is this the same person? :o ??? :-\
If so, finally both threads make sense to me now... :) :chugbeer:
-
Last I checked, right leaning citizens still are afforded their 1st Amendment rights. If the left leaning hypocrites have their way, that may change. But it hasn't done so yet. The right to offend someone is is guaranteed by our Constitution.
Hot button topics will generally get a little hot. Hence the term "hot button topic". I've seen threads about secondary butterflies get infinitely more heated and personal than this has gotten.
I guess that the bottom line is: If you open the door, someone from this forum is likely to come busting through like the Kool-Aid Man. :nuts:
-
Yes but it is no longer tolerated by society apparently. Somewhere along the line, 'right thinking' and 'you cannot say / think <that>' came along and basically punishes anyone who may have an unpopular view. You are correct about our having the right to say / think whatever we want but oftentimes when that happens, the person who said the 'wrong' thing is punished for it.
I do not believe there is nor could there be, a television show like All in the family produced now- it would be to politically incorrect. The worst part would be that the creators, writers, actors and everyone else associated with such a show would be basically shunned by the public for ever daring to show anyone using such words and showing such thoughts.
It is getting so bad that oftentimes insults are found where none were intended or even given. My wife used to work at a company that had a Fema-Nazi (I probably cannot say that <sigh> ) working there. One morning the owner walked in and said to a few women, including the cranky one, 'Good morning Ladies'. She screamed back at him 'We are not Ladies, we are Women!' Beyond an overreaction, it was aggressive, contrary and abrasive behavior simply looking for an opportunity to get out.
Brian
Last I checked, right leaning citizens still are afforded their 1st Amendment rights. If the left leaning hypocrites have their way, that may change. But it hasn't done so yet. The right to offend someone is is guaranteed by our Constitution.
<snip>
-
Last I checked, right leaning citizens still are afforded their 1st Amendment rights. If the left leaning hypocrites have their way, that may change. But it hasn't done so yet. The right to offend someone is is guaranteed by our Constitution.
Hot button topics will generally get a little hot. Hence the term "hot button topic". I've seen threads about secondary butterflies get infinitely more heated and personal than this has gotten.
I guess that the bottom line is: If you open the door, someone from this forum is likely to come busting through like the Kool-Aid Man. :nuts:
How about the right leaning hypocrites?
-
I suppose one of the other women could have said to the Femi-Nazi "It's painfully obvious that YOU are not a lady but I certainly am." 8)
-
How about the right leaning hypocrites?
I haven't seen any right leaning people trying to legislate "Hate Speech". That's not to say that there aren't any, I just haven't seen any. If they are out there, they need to go lay by their dish too.
-
Most people were either afraid of her (not physically, just of setting her off) or were bored with her tirades. Not me though, I saw it as an opportunity! One time she was at a party at my house, carrying on about something or other so I went in the house and got a stop watch. Then when she quieted down for a moment, I asked her what color boxers she normally wore. There was a collective gasp and then a new, louder tirade started. When she was done, I held up the stop watch and asked who had picked the time closed to whatever the stop watch read.... I gots ta' tells' ya', dat right dare was downright hysterical, or at least everyone there thought so. Well, almost everyone there. ;)
It was simply not possible to reason with her, converse with her or have any other intercourse (Easy Boys!) with her. Amazingly enough, she was married for quite a few years and before you ask, no, her husband was not deaf or bedridden. ;)
Brian
I suppose one of the other women could have said to the Femi-Nazi "It's painfully obvious that YOU are not a lady but I certainly am." 8)
-
Is it fair to assume that she preferred tighty whiteys?
-
How about the right leaning hypocrites?
They're running Congress for the time being.
-
I think you're confused, gPink. I can name ANY right leaning member of Congress. They all seem to be left of center to me.
-
...hence the 'Hypocrite' status.
-
My bad....
-
You guys are terrible..
-
Just calling 'em like we see 'em.
-
How about the right leaning hypocrites?
Most "right leaning hypocrites" will at least admit their bias whereas the other not so much....
-
I thought this thread was entirely civil and a few of you even agreed with or supported my pov!
Well done!
-
The news has moved on from the gay marraige thing's. Now it is the confederate flag that is under fire. TV land is even pulling the dude's of hazard county. Seriously?
-
As far as I know it's two different individuals.
Hmmm, the op pm'd me this below... I'm not 100% sure, but it sure sounds like a typical elp_jc post... :-\
"Sorry for the confusion, but that gentleman and I are not the same person. I've never met, interacted with, or otherwise even knew of his existence prior to this thread.
I'm just the queer that all the bigots around here would love to kill with their cc weapons if given the chance..."
-
Hmmm, the op pm'd me this below... I'm not 100% sure, but it sure sounds like a typical elp_jc post... :-\
"Sorry for the confusion, but that gentleman and I are not the same person. I've never met, interacted with, or otherwise even knew of his existence prior to this thread.
I'm just the queer that all the bigots around here would love to kill with their cc weapons if given the chance..."
I said it on the other forum: He came to a motorcycle forum to congratulate himself and his gay marriage rights and got all bent out of shape when not every single person wanted to do cartwheels in the street with him. And the people who don't share his joy are bigots. Again, as far as I know, the person who seeks tolerance and acceptance is the only person calling anyone names.
-
I'm just the queer that all the bigots around here would love to kill with their cc weapons if given the chance..."
Wow, that's sad right there.
Motonerd if you see this, let me be the first to say that though I find homosexuality offensive, I would be the first to step up and protect you from harm if I was in a position to do so. I expect many here would do so too. Sad that you had to drop that shot at the CC, I guess you think we're all angry white guy redneck homophobic murderers in training.
If anyone wants to see the reality of "gay bashing" there's a video floating around of isis throwing 4 presumably gay men from a rooftop to their deaths. Horrific and truly sick. Inhuman.
Unfortunately though, it seems BruceR's asseessment of the posting of this thread is proving spot on. kinda like a gay pride parade, supposedly to celebrate, but the reality it's just designed to be "in your face" and dare you to say anything disagreeable about it.
Steve
-
Trolls.
(I saw it coming and stayed out of this thread (http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j180/stevewfl/avatars/lol8.gif) )
-
All I can say is, WOW! That got UGLY!
I have friends, good friends, of vitually every minority you can name. When I think about it, I would put my life on the line for someone of each of those minorities. All the labels are exactly that, labels. I am about as Redneck as anyone most will ever meet. Broke down car in the yard, check. Live in a double wide, check. Gun within reach at all times, check. Rebel flag hanging in my shop, check. Beat up pick-up truck, check. The list goes on and on. However, if the :hitfan:, those people know that I would drop what I was doing and get to them immediately. And I would bring Hell with me.
The arrogance of some people simply astounds me. Am I a bigot? You bet! I despise an a$$hole. Of every race, sex, religion, sexual persuasion, and country of birth. All a$$holes. Treat me right and I will do the same in return, with interest. But be advised, the converse is also true.
-
werd:
(https://scontent-atl1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/1797554_431147300351787_2056747749_n.jpg?oh=3c54331cf07f53ce59c72ebad6c0f19b&oe=561111AF)
-
Yeah, I got a couple of nasty-grams from Chris too. He is a hater (of most everything as far as I can tell), has a pretty serious case of paranoia and a very serious case of warped perception. But he does not seem to be having any fun with any of that so I think he is more to be pitied than scorned.
Then again, maybe he just needs to eat a Snickers, get out of Danny Trejo mode and back to being Marcia.... (as I suggested he do when I replied to his e-mail). ;D
Brian
Hmmm, the op pm'd me this below... I'm not 100% sure, but it sure sounds like a typical elp_jc post... :-\
"Sorry for the confusion, but that gentleman and I are not the same person. I've never met, interacted with, or otherwise even knew of his existence prior to this thread.
I'm just the queer that all the bigots around here would love to kill with their cc weapons if given the chance..."
-
Newspeak, 1984, Orson Wells
-
Hmmm, the op pm'd me this below... I'm not 100% sure, but it sure sounds like a typical elp_jc post... :-\
"Sorry for the confusion, but that gentleman and I are not the same person. I've never met, interacted with, or otherwise even knew of his existence prior to this thread.
I'm just the queer that all the bigots around here would love to kill with their cc weapons if given the chance..."
And here is where we took the wrong course of action.... No matter the subject sharing all or part of private correspondence to the public eye in this forum is not condoned....
-
T is exactly right in this regard, but I would like to add something as well. Anyone here getting a PM that makes one uncomfortable should be reported to us directly and we'll handle it.