Conservative Political Forum

General Category => Political Discussion and Debate => Topic started by: Skeptic on December 02, 2012, 04:02:10 PM

Title: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Skeptic on December 02, 2012, 04:02:10 PM
Although I am biologically predisposed to being attracted to women, and I do not understand the attraction that one feels for another of their own sex, as God is my witness (if there is indeed a creator) I tell you now that I would rather be damned to hell than to deny someone else their chance at happiness simply because I cannot relate to that which brings them joy. As long as we live in a free country I'll defend their choice to the death, and damn those whose prejudices and narrow mindedness make them think that they have the right to rob another human being of the right to be with their soul mate.

Our Party used to stand for treating everyone equally under the law, and for allowing our fellow men to live their lives free from government intrusion and shackles of oppression. Yet here we are in the 21st century, and we are having the debate on whether it is justified to use the heavy hand of government to make others conform to our own sense of personal morality. Shame on us. When did we trade the ideals of allowing our fellow human beings to pursue their dreams and happiness for the principles of using big government to rob others of their right to love, cherish, and form a family with the person whom they love? History will not be kind to us, just as history now condemns those who sought to deny white men and women from falling in love and forming a union with someone of a different race or ethnicity.

The writing is on the wall, and this Party must change or be delegated to extinction in the same way as life snuffs out those animals who fail to adapt to whatever cards mother nature deals them.  As for me, I will no longer sit idly and tolerate those who use their blind hatred and bigotry to oppress others, and if that results in being showered with hatred and ridicule by other conservatives...so be it.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Yawn on December 02, 2012, 04:14:33 PM
QuoteOur Party used to stand for treating everyone equally under the law, ...

So can you tell me of a time when "our" party ever defined marriage as anything you want it to be???

Why are so many willing to rewrite history to make a false claim?

It's this way with every modern issue of the Left and those whose minds have been poisoned with their cause.  You convince yourselves that we have mover FAR RIGHT when the truth is, both parties have moved far left.  Some more than others. Many who still call themselves "Republican" are light-years from the Republican Party of 30 years ago.  Many of these folks are in leadership positions and have been compromising with the Socialists and Communists that call themselves Democrats.

No, your views are NOT in line with the Republican Party or what we USED TO stand for. You belong to a new breed that stands with the Anarchist Libertarians.
QuoteAs for me, I will no longer sit idly and tolerate those who use their blind hatred and bigotry to blah blah blah

Typical buzzwords of the extreme left.  I'm afraid you have no choice but to TOLERATE my views since there's nothing you can do to stop it.  I tolerate your views so am I a better person than you?

QuoteYet here we are in the 21st century, and we are having the debate on whether it is justified to use the heavy hand of government to make others conform to our own sense of personal morality.

"WE" are?  Seems to me that YOU are advocating using Godvernment to FORCE your own personal morality on those who may disagree with you. Can you provide examples to back up your claim?  Do we not allow homosexuals to play house? I know that's what you're talking about.  They are free to do whatever they want until Christ returns.  What you want is for society to REDEFINE "marriage" so they feel normal.  Problem is, marriage has a definition. You can call anything you want "marriage," but remember, a thing is what it is. Forcing people to say red is blue doesn't make it so.  And if YOU want to redefine something, it is YOU forcing your views on everyone else.  Do what you want, but don't demand that everyone approve.  It's EVIL for you to do what you claim to hate.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Skeptic on December 02, 2012, 04:25:36 PM
Quote from: Yawn on December 02, 2012, 04:14:33 PM
So can you tell me of a time when "our" party ever defined marriage as anything you want it to be???

No sir, but there was a time when freedom was defined as something reserved for the realm of the white man, until our Party stood at the forefront of this nation and dealt a death blow to slavery. There was also a time when voting was defined as a right reserved only for white men, until our Party stood firm and extended the right to vote to all men. There was a time when women were considered unfit for public office, and much less fit to cast a ballot, until many northern and western Republican states started to pass their own laws allowing women the right to suffrage, thus finally forcing Congress to act and pass a national amendment extending the right to vote to women. There was also a time when segregation was the norm, until President Eisenhower desegregated the military and laid the foundation to allow the Supreme Court to find that separate but equal was in fact unequal.

We were always at the forefront when it came to going against the grain and granting rights to other, even though it was controversial and had never been done before. Yet here we are today, dragging our feet when it comes to extending the freedom to others to marry whom they see fit. Have we fallen this far from what we used to stand for?
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: kramarat on December 02, 2012, 04:34:10 PM
Homosexuals have a scientifically proven anomaly in their brain chemistry.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm)

I don't have a problem with homosexuals being together. I do have a problem with having our children being taught that homosexuality is a normal and healthy choice for them to make. Or that homosexual experimentation should be explored as part of their development.

The right of homosexuals to be who they are, and be with whoever they want, does not give them the right to encourage children or anyone else to try out or accept the lifestyle. If they want to be left alone to live their lives in peace, they must make the commitment to leave the rest of us alone also. We have the right to be disgusted with the idea of gay sex, and we also have the right to expect them to leave our children alone.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Yawn on December 02, 2012, 04:34:28 PM
Equating immoral behaviour with race. Disgusting.  Will you be at the forefront along with Ruth Bader Ginsberg who is a friend of NAMBLA?

Relax. Society is going to go your way. So gloat.  But know that when the history of the United States is written, better people who have not followed us or ancient Rome or Greece will point to the decline of the family and common sense that led to our destruction.  In the end, history will record that you stood on the wrong side and were part of the problem and not the solution.

This is what happens when God is removed from the mix

Quote"Our government rests upon religion. It is from that source that we derive our reverence for truth and justice, for equality and liberty, and for the rights of mankind. Unless the people believe in these principles they cannot believe in our government. There are only two main theories of government in the world. One rests on righteousness, the other rests on force. One appeals to reason, the other appeals to the sword. One is exemplified in a republic, the other is represented by a despotism."--Calvin Coolidge
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Yawn on December 02, 2012, 04:38:04 PM
QuoteThe right of homosexuals to be who they are, and be with whoever they want, does not give them the right to encourage children or anyone else to try out or accept the lifestyle. If they want to be left alone to live their lives in peace, they must make the commitment to leave the rest of alone also.
:thumbsup: well said! That is even my view (intolerant as I am).  It's not enough that we leave them in peace, they will not be happy until you SUPPORT THEM in their perversion.  I will not.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: keyboarder on December 02, 2012, 04:40:15 PM
Thanx Yawn, you said in one little sentence what I would have written a book about.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: keyboarder on December 02, 2012, 04:52:53 PM
Quote from: kramarat on December 02, 2012, 04:34:10 PM
Homosexuals have a scientifically proven anomaly in their brain chemistry.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm)

I don't have a problem with homosexuals being together. I do have a problem with having our children being taught that homosexuality is a normal and healthy choice for them to make. Or that homosexual experimentation should be explored as part of their development.

The right of homosexuals to be who they are, and be with whoever they want, does not give them the right to encourage children or anyone else to try out or accept the lifestyle. If they want to be left alone to live their lives in peace, they must make the commitment to leave the rest of us alone also. We have the right to be disgusted with the idea of gay sex, and we also have the right to expect them to leave our children alone.
Glad to have read this reply.  It mirrors what the most devastating  issue is to me about the gay community.  i don't agree with any actions put upon our children to adopt this lifestyle or be taught to experiment with it.  It is evil, according to the word of God.  Don't blame us, skeptic, talk to God. Sexual sins are most discouraged by Him.  I also agree with Krama that we have as much right to our opinions against them as they have about their side of the issue.  Why should we be forced to comply?  This compliance makes all of us heatherns.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Skeptic on December 02, 2012, 04:55:05 PM
Quote from: kramarat on December 02, 2012, 04:34:10 PM
Homosexuals have a scientifically proven anomaly in their brain chemistry.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm)


Nowhere in that article is homosexuality linked to an anomaly, but rather that homosexual brains have some similarity to female brains, thus showing that homosexuality is not a choice and is instead biologically set. Unless you care to argue that feminine features in a brain are an abnormality (I wouldn't suggest telling that to your wife.)  :scared:

Don't let facts get in the way of your prejudices.

Finally, if not opposing gay marriage makes me a "radical liberal" as one of you claimed, so be it. Never mind the fact that you and I probably agree on everything in 85%-90% of things. I say the problem is not that I'm too radical, but rather that you are not radical enough. This nation was created by radicals and built by radicals. We didn't become who we are by following others, but by creating our own opportunities and shaping our own destinies. That's why we were once a beacon of freedom and hope to others.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Bronx on December 02, 2012, 04:58:38 PM
IMO...your issue is not with us here or our party your issue IMO is with God himself. God sets the rules I just live by them. Why don't you take the issue up with God and see what He tells you. Let me know what He says. If you want I can make it easy for you and give you a starting place to look  in God's Word.

Just saying...

Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Yawn on December 02, 2012, 05:02:35 PM
One of my best friends was a fellow who died of AIDS a year and a half ago. He was a Christian who struggled with homosexuality. He always knew it was wrong to give into that pull and was the first to tell you that giving in to sin has its consequences. They don't need "help" from the rest of us to give in to the struggle. Most don't struggle but a few do. Once he got the disease he lived a celibate life for many years. The news scared him straight (not literally) and kept him from engaging in that deathstyle. Many of us prayed for him and hoped he'd see healing since he'd repented, but he had to pay the consequences for his actions.

People like Skeptic may have their heart in the right place, but would be of better service to their fellow Man by standing for Truth and not the every changing culture. It doesn't do anyone any favors giving approval to BEHAVOURS that lead to death and misery.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: keyboarder on December 02, 2012, 05:05:32 PM
....and Skeptic doesn't need to have his hand held to participate or approve.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Cryptic Bert on December 02, 2012, 05:08:55 PM
Quote from: Yawn on December 02, 2012, 05:02:35 PM
One of my best friends was a fellow who died of AIDS a year and a half ago. He was a Christian who struggled with homosexuality. He always knew it was wrong to give into that pull and was the first to tell you that giving in to sin has its consequences. They don't need "help" from the rest of us to give in to the struggle. Most don't struggle but a few do. Once he got the disease he lived a celibate life for many years. The news scared him straight (not literally) and kept him from engaging in that deathstyle. Many of us prayed for him and hoped he'd see healing since he'd repented, but he had to pay the consequences for his actions.

People like Skeptic may have their heart in the right place, but would be of better service to their fellow Man by standing for Truth and not the every changing culture. It doesn't do anyone any favors giving approval to BEHAVOURS that lead to death and misery.

If I remember correctly it was not PC in the 80's to warn the populace that homosexuals engaging in unprotected sex was spreading the disease so the focus was on heteros and safe sex. If so we would have saved a lot of lives by being blunt and honest.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: kramarat on December 02, 2012, 05:09:26 PM
Quote from: Skeptic on December 02, 2012, 04:55:05 PM
Nowhere in that article is homosexuality linked to an anomaly, but rather that homosexual brains have some similarity to female brains, thus showing that homosexuality is not a choice and is instead biologically set. Unless you care to argue that feminine features in a brain are an abnormality (I wouldn't suggest telling that to your wife.)  :scared:

Don't let facts get in the way of your prejudices.

Finally, if not opposing gay marriage makes me a "radical liberal" as one of you claimed, so be it. Never mind the fact that you and I probably agree on everything in 85%-90% of things. I say the problem is not that I'm too radical, but rather that you are not radical enough. This nation was created by radicals and built by radicals. We didn't become who we are by following others, but by creating our own opportunities and shaping our own destinies. That's why we were once a beacon of freedom and hope to others.

Interesting. I would say that males that have brains that are more like female brains, and females that have brains that are more like male brains, would be an anomaly.

a·nom·a·ly (-nm-l)
n. pl. a·nom·a·lies
1. Deviation or departure from the normal or common order, form, or rule.
2. One that is peculiar, irregular, abnormal, or difficult to classify: 
 

Me prejudice? Not at all.

I'm sure that you're aware, that before the issue of gay marriage came up, the left had spent decades telling us that marriage was an outdated institution and that it should be dumped. Remember? Womens lib and all that stuff.

My take on it, is that since the left has spent so much time spitting on the institution of marriage, they don't have the right to create a new definition of it, for gays. Let them have civil unions. I'm fine with that.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Skeptic on December 02, 2012, 05:46:35 PM
It is not an anomaly. Just observe the animal kingdom and you will notice dozens of mammal species that exhibit homosexual behavior. So it doesn't deviate from our observations.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Darth Fife on December 02, 2012, 06:13:11 PM
Quote from: Skeptic on December 02, 2012, 05:46:35 PM
It is not an anomaly. Just observe the animal kingdom and you will notice dozens of mammal species that exhibit homosexual behavior. So it doesn't deviate from our observations.

Actually, the observed behavior is not the same as homosexuality as practiced by humans. It is more often than not a dominate male or female reinforcing their position in the group's social order with their inferiors.

By the way, some species in the animal kingdom cannibalize their young. Call me old fashioned but, I don't think we humans should be doing that, either.
:rolleyes:
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Yawn on December 02, 2012, 06:21:38 PM
He doesn't seem to know that humans are to be governed by moral principles not animal instinct.

That gay friend used to say that "Humans have the ability to live like gods on earth, or worse than animals. It's up to us to choose."

Dolphins engage in gang rape. WE punish for that (unless you're muslim).
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: BILLY Defiant on December 02, 2012, 06:41:30 PM
personally I could care less who mounts who or who does what to whom
in their bedroom.

The gay people are going to be our next protect/privledged class...that is what I object to.

Billy
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: manifest on December 08, 2012, 06:33:03 AM
Quote from: Yawn on December 02, 2012, 04:34:28 PM
....

This is what happens when God is removed from the mix

Gay marriage and atheism are not the same thing.   I'm sure plenty of gay people, either in marriages or committed relationships, believe in God and perhaps even believe that God smiles upon and blesses their union.






Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Bronx on December 08, 2012, 06:47:39 AM
Quote from: manifest on December 08, 2012, 06:33:03 AM
Gay marriage and atheism are not the same thing.   I'm sure plenty of gay people, either in marriages or committed relationships, believe in God and perhaps even believe that God smiles upon and blesses their union.

The devil also believes in God...just saying.

19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

James 2:19 KJV
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Solar on December 08, 2012, 06:49:29 AM
Quote from: manifest on December 08, 2012, 06:33:03 AM
Gay marriage and atheism are not the same thing.   I'm sure plenty of gay people, either in marriages or committed relationships, believe in God and perhaps even believe that God smiles upon and blesses their union.
I don't doubt that for a second since many consider the fact that God made them that way.
But I agree with Yawn as well, in that removing God from many aspects of our lives, perversions have become a political tool of the left.

Can you see the connection?
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: kramarat on December 08, 2012, 06:57:42 AM
Quote from: Solar on December 08, 2012, 06:49:29 AM
I don't doubt that for a second since many consider the fact that God made them that way.
But I agree with Yawn as well, in that removing God from many aspects of our lives, perversions have become a political tool of the left.

Can you see the connection?

I'm done worrying about gay marriage. The SCOTUS is going to give it to them, we are talking about a tiny segment of the population, and it won't have any meaningful impact on my life. I will fight the gay lifestyle being taught to our children, but that's where it ends.

There are bigger fish out there to worry about. The ones that are seeking to destroy the country.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Solar on December 08, 2012, 07:03:29 AM
Quote from: kramarat on December 08, 2012, 06:57:42 AM
I'm done worrying about gay marriage. The SCOTUS is going to give it to them, we are talking about a tiny segment of the population, and it won't have any meaningful impact on my life. I will fight the gay lifestyle being taught to our children, but that's where it ends.

There are bigger fish out there to worry about. The ones that are seeking to destroy the country.
They are merely pawns in a nasty game of power grab.
The left has a history of pitting groups against each other, known as divide and conquer.
These groups will all suffer under the oppressive thumb of communism/fascism.
As Panetta once said, it's an ends to a means....
They don't care who or what the destroy as long as it meets their end goal.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: kramarat on December 08, 2012, 07:16:25 AM
Quote from: Solar on December 08, 2012, 07:03:29 AM
They are merely pawns in a nasty game of power grab.
The left has a history of pitting groups against each other, known as divide and conquer.
These groups will all suffer under the oppressive thumb of communism/fascism.
As Panetta once said, it's an ends to a means....
They don't care who or what the destroy as long as it meets their end goal.

I'm not going to worry about it. On the other hand, once they get the green light on getting married, I fully expect them to shut up and go live out their lives quietly.

Yeah, right. :unsure:
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: walkstall on December 08, 2012, 07:26:12 AM
Quote from: kramarat on December 08, 2012, 07:16:25 AM
I'm not going to worry about it. On the other hand, once they get the green light on getting married, I fully expect them to shut up and go live out their lives quietly.
Yeah, right. :unsure:


(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi241.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fff114%2FCarolineMans%2FMore%2520Smileys%2Fbth_animationloling.gif&hash=5f3f7b3f460179953c84ff608502629e2131cca9)

Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Shooterman on December 08, 2012, 07:30:49 AM
Quote from: Skeptic on December 02, 2012, 04:25:36 PM
There was also a time when segregation was the norm, until President Eisenhower desegregated the military and laid the foundation to allow the Supreme Court to find that separate but equal was in fact unequal.

Actually it was Truman that desegregated the armed services.

Eisenhower ( laying the foundation to eliminate segregation is somewhat of a stretch ) continued to pack the SCOTUS with liberal Justices, most notably Earl Warren, who in turn, used a book by a socialist Gunnar Myrdal written in 1940 0r 1941 as the 'MODERN AUTHORITY', to rule in Brown vs Board of Education, and then unconsciously and unconstitutionally invaded Little Rock, Arkansas.

You may take note it was a Republican controlled Congress that first enacted school segregation in the schools of Washington, DC.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Darth Fife on December 08, 2012, 08:13:46 AM
BTW and just for the record. The gay issue isn't dividing our party. The gay issue is what the Democrats and Progressives are blowing all out of proportion in hopes that it will  drive a wedge between the different factions of the Republican Party.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: mdgiles on December 08, 2012, 10:21:26 AM
Quote from: Shooterman on December 08, 2012, 07:30:49 AM
Actually it was Truman that desegregated the armed services.
Actually it was World War II, that desegregated the military. In Europe and in the Pacific, the US was literally running short of combat infantryman at the end of the war. In desperation, they started using rear echelon black troops in combat units. The found - contrary to their experience with segregated units - that integrated units worked well. The Air Force when it became and independent service branch, moved to removed segregation even before Truman's executive order,  as they found it wasteful of manpower. In addition, being integrated gave the Air Force access to a pool of recruits unavailable to the other services.

QuoteEisenhower ( laying the foundation to eliminate segregation is somewhat of a stretch ) continued to pack the SCOTUS with liberal Justices, most notably Earl Warren, who in turn, used a book by a socialist Gunnar Myrdal written in 1940 0r 1941 as the 'MODERN AUTHORITY', to rule in Brown vs Board of Education, and then unconsciously and unconstitutionally invaded Little Rock, Arkansas.
Earl Warren was the governor of California who pushed for removing Japanese-Americans from the west coast during the war. He hardly started out as a Liberal. Once on the court, he allowed the court to be dominated by the left wingers Douglas and Brennen.

QuoteYou may take note it was a Republican controlled Congress that first enacted school segregation in the schools of Washington, DC.
The public schools of DC were first created in 1806. The first public schools for blacks were created in the 1860's and were segregated. However as federal employees, both black and white teachers had to meet the same standards and were paid the same. Real legal segregation, in both housing and employment, arrived with Southerner Woodrow Wilson in 1913.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Yawn on December 08, 2012, 10:40:53 AM
Quote from: Darth Fife on December 08, 2012, 08:13:46 AM
BTW and just for the record. The gay issue isn't dividing our party. The gay issue is what the Democrats and Progressives are blowing all out of proportion in hopes that it will  drive a wedge between the different factions of the Republican Party.

:thumbup:
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: valjean on December 10, 2012, 08:17:12 AM
I'm tired of the naiveté surrounding this gay issue. It isn't just about the government trying to redefine marriage, it's not just about people perceiving that they are being denied so called "rights" There is so much more at stake here than these simple ideas. If the government presumes to redefine marriage to include homosexual couples, this new government morality is going to be pushed in the public school systems, even if you are opposed to the gay agenda, the government will deliberately undermine the sexual morals you try to teach your kids and indoctrinate them into thinking there is no difference between two men, two women, or one man and one woman getting married.

Businesses and charities that don't believe in same sex marriage will be sued and possibly forced to close if they deny service to a gay couple because the basis of service provided is directed at recognizing a marital union that the charity or business does not feel they can morally recognize. One example is Catholic orphanages being sued because such orphanages refuse to let gay couples adopt the children in their care. Or take the example of that woman who refused to bake a cake for a gay "marriage" reception. I am of the mind that you should not be forced to perform business that conflicts with your conscience under penalty of law.

The point is here, that this issue isn't as narrow as people try to frame it, if the government redefines marriage into its own government sanctioned definition, then this change will affect more than just the gay couples seeking "the right to marry" It will affect our school system where our children will be indoctrinated from kindergarten up to see homosexual relationships and homosexual sex as no different than heterosexual relationships. Not only this, but they will be taught that if they think there is something morally wrong with the homosexual lifestyle that that means that THEY are defective, there is something wrong with THEM, that THEY need reeducation, that THEIR parents are bigots and need therapy to overcome their hatefulness. They will send kids on guilt trips for not agreeing with the majority or their teachers, and this is very very wrong. Think I'm overstating this? I don't; I remember being in grade school while the eco-crazies were drilling into our heads the importance of refusing to buy rainforest wood, (forget the fact that the refusal to do so could mean the financial ruin of some very poor people in South America) and all sorts of other left wing causes that were taught as actual education from kindergarten to HS.

This agenda to redefine marriage to include homosexual couples is not as noble and serene as the media tries to portray, it isn't just about gaining what they perceive to be their civil rights, it's about forcing society to accept the homosexual lifestyle without and distinction or qualification. They want hate speech laws that will target people for simply quoting a belief from the Bible, they want to completely crush any opposition to their agenda using legal means to do so. Anti-Bullying Laws, while I despise bullying of any sort, are going to be used to target students who merely express opposition to homosexual sex, relationships, and so on. And this isn't right, this is the government trying to spread their ethics, by using the law to target anyone who feels differently with the hope of using the law, political correctness, government education, to reshape the thought of the society. I for one do not want to go along with this, and oppose measures to redefine marriage to include homosexual couples because that is the falling domino that will be used to justify any other measure that the gay agenda wants, and as I said, this agenda is intent on eradicating opposing opinion, while using the government as a means to do so.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: CubaLibre on December 10, 2012, 08:34:15 AM
Quote from: valjean on December 10, 2012, 08:17:12 AM
I'm tired of the naiveté surrounding this gay issue. It isn't just about the government trying to redefine marriage, it's not just about people perceiving that they are being denied so called "rights" There is so much more at stake here than these simple ideas. If the government presumes to redefine marriage to include homosexual couples, this new government morality is going to be pushed in the public school systems, even if you are opposed to the gay agenda, the government will deliberately undermine the sexual morals you try to teach your kids and indoctrinate them into thinking there is no difference between two men, two women, or one man and one woman getting married.

Businesses and charities that don't believe in same sex marriage will be sued and possibly forced to close if they deny service to a gay couple because the basis of service provided is directed at recognizing a marital union that the charity or business does not feel they can morally recognize. One example is Catholic orphanages being sued because such orphanages refuse to let gay couples adopt the children in their care. Or take the example of that woman who refused to bake a cake for a gay "marriage" reception. I am of the mind that you should not be forced to perform business that conflicts with your conscience under penalty of law.

The point is here, that this issue isn't as narrow as people try to frame it, if the government redefines marriage into its own government sanctioned definition, then this change will affect more than just the gay couples seeking "the right to marry" It will affect our school system where our children will be indoctrinated from kindergarten up to see homosexual relationships and homosexual sex as no different than heterosexual relationships. Not only this, but they will be taught that if they think there is something morally wrong with the homosexual lifestyle that that means that THEY are defective, there is something wrong with THEM, that THEY need reeducation, that THEIR parents are bigots and need therapy to overcome their hatefulness. They will send kids on guilt trips for not agreeing with the majority or their teachers, and this is very very wrong. Think I'm overstating this? I don't; I remember being in grade school while the eco-crazies were drilling into our heads the importance of refusing to buy rainforest wood, (forget the fact that the refusal to do so could mean the financial ruin of some very poor people in South America) and all sorts of other left wing causes that were taught as actual education from kindergarten to HS.

This agenda to redefine marriage to include homosexual couples is not as noble and serene as the media tries to portray, it isn't just about gaining what they perceive to be their civil rights, it's about forcing society to accept the homosexual lifestyle without and distinction or qualification. They want hate speech laws that will target people for simply quoting a belief from the Bible, they want to completely crush any opposition to their agenda using legal means to do so. Anti-Bullying Laws, while I despise bullying of any sort, are going to be used to target students who merely express opposition to homosexual sex, relationships, and so on. And this isn't right, this is the government trying to spread their ethics, by using the law to target anyone who feels differently with the hope of using the law, political correctness, government education, to reshape the thought of the society. I for one do not want to go along with this, and oppose measures to redefine marriage to include homosexual couples because that is the falling domino that will be used to justify any other measure that the gay agenda wants, and as I said, this agenda is intent on eradicating opposing opinion, while using the government as a means to do so.
Yes! One million times, yes!  :thumbup:

I have been saying this for a while. This isn't about the so-called benefits of marriage, although some may genuinely believe this is the case. The bigger picture objective is to coerce Americans into approving of homosexuality, or risk ostracism by society.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: CubaLibre on December 10, 2012, 08:35:54 AM
All things aside, the only way this issue can be realistically addressed is by getting the government out of marriage, and allowing marriage to be regulated by religious institutions.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Yawn on December 10, 2012, 09:31:15 AM
Quote from: CubaLibre on December 10, 2012, 08:34:15 AM
The bigger picture objective is to coerce Americans into approving of homosexuality, or risk ostracism by society.

Yes, the ultimate goal is to CRIMINALIZE your disapproval of their deathstyle.  Even say it's wrong and they'll PUT YOU IN INHUMANE "CAGES"!  CAGES I tell you, CAGES!  Oh the humanity!
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: kramarat on December 10, 2012, 10:09:41 AM
Quote from: valjean on December 10, 2012, 08:17:12 AM
I'm tired of the naiveté surrounding this gay issue. It isn't just about the government trying to redefine marriage, it's not just about people perceiving that they are being denied so called "rights" There is so much more at stake here than these simple ideas. If the government presumes to redefine marriage to include homosexual couples, this new government morality is going to be pushed in the public school systems, even if you are opposed to the gay agenda, the government will deliberately undermine the sexual morals you try to teach your kids and indoctrinate them into thinking there is no difference between two men, two women, or one man and one woman getting married.

Businesses and charities that don't believe in same sex marriage will be sued and possibly forced to close if they deny service to a gay couple because the basis of service provided is directed at recognizing a marital union that the charity or business does not feel they can morally recognize. One example is Catholic orphanages being sued because such orphanages refuse to let gay couples adopt the children in their care. Or take the example of that woman who refused to bake a cake for a gay "marriage" reception. I am of the mind that you should not be forced to perform business that conflicts with your conscience under penalty of law.

The point is here, that this issue isn't as narrow as people try to frame it, if the government redefines marriage into its own government sanctioned definition, then this change will affect more than just the gay couples seeking "the right to marry" It will affect our school system where our children will be indoctrinated from kindergarten up to see homosexual relationships and homosexual sex as no different than heterosexual relationships. Not only this, but they will be taught that if they think there is something morally wrong with the homosexual lifestyle that that means that THEY are defective, there is something wrong with THEM, that THEY need reeducation, that THEIR parents are bigots and need therapy to overcome their hatefulness. They will send kids on guilt trips for not agreeing with the majority or their teachers, and this is very very wrong. Think I'm overstating this? I don't; I remember being in grade school while the eco-crazies were drilling into our heads the importance of refusing to buy rainforest wood, (forget the fact that the refusal to do so could mean the financial ruin of some very poor people in South America) and all sorts of other left wing causes that were taught as actual education from kindergarten to HS.

This agenda to redefine marriage to include homosexual couples is not as noble and serene as the media tries to portray, it isn't just about gaining what they perceive to be their civil rights, it's about forcing society to accept the homosexual lifestyle without and distinction or qualification. They want hate speech laws that will target people for simply quoting a belief from the Bible, they want to completely crush any opposition to their agenda using legal means to do so. Anti-Bullying Laws, while I despise bullying of any sort, are going to be used to target students who merely express opposition to homosexual sex, relationships, and so on. And this isn't right, this is the government trying to spread their ethics, by using the law to target anyone who feels differently with the hope of using the law, political correctness, government education, to reshape the thought of the society. I for one do not want to go along with this, and oppose measures to redefine marriage to include homosexual couples because that is the falling domino that will be used to justify any other measure that the gay agenda wants, and as I said, this agenda is intent on eradicating opposing opinion, while using the government as a means to do so.

Totally agree with everything you said.
But. Everything you mentioned is already in force, and will continue, with or without gay marriage.

I'd prefer to keep the word "marriage" out of these relationships, but that probably won't happen either.

You have to remember, the POTUS got on national television and supported the "rights" of the GLBT community, as well as forcing the armed services to accept open homosexual behavior.

What this has accomplished, is not only to keep gay marriage in the daily headlines, even though it only applies to a tiny fraction of our population, but it has provided the left with a club, to beat mean, nasty, hateful conservatives and republicans over the head with.

Considering that the left owns the media, our kids are already being exposed to homosexuality being a good and healthy thing, and those opposing it, as mean haters. That's not going to stop.

I'm thinking that if they just get it, there will be a big moment of hoopla, and it will disappear. There will no longer be anything for them to complain about, therefore, it will no longer be daily front page news.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Yawn on December 10, 2012, 10:16:59 AM
QuoteI'm thinking that if they just get it, there will be a big moment of hoopla, and it will disappear. There will no longer be anything for them to complain about, therefore, it will no longer be daily front page news.

You can't just ignore these important moral issues and hope the damage will be limited.  It will not.  Christians who say it is WRONG will be targeted for HATE.  NAMBLA will take up the cause and demand THEIR rights.

The problem that no one wants to think about is that this is a SPIRITUAL issue.  It is a WAR against Western Christian culture.  You may be allowed YOUR current morality, but the world you helped create through your neglect will be a very dark place for your children.  In a WAR, whether spiritual or physical, there will only be one winner.  Soon, I can guarantee it won't be us, and the nation will not survive their "morality."
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: kramarat on December 10, 2012, 10:31:13 AM
Quote from: Yawn on December 10, 2012, 10:16:59 AM
You can't just ignore these important moral issues and hope the damage will be limited.  It will not.  Christians who say it is WRONG will be targeted for HATE.  NAMBLA will take up the cause and demand THEIR rights.

The problem that no one wants to think about is that this is a SPIRITUAL issue.  It is a WAR against Western Christian culture.  You may be allowed YOUR current morality, but the world you helped create through your neglect will be a very dark place for your children.  In a WAR, whether spiritual or physical, there will only be one winner.  Soon, I can guarantee it won't be us, and the nation will not survive their "morality."

They are not going to stop. The narrative has already been established.

Have you stopped to think about the fact, that in order to prevent our kids from being exposed to homosexuality being a good and normal thing, we cannot even encourage them to join our military anymore? :scared:

Whether gay marriage is allowed or not, I'll be teaching my daughter my personal views on homosexuality, (that it's not right), while at the same time teaching her to treat gays with respect. It's naive to think that our kids won't be exposed to it, and I'm not going to be the one living in the closet to try to prevent it. It is what it is. At this point, there's no running away from it.

There's a lot of things wrong out there..................not just homosexuality. It's the parent's job to make sure our kids recognize them for what they are. They are not always illegal.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: mdgiles on December 10, 2012, 02:45:08 PM
Quote from: valjean on December 10, 2012, 08:17:12 AM
I'm tired of the naiveté surrounding this gay issue. It isn't just about the government trying to redefine marriage, it's not just about people perceiving that they are being denied so called "rights" There is so much more at stake here than these simple ideas. If the government presumes to redefine marriage to include homosexual couples, this new government morality is going to be pushed in the public school systems, even if you are opposed to the gay agenda, the government will deliberately undermine the sexual morals you try to teach your kids and indoctrinate them into thinking there is no difference between two men, two women, or one man and one woman getting married.

Businesses and charities that don't believe in same sex marriage will be sued and possibly forced to close if they deny service to a gay couple because the basis of service provided is directed at recognizing a marital union that the charity or business does not feel they can morally recognize. One example is Catholic orphanages being sued because such orphanages refuse to let gay couples adopt the children in their care. Or take the example of that woman who refused to bake a cake for a gay "marriage" reception. I am of the mind that you should not be forced to perform business that conflicts with your conscience under penalty of law.

The point is here, that this issue isn't as narrow as people try to frame it, if the government redefines marriage into its own government sanctioned definition, then this change will affect more than just the gay couples seeking "the right to marry" It will affect our school system where our children will be indoctrinated from kindergarten up to see homosexual relationships and homosexual sex as no different than heterosexual relationships. Not only this, but they will be taught that if they think there is something morally wrong with the homosexual lifestyle that that means that THEY are defective, there is something wrong with THEM, that THEY need reeducation, that THEIR parents are bigots and need therapy to overcome their hatefulness. They will send kids on guilt trips for not agreeing with the majority or their teachers, and this is very very wrong. Think I'm overstating this? I don't; I remember being in grade school while the eco-crazies were drilling into our heads the importance of refusing to buy rainforest wood, (forget the fact that the refusal to do so could mean the financial ruin of some very poor people in South America) and all sorts of other left wing causes that were taught as actual education from kindergarten to HS.

This agenda to redefine marriage to include homosexual couples is not as noble and serene as the media tries to portray, it isn't just about gaining what they perceive to be their civil rights, it's about forcing society to accept the homosexual lifestyle without and distinction or qualification. They want hate speech laws that will target people for simply quoting a belief from the Bible, they want to completely crush any opposition to their agenda using legal means to do so. Anti-Bullying Laws, while I despise bullying of any sort, are going to be used to target students who merely express opposition to homosexual sex, relationships, and so on. And this isn't right, this is the government trying to spread their ethics, by using the law to target anyone who feels differently with the hope of using the law, political correctness, government education, to reshape the thought of the society. I for one do not want to go along with this, and oppose measures to redefine marriage to include homosexual couples because that is the falling domino that will be used to justify any other measure that the gay agenda wants, and as I said, this agenda is intent on eradicating opposing opinion, while using the government as a means to do so.
Indeed. As the minister who simply repeated what the Bible said about homosexuality, during a sermon, found out.
http://chalcedon.edu/Research/Articles/Swedish-Pastor-Faces-Jail-For-Preaching-Against-Homosexuality/ (http://chalcedon.edu/Research/Articles/Swedish-Pastor-Faces-Jail-For-Preaching-Against-Homosexuality/)
And another point. There is a dispute about whether homosexuality is inherited, or a lifestyle choice. If it is a lifestyle choice, then the drive to make homosexuality generally accepted becomes understandable. It's called recruiting.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: TowardLiberty on December 10, 2012, 03:07:32 PM
Quote from: Yawn on December 10, 2012, 09:31:15 AM
Yes, the ultimate goal is to CRIMINALIZE your disapproval of their deathstyle.  Even say it's wrong and they'll PUT YOU IN INHUMANE "CAGES"!  CAGES I tell you, CAGES!  Oh the humanity!

That is why a free society has a sound rule of law, rather than an arbitrary one.

Before we put people in cages, we best have a good reason.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Yawn on December 10, 2012, 03:46:17 PM
Quote from: mdgiles on December 10, 2012, 02:45:08 PM
Indeed. As the minister who simply repeated what the Bible said about homosexuality, during a sermon, found out.
http://chalcedon.edu/Research/Articles/Swedish-Pastor-Faces-Jail-For-Preaching-Against-Homosexuality/ (http://chalcedon.edu/Research/Articles/Swedish-Pastor-Faces-Jail-For-Preaching-Against-Homosexuality/)
And another point. There is a dispute about whether homosexuality is inherited, or a lifestyle choice. If it is a lifestyle choice, then the drive to make homosexuality generally accepted becomes understandable. It's called recruiting.

I think it is both.  Some do seem physically and mentally different (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm) (discovered by kramarat). Others CHOOSE that way of death by their choices. Otherwise (for those who recognize the authority of the Bible), this way of death in cultures wouldn't increase. Yet they have and do.  Ellen's two "lovers" (Ann Heche and Portia de Rossi) are not/were not true lesbians. They "experimented and one left that.

Among homosexuals that claim Christianity, He still requires the same thing He requires of the heterosexual.  Sex outside of legitimate marriage is sin. The wages of sin is DEATH. Marriage has a definition.  Allowing the LIE to continue doesn't show love for the person caught up in sin (my best friend paid the ultimate price for this).
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: kramarat on December 10, 2012, 03:59:43 PM
Quote from: mdgiles on December 10, 2012, 02:45:08 PM
Indeed. As the minister who simply repeated what the Bible said about homosexuality, during a sermon, found out.
http://chalcedon.edu/Research/Articles/Swedish-Pastor-Faces-Jail-For-Preaching-Against-Homosexuality/ (http://chalcedon.edu/Research/Articles/Swedish-Pastor-Faces-Jail-For-Preaching-Against-Homosexuality/)
And another point. There is a dispute about whether homosexuality is inherited, or a lifestyle choice. If it is a lifestyle choice, then the drive to make homosexuality generally accepted becomes understandable. It's called recruiting.

Apparently Sweden, (which is held up as an example of liberal/socialist success), doesn't have a constitutional provision for freedom of religion. No thanks.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: keyboarder on December 11, 2012, 01:57:15 AM
Quote from: Yawn on December 10, 2012, 03:46:17 PM
I think it is both.  Some do seem physically and mentally different (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm) (discovered by kramarat). Others CHOOSE that way of death by their choices. Otherwise (for those who recognize the authority of the Bible), this way of death in cultures wouldn't increase. Yet they have and do.  Ellen's two "lovers" (Ann Heche and Portia de Rossi) are not/were not true lesbians. They "experimented and one left that.

Among homosexuals that claim Christianity, He still requires the same thing He requires of the heterosexual.  Sex outside of legitimate marriage is sin. The wages of sin is DEATH. Marriage has a definition.  Allowing the LIE to continue doesn't show love for the person caught up in sin (my best friend paid the ultimate price for this).

The consequences of homosexuality are clearly stated in God's word.  Anyone who claims to be a Christian and goes against these precepts is committing transgressions.
God will be the judge but i venture to say that he will deal with the ones that try to change his laws or live differently than what his commandments direct them to do.  We have to take His laws literally, to mean what they plainly say and live accordingly.
We just can no longer do what we please as sinners, we have to actually try to live out His directions and trust that He will be there for us.  To believe in Christ is one thing, to have an actual relationship with Him is better and I question any homosexual having a loving relationship with God until he repents.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Darth Fife on December 11, 2012, 02:05:11 AM
There are two simple reasons that Liberals promote gay marriage.

First, as previously mentioned, they see it as a wedge the can use to try and divide their political opponents.

More importantly, the see it, like abortion on demand, as another means to birth control.

Libs don't talk about it much, or when they do, they don' let on to the full extent of their beliefs. They believe that the Earth is grossly over crowded. Many, like the nut job Paul Watson (of Whale Wars fame) believe that no human settlement should be larger than 35,000 people! They also believe that humans are not part of nature, but are malevolent virus upon the Earth. 

These views are more common among the Libs than one would think.

So, anything that keeps humans from breeding (homosexuals routinely refer to the rest of us as "breeders") is, in their pervert view of the world, as a good thing.

Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Paladin on December 11, 2012, 04:10:42 PM
Here's how I feel about the gay issue.

Homosexuality is not a modern liberal thing, its a human thing; and the argument over it should be a constitutional one. You cannot be a champion of freedom, and call for government getting out of our lives, if you feel the government should restrict two consenting adults in love, who want to marry. The Republican party, and conservatism was never about involving itself in people's personal lives, until the 1950's- the birth of modern conservatism, and later when the Republican party got linked up with the Christian coalition, because they saw how much it helped the Democrats in their election. Now the Republican party is basically still trapped in the 50's, and looks more like a political church, that is way too judgmental-and pushes more and more away, especially younger- who may have a gay friend, or family member. They also look out of date with the modern times. Society changes, and has. People thought a certain way of the gay situation years ago, even about divorce, women working, even other races- and those things have changed, because society has changed.


Its gotten to this situation, because years ago- if two men (or two women) were in love, and together. If one got sick or hurt and was in the hospital- the other wasn't allowed to really visit the way a wife or husband could visit his loved one. If one died, benefits and such wouldn't go to the other, like it would with a husband and wife. I don't care if you're a liberal or conservative, that's not right. If you're willing to risk your life defending the country, you shouldn't have to hide and be afraid of being kicked out of the military, because of a letter, phone call, or email from your loved one- its ridiculous, and doesn't promote personal freedom- which is what this country is supposed to be about.

People don't wake up one fine morning, and decide they want to be gay- risking all sorts of ridicule (even from family), losing jobs, and or friends-and also physical harm or death. The only people who don't care about such things, are those who just enjoy sex, and don't care if its male or female.. None of which has anything to do with wanting love and companionship. Its been proven that some people are just born gay, does this mean god was sitting up in the sky, and decided to make Billy like boys? No, god has no control over how we are born. A Christian who truly understands the bible however, knows that mankind is imperfect, and so we are subject to many things that hinder our lives health-wise and emotionally. God knows this, as well as our limits-as only god knows the true heart of all who walk the earth- in other words, its no one's place to judge others so harshly. In the end we are judged as individuals, not a nation, not a church or religious group, not a collective unit, but as an individual.

I'm a Christian; but I get really annoyed when I hear politicians preach about how one should live their personal life, or tries to enforce policy that infringes upon people's personal lives-then talks about how we need government out of our lives, and how they believe in freedom.  The people who follow along with them, are sheep- who are all well and good with government ruling their lives. If the country turned into a massive socialist country, with government telling us more so how to live, the left would rejoice, and those on the right would be calling for a revolution. If we transformed into a theocracy- a Christian theocracy- those on the right would rejoice and the left, would be calling for revolution... In other words both sides are robots, and care nothing for the constitution or real freedom- only their personal beliefs, that they feel should be put upon everyone else.


I served with someone who is gay, and live a couple of doors down from a gay couple. All good people; they also aren't leftist, and they detest mainstream gay culture... Unfortunately they feel put off by the Republican party, and the rubbish that comes from then on the gay issue. They're not asking for people to change things for them, all they want is the freedom to be together, and have their relationship respected meaning- having the same rights and freedoms a regular couple would, and they just want to be left alone. I'm not the least bit bothered by them, and I come from a Christian, conservative, military family; and even my dad didn't care about who was gay- and felt it ridiculous people made such issues about it. During the primaries (which went on way too long); I remember rolling my eyes countless times, every time Rick Santorm spoke. I thought he should be running for pope, instead of president.

Sad Romney's foreign policy adviser who is extremely knowledgeable in foreign policy, and very informative- had to leave, because he felt he was being a distraction; due to the rubbish coming out from the left and the right against him- because he is gay, and shameful nobody was defending him.

If its not hurting me or anyone else I care for, or damaging the country- then I don't care. If you believe homosexuality is a sin, and gay marriage is a sin- you are very well free to believe that, and teach your children that (and hope he/she isn't gay), but do not try to force your beliefs on others, not everyone feels the same. And enough with the religion in politics, Jesus never involved himself in such things, as they are institution of man, and Jesus was on Earth promoting his father god's kingdom, not man's- and no man is holier, or nearly as perfect as Jesus, and so it is a shame to see these politicians try to also wear the hat of priest in their political world, though often don't follow it in their own personal lives.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Paladin on December 11, 2012, 04:57:42 PM
Quote from: Darth Fife on December 11, 2012, 02:05:11 AM
There are two simple reasons that Liberals promote gay marriage.

First, as previously mentioned, they see it as a wedge the can use to try and divide their political opponents.

More importantly, the see it, like abortion on demand, as another means to birth control.

Libs don't talk about it much, or when they do, they don' let on to the full extent of their beliefs. They believe that the Earth is grossly over crowded. Many, like the nut job Paul Watson (of Whale Wars fame) believe that no human settlement should be larger than 35,000 people! They also believe that humans are not part of nature, but are malevolent virus upon the Earth. 

These views are more common among the Libs than one would think.

So, anything that keeps humans from breeding (homosexuals routinely refer to the rest of us as "breeders") is, in their pervert view of the world, as a good thing.

Wrong.

There are liberals, and not raging liberals for that matter; who do honestly believe two connecting adults in love should be allowed to marry... I agree with this 100%. It doesn't effect me or anyone else in a negative way, and I wouldn't want someone telling me I can't marry someone I'm in love with.

Then we have the gay activist, who are always raging leftist. They don't care about the love and companionship that is apart of marriage, they only care about slapping the face of people who view marriage as a sacred thing between a man and a woman.

Then we have the people in the middle.. Believe it or not, there are a lot of gays, who don't believe in gay marriage, because they see it as emulating male/female- and they don't like that. They wish to have civil unions, which in ancient times would be called a covenant (which is what homosexual men did in the ancient world, though they still had to marry a woman and produce children). Unfortunately we have politicians like Santorum, who wouldn't even recognize that, as he mentioned during the primaries. Which means two men, consenting adults in love, in a union; wouldn't be able to receive their partner's benefits if one died, their union wouldn't be respected, meaning coming with the same rights as a traditional couple- this is wrong.

Both sides, especially Republicans; do a horrible job at talking about this issue- and it will continue to damage them in the future if they remain on dinosaur mode.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Yawn on December 11, 2012, 05:49:44 PM
Quote from: Paladin on December 11, 2012, 04:57:42 PM
Wrong.

There are liberals, and not raging liberals for that matter; who do honestly believe two connecting adults in love should be allowed to marry...

They ARE allowed to marry.  Rock Hudson was married to Phyllis Gates.

Ann Hecht was/is married to Coleman 'Coley' Laffoon

Beautiful Portia de Rossi was married to the dirt-bag  Mel Metcalfe who broke up her brother's marriage and ran off with his wife.  So she "turned" lesbian and plays married to Ellen Degenerate.  Homosexuals ARE free to marry. There is no one stopping them, but "marriage" HAS a definition, and it's not 2 men, or two women or a man and his dog, and not, in this culture, a man and his 7 year old "bride." That's what they hate.

Many homosexuals decide to marry for their own reasons.  The problem with modern liberals today is they demand society change the definition of "marriage" so it will include their own perversion rather than seek psychological help for their illness.

I love how liberals are so quick with the advice--"become Democrat Lite and save yourselves from extinction!"
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Paladin on December 11, 2012, 08:32:53 PM
Quote from: keyboarder on December 11, 2012, 01:57:15 AM
The consequences of homosexuality are clearly stated in God's word.  Anyone who claims to be a Christian and goes against these precepts is committing transgressions.
God will be the judge but i venture to say that he will deal with the ones that try to change his laws or live differently than what his commandments direct them to do.  We have to take His laws literally, to mean what they plainly say and live accordingly.
We just can no longer do what we please as sinners, we have to actually try to live out His directions and trust that He will be there for us.  To believe in Christ is one thing, to have an actual relationship with Him is better and I question any homosexual having a loving relationship with God until he repents.

Its not the job of a political party (government), to dictate laws due to religious beliefs, we are not a theocracy, but a constitutional republic. The Republican party is not a church,  its members are not priest, and social conservatism is not a religion. They are all man made and governed institutions, all of which Jesus did not concern himself with. There is no man, and should be no man so arrogant to think, he could bring about God's kingdom, or anything close to it, by pushing policies based on religious convictions.

In the ancient world, the word "homosexual" did not exist (if you see that word in your bible, time for a new one). There was however a word used to describe those, who did not procreate, due to them either being cut or damaged (castrated). Men who devoted themselves completely to God, studying, and traveling spreading the word- and helping those in need (missionaries). Then men (or women), who had no kind of sexual desire or lust, for the opposite sex (homosexual).

All of these people fell into the category of "Eunuch" (Greek), or Saris (Hebrew/Assyrian). Both words also mean "One who keeps the bed", these were men who guarded the king's wives (in old testament times, men had many wives). A man who was cut or damaged, could still have lustful desires for the king's wives, and could even still do sexual things with them, all of which fell into the category of adultery. A man however who had no sexual lust or desire for women, were always the best choice to guard the bed chamber. Also same sex relationships were no were near done, or viewed as they are in modern times even among those who were gay.

In Matthews, Jesus speaks of these type of people, who fell under the category of Eunuch, and basically says, leave them alone, that they too were able to receive the lord. Many of these Eunuchs were ridiculed, and even attacked often, because it was against the law first off, for a man to not marry (Hebrew culture old testament), and in many cases was very odd. which is why many Eunuch felt safer in a king's palace. Corinthians, Romans, Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah- have absolutely nothing to do, with two people in love; they're about behavior that had a lot of sexual pagan worship also known as idolatry, and fornication.

Fornication was the sexual side of idolatry, performing sexual acts in hopes of some sort of divination. Those these went on in many cultures, especially the ones that surrounded the Israelite people, these acts were never viewed as "ideal" among two men (or women) in love.

Now does this advocate gay marriage, or homosexuality? Of course not, we're not made to be homosexuals, if so we would have been specifically designed to be only attracted to the same sex. However due to Adam's actions, mankind is imperfect, and subject to a number of physical, emotional, and mental hardships. Jesus' job was to not only reform the faith (moving it somewhat away from old testament as the world had changed in his time), and give us a prelude of god's kingdom; but also be our redeemer, due to Adam's great mistake. In other words, god knows very well that there are people who are gay, and seek love and companionship from the sex they are emotionally(love), and physically(sex) attracted to. It is unrealistic and cruel to think these people should remain alone for their entire lives, as they did not ask, or choose to be that way, no more someone born deaf, blind, or deformed in any kind of way- who quickly learns that they are different from others around them.

Scientist have a lot of theories as to why someone is born gay, as they've been seeing the same behaviors among animals as well. They do know for a fact, its from the mother's side, it happens when the child is in the mother's belly. In some cases someone can be born with a male's body, but the brain and mind of a female, and the other way around. Some scientist believe its a form of birth control, others believe its a way of allowing stronger males to procreate, who knows, though as a Christian you should know, that man is imperfect.

Politically, and speaking personally... Two same sex people in love, do not infringe upon my rights or freedoms. If its not picking my pocket, hurting me or those I care for, or destroying the country, then it is no concern of mine- and shouldn't be anyone else's concern. Just leave them be, let them live their lives, let them have a chance at happiness. The country is falling apart economically, and we've got some serious situations headed our way foreign policy wise, and it boils my blood to hear people STILL, going on about gay marriage, and abortion.

Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Paladin on December 11, 2012, 08:43:05 PM
Quote from: Yawn on December 11, 2012, 05:49:44 PM
They ARE allowed to marry.  Rock Hudson was married to Phyllis Gates.

Ann Hecht was/is married to Coleman 'Coley' Laffoon

Beautiful Portia de Rossi was married to the dirt-bag  Mel Metcalfe who broke up her brother's marriage and ran off with his wife.  So she "turned" lesbian and plays married to Ellen Degenerate.  Homosexuals ARE free to marry. There is no one stopping them, but "marriage" HAS a definition, and it's not 2 men, or two women or a man and his dog, and not, in this culture, a man and his 7 year old "bride." That's what they hate.

Many homosexuals decide to marry for their own reasons.  The problem with modern liberals today is they demand society change the definition of "marriage" so it will include their own perversion rather than seek psychological help for their illness.

I love how liberals are so quick with the advice--"become Democrat Lite and save yourselves from extinction!"

Yes many are allowed to marry, and many of them have no desire to change the definition of marriage. That is something only pushed by gay activist, who are again very left. Unfortunately there are politicians like Santorum, who have made it clear, that their marriage or civil union; whatever you wish to call it, wouldn't be acknowledged, because people like him only see it as man and woman. As a Christian I agree marriage is between one man, and one woman, as Jesus even stated; however... We're not a theocracy, I would not dare infringe upon someone's personal life because of my religious views, and it annoys me that so many who call themselves Christians, are so quick to do this.

Its ignorant to think of the issue in terms of "Democrat lite", or calling someone a liberal. Its a constitutional issue... Are you ok with politicians telling you who, you can and cannot marry? And for the record, I'm far from being a Democrat, and I don't even call myself a Republican. Both parties are ridiculous, both modern liberals, and modern conservatives are ridiculous- neither of them care for, or follow the constitution. I am conservative only with fiscal and national security issues. When it comes to social issues, I'm a classic liberal. Classic liberalism originated in Europe, and the philosophy behind it, actually mirrored the idea or experiment of America. "Can man govern himself?" Classic conservatism is basically common sense stuff, and preserving traditions that make one strong- not behaving like a self-righteous bible thumping prude- which is part of why the Republican party is failing. Its members appear too much as such, which also makes them look too judgmental like many churches... Not going to resonate with many people today, especially younger.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Solar on December 12, 2012, 05:11:25 AM
Quote from: Paladin on December 11, 2012, 08:43:05 PM
Yes many are allowed to marry, and many of them have no desire to change the definition of marriage. That is something only pushed by gay activist, who are again very left. Unfortunately there are politicians like Santorum, who have made it clear, that their marriage or civil union; whatever you wish to call it, wouldn't be acknowledged, because people like him only see it as man and woman. As a Christian I agree marriage is between one man, and one woman, as Jesus even stated; however... We're not a theocracy, I would not dare infringe upon someone's personal life because of my religious views, and it annoys me that so many who call themselves Christians, are so quick to do this.

Its ignorant to think of the issue in terms of "Democrat lite", or calling someone a liberal. Its a constitutional issue... Are you ok with politicians telling you who, you can and cannot marry? And for the record, I'm far from being a Democrat, and I don't even call myself a Republican. Both parties are ridiculous, both modern liberals, and modern conservatives are ridiculous- neither of them care for, or follow the constitution. I am conservative only with fiscal and national security issues. When it comes to social issues, I'm a classic liberal. Classic liberalism originated in Europe, and the philosophy behind it, actually mirrored the idea or experiment of America. "Can man govern himself?" Classic conservatism is basically common sense stuff, and preserving traditions that make one strong- not behaving like a self-righteous bible thumping prude- which is part of why the Republican party is failing. Its members appear too much as such, which also makes them look too judgmental like many churches... Not going to resonate with many people today, especially younger.
Yet you don't see the obverse?
In forcing social change as to accepting a perversion by a small minority is a Constitutional issue, it would require a Constitutional Amendment for it to be accepted.
So in a sense, you are telling me to accept what politicians dictate.

Why should we be forced into change, were not demanding and Constitutional changes, were not the ones demanding people accept a perversion into mainstream  America.

No, I think you have it completely bassackwards.
If anything you should be asking yourself why the Fed is in the Marriage business in the first place?
Answer: For the money and control.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Darth Fife on December 12, 2012, 06:27:23 AM
Quote from: Paladin on December 11, 2012, 04:57:42 PM
Wrong.

There are liberals, and not raging liberals for that matter; who do honestly believe two connecting adults in love should be allowed to marry... I agree with this 100%. It doesn't effect me or anyone else in a negative way, and I wouldn't want someone telling me I can't marry someone I'm in love with.

Then we have the gay activist, who are always raging leftist. They don't care about the love and companionship that is apart of marriage, they only care about slapping the face of people who view marriage as a sacred thing between a man and a woman.

Then we have the people in the middle.. Believe it or not, there are a lot of gays, who don't believe in gay marriage, because they see it as emulating male/female- and they don't like that. They wish to have civil unions, which in ancient times would be called a covenant (which is what homosexual men did in the ancient world, though they still had to marry a woman and produce children). Unfortunately we have politicians like Santorum, who wouldn't even recognize that, as he mentioned during the primaries. Which means two men, consenting adults in love, in a union; wouldn't be able to receive their partner's benefits if one died, their union wouldn't be respected, meaning coming with the same rights as a traditional couple- this is wrong.

Both sides, especially Republicans; do a horrible job at talking about this issue- and it will continue to damage them in the future if they remain on dinosaur mode.

This is a very naive view of the Left.

It also ignores the fact that only a very small minority of homosexuals actually are interested in "marriage". Trust me, I know! Lived in the Bay Area for 5 years and have many gay and lesbian friends. The vast majority of them eschew the tradtional institute of marriage like the effing plague!

So-called gay marriage is a political issue being extolled by the Left as a club to beat Republicans over the head with.

IF the majority of Gays and Lesbians voted Republicans, the Democrats wouldn't touch the issue of Gay Marriage with a ten foot pole!

Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Solar on December 12, 2012, 07:14:15 AM
Quote from: Skeptic on December 02, 2012, 05:46:35 PM
It is not an anomaly. Just observe the animal kingdom and you will notice dozens of mammal species that exhibit homosexual behavior. So it doesn't deviate from our observations.
So is cannibalism and torture, should we welcome that as a lifestyle as well?
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: redlom xof on December 12, 2012, 08:15:20 AM
No, because that is one person inflicting pain and suffering on another. Homosexuality doesn't impact on other people.


A very clear and obvious difference.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: walkstall on December 12, 2012, 10:07:52 AM
Quote from: redlom xof on December 12, 2012, 08:15:20 AM
No, because that is one person inflicting pain and suffering on another. Homosexuality doesn't impact on other people.


A very clear and obvious difference.

Tell that to the young boys and girls.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: keyboarder on December 12, 2012, 11:46:05 AM
Quote from: Paladin on December 11, 2012, 08:32:53 PM
Its not the job of a political party (government), to dictate laws due to religious beliefs, we are not a theocracy, but a constitutional republic. The Republican party is not a church,  its members are not priest, and social conservatism is not a religion. They are all man made and governed institutions, all of which Jesus did not concern himself with. There is no man, and should be no man so arrogant to think, he could bring about God's kingdom, or anything close to it, by pushing policies based on religious convictions.

In the ancient world, the word "homosexual" did not exist (if you see that word in your bible, time for a new one). There was however a word used to describe those, who did not procreate, due to them either being cut or damaged (castrated). Men who devoted themselves completely to God, studying, and traveling spreading the word- and helping those in need (missionaries). Then men (or women), who had no kind of sexual desire or lust, for the opposite sex (homosexual).

All of these people fell into the category of "Eunuch" (Greek), or Saris (Hebrew/Assyrian). Both words also mean "One who keeps the bed", these were men who guarded the king's wives (in old testament times, men had many wives). A man who was cut or damaged, could still have lustful desires for the king's wives, and could even still do sexual things with them, all of which fell into the category of adultery. A man however who had no sexual lust or desire for women, were always the best choice to guard the bed chamber. Also same sex relationships were no were near done, or viewed as they are in modern times even among those who were gay.

In Matthews, Jesus speaks of these type of people, who fell under the category of Eunuch, and basically says, leave them alone, that they too were able to receive the lord. Many of these Eunuchs were ridiculed, and even attacked often, because it was against the law first off, for a man to not marry (Hebrew culture old testament), and in many cases was very odd. which is why many Eunuch felt safer in a king's palace. Corinthians, Romans, Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah- have absolutely nothing to do, with two people in love; they're about behavior that had a lot of sexual pagan worship also known as idolatry, and fornication.

Fornication was the sexual side of idolatry, performing sexual acts in hopes of some sort of divination. Those these went on in many cultures, especially the ones that surrounded the Israelite people, these acts were never viewed as "ideal" among two men (or women) in love.

Now does this advocate gay marriage, or homosexuality? Of course not, we're not made to be homosexuals, if so we would have been specifically designed to be only attracted to the same sex. However due to Adam's actions, mankind is imperfect, and subject to a number of physical, emotional, and mental hardships. Jesus' job was to not only reform the faith (moving it somewhat away from old testament as the world had changed in his time), and give us a prelude of god's kingdom; but also be our redeemer, due to Adam's great mistake. In other words, god knows very well that there are people who are gay, and seek love and companionship from the sex they are emotionally(love), and physically(sex) attracted to. It is unrealistic and cruel to think these people should remain alone for their entire lives, as they did not ask, or choose to be that way, no more someone born deaf, blind, or deformed in any kind of way- who quickly learns that they are different from others around them.

Scientist have a lot of theories as to why someone is born gay, as they've been seeing the same behaviors among animals as well. They do know for a fact, its from the mother's side, it happens when the child is in the mother's belly. In some cases someone can be born with a male's body, but the brain and mind of a female, and the other way around. Some scientist believe its a form of birth control, others believe its a way of allowing stronger males to procreate, who knows, though as a Christian you should know, that man is imperfect.

Politically, and speaking personally... Two same sex people in love, do not infringe upon my rights or freedoms. If its not picking my pocket, hurting me or those I care for, or destroying the country, then it is no concern of mine- and shouldn't be anyone else's concern. Just leave them be, let them live their lives, let them have a chance at happiness. The country is falling apart economically, and we've got some serious situations headed our way foreign policy wise, and it boils my blood to hear people STILL, going on about gay marriage, and abortion.

Wow!  You have done at least one thing in your convuluted oratory and that is to let me know how confused you are.  No one is perfect, agreed.  It stops there, however,
I'll refer you to Romans Chp.1 vs 18-32.  This scripture was not just written for the people of that day and time but time until infinity.  Now you can try to redefine any term for these definitions that you wish, but it won't make them any more acceptable to Christ now than they were when he inspired the real meanings and consequences of them.  Abortion is not mentioned in those verses so i'll give you my unrequested opinion of that.  Life begins at inception.  Do you want the Chapter and verse for that?
Killing of an unborn fetus from the mother's womb by abortion is murder. 

There might be a subject that we can discuss but it can never be this one as i will not be swayed by liberal rhetoric.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Paladin on December 12, 2012, 01:12:59 PM
Quote from: Solar on December 12, 2012, 05:11:25 AM
Yet you don't see the obverse?
In forcing social change as to accepting a perversion by a small minority is a Constitutional issue, it would require a Constitutional Amendment for it to be accepted.
So in a sense, you are telling me to accept what politicians dictate.

Why should we be forced into change, were not demanding and Constitutional changes, were not the ones demanding people accept a perversion into mainstream  America.

No, I think you have it completely bassackwards.
If anything you should be asking yourself why the Fed is in the Marriage business in the first place?
Answer: For the money and control.


LOL You don't get it.

Nobody is forcing you to do anything, and you only repeated what I said in the end. The gov has no business getting involved with who marries who. Nothing changes for you or me, if two men are allowed to marry. What you're arguing for has nothing to do with the Republican party, or even original conservatism. I'd agree with your words, if people were going to force you or me, to marry men lol.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: taxed on December 12, 2012, 01:53:22 PM
Quote from: Skeptic on December 02, 2012, 04:25:36 PM
No sir, but there was a time when freedom was defined as something reserved for the realm of the white man, until our Party stood at the forefront of this nation and dealt a death blow to slavery. There was also a time when voting was defined as a right reserved only for white men, until our Party stood firm and extended the right to vote to all men. There was a time when women were considered unfit for public office, and much less fit to cast a ballot, until many northern and western Republican states started to pass their own laws allowing women the right to suffrage, thus finally forcing Congress to act and pass a national amendment extending the right to vote to women. There was also a time when segregation was the norm, until President Eisenhower desegregated the military and laid the foundation to allow the Supreme Court to find that separate but equal was in fact unequal.

We were always at the forefront when it came to going against the grain and granting rights to other, even though it was controversial and had never been done before. Yet here we are today, dragging our feet when it comes to extending the freedom to others to marry whom they see fit. Have we fallen this far from what we used to stand for?

Have you even seen a gay parade?
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: taxed on December 12, 2012, 02:05:23 PM
Quote from: Skeptic on December 02, 2012, 04:55:05 PM
Nowhere in that article is homosexuality linked to an anomaly, but rather that homosexual brains have some similarity to female brains, thus showing that homosexuality is not a choice and is instead biologically set. Unless you care to argue that feminine features in a brain are an abnormality (I wouldn't suggest telling that to your wife.)  :scared:

Don't let facts get in the way of your prejudices.

Finally, if not opposing gay marriage makes me a "radical liberal" as one of you claimed, so be it. Never mind the fact that you and I probably agree on everything in 85%-90% of things. I say the problem is not that I'm too radical, but rather that you are not radical enough. This nation was created by radicals and built by radicals. We didn't become who we are by following others, but by creating our own opportunities and shaping our own destinies. That's why we were once a beacon of freedom and hope to others.

You just don't understand gay people.  They tend to be a little bit on the dramatic side.  This whole gay marriage thing is a tantrum by gays wanting to rebel against their fathers.  Don't play into this idiocy.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: taxed on December 12, 2012, 02:11:41 PM
Quote from: Skeptic on December 02, 2012, 04:55:05 PM
Nowhere in that article is homosexuality linked to an anomaly, but rather that homosexual brains have some similarity to female brains, thus showing that homosexuality is not a choice and is instead biologically set. Unless you care to argue that feminine features in a brain are an abnormality (I wouldn't suggest telling that to your wife.)  :scared:
So, it's not their brains that are the anomaly, but their gender?


Quote
Don't let facts get in the way of your prejudices.

Finally, if not opposing gay marriage makes me a "radical liberal" as one of you claimed, so be it. Never mind the fact that you and I probably agree on everything in 85%-90% of things. I say the problem is not that I'm too radical, but rather that you are not radical enough. This nation was created by radicals and built by radicals. We didn't become who we are by following others, but by creating our own opportunities and shaping our own destinies. That's why we were once a beacon of freedom and hope to others.
There is no benefit to our society by making a big hoorrah for gay marriage.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Paladin on December 12, 2012, 02:45:20 PM
Quote from: Darth Fife on December 12, 2012, 06:27:23 AM
This is a very naive view of the Left.

It also ignores the fact that only a very small minority of homosexuals actually are interested in "marriage". Trust me, I know! Lived in the Bay Area for 5 years and have many gay and lesbian friends. The vast majority of them eschew the tradtional institute of marriage like the effing plague!

So-called gay marriage is a political issue being extolled by the Left as a club to beat Republicans over the head with.

IF the majority of Gays and Lesbians voted Republicans, the Democrats wouldn't touch the issue of Gay Marriage with a ten foot pole!

You're not getting, and like the other guy; you basically said what I already said. I'll explain again.

1. I already stated not every gay person cares about marriage, feeling it emulates male/female dynamic, and they don't wish to do that- and some just simply don't care about marriage the way many heterosexuals don't (I'm one of those, I have no interest in starting a family). There's a large number of gays who don't even like gay culture/lifestyle, and actually follow more the way it was done in the ancient world, as current gay culture mirrors everything that was frowned upon even among gays in the ancient world. The only people who are vehemently pushing gay marriage are the left-wing gay activist, who see it as a jab to those of faith who view marriage as a sacred thing between one man, and one woman- and there are non gays among the left who hate religion who also go along with it. They don't care about gays, just trashing people of faith.

However not everyone who supports gay marriage, has an agenda to undermine the sanctity of marriage. They just feel two people shouldn't be denied the happiness of marriage, and should have their union respected by the law of the land like a traditional marriage- meaning benefits and such. (I'm in that group)

2. As a Christian, I do not agree with gay marriage (not that someone is gay)- all for the same reasons many gays do not agree with it. Politically I understand we're not theocratic, and it is not your business, my business, or the government's business to involve itself in personal issues such as that, so I don't care if two men or women are married. If they're happy, not hurting anyone, or the country- then more power to em- I'm not going to turn my nose up at them, or think less of them.

3. I already know gays are allowed to marry in some states, and I know in others its civil unions. What I'm saying is, we have some politicians on the right (Santorum comes to mind), who have stated that they wouldn't acknowledge such relationships, and their reasons for this are religious ones. In the primaries he even stated how he didn't agree with the states deciding on this issue. If the country was left up to people like him, gays wouldn't have the ability to marry or have civil unions- because for him its all about a religious/moral argument- and while religiously he is right, he is wrong mixing his faith with politics that interfere with the personal lives of others.

The more the Republican party is plagued with bible thumping twits like Santorum, and the more the Republican party keeps itself locked with the Christian coalition-all of which makes them look like a political church- and very judgmental at that- the more people will turn away from the party. These issues were never originally apart of the Republican party- or classic conservatism.

Also I see a lot of people throwing around the word "liberal", "Democratic lite", or "rino"-without proper understanding of the origins. The philosophy of the Republican party, is largely based in classic liberalism. Classic liberalism (which originated in Europe), has the same ideology of the idea behind America, or the experiment of America. "Can man govern himself?" Are we children who need to be told who we can and cannot marry, what we can and cannot eat, what light bulbs we shouldn't buy, what cars we should drive, what we can or cannot do with our own bodies?

No this debate is not a left or right thing, because both the left and the right are morons. This is a constitutional debate. Its been so divisive because neither the left or right care about the constitution- only their little ideologies, and their little groups. Aside from that, the Republican party who is so wrapped up in religion, want to constantly appease the religious crowd- this is wrong, as it was never the job of the Republican party to appease specific groups- only defend the rights and freedoms of all in this country.

As long as this debate, and other social issues which do not involve the government continue- with Republicans and modern conservatives making the party look like a judgmental political church, the more people will walk away from the party- especially young people. 

Its nice you lived in the bay area around gays and all, I have many friends who are gay, and a family member who is gay- and learned quite a lot from one of them who did 12 and a half year long research on homosexuality, past and present- and the gay groups- as well as the many gays (which includes him, and my older brother) who do not care for modern gay culture/lifestyle.... None of them are modern liberals, or Democrats (especially my brother, lived in Europe, and Democrats remind us of the socialist who have ruined Europe). At the same time we all get annoyed at the ridiculousness of the Republican party, and modern conservatism- which have moved the party away from what it originally was about.

Its the job of the church to talk about these issues in their communities, not the job of the Republican party. The Republican party's job, is to fight for the religious rights and freedoms of the people. Making sure that pastor can fight over secularism, and speak of these issues in his community- without worry from the government... Keep religion out of the politics, separation of church and state which both the left and the right continually get wrong.

The left wants to remove all religious imagery, or speech from the public... This is wrong. The right wants to enforce or support policy that interferes with personal rights, freedoms, and issues- all due to what they believe in religiously... This is also wrong.


Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Paladin on December 12, 2012, 03:09:59 PM
Quote from: taxed on December 12, 2012, 02:05:23 PM
You just don't understand gay people.  They tend to be a little bit on the dramatic side.  This whole gay marriage thing is a tantrum by gays wanting to rebel against their fathers.  Don't play into this idiocy.

You're statement here generalizes too much, which makes you appear quite ignorant- even foolish. Yes there are many who identify themselves as gay, either because of rebellion (its mostly females who do this), abuse (I knew a guy who hated women because his mother viciously abused him), some are forced into it and become used to it (this largely happens in prison, and even in some military settings)- and some experiment and enjoy the act and so then identify as gay, and adopt stereotypical and destructive behaviors.

However there are many who are actually born homosexual, and their behaviors are drastically different from those mentioned above. Scientist discovered that these men respond to the scent of males, the same way a heterosexual female does. The type of men I mentioned above, do not- because it isn't genetic/biological- its just addiction/psychological issues. As a Christian I understand all of these things happen due to man's imperfection, though these people are not hated by god. Only people who have to worry about being destroyed (although they don't worry of it), are those who reject the father and son, and seek harm of those who are his people, with no kind of remorse in the heart  (this is called anti-Christ spirit).

My older brother is gay, my father was a great man, great father, and great friend. We had an amazing relationship with him, and not one of my brother or myself, felt the need to rebel against him. When my brother told us he was gay, my father told him he was still his son and he loved him, and to basically not involve himself in the destructive gay culture, which my brother already kept away from- in other words, my father wasn't bothered that my brother is gay- and was proud of him and approved of the man he ended up with.


I hate political correctness greatly, but I also hate tactless speech and prudish behavior as well. Be more careful with what you say.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Paladin on December 12, 2012, 03:11:59 PM
Quote from: taxed on December 12, 2012, 01:53:22 PM
Have you even seen a gay parade?

Yep, and there are a lot of gay people- who find gay pride disgusting, and take no part in it.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: taxed on December 12, 2012, 04:14:18 PM
Quote from: Paladin on December 12, 2012, 03:11:59 PM
Yep, and there are a lot of gay people- who find gay pride disgusting, and take no part in it.

No, there isn't "a lot".
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Texas_Secession on December 12, 2012, 04:45:28 PM
When I first heard the term gay marriage, I laughed.  All the guys I know that are 'married' to their partners fool around on the side (I do).  Less than 0.0001% of even the most gayest of gay men are interested in finding a partner and settling down.  Dating?  Yes.  Marriage, with the contracts and I do's.  Absolutely not.

As a gay man (new to the forum), I must disagree with the original poster.  I am as homosexual as they come and fulfill most of the reprobate criteria one poster mentioned, except that I am a far, far right-wing Conservative.  Gay Marriage is an attempt by the far-left, neo-Marxist fringe to destroy hetero marriage.  Plain and simple

And to be brutally honest, I want no part of it.  Marriage to me is a religious institution, dedicated solely for child rearing and the maintenance of society.  Without it, we would be Rome.  Or worse.  Me and my partner will never get married, although we have stipulated in our wills what goes where in case we die.   Marriage is the lifeblood of our Republic.  Gays, Bi's, or drag queens have no part in it.

Stop fallling for the "let the gays in" b.s.  Fight back.  Stand up.  Stop allowing the mosquito to run the elephant.  Sometimes I shake my head at the weaklings who are straight.  Who beleive what the news media dishes out.

STAND UP.  Be a man.  DO NOT give in.  Marriage is a hetero institution.  Fight for it. 

Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Paladin on December 12, 2012, 04:49:33 PM
Quote from: keyboarder on December 12, 2012, 11:46:05 AMWow!  You have done at least one thing in your convuluted oratory and that is to let me know how confused you are.  No one is perfect, agreed.  It stops there, however,
I'll refer you to Romans Chp.1 vs 18-32.  This scripture was not just written for the people of that day and time but time until infinity.  Now you can try to redefine any term for these definitions that you wish, but it won't make them any more acceptable to Christ now than they were when he inspired the real meanings and consequences of them.  Abortion is not mentioned in those verses so i'll give you my unrequested opinion of that.  Life begins at inception.  Do you want the Chapter and verse for that?
Killing of an unborn fetus from the mother's womb by abortion is murder. 

There might be a subject that we can discuss but it can never be this one as i will not be swayed by liberal rhetoric.



I think its you who are confused.

1. I never said nor implied anything about the bible having no relation to our time, it does. I just understand very much of what was being condemned and punished in all of the books I mentioned, and the event in the two wicked cities. To which I agree with 100%, and see the ill effects of those behaviors that hurt man even today... However none of these things have anything to do with two people in love.


2. I didn't try to "redefine" anything. I just understand what the true meaning of the words mean... You get a much different view of the faith, when you learn Greek and Hebrew, and learn the origins and meanings of many of the words- along with understanding ancient culture, the way things were viewed. Meaning in the ancient world, homosexuals would be appalled by the behavior of modern homosexuals. As for definitions, idolatry was worship of idols in place of god, be it a statue of a pagan god, a symbol, any man made institution/ideology, or flesh and blood thing. Fornication was the sexual part of it. This is what was punished in Romans, as the people conducted themselves and in god's temple no less, in the ways he said NOT to, in Leviticus. This was also towards the temple in Rome, as in this time, there were many Hebrews (Israelite people/god's people) living in Rome, and they messed up by behaving like pagans do- and so were punished.

How it relates to our time as it did in theirs? Don't practice pagan rituals in god's house. Fornication is the pagan practice, of doing sexual things with females or males (and unnatural stuff at that.) in hope of some kind of divination. It was mostly males this was done to however, as many perverted men would mess about with little boys, who then grew up unable of being their own man, and accustomed to being used for sex and kept by men, who then became temple prostitutes.. Corinthians speaks of this also.

Again... None of this has to do with two people in love.

3. Jesus said, marriage is between one man, and one woman. I agree with this, so do many gays today, and men in the ancient world who were gay did not marry men- it was unnatural, and degrading for a man to take on the role of a female, a slave boy, or temple prostitute- in any way shape or form (including in the bed). This also means the men of today who marry X amount of women, and claim to be living a biblical life, are wrong. That was all old testament stuff, and Jesus in his time, was moving things away from old testament, as the world was no longer as it was in old testament times. New testament is Jesus's era and our modern era.

4. Never said anything about anything being acceptable to Christ. I was just simply saying, he didn't condone ill treatment, and ridicule of homosexuals (who fell into the category of Eunuch). Homosexuals were attacked, killed, and ridiculed openly in the old world. If you think Jesus would be ok with that, then please don't call yourself a Christian because you aren't. Jesus knew very well of the imperfection of man, and that many are born with a number of issues that hinder us. God knows our heart, and our limits, and only god can judge us. The man who claims to be of god, and screams at the gay who also may have god in their heart- telling him/her they are going to hell (which I do not believe in), is more likely to not make it in the book of life.

5. Abortion isn't mentioned in the bible. Though the bible states we must respect all life, including our own. If a woman has any kind of health issues, that may put her life at risk while pregnant. It is not the will of god, that she goes through with the pregnancy and possibly dies. Anyone who believes such a thing is backwards, and has no real understanding of god. Is abortion horrible? Yes it is, especially because of its original intent. Though again it all goes back to god knowing the true heart of the individual. Not you, not me, not the government, not a priest, or politician who also tries to wear the hat of a priest as well. I'm not hung up on the argument over when life begins, it useless. The only thing I'm concerned about, is if a woman chooses to have an abortion due to health reasons, that's her choice, and something she must deal with her family with (if she's got one), and god (if she believes).

Its nice to spout scriptures and all, but if you do not understand the meaning of what is being said, which largely comes from not understanding origins or meanings of certain words within them, then its useless. Wrong when one tries to apply it to policy, that interferes with those who may not believe the same. This is what happened in Europe when the Catholic church ruled through the government. Our founding fathers left that, and did not want to see that here. Unfortunately many politicians on the right, and their supporters- don't get that.

On the political side of it... I don't need nor want to hear a politician preaching to me about these issues. That's something for the church to do, not a politician.

This is not a modern liberal position, this is a classic liberal position, a constitutional position, classic Republican position, and the position of someone who believes in freedom- and staying out of the personal lives of people- as long as its not hurting him, others, or the country.


Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Paladin on December 12, 2012, 04:50:18 PM
Quote from: taxed on December 12, 2012, 04:14:18 PM
No, there isn't "a lot".

And you know this how?
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Patriot on December 12, 2012, 04:53:38 PM
Quote from: taxed on December 12, 2012, 04:14:18 PM
No, there isn't "a lot".
Unless either side has data, it is difficult to make definite comments about this.  I think if you were to look at news reports on these events to get a rough sense of numbers and compare that to whatever the percentage of the population is gay in a given area, it would be a very small percentage that attends.  Hard to tell without an accurate poll what percentage finds the events disgusting.   Just from some casual conversations, I think there are gays who are not pleased with these events because of the impression they give to the rest of us.  Hard to say the percentages though.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Solar on December 12, 2012, 05:38:40 PM
Quote from: Paladin on December 12, 2012, 01:12:59 PM

LOL You don't get it.

Nobody is forcing you to do anything, and you only repeated what I said in the end. The gov has no business getting involved with who marries who. Nothing changes for you or me, if two men are allowed to marry. What you're arguing for has nothing to do with the Republican party, or even original conservatism. I'd agree with your words, if people were going to force you or me, to marry men lol.
Forget the GOP, they are a useless bunch of RINO, I'm commenting on what you said.
Now read it again and see if you can comprehend what I''m saying about amending the Constitution.
Are you actually willing to let that happen?

Yet you don't see the obverse?
In forcing social change as to accepting a perversion by a small minority is a Constitutional issue, it would require a Constitutional Amendment for it to be accepted.
So in a sense, you are telling me to accept what politicians dictate.

Why should we be forced into change, were not demanding any Constitutional changes, were not the ones demanding people accept a perversion into mainstream  America.

No, I think you have it completely bassackwards.
If anything you should be asking yourself why the Fed is in the Marriage business in the first place?
Answer: For the money and control.

I want the Fed out of marriage. Period!
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: kramarat on December 12, 2012, 05:53:51 PM
First of all, whether it's state or federal, the governmet HAS to be involved in the gay marriage issue.
Why?
Because the majority of weddings are still held in churches, and the majority of churches won't perform gay weddings. So, we are left with judges or justices of the peace, both of which are required to follow the state's rules. No way around government involvement.

I tend to agree with Paladin, but calling them marriages causes problems, and changes the very definition of what, (for centuries), has defined the binding relationship between a man and a woman. I too, have a problem with calling these relationships, "marriage".

In the UK, the state ruled that they will be called, "civil partnerships", and that the state will not force the churches to perform the ceremonies. Case closed, all is well, nobody cares................no big deal. Makes sense too, since I've never heard of a gay couple referring to each other as husband and wife. Typically, it's "my partner".

As usual, it's the radicals from both sides that control the argument. Here in NC, many counties were quietly performing same sex civil unions. Nobody complained or cared. Along came the loudmouth gay radicals, screaming MARRIAGE-MARRIAGE-MARRIAGE. Who knows if they were even gay...............maybe just leftist shit disturbers.
Long story, short. Gay MARRIAGE was put on the ballot, and shot down. It's too bad that it was insisted on being put on the ballot. I'm sure that most gays were fine with things the way they were. They were getting what they wanted, and there wasn't a big fight involved. The people that wanted to make headlines, screwed it up.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: covert on December 12, 2012, 05:58:49 PM
how is there a gay issue? what does preference have to do with rights?
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Yawn on December 12, 2012, 06:12:36 PM
Quote from: covert on December 12, 2012, 05:58:49 PM
how is there a gay issue? what does preference have to do with rights?

Look at where their agenda leads for mainstream America. There is no "tolerance" among those who demand special rights for homosexuals.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to criticize this deathstyle.  You cannot point out where this way of life leads. Right now, in America, it's just queer pressure (peer pressure). Soon, as this 1% gain political power, we'll follow other nations making it a CRIME to have an opinion THEY don't approve of.  Your children will inherit a very dark world--a new Dark Age--if they have their way.

BTW, no need to scream. We all heard you.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Darth Fife on December 12, 2012, 06:13:35 PM
Quote from: covert on December 12, 2012, 05:58:49 PM
how is there a gay issue? what does preference have to do with rights?

Do you have anything constructive to add to the conversation or did you just want to show us all that you figured out how to use the text size and color gadgets? :huh:

Oh, and welcome to the forum! :smile:
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Paladin on December 12, 2012, 06:27:15 PM
Quote from: Solar on December 12, 2012, 05:38:40 PM
Forget the GOP, they are a useless bunch of RINO, I'm commenting on what you said.
Now read it again and see if you can comprehend what I''m saying about amending the Constitution.
Are you actually willing to let that happen?

Yet you don't see the obverse?
In forcing social change as to accepting a perversion by a small minority is a Constitutional issue, it would require a Constitutional Amendment for it to be accepted.
So in a sense, you are telling me to accept what politicians dictate.

Why should we be forced into change, were not demanding any Constitutional changes, were not the ones demanding people accept a perversion into mainstream  America.

No, I think you have it completely bassackwards.
If anything you should be asking yourself why the Fed is in the Marriage business in the first place?
Answer: For the money and control.

I want the Fed out of marriage. Period!



You misunderstand still.


I never said anything about advocating change of the constitution. I also said there were gays who do not care to change the definition of marriage, and don't care for it, and that I don't agree with gay marriage myself-but its not up to me or anyone else to dictate who can marry who. The people who want to change the definition of marriage, and by extension the constitution, are left-wing activist- who want to poke the religious right, and just don't care about the constitution in general, just like many on the right don't. If tomorrow every member of the Republican party fully supported civil unions, and states deciding the issue of marriage- the left would be shocked, some very happy- but the fringe group activist would still rage, because they want the definition changed, to again upset the religious right. They have a strong hatred for good tradition that promotes noble behavior, and values.. They are evil.


Sarah Palin as governor, actually vetoed a bill which would have prevented same sex couples, from receiving their partner's benefits. Unfortunately there are too many Republicans like Santorum (or Republicans afraid to upset the religious right), who wouldn't acknowledge the union of a same sex couple- which he said during the primaries. Therefore a same sex couple would not be entitled to their partner's benefits and such, all because of what he believes religiously- he even didn't like the idea of states deciding on the issue.. He's wrong. This is what I'm talking about; not changing the constitution. And the Republicans who do support civil unions, and would acknowledge a union between a same sex couple- get trashed by the religious right. They get called "rinos" or "lefties", which ultimately makes the Republican party and modern conservatives, look like a political church- and its hurting the party more and more.

And even if the gay left wing activist get what they want, in changing the definition- which I think they will, since Republicans are horrible at explaining issues. It doesn't force me to do anything different in my life. It doesn't pick my pocket, change my faith, hurt me or anyone I love, nor the country- so I don't care on that issue. If you're one of those people who think god will punish America for allowing gay marriage, then you believe we are to be judged as a collective group, a nation, a church or religious group- and not as individuals. 
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Paladin on December 12, 2012, 07:08:24 PM
Quote from: kramarat on December 12, 2012, 05:53:51 PM
First of all, whether it's state or federal, the governmet HAS to be involved in the gay marriage issue.
Why?
Because the majority of weddings are still held in churches, and the majority of churches won't perform gay weddings. So, we are left with judges or justices of the peace, both of which are required to follow the state's rules. No way around government involvement.

I tend to agree with Paladin, but calling them marriages causes problems, and changes the very definition of what, (for centuries), has defined the binding relationship between a man and a woman. I too, have a problem with calling these relationships, "marriage".

In the UK, the state ruled that they will be called, "civil partnerships", and that the state will not force the churches to perform the ceremonies. Case closed, all is well, nobody cares................no big deal. Makes sense too, since I've never heard of a gay couple referring to each other as husband and wife. Typically, it's "my partner".

As usual, it's the radicals from both sides that control the argument. Here in NC, many counties were quietly performing same sex civil unions. Nobody complained or cared. Along came the loudmouth gay radicals, screaming MARRIAGE-MARRIAGE-MARRIAGE. Who knows if they were even gay...............maybe just leftist shit disturbers.
Long story, short. Gay MARRIAGE was put on the ballot, and shot down. It's too bad that it was insisted on being put on the ballot. I'm sure that most gays were fine with things the way they were. They were getting what they wanted, and there wasn't a big fight involved. The people that wanted to make headlines, screwed it up.

Oh I don't agree with gay marriage in the sense of changing any definitions, or the constitution. There are quite a few gays out there, friends I know, and my brother included- who have no desire to change anything- and don't even like the term "marriage" between two men or women- because they see it as emulating male/female- and feel that's wrong... I agree.

What you said, is exactly what I'm talking about- but too many people are more concerned with religious stuff- and not what the founding fathers intended for the country and people. The Republican party, instead of being a political church- which is what they've become ever since they've become linked up with the Christian coalition- because they saw how much it helped Democrats- need to get back to Lincoln Republicanism. Be the party that stresses, you will fight hard for the freedom and rights for all Americans, which includes religious rights and freedoms. There are churches that are very accepting of gays, and will conduct weddings for them. Then there are people who don't believe in god, or may but not into being apart of any church- who will have the wedding done without a priest. Republicans need to express how they will protect churches who do not believe in these things, from being forced into having to do them.

Instead they come at it in a way, all out of fear of upsetting the religious right- who will not vote for them; which makes them look like judgmental prudes- and makes easy ammo for the leftist- which hurts the party, especially since this link with the Christian coalition, was never apart of the Republican party. I know conservatives who believe in the common sense issues of conservatism, and what the Republican party stood for... But don't believe in god- though they respect it.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: taxed on December 12, 2012, 09:27:31 PM
Quote from: Paladin on December 12, 2012, 04:50:18 PM
And you know this how?

Because I live in a city where business and social interaction with gays is common.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: kramarat on December 13, 2012, 02:59:55 AM
Quote from: Paladin on December 12, 2012, 07:08:24 PM
Oh I don't agree with gay marriage in the sense of changing any definitions, or the constitution. There are quite a few gays out there, friends I know, and my brother included- who have no desire to change anything- and don't even like the term "marriage" between two men or women- because they see it as emulating male/female- and feel that's wrong... I agree.

What you said, is exactly what I'm talking about- but too many people are more concerned with religious stuff- and not what the founding fathers intended for the country and people. The Republican party, instead of being a political church- which is what they've become ever since they've become linked up with the Christian coalition- because they saw how much it helped Democrats- need to get back to Lincoln Republicanism. Be the party that stresses, you will fight hard for the freedom and rights for all Americans, which includes religious rights and freedoms. There are churches that are very accepting of gays, and will conduct weddings for them. Then there are people who don't believe in god, or may but not into being apart of any church- who will have the wedding done without a priest. Republicans need to express how they will protect churches who do not believe in these things, from being forced into having to do them.

Instead they come at it in a way, all out of fear of upsetting the religious right- who will not vote for them; which makes them look like judgmental prudes- and makes easy ammo for the leftist- which hurts the party, especially since this link with the Christian coalition, was never apart of the Republican party. I know conservatives who believe in the common sense issues of conservatism, and what the Republican party stood for... But don't believe in god- though they respect it.

I lived in Santa Cruz for 11 years, and got to know quite a few gays and lesbians. My girlfriend at the time was in the landscaping/nursery business, and gay people were just part of the scene.

I don't think a lot of people realize that there are subcultures within the gay community. The gays that would be interested in forming long term legal relationships, tend to be typical working, normal people, in all respects. They don't seek the limelight, and just want to live their lives...........................much like most conservatives.

Unfortunately, the gay community also draws people that have other psychological issues going on. The pedophiles, sex addicts, and heavy drug users. These are the ones that make the news..................and therefore, the ones by whom others base their opinions of gays.

From what I understand from talking to gays, there isn't a choice in the matter. It's who they are. Not much different than if I was to wake up tomorrow morning and still be exactly who I am, but wrapped inside a female body. It sounds like torture.

I still have a problem with gays in the military. To place gays in units that are comprised of other people that are the natural, (for them), object of sexual desire, will cause problems. Particularly on long deployments, where it becomes necessary to forget about sex.
Here's an analogy on my feeling about gays in the military.........................
Suppose a group of men, 40-50 years old, decided to start a baby sitting network. None had done anything wrong, and all had clean background checks. They just happen to like kids.

I don't care how good their records are, there is no way in hell that I would leave my 5 year old daughter with one of those men. Does that mean I hate men? No. Could it be called prejudice? Sure it could. But the potential of abuse to my daugher, even if it's .000001 in a million, is not worth the risk.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: keyboarder on December 13, 2012, 04:31:25 AM
Quote from: kramarat on December 13, 2012, 02:59:55 AM
I lived in Santa Cruz for 11 years, and got to know quite a few gays and lesbians. My girlfriend at the time was in the landscaping/nursery business, and gay people were just part of the scene.

I don't think a lot of people realize that there are subcultures within the gay community. The gays that would be interested in forming long term legal relationships, tend to be typical working, normal people, in all respects. They don't seek the limelight, and just want to live their lives...........................much like most conservatives.

Unfortunately, the gay community also draws people that have other psychological issues going on. The pedophiles, sex addicts, and heavy drug users. These are the ones that make the news..................and therefore, the ones by whom others base their opinions of gays.

From what I understand from talking to gays, there isn't a choice in the matter. It's who they are. Not much different than if I was to wake up tomorrow morning and still be exactly who I am, but wrapped inside a female body. It sounds like torture.

I still have a problem with gays in the military. To place gays in units that are comprised of other people that are the natural, (for them), object of sexual desire, will cause problems. Particularly on long deployments, where it becomes necessary to forget about sex.
Here's an analogy on my feeling about gays in the military.........................
Suppose a group of men, 40-50 years old, decided to start a baby sitting network. None had done anything wrong, and all had clean background checks. They just happen to like kids.

I don't care how good their records are, there is no way in hell that I would leave my 5 year old daughter with one of those men. Does that mean I hate men? No. Could it be called prejudice? Sure it could. But the potential of abuse to my daugher, even if it's .000001 in a million, is not worth the risk.

Kramarat,
Your fears for your daughter would be justified and the problem you refer to becomes even more worrisome when she starts to school.  This is my biggest fear for our children, that they become indoctrinated to values that we don't approve of. 
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: kramarat on December 13, 2012, 05:30:28 AM
Quote from: keyboarder on December 13, 2012, 04:31:25 AM
Kramarat,
Your fears for your daughter would be justified and the problem you refer to becomes even more worrisome when she starts to school.  This is my biggest fear for our children, that they become indoctrinated to values that we don't approve of.

I understand completely. Accepting the act and accepting the people, are two different issues. I've said it before on here...............homosexuality, (in our schools), should not be taught as right or wrong, good or bad.................simply an acknowledgement that it exists, and that homosexuals should not be treated with any more or less respect than anyone else. I also think that straight people have a right to not be exposed to the over the top public behavior by some in the gay community. Much like if I see a straight couple making out in public, to the point that it becmes sexual, I won't hesitate to tell them to knock it off.

I work alone, and put a good deal of thought into this yesterday. Here's what I came up with...................

Prostitution is "legal" in Nevada. Does this mean that all people must accept prostitution on a moral basis? No.

Does it mean that all boys will go to a prostitute for sex? No.

Does it mean that there is a higher incidence of of prostitute use there? Probably. But that could be attributed to people from out of state.

I'm not comparing homosexuals to prostitutes, but my point is, that if prostitution was legalized here, it would not impact my life, and we would not be teaching our children that prostitution is good, or that they should go try it. The same people that currently visit prostitutes, would continue to. Legalizing civil unions, will not spawn more homosexuals, in my opinion.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Solar on December 13, 2012, 06:31:11 AM
Quote from: Paladin on December 12, 2012, 06:27:15 PM


You misunderstand still.
No...I understand it far better than you.

QuoteI never said anything about advocating change of the constitution.

By extension of your argument, you do.
Read carefully and try and absorb what I say.
Quote
  I also said there were gays who do not care to change the definition of marriage, and don't care for it, and that I don't agree with gay marriage myself-but its not up to me or anyone else to dictate who can marry who. The people who want to change the definition of marriage, and by extension the constitution, are left-wing activist- who want to poke the religious right, and just don't care about the constitution in general, just like many on the right don't. If tomorrow every member of the Republican party fully supported civil unions, and states deciding the issue of marriage- the left would be shocked, some very happy- but the fringe group activist would still rage, because they want the definition changed, to again upset the religious right. They have a strong hatred for good tradition that promotes noble behavior, and values.. They are evil.

Stepping aside, or dictating?
There is a huge difference here. I have no issue if the Pubs step aside on the issue, I just don't see the need to support an action to benefit less than 1% of the Nation.

QuoteSarah Palin as governor, actually vetoed a bill which would have prevented same sex couples, from receiving their partner's benefits. Unfortunately there are too many Republicans like Santorum (or Republicans afraid to upset the religious right), who wouldn't acknowledge the union of a same sex couple- which he said during the primaries. Therefore a same sex couple would not be entitled to their partner's benefits and such, all because of what he believes religiously- he even didn't like the idea of states deciding on the issue.. He's wrong. This is what I'm talking about; not changing the constitution. And the Republicans who do support civil unions, and would acknowledge a union between a same sex couple- get trashed by the religious right. They get called "rinos" or "lefties", which ultimately makes the Republican party and modern conservatives, look like a political church- and its hurting the party more and more.
Really? Show me, because no one on this forum ever said such a thing.
I find that very hard to believe, because I support civil unions, just don't define it as marriage.

QuoteAnd even if the gay left wing activist get what they want, in changing the definition- which I think they will, since Republicans are horrible at explaining issues. It doesn't force me to do anything different in my life. It doesn't pick my pocket, change my faith, hurt me or anyone I love, nor the country- so I don't care on that issue
.

But it does affect you, it requires an amendment to the Constitution.
QuoteIf you're one of those people who think god will punish America for allowing gay marriage, then you believe we are to be judged as a collective group, a nation, a church or religious group- and not as individuals.
In truth, God has nothing to do with civil unions, but on the other hand, it has everything to do with marriage from a Religious point.

Does the Fed have the right to interfere with the dictates of the First Amendment?
Using your argument, you are advocating for a Constitutional Amendment to the First.

Now do you get it?
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: redlom xof on December 13, 2012, 06:59:19 AM
QuoteNow do you get it?

No.


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That is saying that the government shall not infringe on people practicing their religion. But it also says that " congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Meaning no particular religion shall be the rule of the land and dictate what government policy is.

You claiming marriage is a religious ceremony or word doesn't concern the government.

If gays want to get get married in their own churches and call it marriage, you have no right to claim the "word". The government should treat everyone equally.

No separate and equal.

You claiming the government is infringing on your first amendment because they want gays to have the right to get married is crazy.

It's like saying Muslims should be allowed to kill their wives if they cheat on them, otherwise it would be against the first amendment.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Solar on December 13, 2012, 07:21:18 AM
Quote from: redlom xof on December 13, 2012, 06:59:19 AM
No.


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That is saying that the government shall not infringe on people practicing their religion. But it also says that " congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Meaning no particular religion shall be the rule of the land and dictate what government policy is.

You claiming marriage is a religious ceremony or word doesn't concern the government.

If gays want to get get married in their own churches and call it marriage, you have no right to claim the "word". The government should treat everyone equally.

No separate and equal.

You claiming the government is infringing on your first amendment because they want gays to have the right to get married is crazy.

It's like saying Muslims should be allowed to kill their wives if they cheat on them, otherwise it would be against the first amendment.
prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Marriage has always been an Religious practice, it is only recently that the Federal Govt got involved.
Fed dictating rules of marriage is an interference in a Religious institution.

Tell me, if you were to wed, would you go to a Federal Govt for a license, or a County/state office?

It's a states rights issue, not a Fed!
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: mdgiles on December 13, 2012, 07:54:14 AM
QuoteIt's a states rights issue, not a Fed!
It shouldn't be a Federal issue, but it is; mainly because many Gay Rights activists want to use the power of the Federal Courts - and a sympathetic judge - to win them a victory they haven't been able to win from their fellow citizens. Of course, it does lead one to wonder. According to the various surveys, the media and the arts, younger citizens are becoming more "accepting" of homosexuality. So why not show some patience and simply wait for the climate to change - unless of course - like me - you believe that much of this acceptance is bogus; and has more to do with not wanting to seem "uncool" when they poll taker comes around, as opposed to any real ground swell of support. That might make you want to rush changes through, before the actual support level is revealed.

Then of course, there's that other boogieman - the 16th Amendment. With the arrival of the income tax, there is a positive advantage to being married, because the tax code favors married couples. Obviously the tax code is in favor of the production and rearing of future taxpayers, something marriage facilitates.   
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Paladin on December 13, 2012, 03:38:10 PM
Quote from: kramarat on December 13, 2012, 02:59:55 AM
I lived in Santa Cruz for 11 years, and got to know quite a few gays and lesbians. My girlfriend at the time was in the landscaping/nursery business, and gay people were just part of the scene.

I don't think a lot of people realize that there are subcultures within the gay community. The gays that would be interested in forming long term legal relationships, tend to be typical working, normal people, in all respects. They don't seek the limelight, and just want to live their lives...........................much like most conservatives.

Unfortunately, the gay community also draws people that have other psychological issues going on. The pedophiles, sex addicts, and heavy drug users. These are the ones that make the news..................and therefore, the ones by whom others base their opinions of gays.

From what I understand from talking to gays, there isn't a choice in the matter. It's who they are. Not much different than if I was to wake up tomorrow morning and still be exactly who I am, but wrapped inside a female body. It sounds like torture.

I still have a problem with gays in the military. To place gays in units that are comprised of other people that are the natural, (for them), object of sexual desire, will cause problems. Particularly on long deployments, where it becomes necessary to forget about sex.
Here's an analogy on my feeling about gays in the military.........................
Suppose a group of men, 40-50 years old, decided to start a baby sitting network. None had done anything wrong, and all had clean background checks. They just happen to like kids.

I don't care how good their records are, there is no way in hell that I would leave my 5 year old daughter with one of those men. Does that mean I hate men? No. Could it be called prejudice? Sure it could. But the potential of abuse to my daugher, even if it's .000001 in a million, is not worth the risk.


You started off good, but then the rest of your statements took a giant nosedive, due to ignorance.

I've lived around gay people myself, (especially when I lived in Europe),  three of my best friends are gay, that would be my older brother, a man I served with in the military, and my brother's partner, who ran a 12 and a half year study on the entire issue, to which I learned some very interesting stuff.

gay men like the people I mentioned (and learned there are quite a lot of em), while they have no shame acknowledging that they are gay, meaning they do not hate themselves. They strongly detest gay culture. They find it disgusting, depressing, destructive, disrespectful, and degrading. The gays who are conservative, and do believe in god, and do hold on to noble values- get trashed all the time by the larger majority who are quite leftist. So they do not associate with them, you won't find them in gay clubs, bars, or gay pride... Unfortunately they also get a lot of crap from ignorant wankers on the right as well. While disappointing to them (and to me), they are strong- and don't go flailing about like a crybaby leftist. They keep quiet and keep to themselves.

As far as gays in the military goes... The man I served with, was a damn good soldier- and had everyone's respect. His sexuality was non existent on our minds, especially when I almost got killed, and he was one of the people pulling me to safety. Its mostly the higher ups who get their panties in the knot about gays in the military, but while I do respect their position, they don't mean much to me, because they don't go through the same things guys out in the field do, and I certainly don't care for the opinion of someone who hasn't served and flaps off at the mouth about gays in the military, or disrespects a soldier because he is gay- yet thinks of himself as a patriot- to me, they are garbage. The man I served with, also viewed us as his brothers, so the thought of any kind of sexual activity or thought, would have simply grossed him out, aside from that- anyone would have thought we were all gay, with the horseplay and jokes we'd all do lol.... He also had no problem doing his job, or any problem with his sexuality save for the fact he had to be careful to not let other morons who'd  probably want to get him kicked out, learn he was gay- by either getting a letter, phone call, or email from his partner (this was before DADT was repealed).

There are gays in the military in Europe, and gays in the Israeli military as well- and no problems. And you're not supposed to be having sex in the military or look at porn regardless of your sexuality- bigger issue with male/female, due to the possibility of pregnancy. Its highly unprofessional to be getting into that. I missed my girl a lot, as did other guys. I didn't sneak to go find a female to mess about with, nor did he seek to mess about with anyone.


The last bit about the whole daughter thing, was really sad. Child molestation has nothing to do with someone's sexuality. Its about someone who has no kind of control over their life,(regardless of sexuality)- and feels that control and power- when they are in control of a child. Some have a perverted fascination with the innocence of children- boy, girl, or both. Then some are re-enacting abuse that was put upon them at some point in their life. I wouldn't leave my child with anyone who I didn't know and trust.

Your statements is exactly what makes conservatism, and the Republican party look bad- too judgmental, ignorant, hateful even. And then conservatives are shocked and surprised elections get lost. If this attitude and mentality remains popular within the party, just get used to the reality that George Bush Jr, was the last president of the Republican party.





Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: BILLY Defiant on December 13, 2012, 03:43:50 PM
Quote from: Solar on December 13, 2012, 07:21:18 AM
prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Marriage has always been an Religious practice, it is only recently that the Federal Govt got involved.
Fed dictating rules of marriage is an interference in a Religious institution.

Tell me, if you were to wed, would you go to a Federal Govt for a license, or a County/state office?

It's a states rights issue, not a Fed!



Bingo

However, gays want it to be a fed issue partly because they want to be able to marry a foreign person of the same sex and go through Immigration to get that person a green card or fiance visa.

Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: redlom xof on December 13, 2012, 04:14:45 PM
Quote
Bingo

However, gays want it to be a fed issue partly because they want to be able to marry a foreign person of the same sex and go through Immigration to get that person a green card or fiance visa.

ROFL ! That sounds exactly like Rush Limbaugh ...
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Patriot on December 13, 2012, 04:15:40 PM
Quote from: Paladin on December 13, 2012, 03:38:10 PM...Your statements is exactly what makes conservatism, and the Republican party look bad- too judgmental, ignorant, hateful even. And then conservatives are shocked and surprised elections get lost. If this attitude and mentality remains popular within the party, just get used to the reality that George Bush Jr, was the last president of the Republican party.
I hope the GOP will win elections in the future, but there needs to be some changes.  I don't know that attitudes will change overnight.  You can't teach old dogs new tricks, but in the meantime, if the party can get away from the social issues and focus on fiscal conservatism, limited government, etc., that might be a winning path.  This thread discusses that:
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/future-of-the-gop-and-its-advocacy-of-social-values/ (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/future-of-the-gop-and-its-advocacy-of-social-values/)
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: taxed on December 13, 2012, 04:19:40 PM
Quote from: Paladin on December 13, 2012, 03:38:10 PM

You started off good, but then the rest of your statements took a giant nosedive, due to ignorance.

I've lived around gay people myself, (especially when I lived in Europe),  three of my best friends are gay, that would be my older brother, a man I served with in the military, and my brother's partner, who ran a 12 and a half year study on the entire issue, to which I learned some very interesting stuff.
I have gay family members as well, and have been around gays for my adult life.  They have been employees, friends, and business associates.

Quote
gay men like the people I mentioned (and learned there are quite a lot of em), while they have no shame acknowledging that they are gay, meaning they do not hate themselves. They strongly detest gay culture. They find it disgusting, depressing, destructive, disrespectful, and degrading.
This is the biggest load of crap I have ever heard.  It's true on a small scale, but not the gay culture over-all.


QuoteThe gays who are conservative, and do believe in god, and do hold on to noble values- get trashed all the time by the larger majority who are quite leftist. So they do not associate with them, you won't find them in gay clubs, bars, or gay pride... Unfortunately they also get a lot of crap from ignorant wankers on the right as well. While disappointing to them (and to me), they are strong- and don't go flailing about like a crybaby leftist. They keep quiet and keep to themselves.
Conservatives just don't care about gay people, until they start trying to push legislation and being gay in public.


Quote
As far as gays in the military goes... The man I served with, was a damn good soldier- and had everyone's respect. His sexuality was non existent on our minds, especially when I almost got killed, and he was one of the people pulling me to safety. Its mostly the higher ups who get their panties in the knot about gays in the military, but while I do respect their position, they don't mean much to me, because they don't go through the same things guys out in the field do, and I certainly don't care for the opinion of someone who hasn't served and flaps off at the mouth about gays in the military, or disrespects a soldier because he is gay- yet thinks of himself as a patriot- to me, they are garbage. The man I served with, also viewed us as his brothers, so the thought of any kind of sexual activity or thought, would have simply grossed him out, aside from that- anyone would have thought we were all gay, with the horseplay and jokes we'd all do lol.... He also had no problem doing his job, or any problem with his sexuality save for the fact he had to be careful to not let other morons who'd  probably want to get him kicked out, learn he was gay- by either getting a letter, phone call, or email from his partner (this was before DADT was repealed).
My uncle was a gay soldier.  Still, gays shouldn't be in the military.  You are clueless.


Quote
There are gays in the military in Europe, and gays in the Israeli military as well- and no problems. And you're not supposed to be having sex in the military or look at porn regardless of your sexuality- bigger issue with male/female, due to the possibility of pregnancy. Its highly unprofessional to be getting into that. I missed my girl a lot, as did other guys. I didn't sneak to go find a female to mess about with, nor did he seek to mess about with anyone.
Sorry, guys can't concentrate when there is a nice piece of ass in front of us.  It's called "nature".


Quote
The last bit about the whole daughter thing, was really sad. Child molestation has nothing to do with someone's sexuality. Its about someone who has no kind of control over their life,(regardless of sexuality)- and feels that control and power- when they are in control of a child. Some have a perverted fascination with the innocence of children- boy, girl, or both. Then some are re-enacting abuse that was put upon them at some point in their life. I wouldn't leave my child with anyone who I didn't know and trust.
Are you moving goalposts now?


Quote
Your statements is exactly what makes conservatism, and the Republican party look bad- too judgmental, ignorant, hateful even. And then conservatives are shocked and surprised elections get lost. If this attitude and mentality remains popular within the party, just get used to the reality that George Bush Jr, was the last president of the Republican party.
Wrong.  It has to do with low information voters -- not a stance of the Republican party.  I don't support gay marriage, and it is a state issue.  Tell me, how am I at odds with the gay community?
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: taxed on December 13, 2012, 04:20:25 PM
Quote from: redlom xof on December 13, 2012, 04:14:45 PM
ROFL ! That sounds exactly like Rush Limbaugh ...

ROFL! What you just said sounds like Rachael Maddow!
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: BILLY Defiant on December 13, 2012, 04:21:33 PM
Quote from: redlom xof on December 13, 2012, 04:14:45 PM
ROFL ! That sounds exactly like Rush Limbaugh ...

If you spent any time in Thailand and saw all the American's trying to get their Thai "Lady Boy's" a fiance Visa for the States you'd probably
understand.

Billy
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: keyboarder on December 13, 2012, 04:31:38 PM
This conversation/debate is 6 pages running and no closure.  The last forum I participated in ran this topic for over 500 pages with no closure unless you call the several posters that were banned forever from posting.   :ohmy:

There is, however, a civilness in this discussion that I never did witness on the other forum.  Something might get accomplished here with the obvious hurdle overcome, if it's only the position in agreeing to disagree and remaining respectful of each other's opinion.  :mellow:

I have to be watchful in what I say here to be able to continue on this forum, so i'll make it brief.  My position in this discussion is that of religious moral right so this will be my last reply on this issue.  Everyone is free to believe in whatever they want to but no one is free to dictate to another human being-anything.  That is the reason this discussion will have no meaningful closure.  When laws are cooked up and served out, it means that some will not be happy with their already full plate.

To the gay or gay supporter.  A great part of your debate is that you see no wrong in such behavior as long as it doesn't harm or influence others, take money from your pockets, and so on.  You want to be treated exactly equal, so you say.  Well, I say to you that alot of laws on the books concerning behaviors will have to be changed.  Schools will have to further indoctrinate our children to get this going for you.  Laws have already been ammended to allow domestic partners the right of survivorship.  We have churches that are supposed to preach and teach against sin that are redefining what sin is and trotting gays and lesbians out to preach their definition of Christianity.  It is as if God means nothing to some people and as He gives me breath, i'll stand with Him.  I don't appreciate being called not informed on this subject.  Fact is, I have a good handle on the subject, enough that I refuse to accept any argument that leans towards accepting the gay lifestyle as normal.  As far as being born that way, some were and some weren't.  Then, some were born predestined to be serial killers and some weren't.  We were all born in sin.  That's what being reborn is all about and we are warned about this in His word, to seek wisdom and understanding EARLY in our lives.  Everyone has not had the same advantages to learning but if you can read, you have the same opportunity as the rest of us.  Some of us had poor advantages in our early lives, predisposing us to behaviors that are not widely accepted.  But, we have all been subject to people and circumstances that could have helped us to become good people.   I do not run into any gays or their supporters that respect the freedom that I exercise in calling their lifestyle sinful.  Matter of fact and per this discussion, we are being persuaded to accept this behavior as something we wouldn't mind our children becoming in their future. 

To those not caving in to this socialist, markist, very liberal and evil behavior-Stand Fast. 

Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Yawn on December 13, 2012, 04:39:06 PM
The Left claims that the Republican Party is not a big tent and they need to be more "inclusive" but at the same time there is one group (actually 2) that they want thrown out of the Republican "big tent."  That would be Conservatives and Christians--If you're both, you have no business being in the Republican Party according to the Left and even the Republican establishment.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: taxed on December 13, 2012, 04:42:50 PM
Quote from: keyboarder on December 13, 2012, 04:31:38 PM
This conversation/debate is 6 pages running and no closure.  The last forum I participated in ran this topic for over 500 pages with no closure unless you call the several posters that were banned forever from posting.   :ohmy:

There is, however, a civilness in this discussion that I never did witness on the other forum.  Something might get accomplished here with the obvious hurdle overcome, if it's only the position in agreeing to disagree and remaining respectful of each other's opinion.  :mellow:

I have to be watchful in what I say here to be able to continue on this forum, so i'll make it brief.  My position in this discussion is that of religious moral right so this will be my last reply on this issue.  Everyone is free to believe in whatever they want to but no one is free to dictate to another human being-anything.  That is the reason this discussion will have no meaningful closure.  When laws are cooked up and served out, it means that some will not be happy with their already full plate.

To the gay or gay supporter.  A great part of your debate is that you see no wrong in such behavior as long as it doesn't harm or influence others, take money from your pockets, and so on.  You want to be treated exactly equal, so you say.  Well, I say to you that alot of laws on the books concerning behaviors will have to be changed.  Schools will have to further indoctrinate our children to get this going for you.  Laws have already been ammended to allow domestic partners the right of survivorship.  We have churches that are supposed to preach and teach against sin that are redefining what sin is and trotting gays and lesbians out to preach their definition of Christianity.  It is as if God means nothing to some people and as He gives me breath, i'll stand with Him.  I don't appreciate being called not informed on this subject.  Fact is, I have a good handle on the subject, enough that I refuse to accept any argument that leans towards accepting the gay lifestyle as normal.  As far as being born that way, some were and some weren't.  Then, some were born predestined to be serial killers and some weren't.  We were all born in sin.  That's what being reborn is all about and we are warned about this in His word, to seek wisdom and understanding EARLY in our lives.  Everyone has not had the same advantages to learning but if you can read, you have the same opportunity as the rest of us.  Some of us had poor advantages in our early lives, predisposing us to behaviors that are not widely accepted.  But, we have all been subject to people and circumstances that could have helped us to become good people.   I do not run into any gays or their supporters that respect the freedom that I exercise in calling their lifestyle sinful.  Matter of fact and per this discussion, we are being persuaded to accept this behavior as something we wouldn't mind our children becoming in their future. 

To those not caving in to this socialist, markist, very liberal and evil behavior-Stand Fast.

Not at all.  You are welcome to express any view you wish :-)
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Darth Fife on December 13, 2012, 05:00:41 PM
Why is it that when Republicans lose election all at once the chorus goes out that we have to "change". We have to get rid of those stinking "social issues"? Yeah! That's the ticket! Fiscal Conservative and Social Liberal!

Is that what the Democrats do? When they lose elections, do they gnash their teeth and wring their hands and say, "You know what? We just have to give up on this social issues! Stop pushing abortion, and gun control! That whole gay marriage thing is a mill-stone around our necks - we've got to get rid of that! Yessir! That's the ticket!"

Socials Issues didn't lose the election for Romney - it was Santa Clause! As long as the Democrat Party can offer at least half the country money from the other half of the country's pocketbooks, the Democrats will win.

It is as simple as that!



Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: redlom xof on December 13, 2012, 05:04:04 PM
QuoteROFL! What you just said sounds like Rachael Maddow!

What did I say Taxed ? Come on, this should be a great one.

QuoteSocials Issues didn't loose the election for Romney, it was Santa Clause! As long as the Democrat Party can offer at least half the country money from the other half of the country's pocketbook, the Democrats will win.

The Santa Clause thing is just an easy explanation so Republicans can feel better about losing.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Patriot on December 13, 2012, 05:22:44 PM
Quote from: taxed on December 13, 2012, 04:19:40 PM
I have gay family members as well, and have been around gays for my adult life.  They have been employees, friends, and business associates.
This is the biggest load of crap I have ever heard.  It's true on a small scale, but not the gay culture over-all.
I live in the Los Angeles area which has a huge diversity in the population, plus things tend to get discussed here probably more than in other parts of the country.  My experience is similar to Paladin's and not the same as yours.  Can't we all accept the fact that we have different experiences and realize the limitations when we try to extrapolate and make sweeping generalizations?

Quote from: taxed on December 13, 2012, 04:19:40 PM
My uncle was a gay soldier.  Still, gays shouldn't be in the military.  You are clueless.
From what Paladin wrote above, he is a recent combat veteran and I think it is offensive to call him clueless on this topic.  That said, people will have different opinions.  In the absence of hard data or examples indicating specific issues, it's all a matter of opinion.  Considering surveys from active military saying they have no problem serving with gays, that should have some weight.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/10/dont_ask_survey_shows_majority.html (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/10/dont_ask_survey_shows_majority.html)

Quote from: taxed on December 13, 2012, 04:19:40 PM
Sorry, guys can't concentrate when there is a nice piece of ass in front of us.  It's called "nature".
How would this be any different from heterosexual guys being around women in a professional environment.  Are we always thinking about the piece of ass to the point of being distracted from our jobs?  Understand the military is different with the communal living arrangement, but given surveys like the one linked above, until there are issues reported, your supposition is not well founded in facts.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Paladin on December 13, 2012, 06:07:41 PM
Quote from: Solar on December 13, 2012, 06:31:11 AM

No...I understand it far better than you.


No you don't, and here is why you don't.

Quote from: Solar on December 13, 2012, 06:31:11 AM

By extension of your argument, you do.
Read carefully and try and absorb what I say.

You say I do, and yet you cannot explain how I do- how funny. Well here's the real deal. If I were in favor of changing the constitution, I'd have no problem stating so (and online of all places.. C'mon lol). However, as I stated quite a few times already.. I don't believe the definition of marriage should be changed. There are quite a few gays out there who also don't want anything changed, some have religious reasons for this, constitutional  reasons, and then some truly hate how many gays try to emulate heterosexual relationships- as in a man behaving like a female by emulating a wife- a female... I gotta say I agree with all of these positions- and therefore do not agree with changing anything.

Quote from: Solar on December 13, 2012, 06:31:11 AMStepping aside, or dictating?
There is a huge difference here. I have no issue if the Pubs step aside on the issue, I just don't see the need to support an action to benefit less than 1% of the Nation.

I'm not telling you to support anything, hell I don't even support gay marriage for the same reasons why all the gay people I know, or learned of- do not. I also don't agree with changing the definition of marriage.. But If I were a candidate on that state with Santorum, I would have called him out on his ridiculousness- for also being against civil unions. The issue has been labeled a civil rights issue- and I feel two consenting adults in love, should not be denied the happiness, leave them alone-and I'm not going to spout my religious convictions in their face (I hate people who do that- they remind me of the pharisees Jesus scolded, for turning their noses up at those they deemed "not pure enough").. Modern conservatives mirror this behavior.

One of the things I mentioned, is that politicians like Santorum, and all other half-wits like him, or who support him. Wouldn't even acknowledge the union of a gay couple, who either had a wedding in a gay accepting church, a non denominational setting/figure, and or just signed some papers having a legal binding (civil union). I shook my head when I heard him say this in response to civil unions during the primaries. So basically two consenting adults in love, who may have gotten married at a gay accepting church, or non church- would not be entitled to the same freedoms (benefits) of their partner, because under people like Santorum, their union is illegitimate... This is what I am talking about, not the constitution. This mentality of the Republican party needs to vanish. It was never apart of the ideology of the party, its ugly, and backwards, and its killing the party... Among other things.

I'd like to see the Republican party be the fighters to protect houses of worship from being forced into having to do things they do not agree with due to faith. Many priest are wimps afraid of backlash from the gov, for saying what is in their faith. If the Republican party did what it was designed to do- they'd get these men the courage to stand and fight for their faith.  I'd like to see them be the classic liberal, constitutional minded party it used to be... But you know I'm not holding my breath lol.
Quote from: Solar on December 13, 2012, 06:31:11 AMReally? Show me, because no one on this forum ever said such a thing.
I find that very hard to believe, because I support civil unions, just don't define it as marriage.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Sarah_Palin_Civil_Rights.htm (http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Sarah_Palin_Civil_Rights.htm)  There you go, (gotta scroll down a bit). I also agree with her words here too. She doesn't support changing the definition of marriage, naturally doesn't believe in it due to her faith- but would not interfere with the personal freedom of two consenting adults in a union. That right there is true Conservatism, classic Liberalism- which (before progressives tainted that word), was not only the idea of the experiment known as America- but also the philosophy of the Republican party... This also isn't news by the way, first time I heard of this was back in 08, and crushed someone in a debate who said she hates gays... That's why I love this chick, even though her voice gets annoying at times... Dont'cha know lol (I had to).

Santorum aka Morel Orel (google it lol), would have denied them that, because he would have governed with his faith, instead of thinking of the founding fathers... Making him not too far from what the founding fathers ran away from. Again this is why modern conservatism, and the Republican party are losing. Too many of these bible thumping twits sadly, Mitt Romney got pulled into it too- having to try to "out right-wing" his opponents to appease the religious right.. Again, I'm not talking about the constitution, get that out your head. I'm talking about idiots within the Republican party, and modern conservatives, who'd even block civil unions- all due to their religious views on the issue of gays doing anything that emulates marriage to them. Gays can be just fine and free without the definition being changed.

Quote from: Solar on December 13, 2012, 06:31:11 AMBut it does affect you, it requires an amendment to the Constitution.

Yes it would require an amendment to the constitution- one I would not agree with, and I'd blame Republicans, and modern conservatives for allowing it to happen- since again they suck at presenting their argument well... Yes it would affect my life... If the government told me I had to marry a man, instead of a woman; as government is not supposed to be compelling me to do anything of that sort (or other things). Just as it is not the government's right to be telling me how I should and should not live my life, due to any religious views that "leader" may have. That's government getting its hands in religion like the Catholic church did in Europe, and it seems the "Christian" right- would very well be ok with that sort of set up.

Quote from: Solar on December 13, 2012, 06:31:11 AMIn truth, God has nothing to do with civil unions, but on the other hand, it has everything to do with marriage from a Religious point.

Does the Fed have the right to interfere with the dictates of the First Amendment?
Using your argument, you are advocating for a Constitutional Amendment to the First.

Now do you get it?

I agree 100%, god has nothing to do with civil unions- never implied it did... Now lets get politicians and other bible thumping twits who are killing the Republican party, to see that- because they don't agree- and anyone ok with civil unions are called "rinos", or "lefties". And of course not voted for.

On the religious point, I agree one man one woman.. But the job of a politician is not to govern with faith, faith in mind asking god for wisdom, and courage yes.. But not faith in mind that he will put in place policies that infringe or restrict the citizens who may not believe as him. He is not god, he is not Jesus, he is not a priest, therefore I don't wish to hear nothing coming from his mouth, telling me how I am to live my life, when he may not be living such a pure life himself.

Again I say you misunderstand, because I'm not talking about doing anything with the constitution, leave it alone. I'm talking about the party moving away from morons within the party- who wish to govern with faith in mind, and gets involved in people's personal lives.

Do you get it now?
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Paladin on December 13, 2012, 06:55:49 PM
Quote from: Darth Fife on December 13, 2012, 05:00:41 PM
Why is it that when Republicans lose election all at once the chorus goes out that we have to "change". We have to get rid of those stinking "social issues"? Yeah! That's the ticket! Fiscal Conservative and Social Liberal!

Is that what the Democrats do? When they lose elections, do they gnash their teeth and wring their hands and say, "You know what? We just have to give up on this social issues! Stop pushing abortion, and gun control! That whole gay marriage thing is a mill-stone around our necks - we've got to get rid of that! Yessir! That's the ticket!"

Socials Issues didn't lose the election for Romney - it was Santa Clause! As long as the Democrat Party can offer at least half the country money from the other half of the country's pocketbooks, the Democrats will win.

It is as simple as that!

Half right here. Yes Obama was Santa, and the American people largely are stupid children. However Romney also lost because a load of modern conservatives did not support him, because he's a Mormon. Romney had about 300k less (possibly larger with some of the numbers I've seen) Republicans than McCain did, and it didn't surprise me. That's the stupidity of the religious right. And yeah I agree Romney made some mistakes too, especially allowing Obama to define him, and not really saying anything, but he was the best candidate out of the bunch, the others... No.

The primaries also went on too long, which also hindered Romney, and as usual Republicans always give the left ammo. During the whole war on women rubbish. I was praying that someone in the Republican party would have the brains to talk about what Muslim women have to go through, not just in the Middle East, but even here in America; and we have this silly twit prancing about talking about how the government should pay for her birth control. That would have shut that crap down, because it would have made her look like a spoiled irrelevant twit... But then we get not only get Todd Akin's magical words of "legitimate rape" which has to be the dumbest statement of the decade... But also the Republican party making the platform of the convention.. Abortion, no exception; easy ammo for the left.

Romney was also damaged with statements on immigration, and even social issues- when trying to out right-wing his opponents, and overall Republicans today just suck at messaging, big time- and still haven't grasped using technology like the other side does. The Republicans will lose in 2016 as well, if they don't get it together, and then you'll start seeing Republican governors, senators, mayors, and congressmen losing.

I thought it was shameful, that Republicans/conservatives didn't jump on people who were slandering Romney's foreign policy adviser due to the fact that he is gay. Very intelligent and informative guy, but the left played the double standard game as usual. Republicans didn't turn the left's own game on them, which would have outed them as being the real haters... Unfortunately there were also religious right-wing twits who also trashed him, with still silence from the Republican party, and the guy left not wanting to be further distraction. I don't blame a lot of people who don't want to be associated with the party.

Mia Love's wikipedia page gets a load of racist, and misogynistic rubbish plastered all over- it. Not much of a peep at all, from anyone. Republican party, and the religious right- just suck. I wouldn't be surprised if a third party emerged, because the Republican party is on life support right now, and Democrats are going to be damaged when we have our Greece moment.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Solar on December 13, 2012, 07:01:00 PM
Quote from: Paladin on December 13, 2012, 06:07:41 PM
No you don't, and here is why you don't.

You say I do, and yet you cannot explain how I do- how funny. Well here's the real deal. If I were in favor of changing the constitution, I'd have no problem stating so (and online of all places.. C'mon lol). However, as I stated quite a few times already.. I don't believe the definition of marriage should be changed. There are quite a few gays out there who also don't want anything changed, some have religious reasons for this, constitutional  reasons, and then some truly hate how many gays try to emulate heterosexual relationships- as in a man behaving like a female by emulating a wife- a female... I gotta say I agree with all of these positions- and therefore do not agree with changing anything.

I'm not telling you to support anything, hell I don't even support gay marriage for the same reasons why all the gay people I know, or learned of- do not. I also don't agree with changing the definition of marriage.. But If I were a candidate on that state with Santorum, I would have called him out on his ridiculousness- for also being against civil unions. The issue has been labeled a civil rights issue- and I feel two consenting adults in love, should not be denied the happiness, leave them alone-and I'm not going to spout my religious convictions in their face (I hate people who do that- they remind me of the pharisees Jesus scolded, for turning their noses up at those they deemed "not pure enough").. Modern conservatives mirror this behavior.

One of the things I mentioned, is that politicians like Santorum, and all other half-wits like him, or who support him. Wouldn't even acknowledge the union of a gay couple, who either had a wedding in a gay accepting church, a non denominational setting/figure, and or just signed some papers having a legal binding (civil union). I shook my head when I heard him say this in response to civil unions during the primaries. So basically two consenting adults in love, who may have gotten married at a gay accepting church, or non church- would not be entitled to the same freedoms (benefits) of their partner, because under people like Santorum, their union is illegitimate... This is what I am talking about, not the constitution. This mentality of the Republican party needs to vanish. It was never apart of the ideology of the party, its ugly, and backwards, and its killing the party... Among other things.

I'd like to see the Republican party be the fighters to protect houses of worship from being forced into having to do things they do not agree with due to faith. Many priest are wimps afraid of backlash from the gov, for saying what is in their faith. If the Republican party did what it was designed to do- they'd get these men the courage to stand and fight for their faith.  I'd like to see them be the classic liberal, constitutional minded party it used to be... But you know I'm not holding my breath lol.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Sarah_Palin_Civil_Rights.htm (http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Sarah_Palin_Civil_Rights.htm)  There you go, (gotta scroll down a bit). I also agree with her words here too. She doesn't support changing the definition of marriage, naturally doesn't believe in it due to her faith- but would not interfere with the personal freedom of two consenting adults in a union. That right there is true Conservatism, classic Liberalism- which (before progressives tainted that word), was not only the idea of the experiment known as America- but also the philosophy of the Republican party... This also isn't news by the way, first time I heard of this was back in 08, and crushed someone in a debate who said she hates gays... That's why I love this chick, even though her voice gets annoying at times... Dont'cha know lol (I had to).

Santorum aka Morel Orel (google it lol), would have denied them that, because he would have governed with his faith, instead of thinking of the founding fathers... Making him not too far from what the founding fathers ran away from. Again this is why modern conservatism, and the Republican party are losing. Too many of these bible thumping twits sadly, Mitt Romney got pulled into it too- having to try to "out right-wing" his opponents to appease the religious right.. Again, I'm not talking about the constitution, get that out your head. I'm talking about idiots within the Republican party, and modern conservatives, who'd even block civil unions- all due to their religious views on the issue of gays doing anything that emulates marriage to them. Gays can be just fine and free without the definition being changed.

Yes it would require an amendment to the constitution- one I would not agree with, and I'd blame Republicans, and modern conservatives for allowing it to happen- since again they suck at presenting their argument well... Yes it would affect my life... If the government told me I had to marry a man, instead of a woman; as government is not supposed to be compelling me to do anything of that sort (or other things). Just as it is not the government's right to be telling me how I should and should not live my life, due to any religious views that "leader" may have. That's government getting its hands in religion like the Catholic church did in Europe, and it seems the "Christian" right- would very well be ok with that sort of set up.

I agree 100%, god has nothing to do with civil unions- never implied it did... Now lets get politicians and other bible thumping twits who are killing the Republican party, to see that- because they don't agree- and anyone ok with civil unions are called "rinos", or "lefties". And of course not voted for.

On the religious point, I agree one man one woman.. But the job of a politician is not to govern with faith, faith in mind asking god for wisdom, and courage yes.. But not faith in mind that he will put in place policies that infringe or restrict the citizens who may not believe as him. He is not god, he is not Jesus, he is not a priest, therefore I don't wish to hear nothing coming from his mouth, telling me how I am to live my life, when he may not be living such a pure life himself.

Again I say you misunderstand, because I'm not talking about doing anything with the constitution, leave it alone. I'm talking about the party moving away from morons within the party- who wish to govern with faith in mind, and gets involved in people's personal lives.

Do you get it now?
Sorry, I have no interest in reading an entire book every time you post.
Keep it short and to the point if you want to continue this further.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Paladin on December 13, 2012, 09:04:18 PM
Ok lets pick your rubbish apart, by the way you sound no different from the ignorant hateful leftist...Just letting you know, and because your argument is based on irrational, and ignorant emotions, this will be too easy for me... Let's  begin.

Quote from: taxed on December 13, 2012, 04:19:40 PM

I have gay family members as well, and have been around gays for my adult life.  They have been employees, friends, and business associates.

And yet you display your ignorance, and play right into the hands of the left.. What a loser.


Quote from: taxed on December 13, 2012, 04:19:40 PMThis is the biggest load of crap I have ever heard.  It's true on a small scale, but not the gay culture over-all.

Wow somebody didn't do too well with reading comprehension I see. Read it more carefully, and think before you respond. Ready? I never said anything about anyone within the gay culture- finding gay culture vile. I said people like my friend, my brother- and the many gay men he's interviewed in his 12 and a half year long research. These men who while not ashamed of themselves, as they carry themselves in a respectable way as well... Don't even like the word "gay", because of what mainstream gay culture has done to it... Pretty interesting that this group is growing.

That's just what I've seen looking at my friend's notes, and watching him conduct his interviews, fascinating stuff- which also had to be true, since it pissed off gay leftist twits, as well as twits on the religious right...Don't expect you to get all that though, you're stuck in your pathetic little ignorant views... Not trying to change your mind- don't care to. Just letting you know how ridiculous you sound, and that you're part of the reason why conservatism, and even Christianity, is easily attacked.. Moving on.

Quote from: taxed on December 13, 2012, 04:19:40 PMConservatives just don't care about gay people, until they start trying to push legislation and being gay in public.

Again, that is something gay left-wing activist do; which everyone in here including myself, do not agree with, nor do the gay men I mentioned earlier- who also get trashed by those gays... However religious right-wing twits also support politicians, who'd push policies, that reflect more their morals, and beliefs. If we woke up tomorrow living in a truly massive socialist country, the left would rejoice. If we woke up and became a theocratic government (Christian), the religious right would rejoice. Both are pathetic fools, who understand nothing of the constitution or the founding fathers- though pay it a lot of lip service, and behave as sunshine patriots... I'm thinking you belong in that category.

Quote from: taxed on December 13, 2012, 04:19:40 PMMy uncle was a gay soldier.  Still, gays shouldn't be in the military.  You are clueless.

I just want to let you know, I laughed at this for about 20 minutes; as did my buddy, and my bro... Ok lets get into this ridiculous statement of yours lol.

First of all, and this is why I say the left and the right- are two sides of the same pathetic coin. You just did exactly what they do. You talk about your "uncle" who was "gay", and was a "soldier", who said "gays shouldn't be in the military"- hoping it would shut me up. Yet you fail to realize the stupidity of your own lie (yes I think you're lying). That would be like me saying "white men shouldn't be history teachers" (I'm a teacher).

I'll pretend you're telling the truth, and ask... Was you're uncle one of those feminine whiny gays, who complained about manual labor, and squealed like a little girl at the scary boom boom noises? LOL The men I know who are gay and served, and just gay men like them in general- don't like girlish behavior, and cowardice in men. They served just fine, professionally, and honorably- and as I mentioned before- I wasn't even thinking about my friend's sexuality, when he was pulling me to safety.. Jesus people like you are the pure definition of stupidity lol; and this is part why conservatism, the Republican party, and even Christianity are so easily mocked... Too many muppets like you claiming it... My brother, his partner, and my friend- are true patriots, and way more man than you and your "uncle" combined, both of you are scum.. Ok next...


Quote from: taxed on December 13, 2012, 04:19:40 PMSorry, guys can't concentrate when there is a nice piece of ass in front of us.  It's called "nature"

Ok, its clear you're being dumb; and even recalling some military sex fantasies- I don't know ROFL... I will say though, there's a large number of gay men, who don't find anything sexually appealing about messing around in a guy's ass. You can even do some research on it, but I'm sure its just easier for you to be ignorant and foolish lol- play on.

Quote from: taxed on December 13, 2012, 04:19:40 PMAre you moving goalposts now?

Is your brain functioning yet?

Quote from: taxed on December 13, 2012, 04:19:40 PMWrong.  It has to do with low information voters -- not a stance of the Republican party.  I don't support gay marriage, and it is a state issue.  Tell me, how am I at odds with the gay community?

Apparently not.

And your last statement, now makes fact- that the left and the right; are both warped lol.

I never said you were at odds with the gay community... I also recall stating that I don't even agree with gay marriage, or changing the constitution about to support it. There are gays who don't believe in gay marriage, or changing the constitution, and don't like the gay community. So your words show you're not getting it.

The problem is, we have members of the Republican party (and idiots who support them)- who not only don't support, nor would acknowledge civil unions.. But don't even support the states handling it. Rick  Santorum was spouting this rubbish during the primaries. They are dead wrong to push any kind of policy which would block even the civil unions, or not acknowledge them- or would prevent states from handling the issue- due to their religious views. Again this is a step into the direction of government ruling people through religion. These members of the Republican party- who seek to be leaders for the religious right-- instead of the American people- are a large part as to why the Republican party and conservatism is dying.

People fail in this debate, because nobody is talking about civil unions, making sure they'd protect churches who don't want to be forced into marrying a gay couple, or letting the states deal with the issue. The only thing I see people doing is accusing people of being rinos, or liberals, and talking about how they don't believe in gay marriage. The current form of the Republican party, and Conservatism- are not its original- and so its now falling apart. Its quite telling, when you have a lot of people generally agree with the basic ideas of the party, and even conservatism (classic). Bute don't want to be associated with the Republican party. As they feel its become too much a political church, and too judgmental - they're right.

Nite nite, I'll check in after work tomorrow ^_^
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: taxed on December 13, 2012, 11:06:25 PM
Quote from: USAPatriot on December 13, 2012, 05:22:44 PM
I live in the Los Angeles area which has a huge diversity in the population, plus things tend to get discussed here probably more than in other parts of the country.  My experience is similar to Paladin's and not the same as yours.  Can't we all accept the fact that we have different experiences and realize the limitations when we try to extrapolate and make sweeping generalizations?
No, and it is ridiculous that you are trying to make the case the the gay community, overall, isn't a bunch of drama queens.  Sure, they tone it down at the office, or in mixed social settings, but when they get together.... LOOK OUT HONEY....


Quote
From what Paladin wrote above, he is a recent combat veteran and I think it is offensive to call him clueless on this topic.
Good. I'm glad I can offend him. It puts hair on his chest.


Quote
  That said, people will have different opinions.  In the absence of hard data or examples indicating specific issues, it's all a matter of opinion.  Considering surveys from active military saying they have no problem serving with gays, that should have some weight.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/10/dont_ask_survey_shows_majority.html (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/10/dont_ask_survey_shows_majority.html)
How would this be any different from heterosexual guys being around women in a professional environment.  Are we always thinking about the piece of ass to the point of being distracted from our jobs?  Understand the military is different with the communal living arrangement, but given surveys like the one linked above, until there are issues reported, your supposition is not well founded in facts.
You can give me all the surveys you want.  Straight males, overall, prefer not to be in tight quarters with gays.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Patriot on December 13, 2012, 11:43:45 PM
Quote from: taxed on December 13, 2012, 11:06:25 PMYou can give me all the surveys you want.  Straight males, overall, prefer not to be in tight quarters with gays.
In other words, "Don't bother me with any facts.  My opinions are the real facts.  I know best.  I do.  I do.  I do.  And my military experience is based on .... I talked to one person and saw movies too."  LOL No point in even debating someone like you.  Have your opinions and enjoy them.  But influencing others?   Oh well, not too important.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: taxed on December 13, 2012, 11:51:42 PM
Quote from: Paladin on December 13, 2012, 09:04:18 PM
Ok lets pick your rubbish apart,
Goodie.  This ought to be interesting....

Quote
by the way you sound no different from the ignorant hateful leftist...Just letting you know, and because your argument is based on irrational, and ignorant emotions, this will be too easy for me... Let's  begin.
Because I don't support gay marriage and don't think gays should serve in the military?  Gee, how hateful.  Women shouldn't serve either.  Do I hate women?


Quote
And yet you display your ignorance, and play right into the hands of the left.. What a loser.
No.  I don't agree with the left simply because I don't want them to think I'm a mean 'ol biggot.  I'm a patriotic, pro-American, so I am already at odds with libs.


Quote
Wow somebody didn't do too well with reading comprehension I see.
No worries.  Just keep working at it...

Quote
Read it more carefully, and think before you respond. Ready? I never said anything about anyone within the gay culture- finding gay culture vile. I said people like my friend, my brother- and the many gay men he's interviewed in his 12 and a half year long research. These men who while not ashamed of themselves, as they carry themselves in a respectable way as well... Don't even like the word "gay", because of what mainstream gay culture has done to it... Pretty interesting that this group is growing.
Don't look now, genius, but you're making my case.

Quote
That's just what I've seen looking at my friend's notes, and watching him conduct his interviews, fascinating stuff- which also had to be true, since it pissed off gay leftist twits, as well as twits on the religious right...Don't expect you to get all that though, you're stuck in your pathetic little ignorant views... Not trying to change your mind- don't care to. Just letting you know how ridiculous you sound, and that you're part of the reason why conservatism, and even Christianity, is easily attacked.. Moving on.
You can call my views pathetic because they don't agree with what you saw on your friend's research.  Sorry, I have this thing called "experience".

Quote
Again, that is something gay left-wing activist do; which everyone in here including myself, do not agree with, nor do the gay men I mentioned earlier- who also get trashed by those gays... However religious right-wing twits also support politicians, who'd push policies, that reflect more their morals, and beliefs. If we woke up tomorrow living in a truly massive socialist country, the left would rejoice. If we woke up and became a theocratic government (Christian), the religious right would rejoice. Both are pathetic fools, who understand nothing of the constitution or the founding fathers- though pay it a lot of lip service, and behave as sunshine patriots... I'm thinking you belong in that category.
Dude, conservatives, overall, don't care about gays.  We're the ones not supporting stupid legislation.  We're the ones saying "Do what you want, just not out in public -- like the rest of us straight folks."  Gay people aren't special because they're gay.  Sorry.  Get over it.  The right wouldn't rejoice in a theocratic society either.  That would suck.


Quote
I just want to let you know, I laughed at this for about 20 minutes; as did my buddy, and my bro... Ok lets get into this ridiculous statement of yours lol.

First of all, and this is why I say the left and the right- are two sides of the same pathetic coin. You just did exactly what they do. You talk about your "uncle" who was "gay", and was a "soldier", who said "gays shouldn't be in the military"- hoping it would shut me up. Yet you fail to realize the stupidity of your own lie (yes I think you're lying). That would be like me saying "white men shouldn't be history teachers" (I'm a teacher).
I countered USAPatriot's comment that you know about this topic because you served.  Whether you served or not, or my Uncle serving, has no affect on my perspective.  I'm sorry if you want me to care.


Quote
I'll pretend you're telling the truth, and ask... Was you're uncle one of those feminine whiny gays, who complained about manual labor, and squealed like a little girl at the scary boom boom noises?
No.  This was back in the 80s.  No one knew he was gay.  That's why it worked out, and was OK.


Quote
LOL The men I know who are gay and served, and just gay men like them in general- don't like girlish behavior, and cowardice in men. They served just fine, professionally, and honorably- and as I mentioned before- I wasn't even thinking about my friend's sexuality, when he was pulling me to safety..

Sure....
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.bulawayo24.com%2Farticles%2Fxlarge.jpg&hash=29036b2f3a876deb64d2e5e9ab554918965ec9e6)


Quote
Jesus people like you are the pure definition of stupidity lol; and this is part why conservatism, the Republican party, and even Christianity are so easily mocked... Too many muppets like you claiming it... My brother, his partner, and my friend- are true patriots, and way more man than you and your "uncle" combined, both of you are scum.. Ok next...
I'm not religious.  Try again...


Quote
Ok, its clear you're being dumb; and even recalling some military sex fantasies- I don't know ROFL... I will say though, there's a large number of gay men, who don't find anything sexually appealing about messing around in a guy's ass. You can even do some research on it, but I'm sure its just easier for you to be ignorant and foolish lol- play on.
Gay people are all about the penis. Their world revolves around it.  That is reality.  I'm sorry you are having an issue accepting what your brother does, but you need to get over it.


Quote
Is your brain functioning yet?

Apparently not.

And your last statement, now makes fact- that the left and the right; are both warped lol.

I never said you were at odds with the gay community... I also recall stating that I don't even agree with gay marriage, or changing the constitution about to support it. There are gays who don't believe in gay marriage, or changing the constitution, and don't like the gay community. So your words show you're not getting it.

The problem is, we have members of the Republican party (and idiots who support them)- who not only don't support, nor would acknowledge civil unions.. But don't even support the states handling it. Rick  Santorum was spouting this rubbish during the primaries. They are dead wrong to push any kind of policy which would block even the civil unions, or not acknowledge them- or would prevent states from handling the issue- due to their religious views.
That is their religious views.  Why do you have a problem with that?


Quote
Again this is a step into the direction of government ruling people through religion. These members of the Republican party- who seek to be leaders for the religious right-- instead of the American people- are a large part as to why the Republican party and conservatism is dying.
You need to do a better job figuring out who "hates gays", and who just disagrees with them.  Just because someone is religious and doesn't agree with the gay lifestyle isn't a reason for me to have a problem with them.  Sorry.


Quote
People fail in this debate, because nobody is talking about civil unions, making sure they'd protect churches who don't want to be forced into marrying a gay couple, or letting the states deal with the issue. The only thing I see people doing is accusing people of being rinos, or liberals, and talking about how they don't believe in gay marriage. The current form of the Republican party, and Conservatism- are not its original- and so its now falling apart. Its quite telling, when you have a lot of people generally agree with the basic ideas of the party, and even conservatism (classic). Bute don't want to be associated with the Republican party. As they feel its become too much a political church, and too judgmental - they're right.

Nite nite, I'll check in after work tomorrow ^_^
It boils down to gays, overall, behave like hormonal women.  Show me a gay person, and I'll show you a drama queen.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: kramarat on December 14, 2012, 02:28:11 AM
Quote from: Paladin on December 13, 2012, 03:38:10 PM

You started off good, but then the rest of your statements took a giant nosedive, due to ignorance.

I've lived around gay people myself, (especially when I lived in Europe),  three of my best friends are gay, that would be my older brother, a man I served with in the military, and my brother's partner, who ran a 12 and a half year study on the entire issue, to which I learned some very interesting stuff.

gay men like the people I mentioned (and learned there are quite a lot of em), while they have no shame acknowledging that they are gay, meaning they do not hate themselves. They strongly detest gay culture. They find it disgusting, depressing, destructive, disrespectful, and degrading. The gays who are conservative, and do believe in god, and do hold on to noble values- get trashed all the time by the larger majority who are quite leftist. So they do not associate with them, you won't find them in gay clubs, bars, or gay pride... Unfortunately they also get a lot of crap from ignorant wankers on the right as well. While disappointing to them (and to me), they are strong- and don't go flailing about like a crybaby leftist. They keep quiet and keep to themselves.

As far as gays in the military goes... The man I served with, was a damn good soldier- and had everyone's respect. His sexuality was non existent on our minds, especially when I almost got killed, and he was one of the people pulling me to safety. Its mostly the higher ups who get their panties in the knot about gays in the military, but while I do respect their position, they don't mean much to me, because they don't go through the same things guys out in the field do, and I certainly don't care for the opinion of someone who hasn't served and flaps off at the mouth about gays in the military, or disrespects a soldier because he is gay- yet thinks of himself as a patriot- to me, they are garbage. The man I served with, also viewed us as his brothers, so the thought of any kind of sexual activity or thought, would have simply grossed him out, aside from that- anyone would have thought we were all gay, with the horseplay and jokes we'd all do lol.... He also had no problem doing his job, or any problem with his sexuality save for the fact he had to be careful to not let other morons who'd  probably want to get him kicked out, learn he was gay- by either getting a letter, phone call, or email from his partner (this was before DADT was repealed).

There are gays in the military in Europe, and gays in the Israeli military as well- and no problems. And you're not supposed to be having sex in the military or look at porn regardless of your sexuality- bigger issue with male/female, due to the possibility of pregnancy. Its highly unprofessional to be getting into that. I missed my girl a lot, as did other guys. I didn't sneak to go find a female to mess about with, nor did he seek to mess about with anyone.


The last bit about the whole daughter thing, was really sad. Child molestation has nothing to do with someone's sexuality. Its about someone who has no kind of control over their life,(regardless of sexuality)- and feels that control and power- when they are in control of a child. Some have a perverted fascination with the innocence of children- boy, girl, or both. Then some are re-enacting abuse that was put upon them at some point in their life. I wouldn't leave my child with anyone who I didn't know and trust.

Your statements is exactly what makes conservatism, and the Republican party look bad- too judgmental, ignorant, hateful even. And then conservatives are shocked and surprised elections get lost. If this attitude and mentality remains popular within the party, just get used to the reality that George Bush Jr, was the last president of the Republican party.

I should have said "open" homosexuality. I was okay with don't ask, don't tell.

I never said a word about child molestation. That was a complete fabrication on your part, and you missed my point completely, as well.

You did, however, demonstrate my point perfectly.

I was talking about completely normal men, that decided to get into baby sitting to make money. As soon as I mentioned "men as baby sitters", you automatically assumed that they were child molesters. That's called prejudice. It's a prejudice that I have also.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: redlom xof on December 14, 2012, 02:29:32 AM
QuoteGay people are all about the penis. Their world revolves around it.  That is reality. 

Found my new signature.

Keep it up taxed, you're sure entertaining.

QuoteI was okay with don't ask, don't tell.

Why should people be forced to hide a part of their life just because some childish moron doesn't like gays ?

Imagine if don't ask, don't tell was around for religion. You couldn't display your religion or even mention it and I couldn't ask you about it either. All because I didn't like Christianity.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: kramarat on December 14, 2012, 03:12:52 AM
Quote from: redlom xof on December 14, 2012, 02:29:32 AM
Found my new signature.

Keep it up taxed, you're sure entertaining.

Why should people be forced to hide a part of their life just because some childish moron doesn't like gays ?

Imagine if don't ask, don't tell was around for religion. You couldn't display your religion or even mention it and I couldn't ask you about it either. All because I didn't like Christianity.

Did you notice that when I mentioned men getting into the child care business, (despite the fact that I said that they had clean records and had never done anything wrong), Paladin jumped to the conclusion that they were child molesters? Interesting, huh?

Our military is comprised primarily of kids in their late teens and early twenties.
I think I can safely say that people that age think about sex a lot. Particularly when around others that are the object of their sexual attraction.
If I had been placed in a company of women during my military days, 24/7, and often on long deployments, I can assure you, that being around women all the time would have had me thinking about sex constantly.
Are you telling me that homosexuals have no sexual urges toward others of the same sex? If so, please link the evidence.

My point has nothing to do with a bias against homosexuals. How do you suppose it would work out if heterosexual men and women shared sleeping and showering facilities, particularly on long, lonely deployments? I don't think you can honestly tell me that a bunch of 20 somethings wouldn't have problems.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: kramarat on December 14, 2012, 04:15:31 AM
QuoteI was okay with don't ask, don't tell.

Why should people be forced to hide a part of their life just because some childish moron doesn't like gays ?

Imagine if don't ask, don't tell was around for religion. You couldn't display your religion or even mention it and I couldn't ask you about it either. All because I didn't like Christianity.

This is what I was responding to. It gets confusing when you guys use the "insert quote" feature to carry on side conversations within a thread. :confused:
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: mdgiles on December 14, 2012, 05:22:39 AM
Quote from: kramarat on December 14, 2012, 03:12:52 AM
Did you notice that when I mentioned men getting into the child care business, (despite the fact that I said that they had clean records and had never done anything wrong), Paladin jumped to the conclusion that they were child molesters? Interesting, huh?

Our military is comprised primarily of kids in their late teens and early twenties.
I think I can safely say that people that age think about sex a lot. Particularly when around others that are the object of their sexual attraction.
If I had been placed in a company of women during my military days, 24/7, and often on long deployments, I can assure you, that being around women all the time would have had me thinking about sex constantly.
Are you telling me that homosexuals have no sexual urges toward others of the same sex? If so, please link the evidence.

My point has nothing to do with a bias against homosexuals. How do you suppose it would work out if heterosexual men and women shared sleeping and showering facilities, particularly on long, lonely deployments? I don't think you can honestly tell me that a bunch of 20 somethings wouldn't have problems.
I've always found it interesting that people who describe themselves - first and foremost - by their sexual urges, will in the next sentence tell you how they will suppress all of those same urges if they're in the military. And we should believe that because?
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: kramarat on December 14, 2012, 05:37:33 AM
Quote from: mdgiles on December 14, 2012, 05:22:39 AM
I've always found it interesting that people who describe themselves - first and foremost - by their sexual urges, will in the next sentence tell you how they will suppress all of those same urges if they're in the military. And we should believe that because?

They also expect the military to be a reflection of society, and for everything to be "fair".
The military will never be fair, based on those standards. Never was, never was intended to be. It's an authoritarian dictatorship. Poor me. I remember working 16 hour days, and they didn't even pay me minimum wage or time and a half for overtime.
They didn't give me privacy. They brought drug dogs onboard the ship and searched our stuff with no warrant. :cry:

The military has a very specific purpose. At least when I was in, caring about our "feelings" wasn't on the priority list. I worked in the hole as a snipe, (engine room). Average temps ran about 110 F. Nobody cared how we felt.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: kramarat on December 14, 2012, 05:54:55 AM
It's very telling, that when I mentioned "men" and "childcare" in the same sentence, Paladin assumed that they must be child molesters, although I said no such thing, and yet he sits in judgement of me when I say that admitted and practicing homosexuals might be tempted to act on their sexual proclivity, when surrounded by and living in close quarters with people that they are sexually attracted to. :confused:
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Solar on December 14, 2012, 06:10:16 AM
Quote from: taxed on December 13, 2012, 11:51:42 PM
Gay people are all about the penis. Their world revolves around it.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Classic and extremely true.

By the way, do you not see a couple of people posting under the guise of Conservatism pushing a gay agenda?
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: mdgiles on December 14, 2012, 06:19:37 AM
Quote from: Solar on December 14, 2012, 06:10:16 AM
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Classic and extremely true.

By the way, do you not see a couple of people posting under the guise of Conservatism pushing a gay agenda?
LEFTIST gay agenda. Conservatives are quite willing to support a rightist gay agenda - quietly living your own life, without constant demands for public approval.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: keyboarder on December 14, 2012, 06:21:20 AM
Quote from: Solar on December 14, 2012, 06:10:16 AM
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Classic and extremely true.

By the way, do you not see a couple of people posting under the guise of Conservatism pushing a gay agenda?

Ding, ding, ding,
  YES!    Kinda hard to miss them, they all sound alike.  Do they have some kind of activist book to go by? :angry:
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: taxed on December 14, 2012, 09:08:59 AM
Quote from: Solar on December 14, 2012, 06:10:16 AM
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Classic and extremely true.
Totally!  And I didn't make that up...  my uncle has been gay for a long time and has broken down the gay psychology for me many-a-time.  That is what being gay is all about -- like us straight people are about girls.  How does it not make sense???  I guess these champions of the gays spend too much time trying to not be homophobic, yet seem to have no clue about them. 

Quote
By the way, do you not see a couple of people posting under the guise of Conservatism pushing a gay agenda?
It's like Liberace wearing a Reagan Halloween mask.  We're all conservative -- and we should roll out the red carpet if someone declares they like to chug c**k, like I care...
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Solar on December 14, 2012, 09:35:16 AM
Quote from: taxed on December 14, 2012, 09:08:59 AM
Totally!  And I didn't make that up...  my uncle has been gay for a long time and has broken down the gay psychology for me many-a-time.  That is what being gay is all about -- like us straight people are about girls.  How does it not make sense???  I guess these champions of the gays spend too much time trying to not be homophobic, yet seem to have no clue about them. 
It's like Liberace wearing a Reagan Halloween mask.  We're all conservative -- and we should roll out the red carpet if someone declares they like to chug c**k, like I care...
They're working in concert, it's the new Paulets, or Ronets stance on Conservatism.
I'm starting to see a pattern here, the Paul supporters are taking the extreme LIBertarian ideal to a new left, and they somehow think it's a Conservative ideal, to bend over and capitulate to the left.
When in reality, they are no better than a bunch of damned RINO capitulating to the left.

This is what happens when kids awake to politics, lock onto one ideal and never understand the history connected to their beliefs.

Getting the GOP to concentrate on fiscal matters is one thing, but they'd rather focus on social matters, in turn falling into the leftist trap and letting their talking points be their guide.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: taxed on December 14, 2012, 09:42:27 AM
Quote from: Solar on December 14, 2012, 09:35:16 AM
They're working in concert, it's the new Paulets, or Ronets stance on Conservatism.
I'm starting to see a pattern here, the Paul supporters are taking the extreme LIBertarian ideal to a new left, and they somehow think it's a Conservative ideal, to bend over and capitulate to the left.
When in reality, they are no better than a bunch of damned RINO capitulating to the left.

This is what happens when kids awake to politics, lock onto one ideal and never understand the history connected to their beliefs.

Getting the GOP to concentrate on fiscal matters is one thing, but they'd rather focus on social matters, in turn falling into the leftist trap and letting their talking points be their guide.

Interesting...........

That does seem to be the latest thing.  What is really funny is how they care about what people do in their bedrooms -- then try to say we're biggots because we don't care about their lifestyle.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: taxed on December 14, 2012, 09:52:53 AM
Quote from: redlom xof on December 14, 2012, 02:29:32 AM
Found my new signature.

Keep it up taxed, you're sure entertaining.

Why should people be forced to hide a part of their life just because some childish moron doesn't like gays ?

Imagine if don't ask, don't tell was around for religion. You couldn't display your religion or even mention it and I couldn't ask you about it either. All because I didn't like Christianity.

You're the genius who believes in AGW and other fairy tales, which explains your ridiculous post.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: walkstall on December 14, 2012, 09:57:58 AM
Quote from: Solar on December 14, 2012, 06:10:16 AM
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Classic and extremely true.

By the way, do you not see a couple of people posting under the guise of Conservatism pushing a gay agenda?

Thats why they keep writing books on each post they make about the gay agenda.     In my younger days they were called Queer, for over 50 years they were called sick people.  Now there called gays.   :rolleyes:
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Solar on December 14, 2012, 10:21:02 AM
Quote from: taxed on December 14, 2012, 09:42:27 AM
Interesting...........

That does seem to be the latest thing.  What is really funny is how they care about what people do in their bedrooms -- then try to say we're biggots because we don't care about their lifestyle.
'Exactly!!!
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: taxed on December 14, 2012, 11:20:06 AM
Quote from: Solar on December 14, 2012, 10:21:02 AM
'Exactly!!!

It's like "global warming"...  it will cause the destruction of man, yet, they are Darwinists that say humans evolve and adapt.

It doesn't take any brainpower to be a lib, that's for sure.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Paladin on December 14, 2012, 11:38:40 PM
Quote from: kramarat on December 14, 2012, 02:28:11 AM
I should have said "open" homosexuality. I was okay with don't ask, don't tell.

I never said a word about child molestation. That was a complete fabrication on your part, and you missed my point completely, as well.

You did, however, demonstrate my point perfectly.

I was talking about completely normal men, that decided to get into baby sitting to make money. As soon as I mentioned "men as baby sitters", you automatically assumed that they were child molesters. That's called prejudice. It's a prejudice that I have also.

You're not making any points though, just going on about irrational emotions, based in ignorance. Its ok if you don't agree with gay marriage, or even homosexuality. But I see a lot of people lumping ALL homosexuals in the same category, and just saying things that continue to hurt conservatism, and the Republican party- so the behavior of people towards the party, and conservatism, isn't very surprising to me.

And that's nice you cleared up the whole thing about men baby sitting... Though I'm not sure why you even thought that was important to talk about.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Paladin on December 15, 2012, 03:57:10 AM
You make this too easy for me, really lol.

Quote from: taxed on December 13, 2012, 11:51:42 PMBecause I don't support gay marriage and don't think gays should serve in the military?  Gee, how hateful.  Women shouldn't serve either.  Do I hate women?

You continue to display poor comprehension skills. Nobody said you were hateful, because you don't support gay marriage. I've already stated countless times, I don't even support gay marriage, and there are gays who don't either. As far as gays in the military go, I didn't give a crap or wonder who was gay when I was serving. And when it happen to come out that one of the guys in my unit was gay- sure we were surprised, as nobody would have even thought so about him- but he was a damn good soldier, awesome guy, and did his job beyond well which is all we cared about. As far as women in combat go, I have mixed feelings about that, but hey if a woman chooses to defend and serve this country, and can do the damn job, then she's got my respect. No you aren't hateful because you don't support those things, I called you hateful because your wording was irrational and ignorant- same as I hear on the left... In other words you made yourself look the part.

Quote from: taxed on December 13, 2012, 11:51:42 PMNo.  I don't agree with the left simply because I don't want them to think I'm a mean 'ol biggot.  I'm a patriotic, pro-American, so I am already at odds with libs.

I don't give a crap what anyone thinks of me, except family and closest friends; and I loathe political correctness (just as much as prudes). My whole philosophy is based more on classic liberalism- which is also part of the philosophy of classic Republicanism, but also what America was meant to be. In other words, if you're not hurting me, anyone I love and care for,  the country, other people, and you're happy with yourself- then I don't give a shit- my opinion of you is formed by the character you display- where you show your heart is. I just happen to know that, not every gay person is a flaming fairy who hates god, hates America, and wants to tear down all noble philosophies of this country. I don't agree with the left or "libs" as you call them, nor do I agree with the right. They're both morons- and neither one of them are pro-American patriots- they're just sunshine patriots... I put you in that category of course.

Quote from: taxed on December 13, 2012, 11:51:42 PMDon't look now, genius, but you're making my case.

ROFL!!! This is exactly why I say your comprehension skills are lacking.

No this wasn't your case, in fact I'm not even sure what case you're trying to make- since you sound like an irrational twit lol.

Those men (and women too), who don't even like the word gay; because they don't like what mainstream gay culture has done to it.... DON'T EVEN LIVE AND LOVE MAINSTREAM GAY CULTURE aka "gay lifestyle". They stay away from it, because it clashes with their traditions and values, and even political beliefs- due to mainstream gay culture being left-wing. Because these gays (who my friend labeled "Group C" in his research), stay away from it- they get viciously trashed by the ones who love it, and live it. They if not threatened physically, are also called things like "sell out", or "self-hater". You're not going to find these gay men and women, in any gay bars, gay clubs, and definitely not a gay pride parade- they find them to be freak shows, disrespectful, degrading, not who they are.

These gays (conservative gays), don't go about wearing their sexuality on their sleeve. Its not who they are- its their character as a man, or a woman that defines who they are, not who they are physically and emotionally attracted to. Mainstream gay culture on the other hand believes the opposite. Which is one of the biggest tenants in left-wing ideology. If you're gay, or black, you must think, behave, and like the same, and support all left-wing ideology... Your statements so far, have played right into this- and you're too ignorant to even catch it.

Quote from: taxed on December 13, 2012, 11:51:42 PMYou can call my views pathetic because they don't agree with what you saw on your friend's research.  Sorry, I have this thing called "experience".

LOL No you have a little thing called "irrational ignorance" (the stupid kind of ignorance at that). Your statements mirror more someone of that nature, not someone of experience, or wisdom. That's my department. I had experience living with someone who is gay, serving with someone who is gay- and then took interest in my friend's research, and information which he had been gathering for 12 and a half years- which was very fascinating after meeting some of these people.

quote author=taxed link=topic=9010.msg103700#msg103700 date=1355471502]Dude, conservatives, overall, don't care about gays.  We're the ones not supporting stupid legislation.  We're the ones saying "Do what you want, just not out in public -- like the rest of us straight folks."  Gay people aren't special because they're gay.  Sorry.  Get over it.  The right wouldn't rejoice in a theocratic society either.  That would suck.
[/quote]

1. A real American patriot cares for the freedoms and rights of ALL Americans. As I said, if you're not hurting anyone, or the country, and you're happy- then I don't care. I'm not going to stand in your way of life, if you aren't ruining anyone else's. Modern conservatives, just as modern liberals- only care for their little ideology, and their group of morons who support them.


2. Again, you're talking about left-wing gay activist here- who live and love mainstream gay culture- who I feel are garbage because of what they spew. The gays who keep away from mainstream gay culture, aka "gay lifestyle" (who also think it and they are garbage), don't push legislation change, don't care for it- nor do they "do anything in public". They just mind their own business, live their life, and want to be left alone to do so... Unfortunately (which is my point to this entire topic)... We have right-wing politicians, who wouldn't acknowledge the union of two gays... Meaning, if these two gays got a civil union (which many of these right-wing twits do not support- due to religious reasons), or they were married in a gay accepting church.  The couple would not be entitled to the benefits of their partner. This interferes with their freedom, and should not be- it isn't "special treatment". Sarah Palin as I mentioned, vetoed a bill, that would have prevented same sex couples from receiving their partner's benefits. This isn't "special treatment"- because she's a real conservative, and real patriot.

3. Get over what? The only thing I'm talking about, and see needs to change- are the overly religious twits within the Republican party- or at least the wanting to appease the religious right so much. This is hurting the party which is of no surprise. I do not agree with changing definition of marriage, but I do agree that if a gay couple got a civil union, or was married in a gay accepting church, that couple should be entitled to the same benefits a traditional couple has. Denying them this stands in the way their of their personal freedom, and again... Unfortunately we have members within the Republican party, who would not acknowledge the union, therefore would deny them this... This is basically what Rick Santorum said in the primaries, when he said he would not acknowledge the civil union either- all due to his religious views... If you think I should "get over it", then you really need to stop calling yourself an American patriot because you're not, if you can't see what's wrong with that.

4. I said religious right, and no it would not suck to them- check your reading skills please ^_^.


Quote from: taxed on December 13, 2012, 11:51:42 PMI countered USAPatriot's comment that you know about this topic because you served.  Whether you served or not, or my Uncle serving, has no affect on my perspective.  I'm sorry if you want me to care.

You didn't "counter" anything, just displayed more ignorance- to which if your uncle really said that crap for real, then that's sadly hilarious. I'm also not asking you to care about anything, I'm only pointing out how ridiculously you appear- and part of why conservatism, and the Republican party, and just anyone on the right is easily mocked, and torn down- because of tactless statements, that are based in ignorance. I don't know what your "gay" uncle did to make him feel gays shouldn't be in the military, but the gay guy I served with had no problems, so sorry (actually I'm not sorry)- I'm not going to share the ridiculous opinion you and your uncle have on this issue.

Quote from: taxed on December 13, 2012, 11:51:42 PM
No.  This was back in the 80s.  No one knew he was gay.  That's why it worked out, and was OK.

Nobody knew the guy I served with was gay, as he didn't feel it was important. It only came up when we were talking about girls, and he was asked if he had a girlfriend or wife- he simply said "no I'm gay". We were all surprised, because nobody in a million years would ever think he was gay, but everyone got curious and asked him a load of questions (not disrespectful ones), and they were shocked about his responses- because it didn't match up with what they knew or thought of gay people, and ultimately nobody cared.

Quote from: taxed on December 13, 2012, 11:51:42 PMSure...

ROFL I've seen this photo before, and the men who are gay that I know, and the guys I got to meet during my friend's research... Laugh at shit like this. They don't like this stuff, because they feel it its just not very manly for a guy to be holding another dude like that kissing on him like that in public my girlfriend was in my arms like that when I came home lol. They don't even like holding hands in public, feeling that's a male/female thing. They don't use terms like "boyfriend" or "husband", again it emulates male/female. And so again you further prove your ignorance with mass generalizations... Not every gay person behaves in this manner. I don't find any of what you say offensive or anything, nor would any of the gays I know... They aren't cry baby lefties.

I'm just letting you again, know how retarded you sound. Unfortunately too many on the right do this sort of thing- and not all of it is even done with any kind of malice, just more as a joke. I think its funny, the gay men I know would too. However you cannot afford to be joking like that, when you're already pegged as either racist, anti-gay, or just trapped in the 1950's. Then of course the right-wing politician who may have joked like this, or any of his supporters. Now has to spend time talking about how he's not racist, or anti-gay, which takes time away from his message.

The independent (which out number left and right), who may have a gay friend or family  member- may see it as "mean" or "unfair" to poke fun at this, or maybe even hateful- and will say (which I've heard many times) "Republicans are stuck in the 50's" "Why are they so concerned about people's relationships" "My gay friend doesn't behave like this". And so then they'll move further away from anything that has to do with conservatism or the Republican party- and so the left continues to lead the culture... Wise up.



Quote from: taxed on December 13, 2012, 11:51:42 PMI'm not religious.  Try again..

Sure you're religious. Your religion is right-wing ideology, which keeps you from actually thinking for yourself, but also keeps you from thinking about the original platform of the Republican party, conservatism, and what classic liberalism is- as well as what the founding fathers had intended for this country. Its quite alright for you to be against gays in the military, gay marriage, ect- and if you explain a reasonable positions for your beliefs, it doesn't make you hateful at all. I too was once against gays in the military. My reasons were due to a lot of the hazing that goes on. I didn't want someone saying "I was treated this way because I'm gay", and now a good instructor or so, is getting in trouble. But that hasn't happened in all the years gays have been serving, or today, which by the way nobody's noticed any change nor cares about DADT's repeal. I know soldiers who have asked gay soldiers "so how does it feel", their response "just another day". Though there are some who are now not afraid of receiving a letter, phone call, or email from their partner, or listing them as a beneficiary if they are killed.

Quote from: taxed on December 13, 2012, 11:51:42 PMGay people are all about the penis. Their world revolves around it.  That is reality.  I'm sorry you are having an issue accepting what your brother does, but you need to get over it.

Another mass generalization further making you look retarded lol. I don't have a hard time accepting anything about my brother- he's happy I'm happy. He's a good man, and good brother, proud of him, no more or less than my other two brothers, or the ones who don't share my blood. You don't offend me, just further prove my opinion of your stupidity.

Quote from: taxed on December 13, 2012, 11:51:42 PMThat is their religious views.  Why do you have a problem with that?

I don't have a problem with anyone's religious views, so long as their religion doesn't call for ending another person's life- or restricting a person's personal choice or freedom- if they are not hurting anyone.

Unfortunately as I've been mentioning- which has been my point on this debate. There are members within the Republican party, who'd deny a gay couple from receiving benefits from their partner, because they do not acknowledge the union of the couple, due to religious reasons. This I have a problem with, they are behaving no differently from the left- who wish to tell you what car to drive, what bulb to use, what you can and cannot say. Keep your faith out of policy that has to do with people's personal lives. I was praying Romney would have the balls, to stand by how he was in Massachusetts- with the whole civil unions, and benefits, but he had to play Mr Right-wing, to appease the religious right-wing twits who were all in love with  Santorum.

You can say you don't agree with gay marriage, and state your religious views for having that belief. This doesn't make you hateful. However when you want to restrict a certain group of people from doing something that involves their own personal life- due to how you feel religiously on the issue, thus afraid to be in favor of it- this is what makes you look ridiculous, and wrong- as it s not original conservatism, or Republicanism.

Sarah Palin doesn't agree with gay marriage, or anything that has to do with changing the definition of marriage. Yet she was ok with not restricting gay couples from receiving benefits from their partner. This does not mean she supports gay marriage or homosexuality. It means she supports the views of liberty the founding father had, the original views of the Republican party Lincoln had,(based on classic Liberalism), and the true meaning of conservatism, not Nixion's 1950's conservatism.


Quote from: taxed on December 13, 2012, 11:51:42 PMYou need to do a better job figuring out who "hates gays", and who just disagrees with them.  Just because someone is religious and doesn't agree with the gay lifestyle isn't a reason for me to have a problem with them.  Sorry.

I'm starting to really believe you were dropped on your head or something as a baby... You appear quite slow to comprehend simple things... You need to do a better job at reading, and taking the time to fully grasp and understand what is being said, especially when it has to be repeated numerous times, because you aren't getting it. I know children more intelligent and wise than what you're displaying- very sad.

I never accused anyone of hating anyone- except gays who can't stand gay culture, and the gays who live and promote gay culture, who can't stand that not all gays are left-wing god hating freaks.

I'm a Christian, and don't agree with gay marriage- I don't know how many times I've said that already. There are also gays who don't agree with gay marriage- either due to religious views, and Jesus as we know said marriage is between one man, one woman. Or the fact that they don't even like the word marriage used between same sex couples, because they feel its trying to emulate heterosexual couples, and they think this is wrong to do, and therefore don't do it.

However what I did say, is that it is wrong for a politician to govern with faith in mind, meaning... "Since I don't believe in gay marriage, I'm going to deny a same sex couple from receiving benefits from their partner". This is wrong. This is unfortunately the position of many within the Republican party- who are more concerned with appeasing the religious right voters, than they are with being a leader for all Americans, sticking to the principles of true conservatism, and what the Republican party stood for. These politicians are stuck in Nixion's 1950's conservatism, and the joining of the Christian coalition and the Republican party after the Democrats did it, and won because of it.  Disagree with homosexuality and gay marriage all you wish, its ok- but stay out of the lives of those who wish to have a union and be entitled to the benefits that come with a union- its not for anyone to be concerned with... And unfortunately there are politicians who just can't.


Quote from: taxed on December 13, 2012, 11:51:42 PMIt boils down to gays, overall, behave like hormonal women.  Show me a gay person, and I'll show you a drama queen.

Aww let me guess, you were trying to make a funny.. LOL Show me a right-winger, and I'll show you a brainless twat, who thinks he's different from a left-winger lol.

Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: kramarat on December 15, 2012, 04:52:56 AM
Quote from: Paladin on December 14, 2012, 11:38:40 PM
You're not making any points though, just going on about irrational emotions, based in ignorance. Its ok if you don't agree with gay marriage, or even homosexuality. But I see a lot of people lumping ALL homosexuals in the same category, and just saying things that continue to hurt conservatism, and the Republican party- so the behavior of people towards the party, and conservatism, isn't very surprising to me.

And that's nice you cleared up the whole thing about men baby sitting... Though I'm not sure why you even thought that was important to talk about.

Talking about men and baby sitting wasn't important. It certainly was effective at revealing your own prejudice though. By default, you went to, "Men that want to baby sit children, must be child molesters". It's a prejudice that most of us share, but a prejudiced position, nonetheless.

So you are against civil unions? :confused: If it has to be marriage or bust, it seems to me that it's the left that wants to keep the fight alive.
Bear in mind, this is the same left that has been degrading marriage, since the late 60s. Remember?
Marriage is a ball and chain.
Marriage is outdated and no longer necessary.
We don't need a stupid piece of paper to prove that we love each other.
Marriage was invented by men, to force women into submission.

This work has paid off. The left has been wildly successful in destroying the traditional nuclear family. Now we live in the wonderful world of having kids screwing like rabbits by the time they are 14, abortions on demand, and many of them becoming adults that are hollow, empty and lack any purpose whatsoever.

Now we've got the schizophrenic left telling us that marriage is a right for homosexuals, and that the selfish heterosexuals are hoarding this wonderful and loving institution for themselves. You like to lump conservatives together, and yet the positions from the left are both laughable, and often times, conflicting. To expect a coherent response from conservatives, when the message from the left is, "Marriage is old fashioned and it sucks. And we demand that homosexuals are allowed to do it", is a farce. The left wants new laws passed, and can't even make up their minds what it is they want. :blink:

For 40 years or more, the left has been dead set on destroying one institution after another, and we've got a society that reflects the results of that hard work.....................and yet the work is not done.
Any mention of God is now offensive. For a kid to wear a shirt with the American flag on it to school, is a suspendable offense. Pride in our military is now gay pride.

When conservative make any attempt to slow or stop this "progress", we are called bigots and haters. Since the left seems incapable of seeing the damage that they are doing, just how in the hell would you suggest that we act?

I'm a pretty damned tolerant person, and I am not one of these conservatives that wants to see the country run by religious caliphate. But this shit is getting old. This is a two way street, and I have to insist that I am also allowed to live my life the way I see fit, and not be coerced into accepting a morality that I don't agree with.

Civil unions/partnerships for gays? Sure thing. Don't push the envelope, and we'll get along fine.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Paladin on December 15, 2012, 05:53:58 AM
One of the reasons why its always so easy for me to crush left-wingers, and right-wings in any topic, is because none of them actually think. They just react with their mouths due to emotion- which makes them appear irrational and ignorant.

Quote from: kramarat on December 14, 2012, 03:12:52 AMDid you notice that when I mentioned men getting into the child care business, (despite the fact that I said that they had clean records and had never done anything wrong), Paladin jumped to the conclusion that they were child molesters? Interesting, huh?

I jumped to that conclusion, because you've already displayed enough ignorance- for me to believe you'd think anyone who is gay likes molesting children, and many people on the right already think that ridiculous rubbish... So no, not very interesting.

Then when you cleared it up, I not only thought it was still a silly thing to even mention, but also completely irrelevant... Gay, Straight, male, female, young, old, you better have a clear damn record if you're going in child care business, or better be on the up and up if nobody knows about whatever bad things you've done in your past. I'm not a prude, and believe in second chances- if one truly wants one.

Quote from: kramarat on December 14, 2012, 03:12:52 AMOur military is comprised primarily of kids in their late teens and early twenties.
I think I can safely say that people that age think about sex a lot. Particularly when around others that are the object of their sexual attraction.
If I had been placed in a company of women during my military days, 24/7, and often on long deployments, I can assure you, that being around women all the time would have had me thinking about sex constantly.
Are you telling me that homosexuals have no sexual urges toward others of the same sex? If so, please link the evidence.

Ok this is pretty silly, sorry it its just really silly.

I don't know if you've ever been in the military, and if you have certainly not in today's military (though there always have been gays, and sex). I began my military life at 18, (28 now)- and let me tell you what I saw, and or heard.

First of all, gay or straight; you're not supposed to be having sex in the military- its just not very professional- and even more of an issue if its male/female due to pregnancy reasons. However people are people, and some people fuck up. And if you think some men (straight, but just wanted sex) didn't get off with another man before women were allowed to really serve, then you are living in a fantasy world lol.

There was a guy who was messing about with a female soldier (they got the boot), there were men who'd actually mess about with civil females (in Iraq/Afghanistan... Gross). There were men who identified as straight, wife and kids- or had girlfriend... But would want sex so bad (a blow job), and would actually get that from another male soldier (and receive one too, aka "bros helping bros")- this was always kept on "the DL" or "down low", though jokes would fly about  toward anyone suspected of this sort of behavior. This is all over in Iraq/Afghanistan. If you were on base in the States, or in Germany- then you'd have soldiers naturally mess about with female prostitutes (not all soldiers did this), or some random chick (again not all)- and I'm more than sure the gays that nobody knew about, also messed about... However there are a lot of soldiers who really take pride in professionalism, and don't mess about with anyone- period.

But you also had men, who may have not wanted to be in the military anymore, and wanted to get kicked out. Soooo they'd end up doing porn- gay porn at that since the money would be better. Then there are some guys who'd actually get money for receiving a blow job, from another guy- so they'd do that (on the DL of course).. These guys didn't identify as gay, meaning they were not emotionally and physically attracted to men... But they sure as hell liked money, and maybe getting their knob polished in the process. I had gotten many offers from gay German civilians, or would have someone try to talk me into doing a porn- so I know it happens.

The horseplay that took place with the guys in my unit, and with other soldiers- would make anyone think they stepped into a bad gay porn film. I even have photos taken of the goofery that was shared with friends back home on my fight team- for a good laugh- that if they were ever posted up on Facebook or so, would  get me fired from my teaching job- hell I'd even get fired if I had a photo posted of me with alcohol... Some guys however would put such photos online, only to get in trouble for it in their civilian job (depending on what it is of course)

The guy in my unit who is gay, was very quite professional, and was one of those guys who didn't want to cheat on his partner, and mess about with someone else (gay straight, bi, tri whatever.). When it came out that he was gay, and we were all asking him questions about how it was to be gay. One of the guys asked if he thought any of us were hot, would he have sex with any of us back home. His reply was "gross fuck no, you guys are like my brothers". The guy who asked, was jokingly offend, thinking the gay guy  thought we were all ugly or something, he was also our superior.

The things I'm reading about gays in the military, or what I hear- really crack me up. Because the biggest opposition comes from people who have never been in the military, and then they're surprised when the learned that people in the military largely didn't and don't give a crap who is gay. At the same time, I find it really disrespectful to the American military. I was born and lived for awhile in Israel, then lived in Europe... There are gays in the military there, and women, and there are no problems. So basically you're saying American soldiers are so simple minded, that this issue would be something heavy on their mind- that would disrupt their task. This is the kind of stuff, that makes the right look dumb.

Quote from: kramarat on December 14, 2012, 03:12:52 AMMy point has nothing to do with a bias against homosexuals. How do you suppose it would work out if heterosexual men and women shared sleeping and showering facilities, particularly on long, lonely deployments? I don't think you can honestly tell me that a bunch of 20 somethings wouldn't have problems.

I never said, nor thought anyone so far had any bias, or hate towards homosexuals. However what I've been reading, from many on here- displays a lot of ignorance. Ignorance and hate are not the same things. You can be ignorant of the laws in another country, or ignorant of the feelings of another person- doesn't mean you hate them; it just means you're heavily prone in doing or saying something stupid- which is what I'm seeing in here.

Just because someone is gay, doesn't mean they want to have sex with every male that passes them by. I don't want to have sex with every female that comes my way- and when I was in the military even if I was showering with females, I wouldn't have done anything, because I wanted to remain faithful to my girl, aside from that- being that everyone in my family was in the military, there was a lot of pride and honor and respect for professionalism... That's just me, and of course there are many other soldiers gay or straight who think like me.

Nobody in here (who disagrees with you), is pushing a gay agenda, or anything leftist. We just understand that...

1. Not every single gay person behaves the same way, or wants what mainstream gay culture or left-wing ideology pushes.


2. Not every gay person is a leftist, there are gays out there who are conservative, and favor keeping our countries traditions and values, and do not ever wear their sexuality on their sleeve, as they know their sexuality doesn't define who they are as a person- rather their character and heart... Unfortunately from some of the things I'm reading in here- there are people who think they do... Again ignorance.

3. There is way too many members within the Republican party, who handle this issue in such a tactless way, it makes them very outdated, and foolish- not to mention provides easy ammo for the left- who makes them look stupid more and more about it.

There are Republicans who are ok with civil unions, and wouldn't keep a gay couple from receiving their partner's benefits-but of course they get called "rino" by the idiots... there are many Republicans who are not ok with civil unions, and if a gay person had one, or was married in a gay accepting church, would not acknowledge the union, and therefore would not allow the couple any rights to benefits and such... This is wrong, and its also hurting the party, and the religious right, and those who make right-wing ideology their religion, are foolishly not seeing the damage this is doing, which will get bigger come the next generation. This is what I'm talking about, not about changing any definitions of marriage or the constitution, because you don't need to, not about people needing to accept homosexuality, or gay marriage, because you don't have to. Just leave these people alone, and don't get in their way with what goes on in their relationship. If I were gay, and I died, I'd want my partner to receive my benefits. Rick Santorum and other morons like him, however don't think so.

There are Democrats who don't like the socialist left direction the Democratic party has seriously really gone into. They keep warning how its going to hurt the party, and when things fall apart economically and we have a Greece moment (and we will), the Democratic party is going to be severely damaged. At the same time people will still hate the Republican party for its stupidity too,(since nothing will change) and so I can now more than ever easily see a third party rise, maybe even knocking out one of the existing ones, which would be the Republican party, being its the weakest now.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Solar on December 15, 2012, 06:14:44 AM
Quote from: Paladin on December 15, 2012, 05:53:58 AM
One of the reasons why its always so easy for me to crush left-wingers, and right-wings in any topic, is because none of them actually think. They just react with their mouths due to emotion- which makes them appear irrational and ignorant.

I jumped to that conclusion, because you've already displayed enough ignorance- for me to believe you'd think anyone who is gay likes molesting children, and many people on the right already think that ridiculous rubbish... So no, not very interesting.

Then when you cleared it up, I not only thought it was still a silly thing to even mention, but also completely irrelevant... Gay, Straight, male, female, young, old, you better have a clear damn record if you're going in child care business, or better be on the up and up if nobody knows about whatever bad things you've done in your past. I'm not a prude, and believe in second chances- if one truly wants one.

Ok this is pretty silly, sorry it its just really silly.

I don't know if you've ever been in the military, and if you have certainly not in today's military (though there always have been gays, and sex). I began my military life at 18, (28 now)- and let me tell you what I saw, and or heard.

First of all, gay or straight; you're not supposed to be having sex in the military- its just not very professional- and even more of an issue if its male/female due to pregnancy reasons. However people are people, and some people fuck up. And if you think some men (straight, but just wanted sex) didn't get off with another man before women were allowed to really serve, then you are living in a fantasy world lol.

There was a guy who was messing about with a female soldier (they got the boot), there were men who'd actually mess about with civil females (in Iraq/Afghanistan... Gross). There were men who identified as straight, wife and kids- or had girlfriend... But would want sex so bad (a blow job), and would actually get that from another male soldier (and receive one too, aka "bros helping bros")- this was always kept on "the DL" or "down low", though jokes would fly about  toward anyone suspected of this sort of behavior. This is all over in Iraq/Afghanistan. If you were on base in the States, or in Germany- then you'd have soldiers naturally mess about with female prostitutes (not all soldiers did this), or some random chick (again not all)- and I'm more than sure the gays that nobody knew about, also messed about... However there are a lot of soldiers who really take pride in professionalism, and don't mess about with anyone- period.

But you also had men, who may have not wanted to be in the military anymore, and wanted to get kicked out. Soooo they'd end up doing porn- gay porn at that since the money would be better. Then there are some guys who'd actually get money for receiving a blow job, from another guy- so they'd do that (on the DL of course).. These guys didn't identify as gay, meaning they were not emotionally and physically attracted to men... But they sure as hell liked money, and maybe getting their knob polished in the process. I had gotten many offers from gay German civilians, or would have someone try to talk me into doing a porn- so I know it happens.

The horseplay that took place with the guys in my unit, and with other soldiers- would make anyone think they stepped into a bad gay porn film. I even have photos taken of the goofery that was shared with friends back home on my fight team- for a good laugh- that if they were ever posted up on Facebook or so, would  get me fired from my teaching job- hell I'd even get fired if I had a photo posted of me with alcohol... Some guys however would put such photos online, only to get in trouble for it in their civilian job (depending on what it is of course)

The guy in my unit who is gay, was very quite professional, and was one of those guys who didn't want to cheat on his partner, and mess about with someone else (gay straight, bi, tri whatever.). When it came out that he was gay, and we were all asking him questions about how it was to be gay. One of the guys asked if he thought any of us were hot, would he have sex with any of us back home. His reply was "gross fuck no, you guys are like my brothers". The guy who asked, was jokingly offend, thinking the gay guy  thought we were all ugly or something, he was also our superior.

The things I'm reading about gays in the military, or what I hear- really crack me up. Because the biggest opposition comes from people who have never been in the military, and then they're surprised when the learned that people in the military largely didn't and don't give a crap who is gay. At the same time, I find it really disrespectful to the American military. I was born and lived for awhile in Israel, then lived in Europe... There are gays in the military there, and women, and there are no problems. So basically you're saying American soldiers are so simple minded, that this issue would be something heavy on their mind- that would disrupt their task. This is the kind of stuff, that makes the right look dumb.

I never said, nor thought anyone so far had any bias, or hate towards homosexuals. However what I've been reading, from many on here- displays a lot of ignorance. Ignorance and hate are not the same things. You can be ignorant of the laws in another country, or ignorant of the feelings of another person- doesn't mean you hate them; it just means you're heavily prone in doing or saying something stupid- which is what I'm seeing in here.

Just because someone is gay, doesn't mean they want to have sex with every male that passes them by. I don't want to have sex with every female that comes my way- and when I was in the military even if I was showering with females, I wouldn't have done anything, because I wanted to remain faithful to my girl, aside from that- being that everyone in my family was in the military, there was a lot of pride and honor and respect for professionalism... That's just me, and of course there are many other soldiers gay or straight who think like me.

Nobody in here (who disagrees with you), is pushing a gay agenda, or anything leftist. We just understand that...

1. Not every single gay person behaves the same way, or wants what mainstream gay culture or left-wing ideology pushes.


2. Not every gay person is a leftist, there are gays out there who are conservative, and favor keeping our countries traditions and values, and do not ever wear their sexuality on their sleeve, as they know their sexuality doesn't define who they are as a person- rather their character and heart... Unfortunately from some of the things I'm reading in here- there are people who think they do... Again ignorance.

3. There is way too many members within the Republican party, who handle this issue in such a tactless way, it makes them very outdated, and foolish- not to mention provides easy ammo for the left- who makes them look stupid more and more about it.

There are Republicans who are ok with civil unions, and wouldn't keep a gay couple from receiving their partner's benefits-but of course they get called "rino" by the idiots... there are many Republicans who are not ok with civil unions, and if a gay person had one, or was married in a gay accepting church, would not acknowledge the union, and therefore would not allow the couple any rights to benefits and such... This is wrong, and its also hurting the party, and the religious right, and those who make right-wing ideology their religion, are foolishly not seeing the damage this is doing, which will get bigger come the next generation. This is what I'm talking about, not about changing any definitions of marriage or the constitution, because you don't need to, not about people needing to accept homosexuality, or gay marriage, because you don't have to. Just leave these people alone, and don't get in their way with what goes on in their relationship. If I were gay, and I died, I'd want my partner to receive my benefits. Rick Santorum and other morons like him, however don't think so.

There are Democrats who don't like the socialist left direction the Democratic party has seriously really gone into. They keep warning how its going to hurt the party, and when things fall apart economically and we have a Greece moment (and we will), the Democratic party is going to be severely damaged. At the same time people will still hate the Republican party for its stupidity too,(since nothing will change) and so I can now more than ever easily see a third party rise, maybe even knocking out one of the existing ones, which would be the Republican party, being its the weakest now.
Do those you meet in public brook your verbose lectures, or do they, as most are beginning to do here, simply ignore you?
Do us all a favor and post crib notes.
Seriously, figure out a way to be more concise when replying.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: kramarat on December 15, 2012, 06:25:08 AM
Quote from: Paladin on December 15, 2012, 05:53:58 AM
One of the reasons why its always so easy for me to crush left-wingers, and right-wings in any topic, is because none of them actually think. They just react with their mouths due to emotion- which makes them appear irrational and ignorant.

I jumped to that conclusion, because you've already displayed enough ignorance- for me to believe you'd think anyone who is gay likes molesting children, and many people on the right already think that ridiculous rubbish... So no, not very interesting.

Then when you cleared it up, I not only thought it was still a silly thing to even mention, but also completely irrelevant... Gay, Straight, male, female, young, old, you better have a clear damn record if you're going in child care business, or better be on the up and up if nobody knows about whatever bad things you've done in your past. I'm not a prude, and believe in second chances- if one truly wants one.

Ok this is pretty silly, sorry it its just really silly.

I don't know if you've ever been in the military, and if you have certainly not in today's military (though there always have been gays, and sex). I began my military life at 18, (28 now)- and let me tell you what I saw, and or heard.

First of all, gay or straight; you're not supposed to be having sex in the military- its just not very professional- and even more of an issue if its male/female due to pregnancy reasons. However people are people, and some people fuck up. And if you think some men (straight, but just wanted sex) didn't get off with another man before women were allowed to really serve, then you are living in a fantasy world lol.

There was a guy who was messing about with a female soldier (they got the boot), there were men who'd actually mess about with civil females (in Iraq/Afghanistan... Gross). There were men who identified as straight, wife and kids- or had girlfriend... But would want sex so bad (a blow job), and would actually get that from another male soldier (and receive one too, aka "bros helping bros")- this was always kept on "the DL" or "down low", though jokes would fly about  toward anyone suspected of this sort of behavior. This is all over in Iraq/Afghanistan. If you were on base in the States, or in Germany- then you'd have soldiers naturally mess about with female prostitutes (not all soldiers did this), or some random chick (again not all)- and I'm more than sure the gays that nobody knew about, also messed about... However there are a lot of soldiers who really take pride in professionalism, and don't mess about with anyone- period.

But you also had men, who may have not wanted to be in the military anymore, and wanted to get kicked out. Soooo they'd end up doing porn- gay porn at that since the money would be better. Then there are some guys who'd actually get money for receiving a blow job, from another guy- so they'd do that (on the DL of course).. These guys didn't identify as gay, meaning they were not emotionally and physically attracted to men... But they sure as hell liked money, and maybe getting their knob polished in the process. I had gotten many offers from gay German civilians, or would have someone try to talk me into doing a porn- so I know it happens.

The horseplay that took place with the guys in my unit, and with other soldiers- would make anyone think they stepped into a bad gay porn film. I even have photos taken of the goofery that was shared with friends back home on my fight team- for a good laugh- that if they were ever posted up on Facebook or so, would  get me fired from my teaching job- hell I'd even get fired if I had a photo posted of me with alcohol... Some guys however would put such photos online, only to get in trouble for it in their civilian job (depending on what it is of course)

The guy in my unit who is gay, was very quite professional, and was one of those guys who didn't want to cheat on his partner, and mess about with someone else (gay straight, bi, tri whatever.). When it came out that he was gay, and we were all asking him questions about how it was to be gay. One of the guys asked if he thought any of us were hot, would he have sex with any of us back home. His reply was "gross fuck no, you guys are like my brothers". The guy who asked, was jokingly offend, thinking the gay guy  thought we were all ugly or something, he was also our superior.

The things I'm reading about gays in the military, or what I hear- really crack me up. Because the biggest opposition comes from people who have never been in the military, and then they're surprised when the learned that people in the military largely didn't and don't give a crap who is gay. At the same time, I find it really disrespectful to the American military. I was born and lived for awhile in Israel, then lived in Europe... There are gays in the military there, and women, and there are no problems. So basically you're saying American soldiers are so simple minded, that this issue would be something heavy on their mind- that would disrupt their task. This is the kind of stuff, that makes the right look dumb.

I never said, nor thought anyone so far had any bias, or hate towards homosexuals. However what I've been reading, from many on here- displays a lot of ignorance. Ignorance and hate are not the same things. You can be ignorant of the laws in another country, or ignorant of the feelings of another person- doesn't mean you hate them; it just means you're heavily prone in doing or saying something stupid- which is what I'm seeing in here.

Just because someone is gay, doesn't mean they want to have sex with every male that passes them by. I don't want to have sex with every female that comes my way- and when I was in the military even if I was showering with females, I wouldn't have done anything, because I wanted to remain faithful to my girl, aside from that- being that everyone in my family was in the military, there was a lot of pride and honor and respect for professionalism... That's just me, and of course there are many other soldiers gay or straight who think like me.

Nobody in here (who disagrees with you), is pushing a gay agenda, or anything leftist. We just understand that...

1. Not every single gay person behaves the same way, or wants what mainstream gay culture or left-wing ideology pushes.


2. Not every gay person is a leftist, there are gays out there who are conservative, and favor keeping our countries traditions and values, and do not ever wear their sexuality on their sleeve, as they know their sexuality doesn't define who they are as a person- rather their character and heart... Unfortunately from some of the things I'm reading in here- there are people who think they do... Again ignorance.

3. There is way too many members within the Republican party, who handle this issue in such a tactless way, it makes them very outdated, and foolish- not to mention provides easy ammo for the left- who makes them look stupid more and more about it.

There are Republicans who are ok with civil unions, and wouldn't keep a gay couple from receiving their partner's benefits-but of course they get called "rino" by the idiots... there are many Republicans who are not ok with civil unions, and if a gay person had one, or was married in a gay accepting church, would not acknowledge the union, and therefore would not allow the couple any rights to benefits and such... This is wrong, and its also hurting the party, and the religious right, and those who make right-wing ideology their religion, are foolishly not seeing the damage this is doing, which will get bigger come the next generation. This is what I'm talking about, not about changing any definitions of marriage or the constitution, because you don't need to, not about people needing to accept homosexuality, or gay marriage, because you don't have to. Just leave these people alone, and don't get in their way with what goes on in their relationship. If I were gay, and I died, I'd want my partner to receive my benefits. Rick Santorum and other morons like him, however don't think so.

There are Democrats who don't like the socialist left direction the Democratic party has seriously really gone into. They keep warning how its going to hurt the party, and when things fall apart economically and we have a Greece moment (and we will), the Democratic party is going to be severely damaged. At the same time people will still hate the Republican party for its stupidity too,(since nothing will change) and so I can now more than ever easily see a third party rise, maybe even knocking out one of the existing ones, which would be the Republican party, being its the weakest now.

I guess I'm glad that I'm not in today's military. I suppose things like what you describe went on while I was in, but I never heard a word about it. If it did, it would have been closet gays. Heterosexual men don't turn to homosexual sex out of desperation......................or I guess they do now. :scared:

If that behavior has become commonplace, it's yet another sad chapter in the damage that the left has wrought. :sad:

You have just made the argument that gays in the military are completely professional, and that no harm can come of it. And then you turned around and told me that in today's military, man on man sex is rampant.........even between heterosexuals. Thanks for closing my case for me.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: walkstall on December 15, 2012, 06:26:46 AM
Quote from: Solar on December 15, 2012, 06:14:44 AM
Do those you meet in public brook your verbose lectures, or do they, as most are beginning to do here, simply ignore you?
Do us all a favor and post crib notes.
Seriously, figure out a way to be more concise when replying.


Don't ask him what time it is he will tell you how to build a watch.  You may not have the bandwidth.   :ohmy:
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Solar on December 15, 2012, 06:31:41 AM
Quote from: walkstall on December 15, 2012, 06:26:46 AM

Don't ask him what time it is he will tell you how to build a watch.  You may not have the bandwidth.   :ohmy:
I may actually have to set a character limit on posts.
I never did in the beginning because I didn't see a need, but now I'm finally understanding why other forums do.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: walkstall on December 15, 2012, 06:40:21 AM
Quote from: Solar on December 15, 2012, 06:31:41 AM
I may actually have to set a character limit on posts.
I never did in the beginning because I didn't see a need, but now I'm finally understanding why other forums do.

It will only drive up his post count.  It will become 50 posts not just one. 

Would it limite Writers Guild?
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Solar on December 15, 2012, 06:46:33 AM
Quote from: walkstall on December 15, 2012, 06:40:21 AM
It will only drive up his post count.  It will become 50 posts not just one. 

Would it limite Writers Guild?
Hmmmm, good question.
I'll have Taxed check into it if it becomes necessary.

Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: kramarat on December 15, 2012, 07:21:08 AM
Quote from: Solar on December 15, 2012, 06:46:33 AM
Hmmmm, good question.
I'll have Taxed check into it if it becomes necessary.

Solar. There are lots of us on here that are prior military. Granted, for most, it's been decades.

Does anyone else recall this "downlow" or "lowdown" sex between heterosexuals being common, as Paladin is suggesting?

When I was in, even suggesting something like that, would have got someone's ass kicked. :blink: :angry:
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Patriot on December 15, 2012, 08:22:42 AM
Quote from: Solar on December 15, 2012, 06:46:33 AM
Hmmmm, good question.
I'll have Taxed check into it if it becomes necessary.
Character limits would become a pain for most or all, something to have to keep track of.  Maybe an Executive Summary would be in order.   :smile:
Making the suggestion as has been done is the best thing.  I've learned that most people only read headlines and maybe the first paragraph or so in a newspaper, so conciseness is important.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Solar on December 15, 2012, 10:46:01 AM
Quote from: kramarat on December 15, 2012, 07:21:08 AM
Solar. There are lots of us on here that are prior military. Granted, for most, it's been decades.

Does anyone else recall this "downlow" or "lowdown" sex between heterosexuals being common, as Paladin is suggesting?

When I was in, even suggesting something like that, would have got someone's ass kicked. :blink: :angry:
I never met one in the Military, and for a man to even consider submitting to another male, is preposterous.
We are no different than animals, in the animal world, when a male submits to another male, it's because he lost the battle for leadership.
Sexual dominance is a show of strength, to submit, is to show you are the weaker male.

If, as has been stated that many men don't see an issue with it in the military, it is a reflection of the leftist beating taking place in the form of PC.
I feel sorry for young men growing up today, they are discouraged from growing into real and productive men.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: kramarat on December 15, 2012, 11:52:45 AM
Quote from: Solar on December 15, 2012, 10:46:01 AM
I never met one in the Military, and for a man to even consider submitting to another male, is preposterous.
We are no different than animals, in the animal world, when a male submits to another male, it's because he lost the battle for leadership.
Sexual dominance is a show of strength, to submit, is to show you are the weaker male.

If, as has been stated that many men don't see an issue with it in the military, it is a reflection of the leftist beating taking place in the form of PC.
I feel sorry for young men growing up today, they are discouraged from growing into real and productive men.

The last man that I heard about liking the lowdown sex, was Obama.

If what Paladin says is true, he has presented the most damning evidence to date, that gays in the military are a bad idea. He has presented the leftist viewpoint..................just do what feels good at the moment. It doesn't matter who you are having sex with. What counts is getting off. You can go back to being a heterosexual when you get home. I just don't know what the hell to say. It just leaves me shaking my head in shame, to think that this is our "new" military under Obama.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: taxed on December 15, 2012, 12:25:09 PM
Quote from: Paladin on December 15, 2012, 03:57:10 AM
You make this too easy for me, really lol.
You keep running in circles.

Quote
You continue to display poor comprehension skills. Nobody said you were hateful, because you don't support gay marriage. I've already stated countless times, I don't even support gay marriage, and there are gays who don't either.
Good.


Quote
As far as gays in the military go, I didn't give a crap or wonder who was gay when I was serving. And when it happen to come out that one of the guys in my unit was gay- sure we were surprised, as nobody would have even thought so about him- but he was a damn good soldier, awesome guy, and did his job beyond well which is all we cared about. As far as women in combat go, I have mixed feelings about that, but hey if a woman chooses to defend and serve this country, and can do the damn job, then she's got my respect. No you aren't hateful because you don't support those things, I called you hateful because your wording was irrational and ignorant- same as I hear on the left... In other words you made yourself look the part.
Like what?  Example please.


Quote
I don't give a crap what anyone thinks of me, except family and closest friends; and I loathe political correctness (just as much as prudes).
No one cares.

Quote
My whole philosophy is based more on classic liberalism- which is also part of the philosophy of classic Republicanism, but also what America was meant to be. In other words, if you're not hurting me, anyone I love and care for,  the country, other people, and you're happy with yourself- then I don't give a shit- my opinion of you is formed by the character you display- where you show your heart is. I just happen to know that, not every gay person is a flaming fairy who hates god, hates America, and wants to tear down all noble philosophies of this country.
I never said that.  Gays, in the majority, are drama queens.

Quote
I don't agree with the left or "libs" as you call them, nor do I agree with the right. They're both morons- and neither one of them are pro-American patriots- they're just sunshine patriots... I put you in that category of course.
I think gays, in the majority are drama queens, therefore I'm a "sunshine patriot".  Got it.

Quote
ROFL!!! This is exactly why I say your comprehension skills are lacking.

No this wasn't your case, in fact I'm not even sure what case you're trying to make- since you sound like an irrational twit lol.
Since you are having a hard time following, I'll summarize: the MAJORITY of gays are the drama queens.  You say your friends aren't these drama queens, which I don't doubt.  I say the majority of gays are drama queens.  You disagree and say I'm unpatriotic.  You say your friends "don't like the word gay because of what mainstream gays have done to it", agreeing with me that the MAJORITY of gays are making gays look bad.  I'm not even saying being a drama queen is bad.  I've had these people as employees, and they do their jobs just like anyone else (sure, maybe a little extra gabbing on the phone), but overall are just fine, and have loved them all.  Gays, in the MAJORITY, have their traits.  They're cleaner, take care of their areas, and have that woman's touch with many things that us straight guys lack, like design, aesthetics, etc.  Is every straight guy bad at designing?  Of course not, but the MAJORITY of straight guys are.  It's a woman/gay, i.e., feminine trait to be good at designing.


Quote
Those men (and women too), who don't even like the word gay; because they don't like what mainstream gay culture has done to it.... DON'T EVEN LIVE AND LOVE MAINSTREAM GAY CULTURE aka "gay lifestyle". They stay away from it, because it clashes with their traditions and values, and even political beliefs- due to mainstream gay culture being left-wing. Because these gays (who my friend labeled "Group C" in his research), stay away from it- they get viciously trashed by the ones who love it, and live it. They if not threatened physically, are also called things like "sell out", or "self-hater". You're not going to find these gay men and women, in any gay bars, gay clubs, and definitely not a gay pride parade- they find them to be freak shows, disrespectful, degrading, not who they are.
I don't disagree.

Quote
These gays (conservative gays), don't go about wearing their sexuality on their sleeve. Its not who they are- its their character as a man, or a woman that defines who they are, not who they are physically and emotionally attracted to. Mainstream gay culture on the other hand believes the opposite. Which is one of the biggest tenants in left-wing ideology. If you're gay, or black, you must think, behave, and like the same, and support all left-wing ideology... Your statements so far, have played right into this- and you're too ignorant to even catch it.
Again, I don't disagree.

Quote
LOL No you have a little thing called "irrational ignorance" (the stupid kind of ignorance at that). Your statements mirror more someone of that nature, not someone of experience, or wisdom. That's my department. I had experience living with someone who is gay, serving with someone who is gay- and then took interest in my friend's research, and information which he had been gathering for 12 and a half years- which was very fascinating after meeting some of these people.
Again, I'm not a stranger to the gay community either.  I know way more than I should about them.

Quote
1. A real American patriot cares for the freedoms and rights of ALL Americans. As I said, if you're not hurting anyone, or the country, and you're happy- then I don't care. I'm not going to stand in your way of life, if you aren't ruining anyone else's. Modern conservatives, just as modern liberals- only care for their little ideology, and their group of morons who support them.
I agree with this if you remove the "modern conservatives" part.

Quote
2. Again, you're talking about left-wing gay activist here- who live and love mainstream gay culture- who I feel are garbage because of what they spew. The gays who keep away from mainstream gay culture, aka "gay lifestyle" (who also think it and they are garbage), don't push legislation change, don't care for it- nor do they "do anything in public". They just mind their own business, live their life, and want to be left alone to do so... Unfortunately (which is my point to this entire topic)... We have right-wing politicians, who wouldn't acknowledge the union of two gays... Meaning, if these two gays got a civil union (which many of these right-wing twits do not support- due to religious reasons), or they were married in a gay accepting church.  The couple would not be entitled to the benefits of their partner. This interferes with their freedom, and should not be- it isn't "special treatment". Sarah Palin as I mentioned, vetoed a bill, that would have prevented same sex couples from receiving their partner's benefits. This isn't "special treatment"- because she's a real conservative, and real patriot.
Please post where I have opposed civil unions.

Quote
3. Get over what? The only thing I'm talking about, and see needs to change- are the overly religious twits within the Republican party- or at least the wanting to appease the religious right so much. This is hurting the party which is of no surprise. I do not agree with changing definition of marriage, but I do agree that if a gay couple got a civil union, or was married in a gay accepting church, that couple should be entitled to the same benefits a traditional couple has. Denying them this stands in the way their of their personal freedom, and again... Unfortunately we have members within the Republican party, who would not acknowledge the union, therefore would deny them this... This is basically what Rick Santorum said in the primaries, when he said he would not acknowledge the civil union either- all due to his religious views... If you think I should "get over it", then you really need to stop calling yourself an American patriot because you're not, if you can't see what's wrong with that.
I'm a conservative, not a Republican.  I don't care what Rick Santorum says.  Learn the difference.


Quote
4. I said religious right, and no it would not suck to them- check your reading skills please ^_^.
The religious right wouldn't like it either.

Quote
You didn't "counter" anything, just displayed more ignorance- to which if your uncle really said that crap for real, then that's sadly hilarious. I'm also not asking you to care about anything, I'm only pointing out how ridiculously you appear- and part of why conservatism, and the Republican party, and just anyone on the right is easily mocked, and torn down- because of tactless statements, that are based in ignorance. I don't know what your "gay" uncle did to make him feel gays shouldn't be in the military, but the gay guy I served with had no problems, so sorry (actually I'm not sorry)- I'm not going to share the ridiculous opinion you and your uncle have on this issue.
Where did I say he said they shouldn't be in the military?  Please post it.


Quote
Nobody knew the guy I served with was gay, as he didn't feel it was important. It only came up when we were talking about girls, and he was asked if he had a girlfriend or wife- he simply said "no I'm gay". We were all surprised, because nobody in a million years would ever think he was gay, but everyone got curious and asked him a load of questions (not disrespectful ones), and they were shocked about his responses- because it didn't match up with what they knew or thought of gay people, and ultimately nobody cared.
That's wonderful.

Quote
ROFL I've seen this photo before, and the men who are gay that I know, and the guys I got to meet during my friend's research... Laugh at shit like this. They don't like this stuff, because they feel it its just not very manly for a guy to be holding another dude like that kissing on him like that in public my girlfriend was in my arms like that when I came home lol. They don't even like holding hands in public, feeling that's a male/female thing. They don't use terms like "boyfriend" or "husband", again it emulates male/female. And so again you further prove your ignorance with mass generalizations... Not every gay person behaves in this manner. I don't find any of what you say offensive or anything, nor would any of the gays I know... They aren't cry baby lefties.
Would this photo opportunity have happened under DADT?

Quote
I'm just letting you again, know how retarded you sound. Unfortunately too many on the right do this sort of thing- and not all of it is even done with any kind of malice, just more as a joke. I think its funny, the gay men I know would too. However you cannot afford to be joking like that, when you're already pegged as either racist, anti-gay, or just trapped in the 1950's. Then of course the right-wing politician who may have joked like this, or any of his supporters. Now has to spend time talking about how he's not racist, or anti-gay, which takes time away from his message.
He is just being a gay soldier, excited to see his man.  What is wrong with that in your eyes?  You are OK with them serving in the military, so what's the big deal?


Quote
The independent (which out number left and right), who may have a gay friend or family  member- may see it as "mean" or "unfair" to poke fun at this, or maybe even hateful- and will say (which I've heard many times) "Republicans are stuck in the 50's" "Why are they so concerned about people's relationships" "My gay friend doesn't behave like this". And so then they'll move further away from anything that has to do with conservatism or the Republican party- and so the left continues to lead the culture... Wise up.
I'm not PC.  I don't give a shit.  I'm an equal opportunity offender.


Quote
Sure you're religious. Your religion is right-wing ideology,
OK, if you are going to be serious and post here in this forum, then I ask you to defend your positions (which you are and have), but this wasn't your context of this reply, and you know that.  This may work on the idiots you are used to speaking to, but not here.  You implied I was a religious zealot, I said I'm not, yet you continue with the same reply in a different context.  Don't do this again, please.


Quote
which keeps you from actually thinking for yourself, but also keeps you from thinking about the original platform of the Republican party, conservatism, and what classic liberalism is- as well as what the founding fathers had intended for this country.
Where do I not think for myself, or what of my positions are not conservative?  I'm asking you to list them, please, or retract your statement.


Quote
Its quite alright for you to be against gays in the military, gay marriage, ect- and if you explain a reasonable positions for your beliefs, it doesn't make you hateful at all.
Gosh, I'm glad you, the judge of what's right and wrong, told me that.  Thanks!

Quote
I too was once against gays in the military. My reasons were due to a lot of the hazing that goes on. I didn't want someone saying "I was treated this way because I'm gay", and now a good instructor or so, is getting in trouble. But that hasn't happened in all the years gays have been serving, or today, which by the way nobody's noticed any change nor cares about DADT's repeal. I know soldiers who have asked gay soldiers "so how does it feel", their response "just another day". Though there are some who are now not afraid of receiving a letter, phone call, or email from their partner, or listing them as a beneficiary if they are killed.
You're so evolved.

Quote
Another mass generalization further making you look retarded lol. I don't have a hard time accepting anything about my brother- he's happy I'm happy. He's a good man, and good brother, proud of him, no more or less than my other two brothers, or the ones who don't share my blood. You don't offend me, just further prove my opinion of your stupidity.
What generalization?

Quote
I don't have a problem with anyone's religious views, so long as their religion doesn't call for ending another person's life- or restricting a person's personal choice or freedom- if they are not hurting anyone.
I agree.

Quote
Unfortunately as I've been mentioning- which has been my point on this debate. There are members within the Republican party, who'd deny a gay couple from receiving benefits from their partner, because they do not acknowledge the union of the couple, due to religious reasons. This I have a problem with, they are behaving no differently from the left- who wish to tell you what car to drive, what bulb to use, what you can and cannot say. Keep your faith out of policy that has to do with people's personal lives. I was praying Romney would have the balls, to stand by how he was in Massachusetts- with the whole civil unions, and benefits, but he had to play Mr Right-wing, to appease the religious right-wing twits who were all in love with  Santorum.
Damn those people with their own views.


Quote
You can say you don't agree with gay marriage, and state your religious views for having that belief. This doesn't make you hateful. However when you want to restrict a certain group of people from doing something that involves their own personal life- due to how you feel religiously on the issue, thus afraid to be in favor of it- this is what makes you look ridiculous, and wrong- as it s not original conservatism, or Republicanism.
You're right.  Please post where in The Constitution it discusses marriage so I can educate myself, Mr. classic liberal/conservative.

Quote
Sarah Palin doesn't agree with gay marriage, or anything that has to do with changing the definition of marriage. Yet she was ok with not restricting gay couples from receiving benefits from their partner. This does not mean she supports gay marriage or homosexuality. It means she supports the views of liberty the founding father had, the original views of the Republican party Lincoln had,(based on classic Liberalism), and the true meaning of conservatism, not Nixion's 1950's conservatism.
Please post where I disagree with Palin.


Quote
I'm starting to really believe you were dropped on your head or something as a baby... You appear quite slow to comprehend simple things... You need to do a better job at reading, and taking the time to fully grasp and understand what is being said, especially when it has to be repeated numerous times, because you aren't getting it. I know children more intelligent and wise than what you're displaying- very sad.

I never accused anyone of hating anyone- except gays who can't stand gay culture, and the gays who live and promote gay culture, who can't stand that not all gays are left-wing god hating freaks.

I'm a Christian, and don't agree with gay marriage- I don't know how many times I've said that already. There are also gays who don't agree with gay marriage- either due to religious views, and Jesus as we know said marriage is between one man, one woman. Or the fact that they don't even like the word marriage used between same sex couples, because they feel its trying to emulate heterosexual couples, and they think this is wrong to do, and therefore don't do it.

However what I did say, is that it is wrong for a politician to govern with faith in mind, meaning... "Since I don't believe in gay marriage, I'm going to deny a same sex couple from receiving benefits from their partner". This is wrong. This is unfortunately the position of many within the Republican party- who are more concerned with appeasing the religious right voters, than they are with being a leader for all Americans, sticking to the principles of true conservatism, and what the Republican party stood for. These politicians are stuck in Nixion's 1950's conservatism, and the joining of the Christian coalition and the Republican party after the Democrats did it, and won because of it.  Disagree with homosexuality and gay marriage all you wish, its ok- but stay out of the lives of those who wish to have a union and be entitled to the benefits that come with a union- its not for anyone to be concerned with... And unfortunately there are politicians who just can't.
Are you wanting voters to stop voting their values, electing these politicians?


Quote
Aww let me guess, you were trying to make a funny.. LOL Show me a right-winger, and I'll show you a brainless twat, who thinks he's different from a left-winger lol.
Don't be offended.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Yawn on December 15, 2012, 12:31:54 PM
QuoteAnd when it happen to come out that one of the guys in my unit was gay- sure we were surprised,

I was waited on in the grocery store yesterday by someone who was obviously "gay."  I doubt he needed to "come out."  I don't think anyone would be surprised that he was "gay."  Like I said, some are clearly "born that way."  There are easily recognizably physical and mental differences.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Paladin on December 15, 2012, 05:32:00 PM
Quote from: kramarat on December 15, 2012, 04:52:56 AM
Talking about men and baby sitting wasn't important. It certainly was effective at revealing your own prejudice though. By default, you went to, "Men that want to baby sit children, must be child molesters". It's a prejudice that most of us share, but a prejudiced position, nonetheless.

So you are against civil unions? :confused: If it has to be marriage or bust, it seems to me that it's the left that wants to keep the fight alive.
Bear in mind, this is the same left that has been degrading marriage, since the late 60s. Remember?
Marriage is a ball and chain.
Marriage is outdated and no longer necessary.
We don't need a stupid piece of paper to prove that we love each other.
Marriage was invented by men, to force women into submission.

This work has paid off. The left has been wildly successful in destroying the traditional nuclear family. Now we live in the wonderful world of having kids screwing like rabbits by the time they are 14, abortions on demand, and many of them becoming adults that are hollow, empty and lack any purpose whatsoever.

Now we've got the schizophrenic left telling us that marriage is a right for homosexuals, and that the selfish heterosexuals are hoarding this wonderful and loving institution for themselves. You like to lump conservatives together, and yet the positions from the left are both laughable, and often times, conflicting. To expect a coherent response from conservatives, when the message from the left is, "Marriage is old fashioned and it sucks. And we demand that homosexuals are allowed to do it", is a farce. The left wants new laws passed, and can't even make up their minds what it is they want. :blink:

For 40 years or more, the left has been dead set on destroying one institution after another, and we've got a society that reflects the results of that hard work.....................and yet the work is not done.
Any mention of God is now offensive. For a kid to wear a shirt with the American flag on it to school, is a suspendable offense. Pride in our military is now gay pride.

When conservative make any attempt to slow or stop this "progress", we are called bigots and haters. Since the left seems incapable of seeing the damage that they are doing, just how in the hell would you suggest that we act?

I'm a pretty damned tolerant person, and I am not one of these conservatives that wants to see the country run by religious caliphate. But this shit is getting old. This is a two way street, and I have to insist that I am also allowed to live my life the way I see fit, and not be coerced into accepting a morality that I don't agree with.

Civil unions/partnerships for gays? Sure thing. Don't push the envelope, and we'll get along fine.

Do you know how to read, and understand what you read? I never implied anyone who is gay likes to molest children. I thought it was silly your comment about you not wanting your daughter being left alone with a certain type of person- which made it appear that you believe someone who is gay molest children- which is what I called you out on-as there are already many on the right who believe such rubbish. You then cleared it up, but it was still a ridiculous and irrelevant thing, because its common sense that anyone would want whoever is around their children to have a clean past... So you're only confusing yourself with this issue, move off of it.

You're missing the point, because you're more stuck on talking about the agenda of the left... I as well as many others in here, already know the agenda of the left- and we don't like it. At the same time we also see the mistakes the right are making, which is hurting the Republican party, and conservatism.

Also the only people fighting to change the definition of marriage are gay left-wing activist, and heterosexual left-wing activist. They don't fight for this change, because they care about civil liberties- only the destruction of all that is noble about this country. Conservative gays hate gay culture, and left-wing ideology. Conservative gay activist fight against left-wing gay activist...  But they don't get the help and support from their party- like the Democrats give to the left-wing activist.

In England, gays have civil unions- here in America in some states gays can have civil unions... All well and good.. Unfortunately we have members within the Republican party, who do not support civil unions, and would not acknowledge the union, therefore do not feel either partner in the union is entitled to the benefits of their partner. If I were married and died, my wife would get my benefits from my job. If I were gay and in a civil union or gay marriage- politicians like Rick Santorum don't feel my partner should get my benefits. This is what I'm talking about, this is what's hurting the Republican party.

The new and younger Republicans/Conservatives, while they may not agree with changing the definition of marriage, fully support civil unions, and the partner being entitled for benefits. They don't fall in line with the more rigid views of the dinosaurs trapped in Nixion's 1950's conservatism.

Ron Paul got a load of support from young people, a hell of a lot. Even more support from the military over the other candidates combined. Because Ron Paul is more in line with how the founding fathers viewed this country, with civil liberties and personal rights/freedoms. This is a largely growing group in America, especially among the young- all of which are not only fed up with Democrat's inflation of gov, but also the stupidity of the outdated right. In other words if the Republican party doesn't clean these fools out, its dead. It worked fine in the 50's, 60's, 70's, and even 80's. Today it doesn't stand, as society has changed. There are many people who have gay friends, or family members, who behave nothing like many on the right ignorantly think, and so get offended when they hear the stupidity of the right.

I never implied nor believe (since I don't know you), that you are intolerant, or hateful. I've stated many times already I do not agree with changing the definition of marriage, and I just don't believe in gay marriage, and that there were gays who feel the same damn way.

You're all for civil unions, great awesome, me too.. Now lets tell that to the many members of the Republican party who are not, and in the process turning many away. Conservative gays aren't trying to push anything. All they do is live their life, mind their business, don't wear their sexuality on their sleeve, and expect to be left alone, and respected.

You many not care to see the country be a Christian theocracy, but there are many on the religious right- who'd love that; and this is also hurting the party.


LOL A lot of you guys in here are not grasping simple concepts; and its no wonder why the left are so able to make people on the right look bad.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Yawn on December 15, 2012, 05:50:39 PM
Quote
You many not care to see the country be a Christian theocracy, but there are many on the religious right- who'd love that

Name two.

Or even one.

Or even one "respected" Christian who wants to replace our Constitution with a Christian Theocracy.  I don't know, or know of any.  It is your own liberal bias that creates this odd view of religion in America.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: kramarat on December 15, 2012, 06:00:39 PM
Quote from: Paladin on December 15, 2012, 05:32:00 PM
Do you know how to read, and understand what you read? I never implied anyone who is gay likes to molest children. I thought it was silly your comment about you not wanting your daughter being left alone with a certain type of person- which made it appear that you believe someone who is gay molest children- which is what I called you out on-as there are already many on the right who believe such rubbish. You then cleared it up, but it was still a ridiculous and irrelevant thing, because its common sense that anyone would want whoever is around their children to have a clean past... So you're only confusing yourself with this issue, move off of it.

You're missing the point, because you're more stuck on talking about the agenda of the left... I as well as many others in here, already know the agenda of the left- and we don't like it. At the same time we also see the mistakes the right are making, which is hurting the Republican party, and conservatism.

Also the only people fighting to change the definition of marriage are gay left-wing activist, and heterosexual left-wing activist. They don't fight for this change, because they care about civil liberties- only the destruction of all that is noble about this country. Conservative gays hate gay culture, and left-wing ideology. Conservative gay activist fight against left-wing gay activist...  But they don't get the help and support from their party- like the Democrats give to the left-wing activist.

In England, gays have civil unions- here in America in some states gays can have civil unions... All well and good.. Unfortunately we have members within the Republican party, who do not support civil unions, and would not acknowledge the union, therefore do not feel either partner in the union is entitled to the benefits of their partner. If I were married and died, my wife would get my benefits from my job. If I were gay and in a civil union or gay marriage- politicians like Rick Santorum don't feel my partner should get my benefits. This is what I'm talking about, this is what's hurting the Republican party.

The new and younger Republicans/Conservatives, while they may not agree with changing the definition of marriage, fully support civil unions, and the partner being entitled for benefits. They don't fall in line with the more rigid views of the dinosaurs trapped in Nixion's 1950's conservatism.

Ron Paul got a load of support from young people, a hell of a lot. Even more support from the military over the other candidates combined. Because Ron Paul is more in line with how the founding fathers viewed this country, with civil liberties and personal rights/freedoms. This is a largely growing group in America, especially among the young- all of which are not only fed up with Democrat's inflation of gov, but also the stupidity of the outdated right. In other words if the Republican party doesn't clean these fools out, its dead. It worked fine in the 50's, 60's, 70's, and even 80's. Today it doesn't stand, as society has changed. There are many people who have gay friends, or family members, who behave nothing like many on the right ignorantly think, and so get offended when they hear the stupidity of the right.

I never implied nor believe (since I don't know you), that you are intolerant, or hateful. I've stated many times already I do not agree with changing the definition of marriage, and I just don't believe in gay marriage, and that there were gays who feel the same damn way.

You're all for civil unions, great awesome, me too.. Now lets tell that to the many members of the Republican party who are not, and in the process turning many away. Conservative gays aren't trying to push anything. All they do is live their life, mind their business, don't wear their sexuality on their sleeve, and expect to be left alone, and respected.

You many not care to see the country be a Christian theocracy, but there are many on the religious right- who'd love that; and this is also hurting the party.


LOL A lot of you guys in here are not grasping simple concepts; and its no wonder why the left are so able to make people on the right look bad.

You are having a conversation with someone other than me. Maybe it's with yourself, or some phantom homophobe..........I don't know. Either way, I told you I was pretty tolerant. Time's up for you, loser. Later.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Darth Fife on December 16, 2012, 09:05:42 AM
Quote from: Solar on December 15, 2012, 06:14:44 AM
Do those you meet in public brook your verbose lectures, or do they, as most are beginning to do here, simply ignore you?
Do us all a favor and post crib notes.
Seriously, figure out a way to be more concise when replying.

Apparently, that famous Shakespearean quote is unknown to him...

My liege, and madam, to expostulate
What majesty should be, what duty is,
What day is day, night night, and time is time,
Were nothing but to waste night, day, and time;
Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit,
And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,
I will be brief. Your noble son is mad.


Hamlet, Act II, Scene 2
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: sataspa on August 25, 2022, 11:32:43 PM
It's a real shame this Paladin guy didn't stick around.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: midcan5 on August 26, 2022, 05:25:05 AM
Fascinating thread.  I agree with Skeptic's initial post.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Solar on August 26, 2022, 07:46:31 AM
Quote from: sataspa on August 25, 2022, 11:32:43 PMIt's a real shame this Paladin guy didn't stick around.
Why?
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Solar on August 26, 2022, 07:46:55 AM
Quote from: midcan5 on August 26, 2022, 05:25:05 AMFascinating thread.  I agree with Skeptic's initial post.
Why?
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: taxed on August 26, 2022, 09:00:20 AM
I think I'm going to poke one of my eyeballs out...
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Sick Of Silence on August 26, 2022, 10:07:51 AM
Quote from: kramarat on December 14, 2012, 02:28:11 AMI should have said "open" homosexuality. I was okay with don't ask, don't tell.

Quote from: redlom xof on December 14, 2012, 02:29:32 AMWhy should people be forced to hide a part of their life just because some childish moron doesn't like gays ?

Imagine if don't ask, don't tell was around for religion. You couldn't display your religion or even mention it and I couldn't ask you about it either. All because I didn't like Christianity.

Why should people be forced to accept someone else's proclamation whether they like it or not? There is a difference between acceptance and tolerance. Acceptance is I 100% support your lifestyle. Tolerance is I don't necessarily support your lifestyle, but you live your life and I life my life. But, that's not what's happening. It's being forced on us. It's you will submit or else.

People have gotten brainwashed about putting theirs or others business out in public. It is not by business if you are gay. That is their problem. I have my own problems to care about yours.

I have seen people like Mayim Bialik have a Jewish star necklace on. Is she forcing her religion on people? As many Ben Shapiro video clips I have seen, I have never seen him push Judaism to his audience. What about his funny cap?

Do you have any proof of Christian, Methodist, Catholic, or Protestant religions being mass forced on everybody at once? Wasn't that long ago where every TV channel was virtual signalling with a rainbow flag in the corner of the screen. You couldn't just watch TV without that being forced on you.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: taxed on August 26, 2022, 10:46:08 AM
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on August 26, 2022, 10:07:51 AMWhy should people be forced to accept someone else's proclamation whether they like it or not? There is a difference between acceptance and tolerance. Acceptance is I 100% support your lifestyle. Tolerance is I don't necessarily support your lifestyle, but you live your life and I life my life. But, that's not what's happening. It's being forced on us. It's you will submit or else.

People have gotten brainwashed about putting theirs or others business out in public. It is not by business if you are gay. That is their problem. I have my own problems to care about yours.

I have seen people like Mayim Bialik have a Jewish star necklace on. Is she forcing her religion on people? As many Ben Shapiro video clips I have seen, I have never seen him push Judaism to his audience. What about his funny cap?

Do you have any proof of Christian, Methodist, Catholic, or Protestant religions being mass forced on everybody at once? Wasn't that long ago where every TV channel was virtual signalling with a rainbow flag in the corner of the screen. You couldn't just watch TV without that being forced on you.

Look at the post dates.
Title: Re: On the gay issue which divides our party
Post by: Sick Of Silence on August 26, 2022, 11:48:50 AM
Them other two bumped a decade old thread up. We know that some of those people don't post here anymore. So, I don't expect a direct response. It was something that has to be said.