# Free speech but awful behavior



## painterswife

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-pinned-Bible-verses-lockers-LGBT-pupils.html
"A Pennsylvania high school is attracting national media attention for all the wrong reasons after a group of students organized a so-called Anti-Gay Day protest, with future events scheduled.
The organizers of the homophobic protest at McGuffey High School in Washington County encouraged anyone who shared their bigoted stance to show support by wearing a flannel shirt to school and writing 'Anti-Gay' on their hands."


----------



## painterswife

Can one of the mods fix my heading, please. Speech instead of speach


----------



## Marshloft

You didn't share your own thoughts on the matter.
Its not as if gays havn't flaunted their agenda. Free speech should work both ways anymore with-out any opinion.
I used to be very much ant-gay. Over the years I've softened my stance to the point I just plain don't care one way or the other.
Live your life however you see fit and leave me the H alone.


----------



## painterswife

Marshloft said:


> You didn't share your own thoughts on the matter.
> Its not as if gays havn't flaunted their agenda. Free speech should work both ways anymore with-out any opinion.
> I used to be very much ant-gay. Over the years I've softened my stance to the point I just plain don't care one way or the other.
> Live your life however you see fit and leave me the H alone.


I did. "Free speech, awful behaviour "


----------



## kasilofhome

So, the prior day the event was pro homosexual as victims of bullying recognized with a day of silence.

The there was a group that was pro heterosexual as a response were the students wore plaid flannel shirts and wrote on their hands.

Seems they too wanted their personal sexual preference acknowledged as valid.

So they independently concocted the event ......I see it as they just wanted equal time after they respected the other side to their choice of demonstration the prior day.

Maybe a person private sexuality what ever it might be should not be so defining that it is almost the most important quality about them.

Unless one is planning on working in the sex trade I see no reason for it to be the most important quality that one aligns the self with.


----------



## painterswife

Huge difference between a day of silence to mark anti-bulling day and a day of anti-gay complete with bullying of gay students.


----------



## kasilofhome

Could schools have prevented the whole issue by not having the pro gay day. Really is it important for future employment?


----------



## Nevada

Wlover said:


> Huge difference between a day of silence to mark anti-bulling day and a day of anti-gay complete with bullying of gay students.


That's the point here. It's singling out a minority group for persecution. What's next; anti-black or anti-Hispanic day? The school should bar it from happening at school functions.


----------



## kasilofhome

20 years ago did we have pro hextrosexual day.....no school was for education not indoctrination.


----------



## kasilofhome

W h y the need for pro any thing day at school.....Unless it is to push an agenda.

Homosexuals are no more special than any other group so why single them out.


----------



## painterswife

There WAS NO PRO GAY day. There was a day to take a stand against LBGT bullying. Exactly what those students did the next day.


----------



## kasilofhome

Wait was it a no bully day or a no lbgt bully day...


----------



## Fennick

Am I the only person in the world who is getting sick and tired of hearing about everybody else's sexual likes and dislikes?


----------



## kasilofhome

Fennick said:


> Am I the only person in the world who is getting sick and tired of hearing about everybody else's sexual likes and dislikes?


No, you are not. It is a private matter in all cases.

It was stupid to single any group simply deal with bullying period.
We are all equal. No one is special.


----------



## arabian knight

True it was not and never was anti gay bully day just that some seem to read into things that are not there. Maybe to PUSH their OWN agenda?


----------



## HDRider

Fennick said:


> Am I the only person in the world who is getting sick and tired of hearing about everybody else's sexual likes and dislikes?


Nope...


----------



## plowjockey

Whats the problem?

It's just preparing the children for adulthood. 

Teach them to hate, when they are young and they will hate their entire lives.


----------



## where I want to

My awareness has been seriously overworked the last few years. Every illness under the sun awareness day, every holiday a soap box to say why this is wrong, every sad animal story nationwide trotted out every news cycle, twenty thousand 'experts' telling me what to do, every social ill served up with a demand for someone else to fix it, every wrong or historical grievance never given a rest, etc etc etc. Never a thank you for anything, never any respect for what has improved or people who have helped. Just an unrelenting demand for extra room with especially sharp elbows, every cause pitched at the highest emotional state as if everything is the end of the world.
Yes, violence against gay students is wrong, not that I think high school students are very clear sighted on anything, so is being constantly harangued by every social do-gooder for every cause. Life trolls are what they are. What we need is a National Shut Up Everyone Day.


----------



## kasilofhome

plowjockey said:


> Whats the problem?
> 
> It's just preparing the children for adulthood.
> 
> Teach them to hate, when they are young and they will hate their entire lives.


Why focus on division and grouping person into fractions if equality is what the claim of the goal is......Unless that is not the real goal.


----------



## plowjockey

kasilofhome said:


> Why focus on division and grouping person into fractions if equality is what the claim of the goal is......Unless that is not the real goal.


Because it was division and grouping.

What was equal about their actions?


----------



## poppy

plowjockey said:


> Because it was division and grouping.
> 
> What was equal about their actions?


Who exactly does the dividing and grouping? It is gays. They put themselves out there as a special group of victims. I've got news for you. Ninety nine percent of the people don't give a hoot about your or anyone elses sexual orientation. It's no different than the 99% of people don't care one whit about your color. People don't have time for such nonsense because they have their own lives to live and are busy working, scamming the government, or whatever else they do to make ends meet. People don't assume others are gay if they see 2 men or 2 women eating together in a restaurant. Why make a big deal about your sexual orientation when no one cares? It's solely to gain attention to themselves.


----------



## HDRider

poppy said:


> who exactly does the dividing and grouping? It is gays. They put themselves out there as a special group of victims. I've got news for you. Ninety nine percent of the people don't give a hoot about your or anyone elses sexual orientation. It's no different than the 99% of people don't care one whit about your color. People don't have time for such nonsense because they have their own lives to live and are busy working, scamming the government, or whatever else they do to make ends meet. People don't assume others are gay if they see 2 men or 2 women eating together in a restaurant. Why make a big deal about your sexual orientation when no one cares? It's solely to gain attention to themselves.


x2....


----------



## painterswife

I guess it was to be expected. A group of high school students hold a bigoted, bullying rally and most of the responses here attack the fact that lbgt people are out there for all to see.


----------



## HDRider

Wlover said:


> I guess it was to be expected. A group of high school students hold a bigoted, bullying rally and most of the responses here attack the fact that lbgt people are out there for all to see.


Tired of in-your-face tactics. It is called blow-back..


----------



## mmoetc

poppy said:


> Who exactly does the dividing and grouping? It is gays. They put themselves out there as a special group of victims. I've got news for you. Ninety nine percent of the people don't give a hoot about your or anyone elses sexual orientation. It's no different than the 99% of people don't care one whit about your color. People don't have time for such nonsense because they have their own lives to live and are busy working, scamming the government, or whatever else they do to make ends meet. People don't assume others are gay if they see 2 men or 2 women eating together in a restaurant. Why make a big deal about your sexual orientation when no one cares? It's solely to gain attention to themselves.


But what's the reaction if those two men hold hands? Or those two women kiss? Should it be any different than when that man and woman at the next table or that woman and man in the booth over there do the same? Why is one couple flaunting their behavior and forcing it on you and the other is ignored, or even lauded for showing their love and affection for each other?


----------



## painterswife

HDRider said:


> Tired of in-your-face tactics. It is called blow-back..


But obviously not tired of the bullying bigoted behaviour of the anti gay group. I guess that is allowed but standing up against it just calls for more bullying.


----------



## Belfrybat

I read the article. The day before some students took part in a nationwide event called day of silence where they wore black and stayed silent most of the day in order to call attention of gay and lesbian bullying in schools. 

The next day a group wore flannel, drew anti-gay slogans on their hands, pinned Bible verses to the lockers of gays and lesbians, bullied them verbally and physically, including making up a lynch list of those who participated in the first event and promised more in the future. 

The first group was not an anti-heterosexual rally that threatened violence. The second was definitely an anti homosexual rally that did threaten violence. And it appears the most of you are supporting the second group? I don't see how anyone could compare the two groups as equal, regardless of the reason they are protesting. 

How about a mental exercise? Change the context. Take sexual orientation out of it. Let's say the first group wore red, stayed silent, and attempted to bring attention of bullying of special needs students like Down syndrome or anyone is special ed. The second group wore black, wrote "anti-retards" on their hands, pushed and shoved special needs students, posted anti- retard sentences on the lockers of those who protested the day before, made up a lynch list, with a promise of more to come. Would you still be supporting the second group?


----------



## sniper69

I say, people just need to get some thicker skin.....


----------



## wr

poppy said:


> Who exactly does the dividing and grouping? It is gays. They put themselves out there as a special group of victims. I've got news for you. Ninety nine percent of the people don't give a hoot about your or anyone elses sexual orientation. It's no different than the 99% of people don't care one whit about your color. People don't have time for such nonsense because they have their own lives to live and are busy working, scamming the government, or whatever else they do to make ends meet. People don't assume others are gay if they see 2 men or 2 women eating together in a restaurant. Why make a big deal about your sexual orientation when no one cares? It's solely to gain attention to themselves.



If that is the case, the same 99% would rather not see someone bullied and would have no problem with gay marriage. 

In either case, the one group held a peaceful protest against bullying and the other, not so much.


----------



## painterswife

sniper69 said:


> I say, people just need to get some thicker skin.....


Yes, that is what we should teach our children. Get a thicker skin. Don't fight against what is wrong, give in and let the bad happen.


----------



## mmoetc

I'm sure all you free speech advocates stand with this young lady.

https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/school-censors-girls-shirt-for-yearbook-photo-116918108702.html


----------



## sniper69

Wlover said:


> Yes, that is what we should teach our children. Get a thicker skin. Don't fight against what is wrong, give in and let the bad happen.


Typical.... All I said was people need to get some thicker skin..... So before you try to put words in my mouth - show me where I said to not fight against what is wrong or to give in and let the bad happen? I never said those things, that is your assumption about what you thought I meant. Wouldn't it have been better to just ask for clarification?


----------



## painterswife

sniper69 said:


> Typical.... All I said was people need to get some thicker skin..... So before you try to put words in my mouth - show me where I said to not fight against what is wrong or to give in and let the bad happen? I never said those things, that is your assumption about what you thought I meant. Wouldn't it have been better to just ask for clarification?


Yes, I assumed. If you want to explain what you really meant then feel free. At this point I don't have anything else to go on but your original statement.


----------



## sniper69

Wlover said:


> Yes, I assumed. If you want to explain what you really meant then feel free. At this point I don't have anything else to go on but your original statement.


Basically, people get worked up about many things. When I was growing up, was there bullying? Yes. Did people make comments to others based on differences? Yes. We rolled with it (and no that doesn't mean we didn't fight or gave up). Did I get picked on as a child? Yes, when I went to a new school. Whoopty do. It might have bothered me, but I also soon realized after getting into fights (the types with fists, and bloody noses, and teeth knocked out for all involved) that the ones doing the picking on, were just doing it to make up for their own shortcomings. In today's society, kids in school who fight get in lots or trouble. The school's have anti-bullying campaigns all the time. Kids aren't being taught to stand up to the bully, but to give in and tattle. Heck, a day of silence or boys in flannels saying they're anti-gay should be a non-issue, but now it is a big news story? Why? To further put a division in our country? Or is there more of an underlying reason or agenda?


----------



## painterswife

A day of silence should have been no big deal. The response of the antigay flannel wearing contingent the next day as a retaliation was. Standing up against LGBT bullying is the right thing to do. Even better it was done in a non confrontational way.

Flannel wearing bullies retaliating against nothing is out and out wrong and should never be acceptable or ignored at any time.


----------



## TraderBob

Deal with it, nowhere do I see a right to not be offended. The 1st amendment is to protect unpopular speech, no matter what it is.

I'm offended by a lot of stuff I see IRL, or even hear on this board...it's life people, suck it up, make your comments pro or con, but don't try to quash someone elses voice.

Some support a day of silence, http://www.dayofsilence.org/ and support homosexual lifestyles.

Some support a day of shame http://dayofshame.net and support heterosexual lifestyle.


----------



## Belfrybat

sniper69 said:


> ... Heck, a day of silence or boys in flannels saying they're anti-gay should be a non-issue, but now it is a big news story? Why? To further put a division in our country? Or is there more of an underlying reason or agenda?


It was a lot more than "boys in flannels" -- they physically and verbally attacked the ones who had protested in silence the day before. Had they just wore flannel and stayed silent, I doubt there would have been any outcry. It was the bullying that caused the outrage, including them making up a lynch list for those who had participated in the silent protest the day before. Are you really OK with that?


----------



## arabian knight

sniper69 said:


> Basically, people get worked up about many things. When I was growing up, was there bullying? Yes. Did people make comments to others based on differences? Yes. We rolled with it (and no that doesn't mean we didn't fight or gave up). Did I get picked on as a child? Yes, when I went to a new school. Whoopty do. It might have bothered me, but I also soon realized after getting into fights (the types with fists, and bloody noses, and teeth knocked out for all involved) that the ones doing the picking on, were just doing it to make up for their own shortcomings. In today's society, kids in school who fight get in lots or trouble. The school's have anti-bullying campaigns all the time. Kids aren't being taught to stand up to the bully, but to give in and tattle. Heck, a day of silence or boys in flannels saying they're anti-gay should be a non-issue, but now it is a big news story? Why? To further put a division in our country? Or is there more of an underlying reason or agenda?


 Yes it SHOULD be a non-issue but these pro gay folks just want to PUSH there agenda so hard as to control the USA into something it was never meant to be.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> That's the point here. It's singling out a minority group for persecution. What's next; anti-black or anti-Hispanic day? The school should bar it from happening at school functions.


Care to point out where they call for persecution? Like it or not individuals have the right to like or dislike whomever they wish, individuals or groups. They also have the right to express their like or dislike, unless and until they do something which violates the rights of other.

You have just as much right to wear a shirt expressing your hatred of a group or individual as you do to wear one expressing your love for your favorite NFL team. 

Its easy to support free speech when you agree with what is being said. But that freedom depends on people being willing to do the hard thing and supporting speech which offends them.


----------



## watcher

plowjockey said:


> Whats the problem?
> 
> It's just preparing the children for adulthood.
> 
> Teach them to hate, when they are young and they will hate their entire lives.


And what do you wind up with when you teach them that they will be punished if they express an opinion which is not politically correct? Maybe someone who will blindly follow government orders? Is that what you want our nation to be?

You should read some things about living behind the Iron Curtain. It might change your thinking of demanding people only think and act like the government wants.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> Care to point out where they call for persecution? Like it or not individuals have the right to like or dislike whomever they wish, individuals or groups. They also have the right to express their like or dislike, unless and until they do something which violates the rights of other.
> 
> You have just as much right to wear a shirt expressing your hatred of a group or individual as you do to wear one expressing your love for your favorite NFL team.
> 
> Its easy to support free speech when you agree with what is being said. But that freedom depends on people being willing to do the hard thing and supporting speech which offends them.


If you're making and distributing a "lynch list" you're doing a bit more than just offending. Had the young folks just worn flannel shirts and written slogans on their hands they would have my support for their actions and my derision for their message. Any physical threats or action cross the line.


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> And what do you wind up with when you teach them that they will be punished if they express an opinion which is not politically correct? Maybe someone who will blindly follow government orders? Is that what you want our nation to be?
> 
> You should read some things about living behind the Iron Curtain. It might change your thinking of demanding people only think and act like the government wants.


Yes, you are right. Those who supported the Day of Silence are being punished by the flannel wearing bullies by being bullied again.

Their expression of free speech against bullying was punished with actual physical and mental bullying.


----------



## watcher

plowjockey said:


> Because it was division and grouping.
> 
> What was equal about their actions?


There are at least two sides to every coin. If you allow one group to have a protest and forbid the other side to do the same are you not being "unfair" to one side? If your local government gave one political permission to use the town park for a political rally but refused to give a second party the same permission would that not seem wrong to you?


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> There are at least two sides to every coin. If you allow one group to have a protest and forbid the other side to do the same are you not being "unfair" to one side? If your local government gave one political permission to use the town park for a political rally but refused to give a second party the same permission would that not seem wrong to you?


The reciprocal protest would have been fine. Physical and metal bullying is not and crossed the line.

That is why the Title of this thread. "Free speech but awful behaviour"


----------



## watcher

Wlover said:


> I guess it was to be expected. A group of high school students hold a bigoted, bullying rally and most of the responses here attack the fact that lbgt people are out there for all to see.


Would you have liked it if the government used batons, dogs and fire hoses to break up this politically incorrect protest because you don't agree with what's being said?


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> Would you have liked it if the government used batons, dogs and fire hoses to break up this politically incorrect protest because you don't agree with what's being said?


So you agree, the bullying flannel wearing bigots who took it to mental and physical bullying crossed the line from free speech to something that should not be allowed.


----------



## watcher

Wlover said:


> But obviously not tired of the bullying bigoted behaviour of the anti gay group. I guess that is allowed but standing up against it just calls for more bullying.


I have something shocking for you. Unless they are directly threatening you or publicly slandering you they have the right to say anything they wish. 

They also have the full right to hate you and express that hatred for you any reason they wish. It doesn't matter if they hate you because you are a Apple user or have an Android phone. Or you are a Red Sox fan. Or if you are left handed. Or if you are black. Or if you are Jewish. They have that right, right up to the point they do something which violates your rights.

As has been said before its easy to support the rights of people doing or saying what you like or what is politically correct at the moment. It takes someone who truly loves freedom to stand up and support the rights of someone doing something they find repugnant.

I've fought racism probably longer than most of the people on this board have been out of diapers but I'll stand up and fight just as hard if someone suggests we forbid someone from expressing their belief that blacks are not equal to whites and should be treated so in the private arena.


----------



## watcher

Wlover said:


> Yes, that is what we should teach our children. Get a thicker skin. Don't fight against what is wrong, give in and let the bad happen.


You don't fight a wrong with another wrong. Just as you don't fight racism by enacting racist laws and calling them affirmative action. You fight wrongs with rights. You demand the government treat all citizens equal. 

As I have said I have the right to call you any name I want when expressing my opinion of you. Until I either threaten you or slander you I have not violated your rights in any way. You have no right to demand I not make you feel bad by what I say.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> I'm sure all you free speech advocates stand with this young lady.
> 
> https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/school-censors-girls-shirt-for-yearbook-photo-116918108702.html


Yes and I support the action the school took.

She has the full right to wear the shirt but the school as a part of the government should not publish and sell something which has support for a specific belief system.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> I have something shocking for you. Unless they are directly threatening you or publicly slandering you they have the right to say anything they wish.
> 
> They also have the full right to hate you and express that hatred for you any reason they wish. It doesn't matter if they hate you because you are a Apple user or have an Android phone. Or you are a Red Sox fan. Or if you are left handed. Or if you are black. Or if you are Jewish. They have that right, right up to the point they do something which violates your rights.
> 
> As has been said before its easy to support the rights of people doing or saying what you like or what is politically correct at the moment. It takes someone who truly loves freedom to stand up and support the rights of someone doing something they find repugnant.
> 
> I've fought racism probably longer than most of the people on this board have been out of diapers but I'll stand up and fight just as hard if someone suggests we forbid someone from expressing their belief that blacks are not equal to whites and should be treated so in the private arena.


So as long as I don't publicly slander or threaten wlover I can say whatever I want about whoever I want? That opens so many doors.


----------



## watcher

Wlover said:


> A day of silence should have been no big deal. The response of the antigay flannel wearing contingent the next day as a retaliation was. Standing up against LGBT bullying is the right thing to do. Even better it was done in a non confrontational way.
> 
> Flannel wearing bullies retaliating against nothing is out and out wrong and should never be acceptable or ignored at any time.


So you are saying that the government ran school should allow a group to wear one thing to show support for one belief but forbid another group from wearing another thing to show support for another belief?


----------



## watcher

Belfrybat said:


> It was a lot more than "boys in flannels" -- they physically and verbally attacked the ones who had protested in silence the day before. Had they just wore flannel and stayed silent, I doubt there would have been any outcry. It was the bullying that caused the outrage, including them making up a lynch list for those who had participated in the silent protest the day before. Are you really OK with that?


Ok so you punish the the individuals who did that. You don't punish a group. Just because some people in Ferguson caused problems do you think the government should have banned all protest?


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> Yes and I support the action the school took.
> 
> She has the full right to wear the shirt but the school as a part of the government should not publish and sell something which has support for a specific belief system.


I hope none of those other kids were wearing shirts espousing a belief that the Red Sox rule, or American Eagle clothes are cool, or anything that's supports a specific belief system. Kids don't leave their rights at the school house door. Including the right to free speech.


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> So you are saying that the government ran school should allow a group to wear one thing to show support for one belief but forbid another group from wearing another thing to show support for another belief?


No. I believe they had a right to free speech and to where what they want if it is within the school rules. They however crossed the line when they harassed and bullied while wearing that flannel.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> If you're making and distributing a "lynch list" you're doing a bit more than just offending. Had the young folks just worn flannel shirts and written slogans on their hands they would have my support for their actions and my derision for their message. Any physical threats or action cross the line.


True but as I just posted do you punish the group for actions of the individuals? Would you suggest that the government should had put a stop to all protest in Ferguson after a few individuals caused problems?


----------



## watcher

Wlover said:


> Yes, you are right. Those who supported the Day of Silence are being punished by the flannel wearing bullies by being bullied again.
> 
> Their expression of free speech against bullying was punished with actual physical


As I have said a right ends when it violates another's right. You can say all you want but once you lay hands on someone you are no longer protected.




Wlover said:


> and mental bullying.


What the heck is "mental bullying"?


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> So as long as I don't publicly slander or threaten wlover I can say whatever I want about whoever I want? That opens so many doors.


Ever heard of a Hobson's choice? You have the freedom to choose anything you want, as long as its the one thing being offered. That's what way too many people are offering today.

Freedom is having a lot of open doors. What freedom do you have if there is only one door? What freedom do you have if there are a lot of doors but all but one is locked?


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> Care to point out where they call for persecution?


If not for persecution, what do you think the point of saying they dislike that group of people was?


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> I hope none of those other kids were wearing shirts espousing a belief that the Red Sox rule, or American Eagle clothes are cool, or anything that's supports a specific belief system. Kids don't leave their rights at the school house door. Including the right to free speech.


Actually they do. They leave a lot of their rights at the door because they are entering a government building.

The yearbook is, in effect, a school publication. In such it is required and should be required to make sure that it is neutral in the political and religious (and other) areas. By allowing a political or religious statement to be printed it is not being neutral unless those are being printed and specifically represented as the opinion of an individual student. Having someone wearing a "Vote for XXX" is a posed group picture should not be allowed. Having a picture of a bunch of students holding a rally where one is wearing a "Vote for XXX" should be. Having a student wearing a "Jesus saves" shirt in a posed group picture should not be allowed. Having a picture of student wearing a "Jesus saves" shirt on his 'senior page' should.

See the difference?


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> If not for persecution, what do you think the point of saying they dislike that group of people was?


So if I say I hate the Gator fans while wearing this I'm persecuting them?










That's a stretch.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> Actually they do. They leave a lot of their rights at the door because they are entering a government building.
> 
> The yearbook is, in effect, a school publication. In such it is required and should be required to make sure that it is neutral in the political and religious (and other) areas. By allowing a political or religious statement to be printed it is not being neutral unless those are being printed and specifically represented as the opinion of an individual student. Having someone wearing a "Vote for XXX" is a posed group picture should not be allowed. Having a picture of a bunch of students holding a rally where one is wearing a "Vote for XXX" should be. Having a student wearing a "Jesus saves" shirt in a posed group picture should not be allowed. Having a picture of student wearing a "Jesus saves" shirt on his 'senior page' should.
> 
> See the difference?


Unless the school is providing the shirts advocating a stance there is no difference. No matter where it is posted in the school publication there is no endorsement of the message unless the school makes one. Here's some reading on the subject. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/studentspeech.htm


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> So if I say I hate the Gator fans while wearing this I'm persecuting them?


What is the objective of saying you hate Gator fans?


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> True but as I just posted do you punish the group for actions of the individuals? Would you suggest that the government should had put a stop to all protest in Ferguson after a few individuals caused problems?


It doesn't appear that the school took much action until
after the fact. Peaceful protesters should be given the benefit of the doubt. As I remember tear gas and other crowd dispersion methods were used against protesters, both violent and peaceful, in Ferguson. And no, I didn't approve. Punishing those who crossed the line is appropriate.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> So if I say I hate the Gator fans while wearing this I'm persecuting them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a stretch.


No, but if you threaten to shoot gator fans or punch and push gator fans you have. See the difference?


----------



## Nevada

mmoetc said:


> No, but if you threaten to shoot gator fans or punch and push gator fans you have. See the difference?


It's still persecution, even without a threat.

You see, the problem here is that this is just another way to make some students different by setting them apart from the rest and holding them up for ridicule. Kids feel awkward enough in high school that they don't need this. It has no place in school.

Christian prayer in school falls in the same category. It invites students who are not Christian to opt out, which sets them apart from the rest. It's just another way to make some kids different, opening them up to persecution.


----------



## kasilofhome

Omg....high schoolers feel awkward.

Well, maybe if instead of indoctrination that certain people are more equal than otheres, and focus that each person is a personal melting pot of genetics, economics, intelligence, political views, environmental back grounds, faith, and interested and seek out the overlapping verses..one factor.


----------



## Shine

I'm wondering how well a Miss White America Pageant would go over...

[and no - I'm not all about "White" people, just pointing out the unnecessary aspect of having the Pageant for this race or that race or this sexual preference or that...]


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> Unless the school is providing the shirts advocating a stance there is no difference. No matter where it is posted in the school publication there is no endorsement of the message unless the school makes one.


So, if a school only 'suggests' that for a picture which is planned on being distributed by the school before an election students wear 'Vote for XXX' shirts it would be ok? After they are not providing the shirts or requiring their wear therefore it is not really supporting that political stance.

There is an implied support of it. When someone in a position of power allows something to happen people assume the thing is being supported by that person. If your boss allows people to use company equipment for personal use you would assume that he supports that. Even if there is a written company policy forbidding it. 





mmoetc said:


> Here's some reading on the subject. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/studentspeech.htm



The second line on the site says:

_[SIZE=-1]"But it is also the case that school administrators have a far greater ability to restrict the speech of their students than the government has to restrict the speech of the general public[/SIZE]_."

Which tells us that students do have to leave rights at the door.


----------



## Nevada

kasilofhome said:


> Well, maybe if instead of indoctrination that certain people are more equal than otheres, and focus that each person is a personal melting pot of genetics, economics, intelligence, political views, environmental back grounds, faith, and interested and seek out the overlapping verses..one factor.


Or sexual orientation...


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> What is the objective of saying you hate Gator fans?


What's the objective for wearing a I "heart" dachshunds tee shirt? Its to express my opinion and maybe even persuade others to join me in believing it.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> No, but if you threaten to shoot gator fans or punch and push gator fans you have. See the difference?


Yep and as the old saying goes your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> Which tells us that students do have to leave rights at the door.


Hasn't it always been that way? :smack


----------



## kasilofhome

Nevada said:


> Or sexual orientation...


Or eye color or employment goals or.......

If all you value and see in one aspect....you are blind.

Sexuality seems like it is the be all too end all .. foolish to be so limiting.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> It's still persecution, even without a threat.
> 
> You see, the problem here is that this is just another way to make some students different by setting them apart from the rest and holding them up for ridicule. Kids feel awkward enough in high school that they don't need this. It has no place in school.
> 
> Christian prayer in school falls in the same category. It invites students who are not Christian to opt out, which sets them apart from the rest. It's just another way to make some kids different, opening them up to persecution.


Hum. . .Let's take this farther. We should get rid of school sports teams, we don't want to set the unathletic apart and set them up for ridicule. The same should go for the band and choir, can't have the tonally challenged set apart and set up for ridicule. Well I guess we should get rid of almost all school group because they all are setting one group apart and could set up another group of ridicule. And we really should get rid of that nasty grading system because the one making A's could be set apart and set up for ridicule as well as those making F's. 

We should also put in a program to assign the kids seats at lunch to make sure that the girls, boys, jocks, nerds, blacks, whites, tall, short, etc don't bunch up. Put a white female jock next to a black male nerd next to a tall female Asian next to a short Hispanic male. That would allow for all kinds of diversity. IOW, the school should let all the students see that it is looking them as a member of a group not an individual in order to make sure the students learn the lesson that no one should be judged based on being a member of a group. There's some logic for you.


----------



## Nevada

kasilofhome said:


> Sexuality seems like it is the be all too end all .. foolish to be so limiting.


Then why point it out?


----------



## watcher

Shine said:


> I'm wondering how well a Miss White America Pageant would go over...
> 
> [and no - I'm not all about "White" people, just pointing out the unnecessary aspect of having the Pageant for this race or that race or this sexual preference or that...]


Good gravy you should have heard the uproar when the local NAACP gave a white guy its scholarship a couple years ago. Even though this kid had done all kinds of things in the fight against racism in the school and in the community the fact he was the wrong color set off a firestorm.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> Hasn't it always been that way? :smack


Yep but some don't seem to know it.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> Then why point it out?


Ah. . .weren't you the one who added it?


----------



## kasilofhome

Nevada said:


> Then why point it out?


Because you keep focusing one ONE facet of a human...doesn't matter which one thing is put above others aspects. 

That's what makes you divisive.


----------



## kasilofhome

Oh and before you catch it I left out reading level, choice of transportation, smoker ,etc...


----------



## where I want to

Belfrybat said:


> It was a lot more than "boys in flannels" -- they physically and verbally attacked the ones who had protested in silence the day before. Had they just wore flannel and stayed silent, I doubt there would have been any outcry. It was the bullying that caused the outrage, including them making up a lynch list for those who had participated in the silent protest the day before. Are you really OK with that?


I suspect that there would be have actually been more noise if the flannel faction would have stayed quiet themselves, although making it very clear what their own message was. Look at the noise over florists and bakers. 
No, the physical bullying, which was actually a lifeline to those insistent on making everyone listen to them, actually shoved the altercation from obnoxious in your face confrontation into "ok, now something has to be done". 
Truth is there are people who feel that gay behavior is an abomination according to ancient religious tenets but I suspect also by sheer biological replusion. Something high school students are as incapable of dealing with. As do the gay advocates have themselves. The "day of silence" was actually a way of forcing everyone to hear a message that the school officials would have been forced to stop had it not been deliberately done in a way to make it difficult to stop. Didn't make it less a public demonstration. And didn't make it any more appropriate or non confrontational. 
I couldn't see the video so am not sure what "bullying" took place. But, could it have happened like this? Black wearing advocate sees rude remark on hand of flannel wearer, accuses him of being able a low life bigot. Insults are more heatedly exchanged until, surprise surprise, a shove occurs. Now, if it happened that if the black wearer shoves the flannel, the flannel believes in the high school version of manliness and would not complain. Where the black wearer is shoved, they already believes they are already the victim and complains like heck. Neither has the maturity to know what is proportional.
At high school age, both sets of demonstrators have lots of homones and little understanding that they may have it wrong. So the original black wearers were wrong to use that venue, although they will have lots of sympathizers encouraging them, the flannel wearers took it even further so are even more wrong. Which does not mean the black wearers are free from guilt.

The bottom line is that students are being used for an agenda by everyone. And that is totally wrong. The adults should have made sure that this was not encouraged and put the whole issue on the footing appropriate to high school- that students are not mature enough to handle any great issues well but that they must treat each other within certain limits NO MATTER WHAT.
Sort of like this forum where the issue is dragged up like a person with a splinter keeps working at it. The only purpose is to increase the irritation until something changes. If that is all that a poster can do, pick on that one issue, then they should not be surprised that all they accomplish is irritation every time they show up.


----------



## my3boys

Calling someone who disagrees with --------s a bigot is a form of bullying, is it not?

I mean, the intent is to name call, insult and intimidate. That's bullying in my book.


----------



## my3boys

Why was my post edited?


----------



## where I want to

my3boys said:


> Why was my post edited?


Certain words are automatically edited.


----------



## painterswife

my3boys said:


> Calling someone who disagrees with --------s a bigot is a form of bullying, is it not?
> 
> I mean, the intent is to name call, insult and intimidate. That's bullying in my book.


Then calling someone a Christian or an Atheist would also be bullying.


----------



## where I want to

Wlover said:


> Then calling someone a Christian or an Atheist would also be bullying.


Well, they are terms that apparently are favored in bullying, at least here.


----------



## my3boys

Wlover said:


> Then calling someone a Christian or an Atheist would also be bullying.


No. Two different situations. The terms Christian or atheist are definitions. The term bigot is an opinion. All followers of Christ are Christians just as all non believers in God are atheists. To label someone a bigot because they disagree with (insert Biblical term for gays) is a point of view based on personal opinion and prejudice.


----------



## Nevada

Wlover said:


> Then calling someone a Christian or an Atheist would also be bullying.


It has no place in school.


----------



## Nevada

my3boys said:


> All followers of Christ are Christians just as all non believers in God are atheists.


But it doesn't need to be pointed out in school.


----------



## painterswife

my3boys said:


> No. Two different situations. The terms Christian or atheist are definitions. The term bigot is an opinion. All followers of Christ are Christians just as all non believers in God are atheists. To label someone a bigot because they disagree with (insert Biblical term for gays) is a point of view based on personal opinion and prejudice.


Yes, it was an opinion of those students who bullied. I would have to be talking to them to be bullying them. So here it is just an opinion.


----------



## my3boys

where I want to said:


> Certain words are automatically edited.


The Biblical term for homosexuals is not allowed? 

It's merely a definition for what they practice, again widely used in the Scriptures. 

Now calling someone a bigot because they disagree with said practices is a personal insult, demeaning and violate forum rules far more then the term I posted.


----------



## watcher

Wlover said:


> Then calling someone a Christian or an Atheist would also be bullying.


In today's culture saying anything that makes another person feel 'bad' is bullying. If I tell you the shirt you are wearing really doesn't flatter your skin tone nor eyes and you feel bad I have just became a 'fashion bully'.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> It has no place in school.


What's next. We demand students say nothing to another in order to make sure no one is offended or bullyed.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> What's next. We demand students say nothing to another in order to make sure no one is offended or bullyed.


I don't care who's offended, but bullying is a serious issue.


----------



## my3boys

watcher said:


> What's next. We demand students say nothing to another in order to make sure no one is offended or bullyed.


Apparently. In fact we are already there.

Unless you're a gay kid calling a conservative kid a "bigot", of course. That's allowed. I mean, it's a given, right?


----------



## kasilofhome

Define bullying
Is it simply having a different view and expressing it.
I really have to laugh at the mental bullying.....wonder how certain cake makers feel.

A person holding no victim cards is impossible to bully. Because they know they are an individual and not special but equal.


----------



## painterswife

my3boys said:


> Apparently. In fact we are already there.
> 
> Unless you're a gay kid calling a conservative kid a "bigot", of course. That's allowed. I mean, it's a given, right?


I am the one who used the word bigot and I am not a kid.


----------



## Nevada

my3boys said:


> Unless you're a gay kid calling a conservative kid a "bigot", of course. That's allowed. I mean, it's a given, right?


Only if the conservative says something that exposes himself as a bigot.


----------



## mmoetc

Nevada said:


> It's still persecution, even without a threat.
> 
> You see, the problem here is that this is just another way to make some students different by setting them apart from the rest and holding them up for ridicule. Kids feel awkward enough in high school that they don't need this. It has no place in school.
> 
> Christian prayer in school falls in the same category. It invites students who are not Christian to opt out, which sets them apart from the rest. It's just another way to make some kids different, opening them up to persecution.


Nope without a threat it is freely speaking. It is not the school's job to make everyone like each other. It is to model behavior and enforce such rules to make any disagreements happen in a civilized manner. Stating you don't like gators is civilized. Threatening to kill gators not. Striking gators without physical provocation, definitely not.


----------



## Nevada

mmoetc said:


> Nope without a threat it is freely speaking. It is not the school's job to make everyone like each other. It is to model behavior and enforce such rules to make any disagreements happen in a civilized manner. Stating you don't like gators is civilized. Threatening to kill gators not. Striking gators without physical provocation, definitely not.


What do you think persecution is?


----------



## MO_cows

Is there anybody reading this who DIDN'T experience some kind of bullying as a kid? Or is everybody but me from the "popular" group????

Me, I was one of those "different" kids. I was tall for my age. I was smart and got good grades without much effort. I wore thick glasses. I had a funny last name. I had a dad and grandma in the home, instead of mom and dad. Trust me, I know a thing or two about being bullied! But, as painful as it was at the time, I am so much stronger today because of it. 

We need to teach our kids about bullying, try to make civilized human beings out of them. But all the "demonstrations" in the world won't change human nature very much. Sounds like neither demonstration at this school offered much value.


----------



## my3boys

Wlover said:


> I am the one who used the word bigot and I am not a kid.


I was responding to Watcher's post which referred to students.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> I don't care who's offended, but bullying is a serious issue.


But what is bullying? In my day unless there was some form of threat involve no one considered it bullying. Today if you hurt someone's feelings you have just bullied them.

And when did bullying become a "serious issue"? When did people reach the point that they are so weak that what other people think of them is more important than what they think of themselves? 

Man I'd had a field day if I went to school in today's climate with my old way of being. I'd get anyone I didn't like in all kinds of trouble. Make me a little angry and I'd say you called me a "bad" name. Make a lot angry and I'd say you touched me inappropriately. Really tick me off and I'd put a pocket knife in your desk/locker/bag and report you having a weapon. I wouldn't have to bully you, is this day of super anti-bullying and zero tolerance I'd use the system to make you afraid, VERY afraid of me.


----------



## HDRider

Nevada said:


> Only if the conservative says something that exposes himself as a bigot.


I am going to rephrase your statement to be more fitting of my sentiment on the subject. "Only if the person says something not condoning homosexuality." That does not a bigot make.

Are you saying one is a bigot because they do not condone homosexuality? 

If so, then one who does not tolerate cannibalism, bestiality, or multiple wives, or animal cruelty or many other behaviors are also bigots. I think you misuse the term.

Let's define Bigot.

Full Definition of BIGOT

: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Full Definition of OBSTINATE

1: perversely adhering to an opinion, purpose, or course in spite of reason, arguments, or persuasion <obstinate resistance to change>
2: not easily subdued, remedied, or removed <obstinate fever>

Full Definition of PREJUDICE
1: injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims
2a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge
b : an instance of such judgment or opinion
c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> What do you think persecution is?


Its being openly hostile to a group or individual. I can't stand Dr Pepper but I'm not hostile to it. I can't stand racists but I'm not hostile to them. They have a right to believe that their race is better than others and to judge people based on their skin color just as I do to believe that there is only one race, human, and you should judge a man based on the content of his character not the color of his skin.

And because I love freedom I'll defend a person's right to believe and live his racist life style just as much as I will to defend what I believe in. To do otherwise makes me nothing but a bigoted hypocrite.


----------



## Nevada

MO_cows said:


> Is there anybody reading this who DIDN'T experience some kind of bullying as a kid? Or is everybody but me from the "popular" group????


That's not the point. The point is that the school shouldn't allow prejudices to be institutionalized. That's why they got rid of school prayer.


----------



## watcher

<rant mode ON>

Those of you, general you, who think people should have freedom but want to limit what others think, say and/or how they act need to look up the terms bigot and hypocrite because you fit the bill for both. You are bigoted because you think your way is the best way and expect others to fall in line. You are hypocrites because you say you want freedom to say, think and believe what you think is right but want to limit the freedom of others who say, think or believe something you don't agree with.

What makes you think you have the power to tell someone that they can't express their belief just because you don't think its the 'correct' one to have? 

The only group which should not allow beliefs to color its actions is the government. Private citizens have the right to think, act and believe however they wish as long as doing so does not restrict or prevent another citizen from doing the same.

Don't like Christians? Fine you shouldn't be force to be around them or even deal with them in your private life. Don't like left handed people? Fine, you shouldn't be forced to put up with them in your private life. 

<rant mode OFF>


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> <rant mode ON>
> 
> Those of you, general you, who think people should have freedom but want to limit what others think, say and/or how they act need to look up the terms bigot and hypocrite because you fit the bill for both. You are bigoted because you think your way is the best way and expect others to fall in line. You are hypocrites because you say you want freedom to say, think and believe what you think is right but want to limit the freedom of others who say, think or believe something you don't agree with.
> 
> What makes you think you have the power to tell someone that they can't express their belief just because you don't think its the 'correct' one to have?
> 
> The only group which should not allow beliefs to color its actions is the government. Private citizens have the right to think, act and believe however they wish as long as doing so does not restrict or prevent another citizen from doing the same.
> 
> Don't like Christians? Fine you shouldn't be force to be around them or even deal with them in your private life. Don't like left handed people? Fine, you shouldn't be forced to put up with them in your private life.
> 
> <rant mode OFF>


I didn't say people can't express themselves. I said the school shouldn't institutionalize prejudice.


----------



## MO_cows

Nevada said:


> That's not the point. The point is that the school shouldn't allow prejudices to be institutionalized. That's why they got rid of school prayer.


Well if the school didn't instruct the kids to wear black the one day, or wear flannel and write on their hands the other day, then it wasn't "institutionalized", it was a grass roots movement both times. There, that was easy.

Prayer is a whole 'nuther kettle of worms. Start a new thread on that if you want to discuss it.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> That's not the point. The point is that the school shouldn't allow prejudices to be institutionalized. That's why they got rid of school prayer.


That's a personal opinion not shared by many and supported by a very strange reading of the constitution. Care to tell me how a city school board's rule on prayer in school is equal a law made by the US Congress? The last time I checked the constitution didn't include the local school board in its definition of congress. It defines it this way: Congress of the United States shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. Now if congress passed a law requiring school prayer then that would be unconstitutional.

But hey lets not let pesky thinks like the actual wording of the constitution get in the way of a good political movement.


----------



## painterswife

I actually have no problem with the choice of clothing by either group or even the writing on their faces or hands. I don't like the "anti-gay: but I respect their free speech. 

I am however completely against the targeting of the gay students by the anti-gay group.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> I didn't say people can't express themselves. I said the school shouldn't institutionalize prejudice.


Right. If the school had a rule requiring a group to go last to lunch or giving it 'bonuses' then there'd be a problem. Letting groups of students freely express their beliefs based is not the same thing. It can become so when you forbid even one group the ability to do what you allow or have allowed others to do.

The ruling on wearing American patriotic clothing on the 5th of May in some schools is a good example. If you are allowing people to wear clothing showing support for one nation you should allow all people to wear clothing supporting all nations. If you think wearing such clothing could cause a discipline problem you don't tell one group they can't wear theirs you tell everyone they can not.


----------



## Nevada

MO_cows said:


> Prayer is a whole 'nuther kettle of worms. Start a new thread on that if you want to discuss it.


It's really not. It all falls under the basic topic of highlighting that some students are different and making them targets for ridicule.

When you have organized prayer in school the teacher announces that a prayer will be held shortly, a Christian prayer, and that if any students aren't Christian who don't want to take part can go stand in the hallway during the prayer. That's when a few students stand up and exit the classroom, while the rest of the class glares at them as they leave. What do you think happens to them after class?


----------



## kasilofhome

Clue.....some students ARE different...Because ALL students are unique.

Now, with the fact that they individuals each and everyone of them gets to choose to be offended.

Accept that you are different... laugh at yourself. Stand for what you believe proudly but remember where your rights end. Keep your eyes open to persons supporting your positions because there are people looking for tools and pawns and the might be using you as fodder to gain control.


----------



## my3boys

Nevada said:


> It's really not. It all falls under the basic topic of highlighting that some students are different and making them targets for ridicule.
> 
> When you have organized prayer in school the teacher announces that a prayer will be held shortly, a Christian prayer, and that if any students aren't Christian who don't want to take part can go stand in the hallway during the prayer. That's when a few students stand up and exit the classroom, while the rest of the class glares at them as they leave. What do you think happens to them after class?


When my boys were in school we opted them out of sex education classes. The small group that had opted out, mostly kids from conservative Christian families (we knew most of them) were sent to the library. They were teased and ridiculed plenty but nobody at the school seemed to care about that.

Only seems to work one way, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised.


----------



## Nevada

my3boys said:


> When my boys were in school we opted them out of sex education classes.


You thought the solution to teen pregnancy was ignorance?


----------



## no really

Nevada said:


> You thought the solution to teen pregnancy was ignorance?


Hmmm, so do you have a problem with those kids being "bullied" or not?


----------



## Nevada

no really said:


> Hmmm, so do you have a problem with those kids being "bullied" or not?


Of course I do. No kid should be bullied. But I think I asked a fair question.


----------



## no really

Nevada said:


> Of course I do. No kid should be bullied. But I think I asked a fair question.


Why? Does it apply to bullying?


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> So, if a school only 'suggests' that for a picture which is planned on being distributed by the school before an election students wear 'Vote for XXX' shirts it would be ok? After they are not providing the shirts or requiring their wear therefore it is not really supporting that political stance.
> 
> There is an implied support of it. When someone in a position of power allows something to happen people assume the thing is being supported by that person. If your boss allows people to use company equipment for personal use you would assume that he supports that. Even if there is a written company policy forbidding it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The second line on the site says:
> 
> _[SIZE=-1]"But it is also the case that school administrators have a far greater ability to restrict the speech of their students than the government has to restrict the speech of the general public[/SIZE]_."
> 
> Which tells us that students do have to leave rights at the door.


You probably shouldn't have skipped over the first line. Having rules and regulations in place for everyone to follow doesnt mean the rights disappear when entering the schoolhouse. They may be limited and there may be penalties for overstepping boundaries but the right still exists.

The implied support in your scenario still relies on the school administration directing the behavior. Remove that direction and just say students can wear a shirt supporting the candidate of their choice and you remove all implied support.


----------



## kasilofhome

no really said:


> Why? Does it apply to bullying?


Is it even a logical question.

Ignorance never caused pregnancy..
Nev.

A sperm meets up with a human egg.

Most commonly the happens when sex happens

Limitations pre this site due limit me from having the same talk with my 
Pre kindergarten child.

It was an act of bullying to denigrate my 3 boys for her individualism.

I am attempting to use satire....but if you need a refresher course in sex ed due to the working understanding that opting out of a governmental sex ed class leads to pregnancy.


----------



## kasilofhome

If I refuse to eat at McDonalds will I starve?
Or could I eat somewhere else
If the school is barred by you from teaching sex ed
Can parents teach it.


Most parents have experienced sex.....just something I noticed.


----------



## poppy

mmoetc said:


> But what's the reaction if those two men hold hands? Or those two women kiss? Should it be any different than when that man and woman at the next table or that woman and man in the booth over there do the same? Why is one couple flaunting their behavior and forcing it on you and the other is ignored, or even lauded for showing their love and affection for each other?


My reaction IS the same. I don't want to see ANYBODY kissing while I'm having dinner.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> That's a personal opinion not shared by many and supported by a very strange reading of the constitution. Care to tell me how a city school board's rule on prayer in school is equal a law made by the US Congress? The last time I checked the constitution didn't include the local school board in its definition of congress. It defines it this way: Congress of the United States shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. Now if congress passed a law requiring school prayer then that would be unconstitutional.
> 
> But hey lets not let pesky thinks like the actual wording of the constitution get in the way of a good political movement.


So only laws passed by the US congress are subject to passing constitutional muster? If my local township board passed a law outlawing gun ownership and allowing law enforcement to enter houses without warrants to search for and confiscate them that would be acceptable?


----------



## mmoetc

poppy said:


> My reaction IS the same. I don't want to see ANYBODY kissing while I'm having dinner.


You wouldn't like to eat with my wife and me, then. I've been known to give her a quick peck at the table now and then. We even hold hands in public. I'm not fond of seeing full blown make out sessions in public but tasteful genuine displays of love kind of make my heart feel good. Not grinch heart growing good, but it can swell a bit when I see two people who seem to love each other share a tender moment.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

my3boys said:


> When my boys were in school we opted them out of sex education classes. The small group that had opted out, mostly kids from conservative Christian families (we knew most of them) were sent to the library. They were teased and ridiculed plenty but nobody at the school seemed to care about that.
> 
> Only seems to work one way, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised.





Nevada said:


> You thought the solution to teen pregnancy was ignorance?


HOW RUDE.

NO, being the RESPONSIBLE PARENT, and teaching such a serious topic at home, based upon the parents right to do just that is the reason. 
Not exposing your kids to 'mainstream' ideals about sex, but fulfilling ones PARENTAL DUTY to train their own children.
How very rude of you Nevada.

The topic is about bullying.
YOU turned this into 'something else' by deflecting.
IF you are truly against ALL bullying, then it doesn't matter that CHRISTIAN parents have their kids sit elsewhere during sex ed.
BULLYING IS BULLYING.....right?


----------



## my3boys

Nevada said:


> You thought the solution to teen pregnancy was ignorance?


No, we handled it at home, as a family. Just because kids don't get sex ed at school doesn't mean they go uninformed.

We have to get over the idea that if the government doesn't provide something it doesn't happen.


----------



## my3boys

kasilofhome said:


> Is it even a logical question.
> 
> Ignorance never caused pregnancy..
> Nev.
> 
> A sperm meets up with a human egg.
> 
> Most commonly the happens when sex happens
> 
> Limitations pre this site due limit me from having the same talk with my
> Pre kindergarten child.
> 
> It was an act of bullying to denigrate my 3 boys for her individualism.
> 
> I am attempting to use satire....but if you need a refresher course in sex ed due to the working understanding that opting out of a governmental sex ed class leads to pregnancy.


Thank you, Kasilofhome.


----------



## my3boys

Laura Zone 5 said:


> HOW RUDE.
> 
> NO, being the RESPONSIBLE PARENT, and teaching such a serious topic at home, based upon the parents right to do just that is the reason.
> Not exposing your kids to 'mainstream' ideals about sex, but fulfilling ones PARENTAL DUTY to train their own children.
> How very rude of you Nevada.
> 
> The topic is about bullying.
> YOU turned this into 'something else' by deflecting.
> IF you are truly against ALL bullying, then it doesn't matter that CHRISTIAN parents have their kids sit elsewhere during sex ed.
> BULLYING IS BULLYING.....right?


Thank you Laura.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> Ever heard of a Hobson's choice? You have the freedom to choose anything you want, as long as its the one thing being offered. That's what way too many people are offering today.
> 
> Freedom is having a lot of open doors. What freedom do you have if there is only one door? What freedom do you have if there are a lot of doors but all but one is locked?


Yeah, I have. I'm not sure what it has to do with your statement that wlover is off limits but I can say whatever I want to or about anyone else with impunity, though.


----------



## MO_cows

Nevada said:


> You thought the solution to teen pregnancy was ignorance?


Thank you for providing an example of bullying with a passive aggressive twist.


----------



## where I want to

The trouble with making schools a proxy war ground for social issues is that the law mandates school attendance. Although some relief has been provided by charter schools, even they have to follow required curricula. 
So if some student decides to exercise his right to "freedom of speech", his poor, unfortunate classmates can't exercise their "freedom of assembly" by assembling elsewhere. They are forced to endure, especially when something like a "silent protest" slides under the schools rules. Doesn't mean that everyone doesn't know exactly what is going on- the rules protecting from "in school demonstrations" are just be circumvented. 
That makes a school a place where free speech has more restriction than in general- because a student who does not agree with the message can not escape it. 
And that is why none of these arguments are appropriate- it is simply that a school, where attendance is forced, is not a place for the demonstrations, by clothing, behavior or anything else any time. After school where attendance is voluntary is the place.
So the pro gay student protest was wrong, followed by the anti-gay student protest compounding the wrong, followed by the school officials stepping in like parents to divided the squabbling children when it became intolerable.
And if the adults of the world didn't confuse their opinions with justice, the students would be more likely to understand what tolerance really means- finding ways to live with differences of opinion. Not trying to out power each other.


----------



## Nevada

my3boys said:


> No, we handled it at home, as a family. Just because kids don't get sex ed at school doesn't mean they go uninformed.


They have sex ed at school because too many parents handle it by not handling it. I've had parents tell me that they are handling it by not discussing it, under the mistaken theory that if we don't tell them about it that they won't do it.

So by allowing parents to handle it, you also allow them to not handle it. I know that's how my parents did it, and in the 1950 sex ed in school only talked about pollination. It was so cryptic that a lot of kids didn't even know the teacher was talking about sex. We got our real sex ed during discussions behind the garage.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Nevada said:


> They have sex ed at school because too many parents handle it by not handling it. I've had parents tell me that they are handling it by not discussing it, under the mistaken theory that if we don't tell them about it that they won't do it.
> 
> So by allowing parents to handle it, you also allow them to not handle it. I know that's how my parents did it, and in the 1950 sex ed in school only talked about pollination. It was so cryptic that a lot of kids didn't even know the teacher was talking about sex. We got our real sex ed during discussions behind the garage.



Bullying Nevada.
That's the topic.
Bullying. 
So, let's not divert the conversation off track.

Do you, or do you not agree that ALL bullying, even when the kids bullied are kids who embrace something against YOUR ideas; ALL bullying should not be tolerated????


----------



## painterswife

Bullying was the topic but most made it about LBGT thinking they are special because they support causes.


----------



## where I want to

Nevada said:


> They have sex ed at school because too many parents handle it by not handling it. I've had parents tell me that they are handling it by not discussing it, under the mistaken theory that if we don't tell them about it that they won't do it.
> 
> So by allowing parents to handle it, you also allow them to not handle it. I know that's how my parents did it, and in the 1950 sex ed in school only talked about pollination. We got our real sex ed during discussions behind the garage.


And isn't it amazing that the more formal education people got, the more SDTs occured and out of wedlock, thus headed for life long poverty children were born? 
The truth is that allowing an opt out allows those parents that want a different understanding to teach it, while those who don't want to bother will be quite willing to let the school take care of it for them.
The most intolerant people in the world are those who insist that they know what is right and are going to make everyone do it whether they agree or not.


----------



## where I want to

Wlover said:


> Bullying was the topic but most made it about LBGT thinking they are special because they support causes.


No you made it about bullying because you think it made it clear who were the evil ones. Just what did you think was going to be the result of confining juvenile people in an institution and letting them have at each other? That they were not going to get into trouble?


----------



## Nevada

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Bullying Nevada.
> That's the topic.
> Bullying.
> So, let's not divert the conversation off track.


I thought the topic was free speech.


----------



## Nevada

where I want to said:


> And isn't it amazing that the more formal education people got, the more SDTs occured and out of wedlock


You blame it on sex ed? :stars:


----------



## painterswife

where I want to said:


> No you made it about bullying because you think it made it clear who were the evil ones. Just what did you think was going to be the result of confining juvenile people in an institution and letting them have at each other? That they were not going to get into trouble?


The article is clearly about bullying. I was commenting on the bullying. I never commented about the students getting in trouble once.


----------



## where I want to

Nevada said:


> You blame it on sex ed? :stars:


No, I blame it on over degreed fools who think they are right and enforce their thinking on everyone else.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Nevada said:


> I thought the topic was free speech.


Post 94 and forward, and funny, you are the one that really 'started' the topic of bullying?

But you jump around.
Prayer in school, sex ed.....

Stay on target.
Do you, or do you not, think bullying of ALL kids is unacceptable?
Cause, you seem to have a lot of "words" to put out there, but never seem to answer direct questions?


----------



## where I want to

Wlover said:


> The article is clearly about bullying. I was commenting on the bullying. I never commented about the students getting in trouble once.


And that may be the most poignant comment yet. That intolerance for different points of view, that desire to restrict conversations to what suits rather than what increases understanding.


----------



## Nevada

where I want to said:


> No, I blame it on over degreed fools who think they are right and enforce their thinking on everyone else.


Whatever the real cause and solution might be, I'm as sure as I can be that the answer to STDs & teen pregnancy isn't ignorance. I've heard the theory; that if we don't tell them about it then they won't figure it out for themselves. But dogs figure it out without sex ed.


----------



## painterswife

where I want to said:


> And that may be the most poignant comment yet. That intolerance for different points of view, that desire to restrict conversations to what suits rather than what increases understanding.


Have I restricted the conversation? I did comment after someone else posted the stay on target comment. I did comment that this started about bullying and then others took it off topic.

I never said a thing about that until someone else made the comment about staying on topic. You might want to look back at that.


----------



## where I want to

Nevada said:


> Whatever the real cause and solution might be, I'm as sure as I can be that the answer to STDs & teen pregnancy isn't ignorance. I've heard the theory; that if we don't tell them about it then they won't figure it out for themselves. But dogs figure it out without sex ed.


The real cause is arrogance that assumes that the speaker has all the right answers and what goes wrong when they get their way is because others misapply it.
Or even worse, when having been seriously wrong, they persist in their arrogance to now insist their new plan is the answer.


----------



## kasilofhome

Wlover said:


> Bullying was the topic but most made it about LBGT thinking they are special because they support causes.


Most people have a cause the support. What ever the cause is forcing others to join in to support it is bullying.

Somehow in the introduction of bullying lbgt was in the post... logical starting point for others to attempt to stay focused..

Sorry, but as important as non heterosexual activities are to you some do not care.

Bullying is more inclusive ....for a topic and you can extrapolate by subbing in any group and it's rival group in this thread.


----------



## Nevada

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Do you, or do you not, think bullying of ALL kids is unacceptable?


ALL bullying is unacceptable. I've said that a few times in this thread.


----------



## kasilofhome

[Love it... spot on.



QUOTE=where I want to;7442055]The trouble with making schools a proxy war ground for social issues is that the law mandates school attendance. Although some relief has been provided by charter schools, even they have to follow required curricula. 
So if some student decides to exercise his right to "freedom of speech", his poor, unfortunate classmates can't exercise their "freedom of assembly" by assembling elsewhere. They are forced to endure, especially when something like a "silent protest" slides under the schools rules. Doesn't mean that everyone doesn't know exactly what is going on- the rules protecting from "in school demonstrations" are just be circumvented. 
That makes a school a place where free speech has more restriction than in general- because a student who does not agree with the message can not escape it. 
And that is why none of these arguments are appropriate- it is simply that a school, where attendance is forced, is not a place for the demonstrations, by clothing, behavior or anything else any time. After school where attendance is voluntary is the place.
So the pro gay student protest was wrong, followed by the anti-gay student protest compounding the wrong, followed by the school officials stepping in like parents to divided the squabbling children when it became intolerable.
And if the adults of the world didn't confuse their opinions with justice, the students would be more likely to understand what tolerance really means- finding ways to live with differences of opinion. Not trying to out power each other.[/QUOTE]


----------



## mmoetc

Nevada said:


> ALL bullying is unacceptable. I've said that a few times in this thread.


Was the day of silence bullying and persecution? It seems to meet your criteria.


----------



## Nevada

where I want to said:


> The real cause is arrogance that assumes that the speaker has all the right answers and what goes wrong when they get their way is because others misapply it.
> Or even worse, when having been seriously wrong, they persist in their arrogance to now insist their new plan is the answer.


Sex ed is 95% biology. It's not really open to personal interpretation.


----------



## where I want to

Wlover said:


> Have I restricted the conversation? I did comment after someone else posted the stay on target comment. I did comment that this started about bullying and then others took it off topic.
> 
> I never said a thing about that until someone else made the comment about staying on topic. You might want to look back at that.


There remark about the conversation being about bullying is an attempt to drive out other commentors simply because it does not forward your- I'm not sure what to call it- lecture?- rather than arriving at an understanding that might actually lead to an improvement in the bullying that you condemn.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Most people have a cause the support. What ever the cause is forcing others to join in to support it is bullying.
> 
> Somehow in the introduction of bullying lbgt was in the post... logical starting point for others to attempt to stay focused..
> 
> Sorry, but as important as non heterosexual activities are to you some do not care.
> 
> Bullying is more inclusive ....for a topic and you can extrapolate by subbing in any group and it's rival group in this thread.


The article was about a group of students bullying LGBT. If you don't care then why bother being part of this conversation? I don't care who stay on focus. It was others who wanted that.


----------



## where I want to

Nevada said:


> Sex ed is 95% biology. It's not really open to personal interpretation.


Right- so nuclear warheads are 99% science and 1% application. And the 1% part is the tricky issue.

Besides, when it comes down to it, I do think that teaching science to immature thinkers has a risk anyway. They tend to misuse it because the "how to" came without being taught the "why not" first.


----------



## painterswife

where I want to said:


> There remark about the conversation being about bullying is an attempt to drive out other commentors simply because it does not forward your- I'm not sure what to call it- lecture?- rather than arriving at an understanding that might actually lead to an improvement in the bullying that you condemn.


That is crap. I pointed out something I never tried to drive out anyone. If I was I would have started when the conversation went to another topic.


----------



## where I want to

Wlover said:


> That is crap. I pointed out something I never tried to drive out anyone. If I was I would have started when the conversation went to another topic.


And what was the point of your comment about this being about bullying intended to do if not force a redirection back to what you want it to be?


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Wlover said:


> The article was about a group of students bullying LGBT. If you don't care then why bother being part of this conversation? I don't care who stay on focus. It was others who wanted that.


I agree, those students were out of line.

ANYTIME you elevate a group / bring 'awareness', etc......you are going to get a group with the OPPOSITE view assert THEIR right to free speech. 

If everyone just calms down, lives their lives and minds their own business, a lot of this nonsense will stop.

Without fuel, a fire will die down, and cease burning.


----------



## kasilofhome

Wlover said:


> The article was about a group of students bullying LGBT. If you don't care then why bother being part of this conversation? I don't care who stay on focus. It was others who wanted that.


Because bullying is the focus...the flavor is lgbt....unless you view lgbt such a special group that specialties on bullying are required and if that is the case ....please explain why lgbt are so special.


----------



## painterswife

where I want to said:


> And what was the point of your comment about this being about bullying intended to do if not force a redirection back to what you want it to be?


That would be your interpretation and an incorrect one at that.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Because bullying is the focus...the flavor is lgbt....unless you view light such a special group that specialties on bullying are required and if that is the case ....please explain why lgbt are so special.


That would be crap as well. I guess when someone complains about gays getting the right to marry in their state then the complaining person must think they are special as well because they don't think gays can share that ability to get married under their state laws.

Who cares who thinks who is special? I sure don't.


----------



## kasilofhome

Wlover said:


> The article was about a group of students bullying LGBT. If you don't care then why bother being part of this conversation? I don't care who stay on focus. It was others who wanted that.


Oh you overlooked the lgbt group had just has a special day drawing attention to that group and only that group having to deal with bullying.....

Who was in charge of arranging that all students were forced to partake in a special day for one group.....


What is bullying again.....


----------



## painterswife

Please show me were anyone was forced to participate in a special day for anyone? Who forced them to wear black or flannel?Who forced them to put a rainbow on their faces or a anti gay slogan on their hands? Who forced them to be silent or to post anti gay slogans on gay students lockers?

I think some people have not read the article.


----------



## kasilofhome

Wlover said:


> That would be crap as well. I guess when someone complains about gays getting the right to marry in their state then the complaining person must think they are special as well because they don't think gays can share that ability to get married under their state laws.
> 
> Who cares who thinks who is special? I sure don't.


Sorry the fact that my state and other state by vote of the people in support of constitutional state right to set the standard of one man one woman for their state ....one you choose not to live in ... is a state right issue I can openly agree with, support and work on. 


Are you now complaining that my rights as a citizen are equal to your rights?


----------



## kasilofhome

Wlover said:


> Please show me were anyone was forced to participate in a special day for anyone? Who forced them to wear black or flannel?Who forced them to put a rainbow on their faces or a anti gay slogan on their hands? Who forced them to be silent or to post anti gay slogans on gay students lockers?
> 
> I think some people have not read the article.



School attendance is a requirement. That the indoctrination that bullying is wrong when it is against lgbt members... missing out poor, white, mentally challenged............


----------



## Nevada

kasilofhome said:


> Sorry the fact that my state and other state by vote of the people in support of constitutional state right to set the standard of one man one woman for their state ....one you choose not to live in ... is a state right issue I can openly agree with, support and work on.
> 
> 
> Are you now complaining that my rights as a citizen are equal to your rights?


I think when it's all been said and done that you'll find that states don't have the right to deny gays equal protection under the law. I believe the supreme court will find that to be in conflict with the US constitution.


----------



## where I want to

Wlover said:


> That would be your interpretation and an incorrect one at that.


That was a question to solicit your reasoning so I could see if my interpretation was wrong. Guess not. Unless you of course intend to keep it a secret. But then you can't blame me for continuing in error.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Sorry the fact that my state and other state by vote of the people in support of constitutional state right to set the standard of one man one woman for their state ....one you choose not to live in ... is a state right issue I can openly agree with, support and work on.
> 
> 
> Are you now complaining that my rights as a citizen are equal to your rights?


No I am pointing out that so may of your posts come off like you have a problem with other groups wanting their own rights but you also want yours. Your posts call them special groups like they are somehow inferior because they want the same rights you have.


----------



## painterswife

where I want to said:


> That was a question to solicit your reasoning so I could see if my interpretation was wrong. Guess not. Unless you of course intend to keep it a secret. But then you can't blame me for continuing in error.


I already stated my reasoning.


----------



## kasilofhome

Nevada said:


> I think when it's all been said and done that you'll find that states don't have the right to deny gays equal protection under the law. I believe the supreme court will find that to be in conflict with the US constitution.


Have to wait to see the ruling and on what merits the finding.

Question can a party of a binding contract legally alter the terms with out an agreement of acceptance of the changes from all parties of a contract.

Or does such action allow for a legal battle over a breach of contract..or nullification of the contract.


----------



## where I want to

Nevada said:


> I think when it's all been said and done that you'll find that states don't have the right to deny gays equal protection under the law. I believe the supreme court will find that to be in conflict with the US constitution.


What a loaded statement. Of course the Supreme Court will not support denying rights to anyone. But first you have to define rights, who they apply to and, who, by assigning rights legally, you deprive of rights.
Forever, marriage has been a contract between men and woman. Legally that is being challanged. But I doubt that the originators of the Constitution intended that to change. And marriage, until the Uniform Marriage Act, was a State reserved power.
Now gay marriage avocates want to change the meaning of marriage so that it then becomes a right for them. It possibly may happen. But it could be that the Supreme Court finds that historical precendent should apply but that it is incumbent on the States to devise a different plan to take into account the existing right of gay couples without redefining marriage. 
But I suspect that a bunch of lawyers will pass that gay marriage can not be banned. Because it is easiest.


----------



## kasilofhome

Wlover said:


> No I am pointing out that so may of your posts come off like you have a problem with other groups wanting their own rights but you also want yours. Your posts call them special groups like they are somehow inferior because they want the same rights you have.


No, you denote them and separate the from the rest of society ..
All us citizens have equal rights and the all end where another's right begin.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> No, you denote them and separate the from the rest of society ..
> All us citizens have equal rights and the all end where another's right begin.


Actually I treat everyone as special. Even you are special.


----------



## Nevada

kasilofhome said:


> Have to wait to see the ruling and on what merits the finding.
> 
> Question can a party of a binding contract legally alter the terms with out an agreement of acceptance of the changes from all parties of a contract.
> 
> Or does such action allow for a legal battle over a breach of contract..or nullification of the contract.


Marriage isn't a private contract between two people. Marriage is a license for two people to conduct business as one in the eyes of the government.


----------



## kasilofhome

correct it is not a two party contract..let's move this to another thread.


----------



## where I want to

Nevada said:


> Marriage isn't a private contract between two people. Marriage is a license for two people to conduct business as one in the eyes of the government.


Please stop. A marriage was a private contract between people for millennia in places that did not even have a formal government much less ever thought of licensing businesses.


----------



## Nevada

where I want to said:


> Please stop. A marriage was a private contract between people for millennia in places that did not even have a formal government much less ever thought of licensing businesses.


Maybe so, but today it's a government issued license.


----------



## where I want to

Nevada said:


> Maybe so, but today it's a government issued license.


So the idea is that marriage is a busness arrangement that government is best suited to regulate? Or is it that in the past the government has recognized the benefits of marriage in raising productive future citizens and wanted to support it?
There is a great confusion between who wags- dogs ot tails -going on. But I suppose a dog can die of a diseased tail. However I would also point out that it is unknown for a tail to survive a diseased dog.


----------



## Nevada

where I want to said:


> Please stop. A marriage was a private contract between people for millennia in places that did not even have a formal government much less ever thought of licensing businesses.


To be accurate, the word "marriage" only dates back about 1800 years. Biblical references to the word marriage had to come it later versions because the word didn't exist. Moreover, marriage for love is very recent, perhaps less than 200 years.

The idea of a husband & wife dates back to Biblical times, but there was no set way to establish marriage. That is, there was no requirement that a marriage ceremony be presided over by a clergyman or be sanctions by a church. A marriage declaration could be made anywhere, even in private.

Today when we refer to "marriage" we're talking about taking out a government-issued license so we can enjoy certain rights & privileges given to married couples by the government.


----------



## Nevada

where I want to said:


> So the idea is that marriage is a busness arrangement that government is best suited to regulate? Or is it that in the past the government has recognized the benefits of marriage in raising productive future citizens and wanted to support it?


The government didn't recognize marriage in the past. Eventually the government saw a benefit to society in the family unit, so the government offered benefits to married couples to encourage the practice. But the day came when the government had to regulate marriage through licensing to prevent people from taking advantage of the privilege.

Most people in the USA were content to keep government out of marriage until around the mid-1800s. Before that common law marriage was universally recognized. Basically the government was willing to take everyone on their word. But it was obvious that some were abusing the privilege, so some states started to refuse to recognize common law marriage in the late 1800s.


----------



## where I want to

Nevada said:


> The government didn't recognize marriage in the past. Eventually the government saw a benefit to society in the family unit, so the government offered benefits to married couples to encourage the practice. But the day came when the government had to regulate marriage through licensing to prevent people from taking advantage of the privilege.
> 
> Most people in the USA were content to keep government out of marriage until around the mid-1800s. Before that common law marriage was universally recognized. Basically the government was willing to take everyone on their word. But it was obvious that some were abusing the privilege, so some states started to refuse to recognize common law marriage in the late 1800s.


It's so much more complicated than that. There are still all kinds of recognized marriages for all sorts of purposes. They may be valid, varying from state to state, for different codes. There are still common law marriages in some states. There are defacto marriages, putative marriages, ceremonial marriages, etc. Licenses not required.

All those things represent the various government acknowledgment that human affairs are muddled and varied.

Actually the earliest codified rules of marriage in the west were Roman Catholic. Most before that date were either a ceremony in a religious setting or, more commonly where the people involved were important, a literal written contract. Well, I expect that common law marriages were the most common always.
And the reason for licensing by government was not people 'abusing the privilege' but of abandoning their responsibilities and obligations later by saying there was no valid marriage. The case of that first coming go mind for me is Henry XVIII.


----------



## HDRider

I have read all this, and it occurred to me that the topic of bullying is total BS.

The real lesson is a person better learn to deal with bullies. They better learn quick. There are bullies from early life until you die. No amount of touchy-feely intervention will stop bullies. No government program full of self-righteous do-gooders will stop bullies.

Bullies always existed. Bullies will always exist. I got bullied. You got bullied. I dealt with it. Didn't you? 

We Americans have become a sad case, getting sadder every day.

Rugged individualism, to any degree is suppressed to favor socialist ideals that always fall short, or even fail spectacularly. Heck even socialist counties are run by bullies, e.g. Stalin, Putin, Castro, Mao and many, many, many more.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> So only laws passed by the US congress are subject to passing constitutional muster? If my local township board passed a law outlawing gun ownership and allowing law enforcement to enter houses without warrants to search for and confiscate them that would be acceptable?


Sigh. . .seriously have you ever read the constitution? The first amendment is the only one in the bill of rights which speaks directly to what actions congress can not take. The others are talk about the rights of the people or the individual states.

Here's the text of the first amendment.

_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._

Now here's Article 1 Section 1 which defines just what is meant by the term "Congress":

_All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives._

Now if you can tell me when your local school board, city management and/or state government became part of the Senate and House of Representatives we can talk about how its unconstitutional for them to make rules or pass laws that violate the 1st amendment.

If you can not do that you will have to admit that, like it or not, your state (assuming there's not something limiting it in its state constitution) can establish a state religion, forbid you from practicing a religion, control the press and/or stop you from peaceably assembling.

Or you can do what politically active judges have been doing for decades and "interpret" what the writers really meant to say even though the words they used do not mean what the judges judge them to be saying.

Or you can say it has something to do with interstate commerce which would allow the feds to override any state law.

Or you could just say that the states have no rights because the 14th amendment can be read in such a way to give the feds to power to control their actions.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> Yeah, I have. I'm not sure what it has to do with your statement that wlover is off limits but I can say whatever I want to or about anyone else with impunity, though.


As I stated having all those doors opened is what freedom is about. You do not have freedom is there is only one door to go through.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

This thread needs a double shot of adderall!!!


----------



## Doggonedog

HDRider said:


> I have read all this, and it occurred to me that the topic of bullying is total BS.
> 
> The real lesson is a person better learn to deal with bullies. They better learn quick. There are bullies from early life until you die. No amount of touchy-feely intervention will stop bullies. No government program full of self-righteous do-gooders will stop bullies.
> 
> Bullies always existed. Bullies will always exist. I got bullied. You got bullied. I dealt with it. Didn't you?
> 
> We Americans have become a sad case, getting sadder every day.
> 
> Rugged individualism, to any degree is suppressed to favor socialist ideals that always fall short, or even fail spectacularly. Heck even socialist counties are run by bullies, e.g. Stalin, Putin, Castro, Mao and many, many, many more.


SMH. Just tell a kid on the edge of suicide "buck up" you will always be bullied? 

Sure we were all bullied, to some extent, but for some kids (not just LGBT kids) the all pervasive, day in day out bullying is not going to be overcome by "rugged individualism." Whatever that is...

How about teaching compassion and tolerance? I'm not even suggesting acceptance because there are many people (even some here) that feel a dead LGBT kid isn't a big deal. I think increasing the punishment for the bully AND their parent(s) is a great idea. After all, most kids are "taught" hate at home...


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> Sigh. . .seriously have you ever read the constitution? The first amendment is the only one in the bill of rights which speaks directly to what actions congress can not take. The others are talk about the rights of the people or the individual states.
> 
> Here's the text of the first amendment.
> 
> _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._
> 
> Now here's Article 1 Section 1 which defines just what is meant by the term "Congress":
> 
> _All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives._
> 
> Now if you can tell me when your local school board, city management and/or state government became part of the Senate and House of Representatives we can talk about how its unconstitutional for them to make rules or pass laws that violate the 1st amendment.
> 
> If you can not do that you will have to admit that, like it or not, your state (assuming there's not something limiting it in its state constitution) can establish a state religion, forbid you from practicing a religion, control the press and/or stop you from peaceably assembling.
> 
> Or you can do what politically active judges have been doing for decades and "interpret" what the writers really meant to say even though the words they used do not mean what the judges judge them to be saying.
> Or you can say it has something to do with interstate commerce which would allow the feds to override any state law.
> 
> Or you could just say that the states have no rights because the 14th amendment can be read in such a way to give the feds to power to control their actions.


Or we can use your interpretation and say those state and local laws that don't allow discrimination based on religion preference are valid. Baker- sell that cake!


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> As I stated having all those doors opened is what freedom is about. You do not have freedom is there is only one door to go through.


But why can't I go through the door that allows me to criticize and berate wlover?


----------



## painterswife

mmoetc said:


> But why can't I go through the door that allows me to criticize and berate wlover?


Someone was criticizing and berating me and did not even notice? I need to do some rereading.


----------



## mmoetc

Wlover said:


> Someone was criticizing and berating me and did not even notice? I need to do some rereading.


Post #47. He actually gives you more protection from abuse than others.


----------



## HDRider

Doggonedog said:


> SMH. Just tell a kid on the edge of suicide "buck up" you will always be bullied?
> 
> Sure we were all bullied, to some extent, but for some kids (not just LGBT kids) the all pervasive, day in day out bullying is not going to be overcome by "rugged individualism." Whatever that is...
> 
> How about teaching compassion and tolerance? I'm not even suggesting acceptance because there are many people (even some here) that feel a dead LGBT kid isn't a big deal. I think increasing the punishment for the bully AND their parent(s) is a great idea. After all, most kids are "taught" hate at home...


Teach bullies compassion and tolerance? Sure, that'll work. 

It saddens me deeply that you do not understand the term "rugged individualism". That in itself speaks volumes.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

HDRider said:


> I have read all this, and it occurred to me that the topic of bullying is total BS.
> 
> The real lesson is a person better learn to deal with bullies. They better learn quick. There are bullies from early life until you die. No amount of touchy-feely intervention will stop bullies. No government program full of self-righteous do-gooders will stop bullies.


My first memory of bullying was a pack of boys by the merry-go-round tormenting my cousin calling him 'fat kid' and other insults about his weight.
This was in 1973. I was in 2nd grade.
My cousin was crying, and the name calling turned into poking (by one boy).
I took off running, blasted into that boy, and punched him in the nose.
I told the rest of the boys, I'd get them too if they didn't stop picking on my cousin.
That, was that.
They left my cousin alone for the rest of the year.

Back in the old days, we handled bullies. 
Now we have 'ZERO tolerance' policies at school, which ZERO tolerates a person BEING bullied standing up for themselves and 'shutting a bully up' BUT they don't do jack squat about the bullying OR the bully; and kids are committing suicide because they can't take another minute.




> Bullies always existed. Bullies will always exist. I got bullied. You got bullied. I dealt with it. Didn't you?
> 
> We Americans have become a sad case, getting sadder every day.


Yes, we have become soft.
Yes, I did get bullied, but it was by teachers, not students.
I had no choice but to 'deal with it' and for part of my young life, I had BIG issues with authority, because many IN authority misused their power, and took advantage of their position. So yeah, I 'dealt' with it, but it DID leave a mark on me.



> Rugged individualism, to any degree is suppressed to favor socialist ideals that always fall short, or even fail spectacularly. Heck even socialist counties are run by bullies, e.g. Stalin, Putin, Castro, Mao and many, many, many more.


I am all for rugged individualism. 
I am all for a pack of kids walking up to a bully, and putting him in his place.
I am all for CPS looking into WHY a kid is bullying, because that is a NUMBER ONE symptom of an abused child.





Doggonedog said:


> SMH. Just tell a kid on the edge of suicide "buck up" you will always be bullied?


never. never ever ever even imply that....never.
you'll end up with a colombine situation, or the child will take their own life.
it's a lose lose.
safety in numbers; at the very least the parents should step in and protect their own children.



> Sure we were all bullied, to some extent, but for some kids (not just LGBT kids) the all pervasive, day in day out bullying is not going to be overcome by "rugged individualism." Whatever that is...


You are correct.
Day in day out bullying is torture. No human being deserves, torture.
Again, parents need to step up and protect their children, and if they won't those kids need to find their 'safety in numbers' because the schools are not going to do jack squat about it.



> How about teaching compassion and tolerance? I'm not even suggesting acceptance because there are many people (even some here) that feel a dead LGBT kid isn't a big deal. I think increasing the punishment for the bully AND their parent(s) is a great idea. After all, most kids are "taught" hate at home...


Compassion and tolerance (in a perfect world) would be taught at home by loving parents that gave a crap about their kids, and their civic duty; however, in the world we live in, home life (in a lot of cases) is riddled with drugs, alcohol, porn, video games, TV-Netflix, etc.
"Parents" (I use that term loosely) are either absent, on some sort of 'mind altering' something; plugged into the tv; over grown children themselves, or bullys themselves"

Kids are taught hate thru Media.
Parents provide the device, yes, but kids learn to hate thru the media.
The "news" tells you who to hate.
Music tells you who to hate.
History programs tells you who to hate.
Heck, even cartoons tell you who to hate.
So no.....hate is NOT taught by the parents directly in most cases (2000 to date). Parents hand their kids devices, and the kids learn it from outside the home.

You can be raised by the biggest biggot/racist KKK card carrying people, and not grow up like them. 
At some point, hate, becomes a choice. A choice you can not blame on mommy's and daddy's. You have to own it.


----------



## mmoetc

HDRider said:


> Teach bullies compassion and tolerance? Sure, that'll work.
> 
> It saddens me deeply that you do not understand the term "rugged individualism". That in itself speaks volumes.


Where does rugged individualism cross the line to anti social behavior? Except for Nevada, it seems that the right of the flannel shirts wearers to express their view is accepted until they decide to use threats of violence or actual violence to express themselves. A little "Lord of the Flies" is character building, right?


----------



## Laura Zone 5

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/antisocial-personality-disorder-symptoms.html

Anti-social personality disorder

Symptoms of Antisocial Personality Disorder

*Extremely aggressive behavior and an indifferent attitude.
*Cannot accept and adapt himself to the norms prevalent in a society.
Unlawful behavior and criminal bent of mind.
*Has no respect for others and disregards others opinions.
*Impulsive, indecisive, hotheaded and reckless.
*Doesn't care for the safety and well-being of others.
Tendency to cause physical harm to others.
*Highly unstable and socially aberrant with lack of self control.
*Irresponsible towards almost everything in life.
Financially dependent and sucks others life.
*Remorseless, devoid of empathy and cruel.
*Tendency to achieve everything by deceiving others.
*Is a pathological or compulsive liar by all means.
*Lack of concern for other's safety and security.
*Indulges into theft, arguments and fight quite easily.
*Adept in manipulating others by means of flattery.
*Is into abusive relationship and promiscuous sexual relations.
*Extremely irresponsible in professional life.
*Displays superficial wittiness, glib intellect and charm.
Creates turmoil and legal problems in the society.
Cruel to animals and have a tendency to harm them.
*Lack of control on his surroundings.
*Avoids loved ones and develops feelings of hatred.
Succumbs to drug addiction and alcoholism at tender age.
Can attempt to commit suicide and hurt himself deliberately.
*Displaying paranoid behavior and psychopathic anger.


----------



## HDRider

mmoetc said:


> Where does rugged individualism cross the line to anti social behavior? Except for Nevada, it seems that the right of the flannel shirts wearers to express their view is accepted until they decide to use threats of violence or actual violence to express themselves. A little "Lord of the Flies" is character building, right?


All I am saying is stand up for yourself. Don't expect the school or goverment to fight all you battles. Does not work for kids or adults. You know that.


----------



## Doggonedog

HDRider said:


> Teach bullies compassion and tolerance? Sure, that'll work.
> 
> It saddens me deeply that you do not understand the term "rugged individualism". That in itself speaks volumes.


I'm sorry I didn't know your little "buzz word" that was used by a president that was in office 86 years ago. I understand the concept really well though.  

Teaching compassion and tolerance in conjunction with discipline, you left that part out. Start punishing the bully and their parent(s) and there will be improvement. 

To those advocating violence, you do have someone to pay your bail, right? And when your kid is expelled from school you have another school lined up? Violence is never the answer.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

HDRider said:


> All I am saying is stand up for yourself. Don't expect the school or goverment to fight all you battles. Does not work for kids or adults. You know that.



If kids HAD parent(s) that gave a crap, they probably wouldn't be bullies.
Maybe CPS should look into the bullies home life.
Maybe someone should give a crap about the bully?
Maybe he/she is being abused at home? And their bullying is a symptom of their abuse?
Maybe show a little compassion for the bully? They are human too.....

The only back side the school is watching is their own. 
They have NO ONE'S BACK but their own.
They don't care about bullies, heck, they encourage it....they allow it, they feed into it.....

Reason # 3,359 why I home educated.
The madness that goes on inside those wall call "school" is more than any human can take. It's brain numbing.....I will not defend a broken system.


----------



## mmoetc

HDRider said:


> All I am saying is stand up for yourself. Don't expect the school or goverment to fight all you battles. Does not work for kids or adults. You know that.


Sometimes standing up for oneself includes using the law. If we met on the street and you, unprovoked, punched me in the face I would defend myself. I would also file charges. One always hopes that the mere threat of those charges pares back your need to be a rugged individual enough that that they're not needed but it's nice to know they are in case they are needed.


----------



## watcher

Doggonedog said:


> SMH. Just tell a kid on the edge of suicide "buck up" you will always be bullied?


Ever been there and seen it up close and personally? I'm guessing not. If you ever do make sure you check into the background of the kid. You'll find that bullying is just the thin edge of the wedge and there's a lot behind that wedge driving it. The biggest hammer pounding on that wedge is almost always at home, not at the school.

But yeah in a lot of cases that's EXACTLY what the kid needs to hear. He needs to hear that it doesn't matter what others think of him. What matters is what he thinks of himself and what he can do. When you start letting other people's words "get to you" you have just given control of your life to them. They can twist you any way they wish. If you don't want to be lead around by the short hairs then stand up and tell people to push off, you'll live your own life.




Doggonedog said:


> Sure we were all bullied, to some extent, but for some kids (not just LGBT kids) the all pervasive, day in day out bullying is not going to be overcome by "rugged individualism." Whatever that is...


Wrong. You can not bully a strong person. For one thing bullies are weak and cowards and weak cowards do not attack strong people because it only shows how weak and cowardly they are. You can call a strong self confident overweight person fat day in and day out and make fun of their size over and over but its not going to cause them to go running away in tears. And after seeing it is having no effect on them the bullies will stop. 




Doggonedog said:


> How about teaching compassion and tolerance?


Ok and while you are at it how about teaching people that the world is a cold hard place and you need to be strong to make it instead of teaching them to go running to someone and demanding they do something to stop your feelings from being hurt?




Doggonedog said:


> I think increasing the punishment for the bully AND their parent(s) is a great idea. After all, most kids are "taught" hate at home...


Maybe we should teach crimestop in school and have thinkpol around to make sure only newspeak is being used? 

Its stinks but if you have freedom there are always going to be those who "abuse" it. The only way to stop that "abuse" is to take away freedom. How is the only way to stop the "abuse" of free speech? To stop people from speaking out freely. To either stop speech all together or to force anyone speaking to only be able to speak something that is approved. Is this a road you really want to start down?


----------



## Laura Zone 5

mmoetc said:


> Sometimes standing up for oneself includes using the law. If we met on the street and you, unprovoked, punched me in the face I would defend myself. I would *also file charges. * One always hopes that the mere threat of those charges pares back your need to be a rugged individual enough that that they're not needed but it's nice to know they are in case they are needed.



Ideally that is the way to go. Unfortunately, it goes like this:

Bully attacks child.
Child defends
Child gets suspended from school and has a perminate mark on his record.
Parents call police.
Police put it in a file along with the other 39,485 'complaints'.
Bully attacks child.
Child defends
Bully, because he has "special needs, or special this or that" gets suspended but not expelled because if you do, you will start a WAR with the "special" people.
Child, get expelled, because it's easier for a NON special child to be placed in another school, and the school does not have to face the OUTCRY from the bullies "special" support group

((( WHEN I SAY SPECIAL I mean insert whatever "special interest group/agenda of your choice)))

Yeah, this happens. 
Just happened a couple months ago at a very froo froo school in my county.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> Or we can use your interpretation and say those state and local laws that don't allow discrimination based on religion preference are valid. Baker- sell that cake!


Yep which is the very reason I took the religion out of it. You have the fact the baker can say "Its my private personal property and the government can not force me to sell it to anyone." Find someone else to sell you a cake.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> But why can't I go through the door that allows me to criticize and berate wlover?


I give up why can't you?


----------



## watcher

Wlover said:


> Someone was criticizing and berating me and did not even notice? I need to do some rereading.


Look how little respect he has for you, he didn't even properly capitalize your name.


----------



## TraderBob

Doggonedog said:


> Violence is never the answer.


Violence is often the answer. It works.
My son was was bullied by a pro fishermans son at a tournament. The self entitled little brat was older and bigger than my son. When he attempted to hit my son, my son beat him down.
Many witnesses, all said he did the right thing. The punk deserved it as he harassed kids all weekend.
As my dad taught me, I taught my son. You stand up for yourself. If someone attempts to hit you, you put them down, hard. Don't come crying to me that you are being bullied. Deal with it, it's a rite of passage for many.
Here the bullying stops quickly when they know there will be consequences, but we're simple country folk, not urban thugs who don't learn from past mistakes.

Worked for my daughter too...when she was 5 she kept getting pushed down by a certain neighborhood boy...she would always come home crying. I taught her to make a fist and throw a punch from her waist. I watched when she went out the next day and sure enough, he pushed her down. She stood up, looked at our house, and let him have it. Dropped him crying. 

They became close friends with no issues, and they still keep in contact now, 20 years later.

Yeah, violence does work...as a former bouncer, I can attest to that


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> I give up why can't you?


I don't know why you closed that door. Maybe you can answer that first?


----------



## watcher

Laura Zone 5 said:


> My first memory of bullying was a pack of boys by the merry-go-round tormenting my cousin calling him 'fat kid' and other insults about his weight.
> This was in 1973. I was in 2nd grade.
> My cousin was crying, and the name calling turned into poking (by one boy).
> I took off running, blasted into that boy, and punched him in the nose.
> I told the rest of the boys, I'd get them too if they didn't stop picking on my cousin.
> That, was that.
> They left my cousin alone for the rest of the year.


But what did this teach your cousin? You may have "protected" him for part of a year but were you for the rest of his life? 

I have dealt with a lot of "troubled" kids. One of things I find in most of them is the fact they have never been taught how to be strong, to believe in themselves or however you want to put it. They let others define them and that allows those people to control them and their lives.

I'm assuming your cousin was fat. He had three choices. He could do something about it and stop being fat. He could accept he was fat and being called fat would mean nothing to him. Or he could keep on being fat and not accepting it and allowing anyone who wanted to control him by saying a few words.





Laura Zone 5 said:


> You can be raised by the biggest biggot/racist KKK card carrying people, and not grow up like them.
> At some point, hate, becomes a choice. A choice you can not blame on mommy's and daddy's. You have to own it.


Very true. As I have posted before I grew up in a racist family in an area where racism was accepted as the norm. But I have fought against it for about as long as I can remember.


----------



## HDRider

mmoetc said:


> Sometimes standing up for oneself includes using the law. If we met on the street and you, unprovoked, punched me in the face I would defend myself. I would also file charges. One always hopes that the mere threat of those charges pares back your need to be a rugged individual enough that that they're not needed but it's nice to know they are in case they are needed.


I am taken aback by your repeated connection of individualism and violence.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> Where does rugged individualism cross the line to anti social behavior?


Pretty much right at the very start. Social norms may be the same as a rugged individual's beliefs making it look as if they are conforming but you can't be an individualist and be willing to change how you believe just to conform to social norms.




mmoetc said:


> Except for Nevada, it seems that the right of the flannel shirts wearers to express their view is accepted until they decide to use threats of violence or actual violence to express themselves. A little "Lord of the Flies" is character building, right?


That's how freedom works. You seem to think that the right of free speech only covers "nice" speech or politically correct speech. Like it or not the Klan has just as much right to stand up and speak about what they think as King did to give his dream speech.

As for book references you should try a little Orwell. Specifically 1984 for the free speech issue and Animal Farm for the equal rights for all issue.


----------



## watcher

where I want to said:


> The trouble with making schools a proxy war ground for social issues is that the law mandates school attendance.


Ah, I think you are wrong there. AFAIK, no state requires kids to attend school. Laws do mandate that children must be educated to the point they can past specific test. It does not require them to attend school in order to do this. There are millions of kids who have never attended public school. There are millions more who have never attended any "school".


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> You blame it on sex ed? :stars:


You have to admit that there does seem to be a correlation.


----------



## watcher

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Post 94 and forward, and funny, you are the one that really 'started' the topic of bullying?
> 
> But you jump around.
> Prayer in school, sex ed.....
> 
> Stay on target.
> Do you, or do you not, think bullying of ALL kids is unacceptable?
> Cause, you seem to have a lot of "words" to put out there, but never seem to answer direct questions?


Good gravy its a forum and its called thread drift. If you don't want it to drift then don't add to the wind. 

For me one of the best things about open discussions like this is the drift.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> Whatever the real cause and solution might be, I'm as sure as I can be that the answer to STDs & teen pregnancy isn't ignorance. I've heard the theory; that if we don't tell them about it then they won't figure it out for themselves. But dogs figure it out without sex ed.


The problem is the only real solution/prevention for STDs and pregnancy is, as we used to say, keeping your pencil in your pocket. Especially so for STDs. 

The failure rate for condoms is around 20%. That means, statically of course, 1 out of 5 times you have exposed yourself to the chance to catch a STD. And it ain't like it was when we were kids. An embarrassing trip to the the doc and a shot doesn't get rid of the things out there today.

I'll ask you what I ask some of the 'kids' I deal with. What would you do and/or how would you change your actions if I told you that one time out every five times you drove your car you'd have a blow out and its possible that a blown tire could result in a major accident which could seriously injure or even kill you?


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> Pretty much right at the very start. Social norms may be the same as a rugged individual's beliefs making it look as if they are conforming but you can't be an individualist and be willing to change how you believe just to conform to social norms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's how freedom works. You seem to think that the right of free speech only covers "nice" speech or politically correct speech. Like it or not the Klan has just as much right to stand up and speak about what they think as King did to give his dream speech.
> 
> As for book references you should try a little Orwell. Specifically 1984 for the free speech issue and Animal Farm for the equal rights for all issue.


I had no problem with the speech. When the speech crossed over to specific threats, "lynch lists" and physical violence, it was appropriate for the school to step in and restore order. Had the students the day before acted in the same manner it would have been appropriate for the school to step in then, also.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> ALL bullying is unacceptable. I've said that a few times in this thread.


But have you given your definition of bullying? What you consider bullying may not be the same as another. Is it bullying for a muslim or jew to tell a Christian he's going to hell because he's eating bacon?


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> Sex ed is 95% biology. It's not really open to personal interpretation.


When was the last time you checked? The biology part is taught in science classes. What is taught in sex ed today is a LOT more than biology. A lot of what is taught today I don't think we can even talk about here because its a family friendly board.

Go to your local school and ask to see the sex ed curriculum or better yet to sit in on a few classes. You might just be shocked what is being taught.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> Pretty much right at the very start. Social norms may be the same as a rugged individual's beliefs making it look as if they are conforming but you can't be an individualist and be willing to change how you believe just to conform to social norms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's how freedom works. You seem to think that the right of free speech only covers "nice" speech or politically correct speech. Like it or not the Klan has just as much right to stand up and speak about what they think as King did to give his dream speech.
> 
> As for book references you should try a little Orwell. Specifically 1984 for the free speech issue and Animal Farm for the equal rights for all issue.


My understanding of this goes back to the Skokie NAZI marches. I went to school with some of the counterprotesters. They didn't want the Nazis suppressed. They wanted them heard for what they were. They wanted the ability to have their side heard also. I learned a lot from them. Just as in this case I have no problem with flannel wearing and writing slogans on one's hand. Directly threatening other student with lynching or physically accosting them does require action.


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> But have you given your definition of bullying? What you consider bullying may not be the same as another. Is it bullying for a muslim or jew to tell a Christian he's going to hell because he's eating bacon?


I have been hearing I am going to hell for years from Christians because I don't believe in God. Actually that would be the nicest thing they have said. I have been pressured, targeted, hassled, and proselytized to my entire life.

Just last week I was asked if I was saved and then badgered when I said I did not need to be saved.

Goes both ways.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> The problem is the only real solution/prevention for STDs and pregnancy is, as we used to say, keeping your pencil in your pocket. Especially so for STDs.
> 
> The failure rate for condoms is around 20%. That means, statically of course, 1 out of 5 times you have exposed yourself to the chance to catch a STD. And it ain't like it was when we were kids. An embarrassing trip to the the doc and a shot doesn't get rid of the things out there today.
> 
> I'll ask you what I ask some of the 'kids' I deal with. What would you do and/or how would you change your actions if I told you that one time out every five times you drove your car you'd have a blow out and its possible that a blown tire could result in a major accident which could seriously injure or even kill you?


The problem with promoting abstinence is that you don't count high school kids doing it anyway as a failure. You consider that not practicing abstinence. So what is the real success rate of abstinence?


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> Yep which is the very reason I took the religion out of it. You have the fact the baker can say "Its my private personal property and the government can not force me to sell it to anyone." Find someone else to sell you a cake.


There's another thread we can go back to to discuss this further. Ill point out that the baker and florist cited nothing but religion. The takings clause refers to government taking private property for public use. No judge has taken a cake or flowers and thrown a gay wedding. No illegal taking occurred. Government can regulate commerce. That is what equal access laws do. Perfectly legal.


----------



## watcher

kasilofhome said:


> School attendance is a requirement. That the indoctrination that bullying is wrong when it is against lgbt members... missing out poor, white, mentally challenged............


I think I have pointed this out already but my computer had a nervous break down so I'm not sure what got posted and what didn't so. . .

AFAIK school attendance is NOT required in any place in the US. You are required to make sure your children are educated well enough to pass state required test. You can do this by sending him to a public or private school. Or you can educate him yourself. Heck I guess in theory you can leave him alone and let him educate himself. All that matters is passing the test.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> I think when it's all been said and done that you'll find that states don't have the right to deny gays equal protection under the law. I believe the supreme court will find that to be in conflict with the US constitution.


That is correct but the key words there are "under the law". The USC only applies to the government. As a private citizen you do not have to allow another to exercise any right you do not wish them to. That does not mean you are free to violate some their rights to prevent them from exercising others. You have the right to keep someone from using their free speech right on your lawn but you can't punch them in the mouth to stop their speech from crossing the street into your yard.


----------



## watcher

Wlover said:


> Actually I treat everyone as special. Even you are special.


Logically impossible. If you treat everyone as special then that's your normal treatment. Therefore you are not treating anyone special.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> AFAIK school attendance is NOT required in any place in the US.


NRS 392.040
1. Except as otherwise provided by law, each parent, custodial parent, guardian or other person in the State of Nevada having control or charge of any child between the ages of 7 and 18 years shall send the child to a public school during all the time the public school is in session in the school district in which the child resides unless the child has graduated from high school.
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-392.HTML#NRS392Sec040


----------



## watcher

Doggonedog said:


> Teaching compassion and tolerance in conjunction with discipline, you left that part out. Start punishing the bully and their parent(s) and there will be improvement.
> 
> To those advocating violence, you do have someone to pay your bail, right? And when your kid is expelled from school you have another school lined up?


BTDT twice. Son was in school he had a kid bothering him, you'd probably call it bullying him. He followed all the rules, i.e. reported it, walked away, etc. I told him as long as the kid was only running his mouth that's the way to handle it. But I also told him if the kid ever laid hands on him there was only one rule he was to follow, no killing blows. Oh did I fail to say my son was one step from his black belt at the time?

As Mr Gump says; stupid is as stupid does so stupid makes the mistake of laying hands on my son. Didn't work out as stupid was planning. I was called to the school and given the we can't have fighting in school and blah blah blah speech. I held up my hand and asked if the other kid had been arrested. Which stopped the speech very quickly. I informed them if they tried to punish my kid for defending himself after failing to take care of a known problem I would go to the police and have an arrest warrant issued for the kid and my next stop would be to my lawyer's office to start the civil suit against the school for its failure to provide protection, as required by law, for my child. There was no punishment handed out for my kid.

The other time my daughter told me a girl had thrown her against the lockers while they were in line for something. I asked what did the teacher do. She said nothing because the kid was one of the 'special' kids. I told her the next time someone, ANYONE assaulted her she was to use any means necessary to protect herself. The next day I went to the school and informed them that my daughter had been assaulted while a teacher watched. They told me they knew about it and because the other student was special needs there wasn't much they could do. I told them that if they knew this kid had violent tendencies and if she laid hands on my kid again my kid would use any means necessary to protect herself. The continued to allow this kid to interact with others and sure enough she attacked my daughter again at which point my daughter punched her. Back to the school I go to here a different version of the blah blah blah. I told them the same general thing. . .if they tired to punish my kid for protecting herself from a kid with KNOWN violent tendencies they would be opening themselves up to a massive civil suit. Same results, no punishment.




Doggonedog said:


> Violence is never the answer.


You go on living in your dream world because in the real world sometimes violence is the only answer to a problem. If you wish I can give you many examples. BTW, I find it quite funny that you say this not long after saying you think punishing people will lead to improvement.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> I don't know why you closed that door. Maybe you can answer that first?


Strange, I seem to remember saying I want doors open.

You can insult and belittle anyone you wish, that's your right. The only time that's limited is when you are saying things which are not factually true or just your opinion. You can call me fat all you want. All you are doing is stating a fact because I am fat. But you can't call me a thief unless you can back it up with facts.

You can call me ugly all you want because what's ugly and what's beautiful is in the eye of the beholder (think of modern art) therefore to you I maybe ugly.

I have no right to stop you from using your free speech rights when stating facts or expressing your opinion just because doing so might hurt my feelings. There's no constitutional right to be not having your feelings hurt.

I learned long, long ago to live by the old saying that sticks and stones can break my bones but words will never hurt me. I'm not going to give you that kind of power over me.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> I had no problem with the speech. When the speech crossed over to specific threats, "lynch lists" and physical violence, it was appropriate for the school to step in and restore order. Had the students the day before acted in the same manner it would have been appropriate for the school to step in then, also.


Yep, but how much it stepped must be looked at. Sometimes you have to 'overreact' and put a stop to everything for a while. But if you put a stop for too long or you only stop one side it becomes a problem.

I have no problem if there were many cases of such things for the school stepping down on the entire thing for a day or even a week. But it there had been only a few cases then those individual cases should have been dealt with not putting a stop to the entire protest. Otherwise it would be easy for someone the other side of an issue to prevent protest by causing a problem and having the school shut down the entire thing.

I was a very bad boy until I went off to college and found Jesus, but I was bad in a very smart way. If I were in that school and knew that the officials would shut down a protest if there were a few problems caused and I wanted to stop the silent protest here's what I would have probably done. I would have found a couple of stupid bad guys and talked them into dressing in black and go around sticking duct tape on people's mouths while telling them to be silent but in a very harsh way. I'd make it sound like a great joke. When someone resisted, and someone would, I'm sure at least one of stupid bad guys would find this a good time to start punching in order to get a 7-14 day vacation from school. And bingo the protest is causing conflict and must be shut down and it would go to show what kind of people these silent protesters really were. Win-win for my side.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> BTDT twice. Son was in school he had a kid bothering him, you'd probably call it bullying him. He followed all the rules, i.e. reported it, walked away, etc. I told him as long as the kid was only running his mouth that's the way to handle it. But I also told him if the kid ever laid hands on him there was only one rule he was to follow, no killing blows. Oh did I fail to say my son was one step from his black belt at the time?


The problem is that these things, by design, never happen when there's anyone of authority around. If the incident comes to the attention of the school the bully claims that he was minding his own business when your kid hit him for not reason at all, so he had to defend himself. Then it comes down to credibility. Bullies are normally firm in their belief that there parents will back them, settling the matter by saying something like "my kid doesn't lie, so that proves that it's the other kid." The bully plans on that, and has learned to not only get away with it but also get your kid in detention or suspended.

You really don't understand how it works at all. If there one thing I've learned it's that teachers are the worst judges to understand these things. I recall one time when a bully told the teacher that the other kids picked on him because he was bigger than the rest, then the teacher balled out the class for picking on him.

:stars:

Bullies become skilled at getting away with it. Remember, they've been through this before and know how the game is played. They learn the right things to say. If they weren't good at getting away with it then they wouldn't be bullies.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> My understanding of this goes back to the Skokie NAZI marches. I went to school with some of the counterprotesters. They didn't want the Nazis suppressed. They wanted them heard for what they were. They wanted the ability to have their side heard also. I learned a lot from them.


That's not the way I remember it. IIRC, the nazis had to go to court because the local governments *were* suppressing them.

I also have seen too many times when "freedom loving people" have deliberately acted in such a way to prevent freedom from being exercised. There cases where people tried or actually did use noise to prevent a speech from being heard because they didn't like what was being said. Most recently Westboro Baptist church protest. I don't agree with them but they have full right to protest. But you read fawning stories about how wonderful it is that people prevented them from protesting. Yeah, others have the right to do so but to me it says because I can make more noise than you it means my opinion is better than yours. Is that want we really how we want to live? 




mmoetc said:


> Just as in this case I have no problem with flannel wearing and writing slogans on one's hand. Directly threatening other student with lynching or physically accosting them does require action.


Again I agree as long as the action was only enough to solve the problem.


----------



## watcher

Wlover said:


> I have been hearing I am going to hell for years from Christians because I don't believe in God. Actually that would be the nicest thing they have said. I have been pressured, targeted, hassled, and proselytized to my entire life.
> 
> Just last week I was asked if I was saved and then badgered when I said I did not need to be saved.
> 
> Goes both ways.



Ah, so you think expressing a belief to another based on religion is bullying. Just wanted to know what kind of things you consider bullying.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> The problem with promoting abstinence is that you don't count high school kids doing it anyway as a failure. You consider that not practicing abstinence. So what is the real success rate of abstinence?


You failed to answer the question: What would you do and/or how would you change your actions if I told you that one time out every five times you drove your car you'd have a blow out and its possible that a blown tire could result in a major accident which could seriously injure or even kill you?

But I'll answer yours. Its 100%. It works each and every time its used. Your logic is like saying a condom failed because it wasn't put on.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> There's another thread we can go back to to discuss this further. Ill point out that the baker and florist cited nothing but religion. The takings clause refers to government taking private property for public use. No judge has taken a cake or flowers and thrown a gay wedding. No illegal taking occurred. Government can regulate commerce. That is what equal access laws do. Perfectly legal.


Hey if you only want to talk about what's legal we can go way into that. Governments regulate schools and it used to be perfectly legal to send blacks to one school and whites to another. Did that make it right?

It perfectly legal for a government to confiscating all private property and force people out of their homes and onto to collective farms. Did it being legal make it right? (Google Khmer Rouge).

I could go on but I think you know my point but just in case. . .just because its legal for the government to force you to sell your private individually owned property to someone you do not wish to have it does not make it right or even constitutional.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> NRS 392.040
> 1. Except as otherwise provided by law, each parent, custodial parent, guardian or other person in the State of Nevada having control or charge of any child between the ages of 7 and 18 years shall send the child to a public school during all the time the public school is in session in the school district in which the child resides unless the child has graduated from high school.
> http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-392.HTML#NRS392Sec040


Wow, I didn't know any state had that kind of control over children any more. I can think of a lot of governments which would love to have the power have 100% control over what kids are taught.

Do you know if that has ever been upheld by a federal court? Seems to me there's a lot of ways that could violate federal law.

OK I missed read this the first time. Somehow I missed the first line where it says except as otherwise provided by law. This means kids are *NOT* required to go to a public school. There is some other means where they can be educated just like I said.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> The problem is that these things, by design, never happen when there's anyone of authority around. If the incident comes to the attention of the school the bully claims that he was minding his own business when your kid hit him for not reason at all, so he had to defend himself. Then it comes down to credibility. Bullies are normally firm in their belief that there parents will back them, settling the matter by saying something like "my kid doesn't lie, so that proves that it's the other kid." The bully plans on that, and has learned to not only get away with it but also get your kid in detention or suspended.
> 
> You really don't understand how it works at all. If there one thing I've learned it's that teachers are the worst judges to understand these things. I recall one time when a bully told the teacher that the other kids picked on him because he was bigger than the rest, then the teacher balled out the class for picking on him.
> 
> Bullies become skilled at getting away with it. Remember, they've been through this before and know how the game is played. They learn the right things to say. If they weren't good at getting away with it then they wouldn't be bullies.


I fully understand how it works. I have dealt with more than enough rules, regulations and red tape with private companies and government agencies to know. As pointed out I made sure there was a 'paper trail' as my son reported each and every incident. I was planning on contacting the school myself but stupid moves fast sometimes and this happened before I could get up there. I also made sure the school, and if it had came to that the parents knew, I was perfectly willing to let a judge determine who was lying by pressing criminals charges and who wasn't and if the school was legally liable for allowing my kid to be assaulted via a civil suit. They knew they had the stinky end of the stick because once the courts and lawyers got involved with the ability to subpoena documents and call witnesses they would lose. 

The case with my daughter was even more of a slam dunk because not only was there a history of the school letting a violent kid act, the first attack on her was witnessed by a teacher and reported to the office.

My wife used to say when it comes to my kids I was a cross between a mother hen and a mother grizzly bear. Mean enough to go after anything and big enough to win.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> I fully understand how it works. I have dealt with more than enough rules, regulations and red tape with private companies and government agencies to know. As pointed out I made sure there was a 'paper trail' as my son reported each and every incident. I was planning on contacting the school myself but stupid moves fast sometimes and this happened before I could get up there. I also made sure the school, and if it had came to that the parents knew, I was perfectly willing to let a judge determine who was lying by pressing criminals charges and who wasn't and if the school was legally liable for allowing my kid to be assaulted via a civil suit. They knew they had the stinky end of the stick because once the courts and lawyers got involved with the ability to subpoena documents and call witnesses they would lose.


Sounds like you had it all figured out. As I said, step one is to win the fight and step two is to get away with it. You seem to have taken care of that for him. So what was preventing your son from being the bully?


----------



## HDRider

Nevada said:


> Sounds like you had it all figured out. As I said, step one is to win the fight and step two is to get away with it. You seem to have taken care of that for him. So what was preventing your son from being the bully?


So a person is either a bully or a victim?


----------



## Nevada

HDRider said:


> So a person is either a bully or a victim?


I see that you reached the same conclusion I did. Very sad...


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> Sounds like you had it all figured out. As I said, step one is to win the fight and step two is to get away with it. You seem to have taken care of that for him. So what was preventing your son from being the bully?


Character.


----------



## HDRider

Nevada said:


> I see that you reached the same conclusion I did. Very sad...


Perish the thought. 

I thought your question absurd.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> Character.


Here's the thing. You son knew he was going to get away with it.

A lot of parents (most) simply trust the school. Kids are sent to school with one simple instruction; behave yourself. If the school says their kid was fighting in school then they have no reason to doubt it. They assume that if their kid got detention or a suspension that he probably deserved it.

On the other hand you have a minority of parents who will rush down to the school and demand that their kid not be singled out. Like all public servants, school administrators take the path of least resistance. That means letting the kid with irate parents off while throwing the book at kid who has parents who trust the school.

But you see, this is how bullies get away with being bullies. A bully only does it because he knows he'll get away with it. If a bully thought he would have to stay after school for a week for picking on someone then he wouldn't do it. It simply wouldn't be worth it.

Ask anyone who has been bullied for any length of time and they'll tell you that they've been punished for getting bullied while the bully went free. That's the final kick in the teeth, if you get bullied you learn to keep your mouth shut about it, because if you complain you'll get into a lot of trouble.

I watched this nonsense for 12 years so I'm somewhat of an expert, then I taught high school and watched it from the teacher prospective. For a long time I believed that teachers were just stupid about it, but I came to realize that the teachers were being bullied by the bullies' parents.

Let me ask you something. Did you ever tell your kid to avoid hitting someone in the face because the injuries are too obvious? You see, the really great thing about bruises from body blows is that those bruises don't usually present themselves until after the incident blows over. Bullies think about things like that because they want to get away with it.


----------



## where I want to

Nevada said:


> Sounds like you had it all figured out. As I said, step one is to win the fight and step two is to get away with it. You seem to have taken care of that for him. So what was preventing your son from being the bully?


The reason for developing coping skills in students is because there will always be a day when they are alone, either because authority is not going to help or simply not there. So students are best served by learning to take care of themselves The minute they leave school, their techniques of using authority to intervene is pretty much gone. They will meet the same bullies in stores, at work, on the street, in social groups and, if they have not learned how to cope in one way or another, they will face a lifetime of quitting work because they are not treated fairly or resenting what someone else has accumulated when they think they have worked just as hard or in a constant state of fear because they have never had fight the battle or a life of avoidance in general.
Because it comes down it the most juvenile of complaints- no, life is not fair.


----------



## MO_cows

We are all "experts" because we have been bullied or observed it ourselves. And just playing the odds, some would have to be the bullies, too. Nevada, your experience is not any more unique or special or meaningful than anyone else's.


----------



## Nevada

where I want to said:


> The reason for developing coping skills in students is because there will always be a day when they are alone, either because authority is not going to help or simply not there. So students are best served by learning to take care of themselves The minute they leave school, their techniques of using authority to intervene is pretty much gone. They will meet the same bullies in stores, at work, on the street, in social groups and, if they have not learned how to cope in one way or another, they will face a lifetime of quitting work because they are not treated fairly or resenting what someone else has accumulated when they think they have worked just as hard or in a constant state of fear because they have never had fight the battle or a life of avoidance in general.
> Because it comes down it the most juvenile of complaints- no, life is not fair.


So since bullying is just part of life, I take it that you don't think we should intervene.

Just for the record, I never had to deal with bullying at college or at the workplace. Certainly nothing on par with what goes on at high schools.


----------



## where I want to

Nevada said:


> So since bullying is just part of life, I take it that you don't think we should intervene..


Of course not. You stated that outrageous idea and only you, exaggerating to use in arguing. In the course of which you got pretty rude and unfair.
But there is only so much a school can do to watch every corner and cranny,and every interaction. So there is only one reliable solution and that is to teach kids how to effectively cope. Don't let every kid have to figure it out or not every school year. That would be the most effective intervention. Then students can see the time a teacher can intervene directly as simply a demonstration of successful action.
That students go so far as committing suicide only shows they do not have to tools to cope. Since it is a guarantee that teachers can not be always there, nor can they be always effective even if they are there, and in the removal of a bully, if possible, only leaves a vacuum for another to come along, the student who is bullied had best learn how to protect themselves. And other students are given the moral certainty not letting it happen in their presence. 
I think all this talk about the evil bully is just a way of avoiding the much harder job of actually being effective in creating independent and principled adults. If you are right about teachers being bullied into not doing anything about bullies, then it is not the least surprising that they can't teach students appropriately as they have not learned themselves.
And as for being bullied as an adult, it may not always sink to the level of high school locker rooms but they exist from bad bosses, back stabbing co workers, nasty customers, arrogant professionals, public nonservants,etc. Some of the worst bullies I ever encountered were college professors who had the small groups of sycopant student groupies.


----------



## Nevada

where I want to said:


> And as for being bullied as an adult, it may not always sink to the level of high school locker rooms but they exist from bad bosses, back stabbing co workers, nasty customers, arrogant professionals, public nonservants,etc. Some of the worst bullies I ever encountered were college professors who had the small groups of sycopant student groupies.


I took a different approach to office politics. I simply became so good at what I did that I made myself indispensable. When you do that you can stay above that kind of nonsense.


----------



## HDRider

Nevada said:


> I took a different approach to office politics. I simply became so good at what I did that I made myself indispensable. When you do that you can stay above that kind of nonsense.


Wowser. You get better and better..


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> That's not the way I remember it. IIRC, the nazis had to go to court because the local governments *were* suppressing them.
> 
> I also have seen too many times when "freedom loving people" have deliberately acted in such a way to prevent freedom from being exercised. There cases where people tried or actually did use noise to prevent a speech from being heard because they didn't like what was being said. Most recently Westboro Baptist church protest. I don't agree with them but they have full right to protest. But you read fawning stories about how wonderful it is that people prevented them from protesting. Yeah, others have the right to do so but to me it says because I can make more noise than you it means my opinion is better than yours. Is that want we really how we want to live?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again I agree as long as the action was only enough to solve the problem.


I didn't attend school with any members of the government. Skokie was divided and the government feared the threatened violence by the Jewish Defense League. That directed much of their action. There was also a contingent of Jewish residents who wanted the march to happen so they could counterprotest. It was some of these folks I knew. Many of them did end up at the counter rally that was actually held at a Chicago park. No march, even after the courts ruling, was held in Skokie.

I agree that the response should have been limited to solving the immediate problems. It's hard to get a real feel from the limited reporting I've seen but I find the lynch list particularly troubling. My hope is that by shutting down the entire protest a lesson might have been taught about how to properly protest.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> Here's the thing. You son knew he was going to get away with it.
> 
> Ask anyone who has been bullied for any length of time and they'll tell you that they've been punished for getting bullied while the bully went free. That's the final kick in the teeth, if you get bullied you learn to keep your mouth shut about it, because if you complain you'll get into a lot of trouble.


The problem is not following the rules to leave a paper trail to protect yourself. If you get bullied you report it. This is the crucial part. W/o that paper trail you have a harder problem proving you were not the aggressor. Also a bully usually has a record of bullying others the more reports against him the better. As you pointed out most bullies aren't going to spend weeks building an alibi before they beat someone up.




Nevada said:


> I watched this nonsense for 12 years so I'm somewhat of an expert, then I taught high school and watched it from the teacher prospective. For a long time I believed that teachers were just stupid about it, but I came to realize that the teachers were being bullied by the bullies' parents.
> 
> Let me ask you something. Did you ever tell your kid to avoid hitting someone in the face because the injuries are too obvious? You see, the really great thing about bruises from body blows is that those bruises don't usually present themselves until after the incident blows over. Bullies think about things like that because they want to get away with it.


Actually as a martial arts student he knew where to hit to would cause the most possible pain with the least possible damage. But he didn't need to hit him at all. The bully grabbed him and in a split second found himself on the ground with his arm in a very uncomfortable position while receiving a verbal warning that doing such a thing again would result in something worse happening. The best, (worse?), bully would be a smart martial art student. They could use their brain to keep from being caught and to set up their victims then use their training to harm them.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> So since bullying is just part of life, I take it that you don't think we should intervene.
> 
> Just for the record, I never had to deal with bullying at college or at the workplace. Certainly nothing on par with what goes on at high schools.


I find it difficult to believe that you have never been bullied at work in all the years you were in the labor force.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> Hey if you only want to talk about what's legal we can go way into that. Governments regulate schools and it used to be perfectly legal to send blacks to one school and whites to another. Did that make it right?
> 
> It perfectly legal for a government to confiscating all private property and force people out of their homes and onto to collective farms. Did it being legal make it right? (Google Khmer Rouge).
> 
> I could go on but I think you know my point but just in case. . .just because its legal for the government to force you to sell your private individually owned property to someone you do not wish to have it does not make it right or even constitutional.


No right and legal aren't always the same thing. You still haven't shown me that the government forced any sale. No cake or flowers were sold to the couples from the bakery or florist in question. 

Do you agree or disagree that government has the ability to put in place laws that regulate commerce? That government can issue fines to those businesses that don't follow those regulations? That said fines aren't unconstitutional takings?


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> I find it difficult to believe that you have never been bullied at work in all the years you were in the labor force.


I have never been bullied in the work force. It is very simple. They try, you shut them down after the first sentance. My parents taught me not to allow it.


----------



## where I want to

Wlover said:


> I have never been bullied in the work force. It is very simple. They try, you shut them down after the first sentance. My parents taught me not to allow it.


Lucky you. I have, even once a manager held the door shut to his office while he yelled at me. It is not so simply if the person has power or even can maniplulate someone who has power.


----------



## painterswife

where I want to said:


> Lucky you. I have, even once a manager held the door shut to his office while he yelled at me. It is not so simply if the person has power or even can maniplulate someone who has power.


Lucky? It was work and hard work to not allow it to happen. I have walked out of rooms where people have tried. I would have screamed at the top of my lungs if a boss tried to keep me from walking out of a situation like that.


----------



## where I want to

Wlover said:


> Lucky? It was work and hard work to not allow it to happen. I have walked out of rooms where people have tried. I would have screamed at the top of my lungs if a boss tried to keep me from walking out of a situation like that.


Yet you seem to be enraged at the very idea of teaching children how to deal with bullies. 

BTW making assumptions that you would have been so much better than I was in my situation and its results is, well putting it politely, judging on no information.


----------



## painterswife

where I want to said:


> Yet you seem to be enraged at the very idea of teaching children how to deal with bullies.
> 
> BTW making assumptions that you would have been so much better than I was in my situation and its results is, well putting it politely, judging on no information.


No, I am for teaching them not to bully and to not allow bullying.


----------



## where I want to

Wlover said:


> No, I am for teaching them not to bully and to not allow bullying.


And how's that working? Since there is no preventing it and bullies are always present. Even on forums........


----------



## painterswife

where I want to said:


> And how's that working? Since there is no preventing it and bullies are always present. Even on forums........


I don't believe there we will ever eradicate bullying or the attempt to bully. Children will aways face it. We will always have to be viligent. I just don't go with this suck it up and deal with it crap.


----------



## JJ Grandits

Why is pro-heterosexual always considered as anti-gay? If this is so then wouldn't a pro-gay movement be considered anti-heterosexual? Where are the charges that the pro-gay crowd is teaching hate? If one group is always in your face should they be surprised if someone does the same to them? Why do they consider freedom of expression a one way street? I never read the part of the Constitution that says "This is what I believe and you better shut up".


----------



## HDRider

JJ Grandits said:


> Why is pro-heterosexual always considered as anti-gay? If this is so then wouldn't a pro-gay movement be considered anti-heterosexual? Where are the charges that the pro-gay crowd is teaching hate? If one group is always in your face should they be surprised if someone does the same to them? Why do they consider freedom of expression a one way street? I never read the part of the Constitution that says "This is what I believe and you better shut up".


Bully tactics...


----------



## arabian knight

Yes from the pro gay group. Has been that way for years, they just don't know when to quit.


----------



## painterswife

arabian knight said:


> Yes from the pro gay group. Has been that way for years, they just don't know when to quit.


Funny, I have been experiencing the same from the pro Christian group my entire life. Now that those that believe same sex people have the same rights and fight for them, it is bullying.


----------



## HDRider

Wlover said:


> Funny, I have been experiencing the same from the pro Christian group my entire life. Now that those that believe same sex people have the same rights and fight for them, it is bullying.


Sorry you feel Christians trying to help you save your soul is viewed as bullying. Sharing Jesus is one of the basic tenets of Christianity. I wish we had a way to recognize your aversion. 

Are gay people trying to convert straight people?

Maybe we need little signs or cards to hand out to state our aversions.


----------



## painterswife

So , it is all right for you to keep trying to save peoples souls but it is not all right for homosexuals to try to tell you that they feel they should not be treated like second class citizens by society?

It is bullying because they are homosexual but not because they are Christian?


----------



## HDRider

Wlover said:


> So , it is all right for you to keep trying to save peoples souls but it is not all right for homosexuals to try to tell you that they feel they should not be treated like second class citizens by society?
> 
> It is bullying because they are homosexual but not because they are Christian?


I am sure this answer will not satisfy you, but Christians are only interested in the salvation of others, where homosexuals are driven by self interest.

I, as a Christian, gain nothing by the salvation of your soul.

Many, like me, are tired of hearing the homosexual message at every turn, over and over again.


----------



## painterswife

HDRider said:


> I am sure this answer will not satisfy you, but Christians are only interested in the salvation of others, where homosexuals are driven by self interest.
> 
> I, as a Christian, gain nothing by the salvation of your soul.
> 
> Many, like me, are tired of hearing the homosexual message at every turn, over and over again.


I am tired of hearing the Christian message over and over again. It does not really matter the reason you keep doing it. it is something I don't like but I have to keep hearing it.

You feel the same about the homosexual message. How do we both get what we need?


----------



## Eric Shultz

HDRider said:


> I am sure this answer will not satisfy you, but Christians are only interested in the salvation of others, where homosexuals are driven by self interest.
> 
> I, as a Christian, gain nothing by the salvation of your soul.
> 
> Many, like me, are tired of hearing the homosexual message at every turn, over and over again.


Actually, you do gain from the activity by the book, you add rewards in heaven and on a personal level you gain a sense of self satisfaction that you have pleased your master.

I also tire of hearing the xtian message at every turn and wish they would keep their chosen lifestyle choice to themselves. What you do in the privacy of your own home is your business, we dont want it shoved in our faces.

My soul is fine, it doesn't need saved, I am not a sinner, nor was I born in sin or as a result of sin. I don't subscribe to your dogma so stop trying to sell me a lifetime supply.


----------



## Eric Shultz

HDRider said:


> Sorry you feel Christians trying to help you save your soul is viewed as bullying. Sharing Jesus is one of the basic tenets of Christianity. I wish we had a way to recognize your aversion.
> 
> Are gay people trying to convert straight people?
> 
> Maybe we need little signs or cards to hand out to state our aversions.


You wouldn't like my sign.


----------



## Doggonedog

Eric Shultz said:


> Actually, you do gain from the activity by the book, you add rewards in heaven and on a personal level you gain a sense of self satisfaction that you have pleased your master.
> 
> I also tire of hearing the xtian message at every turn and wish they would keep their chosen lifestyle choice to themselves. What you do in the privacy of your own home is your business, we dont want it shoved in our faces.
> 
> My soul is fine, it doesn't need saved, I am not a sinner, nor was I born in sin or as a result of sin. I don't subscribe to your dogma so stop trying to sell me a lifetime supply.


Post of the decade!! 

I'm afraid the message will be lost on many though.


----------



## Riverdale

plowjockey said:


> Whats the problem?
> 
> It's just preparing the children for adulthood.
> 
> Teach them to hate, when they are young and they will hate their entire lives.



Or teach them to be special snowflakes...........

And want extra rights for now and forever.....


----------



## Oxankle

The elephant in the room is what homosexuals DO. It is said that what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is none of our, or the government's business. I'd agree with that. 

However, of late the homosexuals do not wish to keep their sodomy in their own bedrooms--they flaunt it in public, they demand that we approve of it and they protest if we do not agree.

Sodomy is sodomy, a perversion. It has been with the human race for a long time, but it is not family-friendly. It is a nasty act that most people do not wish to hear about. 

If the --------s would keep their perversions to themselves we'd not be accused of hate. I don't hate anyone that I know of, but I do not wish to be reminded of acts that gag a maggot.
Ox


----------



## Oxankle

And why is -------- censored? It is a neutral, absolutely english word?


----------



## JJ Grandits

Wlover said:


> I am tired of hearing the Christian message over and over again. It does not really matter the reason you keep doing it. it is something I don't like but I have to keep hearing it.
> 
> You feel the same about the homosexual message. How do we both get what we need?


I guess your just going to have to develop some tolerance of your own. Remember, it's not a one way street. Lead by example.


----------



## mmoetc

Oxankle said:


> The elephant in the room is what homosexuals DO. It is said that what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is none of our, or the government's business. I'd agree with that.
> 
> However, of late the homosexuals do not wish to keep their sodomy in their own bedrooms--they flaunt it in public, they demand that we approve of it and they protest if we do not agree.
> 
> Sodomy is sodomy, a perversion. It has been with the human race for a long time, but it is not family-friendly. It is a nasty act that most people do not wish to hear about.
> 
> If the --------s would keep their perversions to themselves we'd not be accused of hate. I don't hate anyone that I know of, but I do not wish to be reminded of acts that gag a maggot.
> Ox


As far as I know sodomy, or any other sexual act, is illegal in public no matter who engages in it. I'm not sure where you live but I've never seen anyone sodomizing another in public. I've got some friends who live a few blocks from a "red light" district and I can only presume what's happening in some of the cars in the neighborhood as I drive by. Maybe if sodomy is so public in your area you might wish to contact the local authorities or change your travel and viewing habits.


----------



## painterswife

It seems some don't know what the word sodomy means. Sodomy is a group of sexual acts enjoyed by heterosexual couples as well. I sure don't know which couples are enjoying these acts by looking at them in public


----------



## painterswife

JJ Grandits said:


> I guess your just going to have to develop some tolerance of your own. Remember, it's not a one way street. Lead by example.


I think I have been more than tolerant for over 50 some years. It is now your turn.


----------



## where I want to

Of all the despicable turns for a thread to take- ever descending intolerance and rudeness. If you demand tolerance and respect, then the best method of getting it is to offer it yourself. Or at least you ought to see that being nasty and belittling earns that in return.
So both are tired of each other's hectoring. So what does offering the same in return do? Only to make each other ever more objectionable to each other. Certainly a failure for Christian goals but also a failure for those demanding respect. In that both are equal- equally awful.

Yes, Christians have a duty to evangelize. That's part of the package. So homosexuals are defensive about being called sinners. That is part of the package. To cat fight about it endlessly is not an answer, it's a roll in ugliness. To snarl at each other for snarling at each other. To be equally petty and vindictive. Despite throwing around the catch words of tolerance or charity. Just like a bunch of high school students.

A pox on both your houses.


----------



## Oxankle

Sodomy is sodomy; if you announce that this is your bag you'll have to get used to the idea that some people will think you are nasty.

Keep your sexual preferences to yourself and no one will notice. Just don't shout out in public that you are a homosexual and proud of being a --------. Most people do not think that is anything to be proud of.


----------



## Oxankle

for some reason this forum will not allow the use of the word "sadamite"


----------



## Doggonedog

Oxankle said:


> Sodomy is sodomy; if you announce that this is your bag you'll have to get used to the idea that some people will think you are nasty.
> 
> Keep your sexual preferences to yourself and no one will notice. Just don't shout out in public that you are a homosexual and proud of being a --------. Most people do not think that is anything to be proud of.


I don't think you understand that sodomy is not just anal sex, it includes oral sex as well. I'd hazard a guess that most of us are "sadamites."


----------



## Wanda

Oxankle said:


> for some reason this forum will not allow the use of the word "sadamite"




That should be a ''hint'' that the word is not allowed. Creative spelling is also something that is frowned on.


----------



## Truckinguy

Oxankle said:


> The elephant in the room is what homosexuals DO. It is said that what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is none of our, or the government's business. I'd agree with that.
> 
> However, of late the homosexuals do not wish to keep their sodomy in their own bedrooms--they flaunt it in public, they demand that we approve of it and they protest if we do not agree.
> 
> Sodomy is sodomy, a perversion. It has been with the human race for a long time, but it is not family-friendly. It is a nasty act that most people do not wish to hear about.
> 
> If the --------s would keep their perversions to themselves we'd not be accused of hate. I don't hate anyone that I know of, but I do not wish to be reminded of acts that gag a maggot.
> Ox


(sigh) and once again we have those who oppose homosexuality completely missing the point. It's not about the sex act, it's about promoting the acceptance of love between people. Straight people can and do engage in any sexual act that we can think of (and probably some we can't...lol) and nobody seems to have a problem with that and we shouldn't. What two people physically do with each other in the privacy of their own home has NO EFFECT on anyone else, as long as they wash up after...lol. As far as I know, any sexual acts are not permitted in public. I"m a little curious as to why some people are so fixated about what others do in the bedroom that so reviles them. Pay it no mind, it has nothing to do with you and if it repulses you so much, don't engage in it yourself. If the first word that pops into one's head after learning someone is gay is "sodomy" then I don't think the issue is with the gay person. When I learn someone is gay, the first thing that pops into my head is "Hey, have a beer!". 

It's about love, compassion, acceptance and tolerance. If someone wrongs you, it's because they are a jerk, not because they are a man/woman/straight/gay/black/white/Jewish/tall/short, etc. We all bleed red, why don't we all stop hurting each other and learn to get along.

I'm all for free speech but, before the issue of whether we have the right to say it, we need to ask ourselves why we have something hateful to say in the first place.


----------



## where I want to

Truckinguy said:


> (sigh) and once again we have those who oppose homosexuality completely missing the point. It's not about the sex act, it's about promoting the acceptance of love between people. Straight people can and do engage in any sexual act that we can think of (and probably some we can't...lol) and nobody seems to have a problem with that and we shouldn't. What two people physically do with each other in the privacy of their own home has NO EFFECT on anyone else, as long as they wash up after...lol. As far as I know, any sexual acts are not permitted in public. I"m a little curious as to why some people are so fixated about what others do in the bedroom that so reviles them. Pay it no mind, it has nothing to do with you and if it repulses you so much, don't engage in it yourself. If the first word that pops into one's head after learning someone is gay is "sodomy" then I don't think the issue is with the gay person. When I learn someone is gay, the first thing that pops into my head is "Hey, have a beer!".
> 
> It's about love, compassion, acceptance and tolerance. If someone wrongs you, it's because they are a jerk, not because they are a man/woman/straight/gay/black/white/Jewish/tall/short, etc. We all bleed red, why don't we all stop hurting each other and learn to get along.
> 
> I'm all for free speech but, before the issue of whether we have the right to say it, we need to ask ourselves why we have something hateful to say in the first place.


Because the behavior effects ( or appears to effect others) in a negative way. Wholesale acceptances of everything is not the same thing as a loving relationship. 
I remember hearing a particularly smarmy gay marriage activist make what he supposed was a cutting remark about opponents "What do they think? That there aren't enough marriage licenses?" What a little jerk. That was a deliberate belittling solely because the other things were not an issue for him so he dismissed them.
Of course, like almost all gay marriage advocates complaining about the blindness of supporters of hetero marriages only, he missed the point too.
So the patronizing words of gay agendas are equally, if not more so, blind to the concerns of people opposing their agenda. 
You may see it as all a matter of loving relationships but that is just as cutting of the valid feelings and thoughts of others as those you complain about. 
It is intolerant to see the whole world as having no right to see other than how you want to see. However you may think you are simply being the better person.


----------



## Oxankle

"It's about love, compassion, acceptance and tolerance. If someone wrongs you, it's because they are a jerk, not because they are a man/woman/straight/gay/black/white/Jewish/tall/short, etc. We all bleed red, why don't we all stop hurting each other and learn to get along.;"

Trucking Guy; You don't seem to get it. We have nothing against the person, but we do not want the homosexual to continually flaunt his sexual preferences and insist that we approve of them. If he is a homosexual, let him keep his sex life private. It is none of our business and we do not want to hear about it.

Those who consider sodomy a sin may hate the sin and love the sinner---That is immaterial to this discussion. The offensive part of the rainbow (another perversion of the language) movement is the continual flaunting of the homosexual lifestyle that the rest of us consider "icky".


----------



## painterswife

How is wanting to get married, flaunting a homosexual lifestyle? Does that mean that all heterosexual people who want to get married are flaunting a lifestyle?


----------



## Truckinguy

where I want to said:


> Because the behavior effects ( or appears to effect others) in a negative way. Wholesale acceptances of everything is not the same thing as a loving relationship.
> I remember hearing a particularly smarmy gay marriage activist make what he supposed was a cutting remark about opponents "What do they think? That there aren't enough marriage licenses?" What a little jerk. That was a deliberate belittling solely because the other things were not an issue for him so he dismissed them.
> Of course, like almost all gay marriage advocates complaining about the blindness of supporters of hetero marriages only, he missed the point too.
> So the patronizing words of gay agendas are equally, if not more so, blind to the concerns of people opposing their agenda.
> You may see it as all a matter of loving relationships but that is just as cutting of the valid feelings and thoughts of others as those you complain about.
> *It is intolerant to see the whole world as having no right to see other than how you want to see.* However you may think you are simply being the better person.


Yes, you have it right there so that begs the question: since both sides are equally entrenched in their way of thinking, where do we go from here? Which side is being intolerant and, when someone is caught in the middle, who has to blink first? Is there such thing as one side being more intolerant than the other?


----------



## Oxankle

WLover; Marriage has for all time been defined as a heterosexual relationship intended to form a family. It was never intended to include perversion. 

My own opinion is that if homosexuals wanted a union they could call it anything they wished, get it on equal terms in law regarding insurance, inheritance, spousal rights and the like, but calling it "marriage" is offensive to people who do not engage in sodomy.

I think most of America (not the world, there are still places that will have no part in this) would be content if homosexuals came up with an euphemism for marriage that rivaled their use of "gay" and "rainbow". 

None of us care about the rights issue with regard to benefits, but calling a homosexual relationship marriage is just plain offensive to many. Marriage is a religious, as well as civil, relationship and those who are religious see nothing sacred about a sodomitic relationship. Quite then opposite.


----------



## painterswife

Oxankle said:


> WLover; Marriage has for all time been defined as a heterosexual relationship intended to form a family. It was never intended to include perversion.
> 
> My own opinion is that if homosexuals wanted a union they could call it anything they wished, get it on equal terms in law regarding insurance, inheritance, spousal rights and the like, but calling it "marriage" is offensive to people who do not engage in sodomy.
> 
> I think most of America (not the world, there are still places that will have no part in this) would be content if homosexuals came up with an euphemism for marriage that rivaled their use of "gay" and "rainbow".
> 
> None of us care about the rights issue with regard to benefits, but calling a homosexual relationship marriage is just plain offensive to many. Marriage is a religious, as well as civil, relationship and those who are religious see nothing sacred about a sodomitic relationship. Quite then opposite.


Not calling same sex relationships, marriage is just plain offensive to many.

You do know that sodomy includes oral copulation between heterosexual couples. Nothing really perverse about that.


----------



## Truckinguy

Oxankle said:


> "It's about love, compassion, acceptance and tolerance. If someone wrongs you, it's because they are a jerk, not because they are a man/woman/straight/gay/black/white/Jewish/tall/short, etc. We all bleed red, why don't we all stop hurting each other and learn to get along.;"
> 
> Trucking Guy; You don't seem to get it. We have nothing against the person, but we do not want the homosexual to continually flaunt his sexual preferences and insist that we approve of them. If he is a homosexual, let him keep his sex life private. It is none of our business and we do not want to hear about it.
> 
> Those who consider sodomy a sin may hate the sin and love the sinner---That is immaterial to this discussion. The offensive part of the rainbow (another perversion of the language) movement is the continual flaunting of the homosexual lifestyle that the rest of us consider "icky".


So you would deny people from living life to it's fullest because you consider one minor aspect of their life "icky"? As long as they don't engage in sex acts in public, what they do behind the bedroom door has absolutely nothing to do with anybody. What about two women in the bedroom? They can't engage in what you call "icky" without some props. Would you feel the same way about a straight couple who use props for the same purpose? Would you deny a marriage license to a straight couple unless they promise not to do anything "icky" in the bedroom?

They aren't flaunting their sexual preferences, you are making an assumption about what they do in the bedroom. They may or may not engage in something you disapprove of but, once again, what is it to you? There are probably straight couples that you know who engage in "ickier" things than that and you'll never know it. I'll bet you could be sitting beside someone in church who engages in some pretty interesting things that they wouldn't want to be made public but are nobody's business and don't affect anyone else.

If you see two men in public holding hands and the first thing that comes to mind is sodomy instead of love I find that very sad.


----------



## Oxankle

Truckinguy: When you see a man and his wife together don't you think people know what they do? They never give it a second thought because is is natural, the continuation of the human species. A man and a woman could be anything from spouses to brother and sister. Who cares?

When we see two men making out we know what they are up to. Two men together mean nothing--they could be fishing buddies if they were not holding hands like high school lovers. When we see them parading half naked down a San Francisco street we know they are not choir boys celebrating Easter week--It is something entirely different that they celebrate, and most find it offensive. Keep it to yourself and nobody cares.


----------



## wr

Oxankle said:


> Truckinguy: When you see a man and his wife together don't you think people know what they do? They never give it a second thought because is is natural, the continuation of the human species. A man and a woman could be anything from spouses to brother and sister. Who cares?
> 
> When we see two men making out we know what they are up to. Two men together mean nothing--they could be fishing buddies if they were not holding hands like high school lovers. When we see them parading half naked down a San Francisco street we know they are not choir boys celebrating Easter week--It is something entirely different that they celebrate, and most find it offensive. Keep it to yourself and nobody cares.


I'm not fond of overt displays of public affection of any sort so it really doesn't matter if two guys, two gals or a guy and a gal are making out in a public place.


----------



## Truckinguy

Oxankle said:


> Truckinguy: When you see a man and his wife together don't you think people know what they do? They never give it a second thought because is is natural, the continuation of the human species. A man and a woman could be anything from spouses to brother and sister. Who cares?
> 
> When we see two men making out we know what they are up to. Two men together mean nothing--they could be fishing buddies if they were not holding hands like high school lovers. When we see them parading half naked down a San Francisco street we know they are not choir boys celebrating Easter week--It is something entirely different that they celebrate, and most find it offensive. Keep it to yourself and nobody cares.


So you don't think a man and his wife do anything "icky" together? I could just as easily look at a man and a woman together and think "I'll bet she lets him play the back nine" or maybe "I'll bet he lets HER play the back nine". Again, when I look at couples sex isn't the first thing that comes to mind. People do whatever they want to do behind closed doors. None of my business. This is like the thread about the Jewish guy who wouldn't sit beside a woman on an airplane because he would be "tempted". Interact with the gay people or the woman on a regular basis and you will find that there is more to them than sex. Surprise! They are human beings with the same feelings, interests, goals and ambitions as anyone else. The more people fixate on things the bigger an issue it becomes.

You're assuming every gay couple engages in sodomy. I know there are a lot of straight couples who find that "icky', it stands to reason some gay couples would find it "icky" too. Again, it's about love, not sex, and there are a lot of ways to make love with one another.


----------



## Nevada

Oxankle said:


> My own opinion is that if homosexuals wanted a union they could call it anything they wished, get it on equal terms in law regarding insurance, inheritance, spousal rights and the like, but calling it "marriage" is offensive to people who do not engage in sodomy.


I keep hearing that, but what I didn't hear was a proposal to give civil unions those rights. Maybe if civil unions gave the same rights we would have something to discuss.

Let's get real here. This isn't about saving the word "marriage." This is about persecuting a minority.


----------



## kasilofhome

Why even regulate relationships via the government.... our nation did not always require to be in bed with us.


----------



## mmoetc

Oxankle said:


> Truckinguy: When you see a man and his wife together don't you think people know what they do? They never give it a second thought because is is natural, the continuation of the human species. A man and a woman could be anything from spouses to brother and sister. Who cares?
> 
> When we see two men making out we know what they are up to. Two men together mean nothing--they could be fishing buddies if they were not holding hands like high school lovers. When we see them parading half naked down a San Francisco street we know they are not choir boys celebrating Easter week--It is something entirely different that they celebrate, and most find it offensive. Keep it to yourself and nobody cares.


And a man and woman making out could be cousins or even brother and sister. Why doesn't your mind go immediately there? Talk about icky! What are all those good heterosexual folks celebrating in New Orleans during Mardi Gras? Why can't they just keep it to themselves and why can't those women keep their shirts down? Now that's some flaunting.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> I keep hearing that, but what I didn't hear was a proposal to give civil unions those rights. Maybe if civil unions gave the same rights we would have something to discuss.
> 
> Let's get real here. This isn't about saving the word "marriage." This is about persecuting a minority.


That's YOUR opinion. Your not religious, so you cannot speak for them. In some states they have exactly the same "rights" as everyone else. Your thinking about the Obama administration.


----------



## JeffreyD

mmoetc said:


> And a man and woman making out could be cousins or even brother and sister. Why doesn't your mind go immediately there? Talk about icky! What are all those good heterosexual folks celebrating in New Orleans during Mardi Gras? Why can't they just keep it to themselves and why can't those women keep their shirts down? Now that's some flaunting.


Because a man and a woman kissing is natural. Ever been to West Hollywood? Why can't those homosexuality keep their privates covered?


----------



## mmoetc

JeffreyD said:


> Because a man and a woman kissing is natural. Ever been to West Hollywood? Why can't those homosexuality keep their privates covered?


Two people who love each other kissing is natural. I have some good male friends who kiss their male relatives full on the lips at every meeting and leaving. If you saw them taking their departure from each other in front of a restaurant what would you think? The question isn't what you think is "natural" it's why you desire to impose that standard on others.


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> That's YOUR opinion. Your not religious, so you cannot speak for them. In some states they have exactly the same "rights" as everyone else. Your thinking about the Obama administration.


Then why didn't Christians push to expand the rights for civil unions? The states can't bestow federal benefit rights to anyone.


----------



## Nevada

kasilofhome said:


> Why even regulate relationships via the government.... our nation did not always require to be in bed with us.


This is about federal government benefits. How could that work without the government being involved? Who would decide who gets benefits and who doesn't?


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> Then why didn't Christians push to expand the rights for civil unions? The states can't bestow federal benefit rights to anyone.


Why should they? Why didn't muslims?


----------



## JeffreyD

mmoetc said:


> Two people who love each other kissing is natural. I have some good male friends who kiss their male relatives full on the lips at every meeting and leaving. If you saw them taking their departure from each other in front of a restaurant what would you think? The question isn't what you think is "natural" it's why you desire to impose that standard on others.


Their gay! Maybe in your world two men kissing on the lips is "natural", but not in the real.world. Why do homosexuality desire to impose their agenda on others who clearly don't like it? Is that fair? Is that tolerant? The answer is of course....no, it's not fair OR tolerant.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> This is about federal government benefits. How could that work without the government being involved? Who would decide who gets benefits and who doesn't?


Then there shouldn't be any benefits. That would solve the problem to be sure.


----------



## painterswife

JeffreyD said:


> Their gay! Maybe in your world two men kissing on the lips is "natural", but not in the real.world. Why do homosexuality desire to impose their agenda on others who clearly don't like it? Is that fair? Is that tolerant? The answer is of course....no, it's not fair OR tolerant.


I grew up within the Greek and Italian communities. Lots of men kissing on the lips. Not one bit gay.


----------



## JeffreyD

Wlover said:


> I grew up within the Greek and Italian communities. Lots of men kissing on the lips. Not one bit gay.


Good for you! When I see two men kissing on the lips, to me, their gay! You can't change that.

Eta: my uncle was in the mafia. Time Magazine did an article on him called " A twenty two caliber kill". They kissed on the cheek, not on the lips. If one did that, we'll let's just say it was disrespectful and was delt with.


----------



## mmoetc

JeffreyD said:


> Their gay! Maybe in your world two men kissing on the lips is "natural", but not in the real.world. Why do homosexuality desire to impose their agenda on others who clearly don't like it? Is that fair? Is that tolerant? The answer is of course....no, it's not fair OR tolerant.


The folks I'm talking about are decidedly not gay. Brothers kiss brothers, sons kiss fathers, nephews kiss uncles. The kisses exchanged look exactly like the kisses my wife and occasionally share in public. It's their real world. That you jump to the wrong conclusion is your problem. It becomes the problem of others because you can't live and let live. When was last time someone, gay or straight, berated you publicly for walking hand in hand with one you love? When was the last time someone wrote a letter to the editor of your local paper saying you should have fewer rights? When was the last time someone on an interweb forum speculated about what you and your wife do in your bedroom? No, life isn't fair, but working against fairness doesn't make it any better.


----------



## JeffreyD

mmoetc said:


> The folks I'm talking about are decidedly not gay. Brothers kiss brothers, sons kiss fathers, nephews kiss uncles. The kisses exchanged look exactly like the kisses my wife and occasionally share in public. It's their real world. That you jump to the wrong conclusion is your problem. It becomes the problem of others because you can't live and let live. When was last time someone, gay or straight, berated you publicly for walking hand in hand with one you love? When was the last time someone wrote a letter to the editor of your local paper saying you should have fewer rights? When was the last time someone on an interweb forum speculated about what you and your wife do in your bedroom? No, life isn't fair, but working against fairness doesn't make it any better.


Not a problem at all, just the way it is. Maybe THEY have a problem? You mean THEY can't live and let live. I don't care if folks are gay, just dont ask for special treatment and impose themselves on those that disagree with them. I don't care what others think! Is it fair and tolerant of gays to sue others because they disagree? No...it's not, but keep avoiding answering that question, it says a lot. Being straight is normal, so the only ones that are going to complain would be gay.


----------



## coolrunnin

Oxankle said:


> WLover;* Marriage has for all time been defined as a heterosexual relationship intended to form a family.* It was never intended to include perversion.
> 
> My own opinion is that if homosexuals wanted a union they could call it anything they wished, get it on equal terms in law regarding insurance, inheritance, spousal rights and the like, but calling it "marriage" is offensive to people who do not engage in sodomy.
> 
> I think most of America (not the world, there are still places that will have no part in this) would be content if homosexuals came up with an euphemism for marriage that rivaled their use of "gay" and "rainbow".
> 
> None of us care about the rights issue with regard to benefits, but calling a homosexual relationship marriage is just plain offensive to many. Marriage is a religious, as well as civil, relationship and those who are religious see nothing sacred about a sodomitic relationship. Quite then opposite.


Bolded is not true, marriages were made for many reasons form alliances business purposes many many reasons making families was the least of it.


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> Eta: my uncle was in the mafia. Time Magazine did an article on him called " A twenty two caliber kill". They kissed on the cheek, not on the lips. If one did that, we'll let's just say it was disrespectful and was delt with.


What are you suggesting here, that we "deal with" public displays of gay affection?


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> Then there shouldn't be any benefits. That would solve the problem to be sure.


OK, did anyone propose legislation to strip hetero spouses of SS & Medicare benefits? If that happened, how many heterosexual Christians would be thrown into desperate poverty?


----------



## mmoetc

JeffreyD said:


> Not a problem at all, just the way it is. Maybe THEY have a problem? You mean THEY can't live and let live. I don't care if folks are gay, just dont ask for special treatment and impose themselves on those that disagree with them. I don't care what others think! Is it fair and tolerant of gays to sue others because they disagree? No...it's not, but keep avoiding answering that question, it says a lot. Being straight is normal, so the only ones that are going to complain would be gay.


What problem would they have? Other than you or people like you seeing them as gay when they aren't. Reacting adversley. Treating them differently. Gays haven't sued to change the way you or anyone else thinks. Trust me, they know its a lost cause. They have sued because they wish to have all the rights and privileges under the law that you or I have. They want to be able to marry the consenting adult of their choice. They want to have both parent's name listed on adoption papers just as you and your wife can. They want to be able to visit the love of their life in the hospital. They wish to be able to consult with doctors and make medical decisions if neccessary. They wish to be able to live their life like you and me. They're not asking to take anything from you. It's not intolerant to want equality and work towards it. It is intolerant to deny others equality.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> What are you suggesting here, that we "deal with" public displays of gay affection?


Where did I suggest anything? I made a factual statement, not a desire to do anything.


----------



## JeffreyD

mmoetc said:


> What problem would they have? Other than you or people like you seeing them as gay when they aren't. Reacting adversley. Treating them differently. Gays haven't sued to change the way you or anyone else thinks. Trust me, they know its a lost cause. They have sued because they wish to have all the rights and privileges under the law that you or I have. They want to be able to marry the consenting adult of their choice. They want to have both parent's name listed on adoption papers just as you and your wife can. They want to be able to visit the love of their life in the hospital. They wish to be able to consult with doctors and make medical decisions if neccessary. They wish to be able to live their life like you and me. They're not asking to take anything from you. It's not intolerant to want equality and work towards it. It is intolerant to deny others equality.


Yup, that's their problem. If they don't have a problem being perceived that way, good for them! As far as gays suing, you need to get out more and open your eyes! They had the laws changed to benefit their a grieved class. That's elitist and intolerant. They have all that and more. Yes, it is intolerant for them to force their agenda and laws on those that don't agree with their agenda. Yes, they are asking for special treatment and for folks to change their own moral compass against what they believe. You consider that tolerant? Wow, just wow.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> OK, did anyone propose legislation to strip hetero spouses of SS & Medicare benefits? If that happened, how many heterosexual Christians would be thrown into desperate poverty?


How many muslims?


----------



## mmoetc

JeffreyD said:


> Yup, that's their problem. If they don't have a problem being perceived that way, good for them! As far as gays suing, you need to get out more and open your eyes! They had the laws changed to benefit their a grieved class. That's elitist and intolerant. They have all that and more. Yes, it is intolerant for them to force their agenda and laws on those that don't agree with their agenda. Yes, they are asking for special treatment and for folks to change their own moral compass against what they believe. You consider that tolerant? Wow, just wow.


You're the one who insists on seeing all men kissing as gay. The guys I know who smooch in public don't have a problem. So blacks were asking for special treatment and being intolerant because the wanted to sit in any seat in the bus or movie theater. Or have a meal at the lunch counter? Those pesky elitist, intolerant women and their insistence on wanting to vote. How dare they force their ideas on those who disagreed. I've answered your questions. Now answer mine. What is being taken from you by allowing gays equality in marriage? What law has been passed to outlaw your ability to believe whatever you want?


----------



## JeffreyD

mmoetc said:


> You're the one who insists on seeing all men kissing as gay. The guys I know who smooch in public don't have a problem. So blacks were asking for special treatment and being intolerant because the wanted to sit in any seat in the bus or movie theater. Or have a meal at the lunch counter? Those pesky elitist, intolerant women and their insistence on wanting to vote. How dare they force their ideas on those who disagreed. I've answered your questions. Now answer mine. What is being taken from you by allowing gays equality in marriage? What law has been passed to outlaw your ability to believe whatever you want?


My perception is that men kissing other men on the lips are gay. Just to be clear. Blacks being brought into this is irrelevant, but I was waiting for it to happen. 

Nothing except the ability to patronize particular establishments that are now closed due to intolerant gay folks. No law has been passed that prevents me from believing whatever I want to. Where did I say there was one? Or are you just projecting again?

You've not answered all my questions! Will you? How dare those pesky gays for e their deviant behavior on those that don't agree. How mean and intolerant, not to mention inconsiderate too!


----------



## mmoetc

JeffreyD said:


> My perception is that men kissing other men on the lips are gay. Just to be clear. Blacks being brought into this is irrelevant, but I was waiting for it to happen.
> 
> Nothing except the ability to patronize particular establishments that are now closed due to intolerant gay folks. No law has been passed that prevents me from believing whatever I want to. Where did I say there was one? Or are you just projecting again?
> 
> You've not answered all my questions! Will you? How dare those pesky gays for e their deviant behavior on those that don't agree. How mean and intolerant, not to mention inconsiderate too!


And I've pointed out that your perception would be wrong in some cases. Why is it so difficult for you to admit that all men who kiss other men arent gay? You call people fighting for equal rights are intolerant. What is the difference between gays wanting equal protections under the law and blacks or women wanting the same? I asked a question about laws. You seem to agree that there are no laws that regulate your beliefs. You still haven't explained how anyone is forcing what you call deviant behavior on you. Are gay men forcing themselves on you? Or maybe it's as simple as turning your head and not looking if something displeases your sensibility. The same choice I can make if you and your sweety walk down the street holding hands or decide to steal a quick kiss.


----------



## watcher

Ok I've a a few really busy days and haven't been able to check in here and there are WAY too many new post for me to read. So I'm not ignoring anyone.

If you have posted something to me on this thread in the past couple of days and really want an answer/response please either repost it or give me the number and I'll TRY to get back to you. Looking at the upcoming week I may not get a chance. 

With that said I'm going to jump in here.


----------



## watcher

Wlover said:


> I am tired of hearing the Christian message over and over again. It does not really matter the reason you keep doing it. it is something I don't like but I have to keep hearing it.


If you are having a problem with a specific Christian telling you over and over just look them in the eye ask them if they are truly trying to following the teachings of Christ. If they say yes tell they need to read Matthew 10:14.


----------



## watcher

Eric Shultz said:


> Actually, you do gain from the activity by the book, you add rewards in heaven and on a personal level you gain a sense of self satisfaction that you have pleased your master.


But trying to force it on someone you are betraying your Master's teachings. Read Matthew 10:14.


----------



## watcher

Oxankle said:


> And why is -------- censored? It is a neutral, absolutely english word?


Thanks I needed a laugh. You asked why a word was censored and the word was censored out of your msg. That's just too funny.


----------



## JeffreyD

mmoetc said:


> And I've pointed out that your perception would be wrong in some cases. Why is it so difficult for you to admit that all men who kiss other men arent gay? You call people fighting for equal rights are intolerant. What is the difference between gays wanting equal protections under the law and blacks or women wanting the same? I asked a question about laws. You seem to agree that there are no laws that regulate your beliefs. You still haven't explained how anyone is forcing what you call deviant behavior on you. Are gay men forcing themselves on you? Or maybe it's as simple as turning your head and not looking if something displeases your sensibility. The same choice I can make if you and your sweety walk down the street holding hands or decide to steal a quick kiss.


You keep posting that I've made statements that I've never made. Why do you do this? So my perception is wrong..In your opinion, so? I never said all men who kiss on the lips are gay. Did i? I called those that want special treatment and are willing to use the force of law to their benefit when it causes pain and suffering to others, regardless of who they are, intolerant. I'm being forced to accept their behavior by new laws and public shaming, like your doing here! I have had gay men try to impose their will on me when I was a teenager! It didn't work out for them. (I was a janitor, and the bus stop was in front of a bar named "the golden shower").

How about the gays turning THEIR heads and not pay attention to those anti-gay folks? My sweetie and me kissing is a natural, normal thing to do. We don't "make out" tho, just so you know.

Blacks are a race, women are a gender, gays are a choice. Pretty simple to understand. 

So, how about answering my questions for once, eh?


----------



## watcher

Truckinguy said:


> (sigh) and once again we have those who oppose homosexuality completely missing the point. It's not about the sex act, it's about promoting the acceptance of love between people. Straight people can and do engage in any sexual act that we can think of (and probably some we can't...lol) and nobody seems to have a problem with that and we shouldn't. What two people physically do with each other in the privacy of their own home has NO EFFECT on anyone else, as long as they wash up after...lol. As far as I know, any sexual acts are not permitted in public. I"m a little curious as to why some people are so fixated about what others do in the bedroom that so reviles them. Pay it no mind, it has nothing to do with you and if it repulses you so much, don't engage in it yourself. If the first word that pops into one's head after learning someone is gay is "sodomy" then I don't think the issue is with the gay person. When I learn someone is gay, the first thing that pops into my head is "Hey, have a beer!".
> 
> It's about love, compassion, acceptance and tolerance. If someone wrongs you, it's because they are a jerk, not because they are a man/woman/straight/gay/black/white/Jewish/tall/short, etc. We all bleed red, why don't we all stop hurting each other and learn to get along.
> 
> I'm all for free speech but, before the issue of whether we have the right to say it, we need to ask ourselves why we have something hateful to say in the first place.


I oppose a lot of things based on personal preference, religious belief and more but I do not do it in a hateful way. I oppose divorce, drug use, families w/ no stay at home parent, feeding me asparagus, homosexuality, murder, treating a pickup truck like a car and more.

As for the subject at hand I think homosexuality is wrong on two levels. One is religious, my personal belief is it is a sin and should not be condoned. The other is because it is not a natural state of being. 

The first reason has been beaten to death so I won't even go into it here.

The second comes from my background in science and studying. The #1 drive in any living thing is the continuation/survival of the species. Nature takes great pains to see that this happens. Animals actually die to do this (salmon are an example). Any genetic anomaly which reduces the ability of the species to survive usually results in the individual with that anomaly not surviving or not being selected by other members of the species to breed. BTW, with that fact you have to admit that homosexuality is not the norm or abnormal. 

Now we have to determine if homosexuality is a its a genetic trait, a choice to be turned on and off or a conditioned response/mental illness issue. Like it or not there is evidence supporting all three. 

Studies have shown there is possible genetic factors. But from what I have read most of these studies do not or can not remove the environmental factors adequately enough to prove a purely genetic cause. And until someone actually finds the 'gay gene' this will be debated.

You put a same sex group in a situation where there is no chance of contact with the opposite sex and many of them will 'turn on' their homosexuality and when freed from that situation they will 'turn it off'. Prisons are a good example. 

The last is the really hot button one. Many studies have shown a correlation, but so far not enough to call it a causal effect, between specific environmental (abuse [physical and mental], molestation, etc.) issues and many different abnormal sexual behaviors. 

The last two possibilities are what drive those who want to demand homosexual rights up the wall and they will fire all weapons at anyone who dares to bring them up. Why? Because if either are true they lose their ability to be a special group. The last one is a hot button because if it is a mental issue it can, most likely, be "cured".


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> Then why didn't Christians push to expand the rights for civil unions? The states can't bestow federal benefit rights to anyone.


Simple because doing so would be supporting something which goes against the belief system. Would you expect a Hindu to support laws for killing cattle?


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> This is about federal government benefits. How could that work without the government being involved? Who would decide who gets benefits and who doesn't?


I've got an idea how about NO ONE is allowed to get a "benefit" from the federal government. IOW, if you are not providing a good or service to the government you don't get any direct payment nor support from it. That would solve that problem would it not?


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> Simple because doing so would be supporting something which goes against the belief system.


How does giving retirement benefits to gays who had a civil union go against your belief system? They're not messing with your word "marriage" and they're no asking for your approval. They just want their federal benefits, like SS & Medicare.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> How does giving retirement benefits to gays who had a civil union go against your belief system? They're not messing with your word "marriage" and they're no asking for your approval. They just want their federal benefits, like SS & Medicare.


Medicare is an entitlement. They can get care through their state. Remember the aca you so dearly love? Or they can pay for their care themselves, right? Or are you implying that gays are poor and need to be on welfare?


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> OK, did anyone propose legislation to strip hetero spouses of SS & Medicare benefits? If that happened, how many heterosexual Christians would be thrown into desperate poverty?


I sort of did. But I want to get rid of these wealth transfer systems all together.

As for your second part. One of the things Christians are called to do is take care of each other first. Then specific widows (1 Tim 5:3-14) and orphans (actually fatherless). We are also told we will have our needs provided for and will place nothing on us unfairly. I have a lot more trust in God than I do the government. Therefore I trust God much more to make sure no true Christian would be "thrown into desperate poverty" than any system the government has a hand in.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> How does giving retirement benefits to gays who had a civil union go against your belief system? They're not messing with your word "marriage" and they're no asking for your approval. They just want their federal benefits, like SS & Medicare.


It goes against my personal belief system in SS and medicare are both nothing more than unconstitutional uses of federal funds to buy votes for those in power. No one has ever shown where in the USC the federal government has the power to take my money and give it directly to someone else just because the federal government thinks they need it more than I do. 

Before you start your 'but they paid for it' you and I both know that is a lie. Every dollar you paid in went DIRECTLY to someone and any money you get is coming out the pocket of someone who is working today (or from from some bank loan depending on if the federal government has any money left or has to borrow it). Its a classic ponzi scheme, use today's incoming dollars to pay yesterday's investors after the operator of the scheme has skimmed cash off the top. And you also know its not like an annuity nor insurance from a private business because exactly ZERO of the money you are paying in is being invested to make more money. 

It also goes against my religious beliefs in the fact it, in effect, gives a reward to those living a life style I see as counter to my religion. 

Believe it or not I would much rather the federal government get totally out of any moral issues and follow its constitutional mandate which is to treat each citizen equally and to only intervene when an individuals rights are violated. And to express that anything which must come from another is not a right.


----------



## Truckinguy

watcher said:


> I oppose a lot of things based on personal preference, religious belief and more but I do not do it in a hateful way. I oppose divorce, drug use, families w/ no stay at home parent, feeding me asparagus, homosexuality, murder, treating a pickup truck like a car and more.
> 
> As for the subject at hand I think homosexuality is wrong on two levels. One is religious, my personal belief is it is a sin and should not be condoned. The other is because it is not a natural state of being.
> 
> The first reason has been beaten to death so I won't even go into it here.
> 
> The second comes from my background in science and studying. The #1 drive in any living thing is the continuation/survival of the species. Nature takes great pains to see that this happens. Animals actually die to do this (salmon are an example). Any genetic anomaly which reduces the ability of the species to survive usually results in the individual with that anomaly not surviving or not being selected by other members of the species to breed. BTW, with that fact you have to admit that homosexuality is not the norm or abnormal.
> 
> Now we have to determine if homosexuality is a its a genetic trait, a choice to be turned on and off or a conditioned response/mental illness issue. Like it or not there is evidence supporting all three.
> 
> Studies have shown there is possible genetic factors. But from what I have read most of these studies do not or can not remove the environmental factors adequately enough to prove a purely genetic cause. And until someone actually finds the 'gay gene' this will be debated.
> 
> You put a same sex group in a situation where there is no chance of contact with the opposite sex and many of them will 'turn on' their homosexuality and when freed from that situation they will 'turn it off'. Prisons are a good example.
> 
> The last is the really hot button one. Many studies have shown a correlation, but so far not enough to call it a causal effect, between specific environmental (abuse [physical and mental], molestation, etc.) issues and many different abnormal sexual behaviors.
> 
> The last two possibilities are what drive those who want to demand homosexual rights up the wall and they will fire all weapons at anyone who dares to bring them up. Why? Because if either are true they lose their ability to be a special group. The last one is a hot button because if it is a mental issue it can, most likely, be "cured".


I understand your position on both points and, yes, I think both have been argued to death.

My position on the first point is that I don't believe as you do and so I have no moral issue with it. If Christians don't like having the gay agenda forced on them, why should the rest of us have the Christian agenda forced on us? There are many straight people who support gay rights, in fact, many Christians support gay rights. 

On the second point, I agree that it is not in the "normal" order of things. It is programmed into our DNA to survive and procreate and being gay does not contribute to that in a strictly biological way. Gays will always be a very small part of the population. However, why does that matter? Two people of the same sex who want to be together harms absolutely no one in any way. Let them be happy just like everyone else.


----------



## JeffreyD

Truckinguy said:


> I understand your position on both points and, yes, I think both have been argued to death.
> 
> My position on the first point is that I don't believe as you do and so I have no moral issue with it. If Christians don't like having the gay agenda forced on them, why should the rest of us have the Christian agenda forced on us? There are many straight people who support gay rights, in fact, many Christians support gay rights.
> 
> On the second point, I agree that it is not in the "normal" order of things. It is programmed into our DNA to survive and procreate and being gay does not contribute to that in a strictly biological way. Gays will always be a very small part of the population. However, why does that matter? Two people of the same sex who want to be together harms absolutely no one in any way. Let them be happy just like everyone else.


But your ok with the Muslim agenda, or the Hebrew, Hindu, etc.... Why just Christians?


----------



## watcher

Truckinguy said:


> I understand your position on both points and, yes, I think both have been argued to death.
> 
> My position on the first point is that I don't believe as you do and so I have no moral issue with it. If Christians don't like having the gay agenda forced on them, why should the rest of us have the Christian agenda forced on us?


You shouldn't. When it supports either, the federal government is violating the USC. The only thing the federal government should be doing is making sure it treats each individual equally and protecting the rights of all individuals. It should no more force you to have to pay to support your heterosexual neighbor's spouse anymore than it should force you to pay to support your homosexual neighbor's spouse.




Truckinguy said:


> There are many straight people who support gay rights, in fact, many Christians support gay rights.


First what "rights" are they supporting? Second seeing as how Christ teaches us to follow God's teaching about sin how can a Christian support something which God has called an abomination?




Truckinguy said:


> On the second point, I agree that it is not in the "normal" order of things. It is programmed into our DNA to survive and procreate and being gay does not contribute to that in a strictly biological way. Gays will always be a very small part of the population. However, why does that matter? Two people of the same sex who want to be together harms absolutely no one in any way. Let them be happy just like everyone else.


It matters when it comes to legalities and rights. If you are doing something because you want to then do you really have your 'rights' violated when someone doesn't want to support your choice? If its genetic should a couple have the legal ability to have embryos and/or fetuses tested to determine if they want to allow that person to be born? If its a mental illness should we not seek to treat those with it and should a parent of a child be allowed to force the child to be treated even if the child doesn't want to be treated? Remember courts have ruled that children are not 'responsible enough' to be allowed to make their own medical decisions. 

One of my stances is the federal government shouldn't even be involved in this. 1) As stated I don't think the feds should be involved in any with moral issues. Its not its job and it does not have that power in the USC. 

2) This is clearly a state's rights issue. If a state has the power in its state constitution to do it and it wishes to be involved in providing legal support for people who wish to enter into a contract involving living situations then it should be allowed to do so. If it allows such contracts it should be required to allow a man and woman to do it. It should be required to allow two men or two women to do it. It should be required to allow one man and 15 women to do. It should be required to allow 4 men and 2 women to do it. IOW, if it is allowed for some it should be allowed for all. To do otherwise would be allowing for unequal protection under the law.

But on the other hand if a state wishes to remove itself from this it can just refuse to enter into these contracts and treat them the same as any other civil contract. Which would remove another federal finger in the pie because if a state doesn't issue nor recognize these type of contracts it would not be required to recognize contracts issued in other states.


----------



## JJ Grandits

Wlover said:


> I think I have been more than tolerant for over 50 some years. It is now your turn.


Question:

Tolerant of what for over 50 years? And what does "now its your turn" mean?

Basically, this is not in your eyes about justice as much as it is about vengeance, correct?

Interesting. Kind of shoots holes in everything you posted. The same justification used by Neo Nazi's and the KKK.


----------



## HDRider

mmoetc said:


> Two people who love each other kissing is natural. I have some good male friends who kiss their male relatives full on the lips at every meeting and leaving. If you saw them taking their departure from each other in front of a restaurant what would you think? The question isn't what you think is "natural" it's why you desire to impose that standard on others.


There is nothing "natural" about two men full-on kissing sexually. Repulsive, repugnant, sicking..


----------



## mmoetc

HDRider said:


> There is nothing "natural" about two men full-on kissing sexually. Repulsive, repugnant, sicking..


It may say something about your attitude that you insert "sexually". I said the kiss looks a lot like the one my wife and I sometimes share in public. Nothing sexual about it. Two people in love whose lips meet for a brief instant. A sharing of affection with no sexual content or expectation. Feel free to label a kiss between any two people any way you wish. I'll feel free to disagree. I think pistachio ice cream is unnatural, repulsive, repugnant, sickening.... You?


----------



## mmoetc

JeffreyD said:


> You keep posting that I've made statements that I've never made. Why do you do this? So my perception is wrong..In your opinion, so? I never said all men who kiss on the lips are gay. Did i? I called those that want special treatment and are willing to use the force of law to their benefit when it causes pain and suffering to others, regardless of who they are, intolerant. I'm being forced to accept their behavior by new laws and public shaming, like your doing here! I have had gay men try to impose their will on me when I was a teenager! It didn't work out for them. (I was a janitor, and the bus stop was in front of a bar named "the golden shower").
> 
> How about the gays turning THEIR heads and not pay attention to those anti-gay folks? My sweetie and me kissing is a natural, normal thing to do. We don't "make out" tho, just so you know.
> 
> Blacks are a race, women are a gender, gays are a choice. Pretty simple to understand.
> 
> So, how about answering my questions for once, eh?


Post #299. "Their gay!"

Post#302. "When I see two men kissing, to me, their gay!"

Post 399. "My perception is that men kissing other men on the lips are gay."

Not much ambiguity in those statements. I simply asked why you couldn't even entertain the possibility that your perception may be wrong in some cases?

What postings have I made that misconstrue your statements? If I have please point them out. I'll retract and apologize if necessary.

What special treatment and what laws are you referring to? Gays aren't asking to be treated differently or better than you, just equally. You'll have to better define the "pain and suffering" you're enduring. Are you suffering from being denied adoption rights? Are you pained from being denied hospital visitation? Are you being denied the opportunity to marry the person you love? Are you being made uncomfortable by others actions? Welcome to life. You have no right not be uncomfortable, just as no gay person has that right.

I'd advise any gay person who has an issue with your PDA to do the same as I advised you. Walk away and don't look if it bothers you so much.

I'm sorry you had the experience you had when younger. That it may color your perceptions isn't surprising. 

And religion is a choice, yet many of the same protections you would deny gays because of their "choice" you would continue to grant the religous because of theirs.

Ask me direct questions and I'll give direct answers. There were two question marks in your post. I addressed them both.


----------



## AmericanStand

where I want to said:


> What we need is a National Shut Up Everyone Day.



If that's your platform You will get my vote ! 

Whom I kidding ? I'm from Illinois I'll vote for ya a dozen times. !


----------



## painterswife

JJ Grandits said:


> Question:
> 
> Tolerant of what for over 50 years? And what does "now its your turn" mean?
> 
> Basically, this is not in your eyes about justice as much as it is about vengeance, correct?
> 
> Interesting. Kind of shoots holes in everything you posted. The same justification used by Neo Nazi's and the KKK.


I have been and will continue to be tolerant of others religion for my entire life. I have been called names, hassled and segregated because I don't have the belief they do. I have struggled to be accepted for who I am and to live my life with out the constant daily reminder that I don't fit what they believe is right. Alas that is life.

Now another group of people is fighting for their right to live their lives as they wish and to not be treated by others as I was because I did not believe as them.

So either you tolerate it or you don't. You just happen to be seeing things as I have for so many years.


----------



## Truckinguy

JeffreyD said:


> But your ok with the Muslim agenda, or the Hebrew, Hindu, etc.... Why just Christians?


When exactly did I say I was good with any other agenda? I"m not ok with any agenda that discriminates against anyone for no good reason.


----------



## Oxankle

Homosexual love leads to sodomy. Heterosexual love leads to reproduction of the species. Simple as that.


----------



## Truckinguy

watcher said:


> You shouldn't. When it supports either, the federal government is violating the USC. The only thing the federal government should be doing is making sure it treats each individual equally and protecting the rights of all individuals. It should no more force you to have to pay to support your heterosexual neighbor's spouse anymore than it should force you to pay to support your homosexual neighbor's spouse.
> 
> *I agree. Benefits for everyone or benefits for no one. That is what gays have been fighting for. Unfortunately that gets us into the sticky situation of the definition of marriage which the government should not be involved in anyway.*
> 
> 
> 
> First what "rights" are they supporting? Second seeing as how Christ teaches us to follow God's teaching about sin how can a Christian support something which God has called an abomination?
> 
> *They are fighting for the right to make life decisions, adoption rights and legal rights regarding wills and estates among other things. These can't be dealt with properly without the government issuing a marriage certificate. Also, I don't follow the Christian path so just because God said so has nothing to do with it from my point of view.*
> 
> 
> 
> It matters when it comes to legalities and rights. If you are doing something because you want to then do you really have your 'rights' violated when someone doesn't want to support your choice? If its genetic should a couple have the legal ability to have embryos and/or fetuses tested to determine if they want to allow that person to be born? If its a mental illness should we not seek to treat those with it and should a parent of a child be allowed to force the child to be treated even if the child doesn't want to be treated? Remember courts have ruled that children are not 'responsible enough' to be allowed to make their own medical decisions.
> 
> One of my stances is the federal government shouldn't even be involved in this. 1) As stated I don't think the feds should be involved in any with moral issues. Its not its job and it does not have that power in the USC.
> 
> *Yes, no government should be involved in moral issues.*
> 
> 2) This is clearly a state's rights issue. If a state has the power in its state constitution to do it and it wishes to be involved in providing legal support for people who wish to enter into a contract involving living situations then it should be allowed to do so. If it allows such contracts it should be required to allow a man and woman to do it. It should be required to allow two men or two women to do it. It should be required to allow one man and 15 women to do. It should be required to allow 4 men and 2 women to do it. IOW, if it is allowed for some it should be allowed for all. To do otherwise would be allowing for unequal protection under the law.
> 
> *I agree. However, the moral right still cries foul whenever the issue comes up and says it's not morally right so the government shouldn't support it.*
> 
> But on the other hand if a state wishes to remove itself from this it can just refuse to enter into these contracts and treat them the same as any other civil contract. Which would remove another federal finger in the pie because if a state doesn't issue nor recognize these type of contracts it would not be required to recognize contracts issued in other states.



The situation seems to be this: A gay couple wants to be recognized as married by the state and some people oppose it based on their morals. Who is imposing their agenda on who?


----------



## Truckinguy

Oxankle said:


> Homosexual love leads to sodomy. Heterosexual love leads to reproduction of the species. Simple as that.


I'm still baffled by your fixation on this. What goes on in the privacy of one's home is nobody's business and there are laws that prevent people from committing lewd acts in public. It affects no one in any way. Who cares if they want to stick it in their ear or rear? Straight couples are perfectly capable of sodomy too. 

Again, it's about love, not sex.


----------



## watcher

Truckinguy said:


> First what "rights" are they supporting? Second seeing as how Christ teaches us to follow God's teaching about sin how can a Christian support something which God has called an abomination?
> 
> They are fighting for the right to make life decisions, adoption rights and legal rights regarding wills and estates among other things. These can't be dealt with properly without the government issuing a marriage certificate.


First off no one has a right to adopt. Second all of them should be able to be dealt with using the same type contracts you would use in other dealings.




Truckinguy said:


> Also, I don't follow the Christian path so just because God said so has nothing to do with it from my point of view.


Has nothing to do with my question. Think about it this way. Say I claimed to be a card carrying member of PETA and vegan and think its wrong for anyone to harm any animal. Then I tell you I went to a rally to support the issuing of a building permit for a new slaughter house. Would you not question how much I really believed what I claimed I believe? Now if someone is claiming to be a Christian but is supporting something that is called an abomination by the God they claim to follow should you not question just how strong of a Christian they actually are?




Truckinguy said:


> 2) This is clearly a state's rights issue. If a state has the power in its state constitution to do it and it wishes to be involved in providing legal support for people who wish to enter into a contract involving living situations then it should be allowed to do so. If it allows such contracts it should be required to allow a man and woman to do it. It should be required to allow two men or two women to do it. It should be required to allow one man and 15 women to do. It should be required to allow 4 men and 2 women to do it. IOW, if it is allowed for some it should be allowed for all. To do otherwise would be allowing for unequal protection under the law.
> 
> I agree. However, the moral right still cries foul whenever the issue comes up and says it's not morally right so the government shouldn't support it.


Crying foul and trying to get their POV to be accepted and even put into law is their right. 




Truckinguy said:


> But on the other hand if a state wishes to remove itself from this it can just refuse to enter into these contracts and treat them the same as any other civil contract. Which would remove another federal finger in the pie because if a state doesn't issue nor recognize these type of contracts it would not be required to recognize contracts issued in other states.
> 
> The situation seems to be this: A gay couple wants to be recognized as married by the state and some people oppose it based on their morals. Who is imposing their agenda on who?


Simple the ones who oppose it. But are rights being violated? Do you have the right to be married? I'm thinking if this keeps on if the courts will rule that the state has no power to regulate marriage/personal relationships. IMO, the best thing to do is for a state to stop recognizing any type of personal relationship except for those with a specific legal contract. Then its up the the individuals to determine what they expect and what is enforceable by the contract.


----------



## Fennick

> Homosexual love leads to sodomy. Heterosexual love leads to reproduction of the species. Simple as that.


So, is lesbian love okay then? Because, you know, women are lacking the built-in physical equipment they aren't going to be sodomizing each other. Right? So is it okay for women to love each other?

I'm sure most folks are probably aware that there are plenty of totally straight and very devout married men who sodomize their wives. Some couples do it just for the pleasure of it alone and some also do it as a means of practising natural birth control while still enjoying an active sex life. Does that mean those straight men and their straight wives are homosexuals, not heterosexuals, because of their practising sodomy?

I think people need to stop getting hung up equating all homosexual love with the act of sodomy. Some homosexuals are just as repulsed with the idea of sodomy as some straight people are.

Not all homosexual men and women are capable or even desireous of indulging in _any_ kind of sexual activity, let alone sodomy. But everyone wants to love and be loved. 

Should non-sexually active homosexual men and women be denied the joy of loving and being loved by their loved one and denied being united with them because they are homosexual? Why?

Why should any people who love each other be reviled and kept separated?


----------



## Fennick

watcher said:


> ...... First off no one has a right to adopt. Second all of them should be able to be dealt with using the same type contracts you would use in other dealings.
> 
> 
> ......... Do you have the right to be married? I'm thinking if this keeps on if the courts will rule that the state has no power to regulate marriage/personal relationships. *IMO, the best thing to do is for a state to stop recognizing any type of personal relationship except for those with a specific legal contract. Then its up the the individuals to determine what they expect and what is enforceable by the contract*.


:idea: :thumb:


----------



## Nevada

Since marital rights are all about federal benefits, I don't see why states should regulate marriage at all. What is the virtue if state regulated marriage, and why do states even have interest in regulating marriage?


----------



## Fennick

Nevada said:


> Since marital rights are all about federal benefits, I don't see why states should regulate marriage at all. What is the virtue if state regulated marriage, and why do states even have interest in regulating marriage?


I think it's because some states put more emphasis on religion than others. The more religious states want to have more control of people's lives so regulating marriage is one way of controlling their people.


----------



## JeffreyD

Fennick said:


> I think it's because some states put more emphasis on religion than others. The more religious states want to have more control of people's lives so regulating marriage is one way of controlling their people.


That's interesting! I see the liberal states as wanting more control over peoples lives regardless of their religious views. I live in the most liberal state, i know how were treated! Regulating marriage as far as people are concerned, is not about control, its about money for the government.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> Since marital rights are all about federal benefits, I don't see why states should regulate marriage at all. What is the virtue if state regulated marriage, and why do states even have interest in regulating marriage?


They already do regulate it. AFAIK, there's no federal marriage license. 

But I don't know why the states have anything to do with personal relations. 

I do see see problems with the federal government, or any one, giving benefits to non-employees. Where do you stop it and just who gets to decide just what a spouse/family is? What if someone says they are married to 2 people? What if they say they have 20 spouses living in different homes and maybe even in different states?


----------



## Truckinguy

watcher said:


> Has nothing to do with my question. Think about it this way. Say I claimed to be a card carrying member of PETA and vegan and think its wrong for anyone to harm any animal. Then I tell you I went to a rally to support the issuing of a building permit for a new slaughter house. Would you not question how much I really believed what I claimed I believe? Now if someone is claiming to be a Christian but is supporting something that is called an abomination by the God they claim to follow should you not question just how strong of a Christian they actually are?


It has everything to do with the question. Homosexuality is opposed by a mostly religious point of view. Christians pick and choose what rules to follow all the time. They no longer stone a man to death for picking up sticks on a sabbath. Christians routinely get divorced which is spoken against in the Bible. Christianity is broken up into so many factions, each with their own level of convictions, it's hard to tell what people stand for any more. 

I actually respect Christians more if they respect and love people even though they do things that the Christian doesn't approve of. Love, compassion and forgiveness are more Christian than judgement and persecution.

My Parents are Christian. My Dad passed away two years ago but they lived their lives according to Christian values. When my sister come out as gay my Dad had a very difficult time with it. It was a very tumultuous and emotional time for both my Dad and my sister but my Dad accepted her and her partner and even walked my sister down the aisle at their wedding. Nobody ever questioned my Dad's convictions, in fact it added to the great respect that was felt by everyone around him.

There are so many issues in this world that need our attention. There are people in hospital who could use some physical or financial help. There are homeless kids wandering our streets. Those who have had their houses destroyed by tornadoes could use a hand up. We should look around our communities and out into the world and extend our love, compassion and generosity to those who need it instead of wasting time condemning people for doing something that really doesn't affect anyone at all.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

> There are so many issues in this world that need our attention. There are people in hospital who could use some physical or financial help. There are homeless kids wandering our streets. Those who have had their houses destroyed by tornadoes could use a hand up. We should look around our communities and out into the world and extend our love, compassion and generosity to those who need it instead of wasting time condemning people for doing something that really dosn't affect anyone at all.


This is spot on.

We are no one to condemn anyone.
If someone does not 'celebrate or embrace' something, it doesn't mean they condemn.
It means that they do not 'celebrate or embrace'.
You can extend a hand, have compassion, be generous and love those who make different choices. 
That's being human.
Choosing not to 'embrace or celebrate' is ok.
It dosent' make you a bigot, bad person, hater, racist, or jerk.
AS LONG AS you can extend a hand, have compassion, be generous and love.


----------



## watcher

Truckinguy said:


> It has everything to do with the question. Homosexuality is opposed by a mostly religious point of view. Christians pick and choose what rules to follow all the time. They no longer stone a man to death for picking up sticks on a sabbath. Christians routinely get divorced which is spoken against in the Bible. Christianity is broken up into so many factions, each with their own level of convictions, it's hard to tell what people stand for any more.


As the old saying goes sleeping in the garage doesn't make you a car. Someone going to church and saying they are Christian doesn't make them one. 



Truckinguy said:


> I actually respect Christians more if they respect and love people even though they do things that the Christian doesn't approve of.


Its the Christians who work to earn the world's respect which are truly spitting in the face of God. 




Truckinguy said:


> Love, compassion and forgiveness are more Christian than judgement and persecution.


Say you love someone who is a drug addict. Every time they come to you really hurting because they haven't had a fix. Would you show you love and compassion to them by going out and buying them more and more drugs? 




Truckinguy said:


> My Parents are Christian. My Dad passed away two years ago but they lived their lives according to Christian values. When my sister come out as gay my Dad had a very difficult time with it. It was a very tumultuous and emotional time for both my Dad and my sister but my Dad accepted her and her partner and even walked my sister down the aisle at their wedding. Nobody ever questioned my Dad's convictions, in fact it added to the great respect that was felt by everyone around him.


Maybe they should have questioned it. To me it seems your Christian dad decided he rather see his daughter happy for a season and suffering for eternity. Its a lot like parents who run to 'rescue' their kid from punishment when the kid does wrong. They demand the school not fail him just because he doesn't study and can't pass test. Then later they will bail him out of jail when he breaks the law. In the end their "love" ends up hurting the kid much more.

Years ago I had to give my daughter the "my way or the highway" talk. She made her call and left. I told he she's welcome to visit but her shackup was not. She is now living a good Christian life, married to a strong Christian man and has told me that my actions when she rebelled was one of the best things I had done for her. It showed her following the teachings of Christ isn't always easy and sometimes painful but in the end the rewards are great.




Truckinguy said:


> There are so many issues in this world that need our attention. There are people in hospital who could use some physical or financial help. There are homeless kids wandering our streets. Those who have had their houses destroyed by tornadoes could use a hand up. We should look around our communities and out into the world and extend our love, compassion and generosity to those who need it instead of wasting time condemning people for doing something that really doesn't affect anyone at all.


That's correct but is the world's definition of love, compassion and generosity is different then God's. The world thinks its loving, compassionate and generous to make a man dependent on it by giving him a fish rather than teaching him to fish so he will be able to live without it.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> I do see see problems with the federal government, or any one, giving benefits to non-employees.


We all deserve insurance benefits that we have paid for.



watcher said:


> Where do you stop it and just who gets to decide just what a spouse/family is? What if someone says they are married to 2 people? What if they say they have 20 spouses living in different homes and maybe even in different states?


Since the government administrates those insurance programs, the government has to regulate who is eligible for benefits. Since they are federal programs it makes sense that the federal government regulate eligibility, not the states.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> We all deserve insurance benefits that we have paid for.


Yep and you have the right to demand any benefit you wish. But others have the right to demand you not be given some benefits you want. 




Nevada said:


> Since the government administrates those insurance programs, the government has to regulate who is eligible for benefits. Since they are federal programs it makes sense that the federal government regulate eligibility, not the states.


Ok, so long as the feds don't tell the states nor private companies they must provide those benefits as well. But the issue here is the federal government telling the states how they must define something and what state benefits they must provide and to who. 

If a state wants to define marriage between two and only two people then requiring it to recognize a marriage which involves 6 people is outside the federal government's power. Let's change issues. Under federal law are able to legally possess fully automatic firearms. Under GA state law you are able to legally possess fully automatic firearms. Therefore, using the logic I've seen here, CA should not be able to prevent a person moving from GA to CA from possessing a fully automatic firearm.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> Yep and you have the right to demand any benefit you wish. But others have the right to demand you not be given some benefits you want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so long as the feds don't tell the states nor private companies they must provide those benefits as well. But the issue here is the federal government telling the states how they must define something and what state benefits they must provide and to who.
> 
> If a state wants to define marriage between two and only two people then requiring it to recognize a marriage which involves 6 people is outside the federal government's power. Let's change issues. Under federal law are able to legally possess fully automatic firearms. Under GA state law you are able to legally possess fully automatic firearms. Therefore, using the logic I've seen here, CA should not be able to prevent a person moving from GA to CA from possessing a fully automatic firearm.


California could reject all that move from anywhere from possessing automatic weapons. They just can't pick and choose which ones to ban. Just like state can choose to recognize all marriages conducted by another state, not pick and choose which they will and which they won't.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> Yep and you have the right to demand any benefit you wish. But others have the right to demand you not be given some benefits you want.


I don't get that. Why is is OK for your spouse to get your SS & Medicare benefits, but not a gay partner? You both pay in the same amount so you should both have the same benefits.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> California could reject all that move from anywhere from possessing automatic weapons. They just can't pick and choose which ones to ban. Just like state can choose to recognize all marriages conducted by another state, not pick and choose which they will and which they won't.


But they are choosing which firearm they allow and which they don't. They will allow you to own the semi-auto HK91 but not the full-auto HKG1. If they can do that why can't they allow a bi-gender marriage but not allow a mono-gender marriage? Its even more crazy when you think about the fact that the right to bear arms is a constitutionally guaranteed right while there's nothing in the USC about the right to marry.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> I don't get that. Why is is OK for your spouse to get your SS & Medicare benefits, but not a gay partner? You both pay in the same amount so you should both have the same benefits.


First off I don't accept your basic argument. I do not believe it is ok for you, me, your spouse, my spouse or your neighbor's dog to get these government give aways.

But since you ask the main reason is the provider doesn't want to. Its their plan so they can do what they wish with it, if you don't like you should just stop participating in that plan and find one you agree with to join. Oh wait your are required under the threat of the force of law to be in the plan. Therefore you are just screwed if they do something you don't like so you should just shut up and take it.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> But they are choosing which firearm they allow and which they don't. They will allow you to own the semi-auto HK91 but not the full-auto HKG1. If they can do that why can't they allow a bi-gender marriage but not allow a mono-gender marriage? Its even more crazy when you think about the fact that the right to bear arms is a constitutionally guaranteed right while there's nothing in the USC about the right to marry.


One of the cases being heard today is just such a case. Two men married in New Jersey. Ohio won't put one mans name down as the surviving spouse on the death certificate. They would if the couple were differing sexes. Ohio can either recognize legal marriages from NJ or not. They can't pick and choose.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> First off I don't accept your basic argument. I do not believe it is ok for you, me, your spouse, my spouse or your neighbor's dog to get these government give aways.


The logic is that many spouses are stay-at-home wives who don't contribute to FICA, yet their husbands contribute. The government has viewed the contribution of raising children as valuable to society. In appreciation of that, and to encourage the practice, wives inherit the SS & Medicare benefits of their husbands. I don't know why that wouldn't be OK.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> One of the cases being heard today is just such a case. Two men married in New Jersey. Ohio won't put one mans name down as the surviving spouse on the death certificate. They would if the couple were differing sexes. Ohio can either recognize legal marriages from NJ or not. They can't pick and choose.


Then why do some states get to pick and choose which CCW permits they will recognize or to pick and choose which firearms legal in other states into theirs?


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> The logic is that many spouses are stay-at-home wives who don't contribute to FICA, yet their husbands contribute. The government has viewed the contribution of raising children as valuable to society. In appreciation of that, and to encourage the practice, wives inherit the SS & Medicare benefits of their husbands. I don't know why that wouldn't be OK.


Again I don't think the government should be running ponzi schemes and forcing people into them or face prison time.

But there's a simple solution to your problem. You allow the person to put into a legal contract who gets all the money left in his account upon his death. He can then decide to give it to his spouse, his kids, to his barber, his church or the local brothel. After all its HIS money isn't it? Should he get to choose where it goes?

But seeing as how the government doesn't want to give up any more from its ponzi scheme than necessary, unless it buys them more votes, they won't allow this. Well that and the fact there are no such accounts with money sitting in them because all their money went DIRECTLY into the pockets of people already sucking on the government teat.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> But there's a simple solution to your problem. You allow the person to put into a legal contract who gets all the money left in his account upon his death. He can then decide to give it to his spouse, his kids, to his barber, his church or the local brothel. After all its HIS money isn't it? Should he get to choose where it goes?


Part of the reason SS & Medicare benefits are as generous as they are is because those benefits die with you, with the one exception of leaving behind a spouse. Funds that you didn't draw become available to others who live longer than you. Both SS & Medicare are insurance against living to be very old. You will never be able to will SS or Medicare benefits.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> Ok, so long as the feds don't tell the states nor private companies they must provide those benefits as well. But the issue here is the federal government telling the states how they must define something and what state benefits they must provide and to who.
> 
> If a state wants to define marriage between two and only two people then requiring it to recognize a marriage which involves 6 people is outside the federal government's power. Let's change issues. Under federal law are able to legally possess fully automatic firearms. Under GA state law you are able to legally possess fully automatic firearms. Therefore, using the logic I've seen here, CA should not be able to prevent a person moving from GA to CA from possessing a fully automatic firearm.


In the supreme court oral arguments the attorney representing the states had a very difficult time explaining why they had interest in this issue at all. He argued that it had to do with keeping natural parents with children, but the justices didn't seem to be buying it.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> Then why do some states get to pick and choose which CCW permits they will recognize or to pick and choose which firearms legal in other states into theirs?


No state had to recognize ccw permits or driver's licenses or even marriages from any other state. They do so for a variety of reasons. If they choose to honor another state's CCW for example they can't decide to honor only the permits issued to men. They either honor the permit or they don't. It is the same with recognizing marriages from other states. A marriage is a marriage for the purposes of the law. There is no application for a gay marriage license. There is just an application for a marriage license. There is no gay marriage license filed with the state. There is just a marriage license. There are no special benefits for a gay marriage, they are just the benefits of being married. So if a state agrees to recognize marriages from another state all they are recognizing is a marriage, no matter the naughty bits of those involved.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> Part of the reason SS & Medicare benefits are as generous as they are is because those benefits die with you, with the one exception of leaving behind a spouse. Funds that you didn't draw become available to others who live longer than you. Both SS & Medicare are insurance against living to be very old.


You and I both know it was set up as a money maker for the government. It was rigged from the start so that the government would take in WAY more money than it would ever pay out giving it a windfall. Remember it was set up so that more than half of the population would be dead BEFORE they could draw a dime. Check the average life span at the time the retirement age was set at 65 (5 years more than the average life span) if you doubt me.

This and the fact they force you to pay is why this great ponzi scheme has worked for so long. The problem is they weren't smart enough to put something in the law to make sure the retirement age was always higher than the average life span. If they had the money would still be rolling in because the retirement age would be 79 (according to google) +5 or 89.




Nevada said:


> You will never be able to will SS or Medicare benefits.


Of course you won't. The government is much smarter than you and can handle money much better than you can. Plus if you could control the money which it "saved" for you in your "account" it wouldn't be available for the pols to buy votes with.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> Of course you won't. The government is much smarter than you and can handle money much better than you can. Plus if you could control the money which it "saved" for you in your "account" it wouldn't be available for the pols to buy votes with.


Most retirement accounts are annuities. My Chevron retirement dies with me.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> In the supreme court oral arguments the attorney representing the states had a very difficult time explaining why they had interest in this issue at all. He argued that it had to do with keeping natural parents with children, but the justices didn't seem to be buying it.


Interesting point. If you have a judge which has shown a bias for one side should that judge recuse himself? If so should the two justices which officiated at gay weddings recuse themselves?


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> If you have a judge which has shown a bias for one side should that judge recuse himself?


A lot of judges on all levels have developed reputations for having various predispositions. Conservative judges are no exception.


----------



## Oxankle

Legitimizing sodomy; bestiality and probably incest are next. Just part of the downward spiral of a decadent civilization. Give us a few years more and a more healthy, robust, warlike element will show up and take over. Chinese? Arab? Space Aliens?


----------



## Truckinguy

watcher said:


> As the old saying goes sleeping in the garage doesn't make you a car. Someone going to church and saying they are Christian doesn't make them one.
> 
> 
> 
> Its the Christians who work to earn the world's respect which are truly spitting in the face of God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Say you love someone who is a drug addict. Every time they come to you really hurting because they haven't had a fix. Would you show you love and compassion to them by going out and buying them more and more drugs?
> 
> *You can't compare being gay to being a drug addict. Drug addiction is destructive in many ways, being gay harms no one.*
> 
> 
> Maybe they should have questioned it. To me it seems your Christian dad decided he rather see his daughter happy for a season and suffering for eternity. Its a lot like parents who run to 'rescue' their kid from punishment when the kid does wrong. They demand the school not fail him just because he doesn't study and can't pass test. Then later they will bail him out of jail when he breaks the law. In the end their "love" ends up hurting the kid much more.
> 
> Years ago I had to give my daughter the "my way or the highway" talk. She made her call and left. I told he she's welcome to visit but her shackup was not. She is now living a good Christian life, married to a strong Christian man and has told me that my actions when she rebelled was one of the best things I had done for her. It showed her following the teachings of Christ isn't always easy and sometimes painful but in the end the rewards are great.
> 
> *No, there was never any question about my Parent's faith. They followed the "don't judge lest ye be judged". Jesus pointed out people's sins to them but he never judged them. If there is a hell, who says my sister is going there? She could "find God" and repent at any time. It's up to no one but her. By keeping good strong ties with my sister my Parents could continue to show their convictions and be there for her if she needed them. "My way or the highway" isn't the solution in every situation. I"m glad it worked out in your case and I don't doubt that you needed to do it. I"ve seen other cases end in disaster. My sister is a nurse and probably one of the most generous people I know. *
> 
> 
> That's correct but is the world's definition of love, compassion and generosity is different then God's. The world thinks its loving, compassionate and generous to make a man dependent on it by giving him a fish rather than teaching him to fish so he will be able to live without it.


I don't follow the Christian path so when someone debates from a Christian point of view it's like discussing apples and oranges. Christians say being gay is bad because The Bible says so, it's not in the natural order of things and gay people are going to Hell. I say there is no Hell and even if being gay isn't necessarily in the natural order of things, so what? It harms no one. As long as this same subject is being debated from two totally incompatible points of view we can debate this until the cows come home and get nowhere. I was raised Christian so I completely understand the other side of the argument.


----------



## HDRider

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Oh right. You don't belive in angels.


----------



## where I want to

Truckinguy said:


> I don't follow the Christian path so when someone debates from a Christian point of view it's like discussing apples and oranges. Christians say being gay is bad because The Bible says so, it's not in the natural order of things and gay people are going to Hell. I say there is no Hell and even if being gay isn't necessarily in the natural order of things, so what? It harms no one. As long as this same subject is being debated from two totally incompatible points of view we can debate this until the cows come home and get nowhere. I was raised Christian so I completely understand the other side of the argument.


Arguments against official gay marriage with be equally dismissed if not based on religion. If it was simply all about forming "a loving relationship", that does not need government sanction at all. You can choose to live together right now without adverse effects.
It's about getting access to benefits and protections the government provides. The allegation is that, just because two people agree that they want to treat each other as spouses, the government must then provide the same guarentees.
However, the benefits and protections the government offers has been based on the historical needs of women and children, who were mostly officically powerless. A marriage was a guarantee of support that could not be arbitrarily withdrawn by a man, leaving women and children unable to support themselves as they were barred from the access men had to do so.
A lot of the laws, such as social security and inheritance laws and tax breaks were all based on that assumption- than the woman could not support herself as well as her spouse could. 
For children it is still true that the withdrawing of paternal support is damaging. For women it has become less so but the reality is that many women are still left in difficulty by men abandoning them financially. They tend to keep and raise children on their own yet.
So when a person wants to form a couple to take advantage of the rules that were previously designed to support those who were socially disadvantaged yet do not themselves suffer from those disadvantages, they are taking without need that the law was designed to meet. 
For instance, a gay man argued here that his partner deserved to inherit all his goods because that was what he wanted, even if a former spouse and the parner's children were disinherited. I pointed out that the woman had put in time and work and even physical risk of having children and that it was age old social custom to recognize that past effort by not allowing them to be disregarded at will. The gay man simply dismissed the whole thing as unimportant. Which is was to him but probably not to the women and children.
But there are certainly ways in which a gay couple can have an investment of such a nature that they have a stake in having their relationship recognized. But that line is not where the line of a relationship of risk and effort that exists in the attempt to create and raise children and which is called marriage. It is too easy for those not intending this level of involvement with people outside of the couple to not understand that their commitment is wider and more burdensome that that of a couple to each other alone.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> No state had to recognize ccw permits or driver's licenses or even marriages from any other state. They do so for a variety of reasons. If they choose to honor another state's CCW for example they can't decide to honor only the permits issued to men. They either honor the permit or they don't.


Funny I seem to remember reading something in the constitution about the states and how they are to deal with each other. . .let me think. . .oh yeah:

Article IV, Section 1:Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. 

Doesn't it seem to you if a wedding license falls into that category then a CCW or permit to own a full-auto weapon would as well? 




mmoetc said:


> It is the same with recognizing marriages from other states. A marriage is a marriage for the purposes of the law. There is no application for a gay marriage license. There is just an application for a marriage license. There is no gay marriage license filed with the state. There is just a marriage license. There are no special benefits for a gay marriage, they are just the benefits of being married. So if a state agrees to recognize marriages from another state all they are recognizing is a marriage, no matter the naughty bits of those involved.


But there's a problem. The argument used in the old DL case and in the CCW one is that the rules in the issuing state were not the same as the state refusing to recognize them. This has been found to be legal. And the fact that the states used to recognize the DLs of people 16+ y.o. from, IIRC, LA. They just SELECTIVELY refused to recognize those issued to 14 and 15 y.o. 

So if a state sets its rules for issuing a marriage licenses to requiring one male and one female it should not be limited to an all or nothing approach to recognizing licenses from other states.


----------



## Nevada

Truckinguy said:


> even if being gay isn't necessarily in the natural order of things, so what? It harms no one.


I don't happen to be gay so I really don't have a dog in this fight. But I don't see any reasonable cause to deny gay spouses government benefits. Whenever this subject comes up my first reaction is "who cares?" It's obvious on its face that these people deserve what's they're asking for. I says let's just let them have it and move on to bigger issues, like ending war and police brutality.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> A lot of judges on all levels have developed reputations for having various predispositions. Conservative judges are no exception.


Answer the question asked. Do you think a judge which has officiated at a gay wedding should be allowed to rule on if such weddings should be legal? Doesn't that show a preexisting bias?

Let us say you were married but wanted to take a second wife. Its illegal and you wind up in court trying to get the law ruled as invalid. You discover that the judge in your case has given a speech to a group dedicated to making gay marriages illegal and in that speech said that he would never officiate at a gay marriage even if it meant he'd have to quit. Would you feel you could get a fair and unbiased ruling from that judge?

Don't you think the fact that Kagan and Ginsburg have officiated at gay weddings shows they have a bias?


----------



## partndn

I wish everyone could remember something about law and marriage and stuff.

What interest is there in federal or state law in marriage? MONEY. Nothing else. The current tax system rewards unwed mothers, discourages young marriage without children, and creates more dependence on gov with less opportunities for independence options. 

If we canned the entire IRS and went to a fair tax or flat tax, PERIOD.. there wouldn't be an argument.
And YES, I would be okay losing all the false security entitlements that are currently disguised as "benefits" under the system. All you have to do is be willing to recognize individual independence and stick with it. Have some faith that proper support for disabled and needy ones will come to light if the gov will GET OUT OF THE WAY. It might be a rough transition, but what successful solution doesn't require some effort and discomfort?

How come people frequently get married in church, but divorced in court? There's where things get mixed.

I say, "marriage" as we know it is a religious state. All the gov needs to concern themselves with is each individual. 

Anyone seeking legal protection of inheritance, assets, power of decision when hospitalized, etc. should seek a lawyer and have it drawn up. Just like any 2 or more party business arrangement or partnership.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> Don't you think the fact that Kagan and Ginsburg have officiated at gay weddings shows they have a bias?


It shows how they feel about the issue, but that's not cause to remove them from the case. If we did that then we would have to remove Alito & Thomas for showing their conservative bias.


----------



## Nevada

partndn said:


> I say, "marriage" as we know it is a religious state.


Say what you wish, but it's still a government-issued license that entitles you to certain government benefits. People can have a private wedding ceremony without a license if they wish. The only difference is that they wouldn't qualify for government benefits. Why do you suppose nobody does that?


----------



## partndn

Nevada said:


> Say what you wish, but it's still a *government-issued license that entitles you to certain government benefits. *People can have a private wedding ceremony without a license if they wish. The only difference is that they wouldn't qualify for government benefits. Why do you suppose nobody does that?


Those bolded words are what is the problem. That's a batch of words right there that make me cringe. I say change it. My point is the so called "benefits" should go in the can. If people are getting married for "benefits" then they aren't getting married for the right reason. 
The gov should not put people in a position of insincerely making a commitment. It's empty and meaningless (IMO).

If you are truly for equality of people, gay, straight, blue or purple, then stop letting gov define everyone and squash the individuality you supposedly value. 

Like I said, if a legal partnership of some kind is necessary to protect assets or whatever, then do that with a lawyer. People have molested the term "marriage" with all the gov hands in it.


----------



## Nevada

partndn said:


> I say change it. My point is the so called "benefits" should go in the can.


To be clear, many housewives from the 50s & 60s are currently drawing SS & Medicare benefits earned by their deceased spouses. To you really want to take away all those people's income? What kind of social problems with that create?


----------



## Nevada

partndn said:


> Like I said, if a legal partnership of some kind is necessary to protect assets or whatever, then do that with a lawyer.


* What can a lawyer do to allow you to file a joint tax return without marriage?
* What can a lawyer do to allow you to refuse to testify against a partner that you aren't married to.
* What can a lawyer do to allow you to collect SS & Medicare benefits earned by a partner you were never married to?

You aren't being realistic. No lawyer or private contract can provide those benefits.


----------



## partndn

Nevada said:


> To be clear, many housewives from the 50s & 60s are currently drawing SS & Medicare benefits earned by their deceased spouses. To you really want to take away all those people's income? What kind of social problems with that create?


Yep. I said it would be uncomfortable, and it would. Most things worth while begin with a struggle.

Don't be silly and beat to death the point that many would see it as bad. 
But don't forget how happy those folks might be if their kids and grandkids begin bringing home a lot more money in their net paycheck.
Wow, folks might be able to take care of their parents the way their instincts should guide them to.

I'm of an age group that will probably NEVER see ss benefits. And I've watched that money suck vacuum out of my check for 30+ years. It needs to start somewhere.


----------



## partndn

Nevada said:


> * What can a lawyer do to allow you to file a joint tax return without marriage?*there are pretty much no tax returns in a fair tax/flat tax format! *
> * What can a lawyer do to allow you to refuse to testify against a partner that you aren't married to. *plead the 5th? I dunno. Some laws would need editing.*
> * What can a lawyer do to allow you to collect SS & Medicare benefits earned by a partner you were never married to? *they shouldn't!*
> 
> You aren't being realistic. No lawyer or private contract can provide those benefits.


Man, I AM realistic. You and I just aren't thinking in the same plane. That's okay. I know that not everyone will agree.


----------



## Nevada

partndn said:


> Yep. I said it would be uncomfortable, and it would. Most things worth while begin with a struggle.


Taking money from the most vulnerable people in society is just plain wrong. We've made a promise with FICA that we need to keep. My mother was a housewife and is living off my father's SS & Medicare benefits. Doing that would leave my mother destitute.


----------



## partndn

a promise with FICA? are you serious? 
Buddy, if promises were kept by the gov, we'd all be discussing other things.
Laughable. When you can tell me how the deductions coming out of today's 20, 30, 40 something's checks is protected and there for them as promised, I'll concede. EVEN if it was properly managed by the clowns in gov, I still say programs should be canned and fair tax is better for everyone.

Honestly, I don't enjoy the back and forth with you. I really don't believe you take the time to imagine the scenario I proposed. You're just replying quick, predictable thoughts. I really think if you take some time to try to imagine how it would work, you might see it is realistic, and possible, and best for society's long term existence. Don't just look at next year. Look at the next 50 years.

You have to remember that people survived devastating circumstances prior to ss and medicare. It wasn't because they were just lucky. They lived as if there was no gov safety net, because there wasn't. 

And I'm not picking at ss and medicare. There are billions of other dollars used in programs that should be canned as well. You just keep mentioning those two, and as they relate to marriage, which is kinda what the subject was a couple pages ago.


----------



## watcher

Truckinguy said:


> Say you love someone who is a drug addict. Every time they come to you really hurting because they haven't had a fix. Would you show you love and compassion to them by going out and buying them more and more drugs?
> 
> You can't compare being gay to being a drug addict.


Sure I can. Each of them have the ability to choose to follow their desires or not.




Truckinguy said:


> Drug addiction is destructive in many ways, being gay harms no one.


That's you view of it. To Christians being gay harms at the very least the individual because it will result in his going to hell. And even you expect Christians to be loving. How loving is it to sit back and watch someone doing something which you think will result in harm to them?

If you see someone you know about to try to jump off the roof into a swimming pool and you thought there was no way he could do it w/o being hurt would you 'lovingly' stand by and let him jump? Or would you step in and try to talk him out of it by telling him all the ways it could result in harm?




Truckinguy said:


> No, there was never any question about my Parent's faith. They followed the "don't judge lest ye be judged".


If that's all they followed they were on the wrong path. You have to read the entire Bible not just pull out parts from here and there. Your don't judge is only part of what Christ said right there. If you read just a little more you will see He says AFTER you have removed the beam from your eye THEN help your brother remove the mote from his. It doesn't say get the beam out of your eye then walk away and let your brother continue to suffer the pain of having something in his eye. How loving would that be?

Also Christians are SPECIFICALLY told to judge other Christians. Read 1 Corinthians 5 and 6 and you'll see.




Truckinguy said:


> Jesus pointed out people's sins to them but he never judged them.


Really? You might want to read the story about Jesus and the woman caught in adultery a little closer. In the end He clearly judged her because He told her to sin no more. How could He say that if He had not judged her to already be a sinner?




Truckinguy said:


> If there is a hell, who says my sister is going there? She could "find God" and repent at any time. It's up to no one but her.


Yep.




Truckinguy said:


> By keeping good strong ties with my sister my Parents could their convictions and be there for her if she needed them.


It depends on how they keep these ties. If doing that means they do things to show approval of her choice then its wrong and most likely doing more harm than good. What message do you think them being in the wedding showed her and the world? Does it show that they disapprove of her choice? Or does it show that they don't see it as being a real problem? Do they allow them to come over as a couple? Wouldn't that show that they are accepting it as OK.

Move back to the drug user. Say your kid chooses to use drugs. Would you buy drugs for them or willing allow them to use it in your house? Why not? Aren't you a loving parent and want to "good strong ties" with him and "continue to show" your convictions to him and "be there" if he needs you? Or might you just realize that by doing those things you are telling him doing drugs is OK and there's no reason to stop?




Truckinguy said:


> "My way or the highway" isn't the solution in every situation. I"m glad it worked out in your case and I don't doubt that you needed to do it. I"ve seen other cases end in disaster.


Supporting someone who is doing wrong and hoping they will change very rarely works. AAMOF, I can't think of a single case where it has worked. Even when my daughter was on the highway she knew I was there any time she wanted help in turning her life around. But she also knew I would not lend a hand to do anything which helped her continue in a way I did not approve. 




Truckinguy said:


> My sister is a nurse and probably one of the most generous people I know.


Ok that's good. I know a lot of nice people who are most likely going to wind up in Hell because they believe being nice is all that is necessary to avoid it.




Truckinguy said:


> That's correct but is the world's definition of love, compassion and generosity is different then God's. The world thinks its loving, compassionate and generous to make a man dependent on it by giving him a fish rather than teaching him to fish so he will be able to live without it.
> 
> I don't follow the Christian path so when someone debates from a Christian point of view it's like discussing apples and oranges.


But look at what I wrote. Do you not see how it is NOT compassionate nor loving to keep giving someone something instead of teaching them how to get it themselves? Think about any thing your parents made you do or go through which you didn't like at the time but now realize it was the right thing to do. Say making you go to school, most kids don't like that much. In your eyes as a kid wasn't it cruel of them to make you go? While in reality it was a very loving thing because they knew in the long run it would make your life better. That is logic and has nothing to do with Christianity.

The next time a Christian tries to tell you how you are wrong think about that first. Then you can tell them you know all about it and they should following the teachings of Christ and move on because you don't want to hear the Word.




Truckinguy said:


> Christians say being gay is bad because The Bible says so, it's not in the natural order of things and gay people are going to Hell. I say there is no Hell and even if being gay isn't necessarily in the natural order of things, so what? It harms no one. As long as this same subject is being debated from two totally incompatible points of view we can debate this until the cows come home and get nowhere. I was raised Christian so I completely understand the other side of the argument.


You may not believe it but that's find with me. As a Christian I am told to give the Word and if people don't want to hear it move on. I'm not trying to convince you that you are wrong nor that you should repent you have been given the Word and made your choice. 

My stand is I have a view point which should be seen just as valid as yours and I have the same freedom to express it and live my life by it as you do yours. And that when it comes to the federal government it should not pick my side over your any more than it should pick yours over mine. It should be 100% neutral. This is why it should say out of the fight.


----------



## watcher

HDRider said:


> How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
> 
> Oh right. You don't belive in angels.


How big is the pin?


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> I don't happen to be gay so I really don't have a dog in this fight. But I don't see any reasonable cause to deny gay spouses government benefits. Whenever this subject comes up my first reaction is "who cares?" It's obvious on its face that these people deserve what's they're asking for. I says let's just let them have it and move on to bigger issues, like ending war and police brutality.


The government does a lot of things using the 'reasonable cause' of it wants to support this or that. As pointed out its because the government wants to support the family. What reasonable cause is there to provide tax deductions for children, home mortgage interest? What reasonable cause is it to offer benefits to government workers and/or their families?


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> It shows how they feel about the issue, but that's not cause to remove them from the case. If we did that then we would have to remove Alito & Thomas for showing their conservative bias.


So you'd have no problem with a judge who is a Klan member ruling in cases where the defendant is black? After all he's just showing how he feels about the issue right? Or could it be the fact that he has put his thoughts into actions puts things in a different light?


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> Say what you wish, but it's still a government-issued license that entitles you to certain government benefits. People can have a private wedding ceremony without a license if they wish. The only difference is that they wouldn't qualify for government benefits. Why do you suppose nobody does that?


Sorry but in several states you are wrong. Research common law marriage. There is no need for a government approved or issued license.


----------



## Nevada

partndn said:


> a promise with FICA? are you serious?


Yes, in fact Ronald Reagan called it an "iron clad" promise. Here for yourself.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-91W5LS0E8[/ame]


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> * What can a lawyer do to allow you to file a joint tax return without marriage?
> * What can a lawyer do to allow you to refuse to testify against a partner that you aren't married to.
> * What can a lawyer do to allow you to collect SS & Medicare benefits earned by a partner you were never married to?
> 
> You aren't being realistic. No lawyer or private contract can provide those benefits.


None of these would be a problem if the government was not involved in the private lives of its subjects. . .ah citizens.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> Taking money from the most vulnerable people in society is just plain wrong. We've made a promise with FICA that we need to keep. My mother was a housewife and is living off my father's SS & Medicare benefits. Doing that would leave my mother destitute.


Where in the USC does it say that the government it to be the provider for individual citizens? If you don't want your mother to be destitute you take care of her. Why should me and my kids be taking care of YOUR mother? We have our on lives to be responsible for.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> Yes, in fact Ronald Reagan called it an "iron clad" promise. Here for yourself.


We all are willing to admit Reagan was a pol just like the rest of them. He'd rub the shineola on the ball of poop when necessary. But in the end its nothing but a shiny ball of poop and if you scratch off that shiny coating it still stinks.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> Where in the USC does it say that the government it to be the provider for individual citizens? If you don't want your mother to be destitute you take care of her. Why should me and my kids be taking care of YOUR mother? We have our on lives to be responsible for.


But the thing is that my father already paid into FICA for this.


----------



## HDRider

King for a day - Watcher


----------



## kasilofhome

Elected king based on merit, valor, character,and logic


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> But the thing is that my father already paid into FICA for this.


No your father paid into FICA to pay for the people getting while he was working. The people at the bottom of a ponzi scheme always get the shaft when it fails because there are no more suckers coming to take money from. 

In a ponzi scheme the money taken in today all goes to either the operator of the scheme or paid directly to the people who "invested" yesterday.

In an insurance plan or an annuity. Part of the money you pay in today goes to the operator to pay for the cost of running the system, part goes to pay for some of the cost of others and the rest is invested to make the money that will be needed to cover you. 

Now you look at SS and tell me which one it looks like.


----------



## sisterpine

I have to agree with "where I want to be". It seems the last decade all of the limits on what we celebrate have been removed, all of the limits about what we discuss in public have been removed, and all of the limits about commercial discussions and anal leakage have been removed. It seems to this old gal that we have followed the course of becoming "interconnected" to every other human way beyond reasonable. I love you guys but I don't care how many times you poop each week or how your sexual organs are working. Now, if you have a problem in one of those areas and want to discuss it privately by all means I am with you there. We are suffering from an overload of other peoples information and are seriously lacking in privacy.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> In a ponzi scheme the money taken in today all goes to either the operator of the scheme or paid directly to the people who "invested" yesterday.


That money was not taken by the government, it was invested with the government.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> That money was not taken by the government, it was invested with the government.


So your father could have refused the deduction? I think not! That means it was taken and spent on someone else......ponzi.


----------



## nchobbyfarm

And Bernie Madoff's victims money was invested by Bernie Madoff!!! Same as the investments by the US govt. And worth just as much!


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> That money was not taken by the government, it was invested with the government.


Just like all the money that was invested with Bernie Madoff right? It worked well for the ones who "invested" with him early then got out but not so well for the ones who "invested" their money late in the game. The same thing is happening here. Those who "invested" early and got their payoffs are fine, those who are still paying are going to get the shaft. 

You and I both know there is zero money in the ss fund only kited checks from the government which must borrow money just to pay its daily operating expenses. Just like any other ponzi scheme its all built on an illusion kept afloat because of the ability to keep taking money from people at the bottom of the pyramid to give to those at top. 

It worked great as long as enough of those on bottom died before climbing too high. But its reached the point that's no longer the case those dang "investors" are just living too long. So you either need to kill them off by cutting the medical care you'll pay for or raise the age at which they can draw out back to a point where most people drop dead before they get a dime.


----------



## Nevada

This is a photo of GWB in Parkersburg, WV, where treasury notes for FICA are stored, as he inspects some of the T-notes.










While I don't get all of my retirement from SS, I draw more than $1,000 from SS each month.


----------



## partndn

Do you think showing GWB will convince conservatives that something non existent is any more real??

The wizard is behind the curtain, no matter what party. 
There's no changing it without a major overhaul of the whole system.


----------



## Nevada

partndn said:


> Do you think showing GWB will convince conservatives that something non existent is any more real??
> 
> The wizard is behind the curtain, no matter what party.
> There's no changing it without a major overhaul of the whole system.


I don't think there is a politician in Washington who has the nerve to suggest changing social security. I don't care, just as long as I get my $1,000 every month.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> I don't think there is a politician in Washington who has the nerve to suggest changing social security. I don't care, just as long as I get my $1,000 every month.


Of course it's all about what you get, that's never changed! What about all those ACA subsidies that now have to be paid back? What happened to the affordable part? Oh yeah, you don't care as long as you get yours. What happened to the party of fairness and equality? I dare you to answer all of these questions without return questions.


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> Of course it's all about what you get, that's never changed! What about all those ACA subsidies that now have to be paid back? What happened to the affordable part? Oh yeah, you don't care as long as you get yours. What happened to the party of fairness and equality? I dare you to answer all of these questions without return questions.


I'm transitioning to Medicare this summer.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> I'm transitioning to Medicare this summer.


Answer the questions......i dare you!!


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> Answer the questions......i dare you!!


I don't have to pay back any subsidies. In fact I got a refund for overpaying healthcare last year.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> This is a photo of GWB in Parkersburg, WV, where treasury notes for FICA are stored, as he inspects some of the T-notes.












And here is some guy inspecting a toilet paper warehouse. Which papers have more real worth? 

T-notes have zero real value because they are based on the assumption that the government will have the money to pay the buyer back when they are due.

Put some effort and think about it logically. You think that a government passing out IOUs in order to get the money it needs to operate today will have the money to pay off those IOUs when they come due? Maybe if they find someone gullible enough to loan them more money. But at some point even the most stupid moron out there will realize the the US owes so much money that there's no way on earth it will EVER be able to pay it back. Then what? 

We have been over it before but lets go over it again. Without foreign "investment", i.e. loans the US government would fail in a matter of. . .what, weeks? A few months at the outside, maybe? Right now the major producers NEED the US to stay afloat because they need it to buy their goods. So its a good "investment" to keep it going. Think of a business paying a store a "shelving fee" to get its goods into the market. It cost some but the pay back makes it worth it.

But that's quickly changing. Asia has billions of people who's standard of living is rising and rising fast. That means that the value of the US market is falling. That means the return on their "investment" is getting smaller. Why would a company pay a shelving fee to a market when there is one down the street that has the same volume of sales and is willing to stock the product for free? When this happens the US government will fail because it is over spending its income by almost 100% per year and there's not a snowball's chance on a Reno sidewalk on the 4th of July of it being able to withstand the loss of that much budget money.




Nevada said:


> While I don't get all of my retirement from SS, I draw more than $1,000 from SS each month.


And where is that money coming from? Out of the pockets of all those people out there working today. Well that and from foreign banks, Asian mostly today. But good for you. You are one of the lucky ones and like most people as long as you get yours why worry about the others. Why would the people living in the 60 care about what happens in the 2020s? They'll have had their fun and be dead by then.


----------



## HDRider

Nevada said:


> I don't think there is a politician in Washington who has the nerve to suggest changing social security. I don't care, just as long as I get my $1,000 every month.


Smells like panic, aka Democrat delight.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> And where is that money coming from? Out of the pockets of all those people out there working today. Well that and from foreign banks, Asian mostly today. But good for you. You are one of the lucky ones and like most people as long as you get yours why worry about the others. Why would the people living in the 60 care about what happens in the 2020s? They'll have had their fun and be dead by then.


You won't give me credit for contributing to FICA for over 40 years? I don't consider myself a freeloader for accepting SS & Medicare.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> You won't give me credit for contributing the FICA for over 40 years?


No. If you stole your neighbor's computer would you expect me to give you credit because you did it to replace the one that had been stolen from you earlier?

The money you are getting now is NOT your money nor anything that your money earned because it was never invested, it was spent. The money that the government took from you was given to someone else as fast as you paid it in. The money you are getting now is being taking from someone else today. 

The government has no moral nor constitutional right/power to take money from one individual and give it to another individual just because it thinks the second individual needs it more than the first. And just because a politically appointed individual or group of individuals paid back the people who appointed them by saying it is legal does not change that fact.

I have challenged a lot of people to show me where in the USC this power is given the the government. The best anyone has done is point to the "general welfare". They can not explain how taking care of an individual is for the "general welfare" of the nation. That's like saying the police providing around the clock protection for one person is providing protection for an entire city.

Can you show me where this power is granted to the federal government in the constitution?




Nevada said:


> I don't consider myself a freeloader for accepting SS & Medicare.


I have found that most freeloaders don't consider themselves freeloaders. Most common response is words to the effect: Its not freeloading I'm just taking what someone is offering me.


----------



## AmericanStand

Nevada Didn't you contribute to SSI ? Social Security INSURANCE .
SSI is a mandatory insurance just like the AHA.
Insurance isn't a investment plan You don't get YOUR money back you get defined benefits.


----------



## Truckinguy

watcher said:


> That's you view of it. To Christians being gay harms at the very least the individual because it will result in his going to hell. And even you expect Christians to be loving. How loving is it to sit back and watch someone doing something which you think will result in harm to them?
> 
> If you see someone you know about to try to jump off the roof into a swimming pool and you thought there was no way he could do it w/o being hurt would you 'lovingly' stand by and let him jump? Or would you step in and try to talk him out of it by telling him all the ways it could result in harm?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that's all they followed they were on the wrong path. You have to read the entire Bible not just pull out parts from here and there. Your don't judge is only part of what Christ said right there. If you read just a little more you will see He says AFTER you have removed the beam from your eye THEN help your brother remove the mote from his. It doesn't say get the beam out of your eye then walk away and let your brother continue to suffer the pain of having something in his eye. How loving would that be?
> 
> Also Christians are SPECIFICALLY told to judge other Christians. Read 1 Corinthians 5 and 6 and you'll see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? You might want to read the story about Jesus and the woman caught in adultery a little closer. In the end He clearly judged her because He told her to sin no more. How could He say that if He had not judged her to already be a sinner?
> 
> 
> 
> Ok that's good. I know a lot of nice people who are most likely going to wind up in Hell because they believe being nice is all that is necessary to avoid it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But look at what I wrote. Do you not see how it is NOT compassionate nor loving to keep giving someone something instead of teaching them how to get it themselves? Think about any thing your parents made you do or go through which you didn't like at the time but now realize it was the right thing to do. Say making you go to school, most kids don't like that much. In your eyes as a kid wasn't it cruel of them to make you go? While in reality it was a very loving thing because they knew in the long run it would make your life better. That is logic and has nothing to do with Christianity.
> 
> The next time a Christian tries to tell you how you are wrong think about that first. Then you can tell them you know all about it and they should following the teachings of Christ and move on because you don't want to hear the Word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may not believe it but that's find with me. As a Christian I am told to give the Word and if people don't want to hear it move on. I'm not trying to convince you that you are wrong nor that you should repent you have been given the Word and made your choice.
> 
> My stand is I have a view point which should be seen just as valid as yours and I have the same freedom to express it and live my life by it as you do yours. And that when it comes to the federal government it should not pick my side over your any more than it should pick yours over mine. It should be 100% neutral. This is why it should say out of the fight.


See, this is one reason (of many) where you lose me and a lot of people. My Parents and my sister have led exemplary lives, they are highly respected in our community and the notion that good people like that would go to Hell because of their stance and participation in one facet of their lives is ridiculous. The idea of needing to achieve some sort of unattainable standard of perfection to avoid being burned in Hell for all eternity is not a message of love, it's a threat to "love me or else".

My Parents were very knowledgeable about the Bible just like many other Christians and did their best to abide by it. However, there are many antiquated ideas in the Bible that don't apply today and religions need to change with the times.


----------



## HDRider

Truckinguy said:


> See, this is one reason (of many) where you lose me and a lot of people. My Parents and my sister have led exemplary lives, they are highly respected in our community and the notion that good people like that would go to Hell because of their stance and participation in one facet of their lives is ridiculous. The idea of needing to achieve some sort of unattainable standard of perfection to avoid being burned in Hell for all eternity is not a message of love, it's a threat to "love me or else".
> 
> My Parents were very knowledgeable about the Bible just like many other Christians and did their best to abide by it. However, there are many antiquated ideas in the Bible that don't apply today and *religion*s *need to change with the times*.


Christianity is a constant.


----------



## mmoetc

HDRider said:


> Christianity is a constant.


There are a couple thousand years of history, countless theocratic writings, 10's of thousands of different Christian sects, a little thing called the Reformation and countless other indications that Christianity is anything but "constant".


----------



## watcher

Truckinguy said:


> See, this is one reason (of many) where you lose me and a lot of people. My Parents and my sister have led exemplary lives, they are highly respected in our community and the notion that good people like that would go to Hell because of their stance and participation in one facet of their lives is ridiculous. The idea of needing to achieve some sort of unattainable standard of perfection to avoid being burned in Hell for all eternity is not a message of love, it's a threat to "love me or else".


Ok lets look at it this way. You have someone who has lead an exemplary life and are highly respected in the community but they have one facet of their life which isn't so good. Say they like to, lets pick something really bad, molest children. Would you say that the justice system should not punish them? After all its only ONE facet of their lives and other than that they are really, really good people. What if it isn't quite that bad, let say they just deal drugs. Should their exemplary lives and respect allow them to be excused for that one facet? Well drug dealing is kinda bad so what if they were just car thieves. Would their lives and respect be enough for you to let them keep stealing cars? If not just what crime would you be willing to over look because of how exemplary of a life they live or how much respect the community has for them?

If that sounds silly to you think about trying the same argument would sound to God as you try to explain why you shouldn't be held accountable for your sin.




Truckinguy said:


> My Parents were very knowledgeable about the Bible just like many other Christians and did their best to abide by it.


As an old preacher told me one time; There's a big difference between falling in a mud puddle and jumping into a mud hole and wallowing around in it like a pig on a hot day. If you fall you ask for forgiveness and try to avoid doing it again. You don't just accept it and keep right on at it. 

You have the standard to judge any Christian you wish, its called the Bible. Look at what is in there and look at the total life of the person calling themselves Christian. If there's a couple of places where they don't line up then you are seeing where a Christian has fallen and gotten back up. If you see places where they never line up you have someone who will hear the dreaded words of Matthew 7:21-23:

_Not everyone who says to me, &#8216;Lord, Lord,&#8217; will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, &#8216;Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?&#8217; And then will I declare to them, &#8216;I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.&#8217;_




Truckinguy said:


> However, there are many antiquated ideas in the Bible that don't apply today and religions need to change with the times.


Yeah, God has changed His view of sin over the last few years. He has decided <insert your preferred action here> is no longer a sin. Just take a marker and edit the Bible the way you want and everything will just fine.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> Funny I seem to remember reading something in the constitution about the states and how they are to deal with each other. . .let me think. . .oh yeah:
> 
> Article IV, Section 1:Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.
> 
> Doesn't it seem to you if a wedding license falls into that category then a CCW or permit to own a full-auto weapon would as well?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But there's a problem. The argument used in the old DL case and in the CCW one is that the rules in the issuing state were not the same as the state refusing to recognize them. This has been found to be legal. And the fact that the states used to recognize the DLs of people 16+ y.o. from, IIRC, LA. They just SELECTIVELY refused to recognize those issued to 14 and 15 y.o.
> 
> So if a state sets its rules for issuing a marriage licenses to requiring one male and one female it should not be limited to an all or nothing approach to recognizing licenses from other states.


So as the strict constitutionalist you are, at least when it suits your purposes, you should be arguing that a marriage license issued in New Jersey must be recognized in all other states. 

The problem with your drivers license example is that those licenses issued to younger drivers were a separate license with greater restrictions than an "adult "
license. They weren't the same license therefor they didn't have to be recognized as such. Would you be in favor of a state recognizing the licenses of white drivers from another state, but not of black drivers.

Your CCW theory has a fatal flaw. You are licensed to carry a weapon, not a specific weapon. The repricocity extends to the carrying, not the weapon. A state has a legitimate right to enforce its own weapons law. Just because it may be legal to drive 75mph in the state your drivers license is issued doesn't make it legal for you to do so in a state with a 65 mph speed limit even though your license allows you to drive there.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> So as the strict constitutionalist you are, at least when it suits your purposes, you should be arguing that a marriage license issued in New Jersey must be recognized in all other states.


No because the states have the right to set their standards. Only if your license from another state is the same or greater then theirs then they should be required to recognize it. Otherwise you have a built in 'cheat'. You go to a low standard state and get your license and bypass the standards of another.




mmoetc said:


> The problem with your drivers license example is that those licenses issued to younger drivers were a separate license with greater restrictions than an "adult " license. They weren't the same license therefor they didn't have to be recognized as such.


IIRC that's not what it was. I'm not talking about the limited "hardship" licenses some states did (do?) issue to allow underage people to drive. Back in the good old days, aka stone age (50s? Early 60s?), the state wide driving age in, again based on memory, in LA was 14. The license issued to a 14 y.o. was the same as the one issued to a 41 y.o. But if memory serves TX refused to recognize them and was sued. 




mmoetc said:


> Would you be in favor of a state recognizing the licenses of white drivers from another state, but not of black drivers.


In favor, no. Support as legal if it were legal for a state to treat different races different and a state limited its drivers to whites then yes. A driver which doesn't meet the necessary standards would not be a legal driver.




mmoetc said:


> Your CCW theory has a fatal flaw. You are licensed to carry a weapon, not a specific weapon. The repricocity extends to the carrying, not the weapon. A state has a legitimate right to enforce its own weapons law. Just because it may be legal to drive 75mph in the state your drivers license is issued doesn't make it legal for you to do so in a state with a 65 mph speed limit even though your license allows you to drive there.


But the class III license is weapon specific.


----------



## Nevada

AmericanStand said:


> Insurance isn't a investment plan You don't get YOUR money back you get defined benefits.


That's all I've ever expected.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> No because the states have the right to set their standards. Only if your license from another state is the same or greater then theirs then they should be required to recognize it. Otherwise you have a built in 'cheat'. You go to a low standard state and get your license and bypass the standards of another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IIRC that's not what it was. I'm not talking about the limited "hardship" licenses some states did (do?) issue to allow underage people to drive. Back in the good old days, aka stone age (50s? Early 60s?), the state wide driving age in, again based on memory, in LA was 14. The license issued to a 14 y.o. was the same as the one issued to a 41 y.o. But if memory serves TX refused to recognize them and was sued.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In favor, no. Support as legal if it were legal for a state to treat different races different and a state limited its drivers to whites then yes. A driver which doesn't meet the necessary standards would not be a legal driver.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the class III license is weapon specific.


If you wish to discuss a certain case on drivers licenses post some info about it. My recollection of underage licenses mostly deals with special permits usually issued to farm kids for driving to school or operating farm vehicles on the road. 

To paraphrase your own question, does legal equal right? You seem to not support legal actions you deem aren't right yet would roll over on this one?

If you can show me a class III marriage license we might have something to discuss. It's perfectly legitimate for a state to recognize reciprocity for one type of permit but not another. They can't accept the same permit for one person and not another based on something like gender, race or religion.


----------



## kasilofhome

How about if it goes against the state's constitution put in via the voters.

Would not the state constitution supersede reciprocity?


----------



## HDRider

mmoetc said:


> There are a couple thousand years of history, countless theocratic writings, 10's of thousands of different Christian sects, a little thing called the Reformation and countless other indications that Christianity is anything but "constant".


Those are acts of man, not of Christ.


----------



## mmoetc

kasilofhome said:


> How about if it goes against the state's constitution put in via the voters.
> 
> Would not the state constitution supersede reciprocity?


We fall back to the US Constitution, particularly the 14th amendment. A state probably doesn't have to recognize any marriage and the certainly don't have to recognize any CCW permit issued by another state. But if they choose to recognize those documents they must recognize all those documents equally. They cannot recognize a CCW permit issued to a woman, but not recognize the same permit from the same state issued to a man. Just as they cannot recognize a marriage certificate issued to a Baptist couple and not one issued to a Catholic one.


----------



## mmoetc

HDRider said:


> Those are acts of man, not of Christ.


And Christianity may be ordained by your god but it is administered by man. And man's only constant is that they are imperfect beings and will figure out a way to mess things up.


----------



## HDRider

mmoetc said:


> And Christianity may be ordained by your god but it is administered by man. And man's only constant is that they are imperfect beings and will figure out a way to mess things up.


I admit, you are correct, man is imperfect.


----------



## kasilofhome

mmoetc said:


> We fall back to the US Constitution, particularly the 14th amendment. A state probably doesn't have to recognize any marriage and the certainly don't have to recognize any CCW permit issued by another state. But if they choose to recognize those documents they must recognize all those documents equally. They cannot recognize a CCW permit issued to a woman, but not recognize the same permit from the same state issued to a man. Just as they cannot recognize a marriage certificate issued to a Baptist couple and not one issued to a Catholic one.


Marriage in our constitution was defined.

Thus if there are dog leash laws but not cat leash laws being charged of not unleashing your four legged feline will get tossed in court. Fails to apply to the law per definition.


----------



## Truckinguy

HDRider said:


> Christianity is a constant.


Maybe so but the Bible isn't. It has been through a few translations from different languages and even different versions of English language translations are different depending on who translated them. People dissect the Bible down to the last word or phrase and base their beliefs on that. There is so much debate about what certain words or phrases mean in the original languages that it's not possible to take the Bible literally. If you take Christianity as an overall concept to treat people nicely and be a good person than I agree with you. However, someone could come up with a "new translation" of the Bible based on some "enlightened view" of the original languages which might change the tone or meaning of certain verses and people would have to figure out whether to follow that version now.


----------



## where I want to

So a lack of perfection is just cause for quitting any belief at all? Or is just that the lack of perfection in others who are critical of us is a good excuse for our own willingness to accept our flaws?


----------



## Truckinguy

watcher said:


> Ok lets look at it this way. You have someone who has lead an exemplary life and are highly respected in the community but they have one facet of their life which isn't so good. Say they like to, lets pick something really bad, molest children. Would you say that the justice system should not punish them? After all its only ONE facet of their lives and other than that they are really, really good people. What if it isn't quite that bad, let say they just deal drugs. Should their exemplary lives and respect allow them to be excused for that one facet? Well drug dealing is kinda bad so what if they were just car thieves. Would their lives and respect be enough for you to let them keep stealing cars? If not just what crime would you be willing to over look because of how exemplary of a life they live or how much respect the community has for them?
> 
> *Again, you're using examples of crimes which have a victim and are detrimental to society. The issue of being gay harms no one. What if God said driving red cars was a sin? We all know that there is nothing wrong with driving a red car. Would we all just go along with a directive of which the sole purpose is control?*
> 
> If that sounds silly to you think about trying the same argument would sound to God as you try to explain why you shouldn't be held accountable for your sin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As an old preacher told me one time; There's a big difference between falling in a mud puddle and jumping into a mud hole and wallowing around in it like a pig on a hot day. If you fall you ask for forgiveness and try to avoid doing it again. You don't just accept it and keep right on at it.
> 
> You have the standard to judge any Christian you wish, its called the Bible. Look at what is in there and look at the total life of the person calling themselves Christian. If there's a couple of places where they don't line up then you are seeing where a Christian has fallen and gotten back up. If you see places where they never line up you have someone who will hear the dreaded words of Matthew 7:21-23:
> 
> _Not everyone who says to me, âLord, Lord,â will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, âLord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?â And then will I declare to them, âI never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.â_
> 
> *Again, this is where you lose many people. For someone to have the right intentions and do the best they can and still be rejected shows a complete lack of love and compassion. If a person commits a crime against someone with intent and malice, I completely understand having to suffer the consequences. *
> 
> 
> Yeah, God has changed His view of sin over the last few years. He has decided <insert your preferred action here> is no longer a sin. Just take a marker and edit the Bible the way you want and everything will just fine.
> 
> *Why not? Christians do it all the time. If people don't like what is going on at their church, they leave and start their own church and conduct themselves the way they see fit. I understand there are as many as 40,000 different factions of Christianity now. *


I wouldn't even have a problem if the "saved" ones went up to heaven and the rest continued to live their lives out on Earth as usual. However, the alternative to Heaven is burning in an eternal fire?


----------



## Truckinguy

where I want to said:


> So a lack of perfection is just cause for quitting any belief at all? Or is just that the lack of perfection in others who are critical of us is a good excuse for our own willingness to accept our flaws?


Of course not but a belief that requires an unattainable standard of perfection in order to avoid burning in fire forever is questionable. There are other belief systems out there that encourage one to be the best they can be without threat of eternal damnation.

There's nothing wrong with having flaws as long as they harm no one. If your flaw is murder, there are consequences. If your flaw is being sexually attracted to someone, as some religions apparently feel, that's not an issue unless you force it on someone, in which case, there are consequences.

If your flaw is a love of money, that's not an issue unless you harm others in the process of obtaining it. 

Nobody's perfect and we shouldn't expect anyone to be. We learn and grow from our imperfections and the consequences of our actions.


----------



## where I want to

Truckinguy said:


> Of course not but a belief that requires an unattainable standard of perfection in order to avoid burning in fire forever is questionable. There are other belief systems out there that encourage one to be the best they can be without threat of eternal damnation.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with having flaws as long as they harm no one. If your flaw is murder, there are consequences. If your flaw is being sexually attracted to someone, as some religions apparently feel, that's not an issue unless you force it on someone, in which case, there are consequences.
> 
> If your flaw is a love of money, that's not an issue unless you harm others in the process of obtaining it.
> 
> Nobody's perfect and we shouldn't expect anyone to be. We learn and grow from our imperfections and the consequences of our actions.


I guess that is why religions that believe in hell also have an escape clause of grace. Perfection is not a requirement- effort is.

And a flaw, by definition, leads to harm either to one's self or others but most frequently to both.

Now, if you wish to argue something is not flawed????


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> We fall back to the US Constitution, particularly the 14th amendment. A state probably doesn't have to recognize any marriage and the certainly don't have to recognize any CCW permit issued by another state. But if they choose to recognize those documents they must recognize all those documents equally. They cannot recognize a CCW permit issued to a woman, but not recognize the same permit from the same state issued to a man. Just as they cannot recognize a marriage certificate issued to a Baptist couple and not one issued to a Catholic one.


I don't think that's so. I'll have to check but I think there are states which recognize some state's CCW but not others. 

The point is a state doesn't have to recognize, under the full faith and credit clause, each and every thing another state issues if the standards of the issuing state are different than the recognizing state.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> I don't think that's so. I'll have to check but I think there are states which recognize some state's CCW but not others.
> 
> The point is a state doesn't have to recognize, under the full faith and credit clause, each and every thing another state issues if the standards of the issuing state are different than the recognizing state.


But if they do choose to recognize it they can't pick and choose who they recognize it for. A marriage certificate is a marriage certificate. If Ohio chooses to recognize New Jersey marriages they must recognize all New Jersey marriages equally.


----------



## watcher

Truckinguy said:


> Again, you're using examples of crimes which have a victim and are detrimental to society.


You do know what an analogy is right? See in the analogy above crime is a stand in for sin and the criminal justice system is a stand in for God. So donât get overly focused an the literal view, just answer the question. Do you think in this world someone who has committed a crime should be allowed to go free of punishment based on the fact they live exemplary lives and are well respected? 




Truckinguy said:


> The issue of being gay harms no one. What if God said driving red cars was a sin? We all know that there is nothing wrong with driving a red car. Would we all just go along with a directive of which the sole purpose is control?


According to you and what you think. God forbid the Jews from eating some items and even had rules on how things should be cooked. Iâm sure there were a lot of the people who didnât follow Godâs teachings thought this was weird and not doing it caused no harm to anyone. But if you look at those rules with what we know today about food borne illnesses you will see that following those rules will prevent most of those illnesses.

But thatâs beside the point. If you believe that God made the universe you have to believe he gets to set the rules in it. The fact you donât understand or like those rules really have no bearing on it.




Truckinguy said:


> Again, this is where you lose many people. For someone to have the right intentions and do the best they can and still be rejected shows a complete lack of love and compassion. If a person commits a crime against someone with intent and malice, I completely understand having to suffer the consequences.


Thatâs because they are following their rules, not Godâs. Iâm sure you have heard the saying that ignorance of the law is no excuse. If this applies to manâs laws donât you think it would apply to Godâs? In the same light you canât break the law a little. You either stole something or you didnât. 

Now man sets different punishments for different sizes of breaks but God doesn't. You get the same punishment for a âsmallâ sin as you do a âbigâ one. But God does do something much better than man, He will TOTALLY forgive the law breaker and not only set aside any punishment, He will give them a reward. All the law breaker has to do is willing accept the fact he has broken the law and in his heart repentant and honestly mean to never break the law again. You canât just say âIâm sorry.â with your mouth and in your heart be planning on how or when you can do it again.





Truckinguy said:


> Yeah, God has changed His view of sin over the last few years. He has decided <insert your preferred action here> is no longer a sin. Just take a marker and edit the Bible the way you want and everything will just fine.
> 
> Why not? Christians do it all the time. If people don't like what is going on at their church, they leave and start their own church and conduct themselves the way they see fit. I understand there are as many as 40,000 different factions of Christianity now.


No, people who call themselves Christians do it all the time. Which is why there are going to be a LOT of people who hear the âdepart from meâ line from God. Just because some man tells you that God didn't really mean that fornication and adultery were sins doesn't mean God has changed His view on them. Its called justification. You see it throughout manâs history. You will see it all the time if you deal with criminals. Most of them have a âvery good reasonâ for why they did what they did. They can justify it in their minds in such a way that evil is good.

Does that mean that there is only group who are going to Heaven? Yes but not the way you are probably thinking. Its not going to be one denomination, i.e. Methodist or Baptist, its going to be the group who have given their hearts to God and do there best to live His Word and are truly repentant when they fail.




Truckinguy said:


> I wouldn't even have a problem if the "saved" ones went up to heaven and the rest continued to live their lives out on Earth as usual. However, the alternative to Heaven is burning in an eternal fire?


Say you lived in a really nice gated community and outside that community there was a really rough area. Lots of crime, nothing but poor housing, very little medical care and the like. Now say someone in your community abducted, abused then killed one of your family members. They were caught, tried and convicted. Then the judge told them that their punishment was to be kicked out of the gated community. Thatâs it, their punishment was they just donât get to have access to the pool, tennis courts, 5 star restaurants and the like. Would you think that was justice?


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> You do know what an analogy is right? See in the analogy above crime is a stand in for sin and the criminal justice system is a stand in for God. So donât get overly focused an the literal view, just answer the question. Do you think in this world someone who has committed a crime should be allowed to go free of punishment based on the fact they live exemplary lives and are well respected?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to you and what you think. God forbid the Jews from eating some items and even had rules on how things should be cooked. Iâm sure there were a lot of the people who didnât follow Godâs teachings thought this was weird and not doing it caused no harm to anyone. But if you look at those rules with what we know today about food borne illnesses you will see that following those rules will prevent most of those illnesses.
> 
> But thatâs beside the point. If you believe that God made the universe you have to believe he gets to set the rules in it. The fact you donât understand or like those rules really have no bearing on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thatâs because they are following their rules, not Godâs. Iâm sure you have heard the saying that ignorance of the law is no excuse. If this applies to manâs laws donât you think it would apply to Godâs? In the same light you canât break the law a little. You either stole something or you didnât.
> 
> Now man sets different punishments for different sizes of breaks but God doesn't. You get the same punishment for a âsmallâ sin as you do a âbigâ one. But God does do something much better than man, He will TOTALLY forgive the law breaker and not only set aside any punishment, He will give them a reward. All the law breaker has to do is willing accept the fact he has broken the law and in his heart repentant and honestly mean to never break the law again. You canât just say âIâm sorry.â with your mouth and in your heart be planning on how or when you can do it again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, people who call themselves Christians do it all the time. Which is why there are going to be a LOT of people who hear the âdepart from meâ line from God. Just because some man tells you that God didn't really mean that fornication and adultery were sins doesn't mean God has changed His view on them. Its called justification. You see it throughout manâs history. You will see it all the time if you deal with criminals. Most of them have a âvery good reasonâ for why they did what they did. They can justify it in their minds in such a way that evil is good.
> 
> Does that mean that there is only group who are going to Heaven? Yes but not the way you are probably thinking. Its not going to be one denomination, i.e. Methodist or Baptist, its going to be the group who have given their hearts to God and do there best to live His Word and are truly repentant when they fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Say you lived in a really nice gated community and outside that community there was a really rough area. Lots of crime, nothing but poor housing, very little medical care and the like. Now say someone in your community abducted, abused then killed one of your family members. They were caught, tried and convicted. Then the judge told them that their punishment was to be kicked out of the gated community. Thatâs it, their punishment was they just donât get to have access to the pool, tennis courts, 5 star restaurants and the like. Would you think that was justice?


And maybe it will be the group that has concentrated on living their lives, not judging the lives of others.


----------



## HDRider

mmoetc said:


> And maybe it will be the group that has concentrated on living their lives, not judging the lives of others.


A choice you make.

A chance you take.

Freewill and all.


----------



## mmoetc

HDRider said:


> A choice you make.
> 
> A chance you take.
> 
> Freewill and all.


And if I someday have to face some higher power I'm perfectly comfortable standing up for my decisions to treat others with kindness and compassion. Free will and all.


----------



## HDRider

mmoetc said:


> And if I someday have to face some higher power I'm perfectly comfortable standing up for my decisions to treat others with kindness and compassion. Free will and all.


I wish you all the luck in the world.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> And maybe it will be the group that has concentrated on living their lives, not judging the lives of others.


So is you were walking along and saw someone doing something you knew could be dangerous (say they are cleaning something and they have a bottle of bleach and a bottle of ammonia about to pour into their bucket). You would walk on and not say anything because you'd have to judge what they are doing? 


Also you want us to defy what our God tells us to do? We are to judge others buy their actions (judge a tree by its fruit) and make sure those whose actions are not godly know the danger they face by continuing to take these actions. As I have posted we are told we are to specifically judge those who call themselves Christians. We are even told what to do and how to help if we see a Christian failing.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> And if I someday have to face some higher power I'm perfectly comfortable standing up for my decisions to treat others with kindness and compassion. Free will and all.


What kind of standard are you expecting to face and how do you know what they are? Did someone give you a rule book to follow? Maybe you think the good standard of 'do unto others' works. Well what if the other fellow likes things different than you do. 

Is it kind and compassionate to force a severely handicapped person to continue suffer with his handicap? Or is the compassionate thing to do kill them? Some would think if they were like that they would want someone to just kill them therefore using your do unto others standard should they not be allowed to kill "those people" off?

So how many and what kind of kind and compassionate acts does it take to balance out a lie? Does your rule book tell you that one lie is equal to 10 minutes of mowing your sick neighbor's lawn? How many lies have you told and are you sure you have been kind and compassionate enough to cover them all? What if you come up one over? 

Have you ever never stolen anything in your life, not even a paper clip from the office? If you have what kind of penance on this world have you done to erase that? 

See the problems when you don't have a set standard nor any clear rules to live by?


----------



## where I want to

watcher said:


> See the problems when you don't have a set standard nor any clear rules to live by?


I can guarantee that will not be seen as an issue if the standard is what is popular at the moment, which unsurprisingly seems to be what feels good at the moment.


----------



## Truckinguy

watcher said:


> You do know what an analogy is right? See in the analogy above crime is a stand in for sin and the criminal justice system is a stand in for God. So donât get overly focused an the literal view, just answer the question. Do you think in this world someone who has committed a crime should be allowed to go free of punishment based on the fact they live exemplary lives and are well respected?
> 
> *To answer your question, no, I don't think they should go unpunished. However, the "one punishment fits all crimes" is completely irrational and makes no sense. This is why we have the different level of consequences available in the justice system. The way people conduct their lives is a factor in sentencing in many cases. You don't give out the same punishment to a murderer as you would give to someone who stole an ipod.*
> 
> 
> According to you and what you think. God forbid the Jews from eating some items and even had rules on how things should be cooked. Iâm sure there were a lot of the people who didnât follow Godâs teachings thought this was weird and not doing it caused no harm to anyone. But if you look at those rules with what we know today about food borne illnesses you will see that following those rules will prevent most of those illnesses.
> 
> *This is a good example of an archaic directive that has it's basis in reason (food safety) and is now no longer necessary due to knowledge of food preparation. We now know much about what to eat or not to eat based on scientific knowledge so there is no need to avoid eating things based on 2000 year old food safety practices.*
> 
> But thatâs beside the point. If you believe that God made the universe you have to believe he gets to set the rules in it. The fact you donât understand or like those rules really have no bearing on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thatâs because they are following their rules, not Godâs. Iâm sure you have heard the saying that ignorance of the law is no excuse. If this applies to manâs laws donât you think it would apply to Godâs? In the same light you canât break the law a little. You either stole something or you didnât.
> 
> Now man sets different punishments for different sizes of breaks but God doesn't. You get the same punishment for a âsmallâ sin as you do a âbigâ one. But God does do something much better than man, He will TOTALLY forgive the law breaker and not only set aside any punishment, He will give them a reward. All the law breaker has to do is willing accept the fact he has broken the law and in his heart repentant and honestly mean to never break the law again. You canât just say âIâm sorry.â with your mouth and in your heart be planning on how or when you can do it again.
> 
> *Again, the "same punishment for every sin" makes no sense and really lacks any sense of compassion and reason. *
> 
> 
> 
> No, people who call themselves Christians do it all the time. Which is why there are going to be a LOT of people who hear the âdepart from meâ line from God. Just because some man tells you that God didn't really mean that fornication and adultery were sins doesn't mean God has changed His view on them. Its called justification. You see it throughout manâs history. You will see it all the time if you deal with criminals. Most of them have a âvery good reasonâ for why they did what they did. They can justify it in their minds in such a way that evil is good.
> 
> Does that mean that there is only group who are going to Heaven? Yes but not the way you are probably thinking. Its not going to be one denomination, i.e. Methodist or Baptist, its going to be the group who have given their hearts to God and do there best to live His Word and are truly repentant when they fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Say you lived in a really nice gated community and outside that community there was a really rough area. Lots of crime, nothing but poor housing, very little medical care and the like. Now say someone in your community abducted, abused then killed one of your family members. They were caught, tried and convicted. Then the judge told them that their punishment was to be kicked out of the gated community. Thatâs it, their punishment was they just donât get to have access to the pool, tennis courts, 5 star restaurants and the like. Would you think that was justice?
> 
> *Yes, that person should be kicked out of the community because they committed a heinous crime. If they drive over their neighbor's lawn and cause damage to it they should be made to repair the damage and continue to live in the community. There's no need to be harsh for something minor.*



The "one sentence for every crime" idea lacks justice, compassion and mercy and is one of the many contradictions in the Christian message that really turn people away.


----------



## Truckinguy

where I want to said:


> I guess that is why religions that believe in hell also have an escape clause of grace. Perfection is not a requirement- effort is.
> 
> *This is not what I'm being told. Apparently you can be a good person and try the best you can and still be turned away. Perfection is the only way in.*
> 
> And a flaw, by definition, leads to harm either to one's self or others but most frequently to both. *Exactly.*
> 
> Now, if you wish to argue something is not flawed???? *Yes, being gay harms no one.*


I"m taking all my imperfections outside. Have a good day!


----------



## where I want to

Truckinguy said:


> I"m taking all my imperfections outside. Have a good day!


That is a basis for discussion- that being gay harms no one. You have not examined that, only assumed it. But hitting then running away is not the same as carrying a point.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> What kind of standard are you expecting to face and how do you know what they are? Did someone give you a rule book to follow? Maybe you think the good standard of 'do unto others' works. Well what if the other fellow likes things different than you do.
> 
> Is it kind and compassionate to force a severely handicapped person to continue suffer with his handicap? Or is the compassionate thing to do kill them? Some would think if they were like that they would want someone to just kill them therefore using your do unto others standard should they not be allowed to kill "those people" off?
> 
> So how many and what kind of kind and compassionate acts does it take to balance out a lie? Does your rule book tell you that one lie is equal to 10 minutes of mowing your sick neighbor's lawn? How many lies have you told and are you sure you have been kind and compassionate enough to cover them all? What if you come up one over?
> 
> Have you ever never stolen anything in your life, not even a paper clip from the office? If you have what kind of penance on this world have you done to erase that?
> 
> See the problems when you don't have a set standard nor any clear rules to live by?



As I said, I'll have no problem justifying my life and actions, good and bad, to whatever entity may exist. I may rise to their standard, I may fall short. Catholics say if I ask your god for forgiveness and rattle some beads while saying the appropriate words I'll get my penance. Other Christian sects have other standards. That you have found one whose rules you choose to follow works for you. I'm unconvinced that your god is supreme over the many others I'm told exist. If it works for you good on ya, mate.

As for your question about compassion. It's a question that should be left to the individual. I have do not resuscitate orders in place. Would it be compassionate of you to take extraordinary measures to save my life, knowing that? Which would get you to your heaven quicker?


----------



## watcher

Truckinguy said:


> The "one sentence for every crime" idea lacks justice, compassion and mercy and is one of the many contradictions in the Christian message that really turn people away.


That's their choice. I don't seem ever reading where Christ told us we were to change the Message to make sure we get more and more people into church.

Whose standard of "justice, compassion and mercy" are we going to use? In your standard what is the "correct" punishment for a thief who say stole a horse. Cutting his hand off? That's what some people think. Hanging? That used to be the standard wasn't it? Making him work for the owner until he has paid for the horse? Some view that as proper. Locking him up for 5 years? 10? 20? 

Or maybe just maybe there is no standard punishment because different places view theft differently? They also think crime should be punished based on their belief and those punishments for different crimes are published, known and enforced by the system they have set up. Shouldn't they have that right even if you don't like it? Now if you think the world has the right to set its system of justice and punishment don't you think the creator of the universe has the right to do the same?


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> As I said, I'll have no problem justifying my life and actions, good and bad, to whatever entity may exist. I may rise to their standard, I may fall short. Catholics say if I ask your god for forgiveness and rattle some beads while saying the appropriate words I'll get my penance. Other Christian sects have other standards. That you have found one whose rules you choose to follow works for you. I'm unconvinced that your god is supreme over the many others I'm told exist. If it works for you good on ya, mate.


Actually if you really listen all of them say you have to do more than ask for forgiveness. That's a really big error that a lot of people make because if all you do is ask you will be told no. You have to ask and BE REPENTANT for your action (not just sorry you got caught). Ever been in a situation when a couple of kids got into a tussle and some adult came along and made one, or both, tell the other they were sorry and you the apology wasn't heartfelt? It was just words. Or heard someone with a hangover saying he'll never drink again even though you have heard him say it over and over. You know they are just words and he'll be back at the bar next weekend.




mmoetc said:


> As for your question about compassion. It's a question that should be left to the individual. I have do not resuscitate orders in place. Would it be compassionate of you to take extraordinary measures to save my life, knowing that? Which would get you to your heaven quicker?


So if an individual thinks killing the handicapped is compassionate he should have a free hand to do so?


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> Actually if you really listen all of them say you have to do more than ask for forgiveness. That's a really big error that a lot of people make because if all you do is ask you will be told no. You have to ask and BE REPENTANT for your action (not just sorry you got caught). Ever been in a situation when a couple of kids got into a tussle and some adult came along and made one, or both, tell the other they were sorry and you the apology wasn't heartfelt? It was just words. Or heard someone with a hangover saying he'll never drink again even though you have heard him say it over and over. You know they are just words and he'll be back at the bar next weekend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if an individual thinks killing the handicapped is compassionate he should have a free hand to do so?


Not what I said at all. It should be up to the individual to choose the time of their death. If a person of sound mind chooses not to live they should have that choice honored. Choosing to kill another for your own reasons is generally, though not always, frowned upon.

It's not up to me to judge the the veracity of another's repentance. I'll leave that to whatever entity I may meet in the future. She can judge me worthy or not.


----------



## JeffreyD

mmoetc said:


> Not what I said at all. It should be up to the individual to choose the time of their death. If a person of sound mind chooses not to live they should have that choice honored. Choosing to kill another for your own reasons is generally, though not always, frowned upon.
> 
> It's not up to me to judge the the veracity of another's repentance. I'll leave that to whatever entity I may meet in the future. She can judge me worthy or not.


Who determines what the definition of "sound mind" is? I've had to deal with suicides, not one of them was what I considered of sound mind. One was my friend and brother in law.


----------



## mmoetc

JeffreyD said:


> Who determines what the definition of "sound mind" is? I've had to deal with suicides, not one of them was what I considered of sound mind. One was my friend and brother in law.


There are a whole raft of laws and statutes that define sound mind. There are also laws that are designed to keep people from killing themselves. Your post is testament to how effective they are. Would it not be preferable for all involved to have other, better options? We allow, even encourage, the humane killing of animals when their quality of life has deteriorated. Shouldn't people have the same dignity when it comes to deciding their own demise?


----------



## JeffreyD

mmoetc said:


> There are a whole raft of laws and statutes that define sound mind. There are also laws that are designed to keep people from killing themselves. Your post is testament to how effective they are. Would it not be preferable for all involved to have other, better options? We allow, even encourage, the humane killing of animals when their quality of life has deteriorated. Shouldn't people have the same dignity when it comes to deciding their own demise?


Oh, I fully agree! My father is 93, gone blind, gone deaf, can't hardly move at all, he wants to die he says. I see where he's coming from. But, I'm not sure he could carry through with it as much as he says he would! It's a really tough call. My mother in law kept telling her son he should just die and leave everyone alone. He did. Hung himself. I found him. Needless to say, don't get along with her, at all. I'm not convinced that words on paper are good enough for a mental determination and I pretty much don't trust shrinks of any kind, judges are out of the question, so is family. It's a tough call, but absolutely something that needs consideration.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> Not what I said at all. It should be up to the individual to choose the time of their death. If a person of sound mind chooses not to live they should have that choice honored. Choosing to kill another for your own reasons is generally, though not always, frowned upon.


Again based on who's standards? In the early 20th century the eugenics movement had a standard said killing the severely handicapped was OK.




mmoetc said:


> It's not up to me to judge the the veracity of another's repentance. I'll leave that to whatever entity I may meet in the future. She can judge me worthy or not.


But as a Christian we are called to judge ourselves and others who claim the name of Christ using the standard given to us by God. We all know we will never reach perfection but that is our goal.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> Again based on who's standards? In the early 20th century the eugenics movement had a standard said killing the severely handicapped was OK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But as a Christian we are called to judge ourselves and others who claim the name of Christ using the standard given to us by God. We all know we will never reach perfection but that is our goal.


As I said, an individual of sound mind can set their own standard for living. You keep bringing up others making the decision. I don't.

Judge yourself as much as you wish. But since I'm not using the name of Christ or using your god's standard even you seem to say you have no claim to judge me. If perfection isn't attainable does your god grade on a curve. What's acceptable? 75%, 80%, 90%?


----------



## Laura Zone 5

painterswife said:


> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-pinned-Bible-verses-lockers-LGBT-pupils.html
> "A Pennsylvania high school is attracting national media attention for all the wrong reasons after a group of students organized a so-called Anti-Gay Day protest, with future events scheduled.
> The organizers of the homophobic protest at McGuffey High School in Washington County encouraged anyone who shared their bigoted stance to show support by wearing a flannel shirt to school and writing 'Anti-Gay' on their hands."


How far this thread has drifted.
This is the OP, some 23 pages ago........


----------



## mmoetc

Laura Zone 5 said:


> How far this thread has drifted.
> This is the OP, some 23 pages ago........


Drift can be fun. I've often started a journey and ended up off course. I've met more interesting people and seen more cool things on those journeys than in the straight line, point a to point b trips.


----------



## Riverdale

Nevada said:


> Since marital rights are all about federal benefits, I don't see why states should regulate marriage at all. What is the virtue if state regulated marriage, and why do states even have interest in regulating marriage?


If there were *federal benefits*, there would be no issue then, correct?

So just another way the all-expansive federal goverentment has hated gays?


----------



## Riverdale

Nevada said:


> I don't think there is a politician in Washington who has the nerve to suggest changing social security. I don't care, just as long as I get my $1,000 every month.


And what did you pay for SS tax over your life?

As long as I get mine........

For some perverted reason, I hope that SS totally takes a dump before I retire.

That way I will never 'Nevada'......

It is *MY* responsibility to care for myself, my family and my legacy, not the goobermints

Thanks FDR.........


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Riverdale said:


> And what did you pay for SS tax over your life?
> 
> As long as I get mine........
> 
> For some perverted reason, I hope that SS totally takes a dump before I retire.
> 
> That way I will never 'Nevada'......
> 
> It is *MY* responsibility to care for myself, my family and my legacy, not the goobermints
> 
> Thanks FDR.........


That's what's messed up.
Entitlement.
I did this; so you owe me.
I did that; so you owe me.

I work with people who at the end of the night think that because they showed up for work, did their job, and completed their sidework, that the boss should "buy them a beer" (AKA me pour a beer for them and not charge them).

what?

Yeah.

The mentality that the whole restaurant would shut down and cease existing if they didn't work there.
I AM SHOCKED and amazed at how many young people think like this.
It's no wonder they grow up, grow old, and turn into mean old entitled grouches.


----------



## Truckinguy

where I want to said:


> That is a basis for discussion- that being gay harms no one. You have not examined that, only assumed it. But hitting then running away is not the same as carrying a point.


I apologize, I was not hitting and running away, I"m up to my ears in spring projects, turkeys coming in May, coop rebuild, fencing, getting garden started, not much time each day to be on here. I guess spring isn't the greatest time to get involved in deep discussions. 

I think I've made my point on other threads on this subject. Gays are, and always will be, a small part of society and they are well aware of that. They're not trying to take over, it's not a virus you can catch, you can hug a gay person and not catch on fire, you're lawn won't turn purple if a gay couple moves in next door.

Don't like what goes on in the bedroom? Google fetishes. Gay, straight and anyone else can do anything and everything under the sun that they choose to. I"m pretty open minded but there are things that apparently go on in private that make me shudder. Who cares? As long as everyone involved is consenting adults it's nobody's business.

The definition of marriage has changed many times in the course of history. There's no reason it can't be changed again. Everything changes, even The Constitution can change if the proper procedures are followed.

I"m sure when blacks and women started their marches and protests people thought they were throwing themselves in everyone's faces and maybe they were. The only way to raise oneself up to equality is to fight for it. Nobody is asking for special treatment, all anyone ever wanted is to be treated equally.

In my opinion, the only way that gays will achieve equal status is when it becomes as boring and workaday to be gay as it is to be straight. No Gay Pride parade, no rainbow flags, no Gay Games, just equality for all. That goes for minorities, women and anyone else who feel marginalized by society. Whether that will ever happen is debatable.

I'm heading back outside again. Have a great day!


----------



## Truckinguy

watcher said:


> That's their choice. I don't seem ever reading where Christ told us we were to change the Message to make sure we get more and more people into church.
> 
> Whose standard of "justice, compassion and mercy" are we going to use? In your standard what is the "correct" punishment for a thief who say stole a horse. Cutting his hand off? That's what some people think. Hanging? That used to be the standard wasn't it? Making him work for the owner until he has paid for the horse? Some view that as proper. Locking him up for 5 years? 10? 20?
> 
> Or maybe just maybe there is no standard punishment because different places view theft differently? They also think crime should be punished based on their belief and those punishments for different crimes are published, known and enforced by the system they have set up. Shouldn't they have that right even if you don't like it? Now if you think the world has the right to set its system of justice and punishment don't you think the creator of the universe has the right to do the same?


The different levels of punishment for crimes has been set by standards reached through much thought, discussion and debate over the course of time and can change again if it is discussed further. They aren't just written by some random decree. 

There are many other factors than the crime to take into consideration. Sure, you can cut off a thief's hand but then what? Now you're got medical bills, you create someone who is less employable and less likely to possibly benefit society if they turn their life around. Make them work off their crime and, whether they turn their life around or not, you have a net benefit to society instead of a cost.

Horse thieves used to be hung because stealing a man's horse in the old west was quite likely to cause him much hardship and even death if he couldn't get where he was going. Life was different back then. We have to evolve and grow with the times and continually discuss things so we can deal appropriately with issues as they relate to our time in history.


----------



## where I want to

Truckinguy said:


> Horse thieves used to be hung because stealing a man's horse in the old west was quite likely to cause him much hardship and even death if he couldn't get where he was going. Life was different back then. We have to evolve and grow with the times and continually discuss things so we can deal appropriately with issues as they relate to our time in history.


Really? I don't think "discussion" means that you ignore what you don't like and just keep hammering away with what you want the answer to be. I don't think that your apparent meaning of evolution as being what you believe is the end of all discussion.
Oh, and adding a smiley face does not change an rudeness into courtesy.


----------



## Nevada

Riverdale said:


> For some perverted reason, I hope that SS totally takes a dump before I retire.
> 
> That way I will never 'Nevada'......


Am I doing something wrong? I went to college and worked my entire adult life, paying into FICA for decades. Now I'm retired. Why would anyone have a problem with that?


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> Am I doing something wrong? I went to college and worked my entire adult life, paying into FICA for decades. Now I'm retired. Why would anyone have a problem with that?


Why should folks you dont know, have never known, have to pay for your medical? Why didn't you put money away on your own? Why on earth would you trust your government to look out for your best interests, when they clearly don't care. Their only interested in taking your money.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> As I said, an individual of sound mind can set their own standard for living. You keep bringing up others making the decision. I don't.
> 
> 
> Judge yourself as much as you wish. But since I'm not using the name of Christ or using your god's standard even you seem to say you have no claim to judge me.


No, I didn't say that. I said you judge a tree by its fruit and you judge people by their lives. If someone had a history of beating women, abusing kids, stealing and killing people's pets I'm going to judge that they are not the kind of person I'm going to allow to date my daughter. Would you not make the same judgement? I would also judge that you were not a Christian and would find out if you knew the Gospel. If you did and just rejected it, I'd move on. Just as I'm told.

But my standard of what fruit makes someone a 'bad' tree is higher than others because my standards are Biblical. Some people doesn't see lying as that bad of a fruit. Others don't see stealing as that bad. Others don't see sleeping around as that bad. 




mmoetc said:


> If perfection isn't attainable does your god grade on a curve.


That and then some. 





mmoetc said:


> What's acceptable? 75%, 80%, 90%?


You keep trying to apply worldly standards to God. I don't know if you play cards but this is like trying to play hearts with the mindset of spades. In spades you attempt to take as many tricks and points as possible, in hearts you try to take no points at all. You know what happens if you play hearts the way you play spades, you lose. If you try to apply worldly standards to God you are going to lose as well.

But to answer your question: All of the above and even less is acceptable. There was a thief who as he was dying came to know Christ, repented and he was accepted. If you think about it he was probably less than 1% perfect before he died. But even that was enough for God.

You have a guy who needs some work to be done. He goes out early one morning and finds a couple of guys to work. He offers to pay them $100 for the day's work, they accept. A couple of hours later he found some more workers and offered them $100 for the day and they went to work. About noon he hires more at $100 for the day. Three o'clock rolls around and he hires even more to work for the $100. 

At 5 when the work day was over the guys who were hired early in the morning started complaining that the owner was being unfair to them. After all he was paying the guys who had only worked 2 hours just as much as he was paying them for 10 hours of work. To which he said; "I'm not being unfair to you. Didn't you agree to work all day for $100? I want to pay the guys who were hired last the same amount as I paid you. Donât I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?" 

This is how it works with God. You don't have to work all your life to get into Heaven and you don't have to prefect any specific percentage of the time. You only have to accept His rules, work follow them and when you fail to live up to them admit you failed and heartfully repent and go back to work.


----------



## mmoetc

And you keep trying trying to apply your god's standards to me, one who doesnt believe in her. I have issue with a god whose final standard for salvation isn't how one has led one's life but whether one is willing to bow in obeisance. This is a problem I have with most god centric religions. For most of man's history most of mankind was unaware of your god. Were all the people who didn't know and therefore couldn't accept your god or her son as their savior not worthy of a place in your afterlife no matter how good the deeds of their life? You're free to live by whatever religious based standards you wish. I'm sure there are Christians who find your beliefs wanting in some way. Judge each other by the standards of your religion if you wish. I'll worry about my place in the afterlife, you worry about yours.


----------



## Truckinguy

where I want to said:


> Really? I don't think "discussion" means that you ignore what you don't like and just keep hammering away with what you want the answer to be. I don't think that your apparent meaning of evolution as being what you believe is the end of all discussion.
> Oh, and adding a smiley face does not change an rudeness into courtesy.


Again, I apologize. I have had no intent in any of my posts to be rude and the smiley face was just that, a smiley face. I've tried to reply to different points in this discussion with a respectful point of view. There are other smiley faces I could have used if I had wanted to be rude. I imagine us all sitting around a table with our beverage of choice discussing things in a friendly manner. The smiley faces were my attempt to give my post that tone.

What I believe is not the end of the discussion any more than blindly following a 2000 year old (or more) directive. Continual discussion is important on any issue. If the discussion leads to the decision to continue to obey that directive, so be it. If it leads to change, fine. However, issues always need to be questioned and discussed on a regular basis, which can lead to a better understanding for both sides.

Some people have countered my points of view with their own and I haven't really sensed much in the way of rudeness, a little testy, perhaps, as I have been but this is an important subject to both sides and can stir up the emotions.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

1 Thess. 4:11-12
Yet we urge you, brothers and sisters, to do so more and more, and to make it your ambition to lead a quiet life: You should mind your own business and work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody.

I am a Believer.
And for those who ASK; I am more than happy to share.

For those who DO NOT believe, I am not going to 'jam' it down their throats.
I am a Believer, so it does shape and mold who I am and why I do what I do....
But you are not me, and I am not you, so my mold, does not fit you, nor does your mold fit me.

I am ready to give an answers........
(Scripture says to be ready to give an answer)
That implies SOMEONE ASKS.

Just sayin'


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> And you keep trying trying to apply your god's standards to me, one who doesnt believe in her.


Depends on what you mean by "trying to apply". I'm not trying to force them on you by making you adopt them but I do apply them when I judge you. If we are each looking at a jacked up, huge tired, heavily chromed truck you may like it and are saving up money to buy one just like it while I'd think it was a waste of money. Your standards for a truck are different than mine but I wouldn't take your money to stop you from buying one. But just because you don't like my standards doesn't mean I can't apply them and express my opinion that I think its a dumb and silly thing to do to a truck based on them. 




mmoetc said:


> I have issue with a god whose final standard for salvation isn't how one has led one's life but whether one is willing to bow in obeisance.


Ok, seeing as how she's the one who made the universe and set the rules take it up with her. You can complain to the umpire all you want about how you have an issue with only getting three strikes before you are out but it ain't going to change the rules.




mmoetc said:


> This is a problem I have with most god centric religions. For most of man's history most of mankind was unaware of your god.



This is a mistake a lot of people make. There are plenty of places in the Bible which lets us know that everyone is given a chance to know God. In the most well know verse, John 3:16, it says He loved *the world*. It doesn't say He just loved some people. Also in Timothy it says that God wants ALL people to know Him and be saved. Look at the people who lived even before the law as given to Moses and see they knew God. 




mmoetc said:


> Were all the people who didn't know and therefore couldn't accept your god or her son as their savior not worthy of a place in your afterlife no matter how good the deeds of their life?


The "problem" comes when people are given the chance to know God but reject Him. With those people the good deeds they have done mean nothing. Again I ask how many good deeds would it take for you to decide someone who had abused and murdered your entire family didn't deserve to be punished for it?




mmoetc said:


> You're free to live by whatever religious based standards you wish. I'm sure there are Christians who find your beliefs wanting in some way. Judge each other by the standards of your religion if you wish. I'll worry about my place in the afterlife, you worry about yours.


A true Christian should live almost exactly like the last thing you wrote. We are told we are to share the word. Once we do that its up to you to accept it or not. If you do we are to support you and help you live up to the standards and you to help us but if you reject it we are to walk away. I pointed this out before. If someone comes up to you and starts talking about Christ you should just tell them you've heard it before and are not interested and if they want to be a good Christian they should follow what Christ told them in Matthew 10:14.


----------



## michael ark

If you dont believe in god how do you know gods a woman.:angel:


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> Depends on what you mean by "trying to apply". I'm not trying to force them on you by making you adopt them but I do apply them when I judge you. If we are each looking at a jacked up, huge tired, heavily chromed truck you may like it and are saving up money to buy one just like it while I'd think it was a waste of money. Your standards for a truck are different than mine but I wouldn't take your money to stop you from buying one. But just because you don't like my standards doesn't mean I can't apply them and express my opinion that I think its a dumb and silly thing to do to a truck based on them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, seeing as how she's the one who made the universe and set the rules take it up with her. You can complain to the umpire all you want about how you have an issue with only getting three strikes before you are out but it ain't going to change the rules.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a mistake a lot of people make. There are plenty of places in the Bible which lets us know that everyone is given a chance to know God. In the most well know verse, John 3:16, it says He loved *the world*. It doesn't say He just loved some people. Also in Timothy it says that God wants ALL people to know Him and be saved. Look at the people who lived even before the law as given to Moses and see they
> 
> The "problem" comes when people are given the chance to know God but reject Him. With those people the good deeds they have done mean nothing. Again I ask how many good deeds would it take for you to decide someone who had abused and murdered your entire family didn't deserve to be punished for it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A true Christian should live almost exactly like the last thing you wrote. We are told we are to share the word. Once we do that its up to you to accept it or not. If you do we are to support you and help you live up to the standards and you to help us but if you reject it we are to walk away. I pointed this out before. If someone comes up to you and starts talking about Christ you should just tell them you've heard it before and are not interested and if they want to be a good Christian they should follow what Christ told them in Matthew 10:14.


All I ask is that you grant me the same right to criticize your beliefs as you take to criticize mine.

I'm not asking that rules be changed for me. If obeisance to your god is required I won't be entering your little clubhouse. It won't change the way I live my life and interact with others.

It seems your god didn't do a very good job for a long time of getting people to know her. She was a fairly modest deity known to a few small tribes in the Mideast for most of recorded history. No mention among most of the major civilizations for quite a while. No evidence anyone in Northern Europe, Asia, North or South America heard of her until fairly recent historical times( unless we believe Joseph Smith and the golden tablets). It seems a whole lot of people weren't given the opportunity and must be denied, no matter how well lived their lives.

I've rejected your words repeatedly yet you have yet to walk away. You have stated that you should only judge others who make a c&#322;aim to Christianity. I make no such claims yet you judge my views. I have no doubt you believe what you believe. I'm not trying to change your mind or cast doubt in your mind. Not good enough for you. So be it. I'll let whatever higher power exists judge for themself.


----------



## mmoetc

michael ark said:


> If you dont believe in god how do you know gods a woman.:angel:


How do you she's not?


----------



## Laura Zone 5

michael ark said:


> If you dont believe in god how do you know gods a woman.:angel:


It's one thing to NOT be a Believer, and express their genuine dislike of chrisitians that try to ram their 'religion' down the throat; 
AND then there are those who are not Believers but like to goad and bait and disrespect someone's beliefs.

Those who simply do not Believe, who wish NOT to have someone else's beliefs rammed down their throat; I respect. 
Hence the Scripture I posted explaining how a Believer is SUPPOSED to act.

Those who chose the latter, are disrespectful.
For such persons, I have no time.
W sandals in hand, dust flying; I just move along.


----------



## HDRider

mmoetc said:


> How do you she's not?


Because I see you mock the Father, His Son and his followers.


----------

