# congratulations to alternate sex choices



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Here to the Duggan boy.
Let's celebrate sexual freedom
Morality is old age.

Why should any choice be off the table...

If you find this offensive... ask your self where is th e line.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Here to the Duggan boy.
> Let's celebrate sexual freedom
> Morality is old age.
> 
> ...


"Duggan boy" was not the choice of those molested girls. Lumping willing adults in with children who had no choice in the matter is not really helping what ever position you are taking on this subject.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Hey, just because some small minded folks want to control sex choices well sodomy was illegal for years. I am just looking ahead. I see the path and this is it.. it's the next hurdle to challenge morality.

Fyi. The newly elected mayor of anchorage supports blood relation marrying.... stated that on a recorded radio.. yea, he won.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Laws change, it's progress.


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

I don't know if morality is old age.

I think that the simplest form of morality (do unto others) is alive and well for the most part. Sure, you read or watch the news and see these stories (like the Duggar child or the other horrible news that is reported) but in the grand scheme of things, what is the percent of that occuring?

For those that find same sex marriage disgusting and immoral, but how does it harm then or their family in a direct way?
)
To me, I direct my family and raise my children the best I can in the direction that I choose. If my son sees two gay guys getting married, is that going to make him gay? Does their 'marriage' in anyway define my 'marriage' to my wife?

Sexual choice between adults (and I think that an adult is defined by being able to die for your country) is not my concern nor my interest. I do not care if a person chooses to be with a man or woman, nor do I care how many partners or what actions they choose to do. It has no bearing on me nor my family. 

So, where is the line? If you are an adult, guess what, in my opinion, you should be able to do what you want with any other consenting adult, period. It brings me no satisfaction nor dissatisfaction for you to live your life, fantasy or dreams out. So the line is that under the adult bar there are rules and consequences. Simple as that.


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

The Shakers had the ultimate answer to that question. They don't seem to be around anymore...


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

kasilofhome said:


> Here to the Duggan boy.
> Let's celebrate sexual freedom
> Morality is old age.
> 
> ...


 First of all, who is 'celebrating' a child molester?? 
And 'the line' is behavior that harms another unwilling victim. 'Edna and Kathy' getting married doesn't harm anyone except the puritanical sensibilites of people who pick and choose which Old Testament edicts to follow. And who really should mind their own business. 
For about the hundredth time, gay people are no more or less moral than anyone else.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

kasilofhome said:


> Here to the Duggan boy.
> Let's celebrate sexual freedom
> Morality is old age.
> 
> ...


I put "the line" at consenting adults. I am pretty sure thats where our Supreme Court draws the line as well. Seems fair all around to me..... I dont get to dictate your choices, you dont get to dictate anyone elses either.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Wait, what is an adult.... 5 years old?


I can't find any complaints from diggers gals... just other complaining.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Wait, what is an adult.... 5 years old?
> 
> 
> I can't find any complaints from diggers gals... just other complaining.


That is really callous and very beneath you. In fact it just sounds like you are very mad about something and now hitting out at innocent victims.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

kasilofhome said:


> Hey, just because some small minded folks want to control sex choices well sodomy was illegal for years. I am just looking ahead. I see the path and this is it.. it's the next hurdle to challenge morality.
> 
> Fyi. The newly elected mayor of anchorage supports blood relation marrying.... stated that on a recorded radio.. yea, he won.


definition of sodomy - anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex

How many knew that sodomy included oral sex between opposite sex individuals ? Hold up your hands and do not pass go but head straight to jail. LOL!

Yes, it used to be illegal even in your own home between consenting or married adults. Returning sodomy to the criminal code will mean a lot of jail time for a lot of opposite sex couples who used to be free to choose their personal sex life.

Personally I see nothing wrong with letting consenting same sex or opposite sex adults choose their own sex lives. It is just nature.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

What victims... does everyone get victim cards... I see where the girls believe in forgiveness and redemption... not victim hood. Why the need to interfere with a natural act...

Why do you get to say it's wrong.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Come on adulthood.... what's that got to do with anything... sex in middle school is explained as natural... now your expectations are for them to wait... Why the need for teachers to hand out condoms to minors....are the to teach them to make balloon animals.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Come on adulthood.... what's that got to do with anything... sex in middle school is explained as natural... now your expectations are for them to wait... Why the need for teachers to hand out condoms to minors....are the to teach them to make balloon animals.


You are not equating molestation to consensual sex between teenagers, are you? You are doing a really crappy job at trying to make your point.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

If it feels good do it who's to judge, heck have the girls complained... I haven't seen such evidence of that...so it's just a bunch of prudish folks judging.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> If it feels good do it who's to judge, heck have the girls complained... I haven't seen such evidence of that...so it's just a bunch of prudish folks judging.


How would you know if the girls have complained or not? Is that the new law? Is that how you judge things. It is fine to molest and rape as long as the victim keeps their mouth shut?

Are you equating consensual same sex relationships to being a victim of molestation or rape?

The logic does not track.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

It means just might not be for you, might not be for me but come on if you and I aren't for we just don't have to do it. Maybe we can get a baker to make a cake. Lifestyle choices are personal... 

Some here open celebrate what i find to be depraved .... but that is fine.... what if the line of morality is shifting as to what is normal that in a few years this becomes a non issue.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

The interview with the four older daughters in regards to their book on how to live and forgiveness is talked about.

That is where. I did search.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> It means gut not be for you, might not be for me but come on if you and I aren't for we just don't have to do it. Maybe we can get a baker to make a cake. Lifestyle choices are personal...
> 
> Some here open celebrate what i find to be depraved .... but that is fine.... what if the line of morality is shifting as to what is normal that in a few years this becomes a non issue.


What is your point? You don't want people to live their own lives unless it is according what you think is moral and right? I thought you were fine with people living their own lives as long as they did not involve you? Have you changed your mind and have now decided that you should be able to decide for them?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Laws change....all the time.... legal to drink....illegal to drink ..... legal to drink.

Legal that have slaves.... illegal to have slaves

Immigration requirements... hey Just cross where ever when ever and be sure to say gnu up for bennies.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> The interview with the four older daughters in regards to their book on how to live and forgiveness is talked about.
> 
> That is where. I did search.


You do know that forgiveness does not mean you are fine with being molested.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

painterswife said:


> You do know that forgiveness does not mean you are fine with being molested.


I'm pretty sure it doesn't make it legal either but that's not really what this thread is about.


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

So, Kasil, where is your own personal line?

I am reading some of your post and do not know if they are tongue in cheek or if you are actually serious.

I have not heard of the girls that he admitted to molesting complain, but is that where we would need to draw the line. If that is the case, lots of laws will need to change cause if I murder someone, if they ain't complaining (and how could they be if they were dead) I guess that would be okay according to your 'logic'?

I'm wondering if someone elses' personal choices in regards to their own sex life, love life have any impact on anyone else (other than their choice).


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

My line for me is
Heterosexual only between adults in a permanent relationship.

But that's me. Society allows what ever gives you pleasure. As for the adult... well if society was against minors having sex...... Why push for acceptance of it,why hand out condoms, why push for more birth control free,push for minors ability to get abortions with out parents knowledge while promoting that parents are neglected parents if kids go to a neighood park in pairs or walk home with parental permission.

Society is messed up.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> My line for me is
> Heterosexual only between adults in a permanent relationship.
> 
> But that's me. Society allows what ever gives you pleasure. As for the adult... well if society was against minors having sex...... Why push for acceptance of it,why hand out condoms, why push for more birth control free,push for minors ability to get abortions with out parents knowledge while promoting that parents are neglected parents if kids go to a neighood park in pairs or walk home with parental permission.
> ...


Making sure that teenagers are educated about sex and have access to contraceptives by no means, establishes that someone accepts that all minors should be having sex. It means that unless you lock them up 24 hours a day they just might find a way to have sex and we would prefer they are prepared and understand the consequences and problems that go with that decision.


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ychologists-push-to-decriminalize-pedophilia/
http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/gay-laws-set-stage-for-pedophilia-rights/
http://patdollard.com/2013/07/it-begins-pedophiles-call-for-same-rights-as-homosexuals/

I just did a quick search on Google, and decriminalization is being pushed for by pedophiles, they hope to use the same tactics as gay rights leaders have used. What I think is being pursued here is the idea of the slippery slope, if one thing is legal why not another. If one thing that was once defined as a perversion is no longer thought to be wrong, then what is to stop a relationship with your sister, uncle, child, or dog? It is said that it is fine if the the adult consents, what about a child? When is a child too young to consent? A middle school boy and girl consent with each other why can't the middle school boy consent with his female teacher, as we have seen recently on the news? Judges have ruled a girl can marry her uncle, or siblings can have a relationship in Australia. Does a dog need to consent? It is the whole slippery slope thing again, if there isn't a firm moral code then is there any code? By the way kasilofhome, I like how you push buttons.


----------



## partndn (Jun 18, 2009)

good summary Feather, It's what I was thinking Kas meant, but couldn't get it in thoughts to write the way you did.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

BlackFeather said:


> http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ychologists-push-to-decriminalize-pedophilia/
> http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/gay-laws-set-stage-for-pedophilia-rights/
> http://patdollard.com/2013/07/it-begins-pedophiles-call-for-same-rights-as-homosexuals/
> 
> I just did a quick search on Google, and decriminalization is being pushed for by pedophiles, they hope to use the same tactics as gay rights leaders have used. What I think is being pursued here is the idea of the slippery slope, if one thing is legal why not another. If one thing that was once defined as a perversion is no longer thought to be wrong, then what is to stop a relationship with your sister, uncle, child, or dog? It is said that it is fine if the the adult consents, what about a child? When is a child too young to consent? A middle school boy and girl consent with each other why can't the middle school boy consent with his female teacher, as we have seen recently on the news? Judges have ruled a girl can marry her uncle, or siblings can have a relationship in Australia. Does a dog need to consent? It is the whole slippery slope thing again, if there isn't a firm moral code then is there any code? By the way kasilofhome, I like how you push buttons.


The slippery slope argument has been and always will be a bad way of trying to get laws passed or repealed.


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

kasilofhome said:


> My line for me is
> Heterosexual only between adults in a permanent relationship.
> 
> But that's me. Society allows what ever gives you pleasure. As for the adult... well if society was against minors having sex...... Why push for acceptance of it,why hand out condoms, why push for more birth control free,push for minors ability to get abortions with out parents knowledge while promoting that parents are neglected parents if kids go to a neighood park in pairs or walk home with parental permission.
> ...


Um, no society usually allows adults to do whatever gives them pleasure up to certain standards (*this is usually if it starts to infringe on others or is harmful to someone or is illegal in reference to the laws of the land).

To me, part of the issue is in how each side of an issue are able to relate to one another. For example, the 'pro-life' people are stating that a fetus is a person, with rights and protections, yet if that fetus comes out as a gay person, well, then their 'right to marry' needs to be defined in a manner that the gay person feels like a second hand citizen. So how can someone that doesn't believe that relate or communicate to that person.

Whenever you start discussing morality and religious, then you immediately shut some people off. For example, what about people that feel it is immoral to drink or smoke. How should a smoker or drinker explain their stance to them?

Then, you need to get a baseline for morality. I know for me, the base line is set and so do you. But what about young people. Do we base their morality on what they are taught by their parents? What if their parents are wrong? And besides that, who determines what is right or wrong when it comes down to morality and issues of personal belief.

Would it be based upon a numbers game? Who ever has the most followers wins? I still think that when it all boils down, if people would 'do unto others' then it would be okay. I know a religious person in town, and by that I mean the kind that goes out and hands out tracts and invites you to their chuurch. Really nice fella, always willing to help you out, but, every Friday night and Saturday night you can see him on his porch enjoying a nice cold 'beverage' (or more). Now this fella is a prime example of the issue. For some, even in his own church, he is doing wrong. But to me, he isn't bothering anyone, not driving, enjoys his 'beverages' then goes in to bed. 

So is he acting morally or not?


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

BlackFeather said:


> By the way kasilofhome, I like how you push buttons.


Yep, it is soooooo productive isn't it? And insightful.....


----------



## tlrnnp67 (Nov 5, 2006)

kasilofhome said:


> Here to the Duggan boy.
> Let's celebrate sexual freedom
> Morality is old age.
> 
> ...


Good Lord, lady.

Your head is just going to explode with next month's Supreme Court decision. stock up on your Xanax.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

kasilofhome said:


> Wait, what is an adult.... 5 years old?
> 
> 
> I can't find any complaints from diggers gals... just other complaining.


That is genuinely disgusting. Thanks for taking this situation to a whole new low here and not caring at all about the victims.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

kasilofhome said:


> My line for me is
> Heterosexual only between adults in a permanent relationship.
> 
> But that's me. Society allows what ever gives you pleasure. As for the adult... well if society was against minors having sex...... Why push for acceptance of it,why hand out condoms, why push for more birth control free,push for minors ability to get abortions with out parents knowledge while promoting that parents are neglected parents if kids go to a neighood park in pairs or walk home with parental permission.
> ...


Actually no our society does not allow whatever gives you pleasure. Alaska must have some pretty crazy laws compared to the rest of us. Down here molestation and pedophilia are still very much illegal. 

I guess it is good new members to HT can't see GC. Because if I was new and saw a thread like this glorifying pedophilia I would run screaming away and never come back.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

kasilofhome said:


> My line for me is
> Heterosexual only between adults in a permanent relationship.
> 
> But that's me. Society allows what ever gives you pleasure. As for the adult... well if society was against minors having sex...... Why push for acceptance of it,why hand out condoms, why push for more birth control free,push for minors ability to get abortions with out parents knowledge while promoting that parents are neglected parents if kids go to a neighood park in pairs or walk home with parental permission.
> ...


Well said. Society is going downhill like a snowball headed for hell. It's been happening for years and a large segment of society is all for it, with many even pushing it. They have turned sex into an idol. We were told it would happen and it is happening right before our eyes in several ways. Evil is widespread and growing as promised. It will stop but it won't be pretty.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

BlackFeather said:


> http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ychologists-push-to-decriminalize-pedophilia/
> http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/gay-laws-set-stage-for-pedophilia-rights/
> http://patdollard.com/2013/07/it-begins-pedophiles-call-for-same-rights-as-homosexuals/
> 
> I just did a quick search on Google, and decriminalization is being pushed for by pedophiles, they hope to use the same tactics as gay rights leaders have used. What I think is being pursued here is the idea of the slippery slope, if one thing is legal why not another. If one thing that was once defined as a perversion is no longer thought to be wrong, then what is to stop a relationship with your sister, uncle, child, or dog? It is said that it is fine if the the adult consents, what about a child? When is a child too young to consent? A middle school boy and girl consent with each other why can't the middle school boy consent with his female teacher, as we have seen recently on the news? Judges have ruled a girl can marry her uncle, or siblings can have a relationship in Australia. Does a dog need to consent? It is the whole slippery slope thing again, if there isn't a firm moral code then is there any code? By the way kasilofhome, I like how you push buttons.


You need a new Google if all yours gives you is WND, the Blaze and Pat Dollard.....


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Patchouli said:


> You need a new Google if all yours gives you is WND, the Blaze and Pat Dollard.....


What are the required sources that we must use to be politically correct, and lose or right to our opinions. 

Tolerance forced is oppression... it is someone insightful tag line I love it.

I see this whole issue as the old joke of a man offering a million dollars for a night of action from a lady, she agrees then he offers 20 bucks and the same lady is offended on moral grounds... that she is not a prostitute... where he lets her know she is and they are now in the negotiating phase.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

How is NAMBLA faring these days?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Tricky Grama said:


> How is NAMBLA faring these days?


The age of legal consent remains pretty firm and when I did a quick google search that seems to indicate nothing except a rather large lawsuit so I'm guessing they aren't making much progress.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Making sure that teenagers are educated about sex and have access to contraceptives by no means, establishes that someone accepts that all minors should be having sex. It means that unless you lock them up 24 hours a day they just might find a way to have sex and we would prefer they are prepared and understand the consequences and problems that go with that decision.


Whatever happened to teenagers having good morals?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

In 1996 68 percent of Americans were staunchly against homosexual marriage....given a few years all cards are off the table as for how low we can go. If not now soon it will be a free for all. This has been predicted long ago.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

gapeach said:


> Whatever happened to teenagers having good morals?


I personally hope that most teenagers wait to have sex. I however do not think having sex is immoral.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

painterswife said:


> I personally hope that most teenagers wait to have sex. I however do not think having sex is immoral.


I very much disagree but my generation is different from yours.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

I'm wondering when teens had morals


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Patchouli said:


> Actually no our society does not allow whatever gives you pleasure. Alaska must have some pretty crazy laws compared to the rest of us. Down here molestation and pedophilia are still very much illegal.
> 
> I guess it is good new members to HT can't see GC. Because if I was new and saw a thread like this glorifying pedophilia I would run screaming away and never come back.


Do you worry about how glorifying homosexual behavior will impact people.... or is it moot to you based on your standards?


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

coolrunnin said:


> I'm wondering when teens had morals



They did. I am so glad to have grown up in the 50's. Boys bragged about having sex but most of that was lies. Girls actually cared about their reputations. I am not declaring that I was an angel but I have had sex with one man in my life and that was my husband on our wedding night. There were many more just like me.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

gapeach said:


> I very much disagree but my generation is different from yours.


It has nothing to do with a generation. It is an individual thing. Sex is not immoral. My parents nor my grandparents, nor my neices and nephews think sex is immoral.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

kasilofhome said:


> Do you worry about how glorifying homosexual behavior will impact people.... or is it moot to you based on your standards?


Just because someone supports same sex marriage doesn't mean they're glorifying homosexual behavior. 

Out of curiosity, who do you feel will be affected and how?


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Having sex outside marriage is how I was brought up and I am glad to say that I followed those rules. I am not condemning anyone else but those were my rules laid down by my parents. Knowing that I could never come home pregnant and really wanting to having personal morals was important to me.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

gapeach said:


> They did. I am so glad to have grown up in the 50's. Boys bragged about having sex but most of that was lies. Girls actually cared about their reputations. I am not declaring that I was an angel but I have had sex with one man in my life and that was my husband on our wedding night. There were many more just like me.


Isn't it funny though...boys could brag about having sex and girls had to worry about their reputations. Nice double standard. Why is it okay that boys could have sex (even to the point of bragging about it) but girls lived in fear of being called ----s? 
At least now it's a lot more fair in that respect.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Wr, REALLY.....is that a fact or an assumption that a new comer seeing say a post high fiving Ireland's vote the would not take that to be glorification of homosexual activity?.....


Ok.... that is your take....interesting


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

gapeach said:


> Having sex outside marriage is how I was brought up and I am glad to say that I followed those rules. I am not condemning anyone else but those were my rules laid down by my parents. Knowing that I could never come home pregnant and really wanting to having personal morals was important to me.


Well, i was born in the 50's. I had over 20 aunts and uncles who were teenagers in the late 40,s and 50's , not one waited until their wedding night to have sex. These ranged from farmers to teachers, to business people. All very moral. Not an immoral one in the bunch.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

basketti said:


> Isn't it funny though...boys could brag about having sex and girls had to worry about their reputations. Nice double standard. Why is it okay that boys could have sex (even to the point of bragging about it) but girls lived in fear of being called ----s?
> At least now it's a lot more fair in that respect.


Most of the boys' bragging stories were exaggerations. Just think about it, we all had choices but our choice not to have sex had a lot of benefits. None of us had ever even heard of "the pill" or STD's. I don't want to sound like a Nun or being self righteous. I think most of my girlfriends were raised just like I was and stuck to those morals. Our mother's put the fear of God into us. The few who didn't never told anybody that they went all the way with someone. That was utmost secrecy and a boy who was going steady with a girl and sex with her would never tell. The boys who bragged were mostly trying to claim something that never happened.
We thought a pot was something you cooked in too. We never even heard of it.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

gapeach said:


> Most of the boys' bragging stories were exaggerations. Just think about it, we all had choices but our choice not to have sex had a lot of benefits. None of us had ever even heard of "the pill" or STD's. I don't want to sound like a Nun or being self righteous. I think most of my girlfriends were raised just like I was and stuck to those morals. Our mother's put the fear of God into us. The few who didn't never told anybody that they went all the way with someone. That was utmost secrecy and a boy who was going steady with a girl and sex with her would never tell. The boys who bragged were mostly trying to claim something that never happened.
> We thought pot was something you cooked in too.


My point is, why was it okay for boys but not for girls?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

gapeach said:


> Most of the boys' bragging stories were exaggerations. Just think about it, we all had choices but our choice not to have sex had a lot of benefits. None of us had ever even heard of "the pill" or STD's.  I don't want to sound like a Nun or being self righteous. I think most of my girlfriends were raised just like I was and stuck to those morals. Our mother's put the fear of God into us. The few who didn't never told anybody that they went all the way with someone. That was utmost secrecy and a boy who was going steady with a girl and sex with her would never tell. The boys who bragged were mostly trying to claim something that never happened.
> We thought pot was something you cooked in too.


A good portion were having sex, they just did not tell you because it was obvious you would judge them.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

basketti said:


> My point is, why was it okay for boys but not for girls?


I am not too sure that it was. Some of the popular boys like football players would brag to each other just to be braggadocious but he would have been scared to death of the girl's father and mother not to let the secret get out and be public knowledge.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

painterswife said:


> A good portion were having sex, they just did not tell you because it was obvious you would judge them.


That is just your opinion. You would have had to live in the 50's to know how important reputations were then. They were just about everything and your reputation would have determined if you get accepted into college or whether you got a job. Personal references were very, very important and you had to have 3 or 4 of them. High school principals, Pastor, Teachers all were the preferred references.
There were no rules about what you could ask these references then. Any kind of personal info could be asked.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

kasilofhome said:


> Wr, REALLY.....is that a fact or an assumption that a new comer seeing say a post high giving Ireland's vote the would not take that to be glorification of homosexual activity?.....
> 
> 
> Ok.... that is your take....interesting


I don't think that someone would assume that because Ireland voted to allow same sex marriage that anyone is glorifying anything but we might be working on two definitions but I'm also not sure why you're attributing that comment to me.

I'm also not sure where my post went because it showed up as a double post, I deleted one and the other seems to be missing but it wasn't complicated, I simply asked who you feel would be affected and how?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

gapeach said:


> That is just your opinion. You would have had to live in the 50's to know how important reputations were then. They were just about everything and your reputation would have determined if you get accepted into college or whether you got a job. Personal references were very, very important and you had to have 3 or 4 of them. High school principals, Pastor, Teachers all were the preferred references.
> There were no rules about what you could ask these references then. Any kind of personal info could be asked.


I know how important reputations were. I am lucky to have a family that while they were not open back then about the subject, they have been very open about it since we were teenagers. They lived with the double standards and did not want their children and grand children to think sex was immoral. Sex before marriage is not immoral.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

The post you deleted that I attempted to quote would clarify my reasons.... as noted it was a double post.... but I can't find it at all now...


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

gapeach said:


> That is just your opinion. You would have had to live in the 50's to know how important reputations were then.


Times were very different back then and we were just talking about this a couple nights ago. The big guy's mother was raped by a family member which resulted in pregnancy. In order to hide her shameful condition, she was sent off to the nuns, had the child, her parents raised it and the big guy and his sisters were not told until they found birth records years later, that Auntie was actually Sister.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

gapeach said:


> I am not too sure that it was. Some of the popular boys like football players would brag to each other just to be braggadocious but he would have been scared to death of the girl's father and mother not to let the secret get out and be public knowledge.


then how did you know about the bragging if they only bragged to each other and were too scared to let the secret out?

Come on...we all know there was a terrible double standard back then and it still exists to a point today. Girls who sleep around are still called ----s and boys aren't. But to a much lesser degree.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

kasilofhome said:


> The post you deleted that I attempted to quote would clarify my reasons.... as noted it was a double post.... but I can't find it at all now...


I reversed the deletion because the other seems to be missing but I'm still not sure what my comment has to do with glorification of anything.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

There were lots of unwed men and women having sex and lots of pregnant unwed mothers in the past decades but they gave up their children for adoption. 

This was partly due to social stigmatization but also for simple financial reasons. There was no financial assistance available and no way to hold the man up to his responsibilities. 

From 1945 to 1973 over 4 million babies from unwed mothers were put up for adoption. Annual numbers for non-relative adoptions increased from an estimated 33,800 in 1951 to a peak of 89,200 in 1970, then quickly declined to an estimated 47,700 in 1975. (This does not include the number of infants adopted and raised by relatives.) In contrast, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimates that only 14,000 infants were placed for adoption in 2003. The difference is that people were having sex and babies whereas people today are having sex but preventing having babies.


----------



## tiffnzacsmom (Jan 26, 2006)

I know of two men born in the 1920's to unwed mothers. One was raised by mom and the other sent to live elsewhere till a teen. It's not new. But for those who don't understand what consent means I feel sorry for you. Your moral compass is off and defending child molesters smacks of being either an abuser yourself or you were abused and made to feel it was your fault.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Times they are a changing there's little hope for generations to come...


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

painterswife said:


> I know how important reputations were. I am lucky to have a family that while they were not open back then about the subject, they have been very open about it since we were teenagers. They lived with the double standards and did not want their children and grand children to think sex was immoral. Sex before marriage is not immoral.


I don't agree with you but that is your opinion and I have mine.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

wr said:


> Just because someone supports same sex marriage doesn't mean they're glorifying homosexual behavior.
> 
> Out of curiosity, who do you feel will be affected and how?



Future generations. 

Support .....celebrate .... kinda seems glorification to me....


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Times they are a changing there's little hope for generations to come...


That has been said for centuries. Old tired an worn out. I see each generation make great changes. Less discrimination, less sexism and less hypocrisy. I see lots of hope.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

emdeengee said:


> There were lots of unwed men and women having sex and lots of pregnant unwed mothers in the past decades but they gave up their children for adoption.
> 
> This was partly due to social stigmatization but also for simple financial reasons. There was no financial assistance available and no way to hold the man up to his responsibilities.
> 
> From 1945 to 1973 over 4 million babies from unwed mothers were put up for adoption. Annual numbers for non-relative adoptions increased from an estimated 33,800 in 1951 to a peak of 89,200 in 1970, then quickly declined to an estimated 47,700 in 1975. (This does not include the number of infants adopted and raised by relatives.) In contrast, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimates that only 14,000 infants were placed for adoption in 2003. The difference is that people were having sex and babies whereas people today are having sex but preventing having babies.



I have two adopted children who are 2 of the most precious people in my life. We have had them since they were babies. Neither wants to know about their biological background and that is their choice. They are both very pro-life. Both say that today they would probably have been aborted today. I had a biological child after 12 yrs of marriage and there is not difference in any of them even with each other. They are all extremely close. 
The reasons they were up for adoption had nothing to do with the men involved. It was because of their young age and they made the decisions, not their families.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

painterswife said:


> That has been said for centuries. Old tired an worn out. I see each generation make great changes. Less discrimination, less sexism and less hypocrisy. I see lots of hope.


You and I are thousands of miles apart and that is ok. You feel like you do and I feel like I do for different reasons.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

kasilofhome said:


> Future generations.
> 
> Support .....celebrate .... kinda seems glorification to me....


How will future generations be affected?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

gapeach said:


> You and I are thousands of miles apart and that is ok. You feel like you do and I feel like I do for different reasons.


For sure. It has a lot to do with where and how one was raised. I was raised in the 60's in a very staunch Catholic community and a lot of girls were sent off to stay at a convent for the school year and some never were allowed to come home. 

My grandfather and father were Catholics as well but my grandfather felt that the greatest injustice a parent could commit was turning their child away when they needed their parents most. Possibly he was affected by the death of his mother and spending the school year in an orphanage. We were never told to do whatever we wanted but we always knew we wouldn't be thrown out.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

wr said:


> How will future generations be affected?


Standards of morality that clearly seem to be filling biblical prophesies.

We support the "right" to fulfill ones premeditated murder for personal gain... also known as abortion. 

We push to mandate acceptance of homosexuality.

We deny genital as a determination of gender, as logical to the point the elementary school are starting to preach it.


And you can't see any affects on generations ...ok... that's odd to me not to see where we are a heading.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

kasilofhome said:


> If it feels good do it who's to judge, heck have the girls complained... I haven't seen such evidence of that...so it's just a bunch of prudish folks judging.


This is one of the most creepy threads, I have ever seen at this forum. I hope your are just trolling. 

Maybe everyone - but the sick lurid story craving media and those who eagerly suck it up, have dealt with the situation and moved on. Sometime when people make mistakes, that the best thing to do.

It's not like it didn't happen 15 years ago or anything.


Or, this is another slam at gay marriage, since if that happens, before we know everybody will be having sex with children.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

My husband has two gay 1st cousins. Their 2 parents were of an older generation from us, both Southern Baptist, Dad, Deacon in the church, Mom, Sunday school teacher.
They had to accept their children and their partners. What else can you do?
My husband and I had that talk a long time ago. What if one or more of our children were gay? Never could we not accept our children and if it meant accepting their partners, then we would do that too.
It would not be my first choice but they are our kids. No way could I ever not stand by my child. They were too hard to come by plus I love them too much and my dh does too.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

How on earth can those preaching sexual tolerance heading in this direction not see the path we are on... creepy.... Why..... sex is natural people are being told that only bigoted people who are religious zealots want to control others sexual choices.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

gapeach said:


> My husband has two gay 1st cousins. Their 2 parents were of an older generation from us, both Southern Baptist, Dad, Deacon in the church, Mom, Sunday school teacher.
> They had to accept their children and their partners. What else can you do?
> My husband and I had that talk a long time ago. What if one or more of our children were gay? Never could we not accept our children and if it meant accepting their partners, then we would do that too.
> It would not be my first choice but they are our kids. No way could I ever not stand by my child. They were too hard to come by plus I love them too much and my dh does too.


You sound like a pretty sane lady. When we carry our children, I think we tend to carry certain expectations as well and when a parent finds out that their kid is different than what they expected, for whatever reason, they have some serious thinking to do. We don't always get what we expected, the journey may be different than someone else's but in the end, they are good people or not based on the effort you put into raising them.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

I have always found this to be an instructive visual on the issue:


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> How on earth can those preaching sexual tolerance heading in this direction not see the path we are on... creepy.... Why..... sex is natural people are being told that only bigoted people who are religious zealots want to control others sexual choices.


What would you do if your child came out as gay?


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

About the gay marriage, I still believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. I am fine with the same sex unions. I am not to the point that I believe in same sex marriage. That does not mean that I would turn my child away or his partner, my husband and I would accept them because they are family.


----------



## mrsgcpete (Sep 16, 2012)

This whole thread is a disgusting attempt to equate the molestation of young girls with consensual sexual relations between two adults. Gay marriage isnt going to bring down society. Parents not protecting their children from the predators in their own homes and families are what will bring society down because they are sending broken children out in the world to raise more broken children.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kasilofhome said:


> Standards of morality that clearly seem to be filling biblical prophesies.
> 
> We support the "right" to fulfill ones premeditated murder for personal gain... also known as abortion.
> 
> ...


A quick question about those biblical prophesies. Isn't their fulfillment in your best interest? Don't the prophesies have to be fulfilled for you to reach your rightful place in the next life? Shouldn't you be applauding same sex marriage advocates and Muslim extremists as their ascention hastens your own?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> A quick question about those biblical prophesies. Isn't their fulfillment in your best interest? Don't the prophesies have to be fulfilled for you to reach your rightful place in the next life? Shouldn't you be applauding same sex marriage advocates and Muslim extremists as their ascention hastens your own?


No, it's sad because it shows just how sinful and disrespectful of a loving God man truly is. Just because we have prison is no reason to rejoice that they fill up and create employment needs.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

gapeach said:


> About the gay marriage, I still believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. I am fine with the same sex unions. I am not to the point that I believe in same sex marriage. That does not mean that I would turn my child away or his partner, my husband and I would accept them because they are family.



I respect that you've given this a great deal of thought and I can understand your concerns.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

mrsgcpete said:


> This whole thread is a disgusting attempt to equate the molestation of young girls with consensual sexual relations between two adults. Gay marriage isnt going to bring down society. Parents not protecting their children from the predators in their own homes and families are what will bring society down because they are sending broken children out in the world to raise more broken children.


Society via government has destroyed the institute of families. Used to be the number one reason for single parent families was death.....now welfare benefits and reduction of morals.

Fyi, young girls are well groomed for sex in this society. So, are the boys. Many here have mentioned that this young sexuality is nothing new...... Why so, so many young girls had to go to convents for a few months...


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> No, it's sad because it shows just how sinful and disrespectful of a loving God man truly is. Just because we have prison is no reason to rejoice that they fill up and create employment needs.


I think it is sad that a loving god could have a problem with a loving relationship because of the sex of those in it. How could that contribute to prohicies that judge people on who they love?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)




----------



## Marshloft (Mar 24, 2008)

I was wondering when this would come up.

If our so-called society can handle two dudes. Whats wrong with one dude and two or three womens in the fold.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

basketti said:


> Isn't it funny though...boys could brag about having sex and girls had to worry about their reputations. Nice double standard. Why is it okay that boys could have sex (even to the point of bragging about it) but girls lived in fear of being called ----s?
> 
> At least now it's a lot more fair in that respect.



No it's not more fair now. As the kids in kindergarten know girls have a vagina and boys have a penis. 
They are different and when they behave the same they get different results. 
The girls today are the ones taken advantage of. Both guys and girls want sex but when the babies come along as a result the boys brag and the girls have to raise them. 
It's a double standard.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

painterswife said:


> I think it is sad that a loving god could have a problem with a loving relationship because of the sex of those in it. How could that contribute to prohicies that judge people on who they love?


Maybe you should talk to God and see if He will change His mind. Good luck with that. He created us all and He gets to set the rules. Your argument makes no sense. Sexual perversion comes in many forms and I'm sure those with various perversions would question why you deem one ok and the others bad. More than deem it okay, you applaud it.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

AmericanStand said:


> No it's not more fair now. As the kids in kindergarten know girls have a vagina and boys have a penis.
> They are different and when they behave the same they get different results.
> The girls today are the ones taken advantage of. Both guys and girls want sex but when the babies come along as a result the boys brag and the girls have to raise them.
> It's a double standard.


Still a double standard, but there is contraception and abortion and if the girl does choose to have th baby, the father can be forced to help support it. Definitely more fair than in the past. Not to mention that it is far more accepted now for girls to have sex outside of marriage. Light years difference, really. Girls "brag" about it too.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

poppy said:


> Maybe you should talk to God and see if He will change His mind. Good luck with that. He created us all and He gets to set the rules. Your argument makes no sense. Sexual perversion comes in many forms and I'm sure those with various perversions would question why you deem one ok and the others bad. More than deem it okay, you applaud it.


No god created me, my parents did.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> No god created me, my parents did.


And that speaks volumes to why people like you and people like me agree on very little, and most especially the subject of this thread.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

poppy said:


> Maybe you should talk to God and see if He will change His mind. Good luck with that. He created us all and He gets to set the rules. Your argument makes no sense. Sexual perversion comes in many forms and I'm sure those with various perversions would question why you deem one ok and the others bad. More than deem it okay, you applaud it.


Kind of makes one wonder about the perfection and twisted sense of humor of a being that creates such imperfection and stands back to watch the fun and games that ensue.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> Kind of makes one wonder about the perfection and twisted sense of humor of a being that creates such imperfection and stands back to watch the fun and games that ensue.


Your inability to understand or comprehend His perfection does not diminish Him.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

HDRider said:


> And that speaks volumes to why people like you and people like me agree on very little, and most especially the subject of this thread.


The subject of this thread seemed to be to try to equate what consenting adults do behind closed doors with what a 15 year old did to unsuspecting 5 and 6 year old girls. If you think they are the same thing, you're right, we'll never agree.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> The subject of this thread seemed to be to try to equate what consenting adults do behind closed doors with what a 15 year old did to unsuspecting 5 and 6 year old girls. If you think they are the same thing, you're right, we'll never agree.


The subject of this thread is same sex marriage. True, we will never agree.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Strong moral values lead to stronger families, lower crime and a better economy. Weak moral values lead ultimately to poverty, a weak family structure and greater human misery.
The role of moral values has been seriously distorted. Those of us who support moral values are called intolerant by people who equate any type of behavior standard with judgment and hate. These people fail to recognize how high moral values would be of immense benefit in achieving the goals they claim to have.
Illegitimacy, broken families, drug use, etc. have trapped many in hopeless poverty and denied educational opportunities to whole classes of children.
Many liberals seem to believe that we can have the type of society that they claim to want without moral values. This is just not the case. 

Same sex marriage as a reality has changed much in the last 7 years. Obama was against it before he was for it. We all know that he was for it before he was against it.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kasilofhome said:


> Here to the Duggan boy.
> Let's celebrate sexual freedom
> Morality is old age.
> 
> ...


HD - here's the opening post. Show me the mention of gay marriage.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> HD - here's the opening post. Show me the mention of gay marriage.


If you cannot connect those dots I do not want to engage with you. You are either feigning being obtuse or you do not understand the point. Either way, I do not have the energy or inclination to engage with you. 

I get comfort and energy enough to know that I can strive to sepearate myself from evil in its many forms. Our disagreement is my comfort.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

gapeach said:


> Strong moral values lead to stronger families, lower crime and a better economy. Weak moral values lead ultimately to poverty, a weak family structure and greater human misery.
> The role of moral values has been seriously distorted. Those of us who support moral values are called intolerant by people who equate any type of behavior standard with judgment and hate. These people fail to recognize how high moral values would be of immense benefit in achieving the goals they claim to have.
> Illegitimacy, broken families, drug use, etc. have trapped many in hopeless poverty and denied educational opportunities to whole classes of children.
> Many liberals seem to believe that we can have the type of society that they claim to want without moral values. This is just not the case.
> ...


I have no problem with your support of your moral values. They work for you. I
Do have a problem when you dismiss others moral values because they conflict with yours or you try to impose those values on others. Don't want to marry someone of the same sex - don't. Don't want to "accept" a gay couple unless they are a relative- don't. Look down on and claim that the same sex couples I know are what are causing the downfall of society-don't. Most of the ones I know are hard working, caring, charitable, loving parents just like most of the christian families I know. They're trying to raise their kids to be productive members of society just as you or I did. What they do behind the closed door of their bedroom has nothing to do with that, just as what you and your husband or I and my wife did had nothing to do with how our children were raised. A good friend once thanked me for judging her on who she was, not who she woke up next to.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

HDRider said:


> If you cannot connect those dots I do not want to engage with you. You are either feigning being obtuse or you do not understand the point. Either way, I do not have the energy or inclination to engage with you.
> 
> I get comfort and energy enough to know that I can strive to sepearate myself from evil in its many forms. Our disagreement is my comfort.


Then don't engage. I have a hard time connecting the dots between what the Duggar boy supposedly did and what two consenting adults do behind closed doors. If those equate to the same kind of evil to you then our disagreement also comforts me.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

My dh and I have friends who are gay. One couple for a very long time, but they have broken up now and one has a new partner. We are still in touch with both of the orginal couple. At one time they were planning a wedding and now both are glad that they did not get married.
We can all have different values and morals but it does not mean we cannot understand others for feeling as they do. My husband and I never had to make any decisions about any of our kids because none of them are gay but we had to have that discussion a long time ago of what if?As far as promiscuous sex, whether straight or gay. is morally wrong. I feel that very sincerely and I do think that it is sinful.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

MMOETC: Where is your power of reason? Moral values are immutable. Murder cannot be defined as "moral". Any action which results in harm to the human species is immoral--the definition of immorality. 

We tolerate some sin. Self destruction is sinful, but we tolerate drunkenness, we deplore drug use, we forbid murder.

As a society degrades it accepts more and more sin as tolerable. Example; only a few years ago rioting was forbidden. The authorities warned that rioters and looters would be shot. Today the police must stand and watch, forbidden to stop rioters. 

How you raise your children is a case in point; if you wish them to lead happy, productive and relatively serene lives you will encourage them to follow the rules of society--all of which are based on a moral law of some kind. If you teach them to pick and choose which of the rules they will follow you condemn them to misery.

Recreational drug use, for example: History shows that in every society in which drug use became the norm there were many people who were simply lost. They became addicts and non-functional as useful members of their world. Did not matter whether it was alcohol, hashis or opium. That works fine so long as you let the failures drop thru and take the consequences of their self destruction. It does not work at all in a civilized, nanny society where we must coddle drug users and try to work them thru their own asinine behavior. 

Morality is not a matter to be decided case by case. Same sex unions--fine, but do not call it marriage and do not hide the elephant in the room---what perverts DO. Some of us do not wish to be reminded daily of people who commit acts that would gag a maggot. Let them quietly pair off and call it something other than marriage.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Well said Ox.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Oxankle said:


> MMOETC: Where is your power of reason? Moral values are immutable. Murder cannot be defined as "moral". Any action which results in harm to the human species is immoral--the definition of immorality.
> 
> We tolerate some sin. Self destruction is sinful, but we tolerate drunkenness, we deplore drug use, we forbid murder.
> 
> ...


I'd say those maggots would be gagging just as much as you presume at what the Duggar boy was said to have done. Guess what? Call them same sex marriages, civil unions or Bob, what the people involved do behind closed doors won't change. If you don't wish to be reminded that same sex couples exist, have always existed and will exist in the future I suggest you lock yourself in your compound, limit your media exposure and think pure thoughts.

In raising my child to be a productive citizen I made no promises of happiness or serenity. Sometimes fighting for what one believes in can be productive, both to the the individual and society, but also involve unhappiness and upheaval. I raised my child to not be afraid to rock the boat. If you wish to raise your children to be "good citizens" and not question the status quo in some quest for happiness and peace so be it. I hope they find it.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

basketti said:


> if the girl does choose to have th baby, the father can be forced to help support it. Definitely more fair than in the past.



The new double standard. 
If it wasn't fair to make the mother have a child in the past how is it fair to make the father have one now ?


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Being for traditional marriage does not make one anti-gay. With that kind of thinking, is one that is for the murder of babies by way of abortion anti-life?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

HDRider said:


> If you cannot connect those dots I do not want to engage with you. You are either feigning being obtuse or you do not understand the point. Either way, I do not have the energy or inclination to engage with you.
> 
> I get comfort and energy enough to know that I can strive to sepearate myself from evil in its many forms. Our disagreement is my comfort.


Amen.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Oxankle said:


> MMOETC: Where is your power of reason? Moral values are immutable. Murder cannot be defined as "moral". Any action which results in harm to the human species is immoral--the definition of immorality.
> 
> We tolerate some sin. Self destruction is sinful, but we tolerate drunkenness, we deplore drug use, we forbid murder.
> 
> ...


Worthy of many crowns.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> ..
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I do wish my children to be good citizens.....and moral.

I am most pleased with a child I raised for over ten plus years. A staunch Jewish boy with rich solid faith and high standards.

He was a rising star in the new York city scene set and ready to make partner in a fine law firm. But..... he became aware that a homosexual was not ever going to rise up there due to being homosexual. That boy valued His moral back bone, while he is personally as strong as I am about homosexual choice in as mush as sex was NOT a requirement of the job, that only thru seeking and investigation did the man private live become secretly known to those selecting the future partners. The rejected homosexual lawyer suspected the real reason for his lack of rise ....

Well, the rising star with high morals risked his future and and pulled a deep throat... providing the homosexual lawyer himself as a witness. He cut his own throat to do the right thing.... and I am so proud of him. 

See, many people are simply against the sin.... and how there is no repenting just pride in it .... proud to say that disgust me. I am not out to stone, or harm a homosexual but I will not accept that sin is good and worth of a celebration.
I have friends who are homosexuals,and I have friends who are alcoholics.

I will not aid them in self harm I will not celebrate what will destroy them even if it given the pleasure and fulfillment.

Society is on the wrong path this might someday be known as society dark period.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> The new double standard.
> If it wasn't fair to make the mother have a child in the past how is it fair to make the father have one now ?


The reality of life is that every man is 100% responsible for whatever the consequences of his sex life turns out to be (consensual sex of course). Only he is in control of his penis and sperm and when he engages in sex with a woman there is always a chance of fertilization even if responsible birth control measures are taken.

The reality of life is that every woman is 100% responsible for whatever the consequences of her sex life turns out to be (consensual sex of course). Only she is in control of her vagina and eggs and when she engages in sex with a man there is always the chance of fertilization even if responsible birth control measures are taken.

Life is not fair but until men are the ones who have to carry the baby and give birth (and usually raise the child) it is still the woman's choice because it is her body. This does not change the fathers obligation to the child at all. You both created it. It probably would be wise to discuss birth control options, abortion and child rearing before you engage in sex just so you know the philosophical position of each person. Might make your intended coitus not seem as important. Or you might still want to take the gamble

If you (man or woman) did not want even the slightest possibility of your sex life creating a child then abstain or get fixed as there is no fool proof birth control method. The percentage of failures for all forms is quite shocking.

I am really pleased that science has brought us DNA testing for paternity. IMO this is absolutely wonderful. No child will ever again be denied their paternity and no man will ever again raise a child that is not theirs.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Sorry it is her body and it contains a body of someone else. Someone she can legally kill... murder. The woman is harming another.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Sorry, DNA proof legally does not stop men who are proven not to be the father to stop the financial black mail. Courts have forced non DNA matched males to provide for children that are NOT theirs.

Men are punished and often under the thumbs of selfish women..


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

kasilofhome said:


> Sorry, DNA proof legally does not stop men who are proven not to be the father to stop the financial black mail. Courts have forced non DNA matched males to provide for children that are NOT theirs.
> 
> Men are punished and often under the thumbs of selfish women..




The courts are slow to change but DNA is making the old rules obsolete about child support for children who are not yours.

Women and children are punished and often by the neglect of selfish men.

It is nice and uplifting that we are headed to a future where things are more equitable.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

kasilofhome said:


> Sorry it is her body and it contains a body of someone else. Someone she can legally kill... murder. The woman is harming another.


You have misunderstood. My post was in response to the statement that it is unfair to make a man have keep a child. In other words when the woman decides to keep the pregnancy. NOT a discussion on abortion.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

No,I did not misunderstand.... you stated it is a woman choice.. her body.


----------



## GrannyCarol (Mar 23, 2005)

I will post on this, but frankly I don't expect anyone to understand what I am talking about. First there is a living God and true life is found in His Son, Jesus Christ and no other. He has, is and will judge all in spirit, not in law. He has no use for religion or morality, as they are the constructs of men. 

When I met Him through His Holy Spirit, He pointed out to me that my marriage of over 20 years and my pride in my fidelity was actually fornication and adultery to Him. He has nothing to do with the laws of this society, that is all under the prince of this world and found in the age. Marriage to my God is a union under His direct authority, through Jesus Christ and it is two made one flesh, the woman taken out of the man returned to his ribcage. My marriage was fornication because He was not a part of it, not because of any law in this world, or any morality of this world. 

He showed me I am entirely made of sin (sin being the separation between me and Him) and entirely in need of Jesus Christ to work in me, to make me into a new person. 

When I look around, I can easily see even the light of this world is as black as it can be and it is all headed into the pit going as fast as it can - this world is entirely insane, there is no good in it. Society, being separated from the living God will just get crazier. The time will come when Jesus Christ comes with His 10,000 saints to put an end to it in judgment. To a few it will be a relief. 

To be found truly a Christian is to be found entirely in the mercy of God, His grace regardless of our sin, because He loves us. I have nothing innately good in me, but He is merciful. I am a murderer and a whore - when I was young during the "sexual revolution", I slept around in the thought of "free love" and that I wasn't hurting anyone. I got pregnant, I had a very early abortion and thought nothing of it. When I got to know God, He showed me in great power and anguish that I murdered my baby, that I am a woman that murders her children for the sake of convenience. He showed me that I was murdering my growing children by not being their mother in Christ. I was completely devastated. The next day, He told me, "You are forgiven for what you are, not what you have done." and I knew great joy and hope that He would make me a proper mother to my children, and He is continuing to work that out in me. 

We are harming the future generations by our hard hearts and hatred of God, by our murder, sodomy, marriages, by our morality, our religion and scoffing of God. None of that will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, only Jesus Christ has gone back up and only those attached to Him, within His Holy marriage will go with Him. Our future generations will only be helped if we turn towards God in repentance of our ways and accept that we have nothing good to offer Him, but are entirely in need. That will bring great joy, freedom, peace and unity of mind and heart. The only peace Jesus came to bring is peace with God and war with this world. This world was given over to its king, Lucifer, who is attempting to make a kingdom like the Most High without the living God. It's all insane, corrupt, etc. 

That is my testimony, given regarding the state of marriage, morals and society today.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

kasilofhome said:


> Do you worry about how glorifying homosexual behavior will impact people.... or is it moot to you based on your standards?


I don't give a hoot one way or the other what 2 consenting adults do. I don't recall ever seeing a thread here glorifying homosexual behavior. Plenty pitching fits about it though. I never have understood that sort of obsession with other people's sex lives.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

kasilofhome said:


> No,I did not misunderstand.... you stated it is a woman choice.. her body.


But you are deliberately taking it out of context or have problems with reading comprehension. I said it is her choice and body but that was in reference to keeping the baby. If you want to discuss abortion then create your own post but stop twisting my words.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

You felt the needed to mention a woman's CHOICE ..

Her body.... Sorry walk it back all you want but you fail to see the child rights.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Rubbish. Keeping a child is as much a CHOICE as not keeping a child. The use of the word "choice" even when combined with the word "woman's" does not have only one meaning. You simply cannot be bothered to read properly. Don't use my words for your agenda and try to misshape my comments to suit you. If you want to discuss abortion go ahead. If I want to discuss it there will be no ambiguity in my post.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

kasilofhome said:


> Future generations.
> 
> Support .....celebrate .... kinda seems glorification to me....


Nope sorry. We are celebrating the fact that 2 people who love each other can now get married in Ireland regardless of other people's opinions on their sexuality. That is all.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Marshloft said:


> I was wondering when this would come up.
> 
> If our so-called society can handle two dudes. Whats wrong with one dude and two or three womens in the fold.


If they are all consenting adults not a thing. I don't see how even Kasilofhome can complain about this one since it is in her Bible.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> No it's not more fair now. As the kids in kindergarten know girls have a vagina and boys have a penis.
> They are different and when they behave the same they get different results.
> The girls today are the ones taken advantage of. Both guys and girls want sex but when the babies come along as a result the boys brag and the girls have to raise them.
> It's a double standard.


Um that's the way it has always been I am afraid.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Please explain to me why that a woman has a right to abort her egg and my sperm but I don't have the right to abort my sperm and her egg ?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

AmericanStand said:


> Please explain to me why that a woman has a right to abort her egg and my sperm but I don't have the right to abort my sperm and her egg ?


You don't have a right to do a medical procedure on her body. Very simple.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Please explain to me why that a woman has a right to abort her egg and my sperm but I don't have the right to abort my sperm and her egg ?


You do have that right up until the moment your sperm is in her body. Then it's no longer your call.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> Please explain to me why that a woman has a right to abort her egg and my sperm but I don't have the right to abort my sperm and her egg ?


Think of the phrase _"Possession is 9/10ths of the law."_

You might have the right if a woman could implant her egg inside you when you have sex. Then the egg and your sperm would be your possession and you could abort it if you wanted to. Or not. But of course, women don't implant their eggs into men and therefore those eggs can't be the possessions of men and men have no rights over women's eggs. 

You already do abort your sperm every time you have an orgasm. It's called ejaculation.

Once you abort (ejaculate) your sperm into a woman then the sperm becomes her possession, it's no longer your possession. She can do what she wants with her possession and you have no rights over her possession.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

I agree with the last three posts, or you could just abstain. Plus as the kids say, "If there is gunna be affection cover your erection."


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

It's her body and she can so what she wants with it ? So then why am I responce able for her choice ?
OR following the logic of it's in her possession then why can't I ask for MY possession back ?(abortion )


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

AmericanStand said:


> It's her body and she can so what she wants with it ? So then why am I responce able for her choice ?
> OR following the logic of it's in her possession then why can't I ask for MY possession back ?(abortion )


You gave it to her freely, right? It's not yours anymore. And see my post just above this one, you too have the responsibility of not producing a child. It's an excellent time to be a woman.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> It's her body and she can so what she wants with it ? So then why am I responce able for her choice ?
> OR following the logic of it's in her possession then why can't I ask for MY possession back ?(abortion )


If you don't want to be responsible for her choice to bake a bun, then you're perfectly free to not give her one of the necessary ingredients. A gift once given is no longer yours. You can certainly ask, but it's her decision whether or not to comply with your request.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> *I guess it is good new members to HT can't see GC.* Because if I was new and saw a thread like this glorifying pedophilia I would run screaming away and never come back.


New members to HT *can* see GC. So can anybody else who isn't a member and isn't logged in, just browsing online. Try it yourself, log out and go to GC, you'll see it's visible to anyone.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Why are single men worried about children they don't want. Premarital sex is immoral. There shoul not be any children you don't want.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Fennick said:


> New members to HT *can* see GC. So can anybody else who isn't a member and isn't logged in, just browsing online. Try it yourself, log out and go to GC, you'll see it's visible to anyone.


A bunch of long time members advocating and supporting pedophilia is not a good way to make a first impression.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> It's her body and she can so what she wants with it ? So then why am I responce able for her choice ?
> OR following the logic of it's in her possession then why can't I ask for MY possession back ?(abortion )


It was your choice to give it to her and she can choose to do whatever she wants with it after you willingly give it to her. Once you give it to her you can't ask for it back because it is no longer your possession, it is her possession. It stopped being your possession the instant you gave it to her.

Would you ask for the return of food that you gave to somebody after it was already eaten?

If you don't wan't to give your sperm to her then keep your pecker in you pants or else use a condom and keep possession of the condom for yourself after you've deposited your sperm into it. 

If you are having so much difficulty comprehending something so simple as what you've been questioning then I think it might be wise for you to keep your sperm to yourself at all times and not contribute any children to society's gene pool.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> A bunch of long time members advocating and supporting pedophilia is not a good way to make a first impression.


Well, I agree with you on that but I don't see a_ "bunch"_ of members advocating for pedophilia, I only see a select few (very few) who are oddball cranks with weird ideas and the rest of the members are pretty credible and sensible. Albeit some of the sensible ones got suckered and took bait I think they should have ignored. 

I think any new members need to be given credit for having enough sense to recognize and either ignore or not respond to the oddballs. Every forum has oddballs but I don't think there's any internet law that says it's necessary to always rise to their bait or to feed them.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I let her use it for one expressed purpose and she promised not to retain it ?


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> It's her body and she can so what she wants with it ? So then why am I responce able for her choice ?
> OR following the logic of it's in her possession then why can't I ask for MY possession back ?(abortion )



Are condoms obsolete now? I don't think so. I see them in the drug stores all the time. It is your choice not to make her pregnant. It his her choice not to let you make her pregnant. In 2015, it is pretty lax and lazy for anybody to get pregnant who does not want to. She has contraception options available to her too.
If it does happen, then a fetus as soon as it has a heartbeat has a soul. If anybody decides to get rid of it, then it is a murder. Look at the new ultrasounds now, just how they already look at 20 wks. They look like a baby and they are a baby.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

painterswife said:


> You don't have a right to do a medical procedure on her body. Very simple.



Her body ? You mean the child is hers ? Hers alone ?". 
Then why am I expected to pay for it for life ?
It's just a simple little procedure to the baby , that's not her body right ?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

gapeach said:


> If it does happen, then a fetus as soon as it has a heartbeat has a soul.



Souls are created with heartbeats ?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

AmericanStand said:


> Her body ? You mean the child is hers ? Hers alone ?".
> Then why am I expected to pay for it for life ?
> It's just a simple little procedure to the baby , that's not her body right ?


What baby? You said sperm and egg as I quoted.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Fennick said:


> New members to HT *can* see GC. So can anybody else who isn't a member and isn't logged in, just browsing online. Try it yourself, log out and go to GC, you'll see it's visible to anyone.


I didn't know that, used to be you had to be a member for awhile.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Souls are created with heartbeats ?


http://www.medicalquestionsanswers....a-baby-have-a-heartbeat-after-conception.html

A baby has a heart beat 6 wks after conception and a brain about 5 wks after conception.

A soul comes when a heartbeat and a brain develops according to many doctors who are Christians and anyone who believes in the hereafter. A baby is a baby when a heartbeat begins.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I think the moved the secret meeting place to "politics"


----------



## partndn (Jun 18, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> A bunch of long time members advocating and supporting pedophilia is not a good way to make a first impression.





Fennick said:


> Well, I agree with you on that but I don't see a_ "bunch"_ of members advocating for pedophilia, I only see a select few (very few) who are oddball cranks with weird ideas and the rest of the members are pretty credible and sensible. Albeit some of the sensible ones got suckered and took bait I think they should have ignored.
> 
> I think any new members need to be given credit for having enough sense to recognize and either ignore or not respond to the oddballs. Every forum has oddballs but I don't think there's any internet law that says it's necessary to always rise to their bait or to feed them.


Most long time members got the sarcasm right away. Anyone new with intelligence would get it too if reading. It was clarified for anyone back in the first couple pages. But some can't stop bringing it up, which is actually contributing to any poor soul who mistakenly only reads a post here and there. So you who bring it up are the ones making the negative impression. Nice job!

And if I called Fennick or anyone else an "oddball crank with weird ideas" I guarantee my post would be reported in a flash.
What makes you think you can dish this? Your advice to ignore could have been well taken by several who appear to obsess plenty. 

You are not the member sensibility monitor simply based on your views. As a matter of fact, there is no such requirement in the forum rules that says "all posts shall be sensible, and never weird, and oddity is forbidden." 
ound:

There is, however this - _Be Nice: Debate and discuss ideas and concepts, but treat each other with respect and courtesy. This really needs no elaboration._
from the rules above.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

partndn said:


> Most long time members got the sarcasm right away. Anyone new with intelligence would get it too if reading. It was clarified for anyone back in the first couple pages. But some can't stop bringing it up, which is actually contributing to any poor soul who mistakenly only reads a post here and there. So you who bring it up are the ones making the negative impression. Nice job!
> 
> And if I called Fennick or anyone else an "oddball crank with weird ideas" I guarantee my post would be reported in a flash.
> What makes you think you can dish this? Your advice to ignore could have been well taken by several who appear to obsess plenty.
> ...


I discussed this (sorry, I came into the thread late) with respect and courtesy. I don't think Fennick was discourteous either but that's just my opinion.

I can't make heads or tails of the original poster's posts on this thread. Could be sarcasm, might not be as well, could be indicative of a lot of things. I am quite adept at both recognizing and using sarcasm and I just can't tell... so would a new member? I dunno, and you can't be positive either.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

kasilofhome said:


> How on earth can those preaching sexual tolerance heading in this direction not see the path we are on... creepy.... Why..... sex is natural people are being told that only bigoted people who are religious zealots want to control others sexual choices.


Consent, for starters.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

If it takes this much study to find the true meaning of the original post, it could very well be just plain old ''garden variety'' trolling.:stirpot:Some people feel proud if they can get an adversary to cross the line.:facepalm:


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

The OP statred this thread ranting. She wants to have her religous views control other peoples marriages. I can only imagine the rant when Scotus rules in a way she does not like. She is free to rant but we are free to rebutt


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

kasilofhome said:


> Society via government has destroyed the institute of families. Used to be the number one reason for single parent families was death.....now welfare benefits and reduction of morals.
> 
> Fyi, young girls are well groomed for sex in this society. So, are the boys. Many here have mentioned that this young sexuality is nothing new...... Why so, so many young girls had to go to convents for a few months...



LOL

The hypocrisy of Christianity.

The divorce rate of christian marriage is now around 50%, 70% for the second time.

I didn't see Uncle Sam putting a gun to anyone's head.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

HDRider said:


> And that speaks volumes to why people like you and people like me agree on very little, and most especially the subject of this thread.


Religious people are never gay?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

HDRider said:


> If you cannot connect those dots I do not want to engage with you. You are either feigning being obtuse or you do not understand the point. Either way, I do not have the energy or inclination to engage with you.
> 
> I get comfort and energy enough to know that I can strive to sepearate myself from evil in its many forms. Our disagreement is my comfort.


Maybe your comprehension is a bit off, since the OP, is promoting child molestation, because - hey, at the end of the day, it is a choice, (presumably just like those who are gay). 

Once we allow one group to have a choice, everybody will then want a choice.

Perfect logic - on some planet, other than this one.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

gapeach said:


> A soul comes when a heartbeat and a brain develops according to many doctors who are Christians and anyone who believes in the hereafter. A baby is a baby when a heartbeat begins.



Ummm No. 
The soul is in us in every part of us that's just one of the reasons it's wrong to spill the seed. So the sperm comes with it's soul to the egg and it's soul. 
I'm not sure if souls combine to create a new one or if one of the souls is passed along. 
Can't say I care. 
But in any case at least from the moment of conception the baby has at least one soul.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

AmericanStand said:


> Ummm No.
> The soul is in us in every part of us that's just one of the reasons it's wrong to spill the seed. So the sperm comes with it's soul to the egg and it's soul.
> I'm not sure if souls combine to create a new one or if one of the souls is passed along.
> Can't say I care.
> But in any case at least from the moment of conception the baby has at least one soul.


So everytime a man ejaculates with no fertilization or a women has a period, babies are being aborted and all those souls are lost?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

No babies without eggs AND sperm but bits of your soul.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

That makes no sense at all to me.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

gapeach said:


> That makes no sense at all to me.


On that we agree.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

So God puts little pieces of souls in sperm and eggs and hopes they meet up with the right pieces. If they don't they never go to heaven or they get a second chance?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

So is it murder everytime one of those pieces of a soul is wasted by not fertilizing an egg?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GREENCOUNTYPETE said:


> to some people it is, "sex is solely for procreation", that was the whole gay argument back in the day wasnt it? and then we moved on to the slippery slope of allowing gay marriage will open the door to legal plural marriage, and beastality. and now apparently the according to the OP, it means that the Duggars can molest each other and cover it up... as long they arent gay. (see i can be sarcastic too, but it doesnt actually make gay marriage and molestation equal or make molestation any less disgusting)


When you have no real argument to deny loving same sex couples to marry but your own religion, you start grasping and use the ridculous slippery slope argument and things like saying molestation of children is okay.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> How on earth can those preaching sexual tolerance heading in this direction not see the path we are on... creepy.... Why..... sex is natural people are being told that only bigoted people who are religious zealots want to control others sexual choices.





basketti said:


> What would you do if your child came out as gay?




Kasilofhome, maybe you didn't see this but I am very curious as to what you would do if your son came out as gay. Surely you have thought of this....


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

painterswife said:


> On that we agree.


Me three I have never heard that one before!


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

In 1986 the ussc ruled that states have the right to criminalize private sex acts deemed depraved by the state ....even if preformed privately in one's home..

The ruling was the result of dealing what th homosexuality.

So, in 29 years .....where will the line be......


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kasilofhome said:


> In 1986 the ussc ruled that states have the right to criminalize private sex acts deemed depraved by the state ....even if preformed privately in one's home..
> 
> The ruling was the result of dealing what th homosexuality.
> 
> So, in 29 years .....where will the line be......


And one of the justices involved in the majority later stated that he regretted that decision. A decision that was overturned in 2003. You, and others worry about laws based on another religion being imposed on you but have no problem imposing your religous laws on others. Consistency of thought and standards apparently aren't a requirement for the devout.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Think of the soul as life. Every living cell has some of your life in it. Just as when you lose a arm the life in that part of your body dies so does the soul in that part of the body. Sperm and eggs are small but living cells with a bit of soul or life them. 
When they die that tiny bit of life or soul in them passes too. 
It just seems reasonable. 
Or I could be mistaken.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kasilofhome said:


> I do wish my children to be good citizens.....and moral.
> 
> I am most pleased with a child I raised for over ten plus years. A staunch Jewish boy with rich solid faith and high standards.
> 
> ...


I applaud this young man for his courage and resolve. I'm not sure exactly how you square his decision to intervene with what you seem to hold in other cases the business and it's owners right to run their enterprise as they see fit according to their religous and moral holdings. If a business has no obligation to serve gays because it shows some support or involvement with that which they disapprove why should they have the obligation to hire and pay or promote them? Where is that line drawn? If "homosexual acts" are outlawed again as you seem to wish can not gays then be fired or not hired based on this? Sure you don't want to interfere in other's lives?


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

MMOetc; Let's discuss this.

You say "I'd say those maggots would be gagging just as much as you presume at what the Duggar boy was said to have done. Guess what? Call them same sex marriages, civil unions or Bob, what the people involved do behind closed doors won't change. If you don't wish to be reminded that same sex couples exist, have always existed and will exist in the future I suggest you lock yourself in your compound, limit your media exposure and think pure thoughts.
In raising my child to be a productive citizen I made no promises of happiness or serenity. Sometimes fighting for what one believes in can be productive, both to the the individual and society, but also involve unhappiness and upheaval. I raised my child to not be afraid to rock the boat. If you wish to raise your children to be "good citizens" and not question the status quo in some quest for happiness and peace so be it. I hope they find it."

You say you are raising your child to be a productive citizen. Now, did you teach that child to read? How long did it take the child to learn to make fire, to brush his teeth, to look both ways before crossing the street, to swim, to learn that stealing and murder are frowned upon? 

Did you teach that child ANY of those things? Did the child learn ANY moral values from you? 

The rules of society, our societal mores, have been argued by learned men for centuries--the questions of morality today are NOT new, and workable rules have been threshed out by different groups around the world over those centuries. The the Mohammedans, the Jews and the Christians do not always agree, but on the basic principles they are surprisingly close. The natives of New Guinea and the American Indians had rules of conduct unlike those of more advanced cultures, but they were workable in those societies--primitive but workable.

In every society there are those who do not subscribe to the rules---the rudderless who float along, mostly going with the flow. There are always some rebels who demand change or who just flout the rules. They often run afoul of the law or simply become outcasts who live on the thin line between civilized behavior and lawlessness.

The book says something about bringing up a child in the way that he should go so that when he is old he will not depart from it. That implies a parental responsibility--what a parent teaches can make the difference between serenity and turbulence in a child's life.

My own opinion on homosexuality, which has nothing to do with the Duggar case, is that we don't know if it is learned or inherited. In neither case would it be the fault of the homosexual--do you know of any who "converted" to homosexuality? Is coming out late after having children really "converting" or just "coming out"?

What I object to is the blatant "in your face" attitudes, as if homosexuality were a privileged status. It is anything but that. 

Ox


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

I feel that little baby goes to Heaven. A friend miscarried and her doctor told her that he believes that little soul goes to Heaven and if you are a Christian, you have that little one waiting on you in Heaven.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Oxankle said:


> <snip>What I object to is the blatant "in your face" attitudes, as if homosexuality were a privileged status. It is anything but that.
> 
> Ox


Or they just want to be who they were born to be...


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Oxankle said:


> MMOetc; Let's discuss this.
> 
> You say "I'd say those maggots would be gagging just as much as you presume at what the Duggar boy was said to have done. Guess what? Call them same sex marriages, civil unions or Bob, what the people involved do behind closed doors won't change. If you don't wish to be reminded that same sex couples exist, have always existed and will exist in the future I suggest you lock yourself in your compound, limit your media exposure and think pure thoughts.
> In raising my child to be a productive citizen I made no promises of happiness or serenity. Sometimes fighting for what one believes in can be productive, both to the the individual and society, but also involve unhappiness and upheaval. I raised my child to not be afraid to rock the boat. If you wish to raise your children to be "good citizens" and not question the status quo in some quest for happiness and peace so be it. I hope they find it."
> ...


My child learned many moral values from me. The most important was the the same one my parents valued most. Treat people as you wish to be treated. Treat them as people with faults and foibles just as you or I have have faults and foibles. Treat them as people not as some interchangable part of a group defined by a lable. All other moral values she may have learned come from this. 

Whether homosexuality is a choice or genetic doesn't matter to me. How one behaves is. I've known and do know some great homosexuals who I value as friends, neighbors and coworkers. None of that value came from the basis of their sexuality. It came from who they were and how they treated others. There are gays I dislike because of who they are, not what they are. Just as the same standard exists for my straight friends. I have friends of many religions. At some point they all decided to embrace that religion as a choice. Christians of many flavors, Jews, Muslim , Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan and others more undefined. Friends not because of or in spite of their religous feelings. I've had many great discussions about why they feel their beliefs are true. I've never tried to dissuade them from those beliefs. They've also never insisted that I must live by their standards. I grant the same to you. Believe what you wish about homosexuality. Live your life as you wish. Judge others all you want. But try to use the force of law to impose those standards and I'll push back.

No consenting adult, living their life with the one they love, should be required to hide that love under a bushel basket because it makes you uncomfortable. I don't contemplate what my neighbors do to or with each other behind their doors. I don't know, or care, whether its lights out, eyes closed, missionary only - full out 50 shades of gray or anything inbetween. I don't care either. I know they're good neighbors, raised good kids( one of whom is in his 12th year serving this country) and good friends. That's all I need to know.

A lot of death and suffering has happened in the name of morality and religion. It continues today. True morality says, to me, it shouldn't.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

gapeach said:


> I feel that little baby goes to Heaven. A friend miscarried and her doctor told her that he believes that little soul goes to Heaven and if you are a Christian, you have that little one waiting on you in Heaven.


What if you are a Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, etc? 

H, E, double toothpicks for baby and you?


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

I don't know what the beliefs are on the afterlife of those other religions, only Christians.

I don't think the soul of any innocent little child would go to Hell.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Ummm No.
> The soul is in us in every part of us that's just one of the reasons it's wrong to spill the seed. So the sperm comes with it's soul to the egg and it's soul.
> I'm not sure if souls combine to create a new one or if one of the souls is passed along.
> Can't say I care.
> *But in any case at least from the moment of conception the baby has at least one soul.*


Ok, this is quite a stretch.... have you any shred of evidence that any "soul" ever exists anywhere????? Much less that a soul begins at conception or even preconception??? I am curious as to what evidence you are basing your argument on.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Everyone has a soul. It is separate from your body but I think of it kind of like a conscience. We cannot see the conscience, it tells us right from wrong. We cannot see it but we all have one just like we all have a soul. I do believe that soul is there from conception and that the actual brain activity starts forming at conception. The soul separates from the body at death. This is what I believe. Others have their own ideas and beliefs.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

gapeach said:


> Everyone has a soul. It is separate from your body but I think of it kind of like a conscience. We cannot see the conscience, it tells us right from wrong. We cannot see it but we all have one just like we all have a soul. I do believe that soul is there from conception and that the actual brain activity starts forming at conception. The soul separates from the body at death. This is what I believe. Others have their own ideas and beliefs.


How does brain activity start at conception when there is no brain?


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

painterswife said:


> How does brain activity start at conception when there is no brain?



I said that brain activity *starts* to form. That little zygote has everything it needs to become a baby.



During intercourse, sperm enter the vagina after the man ejaculates. The strongest sperm will travel through the cervix (the opening of the womb, or uterus), and into the Fallopian tubes.
A single sperm and the mother's egg cell meet in the Fallopian tube. When the single sperm enters the egg, conception occurs. The combined sperm and egg is called a *zygote.*
*The zygote contains all of the genetic information (DNA) needed to become a baby. Half the DNA comes from the mother's egg and half from the father's sperm.*
The zygote spends the next few days traveling down the Fallopian tube. During this time, it divides to form a ball of cells called a blastocyst.
A blastocyst is made up of an inner group of cells with an outer shell.
The inner group of cells will become the embryo. The embryo is what will develop into your baby.
The outer group of cells will become structures, called membranes, which nourish and protect the embryo.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

painterswife said:


> So is it murder everytime one of those pieces of a soul is wasted by not fertilizing an egg?


No. There are no pieces of soul.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

gapeach said:


> Everyone has a soul.


and you base this upon what evidence???


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

gapeach said:


> I said that brain activity *starts* to form. That little zygote has everything it needs to become a baby.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So you are saying that our conscience/soul tells us right from wrong is there at conception. We don't need a brain to tell us right from wrong because our soul does.

Okay my conscience tells me that homsexual sex and marriage is not wrong. God gave me my soul so he told my conscience that same sex marriage is right. God does no wrong so I have nothing to worry about my soul will go on to heaven.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

gapeach said:


> No. There are no pieces of soul.


Why are you the authority? Why not the OP who says there are?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

gapeach said:


> During intercourse, sperm enter the vagina after the man ejaculates. The strongest sperm will travel through the cervix (the opening of the womb, or uterus), and into the Fallopian tubes.
> A single sperm and the mother's egg cell meet in the Fallopian tube. When the single sperm enters the egg, conception occurs. The combined sperm and egg is called a *zygote.*
> *The zygote contains all of the genetic information (DNA) needed to become a baby. Half the DNA comes from the mother's egg and half from the father's sperm.*
> The zygote spends the next few days traveling down the Fallopian tube. During this time, it divides to form a ball of cells called a blastocyst.
> ...


I see no mention of any "soul" in this very clear and concise description of events.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

gapeach said:


> I said that brain activity *starts* to form. That little zygote has everything it needs to become a baby.


So you're saying it's not a baby at the zygote stage because it only has what it needs to become a baby? 

I agree with that... I'll take it further and say it's not a baby until it can survive on it's own.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> And one of the justices involved in the majority later stated that he regretted that decision. A decision that was overturned in 2003. You, and others worry about laws based on another religion being imposed on you but have no problem imposing your religous laws on others. Consistency of thought and standards apparently aren't a requirement for the devout.


So, you keep overlooking right where this is heading.

Less than thirty years ago it was a crime and the highest court in the land ruled that way.

Because less than thirty years homosexuals acts were an abomination, vile, just simple common sense that homosexual were doing disgusting things.

Now, there are parades. So, I say that we are in tailspin of to having an anything goes. 

That offends you... That really funny because homosexuals we're sick perverts less than thiry years ago. So but you can't change history... 

Homosexuals rioted, became in your face ..and now they are just another choice.

So, society can allow what was once a crime to be taught as good to elementary students.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

kasilofhome said:


> So, you keep overlooking right where this is heading.
> 
> Less than thirty years ago it was a crime and the highest court in the land ruled that way.
> 
> ...


I remember reading about the Supremes ruling that owning a slave was just dandy too. (Dredd/Scott) They dont always get things right.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I see no mention of any "soul" in this very clear and concise description of events.


Medical school is not where I go to get my understanding of what is right.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> So you're saying it's not a baby at the zygote stage because it only has what it needs to become a baby?
> 
> I agree with that... I'll take it further and say it's not a baby until it can survive on it's own.


So, when you plant a tomato seed what are you going to get..


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> So, you keep overlooking right where this is heading.
> 
> Less than thirty years ago it was a crime and the highest court in the land ruled that way.
> 
> ...


Tired slippery slope reasoning. It used to be all right to own women or slaves. It used to all right for women not to vote. I could go on. What was, does not mean it was right. Try, try again.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

kasilofhome said:


> Medical school is not where I go to get my understanding of what is right.


Nor do I, I am curious where you go for "right" or "wrong".


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I remember reading about the Supremes ruling that owning a slave was just dandy too. (Dredd/Scott) They dont always get things right.


So, why the outrage if in the future Duggan is not considered a face of oppression by zealots as yourself.... you just showed how society can change what is right by a change in views.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

kasilofhome said:


> So, when you plant a tomato seed what are you going to get..


After it grows, matures, and sets fruit, a baby tomato. It's not a tomato when it's a seed. 

It's not a baby until it's born, my opinion.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> Tired slippery slope reasoning. It used to be all right to own women or slaves. It used to all right for women not to vote. I could go on. What was, does not mean it was right. Try, try again.


I will go on record that slavery, while legal, wasnt "right".... As to women voting.... I see little good that has come of letting them vote.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> After it grows, matures, and sets fruit, a baby tomato. It's not a tomato when it's a seed.
> 
> It's not a baby until it's born, my opinion.




Does the DNA change? No.. the moment fertilization happened the DNA is set.

It is life...


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Does the DNA change? No.. the moment fertilization happened the DNA is set.


So you are saying that dna is the soul? No dna, no baby, no soul.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

kasilofhome said:


> So, why the outrage if in the future Duggan is not considered a face of oppression by zealots as yourself.... you just showed how society can change what is right by a change in views.


Nope, it was always wrong to own slaves..... although society took their sweet time accepting that fact. Right and wrong doesnt change.... they are always right there in front of us.... sometimes it takes a while for the "majority" to see them clearly. 
Um I am curious about that "zealot" thing? please explain.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kasilofhome said:


> So, you keep overlooking right where this is heading.
> 
> Less than thirty years ago it was a crime and the highest court in the land ruled that way.
> 
> ...


Society has changed its mind on a vast number of things. Sometimes it's because they wish to make criminal that which wasn't, sometimes the other way around. Thirty years ago homosexual acts were just what they are today. Acts between consenting adults judged by some to be beautiful expressions of love and by others to be the vile, disgusting acts you still think they are. Aren't opinions wonderful things? That your opinions hold much less legal weight than they did before saddens me not in least.

As to where it's headed. Hopefully a place where my grandson looks back and shakes his head at the silliness of conversations that try to equate child molestation with adult consensual acts and no one cares which adult sleeps with which.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Faith. At the time of conception that the soul comes into the womb. When a seed gets watered (any kind of seed) the moment it begins to grow the soul has entered. The soul leaves the body upon death.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

kasilofhome said:


> Does the DNA change? No.. the moment fertilization happened the DNA is set.
> 
> It is life...


Nope. It has the potential to be life.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

gapeach said:


> Faith. At the time of conception that the soul comes into the womb. When a seed gets watered (any kind of seed) the moment it begins to grow the soul has entered. The soul leaves the body upon death.


So tomatoes have a soul?


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> So you're saying it's not a baby at the zygote stage because it only has what it needs to become a baby?
> 
> I agree with that... I'll take it further and say it's not a baby until it can survive on it's own.


It is a baby. A mother will protect that baby inside of her instinctively because she loves that baby and she is the only person who can nourish the baby at this stage. Someone in my family thought that a fetus was not a baby until she saw her grandaughter's first ultrasound. She changed her mind real quickly.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> I applaud this young man for his courage and resolve. I'm not sure exactly how you square his decision to intervene with what you seem to hold in other cases the business and it's owners right to run their enterprise as they see fit according to their religous and moral holdings. If a business has no obligation to serve gays because it shows some support or involvement with that which they disapprove why should they have the obligation to hire and pay or promote them? Where is that line drawn? If "homosexual acts" are outlawed again as you seem to wish can not gays then be fired or not hired based on this? Sure you don't want to interfere in other's lives?


Kasilof- I've respectfully answered all your questions. Could I ask respectfully that you answer this one for me?


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

painterswife said:


> So tomatoes have a soul?


That is kind of silly.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

kasilofhome said:


> Does the DNA change? No.. the moment fertilization happened the DNA is set.
> 
> It is life...


DNA is just some chemicals


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

gapeach said:


> That is kind of silly.


No sillier than any other "belief" that has absolutely no evidence to support it.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

gapeach said:


> That is kind of silly.


How. Seems like everyone has a different idea when and if a soul exists and how that relates to a fetus. I am trying to understand the process and what people believe.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

gapeach said:


> It is a baby. A mother will protect that baby inside of her instinctively because she loves that baby and she is the only person who can nourish the baby at this stage. Someone in my family thought that a fetus was not a baby until she saw her grandaughter's first ultrasound. She changed her mind real quickly.


Now you are changing what you said. And there are woman that don't love, want, and/or protect their fetuses, I think you're viewing this with rose colored glasses. To force those women to carry to term is repugnant, and thankfully illegal. Fortunately, we haven't even had to consider it for over 40 years. 

Two kids of my own, two grand kids and one on the way, I still believe that it's not a baby until it can survive on it's own.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> I still believe that it's not a baby until it can survive on it's own.


Interesting.... Considering there are literally millions of so called adults that cannot seem to survive on their own!


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Now you are changing what you said. And there are woman that don't love, want, and/or protect their fetuses, I think you're viewing this with rose colored glasses. To force those women to carry to term is repugnant, and thankfully illegal. Fortunately, we haven't even had to consider it for over 40 years.
> 
> Two kids of my own, two grand kids and one on the way, I still believe that it's not a baby until it can survive on it's own.


We don't believe the same way. Why would a woman take the chance of getting pregnant when she does not love, want, and/or protect their fetuses. Nobody has to get pregnant today. There are too many ways of contraception. Sex has consequences if you are not protected.
I am not going to talk to any of you anymore about this. I just hope that your views are not universal and I am thankful that my own family does not have those views, down to the grown up grandchildren who are planning to get married.

A baby cannot survive on it's own for a lot of years after it is born. Having a child does not end at birth.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Interesting.... Considering there are literally millions of so called adults that cannot seem to survive on their own!


Absolutely true....


----------



## susieneddy (Sep 2, 2011)

gapeach said:


> http://www.medicalquestionsanswers....a-baby-have-a-heartbeat-after-conception.html
> 
> A baby has a heart beat 6 wks after conception and a brain about 5 wks after conception.
> 
> A soul comes when a heartbeat and a brain develops according to many doctors who are Christians and anyone who believes in the hereafter. A baby is a baby when a heartbeat begins.


and yet there is this:

Many people think that a human being is created at the time of conception but this belief is not supported by the bible. The fact that a living sperm penetrates a living ovum resulting in the formation of a living fetus does not mean that the fetus is a living human being. According to the bible, a fetus is not a living person with a soul until after drawing its first breath.

There is nothing in the bible to indicate that a fetus is considered to be anything other than living tissue and, according to scripture, it does not become a living being until after it has taken a breath.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

gapeach said:


> We don't believe the same way. Why would a woman take the chance of getting pregnant when she does not love, want, and/or protect their fetuses. Nobody has to get pregnant today. There are too many ways of contraception. Sex has consequences if you are not protected.
> I am not going to talk to any of you anymore about this. I just hope that your views are not universal and I am thankful that my own family does not have those views, down to the grown up grandchildren who are planning to get married.
> 
> A baby cannot survive on it's own for a lot of years after it is born. Having a child does not end at birth.


Differing opinions are wonderful. I do have to add that women that are raped may not have the choice of not getting pregnant in the real world. Thankfully they do have the choice of carrying the pregnancy.

You're right, giving birth is the beginning of being a parent.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

So. The bible says that a fetus is not a living being( person) until it takes it's first breath.

Many here say that it is a baby at conception. They believe different then their religion or god does. Yet they want to impose their views on everyone else?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> Differing opinions are wonderful. I do have to add that women that are raped may not have the choice of not getting pregnant in the real world. Thankfully they do have the choice of carrying the pregnancy.
> 
> You're right, giving birth is the beginning of being a parent.


I agree everyone has the choice to commit murder... some do some don't we all have choices.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

kasilofhome said:


> I agree everyone has the choice to commit murder... some do some don't we all have choices.


You aren't agreeing with me.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> You aren't agreeing with me.


Yes I am... you just limited to one situation....I expanded it so as no to be exclude persons in other situations in daily life That they do not like.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

kasilofhome said:


> Yes I am... you just limited to one situation....I expanded it so as no to be exclude persons in other situations in daily life That they do not like.


Ok, have it your way. I do not, nor ever have, considered abortion to be murder.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Ok, have it your way. I do not, nor ever have, considered abortion to be murder.


What is your definition of murder?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

JeffreyD said:


> What is your definition of murder?


This pretty much sums it up: 

"n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority."


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> This pretty much sums it up:
> 
> "n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority."


Ok, if the law says it's ok, then it's ok, got it! 

What about the laws that folks abide by that say it's ok to chop off someone's head because their religion is different, that must be ok with you too, am I right? After all, their law says it's fine. Or is there a double standard?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

JeffreyD said:


> Ok, if the law says it's ok, then it's ok, got it!
> 
> What about the laws that folks abide by that say it's ok to chop off someone's head because their religion is different, that must be ok with you too, am I right? After all, their law says it's fine. Or is there a double standard?


I'll use the laws here in the good ol USA where I live. I don't believe there is a choice in the matter. 

I don't agree with your opinion that's it OK to lop off someone's head you don't like their religion tho.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Never mind


----------



## mrsgcpete (Sep 16, 2012)

painterswife said:


> So tomatoes have a soul?


of course they do dont you hear them scream when you put the knife in to them, when you go to make a nice mutton lettuce and tomato sandwich, where the mutton is nice and lean....


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mrsgcpete said:


> of course they do dont you hear them scream when you put the knife in to them, when you go to make a nice mutton lettuce and tomato sandwich, where the mutton is nice and lean....


Miracle Max and The Princess Bride, still one of my favorite books and movie.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> I'll use the laws here in the good ol USA where I live. I don't believe there is a choice in the matter.
> 
> I don't agree with your opinion that's it OK to lop off someone's head you don't like their religion tho.


That's not my opinion, and i don't see how it could even be interpreted that way, and for the record, no, it's not ok! I'm just trying to understand your position, because your not very clear.

So, you don't care about the atrocities committed in other countries because you live here? Interesting!


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

JeffreyD said:


> That's not my opinion, and i don't see how it could even be interpreted that way, and for the record, no, it's not ok! I'm just trying to understand your position, because your not very clear.
> 
> So, you don't care about the atrocities committed in other countries because you live here? Interesting!


I didn't say that, you did.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> I didn't say that, you did.


You didn't answer the question either, why not?

I asked:

So, you don't care about the atrocities committed in other countries because you live here?

How about an answer?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

JeffreyD said:


> You didn't answer the question either, why not?
> 
> I asked:
> 
> ...


Because you asked so nice?  Nah, it has nothing to do with the topic and I don't feel like chasing my tail with your tangents. 

Again, don't put words in my mouth. I never said anything of the sort.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Because you asked so nice?  Nah, it has nothing to do with the topic and I don't feel like chasing my tail with your tangents.
> 
> Again, don't put words in my mouth. I never said anything of the sort.


I didn't put "words in your mouth". I asked a question which terrified you, i expected a discussion, you only want to make assumptions, that much is very clear. My tangents? :hysterical: See below....... 

And this has to do with the topic?

"Miracle Max and The Princess Bride, still one of my favorite books and movie."


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

JeffreyD said:


> I didn't put "words in your mouth". I asked a question which terrified you, i expected a discussion, you only want to make assumptions, that much is very clear. My tangents? :hysterical: See below.......
> 
> And this has to do with the topic?
> 
> "Miracle Max and The Princess Bride, still one of my favorite books and movie."


Believe it or not I don't have to answer you, and you'll just have to deal with it. It has to do with tangents and wasted time, not fear. Dang. You're really full of yourself, aren't you? 

You most definitely put words in my mouth. I never said anything about "atrocities committed in other countries because I live here" you did, and if you do it again I will report it. I've let it go long enough.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Believe it or not I don't have to answer you, and you'll just have to deal with it. It has to do with tangents and wasted time, not fear. Dang. You're really full of yourself, aren't you?
> 
> You most definitely put words in my mouth. I never said anything about "atrocities committed in other countries because I live here" you did, and if you do it again I will report it. I've let it go long enough.


I simply asked you a question. Nothing more.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

JeffreyD said:


> *So, you don't care about the atrocities committed in other countries because you live here? Interesting!*





JeffreyD said:


> You didn't answer the question either, why not?
> 
> I asked:
> 
> ...


It's all there in black and white.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> It's all there in black and white.



Yes. it is!
Notice .....the question mark? ound:

That means it is a question, not an attribution!

This too, is off topic!


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> Now you are changing what you said. And there are woman that don't love, want, and/or protect their fetuses, I think you're viewing this with rose colored glasses. To force those women to carry to term is repugnant, and thankfully illegal. Fortunately, we haven't even had to consider it for over 40 years.
> 
> Two kids of my own, two grand kids and one on the way, I still believe that it's not a baby until it can survive on it's own.


Just out of curiosity ... Would you call a 6 month old infant a "baby" (6 months since birth, not 6 months since conception inside a woman's womb)? I would argue a 6 months old infant cannot survive on his/her own. Odds are that without an older person's help, 2 year old does not have what it takes to survive on his/her own either ... is it okay to abort (murder) them?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

FarmerKat said:


> Just out of curiosity ... Would you call a 6 month old infant a "baby" (6 months since birth, not 6 months since conception inside a woman's womb)? I would argue a 6 months old infant cannot survive on his/her own. Odds are that without an older person's help, 2 year old does not have what it takes to survive on his/her own either ... is it okay to abort (murder) them?


Yup, a six month old infant is indeed a baby. It drew breath outside the uterus. A preemie that drew breath is a baby too. It survived birth.

Killing an infant is called infanticide, and could be murder.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

painterswife said:


> Never mind


I never do.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> Yup, a six month old infant is indeed a baby. It drew breath outside the uterus. A preemie that drew breath is a baby too. It survived birth.
> 
> Killing an infant is called infanticide, and could be murder.




Could be murder...and then again maybe not..

It's questionable in your mind it seems.

How many folks just accidentally for not reason find themself having an abortion.......cause to me it seems like most are pregnant and think about it ....premeditated plan to deal with it and choose to undergo a procedure where the formed limbs are rip off and then reassembled to insure that all parts are gathered for the health of the woman....to me sort sound pretty much like murder for person gain.....


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

gapeach said:


> We don't believe the same way. Why would a woman take the chance of getting pregnant when she does not love, want, and/or protect their fetuses. Nobody has to get pregnant today. There are too many ways of contraception. Sex has consequences if you are not protected.
> I am not going to talk to any of you anymore about this. I just hope that your views are not universal and I am thankful that my own family does not have those views, down to the grown up grandchildren who are planning to get married.
> 
> A baby cannot survive on it's own for a lot of years after it is born. Having a child does not end at birth.


Rape? Incest? Birth control failure?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

JeffreyD said:


> That's not my opinion, and i don't see how it could even be interpreted that way, and for the record, no, it's not ok! I'm just trying to understand your position, because your not very clear.
> 
> So, you don't care about the atrocities committed in other countries because you live here? Interesting!


I am starting to see a trend with your posts: they never have anything to do with the topic they are just there to obfuscate and misdirect.

So here's a question for you (and this one is actually on topic) why do you care what other people do in their bedrooms? I find the fascination a tad perverse myself.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> I am starting to see a trend with your posts: they never have anything to do with the topic they are just there to obfuscate and misdirect.
> 
> So here's a question for you (and this one is actually on topic) why do you care what other people do in their bedrooms? I find the fascination a tad perverse myself.


I don't care! Why do you think i do? Why do you care what I think? And your right, your fascination is a tad perverse! :shrug:

Pretty much how I see your responses too. Nothing to add, only attempts at misdirection and personal attacks. To each, his own! :yawn:


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Those who wish to escape responsibility for their actions will always find justification for their behavior. The consequence of sex is pregnancy. Both the man and the woman are responsible for the result. 

To avoid that responsibility is is convenient to say that the unborn child is not a human being and as a nonentity can be killed without guilt. 

Such reasoning does not change the truth.

The man who is yoked to a woman who would kill her child had best be careful about growing old and sickly in her company. The woman who is married to a man who will not take responsibility for his child will be miserable long before she is old.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

kasilofhome said:


> Could be murder...and then again maybe not..
> 
> It's questionable in your mind it seems.
> 
> How many folks just accidentally for not reason find themself having an abortion.......cause to me it seems like most are pregnant and think about it ....premeditated plan to deal with it and choose to undergo a procedure where the formed limbs are rip off and then reassembled to insure that all parts are gathered for the health of the woman....to me sort sound pretty much like murder for person gain.....


The law is quite clea on this issue. If you kill an infant thats murder in most cases. If you terminate a pregnancy via an abortion.... thats perfectly legal because a fetus is NOT a baby.... at least not in the eyes of the law. Its all about location, location, and need I repeat??? location! Inside the womb its a fetus, with no legal protections... once outside the womb its a baby with equal protection in the eyes of the law. How tough is that to comprehend? I now return you to the original topic... which is totally unrelated to the discussion of abortion. Babys and abortions are not usually going to be an issue to a homosexual couple.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Oxankle said:


> Those who wish to escape responsibility for their actions will always find justification for their behavior. The consequence of sex is pregnancy. Both the man and the woman are responsible for the result.
> 
> To avoid that responsibility is is convenient to say that the unborn child is not a human being and as a nonentity can be killed without guilt.
> 
> ...


Actually, the truth is that abortion is legal in the US and has been for over 40 years. Anything else is personal opinion.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Let's take the OP's slippery slope down the other side of the hill. How far into your bedroom would you be comfortable with the government being. Remember, the vile disgusting acts you all cringe at are performed on each other by many of your straight friends and neighbors. Beating someone is generally illegal but what of those activities celebrated in those 50 shades books and movies. How hard a slap during happy time is acceptable to the authorities? A little too kinky- lose your job, can't shop at the neighborhood bakery, maybe a little jail time. Who gets to make the rules? The Pope? Pat Robertson? The fine folks from Westboro Baptist? The Duggars? 

Or should we all be free to do what we like behind closed doors with the consenting adult of our choosing?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> Let's take the OP's slippery slope down the other side of the hill. How far into your bedroom would you be comfortable with the government being. Remember, the vile disgusting acts you all cringe at are performed on each other by many of your straight friends and neighbors. Beating someone is generally illegal but what of those activities celebrated in those 50 shades books and movies. How hard a slap during happy time is acceptable to the authorities? A little too kinky- lose your job, can't shop at the neighborhood bakery, maybe a little jail time. Who gets to make the rules? The Pope? Pat Robertson? The fine folks from Westboro Baptist? The Duggars?
> 
> Or should we all be free to do what we like behind closed doors with the consenting adult of our choosing?


Erotic is using a feather, kinky is using the whole chicken. :hysterical:

I chose door number 2.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

MMOetc: First, the disgusting acts you mention are NOT the mainstream of society. 

The acts covered in Fifty Shades are a known set of perversities that engage a tiny minority of people. The same can be said of sharing partners, hiring prostitutes, incest, bestiality and all the rest of sexual perversions. Prostitution is legal in some places, there is no law against swinging and now we have people saying that the perversions of homosexuals are "normal" and should not be decried. 

None of that has any bearing on abortion. Abortion kills a living being, and making it legal does not change that. When a society becomes so depraved it can make anything legal.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Oxankle said:


> MMOetc: First, the disgusting acts you mention are NOT the mainstream of society.
> 
> The acts covered in Fifty Shades are a known set of perversities that engage a tiny minority of people. The same can be said of sharing partners, hiring prostitutes, incest, bestiality and all the rest of sexual perversions. Prostitution is legal in some places, there is no law against swinging and now we have people saying that the perversions of homosexuals are "normal" and should not be decried.
> 
> None of that has any bearing on abortion. Abortion kills a living being, and making it legal does not change that. When a society becomes so depraved it can make anything legal.


 I wasn't discussing abortion. I was discussing the OP's original contention that allowing gay relations will lead us down the path to accept child molestation as legal. How many bedroom doors have you peeked behind to know what is done or not done? I'm not saying you can't "decry" any behavior you dislike. I hate people putting catsup on a bratwurst and think it is an abomination. I don't think there should be laws against it. I don't care what acts you and yours engage in. But if you haven't engaged in some of what you decry my opinion is that you've missed out on some of the p&#322;easure whoever you think the creator is designed into you. So stand on whatever street corner you wish or post on whatever interweb forum you frequent. Just don't come knocking on my bedroom door after 9 tonite. I'd hate to put even more bad thoughts into your fevered imagination.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Oxankle said:


> MMOetc: First, the disgusting acts you mention are NOT the mainstream of society.
> 
> The acts covered in Fifty Shades are a known set of perversities that engage a tiny minority of people. The same can be said of sharing partners, hiring prostitutes, incest, bestiality and all the rest of sexual perversions. Prostitution is legal in some places, there is no law against swinging and now we have people saying that the perversions of homosexuals are "normal" and should not be decried.
> 
> None of that has any bearing on abortion. Abortion kills a living being, and making it legal does not change that. When a society becomes so depraved it can make anything legal.


Ok, I didnt see any "disgusting" act named. What I do know is that there are a great many people who do things that I find disgusting but I am sure some of my own habits are just as disgusting to others. I also know that a lot of heterosexual couples engage in the very same "disgusting" acts that homosexuals do.... and seem to be fine and dandy with them as long as they involve a person of the opposite sex. Sexual acts that exceed my own boundaries are indeed disgusting.... but I am not in charge of anyone elses antics behind closed doors. Consenting adults should be free to play any games they like whether I participate in them or not.


----------



## susieneddy (Sep 2, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Erotic is using a feather, kinky is using the whole chicken. :hysterical:
> 
> I chose door number 2.


and then there is the sex toy business which has anything you want or don't want.

Wonder how many folks posting on here know who Dr Ruth is?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

susieneddy said:


> and then there is the sex toy business which has anything you want or don't want.
> 
> Wonder how many folks posting on here know who Dr Ruth is?


Ok, ya got me..... who is Dr Ruth?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Me too, who is Dr Ruth?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, ya got me..... who is Dr Ruth?


She's a sex therapist who looks like everybody's granny.


----------



## susieneddy (Sep 2, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, ya got me..... who is Dr Ruth?





no really said:


> Me too, who is Dr Ruth?


She ushered in the new age of freer, franker talk about sex on radio and television&#8212;and was endlessly parodied for her limitless enthusiasm and for having an accent only a psychologist could have.

Google her and you will find lots of information about her and her radio/TV shows


----------



## susieneddy (Sep 2, 2011)

wr said:


> She's a sex therapist who looks like everybody's granny.


good way to describe her.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Googled her, interesting, she is a funny lady. Guess I missed seeing or reading about her.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

susieneddy said:


> She ushered in the new age of freer, franker talk about sex on radio and televisionâand was endlessly parodied for her limitless enthusiasm and for having an accent only a psychologist could have.
> 
> Google her and you will find lots of information about her and her radio/TV shows


She's awesome- all of 4' 7" feisty and funny. She's 86 and still working.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> She's awesome- all of 4' 7" feisty and funny. She's 86 and still working.


And hopefully still engaging in some vile and disgusting acts.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Dr. Ruth is/was amazing . She spoke openly, honestly and clinically about sex. Her shows were great but so are her books. Everyone should read Sex for Dummies.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

emdeengee said:


> Dr. Ruth is/was amazing . She spoke openly, honestly and clinically about sex. Her shows were great but so are her books. Everyone should read Sex for Dummies.


She also trained as a sniper with Haganah, reputedly, she was very good.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> How does brain activity start at conception when there is no brain?


I'm not all that convinced it ever starts in some cases


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm not all that convinced it ever starts in some cases


Having just concluded a rather long and painful discussion with a person from a certain social agency today that would not allow a bunch of hungry volunteers to eat a tray of sandwiches donated by a group of Hutterite women because they were not prepared in a licensed commercial kitchen, I'm going to have to agree with you.


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

I've been reading this thread and both sides of the argument are well covered. I noticed one thing not yet mentioned though, my daughter works for a surgeon and on the paper work for a woman it asks how many children and how many pregnancies. When there is a difference my daughter is instructed to ask why. When abortion is the reason not all but the majority when they answer show sadness and even shame in some cases for having the abortion. Something that those seeking abortion are not informed of. No matter how it is justified abortion's root is in selfishness. "This kid is inconvenient for me so lets get rid of it." My father in law said it well, "Some of the things a woman does in her 20's she would be against it in her 40's"


----------



## cast iron (Oct 4, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> She's awesome- all of 4' 7" feisty and funny. She's 86 and still working.





mmoetc said:


> And hopefully still engaging in some vile and disgusting acts.


Note to self: should not have read this thread while eating dinner.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The law is quite clea on this issue. If you kill an infant thats murder in most cases. If you terminate a pregnancy via an abortion.... thats perfectly legal because a fetus is NOT a baby.... at least not in the eyes of the law. Its all about location, location, and need I repeat??? location! Inside the womb its a fetus, with no legal protections... once outside the womb its a baby with equal protection in the eyes of the law. How tough is that to comprehend? I now return you to the original topic... which is totally unrelated to the discussion of abortion. Babys and abortions are not usually going to be an issue to a homosexual couple.


Why do the charge it as a double homicide when a woman and those bunch of disposable cells that is not a baby but the acceptable word fetus for a woman to discard?


Suddenly people find that criminal and mourn those cells. Hypocrites.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

wr said:


> Having just concluded a rather long and painful discussion with a person from a certain social agency today that would not allow a bunch of hungry volunteers to eat a tray of sandwiches donated by a group of Hutterite women because they were not prepared in a licensed commercial kitchen, I'm going to have to agree with you.


Guess it was the law ...and you must have overlooked that such actions are unsafe..... never  as a law been created that is not just.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

BlackFeather said:


> I've been reading this thread and both sides of the argument are well covered. I noticed one thing not yet mentioned though, my daughter works for a surgeon and on the paper work for a woman it asks how many children and how many pregnancies. When there is a difference my daughter is instructed to ask why. When abortion is the reason not all but the majority when they answer show sadness and even shame in some cases for having the abortion. Something that those seeking abortion are not informed of. No matter how it is justified abortion's root is in selfishness. "This kid is inconvenient for me so lets get rid of it." My father in law said it well, "Some of the things a woman does in her 20's she would be against it in her 40's"


That is absolutely untrue. Sometimes abortion is the most unselfish and difficult decision a mother can make.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

kasilofhome said:


> Why do the charge it as a double homicide when a woman and those bunch of disposable cells that is not a baby but the acceptable word fetus for a woman to discard?
> 
> 
> Suddenly people find that criminal and mourn those cells. Hypocrites.


In most places they actually do not, find it criminal that is but the mother and family are free to mourn the loss and I am sure any decent person would sympathise with that loss.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

kasilofhome said:


> Guess it was the law ...and you must have overlooked that such actions are unsafe..... never  as a law been created that is not just.



Except their kitchens are considered commercial and inspected accordingly but even if they weren't, t was technically a private gathering and they're exempt from commercial kitchen rules. 

We had our picnic a quarter mile away and after hours out in in a cold rain, hot coffee, sandwiches and Saskatoon pie tasted pretty awesome.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Irish Pixie said:


> Or they just want to be who they were born to be...


You mean fashion designers and interior decorators? They can be anything they want without pushing their agenda like a bunch of bikers determined to drink in a gay bar just to show them they can.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Certificates in hand to prove and provide is all I needed to provide food items when questioned.... it was not a hassle.... but I was informed that that was the rational for DEC in providing extra copies of the certificate. One at the site and other with the food items transferred off site.

Wonder what the law reads maybe failure on the part of those providing the food was at fault.... seems as if someone in authority felt that was the case... authorities get to make the calls... even when the seem illogical.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

poppy said:


> You mean fashion designers and interior decorators? They can be anything they want without pushing their agenda like a bunch of bikers determined to drink in a gay bar just to show them they can.


Stereotypes are harmful and degrading to all people, not just the group(s) that are singled out.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kasilofhome said:


> Guess it was the law ...and you must have overlooked that such actions are unsafe..... never  as a law been created that is not just.


And laws that are unjust should be pushed back against. Sort of like laws that target consenting adults for their private sex lives. Rather than sneaking back in to snark bomb a thread you started, how about answering the questions directed at you? I won't even belabor the seeming contradiction between what you stand for and what you applauded by your young lawyer. How about just letting us all know how far you'd let the government come into your bedroom.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

kasilofhome said:


> Why do the charge it as a double homicide when a woman and those bunch of disposable cells that is not a baby but the acceptable word fetus for a woman to discard?
> 
> 
> Suddenly people find that criminal and mourn those cells. Hypocrites.


I had nothing to do with the writing of such a law but will hazard a guess as to the thinking behind it. 
Someone who kills a pregnant woman has overstepped their bounds of "choice" and has killed both mother and fetus and its presumed that the mother had made her choice as to that fetus being allowed to eventually grow into a full fledged baby. As near as I can tell only the mother has the legal right to make that choice. In a more perfect world it would make no difference.... the killer could only be hanged once.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

wr said:


> We had our picnic a quarter mile away and after hours out in in a cold rain, hot coffee, sandwiches and Saskatoon pie tasted pretty awesome.



At last a post with significant new information !
Something we can all agree on and get behind. 
Please tell us about Saskatoon pie ?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

kasilofhome said:


> Certificates in hand to prove and provide is all I needed to provide food items when questioned.... it was not a hassle.... but I was informed that that was the rational for DEC in providing extra copies of the certificate. One at the site and other with the food items transferred off site.
> 
> Wonder what the law reads maybe failure on the part of those providing the food was at fault.... seems as if someone in authority felt that was the case... authorities get to make the calls... even when the seem illogical.



Or maybe a Red Cross volunteer doesn't know the rules and because Hutterites are a German speaking religious order, some know nothing about them.


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

Patchouli said:


> That is absolutely untrue. Sometimes abortion is the most unselfish and difficult decision a mother can make.


Ok, I'm game, give me a few examples. How many people wake up each morning and say "boy I wish my mom had aborted me?" I see mothers that will risk their lives so they might have a child. I see so many people go through so much pain and agony so they can live just a while longer. I see children with incurable genetic diseases that are glad for what little life they will have. I see retarded people in the community home down the street enjoying the simple life they will have, and I have problems that some person decides that a potential child doesn't have the right to enjoy what ever life they may be able to have. 


> We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Shouldn't our posterity, born or yet to be born, have justice, defense and the blessings of liberty?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

wr said:


> Or maybe a Red Cross volunteer doesn't know the rules and because Hutterites are a German speaking religious order, some know nothing about them.


So, are you explaining that there is not enough facts just assumptions?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kasilofhome said:


> So, are you explaining that there is not enough facts just assumptions?


Like assumptions about what consenting adults do behind closed doors? The questions still stand open for your reply.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

kasilofhome said:


> So, are you explaining that there is not enough facts just assumptions?



I'm stating that a Red Cross volunteer may not be abreast of food laws because not many people outside the industry do know but one could see where someone had never encountered and old world religious order could draw conclusions. 

Ultimately, food distribution laws do not apply to private gatherings unless hired as a catering service.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

How does what you stated not mean that assumptions are what you are going on..

May this may that

Do you know if the red cross based the decision on or not and just being emotional.

If you have facts what are they.

I just asking that you have facts before slamming the red cross..


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kasilofhome said:


> How does what you stated not mean that assumptions are what you are going on..
> 
> May this may that
> 
> ...


She seems to have stated the facts rather clearly. One volunteer seemed unaware of prevailing food safety laws. She executed a work around and people got fed. I saw no slamming of the Red Cross. Just a disagreement with a functionary associated with that group. What exactly are you assuming? And why won't you answer my questions. They seem simple enough.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

kasilofhome said:


> How does what you stated not mean that assumptions are what you are going on..
> 
> May this may that
> 
> ...


I don't feel I slammed the Red Cross at all but commented that sometimes people make stupid decisions based on perceived knowledge. 

This is a group of people who is putting in long hours searching for the body of a young man who's been missing since last Saturday and the if we stop searching and leave location, the nearest place to find hot coffee is about 45 minutes away so delivering hot coffee, sandwiches and saskatoon pie means a lot to the family, who has been sitting at the muster area in cold rain and who really don't have the money or the inclination to run into town and pick of food for 50+ volunteers. 

Nobody seems to question the coffee and stew that the First Nations women who Indian Tacos the night before and since I happen to them well, I can assure you, they don't work out of a commercial kitchen at all.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Racism again ok never mind.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kasilofhome said:


> Racism again ok never mind.


Was it antisemitism by you that caused you to mention the religion of your young lawyer friend?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

No, but persons of knowledge of jedisum would know..unlike like you that homosexuality is a major sin in that faith so, Danny supported him regardless of the sin because the man sexuality had nothing to do with his skill in his field and since the man going thru it had not made an issue of his private lifestyle it was vetted out during acquiring more I go on him.

I accept you you seem to have limited knowledge and jump at the first chance to turn to a victim care and make false claims. So, no need to apologise... I consider your situation and I hope I have shed some light on a subject you seem lacking in.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I don't feel I slammed the Red Cross at all but commented that sometimes people make stupid decisions based on perceived knowledge.


The one thing I've learned in all the years on this site is that, *no matter what you really say*, someone will take it personally and whine about being "slammed, insulted, etc..."


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> No, but persons of knowledge of jedisum would know..unlike like you that homosexuality is a major sin *in that faith* so, Danny supported him regardless of the sin because the man sexuality had nothing to do with his skill in his field and since the man going thru it had not made an issue of his private lifestyle it was vetted out during acquiring more I go on him.


So if you're not of that faith , it's not a "sin".

You cannot force your beliefs on anyone else, no matter how righteous it makes one feel


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kasilofhome said:


> Racism again ok never mind.





kasilofhome said:


> No, but persons of knowledge of jedisum would know..unlike like you that homosexuality is a major sin in that faith so, Danny supported him regardless of the sin because the man sexuality had nothing to do with his skill in his field and since the man going thru it had not made an issue of his private lifestyle it was vetted out during acquiring more I go on him.
> 
> I accept you you seem to have limited knowledge and jump at the first chance to turn to a victim care and make false claims. So, no need to apologise... I consider your situation and I hope I have shed some light on a subject you seem lacking in.


Maybe I know more than you think. http://www.reformjudaism.org/practice/ask-rabbi/what-does-reform-judaism-say-about-homosexuality

A few years ago I attended a beautiful ceremony at a stunning synagogue uniting a couple of friends who happened to share the same naughty bits. See how those assumptions work now?


----------



## Elffriend (Mar 2, 2003)

kasilofhome said:


> No, but persons of knowledge of jedisum would know.


In the 2001 census over 70,000 Australians wrote in Jedi as their religion. In the same year over 53,000 or 1.5% of the population of New Zealand were recorded as Jedi, making it the second largest religion in New Zealand.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Elffriend said:


> In the 2001 census over 70,000 Australians wrote in Jedi as their religion. In the same year over 53,000 or 1.5% of the population of New Zealand were recorded as Jedi, making it the second largest religion in New Zealand.


May The Force be with them!


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

BlackFeather said:


> Ok, I'm game, give me a few examples. How many people wake up each morning and say "boy I wish my mom had aborted me?" I see mothers that will risk their lives so they might have a child. I see so many people go through so much pain and agony so they can live just a while longer. I see children with incurable genetic diseases that are glad for what little life they will have. I see retarded people in the community home down the street enjoying the simple life they will have, and I have problems that some person decides that a potential child doesn't have the right to enjoy what ever life they may be able to have.
> 
> Shouldn't our posterity, born or yet to be born, have justice, defense and the blessings of liberty?


Here's a good example: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/07/late-term-abortion-29-weeks-dana-weinstein



> Weinstein was faced with the prospect of giving birth to a baby that was expected to suffer from nearly constant seizures, could have required feeding tubes to stay alive, and could have been in a vegetative state, if it survived at all. She decided to end the pregnancy rather than continuing for another two months and prolonging the suffering. It was a very personal decision, she says, one made between her, her family, and her doctors. "We wanted her and loved her," Weinstein says. "In some ways I feel a little bit lucky, in that she was so sick that the decision was almost made for us. I don't wrestle with guilt."
> Even though she lived in Maryland and saw a doctor in Washington, DC, Weinstein found it difficult to obtain an abortion so far along in her pregnancy. There were no doctors, at the time, that offered the procedure at her stage in the Washington area. She had to travel to Dr. Warren Hern's clinic in Boulder, Colorado, far from her support network. Weinstein spent a week in Colorado between the initial visit with the doctor and the actual procedure, all the time worrying that the baby was suffering. It wasn't until July 14 that she was able to undergo the procedure. "I don't have words to describe the agony of those days," she says. But, "knowing how sick the child was, I can't imagine ever being forced to carry the baby to term."
> The ordeal was expensive. The Weinsteins racked up $17,500 in medical bills, and it took a lengthy fight with their insurance company to get the procedure covered. There was also airfare and the hotel stay to cover. Seeing the difficulties a woman who decides to end a pregnancy faces in doing so, even in a state where abortion is legal after 20 weeks, was one of the reasons Weinstein felt compelled to share her story.
> That anti-abortion groups have premised their 20-week bans in a number of states on "fetal pain" ignores the fact, Weinstein says, that in her case she sought to end the suffering of her baby. "I'm not going to be made to feel ashamed because I allowed her to have a peaceful death," she says.
> It was only later that Weinstein and her husband found out that "Baby W" was a girl. Weinstein, a petite woman with long brown hair, now wears a necklace with a butterfly pendant. A smaller butterfly with ruby-studded wings dangles from it, the birthstone for Julyâthe month Baby W died. A photo of her seven-month-old is affixed to the back of her work ID.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

kasilofhome said:


> Racism again ok never mind.



I don't think she was being racist at all and given the crew assembled, she'd need a scorecard to keep up with the races and religions represented.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The one thing I've learned in all the years on this site is that, *no matter what you really say*, someone will take it personally and whine about being "slammed, insulted, etc..."


Exactly. :stars:


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

Patchouli said:


> Here's a good example: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/07/late-term-abortion-29-weeks-dana-weinstein





> that was expected





> could have been





> end the pregnancy rather than continuing for another two months and prolonging the suffering.


Shouldn't it be up to nature, expected and could have beens are guesses, I believe if the child can survive fine if it can only live a short time it still should have the chance. But the real telling statement is the last quoted "end the pregnancy rather than prolong the suffering" Was the child suffering? Or was she? Even if your right, how many abortions are a result of a problem like this? How many are for the cause I originally posted? The vast majority of children are viable and I say again let nature take it's course if the child dies after birth so be it, if it can survive all the better. One last point people mostly try to make a decision they made look better in retrospect, and this article was her explanation and has to be examined in that light.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> At last a post with significant new information !
> Something we can all agree on and get behind.
> Please tell us about Saskatoon pie ?



I think Americans call Saskatoon berries something else. Serviceberries maybe?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

wr said:


> I think Americans call Saskatoon berries something else. Serviceberries maybe?


Yep, serviceberries. We have a gazillion of them.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

basketti said:


> Yep, serviceberries. We gave a gazillion of them.


Yup. I could fill two freezers full just on my small property.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

kasilofhome said:


> No, but persons of knowledge of jedisum would know..unlike like you that homosexuality is a major sin in that faith so, Danny supported him regardless of the sin because the man sexuality had nothing to do with his skill in his field and since the man going thru it had not made an issue of his private lifestyle it was vetted out during acquiring more I go on him.
> 
> I accept you you seem to have limited knowledge and jump at the first chance to turn to a victim care and make false claims. So, no need to apologise... I consider your situation and I hope I have shed some light on a subject you seem lacking in.


The Jedi aside, I have little knowledge of their beliefs and practices, it's interesting to note that in 2009 a poll in Israel concluded that 61% of Israelis supported equal rights for same sex couples.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

> Originally Posted by *poppy*
> You mean fashion designers and interior decorators?


Careers of some of my gay friends off the top of my head..

Engineer at a big three company, chief of nephrology at a major research hospital, head of gross anatomy education at a major medical school, equine veterinarian, publisher, thoroughbred racehorse breeder, registered nurse (human) and certified vet tech, chef (and restaurant owner), prison social worker, middle school teacher..oh yes, and one hairdresser (owns his own salon)


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Tiempo said:


> Careers of some of my gay friends off the top of my head..
> 
> Engineer at a big three company, chief of nephrology at a major research hospital, head of gross anatomy education at a major medical school, equine veterinarian, publisher, thoroughbred racehorse breeder, registered nurse (human) and certified vet tech, chef (and restaurant owner), prison social worker, middle school teacher..oh yes, and one hairdresser (owns his own salon)


Great post, Tiempo.

Let's see-a farrier, several RNs, car insurance adjuster, a railroad worker, military (officers and enlisted), a gynecologist, many psychiatric hospital workers, physical therapist, a potato chip factory employee, and a philanthropist. I'm sure there are more but that's what I can think of off the top of my head.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Tiempo said:


> The Jedi aside, I have little knowledge of their beliefs and practices, it's interesting to note that in 2009 a poll in Israel concluded that 61% of Israelis supported equal rights for same sex couples.


Also interesting to note that California also passed proposition 8, by an overwhelming majority! Probably the most liberal state in America. 

It was struck down as un-Constitutional. Also, it should be noted that our state attorney general Kamilla Harris, who's main job is to defend the actions of the voters, failed in an epic fashion to fight for the people because SHE didn't agree with the majority. Her "opinion" should have no bearing on her job, but it did. Typical for California! The people vote and the politicians don't like it, so they ignore it or litigate it. Pathetic really.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

BlackFeather said:


> Shouldn't it be up to nature, expected and could have beens are guesses, I believe if the child can survive fine if it can only live a short time it still should have the chance. But the real telling statement is the last quoted "end the pregnancy rather than prolong the suffering" Was the child suffering? Or was she? Even if your right, how many abortions are a result of a problem like this? How many are for the cause I originally posted? The vast majority of children are viable and I say again let nature take it's course if the child dies after birth so be it, if it can survive all the better. One last point people mostly try to make a decision they made look better in retrospect, and this article was her explanation and has to be examined in that light.


The child was suffering. And no I don't see any benefit to anyone in a situation like that to drag it out and let the baby be born and then suffer pain and constant seizure until it finally passes away and great expense both emotionally and fiscally to everyone around it. 

I think some people here are kinder to animals than they are to human beings. How long would your drag out a suffering animal's life? Are you willing to take on the lifetime expense and commitment to raise a child with severe medical issues and disabilities? Have you seen the increase in parents who can't cope killing these children in recent years? It's pretty easy to make those decisions from your easy chair when you don't have to give the care yourself. To see your child you love suffer surgeries, medications, hospital stays, seizures, pain year after year with no hope of getting better just dragging them along. That is seriously, deeply wrong in my opinion.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

wr said:


> I think Americans call Saskatoon berries something else. Serviceberries maybe?



But Canadians are Americans too ! 
Even Argentines are Americans .
Funny how Americans usually means those from the USA.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> But Canadians are Americans too !
> Even Argentines are Americans .
> Funny how Americans usually means those from the USA.


I understand that Americans in the USA all call themselves Americans by their own choice.

Which do you think would be more a more appropriate designation for people in USA to call themselves for purposes of differentiation of national identity from all the other American nations? 

United Statesians? State-siders? Yanks? Yuuessayers?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> But Canadians are Americans too !
> Even Argentines are Americans .
> Funny how Americans usually means those from the USA.


That sounds like Saskatoon pie envy but I'll see what I can do about training my iphone to use the term southofthe49ther without autocorrect turning it into something censored :rotfl:


----------



## mrsgcpete (Sep 16, 2012)

JeffreyD said:


> Also interesting to note that California also passed proposition 8, by an overwhelming majority! Probably the most liberal state in America.
> 
> It was struck down as un-Constitutional. Also, it should be noted that our state attorney general Kamilla Harris, who's main job is to defend the actions of the voters, failed in an epic fashion to fight for the people because SHE didn't agree with the majority. Her "opinion" should have no bearing on her job, but it did. Typical for California! The people vote and the politicians don't like it, so they ignore it or litigate it. Pathetic really.



i noticed you didnt mention the pathetic nature of the political campaign of the leadership of the Mormon Church who are not even based in California because they dont believe in California's ability to make their own decisions.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I understand that Americans in the USA all call themselves Americans *by their own choice*.


I always figured it's because that's the name of the country:
"United States of AMERICA"


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mrsgcpete said:


> i noticed you didnt mention the pathetic nature of the political campaign of the leadership of the Mormon Church who are not even based in California because they dont believe in California's ability to make their own decisions.


I didn't mention it because it's irrelevant! The PEOPLE voted, not just Mormons, and it did pass by an overwhelming majority! And our AG refused to do her only job and defend the will of the people simply because she didn't like the bill. That, is the worst type of public servant.


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

Patchouli said:


> The child was suffering. And no I don't see any benefit to anyone in a situation like that to drag it out and let the baby be born and then suffer pain and constant seizure until it finally passes away and great expense both emotionally and fiscally to everyone around it.
> 
> I think some people here are kinder to animals than they are to human beings. How long would your drag out a suffering animal's life? Are you willing to take on the lifetime expense and commitment to raise a child with severe medical issues and disabilities? Have you seen the increase in parents who can't cope killing these children in recent years? It's pretty easy to make those decisions from your easy chair when you don't have to give the care yourself. To see your child you love suffer surgeries, medications, hospital stays, seizures, pain year after year with no hope of getting better just dragging them along. That is seriously, deeply wrong in my opinion.


First, it stated that the babies brain wouldn't function right, and the baby had difficulty in swallowing, yet in the womb the baby gets all it's air and nutrition through the umbilical cord, so there is no proof the baby was then suffering. Just need to be clear about that. Secondly I have to conclude that you support doctor assisted suicide for people who wish to end their suffering, to be consistent with your beliefs you would have to. I won't argue about this since all these things are going to boil down to is a religious discussion and I don't perceive you are religious. The question you still have failed to answer is what about all the viable fetuses that are aborted? And to add to that what about the preamble of our constitution that says even those yet to be born have rights? (The supreme court has reversed itself in the past so what may be legal now doesn't really address what is right or wrong)


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

BlackFeather said:


> First, it stated that the babies brain wouldn't function right, and the baby had difficulty in swallowing, yet in the womb the baby gets all it's air and nutrition through the umbilical cord, so there is no proof the baby was then suffering. Just need to be clear about that. Secondly I have to conclude that you support doctor assisted suicide for people who wish to end their suffering, to be consistent with your beliefs you would have to. I won't argue about this since all these things are going to boil down to is a religious discussion and I don't perceive you are religious. The question you still have failed to answer is what about all the viable fetuses that are aborted? And to add to that what about the preamble of our constitution that says even those yet to be born have rights? (The supreme court has reversed itself in the past so what may be legal now doesn't really address what is right or wrong)


Considering all the laws preventing viable fetuses from being aborted I would assume not many are today. You asked for an example of a mother making a hard decision that put her child first and I gave you one. There are plenty more like it out there. You seem to be of the opinion that abortion is only done for selfish reasons and that is simply not true. 

As for the right to die yes I am absolutely all for it. If I reach a point where my quality of life is gone and my suffering is too great I really hope this country will have reached a more enlightened position on letting people go when they choose. If not I will take care of myself when the time comes.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I always figured it's because that's the name of the country:
> 
> "United States of AMERICA"



I'm sure you are correct but what about all the other states of America that did not unite ? 
All the people of the Americas , both north and south are Americans.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> I'm sure you are correct but what about all the other states of America that did not unite ?
> All the people of the Americas , both north and south are Americans.


What about them?
They are Mexicans and Canadians for the most part
People are rarely called by the name of their* continents*
They are recognized by the name of their countries.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> And to add to that what about the preamble of our constitution that says even those yet to be born have rights?
> 
> (The supreme court has reversed itself in the past so what may be legal now doesn't really address what is right or wrong)


The preamble isn't law, and if you're all about "rights" then what is "right or wrong" can't be always be defined for anyone other than yourself


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> I'm sure you are correct but what about all the other states of America that did not unite ?
> All the people of the Americas , both north and south are Americans.


I'm not sure what your point is with this. What about them? Not including the Caribbean island nations (because they are islands), there are 3 American continents. The 3 Americas have a total of 23 separate nations each with their own government and head of state. The USA chose to use the name of a continent as part of its official nation name and the people of USA chose to call themselves Americans instead of calling themselves United Statesians. Have you ever heard somebody from USA refer to themself as a United Statesian, or as a United Statesian of North America? I know I never have. 

Nobody in any of the other 22 nations calls theirselves Americans because they naturally go by the names of their nations, not by the names of their continents - just like all the other people out of a total of 196 nations all over the world call themselves by their nation names, not by their continents - with the exception of Australia which is a single nation and a continent in one. All 196 nations around the world recognize that USA gets called America and the United States of America, and the people of USA get called Americans. Because that's how USA chose it to be, nobody from any other nation made that decision for USA. 

It might get rather confusing if all the people of all 23 nations in the Americas called themselves Americans just because their countries lie somewhere within the American continents.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Fennick said:


> I'm not sure what your point is with this. What about them? Not including the Caribbean island nations (because they are islands), there are 3 American continents. The 3 Americas have a total of 23 separate nations each with their own government and head of state. The USA chose to use the name of a continent as part of its official nation name and the people of USA chose to call themselves Americans instead of calling themselves United Statesians. Have you ever heard somebody from USA refer to themself as a United Statesian, or as a United Statesian of North America? I know I never have.
> 
> Nobody in any of the other 22 nations calls theirselves Americans because they naturally go by the names of their nations, not by the names of their continents - just like all the other people out of a total of 196 nations all over the world call themselves by their nation names, not by their continents - with the exception of Australia which is a single nation and a continent in one. All 196 nations around the world recognize that USA gets called America and the United States of America, and the people of USA get called Americans. Because that's how USA chose it to be, nobody from any other nation made that decision for USA .



You are right ! It's pointless honest. I don't really care. It's a silly diversion. 
But wait there's more!
What 3 American continents ? I remember North and South did I miss one ?
We refer to Europeans, Africans and Asians , you don't hear much about the Antarticans for some reason. I think Argentina is trying to change that though.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> It's a silly diversion.


It's silly only if it's a deliberate diversion. If it's deliberate you shouldn't do it because that's baiting and trolling, and eventually other people will interpret that as you crying "wolf!" to get personal attention. Then they'll lose patience and stop responding to you or reading your posts and you will become an ignored nonentity online.

If it's not a deliberate diversion and you really don't know about something then no question is silly and it should be answered because nobody should be left behind stumbling around in the darkness of ignorance and poor education. Ignorance can cause hatred and then hatred breeds more ignorance. Do you remember the conversation last year where you expressed your hatred of Canada because you thought America had purchased Alaska from Canada? I explained to you then that Canada didn't exist as a nation at the time and Alaska was owned by Russia and it was Russia that sold Alaska to America. If you hadn't been informed of the facts you might still hate Canada because you thought Alaska was sold by Canada. It's always better for people to be informed of real facts.




> But wait there's more!
> What 3 American continents ? I remember North and South did I miss one ?


List of the 3 Americas and Caribbean and their nations: http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/america.htm



> We refer to Europeans, Africans and Asians....


I know. They think it's insulting when their individuality is disregarded and they get lumped together with people from other countries. I think always referring to them that way is a bad habit that got started by lazy news media journalists and reporters many decades ago.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Antarctic has no native human population and there are no permanent human residents. Politically it is a condominium with 50 countries signed onto the Treaty.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Fennick said:


> Do you remember the conversation last year where you expressed your hatred of Canada because you thought America had purchased Alaska from Canada? I explained to you then that Canada didn't exist as a nation at the time and Alaska was owned by Russia and it was Russia that sold Alaska to America. If you hadn't been informed of the facts you might still hate Canada because you thought Alaska was sold by Canada. It's always better for people to be informed of real facts.
> 
> .


Is that what you thought? Ive known since I was a child that The USA purchased the right to govern Alaska from Russia.
I think that was just after the chapter where we studied how Canada had misused the United states in setting its souther boundry and just before we learned how Canada had fraudulently obtained large portions of alaska.
No what Im up set with the Canadian Government is their failure to live up to their incurred obligations.

But again I digress from the point of THIS thread.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Child molesters are the lowest form of life and should be executed slowly.

Another point the muslims disagree about since their "prophet" was a pedophile.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

JeffreyD said:


> I didn't mention it because it's irrelevant! The PEOPLE voted, not just Mormons, and it did pass by an overwhelming majority! And our AG refused to do her only job and defend the will of the people simply because she didn't like the bill. That, is the worst type of public servant.


Thats the beauty of living in a republic ruled by law instead of "the majority". It prevents the majority from being able to exterminate the minorities. Everyones rights are protected by our Constitution.... not just the majority. I would say that any public servant who stands against the majority and upholds the Constitution and protects all our citizens rights is the BEST public servant we can have.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Quote:
> We refer to Europeans, Africans and Asians....


Those are places with indigenous populations and often similar genetics

The "Americas" are mainly populated from those groups


----------

