# Gay Couple to Wed on Rose Parade Float



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

In case you might have children who will be watching the parades, be aware......

Gay Couple to Marry on Rose Parade Float


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

I wish my gay friends' children could get to watch their parents get married.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Interesting..

Phil can't cite his religious beliefs in front of others that find his religious beliefs offensive, yet people can flaunt their own liberal beliefs in front of others who find it offensive and they aren't allowed to say anything about it.. . 

I got no issue with it, but it sure seems to be a one way street any more.. The liberals can make the conservatives take their opinion, but the Conservatives get trounced on every time they try to say anything..


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Is it common practise for anybody to get married on a Rose Parade Float? I'm not asking about if they are gay couples or not, I'm asking about any kind of weddings in general? Are weddings customary for the Rose Parade?


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

If you must watch the Rose Bowl Parade and you're particularly sensitive to this sort of thing, you might want to tune in fairly early in the parade, during the vows and music and such, and turn it off before the consummation process begins.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

simi-steading said:


> Interesting..
> 
> Phil can't cite his religious beliefs in front of others that find his religious beliefs offensive, yet people can flaunt their own liberal beliefs in front of others who find it offensive and they aren't allowed to say anything about it.. .
> 
> I got no issue with it, but it sure seems to be a one way street any more.. The liberals can make the conservatives take their opinion, but the Conservatives get trounced on every time they try to say anything..


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Paumon said:


> Is it common practise for anybody to get married on a Rose Parade Float? I'm not asking about if they are gay couples or not, I'm asking about any kind of weddings in general? Are weddings customary for the Rose Parade?



I have watched it for years and years, and do not remember any weddings on on a float or covered/connected by tv. 

That is just what I have not seen.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Interesting Tiempo.. .So does that mean those states can discriminate on sexual preference? Don't some of those states allow same sex marriages? If so, then how can it be both ways..

What kind of laws or lack of back up that map, as in how is it proved those states can fire people for being gay? Or are they just fire at will states and you can be fired for just showing up to work?


OH,, and I can't remember seeing anyone getting married in the Rose Bowl before either.. nor ever heard of it happening...


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Paumon said:


> Is it common practise for anybody to get married on a Rose Parade Float? I'm not asking about if they are gay couples or not, I'm asking about any kind of weddings in general? Are weddings customary for the Rose Parade?


No. I don't remember it ever happening, I've been to at least a dozen, and volunteered to work on many floats in the past. Haven't done either for the last few years! Stupid work!


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

AngieM2 said:


> I have watched it for years and years, and do not remember any weddings on on a float or covered/connected by tv.
> 
> That is just what I have not seen.


I can't find any statistics but the linked article did say that a couple got married in the parade in the 80's. I don't get the impression it's very common and while I don't have a problem with same sex marriages, I'm not overly keen on the couple's reason for getting married. The article indicates that they have been in a very long term relationship but had no plans to get married (even though same sex marriage is legal) until the entered a draw and their names were chosen. 

In my opinion, marriage of any kind should not be entered into lightly and should not be for publicity nor to make a public statement but then again, I'm not real keen on public proposals, weddings on ferris wheels, roller coasters or any other big public spectacle.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

AngieM2 said:


> I have watched it for years and years, and do not remember any weddings on on a float or covered/connected by tv.
> 
> That is just what I have not seen.





simi-steading said:


> ..... OH,, and I can't remember seeing anyone getting married in the Rose Bowl before either.. nor ever heard of it happening...


Okay then, if it has never been a custom for weddings to take place on the Rose Parade in the past then I think this is wrong and will set a very bad precedent. 

I personally feel that weddings of any kind should not be taking place at the Rose Parade but if they're going to allow weddings in the parade they should have one wedding float only that has several couples of all orientations getting married. 

If they allow this precedent of a single gay couple being the first and only couple ever to get married on a Rose Parade it will open the door to all future Rose Parades becoming an exhibit for Gay Pride wedding freak shows and the purpose of the Rose Parade will be lost sight of.

Ordinarilly I'm supportive of the LGBT community but in this instance I think it's a stupid and selfish move that will create a lot of hard feelings and could lead to disaster that will set the LGBT community behind in their efforts to gain recognition and it will cause a protest that could be the ruination of the Rose Parade.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

I agree.. bad president... A parade isn't a wedding chapel... I think it would hurt the community too.. 

GLADD Stepped up, and boy did they find out they weren't as well supported as they thought and have taking a lot of heat... I read they said they didn't expect the kind of backlash nor threats they have been getting.

Some times it good to dip a toe in the water before you try a full gainer...


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Tiempo said:


> I wish my gay friends' children could get to watch their parents get married.


Curious. Why can their children not attend their parents union ceremony?


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Thanks Oggie, you made me spit on my screen.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

The Farmer's Insurance float will have 3 couples being married by the host of the Bachelor TV show.

Edited to add- A couple was also married on the Farmers float last year


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Tiempo said:


>


Hmmm. I'm guessing this is a list of States which do not carry laws to specifically forbid this.

It is however covered under Federal Labor Code


> The EEOC has held that discrimination against an individual because that person is transgender (also known as gender identity discrimination) is discrimination because of sex and therefore is covered under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See Macy v. Department of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0120120821 (April 20, 2012), http://www.eeoc.gov/decisions/0120120821 Macy v DOJ ATF.txt. The Commission has also found that claims by lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals alleging sex-stereotyping state a sex discrimination claim under Title VII. See Veretto v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120110873 (July 1, 2011); Castello v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 0520110649 (Dec. 20, 2011), http://www.eeoc.gov/decisions/0520110649.txt.


http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/otherprotections.cfm

So the chart is incorrect. It is NOT legal for an employer to fire an employee _solely for being gay_ in any State.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

simi-steading said:


> I agree.. bad president... A parade isn't a wedding chapel... I think it would hurt the community too..
> 
> GLADD Stepped up, and boy did they find out they weren't as well supported as they thought and have taking a lot of heat... I read they said they didn't expect the kind of backlash nor threats they have been getting.
> 
> Some times it good to dip a toe in the water before you try a full gainer...


Reading the comment section of the posted link was kind of interesting. I expected much more support for this couple, not so!!!


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Nate_in_IN said:


> Hmmm. I'm guessing this is a list of States which do not carry laws to specifically forbid this.
> 
> It is however covered under Federal Labor Code
> 
> ...


Good point.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Nate_in_IN said:


> Curious. Why can their children not attend their parents union ceremony?


I said get married.


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

Whatever. Marriage proposals at football games, soldiers popping out of Christmas boxes as a supposed "present" for kids - the latest on the news here was an UNCLE, not the father of the child - the secret service stiffing prostitutes, uncle sugar wanting to know everyone you call, and I am supposed to be concerned about THIS???

Here, enjoy the Christmas parade: 
http://video-embed.al.com/services/player/bcpid1949030302001?bctid=2960604160001&bckey=AQ~~,AAAAQBxUMrk~,0PvcDEZHzy9OpLHokIoP78B1UaM4Q93T


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

My guess is that the states on that chart are "at-will" states in which you can be fired for nearly any or even no reason. I know in Ohio an employer does not have to give a reason to fire someone.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Tiempo said:


> I said get married.


I take it you are implying the couple cannot find a religious faith to marry them? Or do you wish to alter tenets of a certain religion to allow same sex marriage?


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Nate_in_IN said:


> I take it you are implying the couple cannot find a religious faith to marry them? Or do you wish to alter tenets of a certain religion to allow same sex marriage?


Not at all, I'd like their marriages to be recognized in all the ways mine is.


----------



## Win07_351 (Dec 7, 2008)

It is impossible for 2 people of the same sex to be married because through their union they can't become 1 flesh.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

I could call it something. But a marriage is not what I would call it at all.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Tiempo said:


> Not at all, I'd like their marriages to be recognized in all the ways mine is.


How is their marriage not recognized in the same way as yours?


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Nate_in_IN said:


> How is their marriage not recognized in the same way as yours?


By the state of Michigan for one.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Win07_351 said:


> It is impossible for 2 people of the same sex to be married because through their union they can't become 1 flesh.


My grandmother, widowed, remarried in her 60's.

Neither could her and Tommy's union 'become 1 flesh'...should they not have married?

I never had any intention of reproducing either, would you deny me my marriage?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Tiempo said:


> My grandmother, widowed, remarried in her 60's.
> 
> Neither could her and Tommy's union 'become 1 flesh'...should they not have married?
> 
> I never had any intention of reproducing either, would you deny me my marriage?


Marriage is in the heart, no paper needed! The paper is for the government to use at their discretion.


----------



## HuskyBoris (Feb 14, 2013)

I don't see what all the hoopla is about gay marriage,,let them marry,it don't hurt me,it don't hurt you and as long as no one gets hurt I'm ok with it.it's not my place to judge them and if when they go infront of their creator and he sends him to hell for their ways then so be it,,it's between them and God and unless you are standing next to the All mighty giving advice on judgement quit judging


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

JeffreyD said:


> Marriage is in the heart, no paper needed! The paper is for the government to use at their discretion.


How quaint.


----------



## MichaelZ (May 21, 2013)

Thanks for the head's up on this.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Not my cup of tea but ok with me if all are consenting adults.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

HuskyBoris said:


> I don't see what all the hoopla is about gay marriage,,let them marry,it don't hurt me,it don't hurt you and as long as no one gets hurt I'm ok with it.it's not my place to judge them and if when they go infront of their creator and he sends him to hell for their ways then so be it,,it's between them and God and unless you are standing next to the All mighty giving advice on judgement quit judging


I used to feel that way. I was worried that gays would start suing claiming discrimination. I kept getting told. "No way would they sue, they just want to be like everyone else". Well, their suing bakers, photographers, anyone that disagrees with their agenda. I'm waiting for them to start suing churches that refuse to marry them, it will happen! Now, I don't agree with them, and I could care less what nasty names they call me! I don't care anymore!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Tiempo said:


> How quaint.


Yup! That the best response you got! :facepalm:


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

JeffreyD said:


> I used to feel that way. I was worried that gays would start suing claiming discrimination. I kept getting told. "No way would they sue, they just want to be like everyone else". Well, their suing bakers, photographers, anyone that disagrees with their agenda. I'm waiting for them to start suing churches that refuse to marry them, it will happen! Now, I don't agree with them, and I could care less what nasty names they call me! I don't care anymore!


So you would deny many out of spite for the (relatively) few?


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

JeffreyD said:


> Yup! That the best response you got! :facepalm:


Are you married? Did you get a license?


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Tiempo said:


> My grandmother, widowed, remarried in her 60's.
> 
> Neither could her and Tommy's union 'become 1 flesh'...should they not have married?
> 
> I never had any intention of reproducing either, would you deny me my marriage?


 
Wasn't going to post in this thread because I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't care if they get married and I never watch the parade anyway. You comment caught my attention though. Why could they not become 1 flesh and why do you feel reproduction has anything to do with it?


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

dixiegal62 said:


> Wasn't going to post in this thread because I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't care if they get married and I never watch the parade anyway. You comment caught my attention though. Why could they not become 1 flesh and why do you feel reproduction has anything to do with it?


Ok, how to keep this HT friendly? 

Here goes. 

I always interpreted 'one flesh' in the way I suspect, but may be wrong (and apologize in advance if I am), you seem to be. Which gay people are obviously also capable of.

In post number 24, the post I was responding to, Win is suggesting a different interpretation that suggests reproduction.

Did that make sense?


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Tiempo said:


> Ok, how to keep this HT friendly?
> 
> Here goes.
> 
> ...


 
OK just checking if we where on the same page because I couldn't see why a married couple in their 60's couldn't unless there where health restrictions.:thumb:


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Phew...pulled that one off. 

Now to bleach my brain, this is my dear grandma we're talking about


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

HuskyBoris said:


> I don't see what all the hoopla is about gay marriage,,let them marry,it don't hurt me,it don't hurt you and as long as no one gets hurt I'm ok with it.it's not my place to judge them and if when they go infront of their creator and he sends him to hell for their ways then so be it,,it's between them and God and unless you are standing next to the All mighty giving advice on judgement quit judging



I think that's reasonable and while I respect your faith, I greatly respect your desire not to judge.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Tiempo said:


> So you would deny many out of spite for the (relatively) few?


Yup! They said it wouldn't happen, now it is! I don't care what anyone does in their own homes, but it's starting to get to be too much! I don't agree with gay marriage, it is, after all, just a piece of paper. Marriage, like I said, is in the heart! Quaint tho it may be!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Tiempo said:


> Are you married? Did you get a license?


Yup and yup! Don't care about the paper tho. Government said we had to have one!


----------



## Guest123 (Oct 10, 2006)

Tiempo said:


> So you would deny many out of spite for the (relatively) few?


I didn't know this was a thread about Obamacare.....


----------



## snowcap (Jul 1, 2011)

JeffreyD said:


> I used to feel that way. I was worried that gays would start suing claiming discrimination. I kept getting told. "No way would they sue, they just want to be like everyone else". Well, their suing bakers, photographers, anyone that disagrees with their agenda. I'm waiting for them to start suing churches that refuse to marry them, it will happen! Now, I don't agree with them, and I could care less what nasty names they call me! I don't care anymore!


Some one should start their own place of business that provides all the trappings for a nice wedding specilizing in gay marriage. cakes ,dresses and what ever is needed. Would make more sense than harassing our job providers.:flame:


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

snowcap said:


> Some one should start their own place of business that provides all the trappings for a nice wedding specilizing in gay marriage. cakes ,dresses and what ever is needed. Would make more sense than harassing our job providers.:flame:


What a unique concept! (sarcasm). I agree. There seem to be alot that are gifted at design and cooking! It would make more sense, but, that's not a part of the plan!


----------



## snowcap (Jul 1, 2011)

If your upset about this you should see the gay dance group that was in a Alabama Christmas parade. Not sure I can put it on this forum.


----------



## Raymond James (Apr 15, 2013)

If you don't want to watch then don't watch or take it as an opportunity to get something from the fridge. 

I doubt if the TV broadcast spends much time on this float.


----------



## snowcap (Jul 1, 2011)

Raymond James said:


> If you don't want to watch then don't watch or take it as an opportunity to get something from the fridge.
> 
> I doubt if the TV broadcast spends much time on this float.


Ok papa.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Raymond James said:


> If you don't want to watch then don't watch or take it as an opportunity to get something from the fridge.
> 
> I doubt if the TV broadcast spends much time on this float.


What if your there, in person, with family.....kids? Since this is more newsworthy than any other float, I expect extra heavy coverage! If your there and don't want your kids to see this, it will be an issue. Most all of the seating is bleacher type and very close. Also, floats don't go very fast, so keeping that little one's distracted will be an issue! What about those that are not aware this is going to happen? Pretty Un - cool and un- caring and totally selfish really!!!!


----------



## Raymond James (Apr 15, 2013)

If you are that worried do not go to the parade. What is to prevent you from seeing a couple dressed up walking into the Court House or into a reception hall? People kissing on the street? 

I would think the float would look like a lot of other floats lots of color and people dressed up standing on it.


----------



## HuskyBoris (Feb 14, 2013)

wr said:


> I think that's reasonable and while I respect your faith, I greatly respect your desire not to judge.


It's more of an observation and generalization then it is about faith,I am more of an agnostic,or former practicer now,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> What if your there, in person, with family.....kids? Since this is more newsworthy than any other float, I expect extra heavy coverage! If your there and don't want your kids to see this, it will be an issue. Most all of the seating is bleacher type and very close. Also, floats don't go very fast, so keeping that little one's distracted will be an issue! What about those that are not aware this is going to happen? Pretty Un - cool and un- caring and totally selfish really!!!!


While I don't feel the parade is a proper setting for any kind of wedding, it is my understanding that the ceremony is being held earlier at the staging area so realistically, all the children would see is two or more people on top of a float that looks like a cake, which may be confused with the State Farm float that has a celebrity and a few newly married couples on it.


----------



## HuskyBoris (Feb 14, 2013)

Raymond James said:


> If you are that worried do not go to the parade. What is to prevent you from seeing a couple dressed up walking into the Court House or into a reception hall? People kissing on the street?
> 
> I would think the float would look like a lot of other floats lots of color and people dressed up standing on it.


I have a feeling that float won't look like any other float in the parade,the use of rainbows,pastels and showtunes will make it stand alone


----------



## topofmountain (Nov 1, 2013)

You can be sure I won't be watching. I'm tired of having these liberal sick agenda's being shoved down my throat. 
This world has lost its moral direction & there will be a price to pay one day. This issue is just one.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Raymond James said:


> If you are that worried do not go to the parade. What is to prevent you from seeing a couple dressed up walking into the Court House or into a reception hall? People kissing on the street?
> 
> I would think the float would look like a lot of other floats lots of color and people dressed up standing on it.


Do courthouses have bleachers and hundreds of thousands of people watching? Really not much of an analogy! Kissing on the street I hardly ever see anyway and it's not being shoved in folks faces. And no, I'm not going anymore! I don't have time, I own my own company, and have to work, the employees get a two week paid vacation and someone has to pay for it!!!

I'll agree that the float will probably look like some others, but I have a feeling that it will be singled out by the announcers and folks in the bleachers will know which one it is and will be talking about it and that will spark the interest of the kids even more. The parents are in the middle. What a horrible thing to do to the unknowing parents!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

wr said:


> While I don't feel the parade is a proper setting for any kind of wedding, it is my understanding that the ceremony is being held earlier at the staging area so realistically, all the children would see is two or more people on top of a float that looks like a cake, which may be confused with the State Farm float that has a celebrity and a few newly married couples on it.


It would be hard to have a ceremony that lasted the length of the parade route! I kinda figured that the "real" ceremony would be elsewhere. But kids are going to see two men on top of the float and wonder why not a man and a woman as they most likely have been taught! The parents have to figure out how to explain this. There are going to be hundreds of thousands there, and millions watching on tv. Even if your at home and don't want your kids to see it, the parents again have to explain why they can't watch part of the Rose Parade! The least likely form of entertainment to have controversy!


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

The thing that caught my attention was in the comment section. A kid that said her and her friends have vowed to marry gay men because straight ones turn her off. She posted twice. That's a very confused child!


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

Tiempo said:


> I wish my gay friends' children could get to watch their parents get married.


How did your gay friends have kids? You got me curious.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

farmerDale said:


> How did your gay friends have kids? You got me curious.


The same way many heterosexual couples do when the husband is infertile.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> It would be hard to have a ceremony that lasted the length of the parade route! I kinda figured that the "real" ceremony would be elsewhere. But kids are going to see two men on top of the float and wonder why not a man and a woman as they most likely have been taught! The parents have to figure out how to explain this. There are going to be hundreds of thousands there, and millions watching on tv. Even if your at home and don't want your kids to see it, the parents again have to explain why they can't watch part of the Rose Parade! The least likely form of entertainment to have controversy!



The PBR and the Calgary Stampeders floats, along with several others, have only men on them and I don't think they have raised too many questions.


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

snowcap said:


> If your upset about this you should see the gay dance group that was in a Alabama Christmas parade. Not sure I can put it on this forum.


I already posted a link to it. It is "G" rated. Dunno if the guys are gay or not (don't care) but they are simply a male version of a female cheerleading troupe. It looks like they worked hard at getting the moves down, and once you get over the shock value, they are pretty good.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

Tiempo said:


> The same way many heterosexual couples do when the husband is infertile.


I see.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

wr said:


> The PBR and the Calgary Stampeders floats, along with several others, have only men on them and I don't think they have raised too many questions.


I don't believe that their standing on a wedding cake! :facepalm: Are the parade announcers going to talk about the PBR gay marriage? I think not!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Tiempo said:


> The same way many heterosexual couples do when the husband is infertile.


You could have said...."by artificial means"! Or does the fact that the terms " artificial" and "not natural", bother you?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

I don't see adoption as not natural or artificial.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> I don't believe that their standing on a wedding cake! :facepalm: Are the parade announcers going to talk about the PBR gay marriage? I think not!



Are you sure the announcer is going to discuss gay marriage? We also have the gay rodeo association float and it is only introduced as Rocky Mountain Rodeo Association only.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

wr said:


> Are you sure the announcer is going to discuss gay marriage? We also have the gay rodeo association float and it is only introduced as Rocky Mountain Rodeo Association only.


Yeah, I'm pretty sure they will announce it since it's been made into a big deal. Is that Rocky Mountain Rodeo float in the Rose Parade? Do you think the announcers won't mention it? Why wouldn't they with all the publicity this is getting?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

wr said:


> Are you sure the announcer is going to discuss gay marriage? We also have the gay rodeo association float and it is only introduced as Rocky Mountain Rodeo Association only.


I googled:

Rocky Mountain Rodeo Association. .........nothing about gays or floats.
Rocky Mountain Rodeo Association float.......nothing.

got a link?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

AFC news estimates 80 million viewers. What a great way to push their agenda on unsuspecting parents and their kids. Disgusting! Antics like this are driving away support for their agenda and rightly so! It's truly sad that such a small minority can cause so much harm to society! Brainwashing kids is absolutely repulsive.


----------



## snowcap (Jul 1, 2011)

Harry Chickpea said:


> I already posted a link to it. It is "G" rated. Dunno if the guys are gay or not (don't care) but they are simply a male version of a female cheerleading troupe. It looks like they worked hard at getting the moves down, and once you get over the shock value, they are pretty good.


not dressed like that their not. you kidding right?


----------



## unregistered41671 (Dec 29, 2009)

JeffreyD said:


> AFC news estimates 80 million viewers. What a great way to push their agenda on unsuspecting parents and their kids. Disgusting! Antics like this are driving away support for their agenda and rightly so! It's truly sad that such a small minority can cause so much harm to society! Brainwashing kids is absolutely repulsive.


Yep, you are correct sir. That is the entire purpose of this charade. The homosexuals want to push a perversion on society to try and make their lifestyle appear normal. It seems to me that they are brainwashing the younger generation into thinking it is perfectly natural. It is like the frog in the pot of cold water that gets warmer then and then before the frog knows it, he is in boiling water.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

I suppose rather than taking another page from the far left and playing the victim card, you could take it as an opportunity to explain to your children your beliefs and why they are important to you. Of course you might want to go a step further and explain that one of the great things about this country is we all don't have to believe the same thing.


----------



## snowcap (Jul 1, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> I suppose rather than taking another page from the far left and playing the victim card, you could take it as an opportunity to explain to your children your beliefs and why they are important to you. Of course you might want to go a step further and explain that one of the great things about this country is we all don't have to believe the same thing.


I think at thi point you advice is falling on deaf ears. The gay people wrecked the possibility of being accepted. Being married is one thing but leave the kids alone.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

snowcap said:


> I think at thi point you advice is falling on deaf ears. The gay people wrecked the possibility of being accepted. Being married is one thing but leave the kids alone.


Gay people are accepted and loved. Maybe not by all but the majority.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

snowcap said:


> I think at thi point you advice is falling on deaf ears. The gay people wrecked the possibility of being accepted. Being married is one thing but leave the kids alone.


What is it the kids may see that you can't explain in the context of your faith?


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

.


> The gay people wrecked the possibility of being accepted.


Are you kidding? acceptance is growing in leaps and bounds.

Homophobia is dying, and fast.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

JeffreyD said:


> You could have said...."by artificial means"! Or does the fact that the terms " artificial" and "not natural", bother you?


Yes, I could have and I chose not to.

To a point, yes, they do. The end result is perfectly natural.

A story...about 3 years ago a nice young couple (heterosexual if it makes you feel better) came here to gather firewood from our downs by our invitation.

They brought with them their beautiful little twin daughters, about 4 years old.

The wife and I got to talking and she ended up telling me that her parents had disowned the twins simply because they were conceived via 'artificial' insemination.

Her own parents disowned their grandbabies because in their words they were 'not real babies'

What the heck goes on in some peoples' minds defies comprehension.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Boy scouts in uniform, plus rainbow bandanas, handing out pizzas to people working round the clock processing licenses for gay marriages in Utah yesterday.

The tide is changing like it or not.


----------



## snowcap (Jul 1, 2011)

Tiempo said:


> .
> 
> Are you kidding? acceptance is growing in leaps and bounds.
> 
> Homophobia is dying, and fast.


When they have kids they will understand what it's like to have others intrude on what is taught to them.

If it's so accepted maybe they can quit acting out now. Tell me if those dancers had kids would they want them exposed to what they were doing.
They have their own parades/bars, they need to keep their nasty actions their.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tiempo said:


> Yes, I could have and I chose not to.
> 
> To a point, yes, I do. The end result is perfectly natural.
> 
> ...



That is so horrible. I bet those same people are pro-life. When did how a child came to their parents become a problem?


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

> When they have kids they will understand what it's like to have others intrude on what is taught to them.


They already are and have been having kids...what makes you think it's anything new?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

snowcap said:


> When they have kids they will understand what it's like to have others intrude on what is taught to them.
> 
> If it's so accepted maybe they can quit acting out now. Tell me if those dancers had kids would they want them exposed to what they were doing.
> They have their own parades/bars, they need to keep their nasty actions their.


We see much worse dancing by the cheerleaders on National Football games.


----------



## countryfied2011 (Jul 5, 2011)

> Are you kidding? acceptance is growing in leaps and bounds.


Imho, I believe people are just tolerating it more, I cant ever see it being totally accepted as you seem to point out. I also believe the more that it is pushed by organizations like GLADD etc, the more you are going to see people fight against.
:shrug:


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Tiempo said:


> .
> 
> Are you kidding? acceptance is growing in leaps and bounds.
> 
> Homophobia is dying, and fast.


Not so! Many are repulsed by their behavior. Wanting it to be so, doesn't make it true!


----------



## snowcap (Jul 1, 2011)

painterswife said:


> We see much worse dancing by the cheerleaders on National Football games.


They don't come out in skin tight underpants.
That was going to far.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> What is it the kids may see that you can't explain in the context of your faith?


No one should be forced to explain anything that they don't want to......ever!! Understand?


----------



## Guest (Dec 24, 2013)

snowcap said:


> When they have kids they will understand what it's like to have others intrude on what is taught to them.
> 
> If it's so accepted maybe they can quit acting out now. Tell me if those dancers had kids would they want them exposed to what they were doing.
> They have their own parades/bars, they need to keep their nasty actions their.


There is a media-pushed PERCEPTION that the majority of Americans applaud a homosexual lifestyle..states who have overwhelmingly voted "NO" to gay marriage have seen Fed judges overturn the vote..For myself and my friends, I coudn't care less if homosexuals marry one another..what we DO care very much about is their insistance that we not only approve of gay marriage but also embrace the lifestyle with our full acceptance as NORMAL.we dont..and we won't..and we do not want to have our children taught that it is normal and their parents are ******* haters..IMHO, that is THE difference.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

JeffreyD said:


> No one should be forced to explain anything that they don't want to......ever!! Understand?


You mean like Christianity?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

snowcap said:


> They don't come out in skin tight underpants.
> That was going to far.


Oh yes, they do. Shorts cut down and up as tight and as skimpy as anything those men were wearing plus tops showing almost all they have.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

snowcap said:


> They don't come out in skin tight underpants.
> That was going to far.


You don't watch much football eh?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Tiempo said:


> Yes, I could have and I chose not to.
> 
> To a point, yes, they do. The end result is perfectly natural.
> 
> ...


I know you chose not to, that was my point! And yes, what goes on in some peoples mind does indeed defy comprehension! !! It's amazing how some folks want others to believe as they do so badly that they will stoop to forcing kids to watch sexual deviants parade around pushing their agenda on those that don't want it, kinda like The position some folks take about Christianity!


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

JeffreyD said:


> Not so! Many are repulsed by their behavior. Wanting it to be so, doesn't make it true!


The numbers say differently. Sorry Jeffrey, but it's you who are seeing what you want to.

Many? Sure, but less and less all the time.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Tiempo said:


> The numbers say differently. Sorry Jeffrey, but it's you who are seeing what you want to.
> 
> Many? Sure, but less and less all the time.


The media lies! The most liberal state, California, passed prop 8, the majority spoke, the state failed to up - hold the law, th state A refused to do her duty and defend the will of the people! The majority of people do not agree with your position. Sorry!!!


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Look at the opinion change on prop 8 now. 

The times they are a changin' and fast.

http://www.examiner.com/article/doma-prop-8-spectacular-change-public-opinion


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

snowcap said:


> not dressed like that their not. you kidding right?


Having managed theatres that played host to "Rocky Horror Picture Show" for years, I've seen a lot of straight guys dressed up as Frankie. I also remember that the founding fathers were into tights and wigs. A kid has more chance of being "exposed" to a traditional Scottish regiment on a windy day than these guys having fun as prancey santas.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

JeffreyD said:


> No one should be forced to explain anything that they don't want to......ever!! Understand?


You're right. You don't have to explain anything. You still haven't answered what behavior you find unacceptable. A legally married couple riding on a float expressing their love and affection for one another? I hope you're equally as upset by the Farmers Insurance float. They've got three couples doing the same thing. Three times the outrage?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Tiempo said:


> Look at the opinion change on prop 8 now.
> 
> The times they are a changin' and fast.
> 
> http://www.examiner.com/article/doma-prop-8-spectacular-change-public-opinion


Who ever pays the poll company, gets the numbers they want. You should know this by now!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> You're right. You don't have to explain anything. You still haven't answered what behavior you find unacceptable. A legally married couple riding on a float expressing their love and affection for one another? I hope you're equally as upset by the Farmers Insurance float. They've got three couples doing the same thing. Three times the outrage?


Trying to explain to young kids who have been taught about traditional marriage, why two men are standing on top of a wedding cake, shouldn't have to be done.......ever! It's really simple! Is the Farmers float a wedding cake?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

I'll say it again, where is the compassion and tolerance the left says their all about? I guess it only applies to those who believe as they do! Sad and pathetic!! Do the folks that don't want to see this public display of deviant behavior have a say in this? Why not? Liberals also talk about fairness. How is this fair?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Trying to explain to young kids who have been taught about traditional marriage, why two men are standing on top of a wedding cake, shouldn't have to be done.......ever! It's really simple! Is the Farmers float a wedding cake?


Actually it should have to be explained, just like you should explain the difference between dating and marriage. The fact that you don't like or agree with something does not mean it should be shut in a closet and hidden. That is what they used to do with interracial marriages.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Tiempo said:


> You mean like Christianity?


I have never forced my religious convictions on anybody, why should they force their unsolicited behavior on me?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Trying to explain to young kids who have been taught about traditional marriage, why two men are standing on top of a wedding cake, shouldn't have to be done.......ever! It's really simple! Is the Farmers float a wedding cake?


Lots of things I prefer to not see. I turn away from them but I don't take away others freedoms to do what they want that is perfectly legal.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

JeffreyD said:


> No one should be forced to explain anything that they don't want to......ever!! Understand?





JeffreyD said:


> Trying to explain to young kids who have been taught about traditional marriage, why two men are standing on top of a wedding cake, shouldn't have to be done.......ever! It's really simple! Is the Farmers float a wedding cake?


Then don't explain. I have no idea the shape of the Farmers float and I'm not sure the relevancy of the shape. If the gay couple were part of the Farmers float wedding celebration would it then be ok because they're not on a wedding cake?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

JeffreyD said:


> I have never forced my religious convictions on anybody, why should they force their unsolicited behavior on me?


No ones forcing anything. You have the choice to watch or not.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Then don't explain. I have no idea the shape of the Farmers float and I'm not sure the relevancy of the shape. If the gay couple were part of the Farmers float wedding celebration would it then be ok because they're not on a wedding cake?


No!!!!!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> No ones forcing anything. You have the choice to watch or not.


Yes, their forcing their beliefs on those that don't want it! Just like atheists say about religion! No one should have to have their kids look away from a float in the Rose Parade! And then have to explain why!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

JeffreyD said:


> I have never forced my religious convictions on anybody, why should they force their unsolicited behavior on me?





JeffreyD said:


> Yes, their forcing their beliefs on those that don't want it! Just like atheists say about religion! No one should have to have their kids look away from a float in the Rose Parade! And then have to explain why!


When I enter a local town I must pass a church. They have one of those lighted signs out front on which they display various pithy and, I suppose, inspirational sayings relating to their religion. I can choose to read them or not. Are they not forcing their beliefs on me. You have no right not to be discomfitted by the behavior of another.


----------



## Guest (Dec 24, 2013)

Why not just have a float which celebrates hedonism? Naked people of all sexes..male, female, transgender, whatever, having a sexual romp while in the Rose Bowl parade?? We could be treated to every kind of sexual expression....shame on those who would wish to go back to the old-fashioned days of simple parades ..shame on those who would want to shield their children from such a display..bigots..haters..puritans..

and while we're at it, the very name, Rose Bowl is outdated and reeks of 1950's..let's rename it the Gay Prancing Dancers Parade...!!!!

All things are possible..yeah for liberal progressive philosophy..if it can be done,it SHOULD be done...right?????


----------



## snowcap (Jul 1, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Actually it should have to be explained, just like you should explain the difference between dating and marriage. The fact that you don't like or agree with something does not mean it should be shut in a closet and hidden. That is what they used to do with interracial marriages.


The parents aren't going to have a choice but to explain, but at the right age and time. Gay people would want the same thing.
2 people on a float I can get over, but if gays want that acceptance their going to have to put pressure on the overt sexual dancing. The dance team needs to learn different coreography and keep different outfits for family orientated gatherings.
I can't tie them to Rocky horror story to this sorry. I watched it and don't see the correlation.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> Then don't explain. I have no idea the shape of the Farmers float and I'm not sure the relevancy of the shape. If the gay couple were part of the Farmers float wedding celebration would it then be ok because they're not on a wedding cake?





bostonlesley said:


> Why not just have a float which celebrates hedonism? Naked people of all sexes..male, female, transgender, whatever, having a sexual romp while in the Rose Bowl parade?? We could be treated to every kind of sexual expression....shame on those who would wish to go back to the old-fashioned days of simple parades ..shame on those who would want to shield their children from such a display..bigots..haters..puritans..
> 
> and while we're at it, the very name, Rose Bowl is outdated and reeks of 1950's..let's rename it the Gay Prancing Dancers Parade...!!!!
> 
> All things are possible..yeah for liberal progressive philosophy..if it can be done,it SHOULD be done...right?????


Public sex is illegal and not in the same realm as two people who love each other taking vows. Comparing them is ridiculous in my opinion.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

snowcap said:


> The parents aren't going to have a choice but to explain, but at the right age and time. Gay people would want the same thing.
> 2 people on a float I can get over, but if gays want that acceptance their going to have to put pressure on the overt sexual dancing. The dance team needs to learn different coreography and keep different outfits for family orientated gatherings.
> I can't tie them to Rocky horror story to this sorry. I watched it and don't see the correlation.


Then I guess they should not leave their house or watch TV or read books because they might get exposed to something they don't agree with at any time.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> When I enter a local town I must pass a church. They have one of those lighted signs out front on which they display various pithy and, I suppose, inspirational sayings relating to their religion. I can choose to read them or not. Are they not forcing their beliefs on me. You have no right not to be discomfitted by the behavior of another.


No, their not forcing anything on you! WHAT!!!!! I have every right to be appalled by the disgusting sexual deviant behavior of others!! Really........!!! How arrogant!!!!


----------



## snowcap (Jul 1, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Then I guess they should not leave their house or watch TV or read books because they might get exposed to something they don't agree with at any time.


I notice alot of the shows on tv with gays don't last long.
I know we don't watch the ones with the ones that have gay actors that act stupid.
There is a difference between acting your self and acting bad to shock people.


----------



## snowcap (Jul 1, 2011)

Makes me wonder do they want to participate or just take over.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

JeffreyD said:


> No, their not forcing anything on you! WHAT!!!!! I have every right to be appalled by the disgusting sexual deviant behavior of others!! Really........!!! How arrogant!!!!


Please explain the difference. We're both being subjected to seeing something we may not agree with. And if there's going to be deviant sexual behavior in the Rose parade I might just watch.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

So is the rose bowl parade now a venue for making religious statements? How about political ones? Once that line is crossed it should be open to all. I wonder if the Westboro Church would be welcomed to participate? What about the right to life crowd? I was under the impression that those kind of topics were taboo in the parade.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Please explain the difference. We're both being subjected to seeing something we may not agree with. And if there's going to be deviant sexual behavior in the Rose parade I might just watch.


If you don't know the difference, that's a shame!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Please explain the difference. We're both being subjected to seeing something we may not agree with. And if there's going to be deviant sexual behavior in the Rose parade I might just watch.


I also find Obama, Reid, Pelosi, etc..... repulsive, but they don't exhibit deviant sexual behavior in public, do they? Did that church with the sign you don't like force you to drive e by and look? I don't think the church was engaged in public display of deviant behavior either!!!


----------



## countryfied2011 (Jul 5, 2011)

> So is the rose bowl parade now a venue for making religious statements? How about political ones? Once that line is crossed it should be open to all. I wonder if the Westboro Church would be welcomed to participate? What about the right to life crowd? I was under the impression that those kind of topics were taboo in the parade.


Or the Phil Robertson family..:grin:


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

JeffreyD said:


> If you don't know the difference, that's a shame!


Enlighten me, please.


----------



## Guest (Dec 24, 2013)

painterswife said:


> Public sex is illegal and not in the same realm as two people who love each other taking vows. Comparing them is ridiculous in my opinion.


Who was comparing them???? I was asking a separate question..as in, how far are people willing to go? Easy thing to make public sex legal...so..how far is TOO FAR????????????????????????????????????


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Enlighten me, please.


Nope! Like I said if you don't know the difference by now I won't be of any help to you! You and I both have made up our minds and neither are going to change the others.


Merry Christmas! !!!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Nate_in_IN said:


> So is the rose bowl parade now a venue for making religious statements? How about political ones? Once that line is crossed it should be open to all. I wonder if the Westboro Church would be welcomed to participate? What about the right to life crowd? I was under the impression that those kind of topics were taboo in the parade.


The theme of this year's parade is Dreams Come True. Seems that a float celebrating gay marriage is pretty apropo as it was a dream come true for many when they were given the opportunity to legally wed.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

JeffreyD said:


> Nope! Like I said if you don't know the difference by now I won't be of any help to you! You and I both have made up our minds and neither are going to change the others.
> 
> 
> Merry Christmas! !!!


The only difference I see is whose ox is being gored. And a happy holiday season to you.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> The theme of this year's parade is Dreams Come True. Seems that a float celebrating gay marriage is pretty apropo as it was a dream come true for many when they were given the opportunity to legally wed.


And the theme of my senior prom was " under the sea " but it was not the proper venue to make statement regarding fracing. 

Public parades are held by the public, as such they should either be open to all demonstrations, or they should stand up and say the parade is not a venue for promoting special interests and not allow them.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> The only difference I see is whose ox is being gored. And a happy holiday season to you.


As long as it's not your ox being gored, your ok with it? What happened to compassion and tolerance from the left? Ah, yes, only when it applies to themselves and those that agree with them! Like our banter here!!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> As long as it's not your ox being gored, your ok with it? What happened to compassion and tolerance from the left? Ah, yes, only when it applies to themselves and those that agree with them! Like our banter here!!


To expect tolerance and compassion you must be willing to also give it. The words sexual deviant don't say tolerance to me.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

JeffreyD said:


> As long as it's not your ox being gored, your ok with it? What happened to compassion and tolerance from the left? Ah, yes, only when it applies to themselves and those that agree with them! Like our banter here!!


Show me where I've been intolerant. I've called for no one to be silenced.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

I've noticed that in general liberals who are not uptight about homosexuality focus on love, conservatives who oppose seem fixated on sex.


----------



## Guest (Dec 24, 2013)

Tiempo said:


> I've noticed that in general liberals who are not uptight about homosexuality focus on love, conservatives who oppose seem fixated on sex.


Ever been to a Gay Pride parade? The focus is not on love..it's on genitalia.

..still waiting for an answer regarding how much is too much? Hedonistic float? Naked dancers? How about pro-abortion people with balloons which look like fetuses..? They could pop them in effigy as the float sailed happily down the street...too much???


----------



## WV Farm girl (Nov 26, 2011)

Marriage should be between a Man and a Woman. Period. This country is far more lenient of gay/lesbian behavior than many other countries. Christians are far more forgiving/ accepting then some other religions as well. Don't think so? What's the Muslim stance on homosexuality? Don't think gays would like their fate in that religion to much. 
I do not believe in the gay lifestyle. I find it Wrong. Don't flaunt it at me and we can get along just fine however. I won't judge them. HE will judge them.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Show me where I've been intolerant. I've called for no one to be silenced.


You don't like my opinions and those like me! The church you mentioned, for example!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

WV Farm girl said:


> Marriage should be between a Man and a Woman. Period. This country is far more lenient of gay/lesbian behavior than many other countries. Christians are far more forgiving/ accepting then some other religions as well. Don't think so? What's the Muslim stance on homosexuality? Don't think gays would like their fate in that religion to much.
> I do not believe in the gay lifestyle. I find it Wrong. Don't flaunt it at me and we can get along just fine however. I won't judge them. HE will judge them.


I don't believe in religion, should I expect it not to be flaunted? No religious displays, all inside of closed doors?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Tiempo said:


> I've noticed that in general liberals who are not uptight about homosexuality focus on love, conservatives who oppose seem fixated on sex.


You see what you want to see.
Your not looking very closely then! It's the sex being forced upon us! That's all!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

JeffreyD said:


> You don't like my opinions and those like me! The church you mentioned, for example!


And yet I respect your right to have and voice that opinion just as I respect the church's right to post what they wish on their sign. The burden is on me as to whether I read it or not just as the burden is on you whether you watch the Rose Parade( or that small portion you find offensive) or not.


----------



## Guest (Dec 24, 2013)

OOH yes !! NAMBLA should have their very own float !!!!! :buds:


----------



## snowcap (Jul 1, 2011)

I am a Christian Constitutionalist.
As such I beleive in God, But I don't Think I am god.
When the time comes those that need judge will be.
The constitution equality clause is what it is.
If you children ask, do you best to tell them that some people that are different are getting married, but also let them know what you beleive in. But be careful that you love every one even those you can't see as perfect. You don't want to give your kids the idea that you'll disown them if they are notperfect. The loss of a relationship with your child is not worth it.
Just to let every one know I worded this the best I could. If it's not worded perfectly. well I tryed.


----------



## Guest (Dec 24, 2013)

How about a capital punishment float? People could watch as convicted criminals are put to death..one every few blocks or so..

Birth Control float??? Giant condoms waving in the air..foam contraceptive sprayed over the riders? 

Twerking float !!! Young people with giant foam fingers gyrating on top of a float made to look like a strip club floor...

Of course, everyone would want their children exposed to any of these things..yes??? .......


----------



## Guest (Dec 24, 2013)

C'mon liberals..what is too much?? anything??????


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> And yet I respect your right to have and voice that opinion just as I respect the church's right to post what they wish on their sign. The burden is on me as to whether I read it or not just as the burden is on you whether you watch the Rose Parade( or that small portion you find offensive) or not.


If I'm at the parade, I really don't have a choice.......that's the problem. 80 million is a lot of viewers, some are going to be surprised, that's OK with you? You don't have to drive by that church either! Why does the gay agenda have to be forced on people that don't support that lifestyle choice?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> If I'm at the parade, I really don't have a choice.......that's the problem. 80 million is a lot of viewers, some are going to be surprised, that's OK with you? You don't have to drive by that church either! Why does the gay agenda have to be forced on people that don't support that lifestyle choice?


They have religious floats in the Rose parade, that means I don,t have a choice if you don't have a choice.


----------



## lindamarie (Jul 9, 2013)

We have become a nation of shock and awe. Each side trying to outdo and one up the other. In the process, most is cheapened.


----------



## Guest (Dec 25, 2013)

OK..religious floats..

The bible float..people will march along side of it, singing hymns and passing out bibles..THIS should go over BIG...explain to the children how all else BUT this needs to be tolerated in the name of "diversity"..

The Westboro Baptist hate float...lovely thing for the children!!!! Chants over loud speakers telling the children their parents are going to burn in hell for voting for gay marriage....

VOODOO float !!! Let's all explain to our children why they need to tolerate being sprinkled with chicken blood along the parade route..

Islam Extremist float !! That's the ticket !!!! explain to the children the centuries-old call for death to all infidels..what FUN !!!!!!!

any of these over the top yet ????


----------



## WV Farm girl (Nov 26, 2011)

Painterswife. You are free to like or not like what you will. I am a sinner, but I ask God to forgive my sins and I admit them, not try to convince others that I am right to live sinfully. 
I also would rather live my life like there IS a God and learn at the end that I was wrong, rather than live like there is No God and at the end learn differently. However, it's your soul, it's their soul, each of you can do as you will, but don't expect me to pat you on the back and say "it's all ok, you are right in your lifestyle".


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

WV Farm girl said:


> Painterswife. You are free to like or not like what you will. I am a sinner, but I ask God to forgive my sins and I admit them, not try to convince others that I am right to live sinfully.
> I also would rather live my life like there IS a God and learn at the end that I was wrong, rather than live like there is No God and at the end learn differently. However, it's your soul, it's their soul, each of you can do as you will, but don't expect me to pat you on the back and say "it's all ok, you are right in your lifestyle".


I don,t expect you to pat anyone on the back. However if you have a right than so does everyone else. I expect you to respect the right. I don't expect you to respect anything else.


----------



## TedH71 (Jan 19, 2003)

Actually numerous European countries do have legal gay marriages. We're just behind the loop when it comes to it.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

TedH71 said:


> Actually numerous European countries do have legal gay marriages. We're just behind the loop when it comes to it.


And some just passed new laws banning them! Maybe we're a head of them, we are in so many other ways! Well, at least we used to be!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

JeffreyD said:


> If I'm at the parade, I really don't have a choice.......that's the problem. 80 million is a lot of viewers, some are going to be surprised, that's OK with you? You don't have to drive by that church either! Why does the gay agenda have to be forced on people that don't support that lifestyle choice?


Sure you do. You can turn around and talk to the folks behind you for the duration of what you disapprove of. I assume you have eyelids which are capable of closing and blocking input. The only other routes into town would involve detours of 5 to 15 miles which, given gas prices, would exact an economic burden. The simplest choice for for me is to ignore the sign. I don't really see it as a big issue. Why does the religous agenda need to forced on those who don't make that lifestyle choice?


----------



## Guest (Dec 25, 2013)

painterswife said:


> I don,t expect you to pat anyone on the back. However if you have a right than so does everyone else. I expect you to respect the right. I don't expect you to respect anything else.


Well there ya go !!!!!!! So everyone has a "right" ...AHHH !! Promote Pedophilia float !!!!
Bestiality lovers float.....wheeeeeee... these should all be welcomed into the parade according to your logic..

is there no topic whch is too much ??? None in such poor taste which would have liberals say, "enough"???????


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

bostonlesley said:


> Well there ya go !!!!!!! So everyone has a "right" ...AHHH !! Promote Pedophilia float !!!!
> Bestiality lovers float.....wheeeeeee... these should all be welcomed into the parade according to your logic..
> 
> is there no topic whch is too much ??? None in such poor taste which would have liberals say, "enough"???????


None of those nor anything else you've mentioned are my choice to make. Those choices are made by the parade organizers. Some I find objectionable and I might well voice those objections. If enough did the committee might well not allow those floats. That would also be well within their rights. I would still have the same choices available to me. I could choose to watch- or not.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

bostonlesley said:


> Well there ya go !!!!!!! So everyone has a "right" ...AHHH !! Promote Pedophilia float !!!!
> Bestiality lovers float.....wheeeeeee... these should all be welcomed into the parade according to your logic..
> 
> is there no topic whch is too much ??? None in such poor taste which would have liberals say, "enough"???????


Each person has their own point at where it is too much within the bounds of what is legal. Each person gets to decide for themselves what will make them watch or not watch the parade.

The people who run the parade get to decide what is too much for them. Don't like what they have decided then tell them. Others will be telling them if they like it.

You would like to make this about liberals but it is about individuals make their own choices. You just happen to be labeling them.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> None of those nor anything else you've mentioned are my choice to make. Those choices are made by the parade organizers. Some I find objectionable and I might well voice those objections. If enough did the committee might well not allow those floats. That would also be well within their rights. I would still have the same choices available to me. I could choose to watch- or not.


Great minds:rock::rock:


----------



## Guest (Dec 25, 2013)

painterswife said:


> Each person has their own point at where it is too much within the bounds of what is legal. Each person gets to decide for themselves what will make them watch or not watch the parade.
> 
> The people who run the parade get to decide what is too much for them. Don't like what they have decided then tell them. Others will be telling them if they like it.
> 
> You would like to make this about liberals but it is about individuals make their own choices. You just happen to be labeling them.


You bet  I am labeling them...the MAJORITY COMMUNITY used to determine the standards of morality as a group..now the activists shove immorality down the throats of the community via the liberal justice system.. There is no moral compass..it's "all good"..relativism abounds...
The "each person" decides philosophy flies in the face of a few thousand years of civilization...IF "each person" can act upon his own mores and values as he chooses, throw out all of the laws..anarchy is the ONLY inevitable result of that train of thought.

Do be careful what you ask for..


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

painterswife said:


> Great minds:rock::rock:


As much fun as I've had with this I have to be off to spoil the grandkids soon. Have a great holiday everyone, no matter what you celebrate or don't.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

bostonlesley said:


> You bet  I am labeling them...the MAJORITY COMMUNITY used to determine the standards of morality as a group..now the activists shove immorality down the throats of the community via the liberal justice system.. There is no moral compass..it's "all good"..relativism abounds...
> The "each person" decides philosophy flies in the face of a few thousand years of civilization...IF "each person" can act upon his own mores and values as he chooses, throw out all of the laws..anarchy is the ONLY inevitable result of that train of thought.
> 
> Do be careful what you ask for..


Yes and that moral majority used to deny interracial marriages, the women's vote and made African Americans ride at the back of the bus.


----------



## snowcap (Jul 1, 2011)

lindamarie said:


> We have become a nation of shock and awe. Each side trying to outdo and one up the other. In the process, most is cheapened.


And the children are getting stuck in the middle.


----------



## snowcap (Jul 1, 2011)

Went on line to see cheerleaders, I didn't see any dressed in underpants. And they were at a football game not a Christmas parade. That's a big difference. People have an idea whats up at the football game. There was no warning at the parade. Thats the difference. Even the dancers knew they were in the wrong place and could have tamed their dance down. But chose not to.
http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2013/12...dance-groups-routine-during-christmas-parade/

The site must have decided the clothes they were wearing was too much because they deleated it.


----------



## Win07_351 (Dec 7, 2008)

Satan is using the same sex marriage agenda to undermine God's origionial design for the family and to bring division. You can see just by reading this thread how much contention arises just among several posters.


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

Win07_351 said:


> Satan is using the same sex marriage agenda to undermine God's origionial design for the family and to bring division. You can see just by reading this thread how much contention arises just among several posters.


The original intent was why Abraham had a child through his wife's servant??? IIRC the garden of Eden originally didn't have much more than God giving Adam a good ribbing.

If you are attempting to wield a sword, it makes sense to read the instructions and hold it by the handle. There are too many stories of people falling on their swords...


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> I googled:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Obviously because it was not made into a big deal. The biggest gay rodeo is held in my home town and again, no big deal because the media has no interest because the public doesn't go all squirrelly up here. 

The media is only successful in turning these thing into a circus if the public feeds off it


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

snowcap said:


> The parents aren't going to have a choice but to explain, but at the right age and time. Gay people would want the same thing.
> 2 people on a float I can get over, but if gays want that acceptance their going to have to put pressure on the overt sexual dancing. The dance team needs to learn different coreography and keep different outfits for family orientated gatherings.
> I can't tie them to Rocky horror story to this sorry. I watched it and don't see the correlation.


I do understand your confusion. Stereotype is incredibly difficult to abandon, as it often is an easy response to otherwise complex questions and issues.

Parades. The reasons for early parades were to show military might and to show public support of religious events. You can wander back through most history books and find those themes. Marching soldiers through a city makes people understand the power of those in control. Marching religious icons through a city does much the same. Current day parades built upon those concepts.

Parades often were followed by camp followers and acolytes and then the general public. Those with money and power proved their power with marching groups and floats. Witness Mardi Gras. Parades weren't always feel good events, and disruptive people being clubbed wasn't uncommon. Look up the Irish/English disputes and Orange men.

Christmas parades in the U.S. are only marginally religious, and are primarily sales tools by retailers. The "MACY's Thanksgiving day parade" celebrating the start of the shopping season for Christmas and the installation of Santa on a throne - instead of at Gimbals. The Rose (bowl) parade has even less religious iconography. The very idea that there are "themes" for various years denies any overarching "cause" other than participants wanting to outdo each other.

People who take children to such events are inculcating a sense of wonder at the excesses of mercantile competition. The very concept of exposing a child to a celebrated commercialized Santa Claus instead of the birth of a Christ is in itself an abomination against any original religious intent. We have become used to it and now celebrate it and think it "normal."

For people to buy into (literally) the idea of a gift giving Santa over-riding any greater significance is morally inept to say the least. "Oh look Johnny, SANTA will be in the parade!!!" _Not_ "We are watching people walk down the street to celebrate a birth ..." The hypocrisy gets to be stunning. 

The outrage in some of the posts here reminds me of someone going into a club with nude dancing and exclaiming "OH HORRORS!!! They are selling liquor and cigarettes!!!"

Here is the clue - your "holy" parade was long ago corrupted beyond any concept of sacred event. As an icon, it reflects the current state of business, merchants, special interest groups, and group-mind. You can't polish a manure pile and expect it to be high art.

Next, there is the fun of the male dancers. Say as you will, the backstory article and photos on AL.com show that they WORK to create a choreographed dance routine. You might not like the result, but that is your taste. From the story, they only got together because they were denied being on cheer-leading squads. 

Their only real offense is in their unintentionally destroying a group fantasy of a commercialized white bearded socialist flying through the sky to the accompaniment of U.S. fighter jets, coming down chimneys and whatever openings are available and leaving presents built in China to U.S. kids with parents rich enough to afford them.


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

Tiempo said:


>




Well in Missouri they don't need a reason to fire anyone so Missouri is nul and void on this map.

big rockpile


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

bostonlesley said:


> Well there ya go !!!!!!! So everyone has a "right" ...AHHH !! Promote Pedophilia float !!!!
> Bestiality lovers float.....wheeeeeee... these should all be welcomed into the parade according to your logic..
> 
> is there no topic whch is too much ??? None in such poor taste which would have liberals say, "enough"???????


 Lets just put it this way they are wanting to flaunt their abnormal lifestyle trying to say it is normal :facepalm:

big rockpile


----------



## lindamarie (Jul 9, 2013)

Nativity scene in town square wrong but this okay? And I'm not even a conservative Christian Christian.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

The Rose Parade is a New Year festival parade that's been going strong since 1890, a celebration of flowers, horses, music and football. It's not about religious celebrations, war or people's moral or sexual sensitivities. The organizers are a non-profit organization called the Pasadena Tournament of Roses Association and they can do with it as they see fit. It's nobody else's business what kind of themes the organization sets for the parade and if some people don't like what are on some of the floats they don't have to watch it.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

lindamarie said:


> Nativity scene in town square wrong but this okay? And I'm not even a conservative Christian Christian.


You get to decide what is right for you, you don't get to decide what is right for someone else.


----------



## snowcap (Jul 1, 2011)

painterswife said:


> You get to decide what is right for you, you don't get to decide what is right for someone else.


But you do?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Fennick said:


> The Rose Parade is a New Year festival parade that's been going strong since 1890, a celebration of flowers, horses, music and football. It's not about religious celebrations, war or people's moral or sexual sensitivities. The organizers are a non-profit organization called the Pasadena Tournament of Roses Association and they can do with it as they see fit. It's nobody else's business what kind of themes the organization sets for the parade and if some people don't like what are on some of the floats they don't have to watch it.


They also don't have to cave to the PC crowd and present something that millions of folks don't want to see! What about the folks with kids that won't know about that float until the announcers start talking about it? They just have to "suck it up"? I don't think so. This gayness is getting to be to much. I used to not care, now I'm writing, calling, donating to those that are willing to stand up to this deviant behavior!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

snowcap said:


> But you do?


I think I was pretty clear about what I meant.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

I doubt the organization worries about what millions of people do or do not want to see. They don't consult with the public about what the public wants and the public doesn't get to tell the Rose Association what they want to see. 

The Association has had 125 years experience with deciding for themselves what THEY want to present in THEIR New Year parade. If some people in the public don't like it they don't have to watch it, they can walk away, but they have no say in what the Rose Association decides to present. 

If you want to have some say in what is in the Rose Parade you will need to join their Association and be a dedicated contributing member of the community. You will need to live in the community of Pasadena and you must have a reputation for integrity, reliability, dependability, commitment and dedication. Members are required to devote many hours of time and effort to perform the designated task at the time required. They must demonstrate they are interested in community service as evidenced by involvement in professional, civic, service, political and community organizations in accordance with the Association.

If you are unable to fulfill all of the above requirements then all your efforts at writing, calling, donating to those that are willing to stand up and object to the Association's contributions to the community will be wasted efforts.


----------



## snowcap (Jul 1, 2011)

painterswife said:


> I think I was pretty clear about what I meant.


That's what gets me about the left, they are so defensive they are are becoming bullies. Bullies get little to no support if that's what they want , cool.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Fennick said:


> I doubt the organization worries about what millions of people do or do not want to see. They don't consult with the public about what the public wants and the public doesn't get to tell the Rose Association what they want to see.
> 
> The Association has had 125 years experience with deciding for themselves what THEY want to present in THEIR New Year parade. If some people in the public don't like it they don't have to watch it, they can walk away, but they have no say in what the Rose Association decides to present.
> 
> ...


I must make it clear, it's not the Rose Parade assoc. I'm going against, it's any group that promotes homosexuality! I know several folks that have been on their board for years, I was told that they didn't know about this until just a few weeks ago! Any effort I take to oppose something I don't agree with is never a wasted effort, only those that wish to stop me would say something like that!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

snowcap said:


> That's what gets me about the left, they are so defensive they are are becoming bullies. Bullies get little to no support if that's what they want , cool.


I am defensive because I think I already made myself clear. That is a new one. Taking that one step further and saying that makes me a bully is ludicrous.


----------



## lindamarie (Jul 9, 2013)

I wasn't really deciding for anyone. I was just pointing out how absolutely ludicrous this country has become. I don't really care who someone loves and/or marries. But, I bet there's a lot of folks who want no religious symbols anywhere and then get bent out of shape when a church refuses to marry them. There are bigots on both sides, plenty to go around.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

lindamarie said:


> I wasn't really deciding for anyone. I was just pointing out how absolutely ludicrous this country has become. I don't really care who someone loves and/or marries. But, I bet there's a lot of folks who want no religious symbols anywhere and then get bent out of shape when a church refuses to marry them. There are bigots on both sides, plenty to go around.


There are bigots on both sides. However no one who wants no religious symbols is going to ask a church to marry them.


----------



## lindamarie (Jul 9, 2013)

I was raised a catholic and I will admit that I don't read the bible, but it does make mention of homosexuality being a sin if I remember correctly. I could be wrong, so many people have their own interpretations of the bible. But.....there are gays who want to be married in a church and get upset when that church does not to perform the ceremony. So I guess you could say that if they are not following what the bible says why would they want to be married in a church. 

Oh, and btw.....i have a daughter who thinks she might be gay. So please don't accuse me of being closed minded.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

lindamarie said:


> I was raised a catholic and I will admit that I don't read the bible, but it does make mention of homosexuality being a sin if I remember correctly. I could be wrong, so many people have their own interpretations of the bible. But.....there are gays who want to be married in a church and get upset when that church does not to perform the ceremony. So I guess you could say that if they are not following what the bible says why would they want to be married in a church.
> 
> Oh, and btw.....i have a daughter who thinks she might be gay. So please don't accuse me of being closed minded.


Same sex couples wanting to get married in the church is not the same thing as what you talked about earlier. Some churches do same sex ceremonies. I have no problem with same sex couple's fighting to be married by their church. That however is between their church and them. Our laws have already proven that the church can not be required to perform those weddings by our government.
ar


----------



## lindamarie (Jul 9, 2013)

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought a church was a religious symbol. Silly me.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

lindamarie said:


> Oh, I'm sorry. I thought a church was a religious symbol. Silly me.


Someone who loves their church enough to want to get married there will not want no religious symbols. That would mean they are trying to get rid of the church they believe in. You are not talking about the same people.


----------



## lindamarie (Jul 9, 2013)

Is the bible not a religious symbol also. If the bible says homosexuality is a sin, how can a gay couple want to get married in a church. You can't want a church wedding and at the same time go against what the bible says.

It seems like you are trying to twist what I am saying to make it fit what you want.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

lindamarie said:


> Is the bible not a religious symbol also. If the bible says homosexuality is a sin, how can a gay couple want to get married in a church. You can't want a church wedding and at the same time go against what the bible says.
> 
> It seems like you are trying to twist what I am saying to make it fit what you want.


I can't begin to understand why anyone believes anything in the bible or loves their religion even 
if it believes their same sex marriages are a sin. They do however and you will have to ask them why.

I will stand up though for their right to believe what they do just as I stand up for your right to be against it.

Ps lots of churches perform same sex marriages already. I guess people already do want church weddings even if the bible goes against it.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

painterswife said:


> Actually it should have to be explained, just like you should explain the difference between dating and marriage.


Am I within my rights to explain that it is sinful behavior........or would I be accused of being a hater/homophobic/bigot etc.?

I fully support an individual's right to be homosexual/live a homosexual lifestyle. What I don't support is the current push to have it accepted by society as normal behavior, since it has been considered as abnormal behavior for thousands of years.......not merely for religious reasons but anatomical reasons.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> Am I within my rights to explain that it is sinful behavior........or would I be accused of being a hater/homophobic/bigot etc.?
> 
> I fully support an individual's right to be homosexual/live a homosexual lifestyle. What I don't support is the current push to have it accepted by society as normal behavior, since it has been considered as abnormal behavior for thousands of years.......not merely for religious reasons but anatomical reasons.


Of course you are. People also have the right to believe and say that you are a hater or homophobic. I would hope that they had a discussion with you and got to know you and your beliefs and reasons before they labeled you but I can't control them and I have no right to.


----------



## lindamarie (Jul 9, 2013)

I am not against gays. I have a problem with hypocrisy. I have a problem with people flaunting what they want in the face of everyone else. I don't care whether gay or straight, fat or thin, etc. Some things should still be held sacred and not made a mockery, reality show or shock and awe spectacle. 

Marriage, whether gay or straight, should be a time to profess a couples love for and towards one another. It should be a celebration, not a circus, parade, rodeo, or roller coaster event. 

It seems like nothing is special in a simple way anymore. Everything has to be flaunted. Heck, have you looked at what's out there for kids? Infant and toddler clothes with suggestive messages, skimpy clothes for grade school girls. Visit the toy dept and check out the dolls. Some people are still a little old fashioned. Some people still have hopes for the family. 

Why is anything sexual, whether gay or straight put on display and something as simple ad a nativity scene not allowed. Maybe Mary should show a little more leg and cleavage. Or maybe we could have a lesiban couple. Would that be better for the uber liberals and the gay crowd? Next thing you know someone will complain because Mary and Joseph are white.

I'm done ranting. I am so tired of trying to live in a PC world.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

lindamarie said:


> I am not against gays. I have a problem with hypocrisy. I have a problem with people flaunting what they want in the face of everyone else. I don't care whether gay or straight, fat or thin, etc. Some things should still be held sacred and not made a mockery, reality show or shock and awe spectacle.
> 
> Marriage, whether gay or straight, should be a time to profess a couples love for and towards one another. It should be a celebration, not a circus, parade, rodeo, or roller coaster event.
> 
> ...


They already do complain that Mary and Joseph are depicted as white, when history shows that they were most likely not.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

JeffreyD said:


> I must make it clear, it's not the Rose Parade assoc. I'm going against, it's any group that promotes homosexuality! I know several folks that have been on their board for years, I was told that they didn't know about this until just a few weeks ago! Any effort I take to oppose something I don't agree with is never a wasted effort, only those that wish to stop me would say something like that!


 And if there is enough uproar about this sort of thing taking place in the parade those that want to do such a thing And parade themselves in front of millions saying Look at Us Two same sex dudes getting wed as a spectacle will not be asked to come back next year. Simple as that.


----------



## Raymond James (Apr 15, 2013)

"Next thing you know someone will complain because Mary and Joseph are white."


Mary and Joseph who? I hope you are joking or are talking about a Mary and Joseph other than the parents of Christ. 

They were Jewish. Middle eastern, black hair, olive completion You know the same features /complexion that Jesus had. Thus the need for Judas to kiss Jesus in the garden for the soldiers to know which one was Jesus. Otherwise they could have just arrested the white guy. 

Seriously hope you were joking.


----------



## lindamarie (Jul 9, 2013)

Have you looked at most pictures and statues of Mary and Joseph, they look white. Every catholic church I've been in Mary has looked white. What I was trying to get across was they are not portrayed as German, Asian, Inuit, etc.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

lindamarie said:


> Have you looked at most pictures and statues of Mary and Joseph, they look white. Every catholic church I've been in Mary has looked white. What I was trying to get across was they are not portrayed as German, Asian, Inuit, etc.


You do know that they would not be white though?


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

> You can't want a church wedding and at the same time go against what the bible says.


Sure you can. Lots of people do. We had a church wedding but not because of anything written in the bible. We wanted a church wedding because a church is a house of God and is in the sight of God first and foremost. We wanted to be married in the sight of God in a house of God therefore any church is sacrosanct no matter what people's relilgion may or may not be. We wrote our own vows and ensured that the officiating minister would make no mention of the bible or any other holy book and no mention of the god of any specific religion.

The church we got married in promotes the following Principles. You'll see there's nothing there about the bible or any specific religion or about homosexuality.


The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
The goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice for all;
Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.


----------



## lindamarie (Jul 9, 2013)

painterswife said:


> You do know that they would not be white though?


Yes, I do know they were not white. Just for the record I am not stupid.

Btw......do you plan on commenting on everything I post, are you trying to provoke? I think I finally understand why the right would get so frustrated with liberals. They just keep baiting and pushing.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

lindamarie said:


> Yes, I do know they were not white. Just for the record I am not stupid.
> 
> Btw......do you plan on commenting on everything I post, are you trying to provoke? I think I finally understand why the right would get so frustrated with liberals. They just keep baiting and pushing.


You are posting in a thread I am interested in. I have not followed you out of this thread so the answer would be no I am not commenting on everything you post.


----------



## snowcap (Jul 1, 2011)

Many of todays churchs are about money, so I wouldn't go to one , let alone get married in one.
One of the songs we learned in church was about us all being gods children.


----------



## HomesteadPhil (Dec 10, 2012)

Equal rights, not special rights. If we can achieve this we will be a greater society.


----------



## snowcap (Jul 1, 2011)

HomesteadPhil said:


> Equal rights, not special rights. If we can achieve this we will be a greater society.


That yet to be seen. Suing some one for not baking a cake is going too far. Then they wonder why we are cautious about them.
The cordenator of the Alabama parade said she was afraid to refuse the dancers participation ,they might sue. Even they knew the didn't belong.
The actions of some gays are to unpredictable for parents. I don't blame the for being nervous.


----------



## 355946 (Mar 23, 2013)

lindamarie said:


> Nativity scene in town square wrong but this okay? And I'm not even a conservative Christian Christian.



The public square is government property so there can't be religion advertised there, per the Constitution; a parade is not a government activity.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

PatriciaK said:


> The public square is government property so there can't be religion advertised there, per the Constitution; a parade is not a government activity.


A nativity scene is perfectly acceptable on public land. What is not acceptable is having one while excluding other forms of expression. I was a bit disappointed to miss the Airing of the Grievances at the state capital last week.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

HomesteadPhil said:


> Equal rights, not special rights. If we can achieve this we will be a greater society.



Canada has that pretty well sorted out and we don't see the over the top, in your face behaviour.


----------



## Guest (Dec 26, 2013)

wr said:


> Canada has that pretty well sorted out and we don't see the over the top, in your face behaviour.


Perhaps you might like to visit San Franscisco and have lunch in the community where gays lobbied sucessfully to be able to walk around nude and to be seated nude in area cafes and restaurants..

Personally, I wish that Texas would emulate Quebec..divorce itself from the rest of the country, and make it's own rules...


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

> Perhaps you might like to visit San Franscisco and have lunch in the community where gays lobbied sucessfully to be able to walk around nude and to be seated nude in area cafes and restaurants..


Which was overturned. It is not legal.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> A nativity scene is perfectly acceptable on public land. What is not acceptable is having one while excluding other forms of expression. I was a bit disappointed to miss the Airing of the Grievances at the state capital last week.


Is it OK for all the other religions to push the Christians out? It was done to a nativity scene that had been displayed in Santa Monica for decades! Was that ok?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Tiempo said:


> Which was overturned. It is not legal.


They still do it tho! I asked my niece and nephew who live there! They also don't like the smell of bacon there either!!!!!


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

bostonlesley said:


> Perhaps you might like to visit San Franscisco and have lunch in the community where gays lobbied sucessfully to be able to walk around nude and to be seated nude in area cafes and restaurants..
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I wish that Texas would emulate Quebec..divorce itself from the rest of the country, and make it's own rules...



Unless I have missed something in the last couple days, Quebec has neither divorced or separated from Canada. They do have some unique laws regarding language and culture but it's still part of Canada and functions pretty much like the rest of the provinces - unique but part of the whole.

As for nude dining, I don't see that happening up hear because it contravenes our health board regulations. 

The point I was originally making was that in Canada, we allow for equal but not special rights, which prevents one group from that kind of behaviour.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

JeffreyD said:


> Is it OK for all the other religions to push the Christians out? It was done to a nativity scene that had been displayed in Santa Monica for decades! Was that ok?


No more ok than it is for Christian nativity scenes to push out other forms of expression. Santa Monica held a lottery for the display sights in question. In a remarkable display of Christian tolerance most of the non-Christian displays were vandalized. The city decided to shut down the displays in the ocean side park citing cost concerns, a decision they claimed to have been contemplating for years. Saving tax payer money is good, right.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> No more ok than it is for Christian nativity scenes to push out other forms of expression. Santa Monica held a lottery for the display sights in question. In a remarkable display of Christian tolerance most of the non-Christian displays were vandalized. The city decided to shut down the displays in the ocean side park citing cost concerns, a decision they claimed to have been contemplating for years. Saving tax payer money is good, right.


That is the one, but you left out some finer points. That Santa Monica Nativity scene had been in that spot for decades. One man, an athiest, didn't like that fact that it was there and sued the city!(how very tollerent of him)

"The controversy over Santa Monicaâs nativity displays goes back to 2010, when Damon Vix, 44, a movie set builder and avowed atheist, applied for virtually all of the spaces the city allocates for so-called âWinter Displays.â Vix was allowed space for 14 booths but only put up one: a chain-link fence and a quote from Thomas Jefferson that read: âReligions are all alike â founded upon fables and mythologies.â

How very tolerant of him!

"In 2011, the city changed the applications process from first come, first served to a lottery system. The display area was divided into 21 spots for which applicants could apply for nine each. The Santa Monica Nativity Scenes Committee accuses Vix of recruiting other non-religious groups to apply for as many spots as possible. As a result, the organization says, the city gave 18 of the 21 allotted spots to secular groups, which used the booths for allegedly anti-religious messages. The nativity scenes group won two spaces and a Jewish group got one."

"But in her ruling, Judge Collins noted that the ban was not specific just to the nativity committee and that it applied to all groups interested in creating a display in Palisades Park. She also found that the cityâs blanket ban didnât pick sides between religious and secular displays. She further found that the ban was not instituted because of any problem the council found with the content of the nativity sceneâs displays."

Now there is no display at all! How very tollerant!

Since 1953, visitors to Palisades Park in Santa Monica, Calif., would always be greeted by a biblical depiction of the birth of Jesus during the holiday season.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/11/26/just-in-time-for-christmas-judge-upholds-nativity-scene-ban/


----------



## Guest (Dec 26, 2013)

wr said:


> Unless I have missed something in the last couple days, Quebec has neither divorced or separated from Canada. They do have some unique laws regarding language and culture but it's still part of Canada and functions pretty much like the rest of the provinces - unique but part of the whole.
> 
> As for nude dining, I don't see that happening up hear because it contravenes our health board regulations.
> 
> The point I was originally making was that in Canada, we allow for equal but not special rights, which prevents one group from that kind of behaviour.


I was making a reference to the long-standing quest by Quebec to return to their independent status...as summarized here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/10/23/marois-harper-quebec-sovereignty_n_4152358.html

Texas is certainly large enough, and like Quebec has the resources to divorce the rest of it's neighbors without breathing hard. and be an independent nation...one like the United States used to be, founded upon Judeo-Christian laws and morality. Let the rest of the country embrace immorality and relativism..

Nude buttocks and genitalia on public seating violate our public health laws too.. the gays involved don't care...they do it anyway..


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> No more ok than it is for Christian nativity scenes to push out other forms of expression. Santa Monica held a lottery for the display sights in question. In a remarkable display of Christian tolerance most of the non-Christian displays were vandalized. The city decided to shut down the displays in the ocean side park citing cost concerns, a decision they claimed to have been contemplating for years. Saving tax payer money is good, right.


Do you have any proof as to who vandalized the displays? Some might think it was disgruntled Christains, some might think it was the athiests!

Yes, saving taxpayers is most always a good thing, but the city didn't pay for anything for decades, only when it became necessary because of complaints by mr. Vix!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

JeffreyD said:


> That is the one, but you left out some finer points. That Santa Monica Nativity scene had been in that spot for decades. One man, an athiest, didn't like that fact that it was there and sued the city!(how very tollerent of him)
> 
> "The controversy over Santa Monicaâs nativity displays goes back to 2010, when Damon Vix, 44, a movie set builder and avowed atheist, applied for virtually all of the spaces the city allocates for so-called âWinter Displays.â Vix was allowed space for 14 booths but only put up one: a chain-link fence and a quote from Thomas Jefferson that read: âReligions are all alike â founded upon fables and mythologies.â
> 
> ...


Its a nice post but it disproves nothing I said, in fact it reinforces much of it. Please note that the judge's ruling explicitly dismisses religion as a reason for displays being cancelled in that particular park. There are no displays in that park due to the city's concerns over cost and damage to the park. There are many other parks in Santa Monica where displays are allowed. I am glad you included the Jefferson quote.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

JeffreyD said:


> Do you have any proof as to who vandalized the displays? Some might think it was disgruntled Christains, some might think it was the athiests!
> 
> Yes, saving taxpayers is most always a good thing, but the city didn't pay for anything for decades, only when it became necessary because of complaints by mr. Vix!


Some might think it space aliens.

According to a spokesman for the city the discussion to discontinue the displays had been contemplated for many years before these incidents.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Some might think it space aliens.
> 
> According to a spokesman for the city the discussion to discontinue the displays had been contemplated for many years before these incidents.


It hadn't been a problem until mr. Vix decided to make it one! Decades of no complaints, then a guy moves in who is a greedy hater, and ruins it for everybody! That's the way it was! Plan and simple! No compassion or tolerance for anyone but himself!!!


----------



## Guest (Dec 28, 2013)

here's a Facebook link for those who would care to add their voice to those who are against this public display..
https://www.facebook.com/BoycottTheRoseParade


----------



## Riverdale (Jan 20, 2008)

What a Kardashian thing to do.......


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

WV Farm girl said:


> Marriage should be between a Man and a Woman. Period. This country is far more lenient of gay/lesbian behavior than many other countries. Christians are far more forgiving/ accepting then some other religions as well. Don't think so? What's the Muslim stance on homosexuality? Don't think gays would like their fate in that religion to much.
> I do not believe in the gay lifestyle. I find it Wrong. Don't flaunt it at me and we can get along just fine however. I won't judge them. HE will judge them.


That is one other religion. What ate tje others?


----------



## edcopp (Oct 9, 2004)

Win07_351 said:


> It is impossible for 2 people of the same sex to be married because through their union they can't become 1 flesh.


The union might help them to get sicness insurance, especially if they are both virgins.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> In case you might have children who will be watching the parades, be aware......
> 
> Gay Couple to Marry on Rose Parade Float


Relax, Tx. I kinda doubt they're going to _consummate_ the marriage atop the float ...


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

bostonlesley said:


> here's a Facebook link for those who would care to add their voice to those who are against this public display..
> https://www.facebook.com/BoycottTheRoseParade


Yes a god thing is happening lately in America. Americas are Finally waking up to In Your Face display by such minority few but those few want the "spotlight" Look at ME, I am "SPECIAL", it is all about that. Well Times is a changing folks this In Your Face type of behavior is about to meet its demise. Time to get back to what this country under. Cause these small few don't just want equal rights, they want "special Rights" and that is not at all what the constitutions is about. Equal is equal but it doesn't mean Special rights.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

arabian knight said:


> Yes a god thing is happening lately in America. Americas are Finally waking up to In Your Face display by such minority few but those few want the "spotlight" Look at ME, I am "SPECIAL", it is all about that. Well Times is a changing folks this In Your Face type of behavior is about to meet its demise. Time to get back to what this country under. Cause these small few don't just want equal rights, they want "special Rights" and that is not at all what the constitutions is about. Equal is equal but it doesn't mean Special rights.


Explain to me exactly what "special right" this couple is claiming. Is it the right to celebrate their legal wedding on a parade float just as three heterosexual couples are doing on another float in the same parade. The constitution is also there to protect the rights of the minority, not just the majority.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Explain to me exactly what "special right" this couple is claiming. Is it the right to celebrate their legal wedding on a parade float just as three heterosexual couples are doing on another float in the same parade. The constitution is also there to protect the rights of the minority, not just the majority.


Marriage is NOT a right!


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2013)

Scroll to the bottom, see the contact us link, and let them know your opinion.

http://www.tournamentofroses.com/home.aspx


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

JeffreyD said:


> Marriage is NOT a right!


If marriage isn't a right then what is it? 

If it isn't a right then why has it been unrecognized and legally denied to some people but some other people are allowed to get married.

If it isn't a right then why have other people been able to decide who is allowed to get married and who isn't allowed? 

Who are the people that get to decide what is allowed and to decide what is a right and what is not a right?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> Marriage is NOT a right!


It is my understanding that it gay and hetero marriages are both legal in California and I suspect that very few people have been denied a marriage license. 

I do find weddings on floats in a parade to be in poor taste and quite honestly doubt if any of them will make their 5th anniversary but my belief is based on the desire to make their wedding a public spectacle.


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2013)

Paumon said:


> If marriage isn't a right then what is it?
> 
> If it isn't a right then why has it been unrecognized and legally denied to some people but some other people are allowed to get married.
> 
> ...


In our country, the United States Constitution decides what is a "right".


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

bostonlesley said:


> In our country, the United States Constitution decides what is a "right".


Okay. Well, does the constitution say anything about marriage rights and who is or is not permitted license to marry?

If the constitution doesn't say anything about marriage rights then who has established that couples must have _'license'_ to marry? Doesn't _license_ to do something mean the same thing as _right_ to do something?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Paumon said:


> Okay. Well, does the constitution say anything about marriage rights and who is or is not permitted license to marry?
> 
> If the constitution doesn't say anything about marriage rights then who has established that couples must have _'license'_ to marry? Doesn't _license_ to do something mean the same thing as _right_ to do something?


No, you can read our Constitution for yourself and see that no where does it say that marriage is a right! The notion of "marriage" is a religious connotation. The government has taken over and declares that folks need a paper to acknowledge their union! 

There is NO legal right to get married! It's that simple really! If there was, wouldn't I be able to just pick whoever I wanted for a wife whether she liked it or not? A right cannot be limited, if it is, than it's not a right but permission!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> No, you can read our Constitution for yourself and see that no where does it say that marriage is a right! The notion of "marriage" is a religious connotation. The government has taken over and declares that folks need a paper to acknowledge their union!
> 
> There is NO legal right to get married! It's that simple really! If there was, wouldn't I be able to just pick whoever I wanted for a wife whether she liked it or not? A right cannot be limited, if it is, than it's not a right but permission!


Marriage started as and has always been a legal contract about property rights. Marriage in a religious aspect came way after.


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2013)

Paumon said:


> Okay. Well, does the constitution say anything about marriage rights and who is or is not permitted license to marry?
> 
> If the constitution doesn't say anything about marriage rights then who has established that couples must have _'license'_ to marry? Doesn't _license_ to do something mean the same thing as _right_ to do something?


The United States Constitution states emphatically that any power not given to the Federal Government, or the Judicial branch of our government by the Consitution, belongs to EACH state. Thats why each STATE can and does make their own laws about who can marry whom, and at what age, and what paperwork is required, etc. That is why MILLIONS of Americans are angry with Federal judges who are usurping the Constitutional RIGHT of each state to legislate these matters.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights

_*Rights* are legal, social, or ethical __principles__ of __freedom__ or __entitlement__; that is, rights are the fundamental __normative__ rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.[1] Rights are of essential importance in such disciplines as __law__ and __ethics__, especially theories of __justice__ and __deontology__._
_Rights are often considered fundamental to __civilization__, being regarded as established pillars of __society__ and __culture__,[2] and the history of __social conflicts__ can be found in the history of each right and its development. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "rights structure the form of __governments__, the content of __laws__, and the shape of __morality__ as it is currently perceived."[1] *The connection between rights and *__*struggle*__* cannot be overstated &#8212; rights are not as much granted or endowed as they are fought for and claimed, and the essence of struggles past and ancient are encoded in the spirit of current concepts of rights and their modern formulations.*_


Ergo, if gays have been fighting for and claiming the 'right' to be married, then marriage is a right.

Marriage is something that happens in all countries and not all countries have constitutions and not all constitutional countries have the same constitutions as other countries.


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2013)

I cannot, nor would I comment upon the Canadian laws..what you all do up there in Northern North America is none of my business. I can and will comment upon the laws of my own country, as I live under them, and am well-versed in American Civics. 

In America, as, I said, the Constitution defines what "rights" are conferred upon Americans, as well as extended to non-Americans who find themselves within our borders. There is NO Constitutional RIGHT to marriage..


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

edcopp said:


> The union might help them to get sicness insurance, especially if they are both virgins.


Huh??


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

bostonlesley said:


> Scroll to the bottom, see the contact us link, and let them know your opinion.
> 
> http://www.tournamentofroses.com/home.aspx


Thanks, sent a message of support and shared with all my gay and gay friendly friends.


----------



## akane (Jul 19, 2011)

From hanging around on some rather opinionated and strict forums I learned something important. If you have to prevent people (including children) from seeing or hearing something in order to make them follow your beliefs there's a good chance your beliefs aren't right. If you are confident in your opinions and beliefs then it shouldn't matter what the people around you see, read, and hear. They should agree with you anyway. We were not sheltered from anything as children. We were privy to adult conversations, watched any rating of movie we liked, wandered the internet unsupervised.... We didn't grow up to be ax murderers. We grew up to have our own values and opinions that we learned by experiencing everything. It was actually quite disconcerting when my dad, stepmom, and aunt were talking about my uncle leaving his family to be with a man and when I walked in the room they all shut up and stared at me. I'd never been excluded like that and it wasn't like we didn't learn the truth in the end anyway. He's actually my favorite uncle even though we do all agree the actions he took when leaving his family were not the best way to handle it.


----------



## Guest (Dec 30, 2013)

Tiempo said:


> Thanks, sent a message of support and shared with all my gay and gay friendly friends.


You're welcome. I had not stated WHAT opinions should be sent.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

akane said:


> From hanging around on some rather opinionated and strict forums I learned something important. If you have to prevent people (including children) from seeing or hearing something in order to make them follow your beliefs there's a good chance your beliefs aren't right. If you are confident in your opinions and beliefs then it shouldn't matter what the people around you see, read, and hear. They should agree with you anyway. We were not sheltered from anything as children. We were privy to adult conversations, watched any rating of movie we liked, wandered the internet unsupervised.... We didn't grow up to be ax murderers. We grew up to have our own values and opinions that we learned by experiencing everything. It was actually quite disconcerting when my dad, stepmom, and aunt were talking about my uncle leaving his family to be with a man and when I walked in the room they all shut up and stared at me. I'd never been excluded like that and it wasn't like we didn't learn the truth in the end anyway. He's actually my favorite uncle even though we do all agree the actions he took when leaving his family were not the best way to handle it.


Just because your intolerant of opposing views, doesn't mean MY beliefs are wrong. I would hazard a guess the you have no children. I say that because there is plenty that children should NOT see!


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

How many of us have been to a gay marriage ceremony? Just curious.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Noticed the Moonpie Over Mobile has canceled the Prancing Elites being in their parade.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

dixiegal62 said:


> Noticed the Moonpie Over Mobile has canceled the Prancing Elites being in their parade.


Please explain! I Don't know what a moon pie over mobile is!!! Was this "the" float?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

No it isn;t but I guess it is a bunch of cross dressed men "Prancing Around" in skimpy outfits, something like that.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

bostonlesley said:


> I cannot, nor would I comment upon the Canadian laws..what you all do up there in Northern North America is none of my business. I can and will comment upon the laws of my own country, as I live under them, and am well-versed in American Civics.
> 
> In America, as, I said, the Constitution defines what "rights" are conferred upon Americans, as well as extended to non-Americans who find themselves within our borders. There is NO Constitutional RIGHT to marriage..


I'm not sure why you felt you needed to mention it but I'm not concerned about what you do or do not think of any other particular country's laws because other countries are not what we were talking about. We're talking about people's rights and the right for people to get married. Marriage is a global institution. 

A constitution - ANY constitution in ANY country - is not the only institution that confers rights upon its society. The constitution is only one institution and there are several other institutions that also confer rights. The rights that are outlined in your constitution are fairly limited in number by comparison with the rights conferred by many other institutions in your country. A good example is that in some of your states the state laws have conferred certain rights to people that live in those states. Some states have conferred that certain people have the entitlement, or right, to get married and to have their marriages recognized in those states, while in some others of your states they do not. Were any of those states required to consult with your national constitution to determine whether or not they could confer state's right to marriage? I doubt they would because your constitution says nothing about marriage because marriage is a recognized global institution and there is no need for it to be mentioned as a unique right in the constitution.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Instead of a ball dropping on new years eve we have a moonpie  with a parade and festivities


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

What is a moonpie?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Paumon said:


> I'm not sure why you felt you needed to mention it but I'm not concerned about what you do or do not think of any other particular country's laws because other countries are not what we were talking about. We're talking about people's rights and the right for people to get married. Marriage is a global institution.
> 
> A constitution - ANY constitution in ANY country - is not the only institution that confers rights upon its society. The constitution is only one institution and there are several other institutions that also confer rights. The rights that are outlined in your constitution are fairly limited in number by comparison with the rights conferred by many other institutions in your country. A good example is that in some of your states the state laws have conferred certain rights to people that live in those states. Some states have conferred that certain people have the entitlement, or right, to get married and to have their marriages recognized in those states, while in some others of your states they do not. Were any of those states required to consult with your national constitution to determine whether or not they could confer state's right to marriage? I doubt they would because your constitution says nothing about marriage because marriage is a recognized global institution and there is no need for it to be mentioned as a right in the constitution.


The state laws regarding marriage are a very recent thing and not every state recognizes gay marriage. I said it before, marriage is not a right, it is a contract between humans that governments instituted for the benefit of the government. People live together with or without a piece of paper. Does it really make that much of a difference whether their married or not? Shouldn't their love for one another be enough? Just to add, their are rights that our government refuses to allow by force of law....like the 2nd amendment! The government considers me to be a terrorist because I want the government to follow the Constitution and I'm a conservative Christian.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Paumon said:


> What is a moonpie?


 
It's this marvelous invention a creamy marshmallow filling sandwiched with round disks made of graham cracker-ish cookies covered in chocolate Perfect with RC cola. Heaven if nuked in the microwave for 30 seconds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_pie


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Paumon said:


> What is a moonpie?


You ever watch the Simpsons! Just kidding! Do you know what Mallowmars are? 

Marshmallow between to graham cracker type cookies covered in chocolate!


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

No, I don't watch the Simpsons and I don't know what mallowmars are but moonpie sounds good.


----------



## Guest (Dec 30, 2013)

Paumon said:


> I'm not sure why you felt you needed to mention it but I'm not concerned about what you do or do not think of any other particular country's laws because other countries are not what we were talking about. We're talking about people's rights and the right for people to get married. Marriage is a global institution.
> 
> A constitution - ANY constitution in ANY country - is not the only institution that confers rights upon its society. The constitution is only one institution and there are several other institutions that also confer rights. The rights that are outlined in your constitution are fairly limited in number by comparison with the rights conferred by many other institutions in your country. A good example is that in some of your states the state laws have conferred certain rights to people that live in those states. Some states have conferred that certain people have the entitlement, or right, to get married and to have their marriages recognized in those states, while in some others of your states they do not. Were any of those states required to consult with your national constitution to determine whether or not they could confer state's right to marriage? I doubt they would because your constitution says nothing about marriage because marriage is a recognized global institution and there is no need for it to be mentioned as a unique right in the constitution.


Take an American Civics class..It's not a RIGHT, it's a license..as in, license to drive, license to marry, license to be an architect, license to operate a funeral home. SOME of our states have opted to GRANT a license to marry to people of the same sex. MOST states have not. The Constitution gives the POWER to the states to enact legislation concerning anything NOT specifically designated as the function of the Federal government or the Judicial branch by the Constitution. 

States set their OWN laws regarding the license to marry..once again, there is NO "RIGHT" under the Constitution to marry.


----------



## snowcap (Jul 1, 2011)

Children should be allowed to be children and parent should be allowed to decide what is right for their children to see. 
I think Clinton"s DOMA gave Men And woman the right to marry. When it was overturned It gave every one the right to marry.
I have to agree there won't be any thing to explain unless they start their honey moon to soon.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

snowcap said:


> Children should be allowed to be children and parent should be allowed to decide what is right for their children to see.
> I think Clinton"s DOMA gave Men And woman the right to marry. When it was overturned It gave every one the right to marry.
> I have to agree there won't be any thing to explain unless they start their honey moon to soon.



I think even California has laws against honeymooning in public.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

wr said:


> I think even California has laws against honeymooning in public.


Yes, but some ignore it!


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> Yes, but some ignore it!



I doubt very much if this will be one of those times


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

snowcap said:


> Children should be allowed to be children and parent should be allowed to decide what is right for their children to see.
> I think Clinton"s DOMA gave Men And woman the right to marry. When it was overturned It gave every one the right to marry.
> I have to agree there won't be any thing to explain unless they start their honey moon to soon.


The answer is then simple. Don't allow your children to watch what you don't want them to. When my dd was young there were shows (The Simpsons come to mind) that we didn't feel were appropriate. We didn't allow her to watch it. I didn't demand that no one be allowed to see it.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

bostonlesley said:


> Take an American Civics class..It's not a RIGHT, it's a license..as in, license to drive, license to marry, license to be an architect, license to operate a funeral home. SOME of our states have opted to GRANT a license to marry to people of the same sex. MOST states have not. The Constitution gives the POWER to the states to enact legislation concerning anything NOT specifically designated as the function of the Federal government or the Judicial branch by the Constitution.
> 
> States set their OWN laws regarding the license to marry..once again, there is NO "RIGHT" under the Constitution to marry.


But states cannot set the granting of those priviledges in a way contrary to the rights granted in the Constitution.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

Less-is-more said:


> How many of us have been to a gay marriage ceremony? Just curious.


Bueller?

This is a spirited thread but I'd venture to guess that 8/10 of you have not.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Less-is-more said:


> Bueller?
> 
> This is a spirited thread but I'd venture to guess that 8/10 of you have not.


Forgot to answer. I've been to two, a couple more committment ceremonies and I'm hoping to go to San Diego for the wedding of my dd's friend later this year.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

Good. I was beginning to think it was one of those threads where the majority of people posting about how much they hate something, hadn't even experienced it. Thanks Mmoetc.


----------



## Guest (Dec 30, 2013)

Less-is-more said:


> Good. I was beginning to think it was one of those threads where the majority of people posting about how much they hate something, hadn't even experienced it. Thanks Mmoetc.


There are many things in life that I find totally immoral without having to have first experienced them..your mileage , of course, may vary.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Less-is-more said:


> How many of us have been to a gay marriage ceremony? Just curious.


Raises hand. Been to a few but they are commonplace here. They were decorous and in good taste just like most any other kind of wedding. They were private weddings, not making spectacles of themselves.

Just to clarify, I don't have any objections to gay marriages but don't think they or any other kind of wedding should be a public spectacle for making a statement. I think the Rose Parade is an improper venue for anyone's wedding to take place, let alone to have a float with a gay wedding simply to make a statement on behalf of gays.


----------



## 36376 (Jan 24, 2009)

It is not being "accepted" like you believe Tiempo. Tolerated is more like it. The left redefined the word tolerance. just like the word gay. The meaning of the word tolerance for the left is acquiescence. And quite frankly, I'm getting sick of stuff being forced on me to "accept".


----------



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

painterswife said:


> I can't begin to understand why anyone believes anything in the bible or loves their religion even
> if it believes their same sex marriages are a sin. They do however and you will have to ask them why.
> 
> I will stand up though for their right to believe what they do just as I stand up for your right to be against it.
> ...


yes, the Bible does go against homosexual marriage/relationships.

I believe that those that demand a church wedding should be denied. How can one say any different? It is in black and white in the Bible regarding homosexual behavior. Better that those that want a marriage to go to the Justice of the Peace rather than have the Church compromise on what the Bible says.

If you do not believe in the Bible, then by all means, go to the Justice of the Peace. There is no compromise..the Bible does not "suggest" that homosexuality is wrong, it clearly states it. The Bible, if one takes it at face value, is a book that tells people who believe how to live their lives, for better or worse. Those who do believe, seem to take the text at face value.

i personally could care less who marries whom. As long as they do it by a Justice of the Peace, Judge, Captain of a Ship, or other magistrate. I do not hold with being married in a Church. Sorry..the Bible is very clear on this. Can YOU show me in the Bible where it says "*laying with one of the same sex is ok*?" I think not.

The Bible is very clear on the acts of homosexuality:

Leviticus 18:22
"Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin." (NLT)

Leviticus 20:13
"If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense." (NLT)

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Don't you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people-none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (NLT)

1 Timothy 1:8-10
Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine ... (ESV)

Jude 7
And don't forget Sodom and Gomorrah and their neighboring towns, which were filled with immorality and every kind of sexual perversion. Those cities were destroyed by fire and serve as a warning of the eternal fire of God's judgment. (NIV)

So...it is ok by the Bible to join in homosexual behavior? Really? I think not.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Carmen Renee said:


> It is not being "accepted" like you believe Tiempo. Tolerated is more like it. The left redefined the word tolerance. just like the word gay. The meaning of the word tolerance for the left is acquiescence. And quite frankly, I'm getting sick of stuff being forced on me to "accept".


It IS becoming more and more accepted. Maybe not where you live so much, but it certainly is, especially by the younger people across the country and a lot of the world.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

Tiempo said:


> It IS becoming more and more accepted. Maybe not where you live so much, but it certainly is, especially by the younger people across the country and a lot of the world.


I agree, and something happened that surprised me. I recently went to a wedding of a friend of mine who I had grown up with, from church. As I walked in I saw a sea of white hair. I found out later that the bride (my friend) had extended invitations to many of the older people of our church that we had grown up in but was worried they would not come because she was marrying a woman. The fact that they did come...it showed me that while they not be there because they necessarily agreed with it, they were there to support her and her family on her special day. And we grew up in a pretty stoic old-school type of church. Tolerance/acceptance/support?

I've always known she was gay. I met her in 1st grade and just knew very early on that she was different than me. I've seen the heartbreak she went through trying to sort out her feelings and her place in the world, trying to fit into a mold that she simply was not born into. To see her stand there at the altar with the woman who loves her right back, finally happy after all these years, was the best feeling I've had in a long time and I'm proud to call her my friend. 

We only go around this world once and finding that person who truly accepts you for who you are and loves you in spite of it..well, to me, that's what life is about.


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

shamefull


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

You got that right I will just be watching the horses and floats pulled by the horses, and will not watch anybody that is just their making a spectacle out of their so called marriage on national tv. And I BET HGTV the channel I will be watching will not dwell on that float nor I BET they will not be describing it much if at all.
And right now I am watching the pre parade show but that is on RFD-TV and they sure as heck won't mention this shameful act. Not sure what they will do when it comes by them but I BET they will also show a quick glance, if that and go back to horse coverage and details about the different horse acts.


----------



## 36376 (Jan 24, 2009)

Tiempo said:


> It IS becoming more and more accepted. Maybe not where you live so much, but it certainly is, especially by the younger people across the country and a lot of the world.


Thanks to the indoctrination of public schools and the liberal media which DEMANDS that you "accept" it. It is forced upon us. The tail is wagging the dog.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Less-is-more said:


> We only go around this world once and finding that person who truly accepts you for who you are and loves you in spite of it..well, to me, that's what life is about.


I'm glad your friend got such a good turnout of seniors for her wedding and that the couple have much needed support.

I think as time goes by more people will keep up with news and become educated about what science has recently revealed, that homosexuality is not a personal choice but is genetic and in the DNA. They are who they are from before they emerged from the womb. 

Gay people can't change their DNA, they have to go with it but they have just as much right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the next person does. They shouldn't have to hide and deny themselves and be miserable because other people are afraid of people who are different.

I think it's good scientists have discovered the truth and that schools are finally able to teach the truth in their science and biology classes that homosexuality is something inherited in the DNA. Eventually, hopefully in no more than another couple of decades from now, all young people will have been properly educated about it and be more understanding and accepting. All the old people who are so terrified or morally or piously outraged about homosexuality now will have died off or at least gotten so old and doddering their opinions and attempts at persecution will be unimportant and no longer count for anything.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Paumon said:


> I'm glad your friend got such a good turnout of seniors for her wedding and that the couple have much needed support.
> 
> I think as time goes by more people will keep up with news and become educated about what science has recently revealed, that homosexuality is not a personal choice but is genetic and in the DNA. They are who they are from before they emerged from the womb.
> 
> ...


Scientists discovered what? Their is no genetic predisposition to being gay, it is a choice!


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

JeffreyD said:


> Scientists discovered what? Their is no genetic predisposition to being gay, it is a choice!


Well, there's a lot of articles that say otherwise. Here's one that I thought was pretty interesting that states it's genetic: http://io9.com/5967426/scientists-c...ity-is-not-genetic--but-it-arises-in-the-womb as well as a counterpoint: http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/...n-studies-prove-homosexuality-is-not-genetic/

Food for thought though - my friend is gay, but her sister is not. They're identical twins. 

Though I don't have all the answers, I can't help but wonder if certain genes that define a person's sexuality are either turned on or suppressed after the egg split. I think it's fascinating, but I've never personally believed it was a choice, just like I didn't make a choice to be straight. I've always liked boys.  But to each their own. I know we all have our beliefs - I just wanted to share my story and give my 2C.


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

I try to live by the bible I do as good as I can and realize I fall short and ask the Lords forgiveness. When you get into Gods word you begin to realize it is to be taken literally. In regards to homosexual behavior the bible is clear on the subject. I try to live by the bible. I didn't watch the rose bowel parade because of this kind of thing. it doesn't matter what we say or do because we will have to answer to God when we pass on.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Here's another good article about genetic homosexuality, it's from July 2013. It has a bit of information in there about twins too. 

http://genetics.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/homosexuality

Jeffrey, I know that most people have always believed that homosexuality was an aberrant choice rather than genetic, and understandably so because so little has been understood about it. But in the past couple of decades there has been increasingly more scientific evidence that proves otherwise. If you're really interested then take some time to do some sincere research on recent scientific publications and documentaries about genetic homosexuality. It's not just because of one single gene, it's more complicated than that, but when taken altogether the evidence shows that homosexuality is all about DNA, genetic and epigenetic.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Nobody who has seen a homosexual person they care about struggle to hide and hopefully, ultimately be accepted or heartrendingly not be accepted by a family and or community hostile to homosexuality could claim it's a choice.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Less-is-more said:


> I agree, and something happened that surprised me. I recently went to a wedding of a friend of mine who I had grown up with, from church. As I walked in I saw a sea of white hair. I found out later that the bride (my friend) had extended invitations to many of the older people of our church that we had grown up in but was worried they would not come because she was marrying a woman. The fact that they did come...it showed me that while they not be there because they necessarily agreed with it, they were there to support her and her family on her special day. And we grew up in a pretty stoic old-school type of church. Tolerance/acceptance/support?
> 
> I've always known she was gay. I met her in 1st grade and just knew very early on that she was different than me. I've seen the heartbreak she went through trying to sort out her feelings and her place in the world, trying to fit into a mold that she simply was not born into. To see her stand there at the altar with the woman who loves her right back, finally happy after all these years, was the best feeling I've had in a long time and I'm proud to call her my friend.
> 
> We only go around this world once and finding that person who truly accepts you for who you are and loves you in spite of it..well, to me, that's what life is about.


That was a lovely post, thank you for sharing.

Oh, and I love your sig line


----------



## 36376 (Jan 24, 2009)

Post deleted - It was not intended to set anyone up to deny scripture. I apologize - I do not want to be a stumbling block for anyone.


----------



## chickenista (Mar 24, 2007)

Was anyone adversely affected by the parade today??


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Carmen Renee said:


> So supposed science trumps the Bible, correct? We need to know so we can have our story straight on Judgement Day. "But.... But.... the scientists said so!"


Not everyone shares your religion.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Carmen Renee said:


> So supposed science trumps the Bible, correct? We need to know so we can have our story straight on Judgement Day. "But.... But.... the scientists said so!"


Yes. Science trumps the bible.


----------



## 36376 (Jan 24, 2009)

Tiempo said:


> Not everyone shares your religion.


Of course not! But apparently my viewpoint is not valid because I don't AGREE with you. I guess you just had to put me in my place. Thanks for the TOLERANCE and ACCEPTANCE. Not a two-way street is it? I'm not trying to pick a fight, but there is a double standard in play.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Carmen Renee said:


> Of course not! But apparently my viewpoint is not valid because I don't AGREE with you. I guess you just had to put me in my place. Thanks for the TOLERANCE and ACCEPTANCE. Not a two-way street is it? I'm not trying to pick a fight, but there is a double standard in play.


Whoa nellie!!! All she said was that not everyone shares your religion. It's the truth, it's a fact. How can that be interpreted as putting you in your place or being intolerant and unaccepting? Aren't you also being intolerant and unaccepting because of what you believe in and not wanting to hear that not everybody shares your beliefs and your religion?


----------



## 36376 (Jan 24, 2009)

Paumon said:


> Whoa nellie!!! All she said was that not everyone shares your religion. It's the truth, it's a fact. How can that be interpreted as putting you in your place or being intolerant and unaccepting? Aren't you also being intolerant and unaccepting because of what you believe in and not wanting to hear that not everybody shares your religion?


Oh please. I hear not everyone shares my religion every single day by just having the tv on, reading a newspaper, listening to the radio and reading things like this. There is a double standard. You can't say that there isn't. What amazes me is that I'm somehow the intolerant one when I call it as I see it, but you can whoa nelly me and call me intolerant and unaccepting. That's fine. Call me what you will.

You do not know who I have in my life and how I handle things like this. It may surprise you. But I don't believe I would be given the benefit of the doubt. I've probably not handled this very well but you know what? I'm not perfect.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Oh well, none of us are perfect.

I'm made aware of the same thing every day too, that not everyone shares my religion. And many condemn it.

No religion or holy book is worthwhile getting bent out of shape over what other people do with their lives or what they believe in.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> No, you can read our Constitution for yourself and see that no where does it say that marriage is a right! The notion of "marriage" is a religious connotation.


If you study a bit of history, you'll find that the Pilgrims held marriage to be a civil -- not religious -- custom. It's a belief they picked up during their years of living among the Dutch, and continued to embrace following migration to the New World. 

Later, the federal government did not reserve for itself the right to regulate marriage in its Constitution, instead leaving the matter to the states. That is not to say that marriage isn't important -- other weighty matters left to the states to regulate include, for instance, capital punishment.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

chickenista said:


> Was anyone adversely affected by the parade today??


I watched it and didn't even notice the float this is all about.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

JeffreyD said:


> Scientists discovered what? Their is no genetic predisposition to being gay, it is a choice!


Ah it is the same as the so called "Scientists" that say Global Warming is a treat to the world, as right now some of those same "Scientists" are Stuck in the ICE aboard a ship stranded in Antarctica waiting to be rescued. LOL


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

jtbrandt said:


> I watched it and didn't even notice the float this is all about.


It was at the very end and the station I watched was saying the names of who was getting married. It was confusing because there were 2 men and a woman. So I did not know who was getting married and who was doing The marrying. The camera moved away and nothing more was shown. There was a Church float after a Band and basicly the parade ended.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

7thswan said:


> The camera moved away and nothing more was shown. There was a Church float after a Band and basicly the parade ended.


Sounds like a letdown for anyone who watched for the sole purpose of expecting some sort of drama. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytCEuuW2_A


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Fennick said:


> The Rose Parade is a New Year festival parade that's been going strong since 1890, a celebration of flowers, horses, music and football. It's not about religious celebrations, war or people's moral or sexual sensitivities. The organizers are a non-profit organization called the Pasadena Tournament of Roses Association and they can do with it as they see fit. It's nobody else's business what kind of themes the organization sets for the parade and if some people don't like what are on some of the floats they don't have to watch it.


Absolutely true. But in this case, one of the floats presented a subject that isn't exactly suitable for young children. And *that's* the issue I have with it. 

Now, if the organizers and media had made it a point to forewarn the public, then no problem. But I suspect that didn't happen. And I also suspect that some families were caught off-guard and were put in the position of either shielding their childrens' eyes or having to explain why two men were holding hands and kissing on the mouth.......point being, that the parents weren't given the right to choose when to have such a discussion w/ their children.


----------



## Guest (Jan 3, 2014)

chickenista said:


> Was anyone adversely affected by the parade today??


Nope , didn't watch it .


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Txsteader said:


> Absolutely true. But in this case, one of the floats presented a subject that isn't exactly suitable for young children. And *that's* the issue I have with it.
> 
> Now, if the organizers and media had made it a point to forewarn the public, then no problem. But I suspect that didn't happen. And I also suspect that some families were caught off-guard and were put in the position of either shielding their childrens' eyes or having to explain why two men were holding hands and kissing on the mouth.......point being, that the parents weren't given the right to choose when to have such a discussion w/ their children.


I think that a discussion of love, commitment and the value of marriage are appropriate for children of any age. If you don't think discussing the tenets of your religion are appropriate for your young children then that's your decision.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> I think that a discussion of love, commitment and the value of marriage are appropriate for children of any age. If you don't think discussing the tenets of your religion are appropriate for your young children then that's your decision.


Is it your decision to teach MY kids what YOU want them to learn, or is that MY decision to make?


----------



## craftychick (Nov 11, 2013)

JeffreyD said:


> Is it your decision to teach MY kids what YOU want them to learn, or is that MY decision to make?


Definitely your decision and thankfully, that's why there's an off button on the remote and nobody in this country is forced to go to any amusement or sporting activity against their will. :lonergr:


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

craftychick said:


> Definitely your decision and thankfully, that's why there's an off button on the remote and nobody in this country is forced to go to any amusement or sporting activity against their will. :lonergr:


So my family gets to suffer because others feel the need to push an agenda that the majority of people don't like? Yeah....ok!!! Interesting to note that those that seem to agree that this display was ok, would not be ok if it had been a cross!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

JeffreyD said:


> So my family gets to suffer because others feel the need to push an agenda that the majority of people don't like? Yeah....ok!!! Interesting to note that those that seem to agree that this display was ok, would not be ok if it had been a cross!


It's interesting that you presume to know what I would or would not be ok with. I have gay friends with small children. What gives you the right to deny them seeing something you don't approve of?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> It's interesting that you presume to know what I would or would not be ok with. I have gay friends with small children. What gives you the right to deny them seeing something you don't approve of?


Couldn't answer my question eh? I really didn't think you would!


----------



## chickenista (Mar 24, 2007)

Um... a majority of Americans DO approve of gay marriage.
It is more than 50%.
Sorry.. gotta modernize.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

chickenista said:


> Um... a majority of Americans DO approve of gay marriage.
> It is more than 50%.
> Sorry.. gotta modernize.


Should I take your word for it? I live in one of the most liberal states, California. We, the majority, did approve prop 8! It DID happen! Really!! Sure, the liberal judges overturned it, Kamila Harris refused to do the job she was elected to do by refusing to defend the will of the people. Still, the majority spoke and prop 8 passed!!!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

JeffreyD said:


> Couldn't answer my question eh? I really didn't think you would!


You're free to teach your children whatever you wish. You're free to object publicly and put whatever pressure you deem appropriate on the organizers in order to get them to adopt your position. You're free to criticize me for taking an opposing stand. You're even free to put words in my mouth and presume my actions in an attempt to bolster your argument. You're free to be wrong.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> So my family gets to suffer because others feel the need to push an agenda that the majority of people don't like? Yeah....ok!!! Interesting to note that those that seem to agree that this display was ok, would not be ok if it had been a cross!


Discrimination. You don,t get to decide what others can do in public if they are doing it legally. It is legal to marry at public events, so it does not matter if the majority does or does not want to see it. No one can discriminate based on the sex of those marrying.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> You're free to teach your children whatever you wish. You're free to object publicly and put whatever pressure you deem appropriate on the organizers in order to get them to adopt your position. You're free to criticize me for taking an opposing stand. You're even free to put words in my mouth and presume my actions in an attempt to bolster your argument. You're free to be wrong.


Still can't answer! Got it! You have an agenda, and nothing will get in your way of promoting that agenda! Just because YOU think it's ok, doesn't make it so! Seems like there's a double standard going on here!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

JeffreyD said:


> So my family gets to suffer because others feel the need to push an agenda that the majority of people don't like? Yeah....ok!!! Interesting to note that those that seem to agree that this display was ok, would not be ok if it had been a cross!


If this is the question I haven't answered then here it is. Your family does have to suffer so that others can enjoy the exercise of their rights to free expression. I hope you recover soon.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> If this is the question I haven't answered then here it is. Your family does have to suffer so that others can enjoy the exercise of their rights to free expression. I hope you recover soon.


Just as I have to listen or turn off portions of televised events where they pray.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> If this is the question I haven't answered then here it is. Your family does have to suffer so that others can enjoy the exercise of their rights to free expression. I hope you recover soon.


Yes, that's what I thought. My family must suffer so others can express themselves? Really? How very considerate and compassionate of those pushing the homosexual agenda. 

You have my sympathies!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Yes, that's what I thought. My family must suffer so others can express themselves? Really? How very considerate and compassionate of those pushing the homosexual agenda.
> 
> You have my sympathies!


Your family does not have to turn the TV on or go to the event. Your choice. People come to this country just so they have that choice and you are complaining about it.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

JeffreyD said:


> Yes, that's what I thought. My family must suffer so others can express themselves? Really? How very considerate and compassionate of those pushing the homosexual agenda.
> 
> You have my sympathies!


No sympathies required or requested. How different is your suffering than mine when I have to sit through a prayer and invocation prior to every Nascar event?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

The homosexual agenda. The tag line of those pushing the religious agenda.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> No sympathies required or requested. How different is your suffering than mine when I have to sit through a prayer and invocation prior to every Nascar event?


Like you said, you don't have too! Don't go, don't listen! Just because you don't like tradition, the rest of us should suffer? How very tolerant of you!


----------



## GrammaBarb (Dec 27, 2012)

Hi Folks,

I hope this isn't too general a statement, or considered off-topic, but I believe that one of the reasons I live as I do, and work to get as far as possible off the grid, is to give myself some measure of self-reliance and independence. 

What I wish for myself I must also wish for everyone, or I am the worst kind of (1)hypocrite, or (2)tyrant.

I don't care if you are Christian or not. I'm not, and the notion that a book written by men means that I have to accept that the earth is 6000 years old (as an example) seems beyond absurd. However---if you believe it, I honor your belief and accept that --FOR YOU--it is perfectly valid and not a subject which I have the right to denigrate.

Some of the women with whom I ride motorcycles are, not surprisingly, gay. I must admit I don't quite get it, but I have seen honest affection between partners to a degree that is rare in normal old garden-variety relationships, because it has been forged in adversity. I admire them without wishing to emulate them.

So I suppose I'm suggesting that, while we certainly have the right to espouse our own beliefs, we have no right at all to deny that same right to others, with the proviso that no one is injured. I don't believe that seeing two men or two women get married is going to scar a child for life, but seeing two adults fighting, bickering, back-stabbing and finally divorcing will probably leave some deep psychological scars. 

The Christian bible says something about "do unto others", right? I don't care at all what your beliefs are, to me that still applies.

With apologies for the lengthy post,

Barb


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

JeffreyD said:


> Like you said, you don't have too! Don't go, don't listen! Just because you don't like tradition, the rest of us should suffer? How very tolerant of you!


Once again you presume that I'm not perfectly content to do those things or to even suffer in silence. I made no mention that the prayers should be discontinued on my account. That is where we differ. I have no problem with someone expressing views counter to mine. I'll fight for their right to do so even as I protest what they may say or do.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

I recently read an article online and wish I could remember where it was but it was interesting. It claimed that the verses in the Bible that speak of being gay as a sin may have been actually misinterpreted. It claimed that as history passed and translations occurred along with 'editing' the real term was misconstrued. This article claimed the term was something meaning relations between men and boys (like child sexual abuse), but that word was incorrectly transcribed into the catchall word 'homosexuality'.

It was similar to this: http://carm.org/word-homosexual-english-bible-1946 I thought it was interesting.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Less-is-more said:


> Good. I was beginning to think it was one of those threads where the majority of people posting about how much they hate something, hadn't even experienced it. Thanks Mmoetc.


 
There isn't a human alive that doesn't make this kind of judgment on pretty much any situation on a daily basis. Especially when it comes to other humans.


----------



## mrsgcpete (Sep 16, 2012)

dixiegal62 said:


> There isn't a human alive that doesn't make this kind of judgment on pretty much any situation on a daily basis. Especially when it comes to other humans.



just because everyone does it, doesnt make it right.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

mrsgcpete said:


> just because everyone does it, doesnt make it right.


 
Yes...

A kid comes to the house to see my daughter reeking of pot showing no respect. I'm going to judge him as not the kind of person I want my daughter being with.

I come out of a store at night and a group of men are gathered near my truck acting drunk yelling at women... I'm going to judge them as up to no good.

I wake up to my dogs barking and look out the window and see someone lurking in my yard..... I'm going to judge them as a threat.

Everyone makes judgments at some point.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

For those who refuse to believe tolerance is increasing, it is, at least this guy is trying... http://news.yahoo.com/pope-calls-fresh-church-approach-children-gay-parents-192102096.html Whether or not others want to follow suit remains to be seen but I do like the quote he makes, "if someone is gay and seeks the Lord with good will, who am I to judge?"


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

You can't say you are honestly seeking the Lord when you judge his words to be incorrect.

As to the OT. Why is a wedding news? It isn't. the only reason it is put out there is to create strife. 

The only reason this is continually brought out it to use it to poke those who truly study and follow or try to, God. 

I don't care what "gays' do. I don't agree with it so I don't support it. If it was never mentioned I wouldn't even think about it. It is between them and God. They and their supporters can argue that with God. Not with me. I don't care what humans say only what God says.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Less-is-more said:


> For those who refuse to believe tolerance is increasing, it is, at least this guy is trying... http://news.yahoo.com/pope-calls-fresh-church-approach-children-gay-parents-192102096.html Whether or not others want to follow suit remains to be seen but I do like the quote he makes, "if someone is gay and seeks the Lord with good will, who am I to judge?"


 
Seeking the Lord is always cause for rejoicing. When seeking God we repent for our past sins and stop living a lifestyle that goes against Biblical teaching.... we throw away our past sins and live according to God's laws no more adultery, fornicating, lying, stealing, drunkenness, gluttony, or sexual relations with the same sex..... all fall short and still sin but we actively try to change our ways. We don't expect God to change the rules for us.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

I've read some posts here that sadden me and I will end by saying that I sincerely hope that some posters don't go on to have children who are gay or have grandchildren who are gay. I can't imagine the heartbreak that would be in store for these kids, not being accepted, or at the very least tolerated. Just something to ponder on. Would you hold the same attitude with your own flesh and blood? 

I'm done.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

dixiegal62 said:


> Seeking the Lord is always cause for rejoicing. When seeking God we repent for our past sins and stop living a lifestyle that goes against Biblical teaching.... we throw away our past sins and live according to God's laws no more adultery, fornicating, lying, stealing, drunkenness, gluttony, or sexual relations with the same sex..... all fall short and still sin but we actively try to change our ways. We don't expect God to change the rules for us.


I was always told that each person comes to God in their own way. They do the reading, the learning and decide for themselves what God meant and how they should live their lives. Then it is only between God and themselves how they are judged.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

painterswife said:


> I was always told that each person comes to God in their own way. They do the reading, the learning and decide for themselves what God meant and how they should live their lives. Then it is only between God and themselves how they are judged.


 
Isn't that what I did, 'decide' for myself what God meant? Where did I say it was up to me to judge?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

dixiegal62 said:


> Yes...
> 
> A kid comes to the house to see my daughter reeking of pot showing no respect. I'm going to judge him as not the kind of person I want my daughter being with.
> 
> ...


I'm wondering how you judge the scenario I encountered this weekend:

Two young men, early to mid 20's, standing beside each other on the street with their arms around each other's shoulders with heads touching. Would you judge them to be gay, sinners or something else?


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

wr said:


> I'm wondering how you judge the scenario I encountered this weekend:
> 
> Two young men, early to mid 20's, standing beside each other on the street with their arms around each other's shoulders with heads touching. Would you judge them to be gay, sinners or something else?


 
Could also be close friends, brothers, cousins I have no way of knowing. Did you judge them as gay? Do people really think a Christian just looks at people on the street and puts then into a righteous or sinner category? I guess one could ask if you saw people sitting on a bench heads together praying how would you judge them, Bible thumpers, weird, bigots, intolorant?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

dixiegal62 said:


> Could be close friends, brothers, cousins I have no way of knowing. Did you judge them as gay? Do people really think a Christian just looks at people on the street and puts then into a righteous or sinner category? I guess one could ask if you saw people sitting on a bench heads together praying how would you judge them?


Nope, I didn't judge them as gay, although I did hear comments from several around who felt they were sinners and they should keep that behavior at home so I guess some Christians do. In reality, it was my son and a buddy, who had just learned that a very dear friend had been killed in a rig accident. Son was comforting his friend. 

I have no problem with Christians praying and as a matter of fact, many of my friends are Christian and as long as they don't try and convert me, I don't try and convert them.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

dixiegal62 said:


> Isn't that what I did, 'decide' for myself what God meant? Where did I say it was up to me to judge?


Sounds to me like you are judging people as sinners because of your interpretation of what the bible says. I thought only God is the one to judge.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

wr said:


> Nope, I didn't judge them as gay, although I did hear comments from several around who felt they were sinners and they should keep that behavior at home so I guess some Christians do. In reality, it was my son and a buddy, who had just learned that a very dear friend had been killed in a rig accident. Son was comforting his friend.
> 
> I have no problem with Christians praying and as a matter of fact, many of my friends are Christian and as long as they don't try and convert me, I don't try and convert them.


 
I do believe homosexuality is a sin. That doesn't mean its my job to judge them, that's God's job. I could argue trying to make people change their belief that it is a sin would be trying to covert.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Sounds to me like you are judging people as sinners because of your interpretation of what the bible says. I thought only God is the one to judge.


LOL nice try, we all sin. What happens to us as sinners during our final judgment is up to God.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

MJsLady said:


> You can't say you are honestly seeking the Lord when you judge his words to be incorrect.


I am no theologian, but couldn't they legitimately doubt that those are the Lord's words? As in, not saying the Lord is wrong, but the record of his words is wrong. Or man's interpretation of those words. I don't know a lot about the Bible or gay people, so these are just guesses as to how gay people who believe in it may approach the issue.



> As to the OT. Why is a wedding news? It isn't. the only reason it is put out there is to create strife.
> 
> The only reason this is continually brought out it to use it to poke those who truly study and follow or try to, God.


Seems to me those are the people who have made it such big news. I haven't heard a single word about this parade marriage from anyone other than those who think it's such a terrible thing.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

jtbrandt said:


> I am no theologian, but couldn't they legitimately doubt that those are the Lord's words? As in, not saying the Lord is wrong, but the record of his words is wrong. Or man's interpretation of those words. I don't know a lot about the Bible or gay people, so these are just guesses as to how gay people who believe in it may approach the issue.


 
I couldn't say what they think, but I would be interested to know. A person who considers themselves a Christian and who is gay....

How do they feel about other sins mentioned in the Bible? If they consider certain things sins like maybe lying, are they judging all liars by saying it's a sin?

Or maybe they feel sin doesn't exist?

If they doubted the Bible about some sins, why believe it on other sins? 

If they felt the Bible was wrong and therefore there is no sin, why the need to be Christian and accept that Jesus Christ died so their sins could be forgiven?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

dixiegal62 said:


> I do believe homosexuality is a sin. That doesn't mean its my job to judge them, that's God's job. I could argue trying to make people change their belief that it is a sin would be trying to covert.


I understand that you believe homosexuality is a sin and it's great you follow the teachings of your faith but I don't think gays want you to change your beliefs and if you feel they sin, they're likely okay with that. 

I do appreciate the fact that you have stated that you don't feel it is your position to judge and your response to the question I posed was much more fair than a few people on the street at the time.


----------



## gimpy (Sep 18, 2007)

JeffreyD said:


> I know you chose not to, that was my point! And yes, what goes on in some peoples mind does indeed defy comprehension! !! It's amazing how some folks want others to believe as they do so badly that they will stoop to forcing kids to watch sexual deviants parade around pushing their agenda on those that don't want it, kinda like The position some folks take about Christianity!


Children are being forced to watch the Rose Bowl Parade? That's unconscionable.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

wr said:


> I understand that you believe homosexuality is a sin and it's great you follow the teachings of your faith but I don't think gays want you to change your beliefs and if you feel they sin, they're likely okay with that.
> 
> I do appreciate the fact that you have stated that you don't feel it is your position to judge and your response to the question I posed was much more fair than a few people on the street at the time.


 Thank you. 

I have no doubt there are some gays that want me to change my beliefs and some people who aren't gay that feel I should. I also have no doubt there are people who call themselves Christian but are full of hate for their fellow man.

To me there is no difference in the person screaming derogatory things at the gay man for his beliefs than the person screaming 'bigot' to the Christian who stands up for his faith and says what he believe is a sin. There is plenty of hate to go around sadly.


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

wr said:


> I'm wondering how you judge the scenario I encountered this weekend:
> 
> Two young men, early to mid 20's, standing beside each other on the street with their arms around each other's shoulders with heads touching. Would you judge them to be gay, sinners or something else?


Honestly I wouldn't bother to look. I have enough of my own stuff to look to with out boring from glimpses on the street of other folk's lives.

I as a Bible believing Christian do not want to force anyone to do anything. If they want to follow God, well he gave us his last will and testament for that purpose. If others think they have a better way, as long as they leave me alone I will leave them alone too. 

It is just as much a sin to be proud and nagging as it is to be in any other sin.


----------



## GrammaBarb (Dec 27, 2012)

Hi Folks,

I don't suppose there is any way whatsoever that we can just put this to bed, is there? I mean, no one is going to convince someone else of a deeply held belief (on one hand) or that their feelings are some sort of sin on the other.

Sometimes the most understanding thing to do is to agree that while there are many things on which we are in accord, this ain't one of 'em, and just close the book on it.

I know no one is forcing me to wade through the barrage, but it seems like such a waste of energy.......

Jus' sayin'.....

Barb


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

It's enlightening in a lot of ways. I did start to skim over posts from one person, as they were very emotional and irrational, but overall this thread has helped me understand both sides better.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

I feel I learned quite a bit too.


----------



## Ohio Rusty (Jan 18, 2008)

I think they ought to just combine the Rose bowl parade, the LBGT Doo-Dah parade, St. Patricks Day parade, Mardi Gras and Burning Man into one big all-inclusive festival to make everyone happy .........

Ohio Rusty ><>


----------



## gimpy (Sep 18, 2007)

Less-is-more said:


> I recently read an article online and wish I could remember where it was but it was interesting. It claimed that the verses in the Bible that speak of being gay as a sin may have been actually misinterpreted. It claimed that as history passed and translations occurred along with 'editing' the real term was misconstrued. This article claimed the term was something meaning relations between men and boys (like child sexual abuse), but that word was incorrectly transcribed into the catchall word 'homosexuality'.
> 
> It was similar to this: http://carm.org/word-homosexual-english-bible-1946 I thought it was interesting.


I'm straight but straight enough that I don't even notice when people around me are gay unless they are really flaunting it. I was raised to hate gays. There were nearly daily lectures ad nauseum about a topic that had no impact on me. I later learned many years later that my father thought I was gay because I refused to bully people and I bought gifts for my mom. I think that there's some truth to the saying that homophobia is the fear that other men will treat you the way that you treat women.

Way way back in an earlier part of life I was able to translate and had access to copies of the original texts. As part of my, "assignments," from my father he demanded that I research the bible passages about gays. I don't remember now the citations or even the languages to be able to try again. Nowhere was the term homosexual ever used. There was one reference to, "people who commit certain licentious or despicable acts." It mentioned a region of Europe that is now between Greece and the Adriatic. I looked up that region and read and what I found was that there was a large area controlled by bandits and the bandits were in the habit of raping everyone, men, women, children, but the strangest thing was the tone of the writing. The author didn't seem to mind so much about the stealing, or even the raping but that the bandits were doing the raping while they had open sores and the whites of their eyes were yellow. It was as if the deliberate infection with sexually transmittable disease was the thing that they were so against. That is not in any way shape or form equal to a monogamous gay couple.

People of my generation used to complain about diseases being spread by gays. However if you follow disease reporting based on controlled groups it appears that what used to be the case 40 years ago when gays were suppressed into the closet is no longer the case. It used to be that they would marry a straight partner to hide from society and then have liaisons on the side. It would not be unusual in the face of adultery to bring home a disease. Also such things when found out would result often in divorce or some sort of, "arrangement," where now the straight partner would have liaisons on the side. Straight people would wake up one day to their spouse saying, "Oh by the way, I'm gay and the last 20 years have been a lie." In that situation, how is that any different than a straight person having an affair? It's the deceit and the adultery that's the problem, not that the person was gay. Would his wife say it was ok, if he was having an affair with a woman?

If you let gays be open and let them marry it has several advantages for people in general. Feel free to substitute male/female, gay/ lesbian as your mind wishes.

If you are a guy, your male friend who is gay won't be having designs on your girlfriend or wife. Gay guys would not feel compelled to date or marry women, so there's less competition and you can try to date the girl you really like instead of settling for someone else. When you have the courage to ask a lady out, your gay friend will tell you that there's spinach in your teeth or your fly is open instead of silently laughing about it so to watch you get shot down.

Gay marriage means more weddings, therefore more weddings. It's a boon to the wedding industry (catering, hall rental, high end clothing etc) It's good for the economy. Gay couples are far more likely to adopt and there are a lot of kids who need homes. Anyone who says the, "system," works just fine has not talked to children from the, "system."

It's also a normal part of nature, a normal variant. There are measurable variances in the amygdala of the brain. It's visible on X-Ray. It has a genetic component that gets triggered by environmental influences while your mother was pregnant with you. It can be induced by simply overcrowding in both pigs and rats. If this freaks you out, let them marry so they are less likely to marry straight people and perpetuate the genes.

The only thing that is contrary to the obvious benefits is a little book but that book says that God made them too. God must have had a reason for doing so and I don't intend to question God's motivation.


----------



## gimpy (Sep 18, 2007)

jtbrandt said:


> It's enlightening in a lot of ways. I did start to skim over posts from one person, as they were very emotional and irrational, but overall this thread has helped me understand both sides better.


That's what the ignore button is for.


----------



## GrammaBarb (Dec 27, 2012)

Ohio Rusty said:


> I think they ought to just combine the Rose bowl parade, the LBGT Doo-Dah parade, St. Patricks Day parade, Mardi Gras and Burning Man into one big all-inclusive festival to make everyone happy .........
> 
> Ohio Rusty ><>



But, but, but.......St. Padraic's Day is actually **IMPORTANT**.....and that's all I have to say about that.

Barb (Out of the Closet 'Mick Chick') :clap:


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

gimpy said:


> That's what the ignore button is for.


I don't even know where that button is...and I prefer skimming so I can catch bits and pieces to see if there's something worth reading more in depth.


----------

