# Has Political Correctness Replaced Christian Morality



## MoonRiver

as our shared morality? (Edit) I mean this more in a cultural way than a religious way, as in our culture was built on a foundation of Judeo-Christian morality. 

Have the outcasts successfully forced their warped view of morality on the rest of us?

Over the last 20 years or so, I have been amazed at how many seemingly ridiculous ideas have made it into our culture under the banner of political correctness. Gay marriage, illegal immigrants, "free" speech, competition, role of marriage, relationship between men and women, having children outside of marriage, use of drugs, discussions of race, discussions of crime, and on and on.


----------



## kasilofhome

Pubic Control lacks freedom


----------



## elkhound

kasilofhome said:


> Pubic Control lacks freedom



ROFLMAO.....:tmi::kung:  :happy:


----------



## arcticow

MoonRiver said:


> as our shared morality?
> 
> Have the outcasts successfully forced their warped view of morality on the rest of us?
> 
> Over the last 20 years or so, I have been amazed at how many seemingly ridiculous ideas have made it into our culture under the banner of political correctness. Gay marriage, illegal immigrants, "free" speech, competition, role of marriage, relationship between men and women, having children outside of marriage, use of drugs, discussions of race, discussions of crime, and on and on.


Not replaced, so much as supplanted... Thanks to educators, media, and many so called public servants(especially in Congress and the Senate) praising and promulgating moral equivalency... "Don't judge me!" and "It's all good!" plus institutionalized victimology...


----------



## MDKatie

Thank goodness "political correctness" (in other words, equality) has changed some things! I'm sure glad I'm allowed to vote! I'm glad my husband sees me as his equal, and I have an equal say in what goes on in *our* household. I'm so thankful we no longer have slaves. I'm thankful black people are no longer segregated, being forced to use different bathrooms, water fountains, schools, etc. I'm glad two consenting adults, who love each other, are allowed to marry. 

The only thing ridiculous to me is that some think those changes are bad.


----------



## Win07_351

Morality has not changed for those who truly walk with God.


----------



## Paumon

elkhound said:


> ROFLMAO.....:tmi::kung:  :happy:


I second that! LOL :hysterical:


----------



## painterswife

You don't need to believe in God to be moral. If you do then you already have a big problem.


----------



## Paumon

MoonRiver said:


> Has Political Correctness Replaced Christian Morality
> 
> as our shared morality?
> 
> Have the *outcasts* successfully forced their *warped view* of morality on the rest of us?
> 
> Over the last 20 years or so, I have been amazed at how many seemingly ridiculous ideas have made it into our culture under the banner of political correctness. Gay marriage, illegal immigrants, "free" speech, competition, role of marriage, relationship between men and women, having children outside of marriage, use of drugs, discussions of race, discussions of crime, and on and on.


I wouldn't call it political correctness exactly, nor anything to do with real Christian morality. 

I think what's happened is so many people who were made outcasts and looked down on by people who are strict in their ways of certain Christian values just got sick and tired of being told they are warped and ammoral sinners because they're round pegs who don't fit in certain Christian's square boxes. It's more like the people you've made outcasts are taking control of their own lives and individuality, and living life more freely the way they want to, not the way certain controlling Christians want them to live. Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for everyone, right? I think it's in the constitution.

But you aren't being forced into changing your own moral values or participating in any of their lifestyle things you disapprove of that you listed above so I don't think you can say their view of morality is being forced on you. You do have the option of ignoring it if it offends you and just live and let live.


----------



## JJ Grandits

Has political correctness replaced Christian morality? Not quite.

It has replaced the Spanish Inquisition.


----------



## TenBusyBees

Paumon said:


> I wouldn't call it political correctness exactly, nor anything to do with real Christian morality.
> 
> I think what's happened is so many people who were made outcasts and looked down on by people who are strict in their ways of certain Christian values just got sick and tired of being told they are warped and ammoral sinners because they're round pegs who don't fit in certain Christian's square boxes. It's more like the people you've made outcasts are taking control of their own lives and individuality, and living life more freely the way they want to, not the way certain controlling Christians want them to live. Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for everyone, right? I think it's in the constitution.
> 
> But you aren't being forced into changing your own moral values or participating in any of their lifestyle things you disapprove of that you listed above so I don't think you can say their view of morality is being forced on you. You do have the option of ignoring it if it offends you and just live and let live.


As long as you're not a photographer who doesn't want to take pictures of a civil union, or a baker that doesn't want to make a civul union cake....and the most recent lawsuit was the place that offered tbe use of their facility for the reception but not the union ceremony. Um, yeah, nothing being forced there.

I'm all for live and let live. But it seems a lot of businesses get slapped with lawsuits and sensitivity training for not embracing someone elses decision or choice.


----------



## Paumon

TenBusyBees said:


> As long as you're not a photographer who doesn't want to take pictures of a civil union, or a baker that doesn't want to make a civul union cake....and the most recent lawsuit was the place that offered tbe use of their facility for the reception but not the union ceremony. Um, yeah, nothing being forced there.
> 
> I'm all for live and let live. But it seems a lot of businesses get slapped with lawsuits and sensitivity training for not embracing someone elses decision or choice.


Meh. There's a difference between private business and public business. If those "square peg in a square hole" people want to operate private businesses so they can pick and choose their square peg clientele nobody is stopping them. 

If they choose to go into public businesses instead then they should expect to be serving all shapes of the public with no picking and choosing of favourites. 

I have no sympathy for those people who brought lawsuits down on themselves. In the process of thumbing their noses at the folks they want to make outcasts out of all they did was work towards making outcasts of their own selves instead.


----------



## willow_girl

kasilofhome said:


> Pubic Control lacks freedom


And that sentence lacks an 'l' ... ound:


----------



## plowjockey

Hmmm


40-70% divorce rate - depending on how many times you get married.

100 year scandal of priests who could not stop touching children and the thousands who protected their actions.



> *Up to 90% of swingers identify with a religion and up to 47% regularly attend their place of worship. (Ibid. para 7 citing Friendship Express 1994 & Miller 1994.)*


http://www.libchrist.com/swing/happysafestudies.html

*Ephren Taylor Accused of $11 Million Christian Ponzi Scheme by SE*


https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=church+ponzi+scheme

*
Christian Minister Sex scandals*

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=christian+minister+sex+scandal


Yep, Christians are better than everybody else.

Just ask em'.


----------



## Classof66

In the fifties it was hard being a divorced woman or her child in a small town. I know my own mother, who was pretty kindhearted as a rule, certainly considered herself a Christian, considered a divorced woman second class. I know our church ladies were not very tolerant either. People with learning disabilities were often treated as "slow" too. No special ed back then, stick them in the back of the classroom and encourage them to drop out when they got old enough. Many lived in poverty. Now they have sheltered workshops, special housing, disability payments, and many with special training live everyday lives.


----------



## kasilofhome

We are not all the same. 
Fairness might seem to require equality but true equality would require we all wear the same clothes....To include the size of the clothes
We would all eat the same food and portion
We would all have the same housing.
We would all have the same medical care,same scripts or no should be in unequal and not 
That is why political correct is really stupid.

Freedom is not equal but a ruse. Freedom comes when individuals are allowed to succeed or fail with out stomping on others in their life goals.


----------



## AngieM2

I could see "fair" if in a job application no full name, age, or sex was given. All interview questions could be via computer so those indicators would not be revealed. 

That way, there would be no way for unfairness to get in.


----------



## JJ Grandits

plowjockey said:


> Hmmm
> 
> 
> 40-70% divorce rate - depending on how many times you get married.
> 
> 100 year scandal of priests who could not stop touching children and the thousands who protected their actions.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.libchrist.com/swing/happysafestudies.html
> 
> *Ephren Taylor Accused of $11 Million Christian Ponzi Scheme by SE*
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=church+ponzi+scheme
> 
> 
> *Christian Minister Sex scandals*
> 
> https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=christian+minister+sex+scandal
> 
> 
> Yep, Christians are better than everybody else.
> 
> Just ask em'.


Actually we're not. Matter of fact we're probably worse. Which is one of the reasons we're Christians. It's a type of self actualization. Im going to a Bible study tonight to help keep me focused, because without it I'll go back to being my old self. My new self is a much better person. unfortunately some Christians do not realize the difference. It's like wearing a sweat suit without working out. That's why Christ said there will be people who will face him and He'll say "I do not know you". We all have a sinful nature, but we also have freewill. If it wasn't for Christ I would be a bigger jerk than I am already. That's unfathomable.


----------



## MoonRiver

MDKatie said:


> Thank goodness "political correctness" (in other words, equality) has changed some things! I'm sure glad I'm allowed to vote! I'm glad my husband sees me as his equal, and I have an equal say in what goes on in *our* household. I'm so thankful we no longer have slaves. I'm thankful black people are no longer segregated, being forced to use different bathrooms, water fountains, schools, etc. I'm glad two consenting adults, who love each other, are allowed to marry.
> 
> The only thing ridiculous to me is that some think those changes are bad.


Political correctness is not about equality. In Ferguson, a policeman is considered guilty by much of the media and government because he is white and the person shot is considered innocent because he is black. That is an example of political correctness. A political agenda not necessarily supported by fact. An attempt to stifle any other speech, but speech that fits a certain agenda.

Your examples are not political correctness, but changes in our culture that have happened over tens or even hundreds of years as people's opinions have been changed by thoughtful argument and discussion. In the case of slavery, it even took a war. Changes in culture typically take hundreds of years.

Political correctness's purpose is to limit discussion and demand a specific point of view.

3 quotes from "The Origins of Political Correctness".



> Where does all this stuff that you&#8217;ve heard about this morning &#8211; the victim feminism, the gay rights movement, the invented statistics, the rewritten history, the lies, the demands, all the rest of it &#8211; where does it come from? For the first time in our history, Americans have to be fearful of what they say, of what they write, and of what they think. They have to be afraid of using the wrong word, a word denounced as offensive or insensitive, or racist, sexist, or homophobic.





> If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious.
> 
> First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than on college campuses, many of which at this point are small ivy covered North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the other sainted &#8220;victims&#8221; groups that PC revolves around, quickly find themselves in judicial trouble. Within the small legal system of the college, they face formal charges &#8211; some star-chamber proceeding &#8211; and punishment. That is a little look into the future that Political Correctness intends for the nation as a whole.





> In conclusion, America today is in the throes of the greatest and direst transformation in its history. We are becoming an ideological state, a country with an official state ideology enforced by the power of the state. In &#8220;hate crimes&#8221; we now have people serving jail sentences for political thoughts. And the Congress is now moving to expand that category ever further. Affirmative action is part of it. The terror against anyone who dissents from Political Correctness on campus is part of it. It&#8217;s exactly what we have seen happen in Russia, in Germany, in Italy, in China, and now it&#8217;s coming here. And we don&#8217;t recognize it because we call it Political Correctness and laugh it off. My message today is that it&#8217;s not funny, it&#8217;s here, it&#8217;s growing and it will eventually destroy, as it seeks to destroy, everything that we have ever defined as our freedom and our culture.


----------



## HDRider

plowjockey said:


> Hmmm
> 
> 
> 40-70% divorce rate - depending on how many times you get married.
> 
> 100 year scandal of priests who could not stop touching children and the thousands who protected their actions.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.libchrist.com/swing/happysafestudies.html
> 
> *Ephren Taylor Accused of $11 Million Christian Ponzi Scheme by SE*
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=church+ponzi+scheme
> 
> *
> Christian Minister Sex scandals*
> 
> https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=christian+minister+sex+scandal
> 
> 
> Yep, Christians are better than everybody else.
> 
> Just ask em'.


Not better, not worse, just forgiven if we confess our sins. All people sin.

To answer the OP, I don't think all of us are looking for anything to replace Christ.


----------



## MoonRiver

HDRider said:


> Not better, not worse, just forgiven if we confess our sins. All people sin.
> 
> To answer the OP, I don't think all of us are looking for anything to replace Christ.


My OP doesn't have anything to do with Christ, actually, but culture. It is about the Judeo-Christian culture that this country (US) was built on. The early immigrants to the country were almost entirely from Christian countries and our culture was largely based on beliefs they brought with them. I should have been a little more specific.


----------



## HDRider

MoonRiver said:


> My OP doesn't have anything to do with Christ, actually, but culture. It is about the Judeo-Christian culture that this country (US) was built on. The early immigrants to the country were almost entirely from Christian countries and our culture was largely based on beliefs they brought with them. I should have been a little more specific.


How does the question "Has political correctness replaced Christian morality?" not have anything to do with Christ?

America has always been a culture of Christ. Sadly becoming less so, being replaced by many things, political correctness possibly being one. .


----------



## MoonRiver

HDRider said:


> How does the question "Has political correctness replaced Christian morality?" not have anything to do with Christ?


Because I'm referring to culture and not specifically to religion. Our culture was based on Chrisitian beliefs and teachings, but culture changes over time as people from other cultures are absorbed into ours.


----------



## Tricky Grama

MDKatie said:


> Thank goodness "political correctness" (in other words, equality) has changed some things! I'm sure glad I'm allowed to vote! I'm glad my husband sees me as his equal, and I have an equal say in what goes on in *our* household. I'm so thankful we no longer have slaves. I'm thankful black people are no longer segregated, being forced to use different bathrooms, water fountains, schools, etc. I'm glad two consenting adults, who love each other, are allowed to marry.
> 
> The only thing ridiculous to me is that some think those changes are bad.


None, absolutely NONE of that is political correctness, just so ya know.
Look up 'civil rights'...

Political correctness is the belief that you can pick up a turd by the clean end...


----------



## Tricky Grama

MoonRiver said:


> Political correctness is not about equality. In Ferguson, a policeman is considered guilty by much of the media and government because he is white and the person shot is considered innocent because he is black. That is an example of political correctness. A political agenda not necessarily supported by fact. An attempt to stifle any other speech, but speech that fits a certain agenda.
> 
> Your examples are not political correctness, but changes in our culture that have happened over tens or even hundreds of years as people's opinions have been changed by thoughtful argument and discussion. In the case of slavery, it even took a war. Changes in culture typically take hundreds of years.
> 
> Political correctness's purpose is to limit discussion and demand a specific point of view.
> 
> 3 quotes from "The Origins of Political Correctness".


Post of the day award.


----------



## HDRider

Moon,
You should have led off with this from your article...
That way you have gotten no argument from me.

_"In conclusion, America today is in the throes of the greatest and direst transformation in its history. We are becoming an ideological state, a country with an official state ideology enforced by the power of the state. 

In âhate crimesâ we now have people serving jail sentences for political thoughts. And the Congress is now moving to expand that category ever further. 

Affirmative action is part of it. The terror against anyone who dissents from Political Correctness on campus is part of it. Itâs exactly what we have seen happen in Russia, in Germany, in Italy, in China, and now itâs coming here. 

And we donât recognize it because we call it Political Correctness and laugh it off. My message today is that itâs not funny, itâs here, itâs growing and it will eventually destroy, as it seeks to destroy, everything that we have ever defined as our freedom and our culture. "_


----------



## RWeThereYet

Cannot speak to PC replacing any morals, but it does seem like PC is affecting people and what they say or not say. 
Reminds me of the book 1984 and Newspeak. 
I have seen it squash entire threads.


----------



## mmoetc

I'm guessing Ray Rice misses those halcyon days when it wasn't politically incorrect to keep your woman in line through physical force.


----------



## MoonRiver

HDRider said:


> Moon,
> You should have led off with this from your article...
> That way you have gotten no argument from me.
> 
> _"In conclusion, America today is in the throes of the greatest and direst transformation in its history. We are becoming an ideological state, a country with an official state ideology enforced by the power of the state.
> 
> In âhate crimesâ we now have people serving jail sentences for political thoughts. And the Congress is now moving to expand that category ever further.
> 
> Affirmative action is part of it. The terror against anyone who dissents from Political Correctness on campus is part of it. Itâs exactly what we have seen happen in Russia, in Germany, in Italy, in China, and now itâs coming here.
> 
> And we donât recognize it because we call it Political Correctness and laugh it off. My message today is that itâs not funny, itâs here, itâs growing and it will eventually destroy, as it seeks to destroy, everything that we have ever defined as our freedom and our culture. "_


I found that article after I had made the post. I was looking for the definition of political correctness and came across that speech which said everything I wished I had said.


----------



## MoonRiver

mmoetc said:


> I'm guessing Ray Rice misses those halcyon days when it wasn't politically incorrect to keep your woman in line through physical force.


At a minimum, what he did was illegal and has nothing to do with political correctness. Why try to trivialize the subject?


----------



## mmoetc

MoonRiver said:


> At a minimum, what he did was illegal and has nothing to do with political correctness. Why try to trivialize the subject?


Not trivializing it at all. Not too many years ago police responding to an incident like this would have written it off to a "family matter" and walked away. If it was discussed at all at the local watering hole the good old boys would have patted Ray Rice on the back and hailed him for knowing how to treat a woman and keep her in line. The incidence of domestic violence hasn't increased over recent times but our reaction to it has certainly changed. Much of that change is due to those nasty feminists speaking out in what is now a politically correct way against it. Writing it off, at a minimum, as being illegal is what trivializes acts like this. Being politically correct and speaking out against them whenever and wherever they happen is the right, and I would argue the "Christian " thing to do.


----------



## MJsLady

The word Christian, means belonging to Christ. Using it brings Christ into a thing.
Christians are not perfect just saved.
The difference is true Christians know it and understand the value of it as well as the cost. 
No value and cost are not always the same. 
In this case salvation had a price. The death of God's son.
The value is priceless. 
In some cases being PC is diametrically opposed by Christian teaching. 
Christians do not get to choose which of God's rules to follow. 
However that does not mean as Christians we get to harass or nag or spit on or harm others either.
Give God's word and walk away if not accepted is what we are called to do by Christ. 

Here is something that really irks me too though. Offense is not something given, it is something taken. It is the offended ones choice to take offense, many do regardless of the intent of the other person.


----------



## mmoetc

Glade Runner said:


> deleted post was here.


What's the myth I'm guilty of propagating? That there was a time in the not too distant past in this country that what Ray Rice did wasn't that uncommon and wouldn't have generated the outrage it does today? That many people thought a woman who back talked her man was as likely to get the back of his hand as a thoughtful conversation? That authorities including police and clergy often looked the other way? That in today's politically correct world such behavior is much less tolerated? That all the domestic violence laws enacted in the last twenty years only came about because violence in relationships only started happening in the last twenty years or that it's simply more politically correct not to hide or tolerate it?


----------



## MoonRiver

mmoetc said:


> What's the myth I'm guilty of propagating? That there was a time in the not too distant past in this country that what Ray Rice did wasn't that uncommon and wouldn't have generated the outrage it does today? That many people thought a woman who back talked her man was as likely to get the back of his hand as a thoughtful conversation? That authorities including police and clergy often looked the other way? That in today's politically correct world such behavior is much less tolerated? That all the domestic violence laws enacted in the last twenty years only came about because violence in relationships only started happening in the last twenty years or that it's simply more politically correct not to hide or tolerate it?


It has nothing to do with political correctness.

The societal norm has CHANGED in the broad American culture.


----------



## mmoetc

MoonRiver said:


> It has nothing to do with political correctness.
> 
> The societal norm has CHANGED in the broad American culture.


So when societal norms change in ways you approve all is good and right with the world? But if those societal norms change in ways you don't approve its because of that evil political correctness. I understand now.


----------



## kasilofhome

Get a clue some are truly over looking the acceptance of a mandated behaviour and structure thinking that is POLITICALLY correct....not socially,not ethical, not civilized, the choice of the word is political.....it is political for a reason.


To change our political system. Just a touch closer to the Clift that that dramatically leads to the death of personal freedom as society ......is trained that personal responsibility to self control is a failure thus replacing personal responsibility thru political responsibility allow s to punish personal private choices. 

I hope that we are only at the cusp of the cliff as the villains of power hungry control freaks will be freed to comfortably openly put the bit into the mouths of "short sighted uneducated"
People who simple want to personal avoid difficulties.

As for abusive relationships......Will the happy joyous day be when the politically correct...thus mandated solution will be to limit restrict people from the freedom of personally selecting who they are allowed to socialize with to prevent persons from making the wrong choice. This in not new in fact in China their dear leader after a forced ....not pc so I better say.....an encouraged long walk for which not all reached the final destination ....but on a happier note those that did not make it no longer hampered the goal of the dear leader.

See Mao .....the hero to many of our current leaders in charge of us...... reduced sexual transmitted diseases by 

Removing those with one from society.....death
Separating males from females in equal housing yea equality....dorms 
And only governmental approved relations were permitted....leaders know best....(maybe that could be the next sitcom.....replacing the non pc old evil show....Father knows best.

No worries about finding employment with Mao in charged......it was assigned..Mao knew best

See there was a reduction in social ills under Mao...as social ills disrupted his goal of ultimate control....at the cost of freedom. With out freedom you are a slave....even if all you needs are met...you will be a slave. Total equality of results logically must remove freedom in order to prevent deviation of results......

People must simply become cogs.



Free will that is the natural nature of man....I have not a clue where free will came from but it leads to inequality in results, some fail,some tread water and some great successes. But to be honest with one's self many of our failures are personal at our own feet in the choices we have made. I know it is easier to blame someone else and play the victim cards but be honest what role did you play in your failures. The great thing about freewill is many failures can be changed or become livable or just temporary......because we have freedom to change and alter our lives.

So hope and change for a better life has really been ....having chains 

Personal responsibility for one's own safety end domestic abuse........train people to buy the mantra of victim hood and personal weakness destroys success.


----------



## Ozarks Tom

mmoetc said:


> I'm guessing Ray Rice misses those halcyon days when it wasn't politically incorrect to keep your woman in line through physical force.


That's pure crud. It's never been socially acceptable for a man to beat a woman (unless you're muslim), and domestic violence has nothing to do with political correctness.

Trying to inject an emotional subject into a non-emotional debate is classic liberal.

If you want a prime example of PC at work, look to the exec forced to resign for a donation he made years earlier, or to columnists fired for explaining social differences using scientific data. The Canadian, British, French "Tribunals" punishing free speech are a liberal's dream.

To those who use the word "private" relating to a business, and then convert to the term "public" in trying to explain why a business owner must bury his principles to stay in business, your game of semantics is bogus. A "public" company is traded publicly on the market, hence the term. A "Private" business is just that, not belonging to the public. If you don't believe me, see the Hobby Lobby SCOTUS decision.


----------



## MO_cows

I'm having trouble connecting the dots between political correctness and morality. You can be politically correct enough that you never offend a soul, but still be a thief, adulterer, murderer, etc. 

A certain degree of political correctness is a good thing. When I was a kid, I heard ---- and spook and jap and --- and pollock and ************ and so forth. If someone haggled on a price, they were trying to "Jew you down". If you got the short end of the deal, you got "gypped". There wasn't any hatred behind those words, most people were just less sophisticated, more crude than today. Their world was a lot smaller. Fast forward to today, among a group of people who are "alike", they are unlikely to use the derogatory term to refer to another group, and I think that's a good thing. We've become more aware, more sensitive to others who are not exactly like ourselves. 

But it has gone overboard. Waaaaay overboard. A person simply can't sugar coat everything that comes out of their mouth. At some point, the truth must be spoken and it might not be pretty. Illegal aliens ARE illegal! When you play a game, someone DOES lose. Disabled, handicapped, blind, deaf are more accurate than "challenged". 

As long as you are not deliberately insulting someone, there should be a certain amount of grace from the other side, too. An example that comes to mind is the older generation who grew up referring to black people as "colored". They mean no disrespect, to them that was the _nice_ word (as opposed to the "n" word). I would hope that some blue-haired elder isn't going to be the victim of a rant or worse if that word comes out of their mouth in public.

I don't think morality should be tied to religion, either. Stealing, assault, rape, we don't need a holy book to know those are wrong. Gay is out of the closet and not going back. It is up to each of us to practice our faith personally to the best of our ability, we don't get to impose it on the rest of the world. Preach it, yes. Impose it, no.


----------



## painterswife

Political correctness is about what you present to the world. The words you say or write or your actions to others. It is not about how you feel, what you believe or your morality.

You could be saying all the right stuff but believing all the bad.


----------



## kasilofhome

So political correctness is phony? Simply a scam?...NO

.it is an attempt to punish people in to submission in words and deeds to change the United States culture into a political system where people are scared to fail to the will of self appointed and anointed bullies who gain control.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> So political correctness is phony? Simply a scam?...NO
> 
> .it is an attempt to punish people in to submission in words and deeds to change the United States culture into a political system where people are scared to fail to the will of self appointed and anointed bullies who gain control.


You get to choose whether you want to be politically correct or not. You get to choose whether you want to associate or do business with those that are not politically correct. I faced and still do face punishment in words and deeds for not being religious. I get to choose whether I accept that attempt to punish me.

Really no different than deciding if you want to associate or do business with a child molester or a wife beater. You choose your behavior, others choose whether they accept it.


----------



## Shrek

Political correctness is more of a misnomer. Social correctness reflecting the evolving social structures would be a more appropriate descriptive.


----------



## my3boys

Paumon said:


> Meh. There's a difference between private business and public business. If those "square peg in a square hole" people want to operate private businesses so they can pick and choose their square peg clientele nobody is stopping them.
> 
> If they choose to go into public businesses instead then they should expect to be serving all shapes of the public with no picking and choosing of favourites.
> 
> I have no sympathy for those people who brought lawsuits down on themselves. In the process of thumbing their noses at the folks they want to make outcasts out of all they did was work towards making outcasts of their own selves instead.


So, in other words, you are admitting that someone else's values, their views of what is right or wrong, is being forced on people who operate public businesses.

Just where in the Constitution is that? What about the business owner's freedom of conscience? The business did not bring the lawsuits down on themselves. That was done by the people suing them. They were free to go somewhere else.


----------



## V-NH

God's laws haven't changed even if people's laws have. That is an important distinction to make and keep in mind if God's judgement matters to you.

Malachi 3:6: For I am the LORD, I change not.

That said, I am not sure it is our job to be overly concerned with how the political and cultural tides of society change. Just remember, if you are a follower of Christ, you are in this world but not of it. Keep it that way and you will be all set. Everyone is responsible for and will be held accountable for their own actions.


----------



## Paumon

my3boys said:


> So, in other words, you are admitting that someone else's values, their views of what is right or wrong, is being forced on people who operate public businesses.
> 
> Just where in the Constitution is that? What about the business owner's freedom of conscience? The business did not bring the lawsuits down on themselves. That was done by the people suing them. They were free to go somewhere else.


You know this has already been hashed out for pages and pages in a previous topic.

Some people's values of what they think is right or wrong is being forced on consumers. 

If a business-person does not want to do business with certain types of people they should have a private business that only deals privately with the kind of people they want as patrons. They should advertise as such and post it plainly on their establishment's front door to save themselves and their potential private customers a lot of hassle. 

If they are a business that's open to the public but intend to discriminate against certain types of people they should advertise that intention to discriminate as well, and post that on their establishment. There are many busnesses that post signs that say "No shirt, no shoes, no service" or "No smoking, no spitting, no swearing" or "No guns allowed on premises" or "No animals allowed except service animals" or "No minors under age ____ allowed" or "Men only" or "Women only".

If you are a business-person whose conscience dictates you can only do business with certain people and discriminate against other types of people then advertise as such. 

"NO gays, no divorcees, no unwed mothers, no welfare recipients, no blacks, no Mexicans, no non-Christians, no bikers, no tattoos, no liberals, no environmentalists, no hillbillies, no farmers or homesteaders, ...... etc. etc."

Take your pick of who you want to discriminate against and make them an outcast, but just let people know in advance who is welcome and who is not welcome to do business with you.


----------



## unregistered353870

Paumon said:


> You know this has already been hashed out for pages and pages in a previous topic.
> 
> Some people's values of what they think is right or wrong is being forced on consumers.
> 
> If a business-person does not want to do business with certain types of people they should have a private business that only deals privately with the kind of people they want as patrons. They should advertise as such and post it plainly on their establishment's front door to save themselves and their potential private customers a lot of hassle.
> 
> If they are a business that's open to the public but intend to discriminate against certain types of people they should advertise that intention to discriminate as well, and post that on their establishment. There are many busnesses that post signs that say "No shirt, no shoes, no service" or "No smoking, no spitting, no swearing" or "No guns allowed on premises" or "No animals allowed except service animals" or "No minors under age ____ allowed" or "Men only" or "Women only".
> 
> If you are a business-person whose conscience dictates you can only do business with certain people and discriminate against other types of people then advertise as such.
> 
> "NO gays, no divorcees, no unwed mothers, no welfare recipients, no blacks, no Mexicans, no non-Christians, no bikers, no tattoos, no liberals, no environmentalists, etc. etc."
> 
> Take your pick of who you want to discriminate against and make them an outcast, but just let people know in advance who is welcome and who is not welcome to do business with you.


I don't know about Canada, but an official policy of discriminating against some of those people would get you in hot water fast here. We don't have the freedom to discriminate on any basis we want. The only people being forced to do business with those they don't want to do business with are the business owners. Nothing is forced on consumers (with the unrelated exception of Obamacare).

To tie it in with political correctness...that's where it all started. Certain people felt the need to become speech police and ostracize anyone who didn't conform to their ideals. That was annoying, but at least it was just done by social pressure. And some good came out of it, though it definitely went too far. But then, after seeing how much fun it was to control other people, they started to get the nonsense written into law (more by courts than legislatures) and are doing it more and more every day. That is more than just too far. It's simply insanity.


----------



## Paumon

jtbrandt said:


> *I don't know about Canada, but an official policy of discriminating against some of those people would get you in hot water fast here. We don't have the freedom to discriminate on any basis we want. The only people being forced to do business with those they don't want to do business with are the business owners. Nothing is forced on consumers (with the unrelated exception of Obamacare).*
> 
> To tie it in with political correctness...that's where it all started. Certain people felt the need to become speech police and ostracize anyone who didn't conform to their ideals. That was annoying, but at least it was just done by social pressure. And some good came out of it, though it definitely went too far. But then, after seeing how much fun it was to control other people, they started to get the nonsense written into law (more by courts than legislatures) and are doing it more and more every day. That is more than just too far. It's simply insanity.


I understand that, and that is my point. It's why I said if a business-person does not want to do business with certain types of people they should have a private business that *only deals privately with the kind of people they want as patrons*. They should advertise as such and post it plainly on their establishment's front door to save themselves and their potential private customers a lot of hassle. 

An official policy of discrimination _against_ certain consumers will get all businesses into hot water but an official policy of only doing private business with _chosen_ consumers who fulfill specifically stated criteria will not.


----------



## kasilofhome

I reserve my right to do business with anyone on my private property whether it is a business or not. 

A person I do not wish to do business with I boycott.

Consumers use boycotts to get their way business owners should be free to do so to.


----------



## Paumon

Private businesses are already free to do so.


----------



## unregistered353870

Paumon said:


> I understand that, and that is my point. It's why I said if a business-person does not want to do business with certain types of people they should have a private business that *only deals privately with the kind of people they want as patrons*. They should advertise as such and post it plainly on their establishment's front door to save themselves and their potential private customers a lot of hassle.
> 
> An official policy of discrimination _against_ certain consumers will get all businesses into hot water but an official policy of only doing private business with _chosen_ consumers who fulfill specifically stated criteria will not.


That's different than what you said before, but it's not true either...I'm quite certain advertising that you serve "whites only" would cause you a heap of legal trouble in this country. Anyway, would your words below not be an official policy of discrimination against certain consumers?



> "NO gays, no divorcees, no unwed mothers, no welfare recipients, no blacks, no Mexicans, no non-Christians, no bikers, no tattoos, no liberals, no environmentalists, no hillbillies, no farmers or homesteaders, ...... etc. etc."


----------



## unregistered353870

Paumon said:


> Private businesses are already free to do so.


I tried to get an understanding of this from that thread a while back, but never got a handle on what you mean by private business and public business. Here, those terms aren't normally used, except "public" means the company is traded on a stock exchange. Can you help me understand what exactly distinguishes the two?


----------



## Guest

Public and private business distinctions in the US are used in the corporate world to describe ownership. Your continued notion that there is an allowable distinction concerning business practices on the seller/consumer level between the two baffles me. Other than membership type clubs that sell or provide services I have found no such businesses that you describe in the US. I think I'll run down to my local business licencing gestapo and request a business licence for one of those "Private Businesses".


----------



## Paumon

jtbrandt said:


> That's different than what you said before, but it's not true either...I'm quite certain advertising that you serve "whites only" would cause you a heap of legal trouble in this country. Anyway, would your words below not be an official policy of discrimination against certain consumers?


It's not different from what I said before, it's an exact copy and paste of what I said before.

In a business that's open to the public the words below (which were posted to make a point about bigotry and hypocrisy) would definitely be an official policy of discrimination against certain consumers. Who in their right mind that wanted to stay in business would ever advertise or post something like that on their door for the whole world to see? They wouldn't. But some who aren't in their right minds would still (and do) discriminate and simply refuse to do business with the likes of these without advertising about it. Like the baker and photographer for example, and who knows how many others. Because their conscience dictates that it goes against their morals or values. Then naturally of course the consumers that they discriminated against take them to court and sue them. And then the business owners get all twisted out of shape because they don't understand why they lost in court and don't have the right to discriminate. The absurdity of it all boggles the mind. People who open their business to the public should look up the definition of the word to see what it means. If they don't want to do business with all of the public they shouldn't start a business at all - or else conduct their business privately.


> _"NO gays, no divorcees, no unwed mothers, no welfare recipients, no blacks, no Mexicans, no non-Christians, no bikers, no tattoos, no liberals, no environmentalists, no hillbillies, no farmers or homesteaders, ...... etc. etc."_


----------



## Paumon

jtbrandt said:


> I tried to get an understanding of this from that thread a while back, but never got a handle on what you mean by private business and public business. Here, those terms aren't normally used, except "public" means the company is traded on a stock exchange. Can you help me understand what exactly distinguishes the two?





dlmcafee said:


> Public and private business distinctions in the US are used in the corporate world to describe ownership. Your continued notion that there is an allowable distinction concerning business practices on the seller/consumer level between the two baffles me. Other than membership type clubs that sell or provide services I have found no such businesses that you describe in the US. I think I'll run down to my local business licencing gestapo and request a business licence for one of those "Private Businesses".


Can't help you guys there. Sorry if it baffles you. Maybe you need to do some research about the many kinds of private business enterprises that people get into.

I find it hard to believe that there's no such thing as private contractors in USA.


----------



## Guest

You being the US buisnss expert figure you 




"Can't help you guys there. Sorry if it baffles you. Maybe you need to *do some researc*h about the many kinds of private business enterprises that people get into."

Thanks, appreciate your instructions and will endeavor to ignore the tripe, especially that without any substance.


----------



## kasilofhome

Business have a right to refuse to serve any one and demand that the person or persons leave. 

People with bad personalities.....are refused service....why because it is plain bad for many businesses to turn a buck ........making a living is a reason people go into business. It is far better to get rid of trouble makers who harm you bottom line and drive good customers away....boycotting bad folks can wake the up or the can start their own business and take the risk.


----------



## HDRider

kasilofhome said:


> Business have a right to refuse to serve any one and demand that the person or persons leave.
> 
> People with bad personalities.....are refused service....why because it is plain bad for many businesses to turn a buck ........making a living is a reason people go into business. It is far better to get rid of trouble makers who harm you bottom line and drive good customers away....boycotting bad folks can wake the up or the can start their own business and take the risk.


Think "protected class". Everyone wants that classification to be protected from "discrimination". 

Haven't seen many bad personalities parades wearing obscene costumes demanding equal rights..


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> I'm guessing Ray Rice misses those halcyon days when it wasn't politically incorrect to keep your woman in line through physical force.


Again, another misinformed statement having absolutely nothing to do with PC. Nada. Ziltch.
However I see the same folks who cannot make an analogy 'liking' the post...


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> Not trivializing it at all. Not too many years ago police responding to an incident like this would have written it off to a "family matter" and walked away. If it was discussed at all at the local watering hole the good old boys would have patted Ray Rice on the back and hailed him for knowing how to treat a woman and keep her in line. The incidence of domestic violence hasn't increased over recent times but our reaction to it has certainly changed. Much of that change is due to those nasty feminists speaking out in what is now a politically correct way against it. Writing it off, at a minimum, as being illegal is what trivializes acts like this. Being politically correct and speaking out against them whenever and wherever they happen is the right, and I would argue the "Christian " thing to do.


Really? Sure glad I don't live near any of your male friends...I never in my entire life knew men who thought it ok to knock out or knock around a woman. Never. Political correctness has nothing to do with this incident. Nothing.


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> So when societal norms change in ways you approve all is good and right with the world? But if those societal norms change in ways you don't approve its because of that evil political correctness. I understand now.


Again, you understand NOTHING.


----------



## Tricky Grama

MO_cows said:


> I'm having trouble connecting the dots between political correctness and morality. You can be politically correct enough that you never offend a soul, but still be a thief, adulterer, murderer, etc.
> 
> A certain degree of political correctness is a good thing. When I was a kid, I heard ---- and spook and jap and --- and pollock and ************ and so forth. If someone haggled on a price, they were trying to "Jew you down". If you got the short end of the deal, you got "gypped". There wasn't any hatred behind those words, most people were just less sophisticated, more crude than today. Their world was a lot smaller. Fast forward to today, among a group of people who are "alike", they are unlikely to use the derogatory term to refer to another group, and I think that's a good thing. We've become more aware, more sensitive to others who are not exactly like ourselves.
> 
> But it has gone overboard. Waaaaay overboard. A person simply can't sugar coat everything that comes out of their mouth. At some point, the truth must be spoken and it might not be pretty. Illegal aliens ARE illegal! When you play a game, someone DOES lose. Disabled, handicapped, blind, deaf are more accurate than "challenged".
> 
> As long as you are not deliberately insulting someone, there should be a certain amount of grace from the other side, too. An example that comes to mind is the older generation who grew up referring to black people as "colored". They mean no disrespect, to them that was the _nice_ word (as opposed to the "n" word). I would hope that some blue-haired elder isn't going to be the victim of a rant or worse if that word comes out of their mouth in public.
> 
> I don't think morality should be tied to religion, either. Stealing, assault, rape, we don't need a holy book to know those are wrong. Gay is out of the closet and not going back. It is up to each of us to practice our faith personally to the best of our ability, we don't get to impose it on the rest of the world. Preach it, yes. Impose it, no.


Right on!
But I imagine you'll need to use up more crayons & puppets b/4 the left will understand.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> You get to choose whether you want to be politically correct or not. You get to choose whether you want to associate or do business with those that are not politically correct. I faced and still do face punishment in words and deeds for not being religious. I get to choose whether I accept that attempt to punish me.
> 
> Really no different than deciding if you want to associate or do business with a child molester or a wife beater. You choose your behavior, others choose whether they accept it.


Really?
Ask the CEO who was fired for long ago contributions to a family oriented group. Ask conservatives who were hassled, audited by IRS. Etc, etc.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Political correctness has taken over alot of our society and morality. I mean think about something. We have let all the things that were once frowned upon become glorified. We have tried to push God out of every public and even private places. Two weeks ago The head of John's Hopkins physciatric board came out and said that transgendered folks have a mental disorderand that there is significant studies saying the same for homosexuals. Yet they scoff and write it off. All this talk of mental health care, and they ignore one of the smartest men in America on the subject. So these anti productive lifestyles such as same sex, non married people having multiple kids with multiple dad's etc..are seen as the norm. And the godly family with a stay at home mom is seen as putting people in the dark ages.


----------



## MoonRiver

Shrek said:


> Political correctness is more of a misnomer. Social correctness reflecting the evolving social structures would be a more appropriate descriptive.


I think political correctness is better because there is a political agenda behind it. Can you give any example of politically correct speech started by a conservative? Remember, political correctness works by shaming.


----------



## MoonRiver

Tricky Grama said:


> Again, you understand NOTHING.


Thanks TG. I gave up.


----------



## MDKatie

Ozarks Tom said:


> That's pure crud. It's never been socially acceptable for a man to beat a woman


A person close to me was abused as a child (in the 50's). She went to school with visible bruises quite frequently, yet nobody ever said or did anything about it. People ignored it. Teachers, neighbors, family friends, etc. Society as a whole may not have agreed with abuse back then, but they sure as heck didn't speak out against it like they do now. People just looked the other way and didn't want to get involved.


----------



## Evons hubby

mmoetc said:


> I'm guessing Ray Rice misses those halcyon days when it wasn't politically incorrect to keep your woman in line through physical force.


Ever hear of self defense? Or is that now "politically incorrect" too?


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> Really?
> Ask the CEO who was fired for long ago contributions to a family oriented group. Ask conservatives who were hassled, audited by IRS. Etc, etc.


Really, what?

My statement stated quite clearly that people could choose to do those things. How about being hassled for your skin color or your sexual preference or your choice of religion? Maybe even your politics?

People choose to behave badly every day, even in this very thread.


----------



## painterswife

Vahomesteaders said:


> Political correctness has taken over alot of our society and morality. I mean think about something. We have let all the things that were once frowned upon become glorified. We have tried to push God out of every public and even private places. Two weeks ago The head of John's Hopkins physciatric board came out and said that transgendered folks have a mental disorderand that there is significant studies saying the same for homosexuals. Yet they scoff and write it off. All this talk of mental health care, and they ignore one of the smartest men in America on the subject. So these anti productive lifestyles such as same sex, non married people having multiple kids with multiple dad's etc..are seen as the norm. And the godly family with a stay at home mom is seen as putting people in the dark ages.


Political correctness is not the same thing as morality.


----------



## MoonRiver

painterswife said:


> Really, what?
> 
> My statement stated quite clearly that people could choose to do those things. How about being hassled for your skin color or your sexual preference or your choice of religion? Maybe even your politics?
> 
> People choose to behave badly every day, even in this very thread.


None of those are political correctness.


----------



## Paumon

dlmcafee said:


> You being the US buisnss expert figure you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Can't help you guys there. Sorry if it baffles you. Maybe you need to *do some researc*h about the many kinds of private business enterprises that people get into."
> 
> Thanks, appreciate your instructions and will endeavor to ignore the tripe, especially that without any substance.


Look, I realize you think I'm trying to be difficult or offensive, but I'm not. I'm just truly amazed that some people don't seem to know the difference between private and public business. If you really don't understand then why don't you ask about it in another topic, maybe in HT Questions forum? There are dozens upon dozens of forum members right here on HT forum that conduct their own private businesses who discreetly pick and choose which customers they do or do not want to contract with. They do it without rocking the boat and without making a big show of discrimination against the people they don't want to do business with. Discretion will always bring more success than discrimination does and it's not hard to do.


----------



## painterswife

MoonRiver said:


> None of those are political correctness.


I did not say they were.


----------



## Evons hubby

MoonRiver said:


> as our shared morality? (Edit) I mean this more in a cultural way than a religious way, as in our culture was built on a foundation of Judeo-Christian morality.
> 
> Have the outcasts successfully forced their warped view of morality on the rest of us?
> 
> Over the last 20 years or so, I have been amazed at how many seemingly ridiculous ideas have made it into our culture under the banner of political correctness. Gay marriage, illegal immigrants, "free" speech, competition, role of marriage, relationship between men and women, having children outside of marriage, use of drugs, discussions of race, discussions of crime, and on and on.


I have to ask... are we talking about those Christian "morals" that were/are actually practiced by Christians, or the ones they have always tried to impose on others?


----------



## MoonRiver

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have to ask... are we talking about those Christian "morals" that were/are actually practiced by Christians, or the ones they have always tried to impose on others?


Why do you even bother commenting? 

The US has a shared culture. While not everyone agrees with or practices everything in that shared culture, we still have one. That shared culture was built upon Judeo-Christian principles and beliefs, as the vast majority of people who settled what became the US, came from European, Christian majority countries.


----------



## painterswife

MoonRiver said:


> Why do you even bother commenting?
> 
> The US has a shared culture. While not everyone agrees with or practices everything in that shared culture, we still have one. That shared culture was built upon Judeo-Christian principles and beliefs, as the vast majority of people who settled what became the US, came from European, Christian majority countries.


That shared culture is history and not really the norm these days. it may have not been the norm before either. People had to hide so much of their cultures because that Christian majority forced them to.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

painterswife said:


> That shared culture is history and not really the norm these days. it may have not been the norm before either. People had to hide so much of their cultures because that Christian majority forced them to.


Your right. It was history. A history of growth and development. Happiness and prosperity. Being able to accomplish the American dream. What do we have today with the progressive and liberals movement? A debt to income ratio way off, college degree that is worthless, no jobs, more disease, more mass murders and murder in general, more people on food stamps and welfare, more fatherless children, more children being murdered, more families ripped apart. Shall I keep going? Are we heading in the right direction?


----------



## painterswife

Vahomesteaders said:


> Your right. It was history. A history of growth and development. Happiness and prosperity. Being able to accomplish the American dream. What do we have today with the progressive and liberals movement? A debt to income ratio way off, college degree that is worthless, no jobs, more disease, more mass murders and murder in general, more people on food stamps and welfare, more fatherless children, more children being murdered, more families ripped apart. Shall I keep going? Are we heading in the right direction?


What does that have to do with morality and political correctness?


----------



## TenBusyBees

RWeThereYet said:


> Cannot speak to PC replacing any morals, but it does seem like PC is affecting people and what they say or not say.
> Reminds me of the book 1984 and Newspeak.
> I have seen it squash entire threads.


 http://www.infowars.com/19-shocking-examples-of-how-political-correctness-is-destroying-america/

And here is a new one. Who knew an English teacher could be fired for teaching about homophones? http://youngcons.com/homophone-haters-teacher-was-fired-for-using-a-gay-sounding-grammatical-term/


----------



## kasilofhome

HDRider said:


> Think "protected class". Everyone wants that classification to be protected from "discrimination".
> 
> Haven't seen many bad personalities parades wearing obscene costumes demanding equal rights..




If I owned a diner I would ask a drunk or stoned person to leave.
Age,sex,faith,race,would not matter as it is the choices and life styles that I would find to be the issue.

Just as I totally believe .....which is more than simple thinking it that every business should have the right to determine if the want smoking,vaping, gun carrying in their establishments......not the government or political correct culture policy changers.

If I owned a business that that in any way could celebrate racism,homosexuality,any abuse such as sexual abuse of a minor,spousal abuse,drug use, or terrorism I would refuse so I would not bake a cake to celebrate pot being legal
Or
Genital mutilation get well cake
Got rid of the paisley in the neighborhood cake.....(any race can be subbed in for paisley)
9/11 trifecta wish cake


I hope some get my drift

I do not wish to align myself
With other people's person choices that I see as harmful. I think everyone has that right and that we all musthave our own personal line in the sand where we personally feel it belongs.

That position is naturally going to be in a different place for everyone.

I also would not bake a cake to celebrate the impeachment of any president ....I personally find that celebrating any ones sorrows in poor taste but I would have no issue baking a cake to celebrate a new beginning in policy.

So, facial mutilation self inflicted to cause impact of shock or fear would not warrant being a customer by me by my standards Maybe I would not make baking cakes to be a mogel maybe I would have to have a second job to live but I would be true to my personal values. Now, if the facial tatted person wanted them removed I would do what I could to help.


Oh obscene and naked people would not be severed to.

But instead others could open a cakestore and have the customer base I refuse.

Grow competition in business.


----------



## kasilofhome

painterswife said:


> What does that have to do with morality and political correctness?


The unintended consequences of a political social policy change and how public censorship is muting ....stunting positive solutions because group salvation fails compared to personal responsibility. Do people understand that group salvation requires one leader all powerful to force ...enslave people in the final stages of such a regime? Phoney lip service hiding the truth that we are all different with different life events that impact our view points creates a society that is a scam..... a false utopia with little reality is a cardboard house though pretty will be destroyed in a wisp of a breeze.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> The unintended consequences of a political social policy change and how public censorship is muting ....stunting positive solutions because group salvation fails compared to personal responsibility. Phoney lip service hiding the truth that we are all different with different life events that impact our view points creates a society that is a scam..... a false utopia with little reality is a cardboard house though pretty will be destroyed in a wisp of a breeze.


Public censorship? How about all the public censorship if you were not Christian or if you were gay or of certain races? Or even better yet a women?

Wanting people to not use certain words when they speak to or describe other human beings does not stunt positive solutions. HT would be a perfect example. We can still express ourselves and move to wards positive change without swearing and putting down groups of people in our society by using ugly words. It is not allowed here. It does not need to be tolerated anywhere.


----------



## MO_cows

kasilofhome said:


> Business have a right to refuse to serve any one and demand that the person or persons leave.
> 
> People with bad personalities.....are refused service....why because it is plain bad for many businesses to turn a buck ........making a living is a reason people go into business. It is far better to get rid of trouble makers who harm you bottom line and drive good customers away....boycotting bad folks can wake the up or the can start their own business and take the risk.


Do they still? Used to be, about anyplace that served alcohol had it posted, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" or some such. I haven't seen one of those signs in a long, long time.


----------



## kasilofhome

Those issues are over it is 2014 we have discovered fire and gone to the moon. The past will never change two wrongs will never make a right. Being guided but hurts in the past limits you future achievements. You wish to be bitter about it forever, well it is your right. I just have to wonder if keeping the bitterness is helping you. Have a nice day.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Those issues are over it is 2014 we have discovered fire and gone to the moon. The past will never change two wrongs will never make a right. Being guided but hurts in the past limits you future achievements. You wish to be bitter about it forever, well it is your right. I just have to wonder if keeping the bitterness is helping you. Have a nice day.


I am certainly not bitter about what happened in the past. Most did not happen to me. I however will work hard and diligently to prevent it happening in the future. I will also keep expressing my opinion that what was done was wrong and knowing our history is important to our future. Political correctness is a good thing. Yes as with everything some take it to far but anyone that wants not to have to face the disapproval of those who don't think using certain words and actions is a bad thing don't get to voice their opinion and deprive me of mine.


----------



## kasilofhome

MO_cows said:


> Do they still? Used to be, about anyplace that served alcohol had it posted, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" or some such. I haven't seen one of those signs in a long, long time.


People give up rights more often to be accepted....complying to a push a shove and a nudge. It is the resolute of humans to join the bandwagon.....keep up with the Jones. Forgetting to realize personal strength and individual character.

The lefts message truly has been. it's ok to be different as long as we are all the same. Join our bandwagon now it's become join our bandwagon OR ELES.


----------



## ddgresham1

If you think not using racist and derogatory words is "PC gone awry" you are part of the problem


----------



## ddgresham1

The left is pointing out the fact that there are cultural differences not that "we are all different." We are all the same in that we are all humans and should.treat each other with respect.


----------



## kasilofhome

MO_cows said:


> Do they still? Used to be, about anyplace that served alcohol had it posted, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" or some such. I haven't seen one of those signs in a long, long time.


People give up rights more often to be accepted....complying to a push a shove and a nudge. It is the resolute of humans to join the bandwagon.....keep up with the Jones. Forgetting to realize personal strength and individual character.

The lefts message truly has been. it's ok to be different as long as we are all the same. Join our bandwagon now it's become join our bandwagon OR ELES. I KNOW HOW TO WALK SO THERE IS NO BANDWAGON FOR ME


----------



## kasilofhome

Complaining about disrespect over race,sex,ect when not having be disrespected for race or sex is not focusing on what the real reason someone is being disrespected for.

Be a thief and paisley busted for stealing wake up it is not about being paisley.

Be a drunk driver and paisley it is not about being paisley

Can't rent a place with your income and your paisley it's not about being paisley

Paisley granny is 1806 could not buy a house with cash in hand.....it probably was due to paisley.....MlK scored a home run. Medicine will not cure death and past evil deed can not be undone.


----------



## kasilofhome

painterswife said:


> Public censorship? How about all the public censorship if you were not Christian or if you were gay or of certain races? Or even better yet a women?
> 
> Wanting people to not use certain words when they speak to or describe other human beings does not stunt positive solutions. HT would be a perfect example. We can still express ourselves and move to wards positive change without swearing and putting down groups of people in our society by using ugly words. It is not allowed here. It does not need to be tolerated anywhere.




Your every example you choose to support your stand is in historical. My position stands the year is 2014 MlK made a difference.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Your every example you choose to support your stand is in historical. My position stands the year is 2014 MlK made a difference.


All examples of what happened are historical. What is your point?


----------



## MO_cows

ddgresham1 said:


> If you think not using racist and derogatory words is "PC gone awry" you are part of the problem


Not when the definition of "derogatory" is constantly changing! When I grew up, "black was beautiful". Fast forward a few more years, that has become derogatory to some and they demand to be known as "African-Americans". Well a lot of other Americans find that monicker offensive, too, but their feelings are not considered important. That is PC run amuck.

Paraplegic, quadraplegic, physically handicapped are accurate, valid terms. But somebody gets their widdle feelings hurt so it's "mobility challenged" or "physically challenged". Well if you don't know what kind of "challenge" a guest or a customer has, you aren't prepared to provide what they need. Using the more accurate descriptive words for their condition is actually to their own benefit.

And don't forget the "little people". Their condition is known as dwarfism in the medical field, no? But never say dwarf, or midget, you must say "little people" or you are rude, socially unacceptable. 

A lot of the discrimination against smokers is more PC related than health related. That's why smoking is banned in so many outdoor areas where the smoke could probably not even be detected in an air sample because of the volume of air in an open, outdoor setting. You inhale more contaminants from gassing up your car or walking in from the parking lot than from a few smokers, yet they are banned anyway. That's not protecting anyone's health, that is punishing smokers for being non-PC.

Like so many things, it started out with the best of intentions but has gone way too far.


----------



## TenBusyBees

ddgresham1 said:


> The left is pointing out the fact that there are cultural differences not that "we are all different." We are all the same in that we are all humans and should.treat each other with respect.


We SHOULD treat each other with respect. But making laws forcing special treatment does not equate to respect. You can respect people without embracing their ideology. PC forces one to embrace opposed ideas/choices/etc. and smile through gritted teeth.

Respect IS a two way street. Example.... Some years ago my mil and I went out to eat. The waitress asked smoking or non. We sat in non. I smoked at the time, my mil did not. I respected that. She needed to use the bathroom which was located by the smoking area. She came back saying that smoking should not be allowed. I looked around and asked who was smoking. She answered the smoking section. Where should they smoke then? She explained how she had the right to breathe clean air, not smell their smoke, etc. She was right....but only partially. They the smokers had a right to smoke if they choose, especially in a designated area by the business OWNER, they had just as much right to eat out, and MOST importantly she had a right to choose a different restaurant. Nobody was forcing her to be there (she chose the restaurant) but she felt that they should accommodate her solely.


----------



## kasilofhome

painterswife said:


> All examples of what happened are historical. What is your point?


Fighting a battle that was won historically just means you're late for that battle. What have you to gain in working for a problem that was solved. I only fix tires that are flat and not the tires that are sound.

Now you are free to work on issued that have been solved it is your right you are free to do it but remember some of us will not ....we are busy facing today's issues.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Fighting a battle that was won historically just means you're late for that battle. What have you to gain in working for a problem that was solved. I only fix tires that are flat and not the tires that are sound.
> 
> Now you are free to work on issued that have been solved it is your right you are free to do it but remember some of us will not ....we are busy facing today's issues.


Some battles might have been won but the war is ongoing. You are going off on a tangent about what you think I am fighting that has no bearing in reality.


----------



## ddgresham1

African American and Little People has been around for some time and are easily remembered. I wouldn't say having to remember a couple of descriptions is a huge issue that we need to decry.


----------



## kasilofhome

My views are my views based on facts I have. Give me something to support your view ....I change my views on facts.


----------



## kasilofhome

ddgresham1 said:


> African American and Little People has been around for some time and are easily remembered. I wouldn't say having to remember a couple of descriptions is a huge issue that we need to decry.


My hands have been with me since birth but I still just use my right hand to write with even living with lefties I have not changed.


----------



## Oggie

The Bible has many verses in which followers are taught to be careful what is said.

And yet, when some "Christians" use words without giving much thought to how they might affect others, they loudly protest an excess of "political correctness" instead of thinking about how they might have better expressed their thoughts or considering whether though thoughts need expression to begin with.

How can considering which words are spoken replace Christian morality when it is a part of Christian teaching?


----------



## kasilofhome

Which translation was strongs and vines used to go back to the verbiage of the time and timely definition of the words.

If one truly want the message of the bible .....an old book one needs to understand altercation of linguistics over time....really on topic with this thread as we are currently changing meanings of words.


----------



## MDKatie

TenBusyBees said:


> We SHOULD treat each other with respect. But making laws forcing special treatment does not equate to respect.


Unfortunately our nation (we're not the only ones) doesn't have a history of treating each other with respect unless it's a law.



> You can respect people without embracing their ideology. PC forces one to embrace opposed ideas/choices/etc. and smile through gritted teeth.


I agree with your first sentence, but not the second. Being PC doesn't make anyone "embrace" anything.


----------



## MO_cows

ddgresham1 said:


> African American and Little People has been around for some time and are easily remembered. I wouldn't say having to remember a couple of descriptions is a huge issue that we need to decry.


They aren't the issue - they are SYMPTOMS of the issue.


----------



## unregistered353870

Paumon said:


> It's not different from what I said before, it's an exact copy and paste of what I said before.
> 
> In a business that's open to the public the words below (which were posted to make a point about bigotry and hypocrisy) would definitely be an official policy of discrimination against certain consumers. Who in their right mind that wanted to stay in business would ever advertise or post something like that on their door for the whole world to see? They wouldn't. But some who aren't in their right minds would still (and do) discriminate and simply refuse to do business with the likes of these without advertising about it. Like the baker and photographer for example, and who knows how many others. Because their conscience dictates that it goes against their morals or values. Then naturally of course the consumers that they discriminated against take them to court and sue them. And then the business owners get all twisted out of shape because they don't understand why they lost in court and don't have the right to discriminate. The absurdity of it all boggles the mind. People who open their business to the public should look up the definition of the word to see what it means. If they don't want to do business with all of the public they shouldn't start a business at all - or else conduct their business privately.


I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that a business owner has the right to discriminate against anyone as long as it's a "private business" and not a public one.



Paumon said:


> Can't help you guys there. Sorry if it baffles you. Maybe you need to do some research about the many kinds of private business enterprises that people get into.
> 
> I find it hard to believe that there's no such thing as private contractors in USA.


As far as I can tell from your usage of the term (since you are apparently unable to define the distinction) every business in the U.S. is a private business. We use the terms public and private to describe the ownership, not the consumer base they do business with.


----------



## painterswife

jtbrandt said:


> I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that a business owner has the right to discriminate against anyone as long as it's a "private business" and not a public one.
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I can tell from your usage of the term (since you are apparently unable to define the distinction) every business in the U.S. is a private business. We use the terms public and private to describe the ownership, not the consumer base they do business with.


Private ( private membership not open to the public)versus public( Open to the public )

Privately held (Owned by private individuals)versus publicity held (shares available to be bought by the public) .


----------



## emdeengee

A lot of Christian morality and behaviour (actually immorality and hypocrisy) needs/needed to be replaced so the fact that it is happening is not surprising.


----------



## ddgresham1

Symptom? These were given as prime examples of the issue of PC going too far. Stop dodging and just do the right thing. Asking to be treated with respect is not an issue. I would like to know what the real issue is since I debunked the idea that saying little people and African American is a problem.


----------



## unregistered353870

Paumon said:


> Look, I realize you think I'm trying to be difficult or offensive, but I'm not. I'm just truly amazed that some people don't seem to know the difference between private and public business. If you really don't understand then why don't you ask about it in another topic, maybe in HT Questions forum? There are dozens upon dozens of forum members right here on HT forum that conduct their own private businesses who discreetly pick and choose which customers they do or do not want to contract with. They do it without rocking the boat and without making a big show of discrimination against the people they don't want to do business with. Discretion will always bring more success than discrimination does and it's not hard to do.


I don't need to ask anyone...I am one of those private business owners. Now you're saying use discretion, whereas before you were saying advertise who you discriminate against. You really are confusing. It can't just be my denseness...or maybe it is. I just don't get what your point is.


----------



## unregistered353870

painterswife said:


> Private ( private membership not open to the public)versus public( Open to the public )
> 
> Privately held (Owned by private individuals)versus publicity held (shares available to be bought by the public) .


Yes, I understand those, but I can't figure out how they relate to what Paumon has said. Would it be OK for Costco to have a policy of "straight people only" since it is not open to the public?


----------



## painterswife

jtbrandt said:


> Yes, I understand those, but I can't figure out how they relate to what Paumon has said. Would it be OK for Costco to have a policy of "straight people only" since it is not open to the public?


She is not saying that it is right. She is saying that if you want to only deal with those people you should have a private business and post clearly who is not allowed to use that business.

Of course here in the US you could post some restrictions that would land you in court all the time because they are against the law.


----------



## kasilofhome

painterswife said:


> She is not saying that it is right. She is saying that if you want to only deal with those people you should have a private business and post clearly who is not allowed to use that business.


WHY to make you happy....no sometime you can't have what you want. Start your own private business.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> WHY to make you happy....no sometime you can't have what you want. Start your own private business.


Even thought I was only explaining what I thought someone else meant I will answer what I believe.

It is not about what I personally want. It is what the any person with morals should want. We should not ever exclude people because of their who they love or their gender from buying a product or service that is available to the public.

That is what I believe. That is what I will fight for. It does not make me happy to have to fight for it. It is wrong and that is my opinion.


----------



## unregistered353870

painterswife said:


> She is not saying that it is right. She is saying that if you want to only deal with those people you should have a private business and post clearly who is not allowed to use that business.
> 
> Of course here in the US you could post some restrictions that would land you in court all the time because they are against the law.


Thank you for translating. I think I'm getting my head around it now. I was just very confused by the post suggesting it. I think I missed the tone of her post.


----------



## painterswife

jtbrandt said:


> Thank you for translating. I think I'm getting my head around it now. I was just very confused by the post suggesting it. I think I missed the tone of her post.


Not a problem. This was all discussed ad nauseum in another thread. Now it is being equated with political correctness instead of the discrimination it is.


----------



## kasilofhome

painterswife said:


> Even thought I was only explaining what I thought someone else meant I will answer what I believe.
> 
> It is not about what I personally want. It is what the any person with morals should want. We should not ever exclude people because of their sexual orientation or their gender from buying a product or service that is available to the public.
> 
> That is what I believe. That is what I will fight for. It does not make me happy to have to fight for it. It is wrong and that is my opinion.


Why would any person who's morality is opposed to homosexuality have to bow to your dictates that violated others beliefs. Where is your tolerance you demand from others.

Refusing to do business causes what harm to the person?
Now if a homosexual was struck by a car or in need of help or a glass of water I would give it happily but come in and demand a cake for homosexual wedding I would refuse and lose the business.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Why would any person who's morality is opposed to homosexuality have to bow to your dictates that violated others beliefs. Where is your tolerance you demand from others.
> 
> Refusing to do business causes what harm to the person?
> Now if a homosexual was struck by a car or in need of help or a glass of water I would give it happily but come in and demand a cake for homosexual wedding I would refuse and lose the business.


You don't have to bow to my dictates. You do have to bow to the law. No discrimination.

I get to fight for those laws. Don't like them fight back.


----------



## nchobbyfarm

Paumon said:


> You know this has already been hashed out for pages and pages in a previous topic.
> 
> Some people's values of what they think is right or wrong is being forced on consumers.
> 
> If a business-person does not want to do business with certain types of people they should have a private business that only deals privately with the kind of people they want as patrons. They should advertise as such and post it plainly on their establishment's front door to save themselves and their potential private customers a lot of hassle.
> 
> If they are a business that's open to the public but intend to discriminate against certain types of people they should advertise that intention to discriminate as well, and post that on their establishment. There are many busnesses that post signs that say "No shirt, no shoes, no service" or "No smoking, no spitting, no swearing" or "No guns allowed on premises" or "No animals allowed except service animals" or "No minors under age ____ allowed" or "Men only" or "Women only".
> 
> If you are a business-person whose conscience dictates you can only do business with certain people and discriminate against other types of people then advertise as such.
> 
> "NO gays, no divorcees, no unwed mothers, no welfare recipients, no blacks, no Mexicans, no non-Christians, no bikers, no tattoos, no liberals, no environmentalists, no hillbillies, no farmers or homesteaders, ...... etc. etc."
> 
> Take your pick of who you want to discriminate against and make them an outcast, but just let people know in advance who is welcome and who is not welcome to do business with you.


I am asking this question to help me understand your position.

If I own a restaurant that seats 50 people and 48 are enjoying a nice meal. In walks the 49th person and that person sits down in the center of the dining area. I start receiving complaints about a strong body odor smell from this last person, should I be allowed to refuse service to the one or must I lose the business of all that just decide to dine elsewhere? At what point can I refuse someone or must I serve everyone no matter the circumstances?

I hope I asked that well enough for you to be able to understand my line of thinking.


----------



## unregistered353870

painterswife said:


> Not a problem. This was all discussed ad nauseum in another thread. Now it is being equated with political correctness instead of the discrimination it is.


I think the two subjects are closely related in a lot of cases. But I said what I needed to say in that ad nauseum discussion and of course I didn't change anyone's mind, so I won't repeat it.


----------



## Evons hubby

MoonRiver said:


> Why do you even bother commenting?


Thats a good question... I merely asked a simple question and get no answer. I am very well aware of the various cultural differences between the early Europeans who settled here, and the locals who had been here for thousands of years.... then there were hundreds of thousands... or probably millions of africans brought here against their will, and millions of asians who also migrated here.... and yet only the europeans religion seems to be sacred and was forced upon everyone else. What bothers me here is that those "Christian values and morals" are not, nor were they ever really practiced very much by the European immigrants. So why all the fizz about how those principles are being lost now? :shrug:


----------



## kasilofhome

Who's law is the highest I bow to and it is not mans


----------



## MO_cows

ddgresham1 said:


> Symptom? These were given as prime examples of the issue of PC going too far. Stop dodging and just do the right thing. Asking to be treated with respect is not an issue. I would like to know what the real issue is since I debunked the idea that saying little people and African American is a problem.





ddgresham1 said:


> Symptom? These were given as prime examples of the issue of PC going too far. Stop dodging and just do the right thing. Asking to be treated with respect is not an issue. I would like to know what the real issue is since I debunked the idea that saying little people and African American is a problem.


The real issue is that it has gone from basic respect for others and evolving our society past the "Archie Bunker" stage, to seemingly trying to create a fairy tale land where everything is perfect and special, and nothing can be stated in the negative, even if it is true. Pets became companion animals. They play t-ball but don't keep score because I guess a child could be scarred for life if they "lost". We zoomed right on past basic respect and the "golden rule" to la-la land. 

They made a tv show called Queer Eye For the Straight Guy, but if I encountered a gay man and called him queer, I'd be sued or prosecuted for a hate crime! However, if that gay man called me a breeder, would anybody take up my case? Heck, no. See, it isn't "respect" when it doesn't go both ways.


----------



## Evons hubby

MO_cows said:


> The real issue is that it has gone from basic respect for others and evolving our society past the "Archie Bunker" stage,


Interesting you should mention Archie. That show should have be a warning to all of us. Ever notice how Archie was always made out to be the bad guy? Of course he was, he was the one working, busting hump at a miserable job and paying for everyone elses free ride. Respect? Where was meatheads respect for the food he ate, and the room he slept in... not to mention how he was violating Archies only daughter all the while! 
Just to be honest.... Archie could have given meat head and Gloria both lessons in "tolerance".


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> Who's law is the highest I bow to and it is not mans


So you are all good with stoning the adulteress, and cutting off the thief's hand?


----------



## Ozarks Tom

Having been in business for over 35 years I've had occasion several times to refuse doing business with people, both wholesale and retail. I even came up with a statement for such occasions - "I think you'd be, and I know I would be much happier if you took your business elsewhere".

Why I didn't want to do business with them was my business, but if they demanded an explanation I'd give them one they usually wouldn't like.

If the weather in the real world is too harsh for some hot house orchids, it's not my fault.


----------



## kasilofhome

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So you are all good with stoning the adulteress, and cutting off the thief's hand?


Yes,
Providing no harm was caused to the other person. If not no.


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> Yes,
> Providing no harm was caused to the other person. If not no.


Ok, now I am confused? are you saying yes, or no?


----------



## kasilofhome

Kinda like a parable answer huh

Imagine dividing a baby to solve a custody issue


----------



## Paumon

nchobbyfarm said:


> I am asking this question to help me understand your position.
> 
> If I own a restaurant that seats 50 people and 48 are enjoying a nice meal. In walks the 49th person and that person sits down in the center of the dining area. I start receiving complaints about a strong body odor smell from this last person, should I be allowed to refuse service to the one or must I lose the business of all that just decide to dine elsewhere? At what point can I refuse someone or must I serve everyone no matter the circumstances?
> 
> I hope I asked that well enough for you to be able to understand my line of thinking.


Never mind what you are allowed to do and what your financial motivation is. You have to go by what is legally demanded of you and your personal responsibility to safeguard the health and safety of your clientele. Wouldn't you go by what the public service and food handling health and safety regulations in your country demand? 

The offending person has a health and hygeine problem that could easily cause immediate chain reaction health problems for all other people on the premises and a resulting sanitary problem all over the building that could cause it to be closed down. Think about the ramifications of having 48 customers puking their guts up all over the premises. 

Taking into consideration the nature of the establishment's public service and the potential health risk to the clientele and the premises the proprietor would be required by law to have the person leave the establishment immediately because s/he poses an immediate health risk to the establishment and everyone on the premises.

If the person refuses to leave you have grounds for calling for law enforcement.


----------



## HDRider

emdeengee said:


> A lot of Christian morality and behaviour (actually immorality and hypocrisy) needs/needed to be replaced so the fact that it is happening is not surprising.


Could you offer an example?


----------



## HDRider

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So you are all good with stoning the adulteress, and cutting off the thief's hand?


Who does that?


----------



## nchobbyfarm

Paumon said:


> Never mind what you are allowed to do and what your financial motivation is. You have to go by what is legally demanded of you and your personal responsibility to safeguard the health and safety of your clientele. Wouldn't you go by what the public service and food handling health and safety regulations in your country demand?
> 
> The offending person has a health and hygeine problem that could easily cause immediate chain reaction health problems for all other people on the premises and a resulting sanitary problem all over the building that could cause it to be closed down. Think about the ramifications of having 48 customers puking their guts up all over the premises.
> 
> Taking into consideration the nature of the establishment's public service and the potential health risk to the clientele and the premises the proprietor would be required by law to have the person leave the establishment immediately because s/he poses an immediate health risk to the establishment and everyone on the premises.
> 
> If the person refuses to leave you have grounds for calling for law enforcement.


Sorry I tried to understand your position. A person that smells bad does not necessarily pose a health risk. So your entire premise of protecting the other clients is bogus. You apparently don't want to explain any of your positions or you don't understand my thinking. I was really trying to find the point that you think the business owner has any rights. Better left alone I guess!


----------



## Paumon

jtbrandt said:


> I don't need to ask anyone...I am one of those private business owners. Now you're saying use discretion, whereas before you were saying advertise who you discriminate against. You really are confusing. It can't just be my denseness...or maybe it is. I just don't get what your point is.


Okay.

I'll use myself for an example of discretion and discrimination in my private business. First off, I'm not inclined to discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation, any race, creed, color, any religion (as long as they're not trying to impose it on me), unwed mothers, hippies, tattoos, etc and all that other silly stuff. If I openly discriminate it will be against people's actions, not who they are or what their faith is. So then I might plainly advertise things like 

- no shoes, no shirt, no service
- no credit
- no swearing 
- no smoking, no food or beverages, no drugs, no guns or alcohol allowed on premises 
- no dripping umbrellas, please leave your wet umbrella in the stand by the door 
- you break it, you pay for it 
- no loitering 
- no peddlers 
- no proselytizing 
- and most importantly "SMILE, YOU'RE ON CANDID CAMERA."

Give me enough time and I'm sure I can think of a few more. If customers follow the above posted rules they are welcome to be my customers.

Now, as to using personal discretion and discrimination against people that I do not want as a customer frequenting my business or buying my services: I don't want customers that I know are criminals who cause harm to other people. I don't want any custom from drug addicts or drug dealers. I loathe pimps and perveyors of child porn and would just as soon spray them in the face with bear-spray if they stepped through my door as I would stand idly and watch them die in the gutter if I saw them get knocked down by a hit and run driver. If I know a person is a domestic abuser who beats his wife and children I don't want him as a customer and I'll tell him that right after I tell him I know what he is and what he does. And if any religious fanatics come in on the pretext of being a potential customer and then starts proselytizing about their religion and judging me and my wares I'll physically man-handle them out the door so fast they won't have time to say Jack Robinson. All of these ilk above I will tell them to their face that I want nothing to do with them or their money and if they step one foot on my premises I'll charge them with trespassing. That's my discretion and my discrimination.



jtbrandt said:


> Yes, I understand those, but I can't figure out how they relate to what Paumon has said. *Would it be OK for Costco to have a policy of "straight people only" since it is not open to the public*?


How do you know for sure that Costco doesn't have a policy of "straight people only"? Does Costco have a questionnaire for their customers who are applying for membership? Does the questionnaire ask what their sexual orientation is, or even their religion? Maybe they do discriminate and you just don't know about it because they might be discreet in their discrimination.

Many, many years ago when I worked as a maternity leave temp for IBM in their downtown headquarters tower in Vancouver they had an unknown policy at the time of only permanently hiring empoyees who were straight white Christians, preferably men who were married with children or else married women with no children. It didn't say so on any application forms of course but they did all their hiring through head-hunter agencies and it was the head-hunters who very discreetly weeded out any 'undesireables' that didn't fit the criteria. 

I don't know if IBM still has that policy (I doubt it now) but people never knew about the criteria until after they had been hired as permanent employees.


----------



## greg273

MO_cows said:


> They made a tv show called Queer Eye For the Straight Guy, but if I encountered a gay man and called him queer, I'd be sued or prosecuted for a hate crime! However, if that gay man called me a breeder, would anybody take up my case? Heck, no. See, it isn't "respect" when it doesn't go both ways.


 I highly doubt you'd be sued or prosecuted for a hate crime because you called someone queer. 
Gays no longer have to hide in the closet, or live in fear for their lives or careers because of how God made them. Sorry if some folks want to go back to the 'good old bad days' when gays were ostracized and outcast. 
As a side note, I find it endlessly amusing when prominent gay-bashers get outed as gays themselves as has happened many times. Kind of the whole 'thou doth protest too much' thing.


----------



## Paumon

nchobbyfarm said:


> Sorry I tried to understand your position. A person that smells bad does not necessarily pose a health risk. So your entire premise of protecting the other clients is bogus. You apparently don't want to explain any of your positions or you don't understand my thinking. I was really trying to find the point that you think the business owner has any rights. Better left alone I guess!




Then you've obviously never worked in a restaurant and seen the chain reaction consequences of what can happen to gagging customers who are sitting near a really stinky customer who smells like feces and pee - or even a untended squalling baby with poopy diapers. I hope you never have to experience that and be one of the staff that is cleaning up the vomit in the aftermath.


----------



## MO_cows

Under our current system, it most certainly could be prosecuted as hate speech. Look at what happened to old whats-his-name when his derogatory comments that were made in private and in confidence became public - he had a basketball team taken away from him. At the very least, anyone within earshot would treat you like you had leprosy if they heard it. You would be a social outcast. But to use the derogatory term in the title of the show is just being "artsy" I guess??. A double standard isn't any better when it's the majority being persecuted instead of the minority.


----------



## nchobbyfarm

Paumon said:


> Then you've obviously never worked in a restaurant and seen the chain reaction consequences of what can happen to gagging customers who are sitting near a really stinky customer who smells like feces and pee - or even a untended squalling baby with poopy diapers. I hope you never have to experience that and be one of the staff that is cleaning up the vomit in the aftermath.


And you like to avoid the principle and concentrate on the mundane. I should have used a very loud or obnoxious customer. Never mind!


----------



## big rockpile

plowjockey said:


> Hmmm
> 
> 
> 40-70% divorce rate - depending on how many times you get married.
> 
> 100 year scandal of priests who could not stop touching children and the thousands who protected their actions.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.libchrist.com/swing/happysafestudies.html
> 
> *Ephren Taylor Accused of $11 Million Christian Ponzi Scheme by SE*
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=church+ponzi+scheme
> 
> *
> Christian Minister Sex scandals*
> 
> https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=christian+minister+sex+scandal
> 
> 
> Yep, Christians are better than everybody else.
> 
> Just ask em'.


 Repent and keep trying. Now if you have no intention of correcting your sins the word of God is very clear on this.

I will Pray for you.

big rockpile


----------



## Paumon

nchobbyfarm said:


> And you like to avoid the principle and concentrate on the mundane. I should have used a very loud or obnoxious customer. *Never mind!*


A loud and obnoxious customer is disturbing the peace and that's against the law. If he won't shut up then call the cops. It's a no-brainer. 

You asked a question and I gave you an honest answer. If you don't like the honest answer that's your problem. 

Thanks, I'll do as you request and "never mind" you from now on because I think you're just trying to be a heckler in the peanut gallery. It was a really stupid question anyways because anyone with any common sense would know what the answer is so I should have ignored your question. Consider yourself "never minded" from here on.


----------



## greg273

MO_cows said:


> Under our current system, it most certainly could be prosecuted as hate speech. Look at what happened to old whats-his-name when his derogatory comments that were made in private and in confidence became public - he had a basketball team taken away from him.


 No one 'prosecuted' the basketball team owner, his own league kicked him out,as per their own rules of conduct.


----------



## big rockpile

greg273 said:


> I highly doubt you'd be sued or prosecuted for a hate crime because you called someone queer.
> Gays no longer have to hide in the closet, or live in fear for their lives or careers because of how God made them. Sorry if some folks want to go back to the 'good old bad days' when gays were ostracized and outcast.
> As a side note, I find it endlessly amusing when prominent gay-bashers get outed as gays themselves as has happened many times. Kind of the whole 'thou doth protest too much' thing.


 Have many homosexual friends and have made it clear what the Word of God has to say about them. And Pray for them regular that they will Repent and change their ways.

big rockpile


----------



## unregistered353870

Paumon said:


> How do you know for sure that Costco doesn't have a policy of "straight people only"? Does Costco have a questionnaire for their customers who are applying for membership? Does the questionnaire ask what their sexual orientation is, or even their religion? Maybe they do discriminate and you just don't know about it because they might be discreet in their discrimination.


I don't know that they don't do it. My question was whether it would be OK. But I'm not really interested in the topic anymore. I wasn't looking for an argument, just understanding.


----------



## arcticow

Paumon said:


> Look, I realize you think I'm trying to be difficult or offensive, but I'm not. I'm just truly amazed that some people don't seem to know the difference between private and public business. If you really don't understand then why don't you ask about it in another topic, maybe in HT Questions forum? There are dozens upon dozens of forum members right here on HT forum that conduct their own private businesses who discreetly pick and choose which customers they do or do not want to contract with. They do it without rocking the boat and without making a big show of discrimination against the people they don't want to do business with. Discretion will always bring more success than discrimination does and it's not hard to do.


In other words, if they choose to open a business storefront, instead of hiding and working underground to build a clientele... Which then means they are deliberately asking to be sued, persecuted, prosecuted, shamed... All of which these "protected minorities" bemoan having been through themselves... Somehow this sort of "payback" is perfectly correct morally, socially, legally, ethically, and of course politically...


----------



## MO_cows

greg273 said:


> No one 'prosecuted' the basketball team owner, his own league kicked him out,as per their own rules of conduct.


That's why I said "persecuted". Not prosecuted. Tried and convicted in the court of public opinion.


----------



## greg273

big rockpile said:


> Have many homosexual friends and have made it clear what the Word of God has to say about them. And Pray for them regular that they will Repent and change their ways.
> 
> big rockpile


 Rock, you can't change a leopards spots. You can slap a paint job on it, but its still a leopard. Perhaps God made them that way.
And by quoting the bible to them, you're going by some ancient injunctions laid down by lesser men than Jesus. How about the injunctions about wearing more than one type of fabric? Or sowing more than one crop in each field? Do you adhere to those injunctions also? Picking and choosing which bible verse you're going to adhere to kind of defeats the purpose of following scripture, now doesn't it?


----------



## Paumon

arcticow said:


> Originally Posted by *Paumon*
> _Look, I realize you think I'm trying to be difficult or offensive, but I'm not. I'm just truly amazed that some people don't seem to know the difference between private and public business. If you really don't understand then why don't you ask about it in another topic, maybe in HT Questions forum? There are dozens upon dozens of forum members right here on HT forum that conduct their own private businesses who discreetly pick and choose which customers they do or do not want to contract with. They do it without rocking the boat and without making a big show of discrimination against the people they don't want to do business with. Discretion will always bring more success than discrimination does and it's not hard to do._
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, if they choose to open a business storefront, instead of hiding and working underground to build a clientele... Which then means they are deliberately asking to be sued, persecuted, prosecuted, shamed... All of which these "protected minorities" bemoan having been through themselves... Somehow this sort of "payback" is perfectly correct morally, socially, legally, ethically, and of course politically...
Click to expand...

Personally I don't think "payback" out of spite over previous injustices is ever correct. But realistically I've come to recognize that the reality of life is that what goes around comes around and it seems like payback is inevitable. The more that people try to impose their values and control over others the more their own impositions and controls are going to come back and bite them in the bum. It's karma. 

Actually, I'm not sure who you're referring to either. When you refer to "protected minorities" are you referring to the same people that the OP referred to as "outcasts" with "warped" ideas that go against what he calls his "Christian" values? 

I think if everyone had real Christian values there would be no such thing as outcasts and minorities who need to be protected from having Christian values imposed upon them.

If you're referring to HT members who have their own private businesses I suspect you might be vastly underestimating how many HT members there actually are who are "protected minorities" and non-Christians. They simply don't say anything about it and don't rock the boat so they don't have to deal with the judgementalism and intolerance of all the very vocal ones who so frequently complain about their so-called Christian values being under-valued, under-mined or not adhered to the way the complainers think they should be. Their silence and tolerance is their discretion.


----------



## kasilofhome

Reality is that if Americans need foreigners guidance to change our nation how can we expect to remain American.

Surely we did not seek guidance from England in writing the declaration of independence.

So what is the fascination of non citizens in our politics? I would not want the govern
Of Canada to live under. I want American values where we can disagree to have personal view points verse a collected view point.

It might be hard for a non American resident to understand the freedom that comes from the bill of rights when currently living under a form of socialism which is the norm to them.

There was the symbolic Tokyo rose ..more to that story..some day and I think we do need to check are sources for guidance as to any biases they have openly in order to weight the value of their input is. What is their goal. There is no nation that is perfect. 

Personally political advice from nationals happy to live in a nation gliding to greater socialism and bigger government control seems like a poor source to improve a country under a republic esp if one is for personal rights,responsibility and freedom.

Look in a mirror how many "special" protected groups do you fit in 
Are you male
Are you of a faith that someone dislikes
Do you live in a trailer
Have you gone to an ivy league school
Are you a parent
Political

There are victim cards for anyone who wants one
I am willing to forgo the victim card and work to gain the success card. They are out there 
They take work to get ...one has to earn it. It has value that will stay with you in strifull times, ever if success eludes you the journey to it is so much more satisfying than the search to find someone to blame for you situation as one is empowered not wussified.


----------



## davel745

MoonRiver said:


> as our shared morality? (Edit) I mean this more in a cultural way than a religious way, as in our culture was built on a foundation of Judeo-Christian morality.
> 
> Have the outcasts successfully forced their warped view of morality on the rest of us?
> 
> Over the last 20 years or so, I have been amazed at how many seemingly ridiculous ideas have made it into our culture under the banner of political correctness. Gay marriage, illegal immigrants, "free" speech, competition, role of marriage, relationship between men and women, having children outside of marriage, use of drugs, discussions of race, discussions of crime, and on and on.


I think that almost everything that is happening in the world today is the result of the world wide caliphate. bashing Christians is a big part of it.


----------



## MoonRiver

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Thats a good question... I merely asked a simple question and get no answer. I am very well aware of the various cultural differences between the early Europeans who settled here, and the locals who had been here for thousands of years.... then there were hundreds of thousands... or probably millions of africans brought here against their will, and millions of asians who also migrated here.... and yet only the europeans religion seems to be sacred and was forced upon everyone else. What bothers me here is that those "Christian values and morals" are not, nor were they ever really practiced very much by the European immigrants. So why all the fizz about how those principles are being lost now? :shrug:


What the op is about is how a liberal political strategy called political correctness is being used to override culture through the use of intimidation and shaming.


----------



## ddgresham1

What foreign countries are telling us what to do? This stuff is coming from the inside. Tell me one PC thing that is wrong. I haven't heard any.


----------



## MoonRiver

ddgresham1 said:


> Tell me one PC thing that is wrong. I haven't heard any.


Winter holiday.


----------



## Evons hubby

ddgresham1 said:


> What foreign countries are telling us what to do? This stuff is coming from the inside. Tell me one PC thing that is wrong. I haven't heard any.


Smoking bans. You only asked for one, there are plenty of others that infringe upon the rights of individuals... which is just plain wrong but considered to be "politically correct".


----------



## Vahomesteaders

greg273 said:


> Rock, you can't change a leopards spots. You can slap a paint job on it, but its still a leopard. Perhaps God made them that way.
> And by quoting the bible to them, you're going by some ancient injunctions laid down by lesser men than Jesus. How about the injunctions about wearing more than one type of fabric? Or sowing more than one crop in each field? Do you adhere to those injunctions also? Picking and choosing which bible verse you're going to adhere to kind of defeats the purpose of following scripture, now doesn't it?


God makes no mistake. He creates everything to work in harmony with its counterpart. If you are born with full working parts off one sex you should be with the opposite sex. A sexual physical attraction to the sane sex is counter productive and counter species so or has no place on any level. God or nature. Therefore it must be classified as a disorder. And actually the top physciatric head at John's Hopkins said as much s couple weeks ago. And the food and fabric laws were abolished in the Bible. But homosexuality was banned in both old and New testement. Including jesus who said have you not heard what was written in the beginning? That a man should leave his family and cling to a wife and a woman was to leave her family and cling to a husband? No other relationships are spoken about accept man and woman.


----------



## Evons hubby

HDRider said:


> Who does that?


Those who follow God's law as prescribed in the Bible.


----------



## Tricky Grama

MDKatie said:


> A person close to me was abused as a child (in the 50's). She went to school with visible bruises quite frequently, yet nobody ever said or did anything about it. People ignored it. Teachers, neighbors, family friends, etc. Society as a whole may not have agreed with abuse back then, but they sure as heck didn't speak out against it like they do now. People just looked the other way and didn't want to get involved.


This has NOTHING to do with political correctness. NADA. What makes you think it does?


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> Public censorship? How about all the public censorship if you were not Christian or if you were gay or of certain races? Or even better yet a women?
> 
> Wanting people to not use certain words when they speak to or describe other human beings does not stunt positive solutions. HT would be a perfect example. We can still express ourselves and move to wards positive change without swearing and putting down groups of people in our society by using ugly words. It is not allowed here. It does not need to be tolerated anywhere.


I think I see...like it is no longer PC to say: "illegal Alien". It is ugly & hurtful. You should say: " undocumented worker". Which is false but never mind.
You cannot use the word "niggardly" w/o being fired. Why is that? Plain ignorance, that's what.
So you cannot say "colored" either, I have no problem there except what do those who belong to NAACP say?
Lots of children's books are no longer PC. 
Trying to be PC killed how many soldiers at Ft Hood?
Cannot really think of a good thing that's come out of PC...oh, I agree w/change in the term: retarded.


----------



## Tricky Grama

ddgresham1 said:


> What foreign countries are telling us what to do? This stuff is coming from the inside. Tell me one PC thing that is wrong. I haven't heard any.


The terrorist attack on Ft Hood: "workplace violence"!
Undocumented worker instead of illegal alien.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Come on man. Michigan just changed the name of the Asian carp because it was offensive. Now they call it invasive carp.lol


----------



## MoonRiver

Vahomesteaders said:


> Come on man. Michigan just changed the name of the Asian carp because it was offensive. Now they call it invasive carp.lol


I can't believe you wrote Michigan in this thread. I bet the states without great water will be around to denounce you shortly. You make them feel inferior!


----------



## greg273

Vahomesteaders said:


> God makes no mistake. .


 Then you should have no problem accepting homosexuals. Did you yourself make a conscious decision to be straight? No? I doubt gay people made a conscious decision to be attracted to members of the same sex. Why would anyone choose a path that leads to social isolation and derision? Do you know how many gays end up committing suicide because they can't stand being social outcasts? Thankfully those days are coming to a close, no thanks to close minded people who'd rather push them back into the closet or tell them their going to hell.


----------



## greg273

Vahomesteaders said:


> Come on man. Michigan just changed the name of the Asian carp because it was offensive.l


 No, they didn't. 

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10364_52261_54896---,00.html


----------



## 95bravo

greg273 said:


> Rock, you can't change a leopards spots. You can slap a paint job on it, but its still a leopard. Perhaps God made them that way.
> And by quoting the bible to them, you're going by some ancient injunctions laid down by lesser men than Jesus. How about the injunctions about wearing more than one type of fabric? Or sowing more than one crop in each field? Do you adhere to those injunctions also? Picking and choosing which bible verse you're going to adhere to kind of defeats the purpose of following scripture, now doesn't it?


I agree with you on the picking and choosing. I follow the instructions I can, when and a where I can. Picking and choosing leads many astray. For example the duck dynasty guy siting Leviticus law to bring condemnation on gays then eating crawfish (also in Lev) is one of many examples. No one is perfect. The best of our works is rags to the Most High. 
The Bible says not to mix your seeds, not crops. Mixing your seed varieties would lead to a hybrid plants and could lead you to lose that variety. Is this a sin? I don't think so. Just flat good advise. Same thing with blended material. One of my favorite outdoor sayings in "wool itches, but cotton kills". Do I think it pleases the Most High to eat the critters that he calls an Abomination, and has been proven over and over to lead to heart disease? Nope, that's why I don't eat them. Do I go to church on Sunday's? Nope, the Word says Saturdays is the Sabbath. Will I tell someone they are wrong for going to Church on Sunday's? Nope, the words says not to judge anyone for the Sabbaths, or festivals they keep. You have look at the word rationally. The Bible says to leave the corners of your crops for the poor, so they can take what they need without shame. Do I do this? Nope, my garden is on my back forty, and my whole place is surrounded with fencing. I donate a portion of everything I grow. To me this the best way I know how to follow this instruction.

And as a side note the New Testament condemns **** acts three times for the New Testament only, or New Covenant believers.


----------



## greg273

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Smoking bans. You only asked for one, there are plenty of others that infringe upon the rights of individuals... which is just plain wrong but considered to be "politically correct".


 You don't have a 'right' to breathe toxic smoke on your fellow citizens. If you can find a way to keep the secondhand smoke to yourself, then by all means, smoke up. Think of it this way, what is the waste stream from drinking beer? How'd you like if someone poured some secondhand beer on you?


----------



## ddgresham1

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Smoking bans. You only asked for one, there are plenty of others that infringe upon the rights of individuals... which is just plain wrong but considered to be "politically correct".


States rights. Don't like it? Move.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

greg273 said:


> Then you should have no problem accepting homosexuals. Did you yourself make a conscious decision to be straight? No? I doubt gay people made a conscious decision to be attracted to members of the same sex. Why would anyone choose a path that leads to social isolation and derision? Do you know how many gays end up committing suicide because they can't stand being social outcasts? Thankfully those days are coming to a close, no thanks to close minded people who'd rather push them back into the closet or tell them their going to hell.


Yes I did make that decision. As soon as I seen a mother and a father working together I realized, Wow. That makes sense. Then I seen my first boob and the deal was sealed.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

greg273 said:


> No, they didn't.
> 
> http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10364_52261_54896---,00.html


Your right. It was Minnesota. 
http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_25653909/asian-carp-gets-name-change-minnesota-senate


----------



## MoonRiver

greg273 said:


> Then you should have no problem accepting homosexuals. Did you yourself make a conscious decision to be straight? No? I doubt gay people made a conscious decision to be attracted to members of the same sex. Why would anyone choose a path that leads to social isolation and derision? Do you know how many gays end up committing suicide because they can't stand being social outcasts? Thankfully those days are coming to a close, no thanks to close minded people who'd rather push them back into the closet or tell them their going to hell.


Until someone identifies the gay gene(s), we don't know if homosexuality is genetic or not.

When something has been condemned for thousandss of years and considered sinful by most major religions, I have to wonder why? Usually when there is this strong a condemnation of some human act, there was a very good reason for it. The question I have is what was that reason and is it still appropriate today. Unfortunately the PC police prevented that discussion from ever taking place.


----------



## greg273

Vahomesteaders said:


> Yes I did make that decision. As soon as I seen a mother and a father working together I realized, Wow. That makes sense. Then I seen my first boob and the deal was sealed.


 Doesn't sound like a choice, sounds like you followed your instincts. You saw a boob, you liked it. Some folks don't get the same feeling, for whatever reason. You didn't weigh the pros and cons of being 'normal' and choose to be that way. Are the straights the majority, therefore the 'norm'?? Sure. Doesn't mean those who are different are sinners.


----------



## greg273

MoonRiver said:


> Until someone identifies the gay gene(s), we don't know if homosexuality is genetic or not.


 Surely you have eyes to see that not all people are the same. There are masculine men, masculine women, feminine females and feminine males. All created that way by their Creator. Most follow the standard 'masculine male and feminine female' model, and for that we can be thankful. But you'd have to be blind to not notice that not everyone fits neatly into those 'normal' categories. 

And there is no one gene that determines sexual orientation. There are many factors, but the evidence points to it being something someone is born with, not a 'lifestyle choice' as some ignorant folks like to claim. Choosing to smoke is a lifestyle choice. Going skiing, that is a lifestyle choice. Who you are attracted to is something inherent, not a choice. 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...uality-how-our-genes-make-us-gay-or-straight/


----------



## Evons hubby

greg273 said:


> You don't have a 'right' to breathe toxic smoke on your fellow citizens. If you can find a way to keep the secondhand smoke to yourself, then by all means, smoke up. Think of it this way, what is the waste stream from drinking beer? How'd you like if someone poured some secondhand beer on you?


And this is exactly what I was talking about.... totally wrong, but "politically correct. First off, there is nothing "toxic" about second hand smoke. At least nothing any more toxic than many other things that the average citizen thinks nothing about. Now, before you go posting links to all the hype and propaganda that claims there is, you might want to do some homework, and find out exactly who sponsored those "stats". You might also want to check out the governments own study that prompted a lot of this nonsense... the very one that insists there is a 20 percent higher risk of lung disease by those living with second hand smoke and those who dont. That study showed that out of approx 2 million people who lived with a smoker, and worked around smokers 12 of them developed lung disease, while out of the control group, of roughly the same amount of people who lived in a smoke free environment only 10 developed lung disease later in life. Yeppers, 2 divided by 10 equals 20 percent.... but when you look at it a wee bit closer you suddenly realize that 2 divided by 2 million.... shows beyond any reasonable doubt that second hand smoke makes no realistic difference in the outcomes. Secondly, I keep my second hand smoke to myself, along with the aid of ventilation systems in restaurants and pubs and other public buildings. Somehow this isnt good enough.... the politically correct crowd aint havin any. 

For those rare people who have nasty reactions to the slightest whiff of tobacco smoke, you have my sympathy.... just like folks who suffer from other allergies like peanuts... or rag weed... I recommend you avoid those things. Me? I have developed an allergy to shell fish, which is my very favoritest foods! Love me a lobster, crab legs, shrimp, and all those other little delicacies of the deep. You dont see me whining about others eating them or pushing to have them banned, I simply avoid them myself because I would rather not bleed to death.


----------



## MoonRiver

greg273 said:


> Surely you have eyes to see that not all people are the same. There are masculine men, masculine women, feminine females and feminine males. All created that way by their Creator. Most follow the standard 'masculine male and feminine female' model, and for that we can be thankful. But you'd have to be blind to not notice that not everyone fits neatly into those 'normal' categories.
> 
> And there is no one gene that determines sexual orientation. There are many factors, but the evidence points to it being something someone is born with, not a 'lifestyle choice' as some ignorant folks like to claim. Choosing to smoke is a lifestyle choice. Going skiing, that is a lifestyle choice. Who you are attracted to is something inherent, not a choice.
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...uality-how-our-genes-make-us-gay-or-straight/


None of that proves it's genetic. I just saw an article where they said a cause of lesbianism is plasticity, which I think in that context probably meant learned. The brain map changed.


----------



## kasilofhome

greg273 said:


> Then you should have no problem accepting homosexuals. Did you yourself make a conscious decision to be straight? No? I doubt gay people made a conscious decision to be attracted to members of the same sex. Why would anyone choose a path that leads to social isolation and derision? Do you know how many gays end up committing suicide because they can't stand being social outcasts? Thankfully those days are coming to a close, no thanks to close minded people who'd rather push them back into the closet or tell them their going to hell.



Sexual expression is an act, choice is involved. Stealing is an act, it is a choice.
Smoking is an act, choice is involved.

Relating and leading one to believe that sexual expression is an involuntary bodily 
Function as in breathing or beatings heart is insulting to rational logic as it can be vetted for faults.

Many times a day we all will face choices where freewill is tested. Some of the times situation, environment, can curb ....alter or prevent us from using our freewill in making our choices. Society and cultural play a big role in boundaries ...note culture can and often does include governmental structure.

In cultures where government is big and powerful and the people sense of freewill and personal choices . Personal responsibility fades as people accept yokes.


If sexuality was simple an involuntary bodily function as breathing it would be happening in the shopping aisles, at your thanksgiving dinner or in the waiting room of a hospital as you wait to learn if your mom made it thru surgery.

Trust me if you do not have animals but their sexuality is expressed even on the way to personal slaughter.

There for I have laid out that human sexuality is not involuntary but a choice. 

Eating well there are a lot of choices there freewill again some people may eat a well balanced diet homemade from home grown items of some may freely select a diet of 7-11 fare washed....drowned with a big gulp.

Back to culture. With a big government in power individuals are not important but large cluster are more important to train to actions that will aid the government to the government's goal direction.


If a government is on the path to bar ....ban your soda to gain health worker with cheaper up keep. Ever wonder if the government open support and encouragement of a group (that many who claim to be homosexual expressed that the were rejected,made to feel ashamed, stuck in a closet) to rises up. Well at the same period be attempting to reduce population. 

People can want something and gain pleasure from it and make a freewill choice not to. Self control and personal responsibility has stop many from waking thru a car lot a stealing a rig they need.


----------



## FourDeuce

Since christian morality was never MY morality, nothing has replaced it for me.:happy:


----------



## ddgresham1

Vahomesteaders said:


> Yes I did make that decision. As soon as I seen a mother and a father working together I realized, Wow. That makes sense. Then I seen my first boob and the deal was sealed.


And gays saw their first penis and the deal was sealed. Being gay is a naturally occurring event, just like being straight.


----------



## MoonRiver

ddgresham1 said:


> And gays saw their first penis and the deal was sealed. Being gay is a naturally occurring event, just like being straight.


Opinion, not proven fact.


----------



## kasilofhome

Stealing is a natural event.
Killing is a natural event.
Forest fires are natural events
Picking your nostrils a natural event.

Are we to support everything that is a natural event. 

Sounds like justification. 

Weak


----------



## Evons hubby

ddgresham1 said:


> And gays saw their first penis and the deal was sealed. Being gay is a naturally occurring event, just like being straight.





MoonRiver said:


> Opinion, not proven fact.


Well, its been occurring for thousands of years, and as yet nobody has figured out any particular food that causes it... I am pretty sure it just occurs naturally, kinda like albinos. Not quite as rare, but pretty much a natural occurrence just the same. 
What do you think causes some people to be attracted to the same sex? Something in the water maybe?


----------



## ddgresham1

Vahomesteaders said:


> Yes I did make that decision. As soon as I seen a mother and a father working together I realized, Wow. That makes sense. Then I seen my first boob and the deal was sealed.


And gays saw their first penis and the deal was sealed. Being gay is a naturally occurring event, just like being straight.


----------



## Oggie

Christianity is a choice.

That's pretty much one of its tenents.


----------



## MoonRiver

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Well, its been occurring for thousands of years, and as yet nobody has figured out any particular food that causes it... I am pretty sure it just occurs naturally, kinda like albinos.
> 
> What do you think causes people to be attracted to the same sex? Something in the water maybe?


Then why haven't motivated scientists been able to find the gay gene?

I'm not saying it is not genetic, just that it hasn't been proven. So at this time, all we have are opinions.


----------



## Trainwrek

greg273 said:


> Surely you have eyes to see that not all people are the same. There are masculine men, masculine women, feminine females and feminine males. All created that way by their Creator. Most follow the standard 'masculine male and feminine female' model, and for that we can be thankful. But you'd have to be blind to not notice that not everyone fits neatly into those 'normal' categories. ......


Wait a second here, Ive been staying out of this conversation, just following a long but this post is way off IMO. What you see as 'masculine or feminine' has more to do with cultural perceptions and conditioning. Take a girl and dress her a certain way, give her a butch haircut and she appears 'masculine'. Take a guy and dress him a certain way and have him affect a lisp and a feminine air and suddenly he appears feminine. And then of course you have many large, burly, tough looking men marching along in the gay pride parades as well.

Just saying 'you have eyes and can see that some people appear more masculine or feminine' is no evidence of anything. Many gays affect a certain way of speaking, dress and demeanor. So when you see a masculine seeming lesbian or feminine looking man you have absolutely no way of knowing whether or not that behavior ( or even the appearance ) is genetic or learned.


----------



## kasilofhome

Yes it is a choice...
Christianity has not been found wanting
It has been found difficult and not tried


----------



## 95bravo

It's a good thing people don't act on every craven thought that come into their heads. I for one would weigh 500 pounds and be homeless. Why get up at 420 in the morning to go to the gym and fight my 'natural' instincts to sleep in? Why go to work when I can sleep in even more? Why eat a grass feed lamb chop, when I really want a loaded pizza? Why honor my pact with my Wife to be faithful when I could hit on every lady I come across? Why break horrible habits from my ignorant youth like dipping, and drinking a case of soda everyday? Why do things with my kids when I could I spend the day fishing with the homies? Everyone has demons they struggle with. If someone could be born gay, can a person not also be born a child molester or horse lover?


----------



## Trainwrek

MoonRiver said:


> Then why haven't motivated scientists been able to find the gay gene?
> 
> I'm not saying it is not genetic, just that it hasn't been proven. So at this time, all we have are opinions.


There is absolutely ZERO proof that homosexuality is genetic, and there is evidence to support the idea that it is not. For instance, households without a strong male role model are much more likely to produce homosexual children.

I've known plenty of gay people, and I'd say in every case but one, they came from a trouble or broken family.


----------



## Evons hubby

MoonRiver said:


> Then why haven't motivated scientists been able to find the gay gene?
> 
> I'm not saying it is not genetic, just that it hasn't been proven. So at this time, all we have are opinions.


Lots of things occur naturally without the involvement of genetics.... and theoretically you are correct that it is only opinion whether genetics plays a part or not. I tend to side with those who say it is genetics (discovering which gene aside) simply because I dont think its a "learned" behavior. I am pretty sure most heterosexuals are smart enough to learn it, yet they just cant quite seem to get there.


----------



## greg273

Trainwrek said:


> There is absolutely ZERO proof that homosexuality is genetic



Nope, no proof, just plenty of indications that genetics plays a strong role in the process of sexual orientation. Most are straight, some are not.

And to your earlier reply, you've never seen a husky, butch female? Or an effeminate man? You must not get out much. Those aren't just differences in clothes, makeup, or chosen mannerisms. That is just they way they are.


----------



## Evons hubby

95bravo said:


> If someone could be born gay, can a person not also be born a child molester or horse lover?


I would say many are.... but the horse lover thing seems to fall more into the female side of the equation. I know a lot more teenage girls who have a thing for horses than I do teenage boys. Boys seem to be more interested in cars and motorcycles and things that go bang. :shrug:


----------



## greg273

95bravo said:


> It's a good thing people don't act on every craven thought that come into their heads.


 So gays are just acting on 'craven impulses'?? Thats strange, I've never once been tempted to have sex with males, nor do I find us attractive in any way shape or form. Why? Its not a 'choice', its how I am.


----------



## Evons hubby

Trainwrek said:


> I've known plenty of gay people, and I'd say in every case but one, they came from a trouble or broken family.


Seems a shame parents have so much trouble getting passed the fact their kids are gay doesnt it? Its like they blame each other and end up getting divorced!


----------



## Evons hubby

greg273 said:


> So gays are just acting on 'craven impulses'?? Thats strange, I've never once been tempted to have sex with males, nor do I find us attractive in any way shape or form. Why? Its not a 'choice', its how I am.


Yep, I often hear the ladies commenting about what a great looking guy that is... I look, and be durned if I can see what they are seeing... guys just dont do a thing for me!


----------



## Trainwrek

greg273 said:


> Nope, no proof, just plenty of indications that genetics plays a strong role in the process of sexual orientation. Most are straight, some are not.
> 
> And to your earlier reply, you've never seen a husky, butch female? Or an effeminate man? You must not get out much. Those aren't just differences in clothes, makeup, or chosen mannerisms. That is just they way they are.


And plenty of other indications that genetics play no role in sexual orientation. It is, at this point, completely unknown and open to conjecture on either side.

Have I ever seen a "butch female" or an "effeminate man"? Sure I've met people who were IMO more or less masculine, but again you have absolutely no way to know whether that behavior is learned or genetic. Learned behavior can go way back and be very deeply connected to early childhood.

Likewise, unless you're the one who is out of touch, you have met large masculine men who are gay, and pretty feminine women who are lesbians. This whole image of gay men who are flitting around like women is largely something pushed by popular culture. They're around, but there are just as many masculine type men who are gay, you just can't perceive it because you expect gays to act a certain way.


----------



## Trainwrek

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Seems a shame parents have so much trouble getting passed the fact their kids are gay doesnt it? Its like they blame each other and end up getting divorced!


Haha, thats a stretch.


----------



## Evons hubby

Trainwrek said:


> Haha, thats a stretch.


I dont think its any more of a stretch than saying broken or troubled homes have something to do with a persons sexual preference. If that were true I think we would see a whole lot more gay people than we do.


----------



## Trainwrek

Recall from history that in ancient Greece homosexuality was not only common, it was the norm. Soldiers were encouraged to engage in homosexual relations in order to form emotional bonds that they believed would make them more devoted to each other on the battle field. Homosexuality was a commonplace, everyday, accepted practice in Ancient Greece. So now if homosexuality is genetic...why isn't homosexuality as commonplace in present society? Have human genetics changed that much since then? Very doubtful. It is much more likely that people respond and conform to societal norms and make CHOICES regarding sexual practices.


----------



## Trainwrek

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I dont think its any more of a stretch than saying broken or troubled homes have something to do with a persons sexual preference.


Not a stretch at all, its a statistical fact that there is a correlation. If homosexuality is a learned behavior ( a behavior influenced by environment rather than genetics ) than it makes alot of sense that a persons early home life ( environment ) would have a strong impact on that.


----------



## Evons hubby

Trainwrek said:


> Recall from history that in ancient Greece homosexuality was not only common, it was the norm. Soldiers were encouraged to engage in homosexual relations in order to form emotional bonds that they believed would make them more devoted to each other on the battle field. Homosexuality was a commonplace, everyday, accepted practice in Ancient Greece. So now if homosexuality is genetic...why isn't homosexuality as commonplace in present society? Have human genetics changed that much since then? Very doubtful. It is much more likely that people respond and conform to societal norms and make CHOICES regarding sexual practices.


You can believe that if you want... but guys simply do not turn me on... yet women do... even ugly ones! I dont choose this, its just how I am wired. Gay men that I have talked to tell me the same thing... its not a matter of choice, its how they are wired. They find the idea of sex with a woman repulsive, much the same as I find the idea of having sex with a man repulsive.


----------



## Trainwrek

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You can believe that if you want... but guys simply do not turn me on... yet women do... even ugly ones! I dont choose this, its just how I am wired.


Maybe its how you were wired, maybe its how you were programmed. The only fact we do know for sure is that NOBODY KNOWS YET.


----------



## Evons hubby

Trainwrek said:


> Not a stretch at all, its a statistical fact that there is a correlation. If homosexuality is a learned behavior ( a behavior influenced by environment rather than genetics ) than it makes alot of sense that a persons early home life ( environment ) would have a strong impact on that.


Horse pucky.... My parents divorced when I was three... I have two brothers who grew up with me and not a single one of us is gay. My younger brother and sister grew up with my biomom... and they arent gay either. I did however have an uncle who grew up with 4 brothers and 6 sisters in a very loving home, never any marital problems at all, he was the only gay one in the bunch. If you want to sell that story about statistical evidence, bring forth a credible link to support it. otherwise I just aint buying.


----------



## Evons hubby

Trainwrek said:


> Maybe its how you were wired, maybe its how you were programmed. The only fact we do know for sure is that NOBODY KNOWS YET.


Ok, if as you say, NOBODY KNOWS YET, would it not be prudent to back off of insisting its a persons "choice"?


----------



## MoonRiver

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Lots of things occur naturally without the involvement of genetics.... and theoretically you are correct that it is only opinion whether genetics plays a part or not. I tend to side with those who say it is genetics (discovering which gene aside) simply because I dont think its a "learned" behavior. I am pretty sure most heterosexuals are smart enough to learn it, yet they just cant quite seem to get there.


This is kind of an aside, but when I used the term learned, I was afraid it might be misunderstood. So if you will allow me, a small explanation.

Our view of reality is what our senses tell us PLUS our culture. We build a picture (map) of our reality in our brain. That's why we often disagree with others, our maps are different to some degree. 

So as this sense information comes into our brains, our map changes. As we fill in gaps from previous knowledge we have stored in our brains, our map changes. As we learn new things, our map changes. I think of these map changes as learning. Changes in the map can happen because of brain plasticity, which means we have a dynamic brain, not a static brain.

In the study that showed some women are lesbian because of plasticity, what happened that changed their brain AFTER they were born. Somehow, they learned to be lesbian. Their map changed.


----------



## Tricky Grama

MoonRiver said:


> Then why haven't motivated scientists been able to find the gay gene?
> 
> I'm not saying it is not genetic, just that it hasn't been proven. So at this time, all we have are opinions.


There have been studies on brains of gay men...different than straight men. I DO believe they are born gay. Not saying that excuses behavior. I'm saying we have no right it judge them, it's theirs to bear. Actually Christians should NOT be condemning the person at all. And unless you're in their bdrm, quit judging them at all. Or at least that is what I take from my Christian faith.


----------



## MoonRiver

Tricky Grama said:


> There have been studies on brains of gay men...different than straight men. I DO believe they are born gay. Not saying that excuses behavior. I'm saying we have no right it judge them, it's theirs to bear. Actually Christians should NOT be condemning the person at all. And unless you're in their bdrm, quit judging them at all. Or at least that is what I take from my Christian faith.


It makes no difference to me, but what would happen if science found gayness was caused by something as simple as high estrogen in the pregnant mother?


----------



## Tricky Grama

Trainwrek said:


> There is absolutely ZERO proof that homosexuality is genetic, and there is evidence to support the idea that it is not. For instance, households without a strong male role model are much more likely to produce homosexual children.
> 
> I've known plenty of gay people, and I'd say in every case but one, they came from a trouble or broken family.


This has NOT been proven. In fact on of the few 'familial' things to be looked at as a trend is that the more male children in a family, the more likely the youngest will be gay.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Any chance this thread could get back to the OP?

Since there were a few who had no clue what PC even is, thought I'd post some examples...

A small boy was suspended for making a 'gun sign' w/fingers in class.
Another kinder gardener was suspended for eating a pop tart into the shape of a gun.
Another child was sent home for bringing toy soldiers to school.
In San Diego a child was sent home/suspended for making a motion detector in a science project...b/c it looked too much like a bomb.
Boy makes a motion like firing a bow & arrow & is suspended, as is a kid for tossing imaginary grenade while playing by himself.
Dad is denied access to school for wearing his army uniform.
There was a proposal to forbid kids from watching Olympic shooting events.
One bookstore stored shooting magazines in porn section.
Girl suspended for having a pink bubble making machine, shaped like a toy gun.
SeverL children suspended for holding pencils like guns.
Kinder gardener suspended for bringing Lego gun to school.
6y/o boy charged w/sexual harassment b/c he kissed a girl on the cheek, who liked him, btw.
The Baroque painting by one of the masters: "Juno" removed b/c it's too revealing but 60 y/o pediphile allowed to adopt a small child.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> Any chance this thread could get back to the OP?
> 
> Since there were a few who had no clue what PC even is, thought I'd post some examples...
> 
> A small boy was suspended for making a 'gun sign' w/fingers in class.
> Another kinder gardener was suspended for eating a pop tart into the shape of a gun.
> Another child was sent home for bringing toy soldiers to school.
> In San Diego a child was sent home/suspended for making a motion detector in a science project...b/c it looked too much like a bomb.
> Boy makes a motion like firing a bow & arrow & is suspended, as is a kid for tossing imaginary grenade while playing by himself.
> Dad is denied access to school for wearing his army uniform.
> There was a proposal to forbid kids from watching Olympic shooting events.
> One bookstore stored shooting magazines in porn section.
> Girl suspended for having a pink bubble making machine, shaped like a toy gun.
> SeverL children suspended for holding pencils like guns.
> Kinder gardener suspended for bringing Lego gun to school.
> 6y/o boy charged w/sexual harassment b/c he kissed a girl on the cheek, who liked him, btw.
> The Baroque painting by one of the masters: "Juno" removed b/c it's too revealing but 60 y/o pediphile allowed to adopt a small child.


Schools and children being suspended with regards to gun images is about the rules not about being PC. It is about teaching children that guns are not playthings. It is the choice of the schools and the parents what those rules are and how they are upheld. Nothing to do with being politically correct.


----------



## Trainwrek

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, if as you say, NOBODY KNOWS YET, would it not be prudent to back off of insisting its a persons "choice"?


Never insisted any such thing, go back and read my posts. I suggested that there IS evidence to suggest that homosexuality is a learned behavior and I attempted to present the case. I have always maintained that it is unknown, you are the only one insisting.


----------



## Trainwrek

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Horse pucky.... My parents divorced when I was three... I have two brothers who grew up with me and not a single one of us is gay. My younger brother and sister grew up with my biomom... and they arent gay either. I did however have an uncle who grew up with 4 brothers and 6 sisters in a very loving home, never any marital problems at all, he was the only gay one in the bunch. If you want to sell that story about statistical evidence, bring forth a credible link to support it. otherwise I just aint buying.


Haha!:hysterical: Talk about horse pucky! Do you know what a statistical correlation is? You gave anecdotal evidence of nothing.


----------



## mekasmom

MoonRiver said:


> as our shared morality?


It today's society it definitely has done that. Kids learn PC in public schools, but they do not learn biblical morality.


----------



## Evons hubby

Trainwrek said:


> Haha!:hysterical: Talk about horse pucky! Do you know what a statistical correlation is? You gave anecdotal evidence of nothing.


yes I am quite familiar with the concept of statistical correlation.... thats when a group of anecdotal evidence is compiled and studied to find any relationships. So far in this thread I have not seen any statistical evidence presented one way or the other. I have read several statements that such evidence indeed exists.... but that is all.


----------



## MoonRiver

painterswife said:


> Schools and children being suspended with regards to gun images is about the rules not about being PC. It is about teaching children that guns are not playthings. It is the choice of the schools and the parents what those rules are and how they are upheld. *Nothing to do with being politically correct.*


Of course it does. Kids have played with toy guns for years with no bad effects. What is to be gained by suspending a child for pretend shooting another kid with his finger?

This is purely anti-gun propaganda and will have no effect on school shootings. It serves no purpose other than to try to make children anti-gun.


----------



## emdeengee

mekasmom said:


> It today's society it definitely has done that. Kids learn PC in public schools, but they do not learn biblical morality.


Why should a child who is neither Christian or Jewish learn biblical morality at school - especially a public school? It is up to the parents to teach your children your religion (and accompanying morality) at home or at your place of worship. I would like to see the laws of the land taught more comprehensively at school since so much is not known or understood - which could only help develop a safer and more educated society.


----------



## MoonRiver

Yvonne's hubby said:


> yes I am quite familiar with the concept of statistical correlation.... thats when a group of anecdotal evidence is compiled and studied to find any relationships. So far in this thread I have not seen any statistical evidence presented one way or the other. I have read several statements that such evidence indeed exists.... but that is all.


Correlation is not causation.


----------



## painterswife

MoonRiver said:


> Of course it does. Kids have played with toy guns for years with no bad effects. What is to be gained by suspending a child for pretend shooting another kid with his finger?
> 
> This is purely anti-gun propaganda and will have no effect on school shootings. It serves no purpose other than to try to make children anti-gun.


No bad effects? Dead children from playing with guns is not a bad effect?


----------



## Evons hubby

Trainwrek said:


> For instance, households without a strong male role model are much more likely to produce homosexual children.
> 
> I've known plenty of gay people, and I'd say in every case but one, they came from a trouble or broken family.





Trainwrek said:


> its a statistical fact that there is a correlation.





Trainwrek said:


> I suggested that there IS evidence to suggest that homosexuality is a learned behavior and I attempted to present the case.


Ok, I went back and brought a couple of your posts forward. Those look like pretty strong statements of fact to me, not "suggestions" of a possibility. And that last part of the first post I brought forward..... is that an example of that anecdotal evidence no one should ever use? It kinda looks like it to me, but I could be wrong.


----------



## Evons hubby

painterswife said:


> No bad effects? Dead children from playing with guns is not a bad effect?


I would say that is about as bad as it gets, but then if they kill each other, they must have been playing with real guns, not toy guns, poptarts, pencils or fingers pointed.


----------



## MoonRiver

emdeengee said:


> Why should a child who is neither Christian or Jewish learn biblical morality at school - especially a public school? It is up to the parents to teach your children your religion (and accompanying morality) at home or at your place of worship. I would like to see the laws of the land taught more comprehensively at school since so much is not known or understood - which could only help develop a safer and more educated society.


Because our laws reflect our morality and our morality is based on the Bible.


----------



## ddgresham1

kasilofhome said:


> Stealing is a natural event.
> Killing is a natural event.
> Forest fires are natural events
> Picking your nostrils a natural event.
> 
> Are we to support everything that is a natural event.
> 
> Sounds like justification.
> 
> Weak


Eating is a natural event.
Breathing is a natural event.
Growing hair is a natural event.

Are we to oppose everything that is a natural event?

Sounds like justifications for bigotry and hate to me. Worry about your sex life and not other peoples. It's called "minding your own business."


----------



## greg273

Trainwrek said:


> Have I ever seen a "butch female" or an "effeminate man"? Sure I've met people who were IMO more or less masculine, but again you have absolutely no way to know whether that behavior is learned or genetic. Learned behavior can go way back and be very deeply connected to early childhood.


 Genetics, prenatal environment,and early childhood formative experience probably all play a role. But I still see nothing that leads me to believe sexual orientation is a conscious choice for the vast, vast majority of people. And since it causes NO HARM to others, I see no reason to ostracize or look with disdain on those people who are gay.


----------



## MO_cows

painterswife said:


> Schools and children being suspended with regards to gun images is about the rules not about being PC. It is about teaching children that guns are not playthings. It is the choice of the schools and the parents what those rules are and how they are upheld. Nothing to do with being politically correct.


When any likeness of a gun is treated as if it were real, what else could it be but PC run amuck? Is sure isn't reality or common sense.


----------



## Evons hubby

MoonRiver said:


> Because our laws reflect our morality and our morality is based on the Bible.


Ok, again I am confused here... when you say "our morality" is that the morality practiced by our church going faithful? or is it that morality that they want others to practice? I grew up with a lot of good church going Christian folks, and didnt see them practicing much morality once they thought nobody was looking.... that moral code went right out the winder. 

Now, if you want to hang onto the code of hypocrisy, sinning behind closed doors, lie, cheat and steal when nobodys looking.... help yerself, I would rather deal with an honest prostitute than a preachers daughter any day. Although I must admit, that one when I was in the eight grade was quite creative and very generous.


----------



## Evons hubby

MoonRiver said:


> Correlation is not causation.


This is very true too.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> Schools and children being suspended with regards to gun images is about the rules not about being PC. It is about teaching children that guns are not playthings. It is the choice of the schools and the parents what those rules are and how they are upheld. Nothing to do with being politically correct.


And which children played with guns in these examples?
Guess you never played cowboys & Indians...oops, not PC!
And in virtually all of these happenings, parents were outraged, not their choice at all. All about PC about ...ACK! Guns!


----------



## kasilofhome

Yay missed the idea that the fact that sex is natural is a straw man try to justify sexual gratification.

Lots of thing are natural, some are involuntary as breathing and some are behavioral choice.
Some may choose to eat and also avoid meat. Some may choose to live on a raw diet and others may choose to eat just meat and potatoes 

Sex is not an involuntary act people have choices 

Right now the government is involved with our personal diets
Raw milk anyone?
Big gulp
Salt
Sunny side up eggs
Etc
It is for our own good


Marriage will always be a man and a woman.
I understand that some states have survived to political pressure. 

Biblically this is what has been told will happen were is the surprise...and it Is told that the majority will side with against judo Christian values. It also says many will be tricked.


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> Right now the government is involved with our personal diets
> Raw milk anyone?
> Big gulp
> Salt
> Sunny side up eggs
> Etc
> It is for our own good
> 
> Marriage will always be a man and a woman.


I know of no laws preventing anyone from drinking raw milk, eating salt, drinking sodas by the case if they wantem, or frying my eggs sunny side up. 

Pretty sure you are wrong on that whole man and woman marriage thing too. One by one, many small groups of people are stepping up, demanding, and obtaining their "equal treatment under the law" as promised by our Constitution. Even our native american brothers and sisters can vote now... does anyone know if they can buy alcohol yet?

I know it has to be irritating the life out of those who for generations have been able to stand tall and proud.... being soooooo much better than their fellow citizens, but get used to it, there will never be any more slaves here, skin color or religious preference will no longer set one group of Americans "above" another and waving your cute little flag isnt going to get you into heaven ever again. Me? I like the fact that at least some parts of our Constitution are actually being taken seriously... now lets work on getting the rest of it back in the game.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Marriage will always be a man and a woman.
> I understand that some states have survived to political pressure.
> 
> Biblically this is what has been told will happen were is the surprise...and it Is told that the majority will side with against judo Christian values. It also says many will be tricked.


Well , that has already been proven wrong. I know several same sex marriages. Guess that more things you hold to be true might just be wrong as well.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

painterswife said:


> Well , that has already been proven wrong. I know several same sex marriages. Guess that more things you hold to be true might just be wrong as well.


Recognized on paper or a few States it may be. But by God it is notand the nation as a whole it is not.


----------



## ddgresham1

Vahomesteaders said:


> Recognized on paper or a few States it may be. But by God it is notand the nation as a whole it is not.


First of all, as an American, I am not bound by your god's morality. I am a free man able to do as I choose, as long as it is within the constitution of the United States. Secondly, do you speak for the entire nation? How do you know what the "nation as a whole" wants?

Here is a little Gallup Poll for ya:


http://www.gallup.com/poll/162689/record-high-say-gay-lesbian-relations-morally.aspx


----------



## Vahomesteaders

ddgresham1 said:


> First of all, as an American, I am not bound by your god's morality. I am a free man able to do as I choose, as long as it is within the constitution of the United States. Secondly, do you speak for the entire nation? How do you know what the "nation as a whole" wants?
> 
> Here is a little Gallup Poll for ya:
> 
> 
> http://www.gallup.com/poll/162689/record-high-say-gay-lesbian-relations-morally.aspx


Constitution written by God fearing men. And that Gallup Poll polled 1535 people. Sure sounds like the nation to me. Lol


----------



## ddgresham1

Vahomesteaders said:


> Constitution written by God fearing men. And that Gallup Poll polled 1535 people. Sure sounds like the nation to me. Lol




God fearing men that believed in freedom of religion and that includes the right not to believe in your god, nor to follow what you think he is saying is moral. 1535 people...Yep...You don't know much about statistical analysis do you? That's a valid sample.


----------



## ddgresham1

Oh...um..."lol"


----------



## arcticow

I'm so happy for all those who have come together and decided that it is evil not to accept any person or group of persons based on sexuality, creed or political bent... Excepting Christians and conservatives, of course... Perfectly acceptable to ridicule and hate THEM for daring to express and stand up for THEIR beliefs...


----------



## Tiempo

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, again I am confused here... when you say "our morality" is that the morality practiced by our church going faithful? or is it that morality that they want others to practice? I grew up with a lot of good church going Christian folks, and didnt see them practicing much morality once they thought nobody was looking.... that moral code went right out the winder.
> 
> Now, if you want to hang onto the code of hypocrisy, sinning behind closed doors, lie, cheat and steal when nobodys looking.... help yerself, I would rather deal with an honest prostitute than a preachers daughter any day. Although I must admit, that one when I was in the eight grade was quite creative and very generous.


This morning a FB friend was driving behind a car with a decal in the back window that said, "ask me how I can bless you today"

The car then blew around a guy standing by his broken down car in the middle of the road.


----------



## MO_cows

There are 3 different subjects swirled together in this thread - PC, morals and Christianity.

I don't agree with the premise that our laws should be based on Christian morality. For one, because there are different branches of Christianity and they hold different beliefs. So if we go with the Catholic version, all forms of birth control would be illegal and there could be no divorce?? But if we go with the Mormon/LDS version, polygamy becomes legal? Or should we go with the Baptists and bring back Prohibition? 

Secondly, when we said "give us your tired, your poor" and became the melting pot, we deliberately brought in citizens with belief systems other than Christian. So our laws have to find the common ground of basic human decency and behavior where "one size fits all". 

I think the same-sex marriage issue has been bungled. Out of respect for the Christian majority, there should have been a "domestic union" or some other form of legal coupling created for the gays. Then the devout Christians who believe that God defines marriage as only one man and one woman aren't offended and outraged, but neither are the same sex couples discriminated against. But both sides dug in their heels to have their way, all the way, instead of reaching that compromise and here we are, with most everybody bitter about it and nothing resolved. 

PC has nothing to do with morals or religion. It's a movement that started out to do something good, remove the derogatory references and get people to speak of others neutrally, but then it took on a life of its own and has gone too far. We went from non-derogatory or neutral, to where some want everything to have a positive spin on it. Or maybe they think the whole of society can change in less than a generation. Not at all realistic, but if there is any pushback to that, the PC crowd stands ready to passive-aggressively shred the ones who resist. 

I guess the root definition of morals is, how you behave when no one is watching. How firm is your moral fiber, how many times will you do the right thing. You don't have to be religious to have morals. If you found a billfold full of cash and donated it to your church instead of seeking the owner, isn't that still immoral?


----------



## Paumon

MO_cows said:


> There are 3 different subjects swirled together in this thread - PC, morals and Christianity.
> 
> I don't agree with the premise that our laws should be based on Christian morality. For one, because there are different branches of Christianity and they hold different beliefs. So if we go with the Catholic version, all forms of birth control would be illegal and there could be no divorce?? But if we go with the Mormon/LDS version, polygamy becomes legal? Or should we go with the Baptists and bring back Prohibition?
> 
> Secondly, when we said "give us your tired, your poor" and became the melting pot, we deliberately brought in citizens with belief systems other than Christian. So our laws have to find the common ground of basic human decency and behavior where "one size fits all".
> 
> *I think the same-sex marriage issue has been bungled. Out of respect for the Christian majority, there should have been a "domestic union" or some other form of legal coupling created for the gays. Then the devout Christians who believe that God defines marriage as only one man and one woman aren't offended and outraged, but neither are the same sex couples discriminated against. But both sides dug in their heels to have their way, all the way, instead of reaching that compromise and here we are, with most everybody bitter about it and nothing resolved. *
> 
> PC has nothing to do with morals or religion. It's a movement that started out to do something good, remove the derogatory references and get people to speak of others neutrally, but then it took on a life of its own and has gone too far. We went from non-derogatory or neutral, to where some want everything to have a positive spin on it. Or maybe they think the whole of society can change in less than a generation. Not at all realistic, but if there is any pushback to that, the PC crowd stands ready to passive-aggressively shred the ones who resist.
> 
> I guess the root definition of morals is, how you behave when no one is watching. How firm is your moral fiber, how many times will you do the right thing. You don't have to be religious to have morals. If you found a billfold full of cash and donated it to your church instead of seeking the owner, isn't that still immoral?


Great post!

I have a comment though (and hopefully the resident xenophobe won't take this the wrong way thinking other nations are trying to tell Americans what to do).

I agree with the bolded statement above that something got bungled. But what is it that went wrong in America? There are 16 countries, soon to be 17, around the world that permit same sex marriages and all of those countries are majority Christian populations. Several of them are more majority Christian than America. They're all civilized, highly educated first world countries that rank very high on the Human Development Index ratings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index


And none of them are having the problems and dissention and lack of acceptance with it that is happening in America. If anything they're all proving that same-sex marriages are successful and stable and that the children in such domestic unions are doing very well.

So what is it about American morals, values or Christianity or whatever that is so different that there is so much dissention? I don't for a moment believe that Americans are "special" or more moral or have higher values or are better Christians than any of these other Christian countries. And I don't believe that in America _"out of respect for the Christian majority, there should have been a "domestic union" or some other form of legal coupling created for the gays"_ is necessary. If all the other majority Christian countries are not having problems with it there and don't need such a thing out of "respect for Christians" in those countries then I don't see why American Christians should be so special that they would be needing extra-special considerations so that they should have that extra respect.

So - I think there's a lot more to the conflict than it being all about what American Christians want or don't want - personally I think it's more about bi-partisan conflict and the American political "right" throwing a spanner in the works simply because they consider same-sex marriage a "leftist" thing and they'll do anything they can to thwart anything they consider to be leftist even if it doesn't effect them on a personal level. It's all about political one-up-manship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage



> As of 28 June 2014, sixteen countries (Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark,[nb 1] France, Iceland, Netherlands,[nb 2] New Zealand,[nb 3] Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden, United Kingdom, Uruguay) and several sub-national jurisdictions (parts of Mexico and the United States) allow same-sex couples to marry. The law in Luxembourg will come into force on 1 January 2015. Polls in various countries show that there is rising support for legally recognizing same-sex marriage across race, ethnicity, age, religion, political affiliation, and socioeconomic status.


----------



## kasilofhome

Americans have not all forgotten that we have a right to freedom of speech and many other rights. 

We have forged trails that other dare not attempt. 
How many trip to outer space has Mexico done or Canada.
Coping other countries methods of medical care systems statistically is just lowering our standards.


----------



## MoonRiver

Paumon said:


> But what is it that went wrong in America? There are 16 countries, soon to be 17, around the world that permit same sex marriages and all of those countries are majority Christian populations. Several of them are more majority Christian than America.


Many have Catholic majorities and most have liberal or even socialist governments.


----------



## MoonRiver

MO_cows said:


> I don't agree with the premise that our laws should be based on Christian morality. For one, because there are different branches of Christianity and they hold different beliefs.


But our laws are largely based on Christianity. 



> So our laws have to find the common ground of basic human decency and behavior where "one size fits all".


No, immigrants are expected to become Americans and adapt to our culture. They are free to keep their prior culture so long as it is not in conflict with the Constitution and our laws.



> I think the same-sex marriage issue has been bungled. Out of respect for the Christian majority, there should have been a "domestic union" or some other form of legal coupling created for the gays. Then the devout Christians who believe that God defines marriage as only one man and one woman aren't offended and outraged, but neither are the same sex couples discriminated against. But both sides dug in their heels to have their way, all the way, instead of reaching that compromise and here we are, with most everybody bitter about it and nothing resolved.


Not what happened. The gay lobby refused domestic partnership as a solution. This was part of the liberal attack on the family.



> It's (PC) a movement that started out to do something good ...


PC is a liberal strategy used to control the debate by redefining words and limiting what words can be said.



> I guess the root definition of morals is, how you behave when no one is watching. How firm is your moral fiber, how many times will you do the right thing. You don't have to be religious to have morals. If you found a billfold full of cash and donated it to your church instead of seeking the owner, isn't that still immoral?


What you seem to be missing is that liberals don't like to have a moral code because everyone should be free to do whatever they want (as long as approved by liberals).


----------



## mmoetc

Vahomesteaders said:


> Recognized on paper or a few States it may be. But by God it is notand the nation as a whole it is not.


It appears that even God may be conflicted. Episcopalians, the UCC, and the ELCA all recognize and perform same sex marriages. Presbyterians recently voted to do so. Reconstructionist and Reform Judaism do also.


----------



## MDKatie

MO_cows said:


> I think the same-sex marriage issue has been bungled. Out of respect for the Christian majority, there should have been a "domestic union" or some other form of legal coupling created for the gays. Then the devout Christians who believe that God defines marriage as only one man and one woman aren't offended and outraged, but neither are the same sex couples discriminated against. But both sides dug in their heels to have their way, all the way, instead of reaching that compromise and here we are, with most everybody bitter about it and nothing resolved.


I agree with all of your post except for this paragraph. How does gay marriage take anything away from hetero sexual marriage? Why would Christians be offended or outraged when 2 men or 2 women get married? HOW does it affect them at all? 

And HOW, MoonRiver, is gay marriage an attack on the family? That's absurd. Gay marriage doesn't affect me and my family. It doesn't affect you and your family. Gay marriage doesn't negate heterosexual marriage. It doesn't take anything away from anyone, it just makes it FAIR for 2 consenting adults to get married.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> Well , that has already been proven wrong. I know several same sex marriages. Guess that more things you hold to be true might just be wrong as well.


Most of us are fine w/gay unions but changing the definition of marriage is the deal breaker.


----------



## Tricky Grama

MO_cows said:


> There are 3 different subjects swirled together in this thread - PC, morals and Christianity.
> 
> I don't agree with the premise that our laws should be based on Christian morality. For one, because there are different branches of Christianity and they hold different beliefs. So if we go with the Catholic version, all forms of birth control would be illegal and there could be no divorce?? But if we go with the Mormon/LDS version, polygamy becomes legal? Or should we go with the Baptists and bring back Prohibition?
> 
> Secondly, when we said "give us your tired, your poor" and became the melting pot, we deliberately brought in citizens with belief systems other than Christian. So our laws have to find the common ground of basic human decency and behavior where "one size fits all".
> 
> I think the same-sex marriage issue has been bungled. Out of respect for the Christian majority, there should have been a "domestic union" or some other form of legal coupling created for the gays. Then the devout Christians who believe that God defines marriage as only one man and one woman aren't offended and outraged, but neither are the same sex couples discriminated against. But both sides dug in their heels to have their way, all the way, instead of reaching that compromise and here we are, with most everybody bitter about it and nothing resolved.
> 
> PC has nothing to do with morals or religion. It's a movement that started out to do something good, remove the derogatory references and get people to speak of others neutrally, but then it took on a life of its own and has gone too far. We went from non-derogatory or neutral, to where some want everything to have a positive spin on it. Or maybe they think the whole of society can change in less than a generation. Not at all realistic, but if there is any pushback to that, the PC crowd stands ready to passive-aggressively shred the ones who resist.
> 
> I guess the root definition of morals is, how you behave when no one is watching. How firm is your moral fiber, how many times will you do the right thing. You don't have to be religious to have morals. If you found a billfold full of cash and donated it to your church instead of seeking the owner, isn't that still immoral?


Post of the day award.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

mmoetc said:


> It appears that even God may be conflicted. Episcopalians, the UCC, and the ELCA all recognize and perform same sex marriages. Presbyterians recently voted to do so. Reconstructionist and Reform Judaism do also.


Don't blame or tie God in with that. He said those churches would do that. He said you wouldn't be able to tell the church from the world and that they would accept and teach false doctrine. He begs us not to follow. You see for a true Christian you know that we are here for redemption and to follow God's plan and law. To observe his ways and live then and teach them. And we recognize that the nature of God shows he has never sided with the majority. When he destroyed the earth he save Noah and his family only out of all the millions. When he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for these same reasons he saved only lot and his family. Any time he destroyed a nation or Kingdom he saved only a few. And he says at the end of our age only a few week find their way through the gate of the kingdom. He says most all the world will follow these false doctrines and teachings and be decieved. So we have to face the persecution of being labled haters for exposing sin. We don't hate any people. I have a gay aunt and cousin. But love them dearly. But I cannot agree with their lifestyle. They come over every Thanksgiving and we have a wonderful time. But they know my stance. God's laws and teachings supercede mans law and teachings in the life of a true believer.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> Most of us arefine w/gay unions but changing the definition of marriage is the deal breaker.


You are free to be upset. Marriage however has never been owned by any religion and is not now.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

painterswife said:


> You are free to be upset. Marriage however has never been owned by any religion and is not now.


God was the first to Institute marriage. 99% preformed in churches before God in HOLY matrimony. I'd say it's a pretty Christian event.


----------



## painterswife

Vahomesteaders said:


> God was the first to Institute marriage. 99% preformed in churches before God in HOLY matrimony. I'd say it's a pretty Christian event.


Not true. History proves you wrong. Why do Christians thing that marriage started with them when we know it did not?


----------



## Vahomesteaders

painterswife said:


> Not true. History proves you wrong. Why do Christians thing that marriage started with them when we know it did not?


Well considering the fact that the biblical texts and document we have in our possession including the dead sea scrolls are real and are some of the oldest historical texts and documents in existence. They describe pretty well what the wedding ceremony is fir and how is conducted.


----------



## painterswife

Vahomesteaders said:


> Well considering the fact that the biblical texts and document we have in our possession including the dead sea scrolls are real and are some of the oldest historical texts and documents in existence. They describe pretty well what the wedding ceremony is fir and how is conducted.


There is history before the bible. Written and spoken. There is documentation that marriage was a legal construct not a religious one. 

You do know that more than half the population of the world is not Christian.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Some of the strongest current evidence that some people are born gay is based on a phenomenon called the fraternal birth order effect. Several peer-reviewed studies have shown that men with older biological brothers are likelier to be gay than men with older sisters or no older siblings. The likelihood of being gay increases by about 33 percent with each additional older brother. From these statistics, researchers calculate that about 15 to 30 percent of gay men have the fraternal birth order effect to thank for their homosexuality.
Comes from: slate.com


----------



## Vahomesteaders

painterswife said:


> There is history before the bible. Written and spoken. There is documentation that marriage was a legal construct not a religious one.
> 
> You do know that more than half the population of the world is not Christian.


84% of the earths population identify as faith believing. Christianity is the biggest of those organized faiths. The oldest documents written in sumarian cuneiform are just tiny fragments that are unledgible. They are the only ones older than the documents held in isreal of a biblical nature.


----------



## painterswife

Vahomesteaders said:


> 84% of the earths population identify as faith believing. Christianity is the biggest of those organized faiths. The oldest documents written in sumarian cuneiform are just tiny fragments that are unledgible. They are the only ones older than the documents held in isreal of a biblical nature.


Marriage contracts in Mesopotamia recorded Definitely not Christian or religious.


----------



## mmoetc

Vahomesteaders said:


> Don't blame or tie God in with that. He said those churches would do that. He said you wouldn't be able to tell the church from the world and that they would accept and teach false doctrine. He begs us not to follow. You see for a true Christian you know that we are here for redemption and to follow God's plan and law. To observe his ways and live then and teach them. And we recognize that the nature of God shows he has never sided with the majority. When he destroyed the earth he save Noah and his family only out of all the millions. When he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for these same reasons he saved only lot and his family. Any time he destroyed a nation or Kingdom he saved only a few. And he says at the end of our age only a few week find their way through the gate of the kingdom. He says most all the world will follow these false doctrines and teachings and be decieved. So we have to face the persecution of being labled haters for exposing sin. We don't hate any people. I have a gay aunt and cousin. But love them dearly. But I cannot agree with their lifestyle. They come over every Thanksgiving and we have a wonderful time. But they know my stance. God's laws and teachings supercede mans law and teachings in the life of a true believer.


I don't doubt the sincerity of your beliefs. I also don't doubt the sincerity of the Christian denominations that perform same sex weddings. Its not the government's role to judge that sincerity or validity either. Even in the Hobby Lobby case the government didn't insist that they run their company in strict adherence to all of their beliefs. It is the government's role to assure that all of those religions and beliefs are treated equally. That is all same sex couples are asking - that their marriage, conducted under their belief system, be treated equally to yours, conducted under your belief system. As neither event causes harm to another the government should remain neutral and recognize them all.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

painterswife said:


> Marriage contracts in Mesopotamia recorded Definitely not Christian or religious.


The oldest biblical text on marriage are from the urak period at around 3400bc. And that one document for Mesopotamia was a land owner contract to marry a slave.


----------



## painterswife

Vahomesteaders said:


> The oldest biblical text on marriage are from the urak period at around 3400bc. And that one document for Mesopotamia was a land owner contract to marry a slave.


Yes, because marriage started as legal contract.


----------



## MoonRiver

MDKatie said:


> And HOW, MoonRiver, is gay marriage an attack on the family?


By equating a union blessed by God to one that is considered a sin by most major religions.

When gays claimed they needed legal protections and tax status equal to marriage, I think most Americans were fine with giving that to them. But the gay mafia wouldn't accept civil unions when it was offered. I have heard conservative gays say they didn't want marriage, they wanted civil unions, but the gay mafia insisted on marriage.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

painterswife said:


> Yes, because marriage started as legal contract.


Lol. The oldest documents on marriage were not a contract but a holy Union in 3400bc.


----------



## Evons hubby

Vahomesteaders said:


> God's laws and teachings supercede mans law and teachings in the life of a true believer.


 I am too lazy to look up the passages right now, but I am quite sure that the bible contains plenty of support for the proper care and feeding of slaves, therefor slavery must be practiced in order to be following Gods law properly?


----------



## painterswife

MoonRiver said:


> By equating a union blessed by God to one that is considered a sin by most major religions.
> 
> When gays claimed they needed legal protections and tax status equal to marriage, I think most Americans were fine with giving that to them. But the gay mafia wouldn't accept civil unions when it was offered. I have heard conservative gays say they didn't want marriage, they wanted civil unions, but the gay mafia insisted on marriage.


My marriage is not a same sex marriage but it is not a union blessed by any any God either. If my marriage does not need to be blessed by God, than same sex marriages do not need to be either. If I can get married then you can't discriminate against any marriage using " being blessed by God" as any legal basis.


----------



## painterswife

Vahomesteaders said:


> Lol. The oldest documents on marriage were not a contract but a holy Union in 3400bc.


Using a LOL does not make what you write true.


----------



## MDKatie

MoonRiver said:


> By equating a union blessed by God to one that is considered a sin by most major religions.
> 
> When gays claimed they needed legal protections and tax status equal to marriage, I think most Americans were fine with giving that to them. But the gay mafia wouldn't accept civil unions when it was offered. I have heard conservative gays say they didn't want marriage, they wanted civil unions, but the gay mafia insisted on marriage.


 
Ok, but how does it affect families?


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am too lazy to look up the passages right now, but I am quite sure that the bible contains plenty of support for the proper care and feeding of slaves, therefor slavery must be practiced in order to be following Gods law properly?


Wrong. Slavery in the Bible was different than the slavery we know. It was almost always voluntary for protection shelter and food. And God said treat them good. He also said that no man shall sell another man or he should be put to death. Si God was not for our version of slavery at all.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> You are free to be upset. Marriage however has never been owned by any religion and is not now.


The definition was NOT a religious one. In fact it was a law signed by Clinton.


----------



## mmoetc

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Smoking bans. You only asked for one, there are plenty of others that infringe upon the rights of individuals... which is just plain wrong but considered to be "politically correct".


I'll actually agree with you about smoking bans. Smoking bans limit the freedom of any individual to choose whether to avail themselves of the goods and services of a business. If a business insists that a smoke filled atmosphere is best for them it should be their choice just as it is the choice of the consumer to patronize it. We can contrast that with laws requiring the selling of a wedding cake to a same sex couple. Such a law also allows everyone the freedom to patronize the business of their choice. There are provisions in place for people to open things like private clubs if they wish to limit their clientele. A bakery could be open to members only without getting on the wrong side of the law. Or it can be open to the public, all the public.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> The definition was NOT a religious one. In fact it was a law signed by Clinton.


That is the crux of your argument? Clinton defined it and you are upset that others don't agree with that definition?


----------



## MO_cows

MoonRiver said:


> But our laws are largely based on Christianity.
> *Like the ones on adultery, that are never enforced? And some places that ban stores open on Sunday, liquor sales, etc. There is still some holdover from the Puritans in our culture but most of society no matter how devout, has moved past those times. At the time our constitution was drafted, women were supposed to be covered up from neck to toe. The June Cleaver dress would have been too revealing for the founding fathers! We have moved on and it's not all bad.
> 
> * No, immigrants are expected to become Americans and adapt to our culture. They are free to keep their prior culture so long as it is not in conflict with the Constitution and our laws.
> *Adapt to culture, yes. Religion, no. Jews, Hindus, etc. are still entitled to practice their religion. And I don't think you realize how much those other cultures have contributed to ours. Our culture has changed a lot since Colonial times, and mostly for the better.*
> Not what happened. The gay lobby refused domestic partnership as a solution. This was part of the liberal attack on the family.
> *It became a political issue. That's the problem with only 2 parties, you have to pick one extreme or the other. *
> PC is a liberal strategy used to control the debate by redefining words and limiting what words can be said.
> *Sounds like your dislike for anything that can be labeled "liberal" skews your views. I don't wave pom poms for the liberals or the conservatives either one, I like to think things through and decide for myself. *
> What you seem to be missing is that liberals don't like to have a moral code because everyone should be free to do whatever they want (as long as approved by liberals).


*I'm the only one who's missing something, huh? Well of course you are free to believe that, and you have a good day, too. Bless your heart. *


----------



## MO_cows

Paumon said:


> Great post!
> 
> I have a comment though (and hopefully the resident xenophobe won't take this the wrong way thinking other nations are trying to tell Americans what to do).
> 
> I agree with the bolded statement above that something got bungled. But what is it that went wrong in America? There are 16 countries, soon to be 17, around the world that permit same sex marriages and all of those countries are majority Christian populations. Several of them are more majority Christian than America. They're all civilized, highly educated first world countries that rank very high on the Human Development Index ratings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index
> 
> 
> And none of them are having the problems and dissention and lack of acceptance with it that is happening in America. If anything they're all proving that same-sex marriages are successful and stable and that the children in such domestic unions are doing very well.
> 
> So what is it about American morals, values or Christianity or whatever that is so different that there is so much dissention? I don't for a moment believe that Americans are "special" or more moral or have higher values or are better Christians than any of these other Christian countries. And I don't believe that in America _"out of respect for the Christian majority, there should have been a "domestic union" or some other form of legal coupling created for the gays"_ is necessary. If all the other majority Christian countries are not having problems with it there and don't need such a thing out of "respect for Christians" in those countries then I don't see why American Christians should be so special that they would be needing extra-special considerations so that they should have that extra respect.
> 
> So - I think there's a lot more to the conflict than it being all about what American Christians want or don't want - personally I think it's more about bi-partisan conflict and the American political "right" throwing a spanner in the works simply because they consider same-sex marriage a "leftist" thing and they'll do anything they can to thwart anything they consider to be leftist even if it doesn't effect them on a personal level. It's all about political one-up-manship.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage


That's just one of America's many quirks. We are who we are, and still have a lot more to be proud of than ashamed of. I think the issue would be divisive even without the two party system, but it becoming a "left vs right" issue sure didn't help matters any. 

Another "Christian majority" country that comes to mind for having its quirks is Ireland, where the Catholics and Protestants actually killed each other in recent times. Seems out of character for the Irish culture, but it happened.


----------



## kasilofhome

Tricky Grama said:


> Most of us are fine w/gay unions but changing the definition of marriage is the deal breaker.




That is were I am.
In as much as a house is not an apartment yet it is a home
Marriage is one thing and Union is another....create your own term,if you like.

It is not an insult any more that call in a sheep a sheep and not a cow yet they are still both have the same barn to live in. Not accepting gay marriage does not mean hating them. There simply is a difference in understanding. Any gay couple is ....unless couple now means and includes dog and cats ....two humans. And since all humans have rights ...the same rights why is that hateful or insulting. I


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> That is were I am.
> In as much as a house is not an apartment yet it is a home
> Marriage is one thing and Union is another....create your own term,if you like.
> 
> It is not an insult any more that call in a sheep a sheep and not a cow yet they are still both have the same barn to live in. Not accepting gay marriage does not mean hating them. There simply is a difference in understanding. Any gay couple is ....unless couple now means and includes dog and cats ....two humans. And since all humans have rights ...the same rights why is that hateful or insulting. I


I have always had my term for marriage and what it means. It is different than yours. I don't need to create a new term to make you happy. You don't own the word or any word for that matter.


----------



## kasilofhome

Words are not owned. They are a tool to communicate... redefining words can be to confused, misdirect, control.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> That is were I am.
> In as much as a house is not an apartment yet it is a home
> Marriage is one thing and Union is another....create your own term,if you like.
> 
> It is not an insult any more that call in a sheep a sheep and not a cow yet they are still both have the same barn to live in. Not accepting gay marriage does not mean hating them. There simply is a difference in understanding. Any gay couple is ....unless couple now means and includes dog and cats ....two humans. And since all humans have rights ...the same rights why is that hateful or insulting. I


Couple means two together. It could be two dogs, two humans, two coffee beans.

It could also mean "two people who are married, engaged, or otherwise closely associated romantically or sexually." There is no qualifying need for those to be of different sexes.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Words are not owned. They are a tool to communicate... redefining words can be to confused, misdirect, control.


Or it could be just used to describe what is reality. Ever heard of marrying ketchups?

Words and their meaning are fluid. This as been happening since the first spoken word.


----------



## kasilofhome

I do not agree with you that there does not need to be a recognition of difference between same sex and male female formal relationship that is binding via a contract.

We have poly marriage and marriage and with that we have better communication how about homosexual marriage?


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> I do not agree with you that there does not need to be a recognition of difference between same sex and male female formal relationship that is binding via a contract.
> 
> We have poly marriage and marriage and with that we have better communication how about homosexual marriage?


Could you explain why we need to differentiate between same sex marriage and different sex marriage? They are still both marriages.


----------



## emdeengee

Vahomesteaders said:


> God was the first to Institute marriage. 99% preformed in churches before God in HOLY matrimony. I'd say it's a pretty Christian event.


The ancient Egyptians not only had marriage 3000 years ago (before Christianity) but they also had divorce.


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> I do not agree with you that there does not need to be a recognition of difference between same sex and male female formal relationship that is binding via a contract.
> 
> We have poly marriage and marriage and with that we have better communication how about homosexual marriage?


Separate but equal is never equal. Equal protection under the law means all of our good citizens are to be treated the SAME as any other citizen. Not almost equal, but exactly the same.


----------



## emdeengee

MoonRiver said:


> Because our laws reflect our morality and our morality is based on the Bible.


 
Not accurate. The US has religious freedom therefore there are many religions with differing moralities, codes and laws. As with all religions people choose which ones they want to follow so you have everything from radical followers to those who just tip their hat at their religion. 

In order to be a country that has religious freedom all these differing moralities, codes and laws have to be allowed. However to control this we have common and civil laws. Made up of the consensus of all the people. What a society is comfortable with. For example your religion may allow you to marry a 10 year old child but the common and civil laws will not allow you to do so. Gay sex and marriage was not something the previous generations were comfortable with. Today people are very comfortable with this so it is changing - thankfully.

As for biblical laws- they are made up of the laws that human beings made up millennium before. All laws are to protect people. For instance - laws against theft. Everyone stealing from everyone else was very messy so the consensus was that stealing was wrong and laws were made to protect property. This did not start with the bible.


----------



## MoonRiver

MO_cows said:


> *I'm the only one who's missing something, huh? Well of course you are free to believe that, and you have a good day, too. Bless your heart. *


I've learned that when someone starts throwing out insults, they most likely have lost the argument.

Quoting a law here and there has nothing to do with the fact our Constitution and laws were inspired by God and based on Judeo-Christian culture. It's well documented history. From Benjamin Franklin we have:



> In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of Lights to illuminate our understanding? In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine protection. Our prayers, sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor. . . . And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance? I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth â that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, sir, in the Sacred Writings, that âexcept the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.â I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel. . . . I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business. [2]


http://wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=144096


----------



## kasilofhome

emdeengee said:


> The ancient Egyptians not only had marriage 3000 years ago (before Christianity) but they also had divorce.


Which came first Adam and Eve or egyptions


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Which came first Adam and Eve or egyptions


Adam and Eve may have been married according to a God (and I still think that is a big leap as you have to believe in the Christian God first), but they were not married according to a government. We are talking legal marriage contract here.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> That is the crux of your argument? Clinton defined it and you are upset that others don't agree with that definition?


No one, esp me, said clinton defined it. He was pretty much pushed into signing, prolly.


----------



## Paumon

MoonRiver said:


> I've learned that when someone starts throwing out insults, they most likely have lost the argument.


Well then you lost your argument with your very first post in this topic that YOU started, because your OP statement was one big horrendous insult to a lot of people.



MoonRiver said:


> Have the *outcasts* successfully forced their *warped* view of morality on the *rest of us*?
> 
> Over the last 20 years or so, I have been amazed at how many seemingly *ridiculous* ideas have made it into our culture under the banner of political correctness. *Gay marriage, illegal immigrants, "free" speech, competition, role of marriage, relationship between men and women, having children outside of marriage, use of drugs, discussions of race, discussions of crime, and on and on*.


Speak for yourself but don't speak for the rest of us.


----------



## MoonRiver

Paumon said:


> Well then you lost your argument with your very first post in this topic that YOU started, because your OP statement was one big horrendous insult to a lot of people.
> 
> Speak for yourself but don't speak for the rest of us.


I apologize. Didn't realize you were an outcast.


----------



## Paumon

kasilofhome said:


> Which came first Adam and Eve or egyptions


Neither.

The Natufian culture in the Mediterranean evolved into an agricultural civilization around 12,000 BC. That's long before the Egyptians or the mythical Adam and Eve came on the scene.

Oh, and don't forget the Chinese, they also became an agricultural and trading civilization around 12,000 BC.


----------



## Paumon

MoonRiver said:


> I apologize. Didn't realize you were an outcast.


I think what you really don't realize is who are becoming the real outcasts in society and how they are self-instrumental in causing their ownselves to become outcasts.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Paumon said:


> I think what you really don't realize is who are becoming the real outcasts in society and how they are self-instrumental in causing their ownselves to become outcasts.


The Society you belive in is the one we are seeing today. More abortions murder mass killings, people on medications, more drugs, less money, less jobs, less chance for growth and the realization of the American dream, more dishonesty stealing and crimes in general . Seems the society of yester year where everyone met for church on Sundays and the nation loved the Lord was much better than where your ideals have lead our society.


----------



## Paumon

Vahomesteaders said:


> The Society you belive in is the one we are seeing today. More abortions murder mass killings, people on medications, more drugs, less money, less jobs, less chance for growth and the realization of the American dream, more dishonesty stealing and crimes in general . Seems the society of yester year where everyone met for church on Sundays and the nation loved the Lord was much better than where your ideals have lead our society.


You don't know what society I believe in, but I can tell you for sure that I've never believed in or idealized the dream that you believe in.


----------



## painterswife

Vahomesteaders said:


> The Society you belive in is the one we are seeing today. More abortions murder mass killings, people on medications, more drugs, less money, less jobs, less chance for growth and the realization of the American dream, more dishonesty stealing and crimes in general . Seems the society of yester year where everyone met for church on Sundays and the nation loved the Lord was much better than where your ideals have lead our society.


Again you tie morals to church. So, so wrong. If it were true then all those church going people would have raised a country of moral people who committed no crimes. Instead we have lots of church goers committing crimes and then asking for forgiveness.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

painterswife said:


> Again you tie morals to church. So, so wrong. If it were true then all those church going people would have raised a country of moral people who committed no crimes. Instead we have lots of church goers committing crimes and then asking for forgiveness.


We had that as the majority for a very long time. Then the liberal ideas of free love, no responsibility, no hard work, do as little as possible for as much as possible, do unto yourself instead of others etc.. And yes there have been some bad Christians. But far more times then not its not Christians doing these things.


----------



## MoonRiver

Paumon said:


> You don't know what society I believe in, but I can tell you for sure that I've never believed in or idealized the dream that you believe in.


One where people are self sufficient and personally responsible? With charity for those who truly are incapable of providing for themselves?

That's the society I want to live in.


----------



## painterswife

Vahomesteaders said:


> We had that as the majority for a very long time. Then the liberal ideas of free love, no responsibility, no hard work, do as little as possible for as much as possible, do unto yourself instead of others etc.. And yes there have been some bad Christians. But far more times then not its not Christians doing these things.


Pure speculation. The murder rate has been dropping as the number of Christians has been dropping. The correlation does not fit.


----------



## MO_cows

MDKatie said:


> I agree with all of your post except for this paragraph. How does gay marriage take anything away from hetero sexual marriage? *Why would Christians be offended or outraged when 2 men or 2 women get married? HOW does it affect them at all? *
> 
> And HOW, MoonRiver, is gay marriage an attack on the family? That's absurd. Gay marriage doesn't affect me and my family. It doesn't affect you and your family. Gay marriage doesn't negate heterosexual marriage. It doesn't take anything away from anyone, it just makes it FAIR for 2 consenting adults to get married.


It doesn't affect them except on an emotional level. But there are many who believe homosexuality is against God's will. Sodom and Gomorrah. Hence the outrage. 

Personally, I would rather see a new legal union created for the same sex couples. More precise, more informative when looking at records, and also shows some degree of respect for the spiritual beliefs of those millions of Americans. Because it's not just a few people to be dismissed as "nut cases". There are a LOT who hold those beliefs. 

Worst case scenario - an issue that combines religion AND politics. It's a testament to the grace of everyone here it's been this civil. :lock:


----------



## MoonRiver

> âOr you could say idolatry is political correctness.â


Phil Robertson


----------



## painterswife

MO_cows said:


> It doesn't affect them except on an emotional level. But there are many who believe homosexuality is against God's will. Sodom and Gomorrah. Hence the outrage.
> 
> Personally, I would rather see a new legal union created for the same sex couples. More precise, more informative when looking at records, and also shows some degree of respect for the spiritual beliefs of those millions of Americans. Because it's not just a few people to be dismissed as "nut cases". There are a LOT who hold those beliefs.
> 
> Worst case scenario - an issue that combines religion AND politics. It's a testament to the grace of everyone here it's been this civil. :lock:


I have a legal marriage. It has nothing to do with a religious marriage. There is no reason to record the difference between religious marriages and non religious marriages with the government, therefore no need to change the words that describe it.


----------



## MO_cows

Vahomesteaders said:


> The Society you belive in is the one we are seeing today. More abortions murder mass killings, people on medications, more drugs, less money, less jobs, less chance for growth and the realization of the American dream, more dishonesty stealing and crimes in general . Seems the society of yester year where everyone met for church on Sundays and the nation loved the Lord was much better than where your ideals have lead our society.


I think you are "remembering" something that never really was!

Even in the "wagons headed west" days, the most personally responsible, self sufficient Americans who ever lived, and with the most opportunities for their future -- there was plenty of stealing and killing. Go to the library and look at newspapers from those days. I remember reading in the Little House books - they encountered people who had been stranded by horse theft, and also that Pa put chains instead of ropes on their own horses at night to prevent their theft.


----------



## MO_cows

painterswife said:


> I have a legal marriage. It has nothing to do with a religious marriage. There is no reason to record the difference between religious marriages and non religious marriages with the government, therefore no need to change the words that describe it.


It's not the difference between religious and non-religious. It's whether a man/woman union was made or a same sex union. "No reason" is your opinion. Maybe you couldn't think of any but I already gave you one - the accuracy of the public record. "No need" is another opinion. You're welcome to it.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

MO_cows said:


> I think you are "remembering" something that never really was!
> 
> Even in the "wagons headed west" days, the most personally responsible, self sufficient Americans who ever lived, and with the most opportunities for their future -- there was plenty of stealing and killing. Go to the library and look at newspapers from those days. I remember reading in the Little House books - they encountered people who had been stranded by horse theft, and also that Pa put chains instead of ropes on their own horses at night to prevent their theft.


I can remember just a few years ago you went school for an education and got a job. Now even having a masters gets you nowhere. Kids have very little to look forward to. Teen suicide rates sky rocketing. And it's not just gay teens. Bullied kids, broken home children etc.. its a terrible shame you can't see that. Life even in the 80s and 90s was so much more fulfilling than now. And again I'll point to the fact the mayo clinic says over 76% of Americans are on some sort of drug with antidepressants topping that list. It's over 133% jump since 2000 the number of people taking them.


----------



## painterswife

MO_cows said:


> It's not the difference between religious and non-religious. It's whether a man/woman union was made or a same sex union. "No reason" is your opinion. Maybe you couldn't think of any but I already gave you one - the accuracy of the public record. "No need" is another opinion. You're welcome to it.


What accuracy of public record is needed? How many marriages? How many same sex marriages?

All they need to do is add two boxes, one for same sex, one for different sex and you check the appropriate one. No need for a entirely separate name. That problem solved!


----------



## MO_cows

painterswife said:


> What accuracy of public record is needed? How many marriages? How many same sex marriages?
> 
> All they need to do is add two boxes, one for same sex, one for different sex and you check the appropriate one. No need for a entirely separate name. That problem solved!


Except for that pesky little problem of the belief system of millions of Americans...


----------



## painterswife

MO_cows said:


> Except for that pesky little problem of the belief system of millions of Americans...


You just said that you needed a different name to have a accurate public record.

We already know that the constitution does not allow millions of Americans to discriminate based on sex.


----------



## MO_cows

painterswife said:


> You just said that you needed a different name to have a accurate public record.
> 
> We already know that the constitution does not allow millions of Americans to discriminate based on sex.


No, I said it was more accurate/precise, but not that it was needed simply for accuracy's sake. I said it needed a different name out of respect for the beliefs of the millions of Christians. For, what, the 3rd time now?

I honestly don't think the idea of the legal rights of same sex couples ever entered the minds of the founding fathers! But what article of the constitution, or which amendment to it, do you refer to for re-defining the long-held meaning of the word marriage?


----------



## painterswife

MO_cows said:


> No, I said it was more accurate/precise, but not that it was needed simply for accuracy's sake. I said it needed a different name out of respect for the beliefs of the millions of Christians. For, what, the 3rd time now?
> 
> I honestly don't think the idea of the legal rights of same sex couples ever entered the minds of the founding fathers! But what article of the constitution, or which amendment to it, do you refer to for re-defining the long-held meaning of the word marriage?


I respect the right of same sex couples and non religious couples use of the word marriage for their relationships. Many millions of Christians do as well.


----------



## Trainwrek

painterswife said:


> We already know that the constitution does not allow millions of Americans to discriminate based on sex.


The constitution also does not specifically prohibit a man from marrying a monkey, or two men and a giraffe. But there was no such thing as a 'same sex marriage' in 1776, and there still isn't.


----------



## Trainwrek

painterswife said:


> I have a legal marriage. It has nothing to do with a religious marriage. .....


That is no marriage at all in the eyes of God and his followers!


----------



## MDKatie

Trainwrek said:


> That is no marriage at all in the eyes of God and his followers!



I'm guessing she doesn't care. I wouldn't care either. My marriage is between my husband and me, and the government for legal purposes.


----------



## painterswife

Trainwrek said:


> That is no marriage at all in the eyes of God and his followers!


That is your opinion and not the opinion that counts in my life. I however know many of Gods followers who believe that my relationship is a marriage.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

painterswife said:


> That is your opinion and not the opinion that counts in my life. I however know many of Gods followers who believe that my relationship is a marriage.


The Bible requires a marriage to have been recorded. Same with the divorce. Jesus said only adultery justifies divorce and it should be ended with a signed cirtificate.


----------



## willow_girl

> I said it needed a different name out of respect for the beliefs of the millions of Christians.


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."


----------



## Vahomesteaders

willow_girl said:


> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."


That is a great law created to protect religion and all things pertaining to it. And should include marriage.


----------



## painterswife

Vahomesteaders said:


> That is a great law created to protect religion and all things pertaining to it. And should include marriage.


You keep forgetting that marriage with regards to the government is a legal contract and has nothing to do with religion. Your religion has no place in anyone else's marriage.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

painterswife said:


> You keep forgetting that marriage with regards to the government is a legal contract and has nothing to do with religion. Your religion has no place in anyone else's marriage.


Marriage is a vow of commitment to the person you love for life. It's not committing to the govt. Its a commitment to honor (stated in the Bible), cherish (also in the Bible), and hold (also in the Bible) until death do you part (also a vow in the Bible). And of course be faithful to (no adultery also in the Bible). The entire premise of the marriage relates to the Bible. It's sanctified and blessed in the Bible and most all ceremonies still follow the biblical guidelines.


----------



## painterswife

Vahomesteaders said:


> Marriage is a vow of commitment to the person you love for life. It's not committing to the govt. Its a commitment to honor (stated in the Bible), cherish (also in the Bible), and hold (also in the Bible) until death do you part (also a vow in the Bible). And of course be faithful to (no adultery also in the Bible). The entire premise of the marriage relates to the Bible. It's sanctified and blessed in the Bible and most all ceremonies still follow the biblical guidelines.


A marriage ceremony is the vow of commitment and only involves religion if you wish it to. A Marriage contract is a legal construct that defines your legal obligations and rights and is set in law by a marriage licence.

Marriage started out a a legal contract before the bible existed.

No religion has the right to decide what my marriage is or is not.


----------



## Evons hubby

Vahomesteaders said:


> That is a great law created to protect religion and all things pertaining to it. And should include marriage.


I am pretty sure that great law was designed to protect everyone's religious beliefs, not just Christians. I also have to wonder if those of non bible believers have a right to be married? You know the ones, those from far eastern countries? Or the native Americans? Or people who have no religious beliefs at all?


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am pretty sure that great law was designed to protect everyone's religious beliefs, not just Christians. I also have to wonder if those of non bible believers have a right to be married? You know the ones, those from far eastern countries? Or the native Americans? Or people who have no religious beliefs at all?


Religion : A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman being usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

This law is meant for those who believe in a creator and protecting their belief and means of worship as well as all rituals including wedding ceremonies.


----------



## painterswife

Vahomesteaders said:


> Religion : A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman being usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
> 
> This law is meant for those who believe in a creator and protecting their belief and means of worship as well as all rituals including wedding ceremonies.


You do know that the constitution does not allow any religion to have special treatment?

Again I will repeat. Marriage started out as a legal contract not a religious one. Religion adopted marriage not the other way around.


----------



## Evons hubby

Vahomesteaders said:


> This law is meant for those who believe in a creator and protecting their belief and means of worship as well as all rituals including wedding ceremonies.


Ok, I am good with that. This law basically says that the government should not interfere with religion. Yours, mine, or anyone elses. I like that. That way if you want to get married to the person of your choice, so do I, and neither of us has to follow our neighbors religion to do so.


----------



## RWeThereYet

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am pretty sure that great law was designed to protect everyone's religious beliefs, not just Christians. I also have to wonder if those of non bible believers have a right to be married? You know the ones, those from far eastern countries? Or the native Americans? Or people who have no religious beliefs at all?


That is pretty much me and my situation.
We did not have a ceremony. No walking down an isle. No old man in robes. We wear matching rings. Call each other husband and wife. No paper work. We are in our marriage, based on mutual love and respect.
We dont need a book, piece of paper, or formal organization, be it church or govt, to recognize our marriage.


----------



## Tiempo

> Again I will repeat. Marriage started out as a legal contract not a religious one. Religion adopted marriage not the other way around.


This bears repeating. Again.


----------



## Tiempo

Trainwrek said:


> That is no marriage at all in the eyes of God and his followers!


Why should we care if we don't believe in your God?

Our marriage is a marriage in the eyes of my husband, myself, those who care about us, and for practical reasons, the government...more so in our case than others as my husband is a 100% disabled veteran on VA benefits and I his caregiver, and an immigrant.

That someone else's god isn't involved is of zero, ZERO importance.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

painterswife said:


> You do know that the constitution does not allow any religion to have special treatment?
> 
> Again I will repeat. Marriage started out as a legal contract not a religious one. Religion adopted marriage not the other way around.


There is ton more evidence to the contrary. It was started as a loving commitment long before govt contract


----------



## Tiempo

My marriage is a loving commitment, doesn't make it religious.


----------



## painterswife

Vahomesteaders said:


> There is ton more evidence to the contrary. It was started as a loving commitment long before govt contract


Even if it did that still had nothing to do with Christianity. For a religion to think it owns marriage and the definition of it is ludicrous.


----------



## Tiempo

painterswife said:


> Even if it did that still had nothing to do with Christianity. For a religion to think it owns marriage and the definition of it is ludicrous.


And astonishingly arrogant.


----------



## MoonRiver

painterswife said:


> Pure speculation. The murder rate has been dropping as the number of Christians has been dropping. The correlation does not fit.


Right. Don't believe everything you read on Slate.

The percentage of people in US who identify as Christian has dropped from mid 80's to mid 70's over the last 25+ years. So why was the murder rate so low in the 40's, 50's and 60's when percentage of Christians was over 87%?


----------



## painterswife

MoonRiver said:


> Right. Don't believe everything you read on Slate.
> 
> The percentage of people in US who identify as Christian has dropped from mid 80's to mid 70's over the last 25+ years. So why was the murder rate so low in the 40's, 50's and 60's when percentage of Christians was over 87%?


Dont read Slate. Di you look at the graph you posted and the last 20 years?


----------



## MoonRiver

painterswife said:


> Even if it did that still had nothing to do with Christianity. For a religion to think it owns marriage and the definition of it is ludicrous.





Tiempo said:


> And astonishingly arrogant.


Perfect example of political correctness. In the US, marriage was a union between a man and a woman. Although not required, marriages were usually performed by a member of the clergy. Most Americans were Christians, so in US culture, a marriage was believed to be sanctified by God.

Ask an American in 1790 what marriage was and they would say a union of a man and woman.
Same thing in 1850.
Same thing in 1900.
Same thing in 1950.
Same thing in 2000.
In 2014, it suddenly means any 2 people that want to live together in a legal union.

Those are just facts, not opinion.

But the gay mafia stole the word and institution of marriage and demanded the word and institution now mean both the marriage of 2 opposite sex people as well as 2 same sex people, under the premise of equal rights.

I still don't understand why domestic partnership, under any name other than marriage, was not a fair and legal solution. Two guys getting "married is not the same thing as a man and a woman getting married. Words mean things and the word marriage was stolen.

I realize the battle is over and my side lost, but I still think it was won politically and not legally. It was the classic case of political correctness intimidating our legal system.


----------



## kasilofhome

The most common word or phrase or description for a homosexual league bond is



Civil union


----------



## Evons hubby

MoonRiver said:


> I realize the battle is over and my side lost, but I still think it was won politically and not legally. It was the classic case of political correctness intimidating our legal system.


I think the highest law of our land is still the Constitution.... which clearly states that all of our citizens are to have "equal" protection under the law. This was clearly a case of illegal laws having been enforced for a couple of centuries... and yes, it doesnt hardly seem legal until one looks at our Constitution. It has nothing to do with political correctness... it has to do with upholding the Constitution. 

Its time we started treating everyone in this country as our equal citizen/partners and allowing them the same rights they have been denied all along. Just because we have always done something wrong, doesnt make it right. Slavery existed for many years in this country, women first won the right to vote in 1903, and that was only in Wyoming... I have heard that there were laws passed in the early years of this country that protected women.... a man was only allowed to beat his wife with a stick no larger in diameter than his thumb and not on Sunday at all. Oh yes.... thems was the good ol days!

Freedom is a good thing, and I think everyone should have it. Not just church members of a certain church, not just people with a certain color hair or eyes, not just those that belong to a particular club.... and not just people with lots of money.... but everyone.


----------



## painterswife

Vahomesteaders said:


> Religion : A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman being usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
> 
> This law is meant for those who believe in a creator and protecting their belief and means of worship as well as all rituals including wedding ceremonies.


I respect your right to believe what you do about marriage. *I don't respect the idea that your religion or any other is the basis of any laws here in the US.*


----------



## unregistered168043

painterswife said:


> You keep forgetting that marriage with regards to the government is a legal contract and has nothing to do with religion. Your religion has no place in anyone else's marriage.


Government can not take the place of God. Recording your claim of marriage and having a piece of paper printed out by a bureaucrat is no substitute for the almighty. It means nothing. I stongly suggest, if you do love your partner and want to truly be married then do it. There's a sin here of copulating outside true marriage AND idolatry. Putting the false god of a government bureau in place of the real thing.


----------



## Evons hubby

Darntootin said:


> Government can not take the place of God. *Recording your claim of marriage and having a piece of paper printed out by a bureaucrat is no substitute for the almighty. It means nothing. *I stongly suggest, if you do love your partner and want to truly be married then do it. There's a sin here of copulating outside true marriage AND idolatry. Putting the false god of a government bureau in place of the real thing.


It means quite a bit in our court system. especially when of one of the people involved dies, (which happens in virtually all marriages given time) or opts out of the marriage. (which also happens all too often)


----------



## unregistered168043

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It means quite a bit in our court system. especially when of one of the people involved dies, (which happens in virtually all marriages given time) or opts out of the marriage. (which also happens all too often)


None of which makes a marriage:happy2:


----------



## painterswife

Darntootin said:


> None of which makes a marriage:happy2:


Again, what you believe has no bearing in my marriage. I neither need to justify or explain it to you or the government. You have no place in it.


----------



## Evons hubby

Darntootin said:


> None of which makes a marriage:happy2:


Nope, and neither does any religion. Where I come from it takes people to make a marriage... but that doesnt take anything away from the importance of that "recorded document". Some folks think it takes only religion, to others the paperwork is all important, and others require both. Just depends on whose ox is getting gored.


----------



## willow_girl

> Two guys getting "married is not the same thing as a man and a woman getting married.


How are they different?

The only difference I can see is that they can't conceive a child without help from a surrogate mother, but a lot of heterosexual couples are infertile, too. Does that make them "less than married," too?


----------



## Vahomesteaders

We are created puzzle pieces male fits to Female. No other match fits together.


----------



## Evons hubby

Vahomesteaders said:


> We are created puzzle pieces male fits to Female. No other match fits together.


There are several people in this world that seem to think pieces is just pieces and like how they fit just fine. There was a time in this country when a lot of folks insisted all the pieces had to be the same color.... but they were apparently wrong too. When our founding fathers decided to rebel against the good king, they put some of their thoughts down in writing... somewhere in those thoughts there was mention of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all. If you arent happy with a person that has the same pieces you have.... you should probably go pursue someone who has different pieces that you like better... but whats wrong with letting others pursue whichever kind of pieces they like? It has no affect whatsoever on you. :shrug:


----------



## Evons hubby

willow_girl said:


> How are they different?
> 
> The only difference I can see is that they can't conceive a child without help from a surrogate mother, but a lot of heterosexual couples are infertile, too. Does that make them "less than married," too?


I can see lots of differences between two guys getting married and a man woman marriage.... for starters neither of the two guys will have to put up with PMS, having ladies undergarments hanging all over the bathroom... or the constant nagging that most men have to deal with when married to women.


----------



## CountryWannabe

Vahomesteaders said:


> There is ton more evidence to the contrary. It was started as a loving commitment long before govt contract


I don't see how it could be a loving commitment at a time when women were traded like cattle. They were the means of cementing deals, not much more. Until pretty recently they owned nothing. Not even their name. They either belonged to their father or their husband. Changing their name signified the transfer of ownership - rather like a car title.

Mary


----------



## Vahomesteaders

You obviously don't know history very well. Women have always held prominent roles in history as rulers, leaders and even conquers. Yes there are some blemishes on history but loving relationships are traced back to long before there were those who used them as bargaining chips. And do you think the poor people which have always been out weighed by the rich, married for power? They had nothing to give or gain.


----------



## Paumon

Vahomesteaders said:


> There is ton more evidence to the contrary. It was started as a loving commitment long before govt contract


I have to agree with what CountryWannabe said.

Vahomesteaders, you're relatively new to this board so you will have missed the many other topics there's been on here over the years about marriage contracts. 

So what you've missed here is that there's a great deal of historical evidence that's been produced that shows that for thousands of years marriage contracts existed strictly as legal and political agreements between various parties to bind political alliances. Usually between tribes, armies, countries, etc. and all at a time when women were not considered "persons". They had no rights since they were property, not persons, and they were only used as property to trade back and forth as the producers of heirs to their men. Women didn't have the luxury of falling in love and marrying whoever they wanted. They were married off to whoever their male keepers made them marry for their male keepers political reasons. That was all. 

It wasn't until around the 3rd or 4th century A.D. that the Roman Christian church decided that any couple living together as husband and wife had to have a marriage contract and that all marriage contracts should come under the governance of the church. The church had their own political reasons for enforcing that as a way of gaining more political power and riches, and a means of controlling the people and thus the church's political power spread through many countries by force and by fear. It really had nothing to do with God or any of the religious decrees the churchmen made up for their own political purposes and then said were God's decrees.

I'm really surprised that there are so many Christians are naive about this part of Christian history or else have had the truth witheld from them and they've just blindly followed along without ever questioning or search for the truth. You should learn the true facts and history about these things that you believe in so strongly before you go arguing for them. In this new world that we live in there is no good excuse on anyone's part for any blatant ignorance or willfull witholding of education and information. If you are a woman you especially owe it to yourself to educate yourself about the facts.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Paumon said:


> I have to agree with what CountryWannabe said.
> 
> Vahomesteaders, you're relatively new to this board so you will have missed the many other topics there's been on here over the years about marriage contracts.
> 
> So what you've missed here is that there's a great deal of historical evidence that's been produced that shows that for thousands of years marriage contracts existed strictly as legal and political agreements between various parties to bind political alliances. Usually between tribes, armies, countries, etc. and all at a time when women were not considered "persons". They had no rights since they were property, not persons, and they were only used as property to trade back and forth as the producers of heirs to their men. Women didn't have the luxury of falling in love and marrying whoever they wanted. They were married off to whoever their male keepers made them marry for their male keepers political reasons. That was all.
> 
> It wasn't until around the 3rd or 4th century A.D. that the Roman Christian church decided that any couple living together as husband and wife had to have a marriage contract and that all marriage contracts should come under the governance of the church. The church had their own political reasons for enforcing that as a way of gaining more political power and riches, and a means of controlling the people and thus the church's political power spread through many countries by force and by fear. It really had nothing to do with God or any of the religious decrees the churchmen made up for their own political purposes and then said were God's decrees.
> 
> I'm really surprised that there are so many Christians are naive about this part of Christian history or else have had the truth witheld from them and they've just blindly followed along without ever questioning or search for the truth. You should learn the true facts and history about these things that you believe in so strongly before you go arguing for them. In this new world that we live in there is no good excuse on anyone's part for any blatant ignorance or willfull witholding of education and information. If you are a woman you especially owe it to yourself to educate yourself about the facts.


I understand what your saying. But saying because the Catholics did something all Christians should know it is not quit right. Catholics did not start Christianity. God did as did Christ. The first couple we learn about were created by love, for love for one another. No other reason. Whether you believe that our not is up to you. But that teaching is older then any other reference you may have.


----------



## Evons hubby

Vahomesteaders said:


> You obviously don't know history very well. Women have always held prominent roles in history as rulers, leaders and even conquers. Yes there are some blemishes on history but loving relationships are traced back to long before there were those who used them as bargaining chips. *And do you think the poor people which have always been out weighed by the rich, married for power? They had nothing to give or gain.*


The gain was getting rid of an otherwise useless mouth to feed and care for.... the daughter. Men actually saved what little they could in order to provide a dowry to any man willing to take the daughter off his hands.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The gain was getting rid of an otherwise useless mouth to feed and care for.... the daughter. Men actually saved what little they could in order to provide a dowry to any man willing to take the daughter off his hands.


Your talking about in general a single culture. There were many that did not practice this.


----------



## Evons hubby

Vahomesteaders said:


> I understand what your saying. But saying because the Catholics did something all Christians should know it is not quit right. Catholics did not start Christianity. God did as did Christ. The first couple we learn about were created by love, for love for one another. No other reason. Whether you believe that our not is up to you. But that teaching is older then any other reference you may have.


The first couple I recall was Adam and Eve. And Eve was not created for the love of Adam.... God saw that Adam was a bit slack, and wasnt tending that garden properly... Eve was created as a helper for him.


----------



## Evons hubby

Vahomesteaders said:


> Your talking about in general a single culture. There were many that did not practice this.


It was widespread enough that we still have dower laws in this country today. I am pretty sure they came in with those Christian morals this thread is all about.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The first couple I recall was Adam and Eve. And Eve was not created for the love of Adam.... God saw that Adam was a bit slack, and wasnt tending that garden properly... Eve was created as a helper for him.


Bible says Adam loved eve as himself and the two became one. They are the first example for us of love. Then the Bible says.:

So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord, the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.-(Eph 5:28-33)

This is true Christianity's view on marriage. Any other tradition or teaching is from a false religion and is a fake teaching and should not be confused with Christianity.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It was widespread enough that we still have dower laws in this country today. I am pretty sure they came in with those Christian morals this thread is all about.


It started in India and was generally only practiced in America by upper elites. And many of those laws regarding it are against the practice of it. There are some that were pro dowry but it was never widely accepted.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Actually hope chest were more accepted then dowries in American.


----------



## Paumon

Vahomesteaders said:


> I understand what your saying. But saying because the Catholics did something all Christians should know it is not quit right. Catholics did not start Christianity. God did as did Christ. The first couple we learn about were created by love, for love for one another. No other reason. Whether you believe that our not is up to you. But that teaching is older then any other reference you may have.


Who said anything about the Catholics? Not me. By your answer you have demonstrated further ignorance about the coming into being of the Christian church but you are right in one thing, that the Catholics didn't invent Christianity - but then neither were they the first Christian church. But God didn't invent Christianity either. It was invented by people who called themselves Christians and established a religion called Christianity.

Whether or not you believe all that you have posted above is up to you and you will believe what you wish to believe as is your right. The point is - what's right for you doesn't make it right for everyone, it is YOUR belief, it is not everybody's belief. Christianity is the belief of Christians only, not the belief of everyone. It may be good enough for Christians who prefer to believe those things but it's not good enough for people who aren't Christians and have their own paths to follow. 

This is not a case of what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and Christians don't have any rights or authority to impose their own sauce on all and sundry.

But you know that already.


----------



## Evons hubby

Vahomesteaders said:


> Bible says Adam loved eve as himself and the two became one. They are the first example for us of love. Then the Bible says.:
> 
> So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord, the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.-(Eph 5:28-33)
> 
> This is true Christianity's view on marriage. Any other tradition or teaching is from a false religion and is a fake teaching and should not be confused with Christianity.


Genesis 2:

7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 

18 The Lord God said, &#8220;It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.&#8221;

It was only after they were both created that "love" entered the picture. Eve was intended to be Adams helper. Nothing more, nothing less... They did have free choice however... which may or may not have been a good thing... that tree and the serpent and all like that. Another side point, God rested after He created the heavens and the earth, He rested after He created man.... but there is no mention anywhere in the bible that either He, nor man has rested since He created woman!


----------



## Paumon

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Another side point, God rested after He created the heavens and the earth, He rested after He created man.... *but there is no mention anywhere in the bible that either He, nor man has rested since He created woman!*


:hysterical:

And that's how it should be too. It's a tough job but somebody has to keep God and men toeing the line and working hard to meet the standards of God's very last and most perfect creation of all. God out did God's-self in creating Woman! :happy2:

And before somebody comes along and says that Jesus was God's most perfect creation, I'll remind them that God needed a woman for that. 

:teehee:


----------



## MoonRiver

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I think the highest law of our land is still the Constitution.... which clearly states that all of our citizens are to have "equal" protection under the law. This was clearly a case of illegal laws having been enforced for a couple of centuries... and yes, it doesnt hardly seem legal until one looks at our Constitution. It has nothing to do with political correctness... it has to do with upholding the Constitution.
> 
> Its time we started treating everyone in this country as our equal citizen/partners and allowing them the same rights they have been denied all along. Just because we have always done something wrong, doesnt make it right. Slavery existed for many years in this country, women first won the right to vote in 1903, and that was only in Wyoming... I have heard that there were laws passed in the early years of this country that protected women.... a man was only allowed to beat his wife with a stick no larger in diameter than his thumb and not on Sunday at all. Oh yes.... thems was the good ol days!
> 
> Freedom is a good thing, and I think everyone should have it. Not just church members of a certain church, not just people with a certain color hair or eyes, not just those that belong to a particular club.... and not just people with lots of money.... but everyone.


Then explain how and why domestic partnerships with all the same rights as marriage is not equal protection under the law. You can't because they are equal.


----------



## painterswife

MoonRiver said:


> Then explain how and why domestic partnerships with all the same rights as marriage is not equal protection under the law. You can't because they are equal.


You can drink at that fountain but not this one, but you can still drink so you are equal.

You can go to that school but not this school but you can still go to school so you are equal.


----------



## MoonRiver

Paumon said:


> Christianity is the belief of Christians only


Not true at all.


----------



## Paumon

MoonRiver said:


> Originally Posted by *Paumon*
> 
> _Christianity is the belief of Christians only_
> 
> 
> 
> Not true at all.
Click to expand...

Okie dokie. Can you elaborate on that? I don't want to go round in circles, because really that's all this entire conversation is and always has been, but I'm genuinely interested in your explanation. 

How do non-Christians believe in Christianity?


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Genesis 2:
> 
> 7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
> 
> 15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.
> 
> 18 The Lord God said, âIt is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.â
> 
> It was only after they were both created that "love" entered the picture. Eve was intended to be Adams helper. Nothing more, nothing less... They did have free choice however... which may or may not have been a good thing... that tree and the serpent and all like that. Another side point, God rested after He created the heavens and the earth, He rested after He created man.... but there is no mention anywhere in the bible that either He, nor man has rested since He created woman!


Because he was speaking about people not just a man. It took more work fir the man. The woman was easy. He already had the blue print and didn't have to add as many parts. Lol


----------



## MoonRiver

painterswife said:


> Dont read Slate. Di you look at the graph you posted and the last 20 years?


Of course I did. That's why I pointed out the murder rate was also low in the 40's, 50's and 60', which disproves the premise it is related to decline in Christianity.


----------



## MoonRiver

Paumon said:


> Okie dokie. Can you elaborate on that? I don't want to go round in circles, because really that's all this entire conversation is and always has been, but I'm genuinely interested in your explanation.
> 
> How do non-Christians believe in Christianity?


I, for one, believe in Christianity but don't believe Christ is God, so I am not a Christian. I believe, and I think there are many that believe, that the teachings of Christ (Christianity), are the best moral guide we have right now.

So it is not necessary to be Christian to believe in Christianity.


----------



## painterswife

MoonRiver said:


> Of course I did. That's why I pointed out the murder rate was also low in the 40's, 50's and 60', which disproves the premise it is related to decline in Christianity.


It was never my premise that the murder rate decline was linked to the murder rate. I just offered that they both declined at the same time. One could draw all kinds of conclusions just as you have and none of them proven, just like your premises.


----------



## Paumon

Vahomesteaders said:


> Because he was speaking about people not just a man. It took more work fir the man. The woman was easy. *He already had the blue print and didn't have to add as many parts.* Lol


Women have more parts than men do.


----------



## Evons hubby

Vahomesteaders said:


> Because he was speaking about people not just a man.


:umno: in the verses I brought forward He was talking about one man... Adam... period. There were no others to be talking about!

If I am not mistaken I think its somewhere in Corinthians that even JC Himself seemed to have little use for marriage between a man and a woman. Something about it would be better for a man to never touch a woman. 
If you read the same book I have, I never noticed where JC ever took a wife, but He did hang out with a dozen or so guys quite a lot.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Yvonne's hubby said:


> :umno: in the verses I brought forward He was talking about one man... Adam... period. There were no others to be talking about!
> 
> If I am not mistaken I think its somewhere in Corinthians that even JC Himself seemed to have little use for marriage between a man and a woman. Something about it would be better for a man to never touch a woman.
> If you read the same book I have, I never noticed where JC ever took a wife, but He did hang out with a dozen or so guys quite a lot.


That was Paul not jc. And Paul was only referencing those with weak faith. Jc said have you not heard that since the beginning man is to leave his parents and take a wife and the wife leave her parents and take a husband. The entire Bible draws a parallel between Christ and the church as a wedding ceremony.


----------



## Evons hubby

Vahomesteaders said:


> Because he was speaking about people not just a man.


:umno: in the verses I brought forward He was talking about one man... Adam... period. There were no others to be talking about!

If I am not mistaken I think its somewhere in Corinthians that even JC Himself seemed to have little use for marriage between a man and a woman. Something about it would be better for a man to never touch a woman. 
If you read the same book I have, I never noticed where JC ever took a wife, but He did hang out with a dozen or so guys quite a lot. 

Ah yes, here it is.... "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman."

"For I would that all men were even as I myself. " (single)


----------



## Vahomesteaders

By


Yvonne's hubby said:


> :umno: in the verses I brought forward He was talking about one man... Adam... period. There were no others to be talking about!
> 
> If I am not mistaken I think its somewhere in Corinthians that even JC Himself seemed to have little use for marriage between a man and a woman. Something about it would be better for a man to never touch a woman.
> If you read the same book I have, I never noticed where JC ever took a wife, but He did hang out with a dozen or so guys quite a lot.
> 
> Ah yes, here it is.... "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman."
> 
> "For I would that all men were even as I myself. " (single)


Again Paul not jesus and it's referencing priest and teachers who have weak faith and can't love a woman and God at the same time


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Yvonne's hubby said:


> :umno: in the verses I brought forward He was talking about one man... Adam... period. There were no others to be talking about!
> 
> If I am not mistaken I think its somewhere in Corinthians that even JC Himself seemed to have little use for marriage between a man and a woman. Something about it would be better for a man to never touch a woman.
> If you read the same book I have, I never noticed where JC ever took a wife, but He did hang out with a dozen or so guys quite a lot.
> 
> Ah yes, here it is.... "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman."
> 
> "For I would that all men were even as I myself. " (single)


Also most all the apostles had wives. You need to study the word before quoting it. Jesus was focused on God's work and died young at 33. He wasn't here to do all the things man does. He was here to save us and spread the gospel.


----------



## Evons hubby

MoonRiver said:


> Then explain how and why domestic partnerships with all the same rights as marriage is not equal protection under the law. You can't because they are equal.


I think I covered that earlier.... Equal but separate is NEVER equal. Not in our school systems, and certainly not in water fountains and restrooms, restaurants, theaters, busses... the list is quite lengthy. Been there, tryed that... didnt work out so well. I am curious though.... what is the problem with just plain old "equal"? Why not let anyone of legal age go down to the courthouse, get a license and get married to whoever they want to... as long as whoever they want to is ok with it?


----------



## painterswife

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I think I covered that earlier.... Equal but separate is NEVER equal. Not in our school systems, and certainly not in water fountains and restrooms, restaurants, theaters, busses... the list is quite lengthy. Been there, tryed that... didnt work out so well.


The sad thing is that is trotted out every time like they think those that are discriminated against should be happy to be treated differently by our government.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I think I covered that earlier.... Equal but separate is NEVER equal. Not in our school systems, and certainly not in water fountains and restrooms, restaurants, theaters, busses... the list is quite lengthy. Been there, tryed that... didnt work out so well. I am curious though.... what is the problem with just plain old "equal"? Why not let anyone of legal age go down to the courthouse, get a license and get married to whoever they want to... as long as whoever they want to is ok with it?


Big difference. Those are physical limitations on where the can or can't go. This is purely a paper issue wanting to have exactly as everyone else including the same name for their Union.


----------



## Paumon

MoonRiver said:


> I, for one, believe in Christianity but don't believe Christ is God, so I am not a Christian. I believe, and I think there are many that believe, that the teachings of Christ (Christianity), are the best moral guide we have right now.
> 
> So it is not necessary to be Christian to be in Christianity.


Okay, that's a good explanation and I can accept that and relate to it. 

That's rather like me not believing that Jesus is a God or a Christ but I agree with most of his sermon on the mount and I love his "Lord's Prayer" that he gave to the people because it is applicable for all people of all faiths. I grew up in a non-Christian household but the Lord's Prayer was a mantra in our home and is still and always will be a daily mantra for me. It's the most powerful and most protective invocation of all invocations known to mankind. 

As to moral guides, I think the 10 Commandments that Moses produced for his people is probably the best and most straight forward set of moral guidelines I've heard yet, and again those Commandments can be applicable to all people of all faiths. But Moses wasn't a Christian, having come into the world long before Jesus did, and there are other cultures and religions that have very similar moral commandments that are just as good.

But yes, I'll agree with you that it's not necessary to be a Christian to believe in many of the same things that Christians believe in (or are supposed to believe in but some often don't practise). 

But I don't think that by believing or practising those same things they are "in Christianity" as you put it because Christianity didn't come first and it doesn't have a monopoly on those beliefs or morals. It's more like Christians who believe those same things are just other people who are "in the universe" along with all the other people of other religions or belief systems who have the same common beliefs and are "in the universe" together with them.


----------



## Evons hubby

Vahomesteaders said:


> Also most all the apostles had wives. You need to study the word before quoting it. Jesus was focused on God's work and died young at 33. He wasn't here to do all the things man does. He was here to save us and spread the gospel.


 I think a lot of folks need to know a bit more about God before they go round telling others how to live their lives too.... but nobody much cares what I think.


----------



## MoonRiver

painterswife said:


> You can drink at that fountain but not this one, but you can still drink so you are equal.
> 
> You can go to that school but not this school but you can still go to school so you are equal.


Those were based on racial segregation and, in most cases, were separate and unequal.

Brown v. Board of Education was about racial discrimination and has not been applied to gays. As far as I know, there is no blanket federal law that makes all forms of discrimination against gays illegal. So from a purely legal point of view, I don't thing your examples hold up.

United States v. Windsor


> prevented the *federal government from treating state-sanctioned heterosexual marriages differently than state-sanctioned same-sex marriages*, and that such differentiation "demean[ed] the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects."[44]


I don't see anything that says that domestic partnerships that provide the exact same benefits and rights are separate and illegal.


----------



## Evons hubby

Vahomesteaders said:


> This is purely a paper issue wanting to have exactly as everyone else including the same name for their Union.


Ok, and the problem with having the exact same paperwork is what???


----------



## MoonRiver

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I think I covered that earlier.... Equal but separate is NEVER equal. Not in our school systems, and certainly not in water fountains and restrooms, restaurants, theaters, busses... the list is quite lengthy. Been there, tryed that... didnt work out so well. I am curious though.... what is the problem with just plain old "equal"? Why not let anyone of legal age go down to the courthouse, get a license and get married to whoever they want to... as long as whoever they want to is ok with it?


All your examples are about racial discrimination. Show me the Supreme Court case that applies to sexual orientation.


----------



## Evons hubby

MoonRiver said:


> All your examples are about racial discrimination. Show me the Supreme Court case that applies to sexual orientation.


Well, I am to lazy to look up any, how about we just use the one you brought forward a couple posts up?

The one that prohibits the federal government from treating state sanctioned *gay marriages* any differently than state sanctioned heterosexual marriages.


----------



## painterswife

MoonRiver said:


> All your examples are about racial discrimination. Show me the Supreme Court case that applies to sexual orientation.


The rules are the same. No discrimination.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Christianity is just the name people give the belief system. A true believer of the one true God is just that, a believer. Which is what I tell people I am when they ask what faith. I don't believe is separation or division by denominations. So as Christ said and as Moses and all others were, we are believers in the one true God and the gospel that he gave us and the son that he allowed to become flesh to show us the way.


----------



## painterswife

MoonRiver said:


> Those were based on racial segregation and, in most cases, were separate and unequal.
> 
> Brown v. Board of Education was about racial discrimination and has not been applied to gays. As far as I know, there is no blanket federal law that makes all forms of discrimination against gays illegal. So from a purely legal point of view, I don't thing your examples hold up.
> 
> United States v. WindsorI don't see anything that says that domestic partnerships that provide the exact same benefits and rights are separate and illegal.


They don't need to have to settle for a domestic union, it is discrimination to deny them a marriage licience.


----------



## wwubben

MoonRiver said:


> as our shared morality? (Edit) I mean this more in a cultural way than a religious way, as in our culture was built on a foundation of Judeo-Christian morality.
> 
> Have the outcasts successfully forced their warped view of morality on the rest of us?
> 
> Over the last 20 years or so, I have been amazed at how many seemingly ridiculous ideas have made it into our culture under the banner of political correctness. Gay marriage, illegal immigrants, "free" speech, competition, role of marriage, relationship between men and women, having children outside of marriage, use of drugs, discussions of race, discussions of crime, and on and on.


Christian morality does not mean the same thing to everyone.When I tell my republican friends that I don't understand how a republican can be a christian they get excited.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

wwubben said:


> Christian morality does not mean the same thing to everyone.When I tell my republican friends that I don't understand how a republican can be a christian they get excited.


Well dems believe in murder, sexual immorality on all sides and non self sufficiency. Not to mention at their national convention the voted to remove God from the Democratic platform. So which party has even a little better shot at being right. Lol


----------



## Evons hubby

Vahomesteaders said:


> Well dems believe in murder, sexual immorality on all sides and non self sufficiency. Not to mention at their national convention the voted to remove God from the Democratic platform. So which party has even a little better shot at being right. Lol


I have known quite a few good God fearing Christians that werent exactly self sufficient, and lacked a good bit on their sexual morals as well... but I dont know of any democrat or republican that puts much stock in murder.


----------



## MoonRiver

painterswife said:


> The rules are the same. No discrimination.


The rules are not the same until the Supreme Court says they are.

THERE IS NO SUPREME COURT CASE THAT SAYS IT IS ILLEGAL.


----------



## MoonRiver

wwubben said:


> Christian morality does not mean the same thing to everyone.When I tell my republican friends that I don't understand how a republican can be a christian they get excited.


AS I have said a few times, by Christian morality I was referring to the shared culture in the US that was based on Christianity. By definition, the culture of a nation means the same thing to everyone. They may not like or agree with all aspects of it, but a culture is a culture.


----------



## MoonRiver

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Well, I am to lazy to look up any, how about we just use the one you brought forward a couple posts up?
> 
> The one that prohibits the federal government from treating state sanctioned *gay marriages* any differently than state sanctioned heterosexual marriages.


That applied to benefits. The federal government was denying benefits to the spouse in a gay marriage.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have known quite a few good God fearing Christians that werent exactly self sufficient, and lacked a good bit on their sexual morals as well... but I dont know of any democrat or republican that puts much stock in murder.


Your right. There are bad on both sides. But when you base it on platform alone, the Republicans have the edge. And abortion is murder. We know where both sides stand on that. And we are the only species that does that just because we can.


----------



## painterswife

MoonRiver said:


> The rules are not the same until the Supreme Court says they are.
> 
> THERE IS NO SUPREME COURT CASE THAT SAYS IT IS ILLEGAL.


They are not fighting for a domestic union so that has not gone to court. They are fighting for the right to marry.


----------



## painterswife

MoonRiver said:


> AS I have said a few times, by Christian morality I was referring to the shared culture in the US that was based on Christianity. By definition, the culture of a nation means the same thing to everyone. They may not like or agree with all aspects of it, but a culture is a culture.


So if the culture changes and a religion that believes in slaves takes over, we should change the constitution and laws to embrace slavery?


----------



## Vahomesteaders

painterswife said:


> So if the culture changes and a religion that believes in slaves rakes over, we should change the constitution and laws to embrace slavery?


Again God never condoned our form of slavery. He forbid it and said any man who does should be put to death. Slavery of Bible times was almost always voluntary fir protection food and shelter. And God said they were to be treated Good.


----------



## painterswife

Vahomesteaders said:


> Again God never condoned our form of slavery. He forbid it and said any man who does should be put to death. Slavery of Bible times was almost always voluntary fir protection food and shelter. And God said they were to be treated Good.


Again, no religion and no god get to make our laws.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

painterswife said:


> Again, religion and God don't get to make our laws.


From our founding fathers. 

George Washington
1st U.S. President

"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."
--The Writings of Washington, pp. 342-343.

John Adams
2nd U.S. President and Signer of the Declaration of Independence

"Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God ... What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be."
--Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, Vol. III, p. 9.

"The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their address, or by me in my answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were United: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

And there are many many more pro religious quotes from those who wrote our laws. Thomas Jefferson being the only agnostic even said the teachings of Jesus should be the goal of all the people's. He even wrote his own Bible without miracles.


----------



## Evons hubby

Vahomesteaders said:


> Again God never condoned our form of slavery. He forbid it and said any man who does should be put to death. Slavery of Bible times was almost always voluntary fir protection food and shelter. And God said they were to be treated Good.


Wow..... God said to treat our slaves good? but in the same paragraph He never condoned slavery? Next you will be telling us the sun rises in the north and south on alternate days!


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Wow..... God said to treat our slaves good? but in the same paragraph He never condoned slavery? Next you will be telling us the sun rises in the north and south on alternate days!


Again he told the people to treat those who are voluntary slaves with kindness and respect. He forbid people to keep other people against their will or to sell or trade another man.


----------



## painterswife

Vahomesteaders said:


> And there are many many more pro religious quotes from those who wrote our laws. Thomas Jefferson being the only agnostic even said the teachings of Jesus should be the goal of all the people's. He even wrote his own Bible without miracles.


What ever they believed about religion or God, they wrote 
the constitution to keep religion out of the goverment.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

What many fail to understand is that slavery in biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was based more on economics; it was a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their keeper.


----------



## mmoetc

Vahomesteaders said:


> Again he told the people to treat those who are voluntary slaves with kindness and respect. He forbid people to keep other people against their will or to sell or trade another man.


Voluntary slavery seems a bit oxymoronic.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

painterswife said:


> What ever they believed about religion or God, they wrote
> the constitution to keep religion out of the goverment.


They wrote it to protect people's rights to religion and keep the govt and states from making laws against any religion.


----------



## Evons hubby

painterswife said:


> What ever they believed about religion or God, they wrote
> the constitution to keep religion out of the goverment.


Unless you read a different copy of the Constitution I did... the copy I have here on my desk only mentions religion one time... in the first amendment... 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Now all things being equal.... that looks more like they were trying to keep government out of religion... not the other way round.


----------



## painterswife

Vahomesteaders said:


> What many fail to understand is that slavery in biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was based more on economics; it was a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their keeper.


Not the truth. Slaves taken in war comes to mind as just one example you missed.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

So I love when people who know nothing of the Bible bring up slavery or foods we can eat or whatever. Not knowing the truth behind any of the topics.


----------



## Paumon

MoonRiver said:


> AS I have said a few times, by Christian morality I was referring to the shared culture in the US that was based on Christianity. By definition, the culture of a nation means the same thing to everyone. They may not like or agree with all aspects of it, but a culture is a culture.


All cultures grow and change with time, without exception. If they remain stagnant they get cast aside and they die. It's the stagnant and outdated cultures that become the real outcasts. Whether or not the shared culture started out based on Christianity is moot because the American culture has already changed and if it's going stay alive and not stagnate unto death then the shared culture will continue to change with the times. You can't hold it back.


----------



## arcticow

Cast not thy pearls before swine...


----------



## Vahomesteaders

painterswife said:


> Not the truth. Slaves taken in war comes to mind as just one example you missed.


The only case of this in the Bible is when the Gibeonites avoided war altogether by offering themselves as servants to the Israelites. The more common slave was one who had voluntarily sold himself or had been sold by his or her parents to pay off a debt. In a time eith no extensive government aid or social servicesâor excessive credit card offersâpledging one's work was legitimate currency. In some cases, however, a debtor's labor was needed for the survival of his family, and hard choices had to be made. If a father dedicated all his work to pay off a debt, he would be unable to provide for his own family; rather than risk the whole family starving, a man would often give the creditor a child who would work the debt off. The family would survive, and the child given into slavery would at least have his basic needs met.


----------



## painterswife

Vahomesteaders said:


> The only case of this in the Bible is when the Gibeonites avoided war altogether by offering themselves as servants to the Israelites. The more common slave was one who had voluntarily sold himself or had been sold by his or her parents to pay off a debt. In a time eith no extensive government aid or social servicesâor excessive credit card offersâpledging one's work was legitimate currency. In some cases, however, a debtor's labor was needed for the survival of his family, and hard choices had to be made. If a father dedicated all his work to pay off a debt, he would be unable to provide for his own family; rather than risk the whole family starving, a man would often give the creditor a child who would work the debt off. The family would survive, and the child given into slavery would at least have his basic needs met.


Not talking the bible talking actual history.


----------



## Evons hubby

Vahomesteaders said:


> Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their keeper.


Much as a great many slaves did in this country, after they were set free. I was personally acquainted with an old... had to be over a hundred... black man here in kentucky who was the descendant of such a family... and continued the tradition working on the same farm his parents and grandparents had. He was well taken care of, but never "owned" anything of his own. He worked that farm for many many years with his only "pay" being a place to sleep, food, clothing, and of course whatever medical care he needed. He passed away a couple years ago... and is missed by everyone that knew him. Especially by the family that provided him a safe secure home all his life.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

painterswife said:


> Not talking the bible talking actual history.


Well God never condoned that. So don't use the Bible as a reference to why we should have slavery


----------



## Evons hubby

Vahomesteaders said:


> Your right. There are bad on both sides. But when you base it on platform alone, the Republicans have the edge. And abortion is murder. We know where both sides stand on that. And we are the only species that does that just because we can.


Yep, I know where both sides stand on the issue of killing. one side favors killing fetus's, the other prefers to let them grow up to age 18 and use them for cannon fodder.  

This great nation was built on the blood and bones of not only our own, but anyone who attempted to keep us from taking it or hanging on to it over the years. There are no "good guys" in our history that I know of.


----------



## painterswife

Vahomesteaders said:


> Well God never condoned that. So don't use the Bible as a reference to why we should have slavery


I never did.


----------



## Paumon

mmoetc said:


> Voluntary slavery seems a bit oxymoronic.


Yeah .... but .....

Did you know that the majority of people who settled America were indentured servants and slaves. Only a very small portion of the settlers were not indentured. Like about 1 in every 20 people was not indentured and was provided with sponsorship and supplies by the European merchants and governments. All the rest of the people that did the actual hard work of clearing and settling the land and building infrastructure and doing all the domestic work were indentured servants and slaves.


----------



## Tiempo

Sounds like someone is out there giving lessons on how to justify all the unpleasantries in The Bible


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Tiempo said:


> Sounds like someone is out there giving lessons on how to justify all the unpleasantries in The Bible


Reading the Bible in context does that for you. The only unpleasantness in the Bible is to be shown as a lesson to us for what is going to happen to those who ignore it. Lol


----------



## painterswife

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Unless you read a different copy of the Constitution I did... the copy I have here on my desk only mentions religion one time... in the first amendment...
> 
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
> 
> Now all things being equal.... that looks more like they were trying to keep government out of religion... not the other way round.


The constitutional scholars, say that amendment also means that the government can not promote one religion over another. ( no religion when making laws)


----------



## Paumon

Vahomesteaders said:


> Reading the Bible in context does that for you. The only unpleasantness in the Bible is to be shown as a lesson to us for what is going to happen to those who ignore it. Lol


That sounds like a threat. Like an "don't ignore it or else this is what you've got coming to you" kind of threat. Threats are a common tactic that a lot of people don't take too kindly to.


----------



## AngieM2

You do know there are two levels of marriage within some Christian believers.

The regular marriage that all here seem to be arguing about, and then the Covenant Marriage. That even has harder (more old fashioned) divorce laws that pertain to it.

So some deep believers in Christianity have had to revise their way of marriage due to the loose use of marriage in most cases these days. And to the best of my knowledge, this was before the question of gay/same sex marriages became a hot topic of forced compliance to those that don't believe in it. Or recognition with thankfulness of those that do believe in it.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Paumon said:


> That sounds like a threat. Like an "ignore it or else" kind of threat. Threats are a common tactic that a lot of people don't take to kindly to.


Is not a threat. If you buy something in the store and the instruction manual says do this step or this malfuction could be the result, you follow the instruction. The Bible is no different. It lays out the steps to follow and what could happen as a result of you don't.


----------



## Evons hubby

Vahomesteaders said:


> Well God never condoned that. So don't use the Bible as a reference to why we should have slavery


My bible makes a distinction between hebrew slaves (which were more indentured servants than slaves) and gentile slaves... which could be owned for life and willed to your sons but of course had to be treated well... for example, if you beat a gentile slave to death, you must face punishment... but if you only beat him to where he recovered in a few days... it was all good.  The rules for gentile slaves sound very similar to those of the more modern slaves in America.


----------



## painterswife

AngieM2 said:


> You do know there are two levels of marriage within some Christian believers.
> 
> The regular marriage that all here seem to be arguing about, and then the Covenant Marriage. That even has harder (more old fashioned) divorce laws that pertain to it.
> 
> So some deep believers in Christianity have had to revise their way of marriage due to the loose use of marriage in most cases these days. And to the best of my knowledge, this was before the question of gay/same sex marriages became a hot topic of forced compliance to those that don't believe in it. Or recognition with thankfulness of those that do believe in it.


No one has to revise their way of marriage of has been forced into compliance.

Their marriages do not need to change in any way. They are only being asked to stay out of other peoples marriages.


----------



## Paumon

Vahomesteaders said:


> Is not a threat. If you buy something in the store and the instruction manual says do this step or this malfuction could be the result, you follow the instruction. The Bible is no different. It lays out the steps to follow and what could happen as a result of you don't.


You're comparing apples and oranges and you know it.

It's a threat. It's an old, old threat that's been around for 1,700 years. It gets people's hackles up and they defend and rebel or else it causes fear, which is the real intention, power over others through fear of the threat.


----------



## Evons hubby

painterswife said:


> The constitutional scholars, say that amendment also means that the government can not promote one religion over another. ( no religion when making laws)


I am familiar with "Constitutional scholars" and how they manage to reinterpret the words to suit their needs... often times getting those words so turned around they mean just the opposite of what they say.... That requires some pretty fancy work to say the least... but anyone with one good eye and a sixth grade reading/comprehension level can plainly see what the founders wrote, and understand it.  The first amendment clearly states that the government is not to establish any form of religion, nor to restrict anyone from practicing their version of any religion. It protects the peoples right to believe what they want to believe. It does not protect the government FROM religion.


----------



## painterswife

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am familiar with "Constitutional scholars" and how they manage to reinterpret the words to suit their needs... often times getting those words so turned around they mean just the opposite of what they say.... That requires some pretty fancy work to say the least... but anyone with one good eye and a sixth grade reading/comprehension level can plainly see what the founders wrote, and understand it.  The first amendment clearly states that the government is not to establish any form of religion, nor to restrict anyone from practicing their version of any religion. It protects the peoples right to believe what they want to believe. It does not protect the government FROM religion.


Well me and my 6th grade education disagree with you.


----------



## Evons hubby

painterswife said:


> Well me and my 6th grade education disagree with you.


Aint America great! You get to believe what you want to, and even shout it from the roof tops if ya want to.... dont make no difference if your right or wrong... you still get to believe what ya want. Just try to remember that its the first amendment that protects that.


----------



## Evons hubby

AngieM2 said:


> You do know there are two levels of marriage within some Christian believers.
> 
> The regular marriage that all here seem to be arguing about, and then the Covenant Marriage. That even has harder (more old fashioned) divorce laws that pertain to it.
> 
> So some deep believers in Christianity have had to revise their way of marriage due to the loose use of marriage in most cases these days. And to the best of my knowledge, this was before the question of gay/same sex marriages became a hot topic of forced compliance to those that don't believe in it. Or recognition with thankfulness of those that do believe in it.


Ok, I am somewhat confused here... I understand that some believers dont want to go along with the more shall we say "marriage light", that a lot of people go along with today. What I am not seeing is how todays more modern rules affect them in any way.... are they not still allowed to practice their marriages in their own way?


----------



## painterswife

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Aint America great! You get to believe what you want to, and even shout it from the roof tops if ya want to.... dont make no difference if your right or wrong... you still get to believe what ya want. Just try to remember that its the first amendment that protects that.


I agree. I have the right to say and believe what I want. I don't have the right to use my beliefs(religious or not) to discriminate or make laws to discriminate.


----------



## unregistered41671

Paumon said:


> You're comparing apples and oranges and you know it.
> 
> It's a threat. It's an old, old threat that's been around for 1,700 years. It gets people's hackles up and they defend and rebel or else it causes fear, which is the real intention, power over others through fear of the threat.


You probably need to take up your complaint to The One that wrote and came up with the concept. Vahomestaders is just the messenger.


----------



## AngieM2

I just pointed it out as this group has found a way to have a stronger marriage and seem to have thought that even many/most 'regular' marriages were not what was what they though in their religious beliefs.

So, that would say, as it pertains to this 'discussion' that all general marriages are no better than those arguing about including same sex in the same way.

Here's something that explains it the way I've heard of it. 
http://covenantmarriage.com/what-is-a-marriage-covenant/

And looking at that, I could see it applying to almost any loving relationship. 

I just don't know. I know what I was brought up believing, and I hate this argument here. But I do see some of both sides.


----------



## Evons hubby

painterswife said:


> I agree. I have the right to say and believe what I want. I don't have the right to use my beliefs(religious or not) to discriminate or make laws to discriminate.


True, there are other protections written into our Constitution that cover things like some forms of discrimination. I was just pointing out that those are not part of the first amendment. We do seem to have an awful lot of discriminatory laws though... things like age discrimination... gotta be a certain age to drive, gotta be a certain age to drink... gotta be under a certain age to study biology out behind the barn with that neighbor girl, then gotta be a certain age to marry her! the list goes on and on!


----------



## Evons hubby

AngieM2 said:


> I just pointed it out as this group has found a way to have a stronger marriage and seem to have thought that even many/most 'regular' marriages were not what was what they though in their religious beliefs.
> 
> So, that would say, as it pertains to this 'discussion' that all general marriages are no better than those arguing about including same sex in the same way.
> 
> Here's something that explains it the way I've heard of it.
> http://covenantmarriage.com/what-is-a-marriage-covenant/
> 
> And looking at that, I could see it applying to almost any loving relationship.
> 
> I just don't know. I know what I was brought up believing, and I hate this argument here. But I do see some of both sides.


Ok, I got the deeper commitments involved with the covenant marriage vs the general marriage and how the same sex marriage issue relates to those two. What I am not understanding here is how one couples marriage, no matter which variety, affects another couples marriage? Those folks with a covenant marriage are totally free to do as they please. So are those couples in a general or "contract" marriage. Who can say that Jane and Cynthia cannot engage in the same level of covenant marriage as any other couple? I guess what I am trying to understand is whose nose loses any skin by allowing others to have whatever kind of marriage they want?


----------



## MoonRiver

painterswife said:


> So if the culture changes and a religion that believes in slaves takes over, we should change the constitution and laws to embrace slavery?


I didn't say that. I didn't think that. Where do you come up with this stuff from?

Culture is a sociological concept or construct and makes no value judgement.

In some cultures, slavery is still practiced. So is having multiple wives in marriage. So is male domination of women. So is stoning of adulterers. So is killing of homosexuals.

Culture is not what someone thinks it should be or wishes it would be. It is simply a method of describing a country or region's shared learned behavior.



> Hoebel describes culture as an integrated system of learned behavior patterns which are characteristic of the members of a society and which are not a result of biological inheritance.[3] source


----------



## MoonRiver

painterswife said:


> What ever they believed about religion or God, they wrote
> the constitution to keep religion out of the goverment.


The original intent was to keep government out of religion.


----------



## AngieM2

YH - I'm just showing that all this thread fuss about "marriage" of either type isn't always so great. And this whole thread as been fussing about it.

And that some that see all aspects of marriage as not so great, have worked on making a version with a deeper commitment.


And then sometimes I wonder about Monaco having the civil marriage in front of a court type person, and then the religious aspect by a minister in a chapel of some type.

If I were doing this whole mess.

I would have the civil marriage (going to the court house) and call that a marriage. Then if the belief system had a blessing ritual, let that be the religious marriage. But that no religion or 'church' be required to bless any civil marriage that their belief system does not agree with. 

I think that would have been better.


----------



## Evons hubby

MoonRiver said:


> Culture is not what someone thinks it should be or wishes it would be. It is simply a method of describing a country or region's shared learned behavior.


I think a lot of the problem is that the US has such a broad range of people, from all over the world, all sharing different cultures, it becomes rather difficult to define our shared learned behavior. Another problem is that as free thinking people, many of us arent too quick to learn or really know how to behave.


----------



## wr

It seems that if those are all up in arms about same sex marriage infringing on Christian value marriage or covenant marriages, they could use those terms and leave marriage as a term for all others.


----------



## Evons hubby

AngieM2 said:


> YH - I'm just showing that all this thread fuss about "marriage" of either type isn't always so great. And this whole thread as been fussing about it.
> 
> And that some that see all aspects of marriage as not so great, have worked on making a version with a deeper commitment.
> 
> 
> And then sometimes I wonder about Monaco having the civil marriage in front of a court type person, and then the religious aspect by a minister in a chapel of some type.
> 
> If I were doing this whole mess.
> 
> I would have the civil marriage (going to the court house) and call that a marriage. Then if the belief system had a blessing ritual, let that be the religious marriage. But that no religion or 'church' be required to bless any civil marriage that their belief system does not agree with.
> 
> I think that would have been better.


Ok, I musta missed the part where any religious organizations are being forced to perform any weddings or bless any marriages that go against their beliefs. If that is indeed the case something has gone terribly awry. I have heard that some religions seem to be ok with the same sex marriage, and I am ok with that too, and I have heard some same sex couple have done the courthouse thing. I hadnt heard about any church being required to perform any marriage that didnt fall in their belief system.


----------



## AngieM2

YH - that's okay if you've not heard. I don't have links, I read a lot on internet. Many threads here with links I must check, and Facebook and other places. 

I would suggest looking around and see if you see those issues. It's not recent, and I just know I've seen it in the news.


----------



## Evons hubby

AngieM2 said:


> YH - that's okay if you've not heard. I don't have links, I read a lot on internet. Many threads here with links I must check, and Facebook and other places.
> 
> I would suggest looking around and see if you see those issues. It's not recent, and I just know I've seen it in the news.


Nope, havent heard anything like it, but will go a googling now. 

Ok I am back now... two pages of interesting stuff scanned through and this is what I am seeing. Most of it is wailing and moaning about what "might" happen if such and such law passes in some state somewhere. Couldnt find a single thing solid as far a any church being required to do anything they dont want to do as far as performing or blessing a same sex marriage in the USA. That being said, a law has been passed in Denmark that may or may not require churches there to perform same sex marriages. Not real sure of all the details nor how Denmarks legal system operates. 

Private businesses have been sued in this country... something about a wedding cake... but thus far, no reports I could find about any church being sued fined or anything concerning same sex marriage.


----------



## AngieM2

Okay YH ,

i know what I've heard or seen. I would give you links if I had them. But, my main point is that this thread has everyone swiping at each other with claws out. And no regular marriage (in general) is so great these days.

I don't like same sex marriage. I have a hard time with it.

But, I have family that are happy in same sex relationship, and I don't know if they went and got married or just in a committed relationship. I love them anyway. And I have another family member that has been married (conventional, man/woman) and divorce twice. And he is now with his 3rd long term committed relationship with a wonderful woman. Technically she has an engagement ring, but there is no wedding date. They own a business together, houses, they have legal contracts signed up for joint owned property, and they are very happy. I'm fine if they don't get married.

So, none of us - unless it's one of you, have it totally right. 

And I don't think the OP about things changing was just about this marriage issue, but it does seem to be the most discussed here on this thread.

In my opinion. It all started with Air conditioning and no front porches where people sat and got to know their neighbors and took care of each other. After that broke, it was easier to be harsher with strangers.

We need to bring back front porches and hand cranked ice cream on a warm summer's night.


----------



## Evons hubby

AngieM2 said:


> my main point is that this thread has everyone swiping at each other with claws out.
> 
> I don't like same sex marriage. I have a hard time with it.
> 
> In my opinion. It all started with Air conditioning and no front porches where people sat and got to know their neighbors and took care of each other. After that broke, it was easier to be harsher with strangers.
> 
> We need to bring back front porches and hand cranked ice cream on a warm summer's night.


Yep, I have noticed some of that swatting going on myself, I try not to use any claws though. 

I dont like the idea of "gay" myself... I find the whole thing repulsive, but I am rather fond of freedom to live our lives as we each see fit, as long as it doesnt interfere with the next fellers right to do the same. 

At one point in my life I thought about writing a book about the changes that have taken place over the years... some good, but a lot have been not all that great... I had the title created, and even a basic outline for it, then my broken leg healed up and I got busy around the farm. I was going to call it "electric heat and store bought ice cream". 

Basically I blame those two for most of what ails our country... with out the woodshed out back... hows a boy going to learn his manners? and without that hand cranked ice cream how can he learn the reward for a job well done? Of course there was a lot of other tidbits too, but that was to have been my main theme. I have to agree with you.... we need more porch sittin and ice cream crankin going on!


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I think a lot of the problem is that the US has such a broad range of people, from all over the world, all sharing different cultures, it becomes rather difficult to define our shared learned behavior. Another problem is that as free thinking people, many of us arent too quick to learn or really know how to behave.


That is America's problem. I'm all for people seeking a better life. But with diversity comes division. We allow people from all over the world to come here and try to change our laws to better suit them. We cater to the minority of voices and ignore the majority voices. We allow people to come here illegally and protest to change or laws when the fact is if all those people would rise up against their own govt they could change things for the better in their own land. I live my life trying to get along with everyone while at the same time trying to please my Lord. That's always an uphill battle these days. I have gay family and friends. I respect them and love them and talk to them in the same manner I would anybody else. I even have illegal immigrant friends who work some local farms I do business with. I enjoy talking to them and treat them with respect at all times. But we also have to stand on our convictions. I do not want to be the cause of anyone's pain. There are enough things in this world to do that already. I want to be a source of help and joy. That's how I live my life. But I also have to adhere to God's Word and let it shine through. And it's not just because it's what I have alwsyd been taught. I had my questions and doubts and lived in the world fir years not giving two cents about God. But I got an education and learned science and I studied the two with an open mind looking for answers. Science could not provide them. Infact when you really crunch the numbers, science falls very short and isn't even mathematically possible. So I turned to God's Word and it all made sense. So that's what I stick with.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> You can drink at that fountain but not this one, but you can still drink so you are equal.
> 
> You can go to that school but not this school but you can still go to school so you are equal.


Good try but NoT the same! The answer is, legal unions w/ALL the same rights & privileges ARE the same, just don't change the meaning of the word marriage. I have gay friends who are fine w/civil unions b/c they know a duck is not a giraffe. But the left is not ok til all Christian valued are destroyed.
You can protest but PC-which WAS the OP b4 the hijack-proves otherwise.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I think I covered that earlier.... Equal but separate is NEVER equal. Not in our school systems, and certainly not in water fountains and restrooms, restaurants, theaters, busses... the list is quite lengthy. Been there, tryed that... didnt work out so well. I am curious though.... what is the problem with just plain old "equal"? Why not let anyone of legal age go down to the courthouse, get a license and get married to whoever they want to... as long as whoever they want to is ok with it?


Here's the thing that should be done!
Those who want marriage, go to a church.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> Good try but NoT the same! The answer is, legal unions w/ALL the same rights & privileges ARE the same, just don't change the meaning of the word marriage. I have gay friends who are fine w/civil unions b/c they know a duck is not a giraffe. But the left is not ok til all Christian valued are destroyed.
> You can protest but PC-which WAS the OP b4 the hijack-proves otherwise.


Legal unions are not the same to me and many others. You can,t force us to believe as you do. If one couple can marry, then all legal couples can. It is discrimination otherwise and not allowed by the constitution.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> Here's the thing that should be done!
> Those who want marriage, go to a church.


Don't need a church to be legally married, never did, don't need to start now.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Vahomesteaders said:


> Again he told the people to treat those who are voluntary slaves with kindness and respect. He forbid people to keep other people against their will or to sell or trade another man.


Maybe if you explain that in the bible the term 'slave' is interchangeable w/SERVANT!


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> What ever they believed about religion or God, they wrote
> the constitution to keep religion out of the goverment.


Well, you couldn't be more wrong there!
Someone here has a pretty good copy for your perusion.
I'll offer a quick explanation: congress shall make NO LAW concerning religion.
Ya know, like the Idiotincharge tried to do w/hobby lobby & got shot down by the SCOTUS?
Used to have a link showing the CHURCH that was actually inside congress! Nondenominational, of course, but it was a church. Congresscritters attended at will & ESP b4 making big decisions.


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> Voluntary slavery seems a bit oxymoronic.


Just what I was thinking, that's why 'servants' is far more apropos.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, I musta missed the part where any religious organizations are being forced to perform any weddings or bless any marriages that go against their beliefs. If that is indeed the case something has gone terribly awry. I have heard that some religions seem to be ok with the same sex marriage, and I am ok with that too, and I have heard some same sex couple have done the courthouse thing. I hadnt heard about any church being required to perform any marriage that didnt fall in their belief system.


Well, then ya need to look at our new military rulings...chaplains CANNOT refuse to marry gays and are told they can NO LONGER say the name of Jesus.


----------



## Tricky Grama

AngieM2 said:


> Okay YH ,
> 
> i know what I've heard or seen. I would give you links if I had them. But, my main point is that this thread has everyone swiping at each other with claws out. And no regular marriage (in general) is so great these days.
> 
> I don't like same sex marriage. I have a hard time with it.
> 
> But, I have family that are happy in same sex relationship, and I don't know if they went and got married or just in a committed relationship. I love them anyway. And I have another family member that has been married (conventional, man/woman) and divorce twice. And he is now with his 3rd long term committed relationship with a wonderful woman. Technically she has an engagement ring, but there is no wedding date. They own a business together, houses, they have legal contracts signed up for joint owned property, and they are very happy. I'm fine if they don't get married.
> 
> So, none of us - unless it's one of you, have it totally right.
> 
> And I don't think the OP about things changing was just about this marriage issue, but it does seem to be the most discussed here on this thread.
> 
> In my opinion. It all started with Air conditioning and no front porches where people sat and got to know their neighbors and took care of each other. After that broke, it was easier to be harsher with strangers.
> 
> We need to bring back front porches and hand cranked ice cream on a warm summer's night.


Post of the day award!


----------



## Evons hubby

Tricky Grama said:


> Well, then ya need to look at our new military rulings...chaplains CANNOT refuse to marry gays and are told they can NO LONGER say the name of Jesus.


Yep, one pretty much signs off on all of their rights when joining up with our military. They become government property, owned lock stock and barrel by the US government. Thank goodness its an all voluntary outfit... nobody is forced to join.


----------



## Evons hubby

Tricky Grama said:


> Maybe if you explain that in the bible the term 'slave' is interchangeable w/SERVANT!


Not being picky here but I already went over that a few posts back... Hebrew slaves were close cousins to indentured servants of more modern times. Fathers would sell the services of their children for a set period of time, and those "servants" were to be set free in the year of jubilee. A whole different set of rules for hebrew slaves than for gentile slaves.... which were slaves for life, and their children were too. (In some circumstances hebrew slaves could find themselves stuck in slavery for life too.) Gentile slaves were regarded as property of their masters, could be bought and sold, beaten into submission and generally treated the same way as slaves were in our own country thousands of years later.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Not being picky here but I already went over that a few posts back... Hebrew slaves were close cousins to indentured servants of more modern times. Fathers would sell the services of their children for a set period of time, and those "servants" were to be set free in the year of jubilee. A whole different set of rules for hebrew slaves than for gentile slaves.... which were slaves for life, and their children were too. (In some circumstances hebrew slaves could find themselves stuck in slavery for life too.) Gentile slaves were regarded as property of their masters, could be bought and sold, beaten into submission and generally treated the same way as slaves were in our own country thousands of years later.


But that slavery you speak of was still condemned by God. He forbid the sale of any man into slavery. He forbid forced slavery. Which is why he freed them on several occasions. So the Bible gives no biblical backing for modern versions of slavery.


----------



## Tiempo

Hmmm....'covenant' marriage vs 'regular' marriage.

Whatever floats your boat, but I would argue that a 'covenant' is no deeper or more committed than a 'regular' marriage.

Any ceremony or oath is but a few minutes, a marriage is what you make of it after you go home for all the years that (hopefully) come. In fact I might argue that if you need an outside source to tell you your marriage is more special, you might have a problem.

It's what the couple makes of it themselves..no more. I would stack the level of my devotion, love and dedication to my husband against any 'covenant' marriage and we had a secular wedding in an Irish Pub.


----------



## painterswife

Why do you get a marriage licence? I got mine because of the legal ramifications.

It is not the same reason I got married.

I still don't understand how a same sex marriage hurts anyone that has a different sex marriage. It is not a religious marriage until a member of your religion performs that ceremony.


----------



## kasilofhome

So, much of what people are who scream so loudly
Have nothing to do with what are the facts it is just
A WAY to change America using 
Emotional, Contol
What do we deal all
The the fear of say
A poptart eaten in
A shape that in a
Another looks like
A gun. It is an o
Pinion. Only


----------



## Evons hubby

Tiempo said:


> Hmmm....'covenant' marriage vs 'regular' marriage.
> 
> Whatever floats your boat, but I would argue that a 'covenant' is no deeper or more committed than a 'regular' marriage.
> 
> Any ceremony or oath is but a few minutes, a marriage is what you make of it after you go home for all the years that (hopefully) come. In fact I might argue that if you need an outside source to tell you your marriage is more special, you might have a problem.
> 
> It's what the couple makes of it themselves..no more. I would stack the level of my devotion, love and dedication to my husband against any 'covenant' marriage and *we had a secular wedding in an Irish Pub.*


I can think of no finer way to start out! It also sounds like you probably have one of those deeper rooted covenant type marriages going on. Congrats!


----------



## AngieM2

I've always wondered if you go to court house and get the license, have a jp sign it. Go home. Is that enough? With no words or promises spoken in front of anyone? 

I have always been curious about that.


----------



## painterswife

AngieM2 said:


> I've always wondered if you go to court house and get the license, have a jp sign it. Go home. Is that enough? With no words or promises spoken in front of anyone?
> 
> I have always been curious about that.


It does vary by state but the basic is you have to agree to be married to the other person in front of an officiant. The rest of the vows or ceremony is of your choosing.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

AngieM2 said:


> I've always wondered if you go to court house and get the license, have a jp sign it. Go home. Is that enough? With no words or promises spoken in front of anyone?
> 
> I have always been curious about that.


I feel like it's still legal. You made a commitment to and before the state and govt and other person . But to swear an oath before God family and friends shows you understand the full commitment you are making to each other. It just feels more real and special. But both are still binding marriages.


----------



## painterswife

Vahomesteaders said:


> I feel like it's still legal. You made a commitment to and before the state and govt and other person . But to swear an oath before God family and friends shows you understand the full commitment you are making to each other. It just feels more real and special. But both are still binding marriages.


It is only more special to you. A marriage is between two people and the rest is only how you celebrate it. I married my husband in front of a fireplace with 6 family members. I did not need anyone there but my husband to make it special. He is the only one who needs to know how committed I am to him and those vows don't mean squat if I don't back it with my actions.

I see people on in this forum complaining about their spouses and their lives non stop and I know they were married before God, family and church. I don't think they are showing how committed they are to their spouses at all.


----------



## Evons hubby

Vahomesteaders said:


> But that slavery you speak of was still condemned by God. He forbid the sale of any man into slavery. He forbid forced slavery. Which is why he freed them on several occasions. *So the Bible gives no biblical backing for modern versions of slavery.*


You may want to read leviticus 25 again, and also while you have your book out flip over into exodus chapter 21. note the different rules for hebrew slaves... (indentured servants) and gentile or pagan slaves. I am also fully aware of Gods condemnation of kidnapping men and selling them into slavery, but He really didnt seem to have any qualms about the owning and buying and selling of slaves, or designating them as "property" so long as their masters followed His rules.


----------



## Evons hubby

AngieM2 said:


> I've always wondered if you go to court house and get the license, have a jp sign it. Go home. Is that enough? With no words or promises spoken in front of anyone?
> 
> I have always been curious about that.


That pretty much describes my second "wedding". We were every bit as married as anyone else on this planet.


----------



## kasilofhome

​Removing symbols
From graves and si
tes. Punishing stud
ents for reading the
Bible in school during free reading
time all the while pushing soft to h
are porn in class. Schools acting on
Children's use of guns off of school
Grounds not during 
School hours. Is
Only to push the
People to submit
It is a political ne
ed in order to take
Control. And some
Miss or turn their
Backs.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You may want to read leviticus 25 again, and also while you have your book out flip over into exodus chapter 21. note the different rules for hebrew slaves... (indentured servants) and gentile or pagan slaves. I am also fully aware of Gods condemnation of kidnapping men and selling them into slavery, but He really didnt seem to have any qualms about the owning and buying and selling of slaves, or designating them as "property" so long as their masters followed His rules.


Every single one of those is about those people selling themselves and they have a right to come and go as the debt is paid. If after their debt is paid then they may stay on and be marked as a servant of his master. These are still nothing like our slaves we know of. And these people lived very good lives. And they weren't selling the slave. They were selling his debt.


----------



## unregistered353870

AngieM2 said:


> I've always wondered if you go to court house and get the license, have a jp sign it. Go home. Is that enough? With no words or promises spoken in front of anyone?
> 
> I have always been curious about that.


I got married in a used car dealership...the owner was the local justice of the peace...right after he pronounced us husband and wife, he tried to sell us a station wagon.


----------



## ddgresham1

Bottom line: It's a free country and I have a constitutional right to marry anyone I want.


----------



## Jolly

ddgresham1 said:


> Bottom line: It's a free country and I have a constitutional right to marry anyone I want.


May and your goat have a wonderful life! :cowboy:


----------



## painterswife

Jolly said:


> May and your goat have a wonderful life! :cowboy:


A goat can'y legally agree to a marriage. Just one of the rules.


----------



## ddgresham1

Jolly said:


> May and your goat have a wonderful life! :cowboy:


Goats aren't an "anyone." You ever asked "has anyone seen my keys?" and expected an animal to answer? No, you haven't. Again, it's no one's business who I marry. I am a free man and have constitutional rights that preserve that. If you don't like it, move to another country. This is the land of the free.


----------



## MoonRiver

ddgresham1 said:


> it's no one's business who I marry.


There are many restrictions on who you can marry in the land of the free.


----------



## wr

Jolly said:


> May and your goat have a wonderful life! :cowboy:



I honestly haven't heard of many goats petitioning for the right to marry but perhaps you could cite some examples where they have.


----------



## willow_girl

> Big difference. Those are physical limitations on where the can or can't go. This is purely a paper issue wanting to have exactly as everyone else including the same name for their Union.


So if a civil union or domestic partnership or whatever-you-wanna-call-it is the same as marriage in every way -- not lesser, not second-class -- why don't you religious folks adopt the term, and let the gays own "marriage." 

I mean, they're exactly the same, right? :hysterical:


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Well when it comes to words gays already took gay. Which use to mean happy or jubilant. Now it means lover of same sex. Since it's opposite of straight why can't it be crooked people? Lol


----------



## unregistered353870

Straight people "took" straight. It used to mean not crooked. Now it means lover of the opposite sex. Darn straights always stealing our words....


----------



## AngieM2

Vahomesteaders said:


> Well when it comes to words gays already took gay. Which use to mean happy or jubilant. Now it means lover of same sex. Since it's opposite of straight why can't it be crooked people? Lol



Yeah, my Aunt Gay does have a time these days. And yes, that is her given name. Using the old version of joyful and happiness.


----------



## Evons hubby

Vahomesteaders said:


> Every single one of those is about those people selling themselves and they have a right to come and go as the debt is paid. If after their debt is paid then they may stay on and be marked as a servant of his master. These are still nothing like our slaves we know of. And these people lived very good lives. And they weren't selling the slave. They were selling his debt.


You are entitled to believe whatever you want about the bible... most folks do... I merely directed you to the section that says otherwise.


----------



## Trainwrek

AngieM2 said:


> Yeah, my Aunt Gay does have a time these days. And yes, that is her given name. Using the old version of joyful and happiness.


When I was a kid in 1st grade, there was a boy named Gaylord. Now this was before the gay movement was so 'out' in the open. Nobody teased him, but I'll bet he caught heck in high school.

Whatever happened to the days when we watched the "Odd Couple" and nobody ever even considered that two men living together might be gay? Now it's out of control, ridiculous. Everything is 'gay' and everybody is wondering who's gay. 

A few years ago, before I got married, I had a friend of mine rent a room in my house. I never thought anything of it until after he moved in there was a constant stream of gay innuendos from people. I had one young woman that I was interest in tell me she just assumed we were gay! She said, "you know, two grown men living together...". I was shocked. Yeah two grown men with no money and no wives pooling their resources like non-gay people have done since time began?..Yeah pretty gay.


----------



## AngieM2

I understand that Trainwrek. I think television has a lot to do with it, as now if two of same sex live together they must be gay. Lavern and Shirley is another show from around the timeframe you mentioned. They were just two working girls saving money and having a place to live.


----------



## painterswife

Two people living together does not mean people assume they are gay. It however does mean it is a possibility.

People are just more vocal about it now. they were saying the same things back when I was a teenager on the 70's they were just whispering it instead.


----------



## AngieM2

You may be correct, or you may not. I lived those years and heard none of that speculation. 

For back then, it's just what we experienced as it was not all over the tv as now.


----------



## Tricky Grama

ddgresham1 said:


> Goats aren't an "anyone." You ever asked "has anyone seen my keys?" and expected an animal to answer? No, you haven't. Again, it's no one's business who I marry. I am a free man and have constitutional rights that preserve that. If you don't like it, move to another country. This is the land of the free.


Try to marry your sister. Or your daughter.
Just sayin'.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

That's just trying to justify what it has become. Then it was a disease and seen as gross. Now it's glorified and the new hipster type movement so they think everyone is doing it. I know people who were considered outcast and weren't widely accepted. They weren't gay but adopted that lifestyle because they thought it would get them some acceptance. And it did because it is glorified today. So it is a lifestyle choice that many are accepting just to be accepted. Because that is the pc thing to do.


----------



## Trainwrek

painterswife said:


> People are just more vocal about it now. they were saying the same things back when I was a teenager on the 70's they were just whispering it instead.


Not like today. Same sex people lived together and very few people ever even considered that they might be having homosexual relations. Now it's just assumed by many people. Like Angie suggests, I think it has alot to do with TV. Gay is everywhere; gay issues,gays on tv/movies, and real gays that are much more open about it.

Might be great for gays, but for singles men who don't want to be mistaken for gay it presents an issue that previous generations of men never had to content with.


----------



## Trainwrek

Vahomesteaders said:


> That's just trying to justify what it has become. Then it was a disease and seen as gross. Now it's glorified and the new hipster type movement so they think everyone is doing it. I know people who were considered outcast and weren't widely accepted. They weren't gay but adopted that lifestyle because they thought it would get them some acceptance. And it did because it is glorified today. So it is a lifestyle choice that many are accepting just to be accepted. Because that is the pc thing to do.


Yes I have seen this happen. My younger cousin was a nice kid, not effeminate or what you would think of as gay at all. As a teenager he was about 6ft 250. The problem was that he was ill as a baby and his parents always treated him as if he was very fragile all his life ( even though he wasnt ). 

As a result he grew up very quiet, didnt make friends easy ( because he wasnt allowed to play sports or do much of anything except do plays at school ). When he got into HS there was a "Gay&Lesbian club" for teenagers that decided they were gay. He got in with them while doing a play, and finally found acceptance and friendship. A few months later ( aged 17-18 ), he announced he was "gay".

It is painfully obvious to anyone who knows the kid and the story that he was not "born gay" but was influenced by circumstance and by the new availability of this 'alternative lifestyle'. 

BTW, the kids is now about 22, and has become very flamboyant, affects a lisp and an effeminate demeanor. These are traits that he did not have but were LEARNED and affected.


----------



## mmoetc

Trainwrek said:


> Yes I have seen this happen. My younger cousin was a nice kid, not effeminate or what you would think of as gay at all. As a teenager he was about 6ft 250. The problem was that he was ill as a baby and his parents always treated him as if he was very fragile all his life ( even though he wasnt ).
> 
> As a result he grew up very quiet, didnt make friends easy ( because he wasnt allowed to play sports or do much of anything except do plays at school ). When he got into HS there was a "Gay&Lesbian club" for teenagers that decided they were gay. He got in with them while doing a play, and finally found acceptance and friendship. A few months later ( aged 17-18 ), he announced he was "gay".
> 
> It is painfully obvious to anyone who knows the kid and the story that he was not "born gay" but was influenced by circumstance and by the new availability of this 'alternative lifestyle'.
> 
> BTW, the kids is now about 22, and has become very flamboyant, affects a lisp and an effeminate demeanor. These are traits that he did not have but were LEARNED and affected.


Or maybe he didn't fit in and make friends because he couldn't identify with the macho male teenage culture and the obsession heterosexual boys of that age have with opposite sex. Maybe that flamboyant style was always there and suppressed because he knew it wouldn't be accepted as much as if he tried to fit in. Maybe he just found a group of of people who accepted him for who he was and allowed him to express those feelings he'd always had without fear. Maybe he was born that way.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Born with down syndrome, cant hide it. Born with diabetes, can't hide it. Born with cerebral palsy, can't hide it. Born with no legs, can't hide it. Born with blue eyes cant hide it. Born with hiv , hep c, asthma, can't hide it. You can't hide or suppress what you are born with. Point is, most gay men have had a sexual relationship with a woman. From a man's perspective of you aren't attracted to someone your plumbing won't so much as wiggle. So the fact that they can if they so choose to be with a woman, proves it is a choice.


----------



## painterswife

Vahomesteaders said:


> Born with down syndrome, cant hide it. Born with diabetes, can't hide it. Born with cerebral palsy, can't hide it. Born with no legs, can't hide it. Born with blue eyes cant hide it. Born with hiv , hep c, asthma, can't hide it. You can't hide or suppress what you are born with. Point is, most gay men have had a sexual relationship with a woman. From a man's perspective of you aren't attracted to someone your plumbing won't so much as wiggle. So the fact that they can if they so choose to be with a woman, proves it is a choice.


There are so many things that I would like to respond with but I have decided that the opinion you have shared as a heterosexual man is not worth anyone's time or effort to refute.


----------



## mmoetc

Vahomesteaders said:


> Born with down syndrome, cant hide it. Born with diabetes, can't hide it. Born with cerebral palsy, can't hide it. Born with no legs, can't hide it. Born with blue eyes cant hide it. Born with hiv , hep c, asthma, can't hide it. You can't hide or suppress what you are born with. Point is, most gay men have had a sexual relationship with a woman. From a man's perspective of you aren't attracted to someone your plumbing won't so much as wiggle. So the fact that they can if they so choose to be with a woman, proves it is a choice.


At the risk of facing reprimand from the moderators I'll simply say say - Pshaw! That wiggle you speak of is much more brain oriented than physical. I asked this question of a gay friend and he simply looked back at me and asked " Is it always your wife in your head when you're having relations?" I won't say who he told he was thinking of when he was wiggling with women before he came to terms with who he truly was, but he did live in Virginia for a while.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

mmoetc said:


> At the risk of facing reprimand from the moderators I'll simply say say - Pshaw! That wiggle you speak of is much more brain oriented than physical. I asked this question of a gay friend and he simply looked back at me and asked " Is it always your wife in your head when you're having relations?" I won't say who he told he was thinking of when he was wiggling with women before he came to terms with who he truly was, but he did live in Virginia for a while.


You can think all you want. If something repulsed you, you simply can't act on that. And that's what many of the gay folks I have talked to said it repulsed them to think about a woman in a sexual way. I have been there myself when approached by a few girls I was not attracted to. Even in my youth when it was all hormones I would rather spend an evening with rosie Palmer than a couple of them who wanted bad. Thoughts of Cindy Crawford couldn't have helped with that. Lol


----------



## mmoetc

Vahomesteaders said:


> You can think all you want. If something repulsed you, you simply can't act on that. And that's what many of the gay folks I have talked to said it repulsed them to think about a woman in a sexual way. I have been there myself when approached by a few girls I was not attracted to. Even in my youth when it was all hormones I would rather spend an evening with rosie Palmer than a couple of them who wanted bad. Thoughts of Cindy Crawford couldn't have helped with that. Lol


It's not what I think that counts. Cindy wouldn't have done for me either. Carly Simon on the other hand.......


----------



## emdeengee

Tricky Grama said:


> Try to marry your sister. Or your daughter.
> Just sayin'.


According to the Bible Adam did and so did Cain. So we are all cousins and sisters and brothers. 

The taboo about incest marriage along with creating children from these unions came about because such close relationships created unhealthy, deformed and mentally deficient children - inbreeding. And of course brother sister marriage had to do with property as well - wanted because it tied up the property or not wanted because it allowed for expansion.


----------



## AngieM2

VAhomesteader - I would say you are incorrect. In many instances the wiggle is no more special than a dog peeing on a hydrant for relief. And if its just for that release the other party soon understands it's just a use of a person for a relief expression.


----------



## Trainwrek

Lets remember that at the heart of this whole debate over the causes of homosexuality is the gay agenda to attain minority status. In order to achieve minority status they have to convince the public that they are born that way, otherwise they really can't be considered a minority for choosing a sexual activity. In that case, people with foot fetishes are also minorities and are entitled to all the special protections that minority status entails.

The cornerstone of their entire agenda rests on the premise that being gay is a condition of birth, which they can no more change than the color of a persons skin. This is their premise though there is no scientific proof that it is so.

So the whole scientific debate is somewhat diluted by a very strong, very desperate political agenda. I am reminded of a case back in the late eighties when black youths were "wilding" in cities around the world. This entailed essentially running amok, raping, assaulting, and destroying everything in their path. There was a scientist, a professor at a prestigious university who published a scientific paper where he found the actions and behaviors of black youths to be similar to chimpanzees in the wild. Talk about politically incorrect! He was immediately fired, his reputation ruined, and was the victim of death threats for years after. But with all of the scorn heaped on him by media and the politically correct world...nobody ever attacked the validity of his findings! I remember finding that curious that nobody ever suggested that the paper he published was inaccurate, or that his scientific method was unsound. The whole point was how dare he study such a thing? And how dare he reach those conclusions. The politically correct crowd did not want to consider the results of his finding, even if they were true they were not the "truth" that they wanted to hear. I don't know how true his findings were, but if they were true then shouldn't we want to know?

I think any study of the origins of homosexuality face the same obstacles. If I were a scientist, or a researcher, would I want to honestly study the situation and conclude something that could ruin my career, and my reputation? Any researcher in this field faces serious resistance from a very active, powerful, and militant gay establishment.

The fact is that the notion of being 'born gay' is actually helped along by the very prejudice that they are attempting to overcome. Most men ( myself included ) don't even want to consider the possibility that, under certain circumstances/upbringing/etc.. That they might also possibly engage in homosexual behavior. So it's easy, and keeps our male egos safe to jump on that bandwagon. 'Sure I'm not anything like those gays, I could never be gay I'm just not born that way. They were born different, I'm not like them and I never could be.' , etc.

Men want to be strong, viral, and masculine. Those are traits that our society associates with being heterosexual ( whether true or not ). Being effeminate, physically weak, and sensitive are traits that our society associates with being homosexual ( again whether true or not ). So in our present society it is no wonder that most men find the idea of being homosexual absolutely repellent, impossible, we'd rather die. Now IMO the strongest evidence that homosexuality is largely a choice is to look at other societies with different values and how that effected sexual preference. In ancient Greece, soldiers were encouraged to engage in homosexuality in order to form bonds that would make them more devoted to each other on the battle field. So here we can see that the image of the weak, effeminate homosexual did not apply there. It was common, accepted, and in soldiers ( arguable the toughest and strongest people around ) it was openly encouraged. The result was that a very large percentage of men openly engaged in homosexuality. No genes stopped this from happening. So it is possible to choose your sexual orientation and much of it depends on your programing, on the values that your society instills in you. If your father openly had gay relationships, your uncles, your heroes. If it were associated with strength and being a warrior, you better believe that most men would engage in it no matter what we all say now. It already happened so it's a fact, unless you believe that ancient Greeks had gay genes that the rest of us don't have now. Pretty unlikely.

Thats my case and my opinion on the whole gay, politically correct argument hope you enjoyed it


----------



## Evons hubby

Trainwrek said:


> unless you believe that ancient Greeks had gay genes that the rest of us don't have now. Pretty unlikely.


All of the movies I have seen about the ancient greeks the men all wore robes except the soldiers who wore those nifty skirts made out of what appears to be leather strips... or maybe that was the romans later? Either way I dont think jeans had been invented yet.


----------



## painterswife

Trainwrek said:


> Lets remember that at the heart of this whole debate over the causes of homosexuality is the gay agenda to attain minority status. In order to achieve minority status they have to convince the public that they are born that way, otherwise they really can't be considered a minority for choosing a sexual activity. In that case, people with foot fetishes are also minorities and are entitled to all the special protections that minority status entails.
> 
> The cornerstone of their entire agenda rests on the premise that being gay is a condition of birth, which they can no more change than the color of a persons skin. This is their premise though there is no scientific proof that it is so.
> 
> So the whole scientific debate is somewhat diluted by a very strong, very desperate political agenda. I am reminded of a case back in the late eighties when black youths were "wilding" in cities around the world. This entailed essentially running amok, raping, assaulting, and destroying everything in their path. There was a scientist, a professor at a prestigious university who published a scientific paper where he found the actions and behaviors of black youths to be similar to chimpanzees in the wild. Talk about politically incorrect! He was immediately fired, his reputation ruined, and was the victim of death threats for years after. But with all of the scorn heaped on him by media and the politically correct world...nobody ever attacked the validity of his findings! I remember finding that curious that nobody ever suggested that the paper he published was inaccurate, or that his scientific method was unsound. The whole point was how dare he study such a thing? And how dare he reach those conclusions. The politically correct crowd did not want to consider the results of his finding, even if they were true they were not the "truth" that they wanted to hear. I don't know how true his findings were, but if they were true then shouldn't we want to know?
> 
> I think any study of the origins of homosexuality face the same obstacles. If I were a scientist, or a researcher, would I want to honestly study the situation and conclude something that could ruin my career, and my reputation? Any researcher in this field faces serious resistance from a very active, powerful, and militant gay establishment.
> 
> The fact is that the notion of being 'born gay' is actually helped along by the very prejudice that they are attempting to overcome. Most men ( myself included ) don't even want to consider the possibility that, under certain circumstances/upbringing/etc.. That they might also possibly engage in homosexual behavior. So it's easy, and keeps our male egos safe to jump on that bandwagon. 'Sure I'm not anything like those gays, I could never be gay I'm just not born that way. They were born different, I'm not like them and I never could be.' , etc.
> 
> Men want to be strong, viral, and masculine. Those are traits that our society associates with being heterosexual ( whether true or not ). Being effeminate, physically weak, and sensitive are traits that our society associates with being homosexual ( again whether true or not ). So in our present society it is no wonder that most men find the idea of being homosexual absolutely repellent, impossible, we'd rather die. Now IMO the strongest evidence that homosexuality is largely a choice is to look at other societies with different values and how that effected sexual preference. In ancient Greece, soldiers were encouraged to engage in homosexuality in order to form bonds that would make them more devoted to each other on the battle field. So here we can see that the image of the weak, effeminate homosexual did not apply there. It was common, accepted, and in soldiers ( arguable the toughest and strongest people around ) it was openly encouraged. The result was that a very large percentage of men openly engaged in homosexuality. No genes stopped this from happening. So it is possible to choose your sexual orientation and much of it depends on your programing, on the values that your society instills in you. If your father openly had gay relationships, your uncles, your heroes. If it were associated with strength and being a warrior, you better believe that most men would engage in it no matter what we all say now. It already happened so it's a fact, unless you believe that ancient Greeks had gay genes that the rest of us don't have now. Pretty unlikely.
> 
> Thats my case and my opinion on the whole gay, politically correct argument hope you enjoyed it


Kirk , you have a really bizzare way of looking at things.


----------



## willow_girl

> Lets remember that at the heart of this whole debate over the causes of homosexuality is the gay agenda to attain minority status. In order to achieve minority status they have to convince the public that they are born that way, otherwise they really can't be considered a minority for choosing a sexual activity. In that case, people with foot fetishes are also minorities and are entitled to all the special protections that minority status entails.


I have absolutely no problem with people with foot fetishes marrying the consenting adult of their choice. 



> The cornerstone of their entire agenda rests on the premise that being gay is a condition of birth, which they can no more change than the color of a persons skin. This is their premise though there is no scientific proof that it is so.


Tell me, at what age did you choose to be a heterosexual? Because you just as easily could have decided to be gay, right?


----------



## Vahomesteaders

willow_girl said:


> I have absolutely no problem with people with foot fetishes marrying the consenting adult of their choice.
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me, at what age did you choose to be a heterosexual? Because you just as easily could have decided to be gay, right?


Everyone makes that decision at some point. We boys grow up playing with other boys. They are our best friends and girls are gross. So I guess we all start of gay. Then those of us raised in good homes see how the family is supposed to function and it makes sense so our mind decides that is what we must do. The mind is a powerful tool. You can literally make your self sick of you think about being sick. It can make you believe all sorts of things of you think about it long enough. And it can play tricks on you very often. Homosexuality could really be a form of ptsd. We just don't know.


----------



## Tricky Grama

emdeengee said:


> According to the Bible Adam did and so did Cain. So we are all cousins and sisters and brothers.
> 
> The taboo about incest marriage along with creating children from these unions came about because such close relationships created unhealthy, deformed and mentally deficient children - inbreeding. And of course brother sister marriage had to do with property as well - wanted because it tied up the property or not wanted because it allowed for expansion.


Perhaps you believe that, your privelge.


----------



## Trainwrek

willow_girl said:


> Tell me, at what age did you choose to be a heterosexual? Because you just as easily could have decided to be gay, right?


Subconscious choice. Nobody wakes up and says 'I'll be gay' or 'I'll be hetero'. It is the culmination of personal experiences, societal pressures/norms/expectations, peer group influences, and etc. I don't believe that it is in anyway a result of genetics, and so far, all scientific research has produced no indication that it is genetic or 'in born'.


----------



## MDKatie

Vahomesteaders said:


> We boys grow up playing with other boys. They are our best friends and girls are gross. So I guess we all start of gay.


What? So you were engaging in sexual acts with these boys? If so, maybe you are gay. If not, then you are normal and have same sex friends. If you say we're gay because we have same sex friends, then I guess the entire population is gay, right? Your theory makes absolutely zero sense.


----------



## mmoetc

Vahomesteaders said:


> Everyone makes that decision at some point. We boys grow up playing with other boys. They are our best friends and girls are gross. So I guess we all start of gay. Then those of us raised in good homes see how the family is supposed to function and it makes sense so our mind decides that is what we must do. The mind is a powerful tool. You can literally make your self sick of you think about being sick. It can make you believe all sorts of things of you think about it long enough. And it can play tricks on you very often. Homosexuality could really be a form of ptsd. We just don't know.


Even if it is 100% a choice the question remains what does it matter to you and what possible harm that choice does to you? Heterosexuals make bad choices every day when it comes to choosing partners. The Ray-Janay Rice story is on every front page. Should the government have stepped in and denied them the right to marry because it appears from the outside to be a bad match? You can judge all you want the fitness of people to marry. It is not the governments role to do so. It is the government's role to assure that all people are treated equally under the law. Denying any two consenting adults that equal treatment is simply wrong. I don't presume to think I can change your mind as to how you feel about homosexuality or same sex marriage no matter how wrong headed I think you are. You are free to think what you will and have a relationship with any consenting adult that will have you. All gays ask is the same privilege.


----------



## WindowOrMirror

I would suggest to you that political correctness cannot 'replace' Christian morality. In order to replace one thing, the other must be of roughly the same size, weight, shape... there must be a rough equivalence between the two things. The two world views mentioned here _are not equal._

One may have been given up in favor of the other, but did not _replace_ it.

R


----------



## Trainwrek

OK I'm going to put my 2cents in even though I know the post is not directed at me;




mmoetc said:


> *Even if it is 100% a choice the question remains what does it matter to you and what possible harm that choice does to you?*
> 
> 
> 
> The choice does me no harm, and it doesn't matter to me at all what somebody else does. I do, however, object to the gay agenda of trying to force approval of their lifestyle onto others. I object to the double standard, and I object to them attempting to gain minority status by repeatedly claiming that homosexuality is inborn, even though no scientific evidence for this exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You can judge all you want the fitness of people to marry. It is not the governments role to do so*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> Here we agree
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Denying any two consenting adults that equal treatment is simply wrong.
> 
> You are free to think what you will and have a relationship with any consenting adult that will have you. All gays ask is the same privilege*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have exactly the same rights that I have. They are free to find a woman and get married if they choose. And I don't have the right to marry a man either. Very simply, what they are trying to do is change the definition of marriage. A "marriage" is a union between a man and a woman. That is the definition.
Click to expand...


----------



## MDKatie

You all keep saying the same thing...they're trying to "force" their beliefs/lifestyle/agenda on us. BULL. They are simply trying to get EQUAL treatment for what everyone else already has. Nobody said you have to like it, partake in it, accept it...you just can't keep them from doing what other citizens already area able to do (get married).


----------



## mmoetc

Trainwrek said:


> OK I'm going to put my 2cents in even though I know the post is not directed at me;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mmoetc said:
> 
> 
> 
> The choice does me no harm, and it doesn't matter to me at all what somebody else does. I do, however, object to the gay agenda of trying to force approval of their lifestyle onto others. I object to the double standard, and I object to them attempting to gain minority status by repeatedly claiming that homosexuality is inborn, even though no scientific evidence for this exists.
> 
> .
> 
> Here we agree
> 
> 
> 
> They have exactly the same rights that I have. They are free to find a woman and get married if they choose. And I don't have the right to marry a man either. Very simply, what they are trying to do is change the definition of marriage. A "marriage" is a union between a man and a woman. That is the definition.
> 
> 
> 
> No one is trying to "force" you to believe anything. Many are pointing out that they believe that your beliefs are wrong headed but there are no laws that I know of forthcoming that limit what you can believe.
> 
> You have changed the choice and limited it. That you are attracted to those of the opposite sex makes it easy for you to comply with a law defining marriage as between a man and a woman. That is not the same choice of compliance for those who choose differently. It is the same argument I make about things like smoking bans and seat belt compliance. It is the government limiting a choice. It seems odd that so many who advocate for smaller government, less intrusion, and people having the freedom to live with their choices, good or bad, are the ones fighting so hard to limit the choices and freedoms of others that ,even you admit, have no effect on you.
Click to expand...


----------



## ddgresham1

Tricky Grama said:


> Try to marry your sister. Or your daughter.
> Just sayin'.


These men aren't asking to marry relatives. Nice spin though.


----------



## kasilofhome

With smaller government they would not be big enough to be in the leading role of changing words. It is the role of government to stay out of churches and NOT to attempt to alter religion. Finding, mandating and bullying is interfering with churches. Making laws that knowing violate basic tenants of any church is not the role of government. 

Equal is not fair. Because true equality attempts to create drones.... simple cogs. Wake up some are just tools to your own demise.

There are males and females and very few hermathodites. Period
There are short people and tall people
There are smart people and are stupid people.
Some smell bad some smell great.

Each have a role there are great Danes and guess what they are different from tea cup poodles. As such they do not need the same amount of food, water or space. They also can not perform the same job. If you have a need for a lap dog it is wise to use discernment and discrimination against hiring the great Dane.

Now both dogs come in many colors is the poodle is grey and the Dane is roan is an attempt to mislead folks that turning down the Dane is racist. 

But through political correctness some will find a way to control and force Danes to be lap dogs......cause equality is the goal. 

The real goal for those blind.....Control. remove our faith standards where there is a higher than man authority....able to give rights to each of us.....and the founders had to believe in God...the clues are in the boldly written that man did not give us our rights.

Rid the higher entity from us and then they can claim that ALL rights come from those in power.


----------



## ddgresham1

Letting gays marry who they want is not "making danes into lap dogs." It doesn't effect you.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

ddgresham1 said:


> Letting gays marry who they want is not "making danes into lap dogs." It doesn't effect you.


It does affect us. Many Christians as well as the head of physcoligy at Johns Hopkins believe it's a gender identity Syndrome that can be treated. So they want us to teach our kids its normal to see same sex weddings and live that lifestyle. That's how it affects everyone and especially children.


----------



## kasilofhome

Forcing persons or attempting to force people via laws to go against their faith is changing the meaning of the constitution. Thus I am impacted due to collateral damage of changing my rights. 

What people do at home or in private I really do not care about but pc is about shifting the paradigm of society via peer pressure and punishment.


----------



## kasilofhome

Do not care what race,or employment or bank account or faith others are.
Who they are sexual with, how many children they support, what education the have. Now, support the thought police,control my speech, push for equality of person results I stand up


----------



## mmoetc

kasilofhome said:


> Forcing persons or attempting to force people via laws to go against their faith is changing the meaning of the constitution. Thus I am impacted due to collateral damage of changing my rights.
> 
> What people do at home or in private I really do not care about but pc is about shifting the paradigm of society via peer pressure and punishment.


And yet you have no problem using the force of government to impose your beliefs on others. If peer pressure and the threat of punishment are enough to shake one's faith they should be looking inward rather than outward.


----------



## Evons hubby

Vahomesteaders said:


> It does affect us. Many Christians as well as the head of physcoligy at Johns Hopkins believe it's a gender identity Syndrome that can be treated. So they want us to teach our kids its normal to see same sex weddings and live that lifestyle. That's how it affects everyone and especially children.


No one is forcing you or your children to attend a same sex wedding if you dont want to. No one is forcing anyone to live any lifestyle, and no one is forcing you to teach your kids anything... so please explain how Jane getting married to Lucy affects you or your kids? I am just as repulsed by the gay lifestyle as anyone.... but as I pointed out earlier, I am quite fond of being free to choose my own lifestyle, who I marry, when I get up in the morning and what I eat for breakfast, as long as I am not interfering with YOUR choices. When society limits those basic freedoms to one group of people, what is to prevent them from limiting OUR OWN freedoms? We must all be free, or no one is.


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> Forcing persons or attempting to force people via laws to go against their faith is changing the meaning of the constitution. Thus I am impacted due to collateral damage of changing my rights.


This really sounds like a great argument for gay marriage. They are the ones who up until very recently have been denied their Constitutional rights.


----------



## MJsLady

Yvonne's hubby said:


> No one is forcing you or your children to attend a same sex wedding if you dont want to. No one is forcing anyone to live any lifestyle, and no one is forcing you to teach your kids anything... so please explain how Jane getting married to Lucy affects you or your kids? I am just as repulsed by the gay lifestyle as anyone.... but as I pointed out earlier, I am quite fond of being free to choose my own lifestyle, who I marry, when I get up in the morning and what I eat for breakfast, as long as I am not interfering with YOUR choices. When society limits those basic freedoms to one group of people, what is to prevent them from limiting OUR OWN freedoms? We must all be free, or no one is.


I don't care what they do. 
However your argument losses water when you talk to the caterers, photographers and small business owners being forced to kowtow to these individuals contrary to what the Bible and constitution say.


----------



## kasilofhome

mmoetc said:


> And yet you have no problem using the force of government to impose your beliefs on others. If peer pressure and the threat of punishment are enough to shake one's faith they should be looking inward rather than outward.


Show where my position is unconstitutional. Then think is your view unconstitutional.


----------



## painterswife

MJsLady said:


> I don't care what they do.
> However your argument losses water when you talk to the caterers, photographers and small business owners being forced to kowtow to these individuals contrary to what the Bible and constitution say.


Those people lost in court because they could not prove that they did not discriminate. One made wedding cakes for dogs but not for same sex couples.

They can take their cases all the way to the supreme court and if they can prove they don't make the cakes based on their religion, they would win.


----------



## kasilofhome

MJsLady said:


> I don't care what they do.
> However your argument losses water when you talk to the caterers, photographers and small business owners being forced to kowtow to these individuals contrary to what the Bible and constitution say.


I have no issue with couples of any gender grouping having legal shared rights and denies. I am all for the way most nations handle it. 

Government gets their contract with a civic union license. For all. Those what a marriage get the civil union done and the done the marriage. No license for marriage needed and the government is out of marriage those wanting the gov in their relationship get the lic.

Some would choose to get both some just one or the other. 

Did you know that for a priest to marry a couple the gov interferes and requires the priest to partake in the licensing .....the governmental contract.


----------



## kasilofhome

What sex were the dogs.....It is the supporting of same sex that is the conflict with some faiths.


----------



## kasilofhome

Yvonne's hubby said:


> This really sounds like a great argument for gay marriage. They are the ones who up until very recently have been denied their Constitutional rights.


No.....
In as much as 16 year old were are barred from voting due to not qualifying via definition 

And marriage was defined as two different sexes and over years the government got over powerful demanding to have a say in marriage. People in the beginning did not need the government to marry now we just sold out and think that they need to be. Yea, they sweeten the deal with a bribe ....I mean tax breaks only if a government had a signed contract.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> I have no issue with couples of any gender grouping having legal shared rights and denies. I am all for the way most nations handle it.
> 
> Government gets their contract with a civic union license. For all. Those what a marriage get the civil union done and the done the marriage. No license for marriage needed and the government is out of marriage those wanting the gov in their relationship get the lic.
> 
> Some would choose to get both some just one or the other.
> 
> Did you know that for a priest to marry a couple the gov interferes and requires the priest to partake in the licensing .....the governmental contract.


Marriage is what I have. Does not involve a church and therefore you can't go backwards in an attempt to take from others what you and I already have just to meet your religious views.


----------



## kasilofhome

CAN'T see the historical path marriage has taken huh


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> CAN'T see the historical path marriage has taken huh


Marriage started out as a legal contract and still is. That is the correct history. Things change and now marriage IS and includes same sex marriages. That is history as well.


----------



## kasilofhome

See, marriage should not truly need government at all. Even a priest doe not marry people he just is a human witness the bride and groom are all that is needed for a marriage..Each freely commuting themselves the other.

But some people like parties and a requirement that the government "had" to issue licenses allowed them to prevent interracial marriage.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> See, marriage should not truly need government at all. Even a priest doe not marry people he just is a human witness the bride and groom are all that is needed for a marriage..Each freely commuting themselves the other.
> 
> But some people like parties and a requirement that the government "had" to issue licenses allowed them to prevent interracial marriage.


That is your opinion. That is not the legal opinion. Of course you are free to only have a marriage with no involvement by the government right now so I don't see what your problem is if people do wish to involve the government.


----------



## kasilofhome

Marriage... that one has to seek...pay fees to marry shows how much power the government has over you. The license was a statue symbol....when it started...cool but it was to prevent the mixing of the races. Kinda evil when you think about it. But it is you right to freely turn over your freedom for the status, benefits,or to pick up a victim card.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Marriage... that one has to seek...pay fees to marry shows how much power the government has over you. The license was a statue symbol....when it started...cool but it was to prevent the mixing of the races. Kinda evil when you think about it. But it is you right to freely turn over your freedom for the status, benefits,or to pick up a victim card.


Now it is being used to discriminate against same sex couple. Still just as bad. Not about being a victim but about having legal rights with regards to children and seeing your spouse in the hospital and a mirad of other things people take for granted when married.


----------



## kasilofhome

That my dear is a contractual issue. Get a family law attorney to draw legal docs. I have had it done for 6 children I raised but was not a parent yet had the equal rights as a parent to handle medical, travel overseas, deal with educational issues, remodel a home that I did not own, hire staff, etc. If I can figure this out so can others. 

I acted as the parents agent. Just a contract.


----------



## Evons hubby

MJsLady said:


> I don't care what they do.
> However your argument losses water when you talk to the caterers, photographers and small business owners being forced to kowtow to these individuals contrary to what the Bible and constitution say.


Ok, right up front this nation does not obey the bible... can we just set all of those arguments to one side? Lets have a look at the nations highest law... the Constitution.... the document that sets forth the rules that our nation does (or is supposed to) obey. I keep a copy of that document here on my desk, but for those who dont, there are plenty of online sources available. Why not look through it sometime and bring forth the portions of the law that is being violated by allowing same sex marriage? I will be all ears.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> That my dear is a contractual issue. Get a family law attorney to draw legal docs. I have had it done for 6 children I raised but was not a parent yet had the equal rights as a parent to handle medical, travel overseas, deal with educational issues, remodel a home that I did not own, hire staff, etc. If I can figure this out so can others.
> 
> I acted as the parents agent. Just a contract.


No need to figure it out. Marriage licience does that and more. We already have that legal option and no ones religious beliefs gets to take it away just to make them happy.


----------



## CountryWannabe

Trainwrek said:


> The fact is that the notion of being 'born gay' is actually helped along by the very prejudice that they are attempting to overcome. Most men ( myself included ) don't even want to consider the possibility that, under certain circumstances/upbringing/etc.. That they might also possibly engage in homosexual behavior. So it's easy, and keeps our male egos safe to jump on that bandwagon. 'Sure I'm not anything like those gays, I could never be gay I'm just not born that way. They were born different, I'm not like them and I never could be.' , etc.
> 
> Men want to be strong, viral, and masculine. Those are traits that our society associates with being heterosexual ( whether true or not )


So why, if it were simply a choice, would a gay person "choose" to be hated, reviled, frequently bullied and even murdered when they could be happy and safe as one of the boys/girls? If they did so choose would we not have a mental image of some virile super-hero fighting for the cause rather than the foppish caricature we are usually presented with? I cannot exactly get my head around your dichotomy.

I know quite a lot of gay people. I doubt you could pick them out at a party. They are not all huddled cozily with members of the same sex, flopping their wrists and plotting to besmirch your children's minds. All they want is the same as anyone else. The full rights and compensations that attends a heterosexual marriage.

I have often wondered if the reason gay men arouse (excuse me) such ire from hetero men is that they usually get on very well with women. Not sexually of course, but as far as many women are concerned that is a bonus. If you remove the sexual tension you remove several barriers to real friendship. Many men, if they were honest, would admit to a frisson of jealousy about that.

Mary


----------



## kasilofhome

Marriage has historically been defined as one man and one woman there have been other combos that carried other labels changing the meaning of the word to justify a want is what is happenibg. That and since the homosexual movement has demanded privileges that they are not allowed but force ie...photographers, cakemakers, and other business who wish to refuse to support homosexual livestyle and yet maintain the or freedom to target and boycott persons and business for their views and lifestyles. 

The owners of hobby lobby do have a right to their lifestyle yet the the pc charged people want to take freedoms away.

If you do not like gun....do not buy one.


Who is trying to control who. It is those who stand by and do not harm your rights and simply wish not to give up our rights to please you.


----------



## kasilofhome

I do not view my friendships by sex but by character. Are not men and women equal?


----------



## Tricky Grama

ddgresham1 said:


> These men aren't asking to marry relatives. Nice spin though.


I was answering the post that said in this country we are free to marry whomever we want. No spin at all.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Marriage has historically been defined as one man and one woman there have been other combos that carried other labels changing the meaning of the word to justify a want is what is happenibg. That and since the homosexual movement has demanded privileges that they are not allowed but force ie...photographers, cakemakers, and other business who wish to refuse to support homosexual livestyle and yet maintain the or freedom to target and boycott persons and business for their views and lifestyles.
> 
> The owners of hobby lobby do have a right to their lifestyle yet the the pc charged people want to take freedoms away.
> 
> If you do not like gun....do not buy one.
> 
> 
> Who is trying to control who. It is those who stand by and do not harm your rights and simply wish not to give up our rights to please you.


Things change everyday. History is just that history. History already has legal same sex marriages.

Fight for the photographers and cake bakers but there is no leg to stand on fighting to deny someone else a marriage that has no impact on you personally. You have no right to deny them a legal marriage.


----------



## mmoetc

kasilofhome said:


> Show where my position is unconstitutional. Then think is your view unconstitutional.


I searched for any mention of marriage in my copy of the US Constitution and it's accompanying amendments. I couldn't find any. I did find mention that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. It would seem to me that adopting any single religion's definition of marriage would give that religion some supremacy and establish it as the defacto state religion which would be constitutionally inconsistent. Then we come to the second part of that clause- congress shall make no laws regarding the free practice of religion. Enacting laws that limit marriage to one man and one woman directly interferes with those religions, including some Christian denominations, from freely practicing their beliefs by not allowing them to legally marry same sex couples. Only by remaining neutral and defining marriage as between two ( and I don't object to more) consenting adults does the government fulfill it constitutional obligation. It doesn't require you to act against your beliefs or infringe upon me acting on mine.


----------



## Evons hubby

Tricky Grama said:


> I was answering the post that said in this country we are free to marry whomever we want. No spin at all.


While there are some restrictions on marriage such as age (for the obvious reason) I see no reason to prevent two people who otherwise "qualify" for marriage to be denied that same right as long as both are willing victims. If he's good enough for Jane, he otter be good enough for Joe.


----------



## Evons hubby

Regarding the OP's original question.... I dont see how Christian morality can ever be replaced by anything unless the individual believer opts to change their own minds.


----------



## MoonRiver

If we just look at the news, it is obvious that political correctness has taken control of our culture. Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson are prime examples. Political correctness overrides the law. CBS pulled Rihanna's "Run This Town" from the Thursday night football game, even though she was the VICTIM of domestic violence, not the perpetrator.

A Democrat operative is hired by NFL. I wonder why they didn't hire a Republican operative. Could it be because all this is liberal politics?


----------



## mmoetc

MoonRiver said:


> If we just look at the news, it is obvious that political correctness has taken control of our culture. Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson are prime examples. Political correctness overrides the law. CBS pulled Rihanna's "Run This Town" from the Thursday night football game, even though she was the VICTIM of domestic violence, not the perpetrator.
> 
> A Democrat operative is hired by NFL. I wonder why they didn't hire a Republican operative. Could it be because all this is liberal politics?


So speaking out against hitting a woman hard enough to knock her out or hitting a four year old with a stick hard enough to require medical care is politically correct? Sign me up, I just thought it was the right thing to do.


----------



## Tiempo

Does using a tree branch to inflict bleeding and bruises on a 4 year old's body, including his scrotum and defensive wounds on his hands represent Christian morality?


----------



## Oggie

MoonRiver said:


> If we just look at the news, it is obvious that political correctness has taken control of our culture. Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson are prime examples. Political correctness overrides the law. CBS pulled Rihanna's "Run This Town" from the Thursday night football game, even though she was the VICTIM of domestic violence, not the perpetrator.
> 
> A Democrat operative is hired by NFL. I wonder why they didn't hire a Republican operative. Could it be because all this is liberal politics?



This sort of thing is what happens when a monopoly holds power over an entire industry. The NFL can do pretty much whatever it chooses.

We probably shouldn't even think about the fact that the same monopolistic organization has nonprofit status and has been granted anti-trust exemptions. (We should probably also do our best to ignore the fact that the NFL operates in collusion with the NCAA, another nonprofit that controls the business of college football (and other sports).) (Oh, and many of the stadiums in which NFL games are played were built with public funds.)


----------



## MoonRiver

mmoetc said:


> So speaking out against hitting a woman hard enough to knock her out or hitting a four year old with a stick hard enough to require medical care is politically correct? Sign me up, I just thought it was the right thing to do.





Tiempo said:


> Does using a tree branch to inflict bleeding and bruises on a 4 year old's body, including his scrotum and defensive wounds on his hands represent Christian morality?


Neither are the point, but I bet you both knew that.

The point is that liberal groups like NOW and Ultraviolet are making the NFL the issue for political purposes. Our favorite liberal Rosie O'Donnell, speaking on the View had this to say:


> OâDonnell said NFL players, like boxers, are paid to hit people and âhave trouble separating the violence of their job from their lives.â


There is only one, little thing wrong with this. NFL players have a much lower rate of arrest for domestic violence than all men between the ages of 25 and 29. A lower rate of arrest for assault, drugs, dui, assault, theft, murder, and fraud.










So why go after the NFL? It looks to me like they have done a fairly good job of managing the problem. Wouldn't it be better to go after the hip hop industry that glorifies the abuse of women?


----------



## mmoetc

MoonRiver said:


> Neither are the point, but I bet you both knew that.
> 
> The point is that liberal groups like NOW and Ultraviolet are making the NFL the issue for political purposes. Our favorite liberal Rosie O'Donnell, speaking on the View had this to say:
> There is only one, little thing wrong with this. NFL players have a much lower rate of arrest for domestic violence than all men between the ages of 25 and 29. A lower rate of arrest for assault, drugs, dui, assault, theft, murder, and fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why go after the NFL? It looks to me like they have done a fairly good job of managing the problem. Wouldn't it be better to go after the hip hop industry that glorifies the abuse of women?


Why not speak out against both?


----------



## MoonRiver

mmoetc said:


> Why not speak out against both?


Don't ask me. Ask the liberals that are attacking the NFL.


----------



## Evons hubby

Tiempo said:


> Does using a tree branch to inflict bleeding and bruises on a 4 year old's body, including his scrotum and defensive wounds on his hands represent Christian morality?


I think so... if "spare the rod and spoil the child" is still among the Christian beliefs. I know it was when I was a wee lad. Mom kept a stick about as big around as an adults thumb and a couple feet long handy, granny was more into a fresh cut willer switch, dear old dad was more of a belt man. I know when I was growing up I never heard of a kid that didnt get a lickin now and then.


----------



## MO_cows

mmoetc said:


> So speaking out against hitting a woman hard enough to knock her out or hitting a four year old with a stick hard enough to require medical care is politically correct? Sign me up, I just thought it was the right thing to do.


The "political correctness" part is how the teams and the NFL are falling all over themselves reacting to the court of public opinion. The law of the land is, innocent until proven guilty. So an indictment or arrest shouldn't trigger action against a player for something that happened outside the field or locker room - you would take appropriate action when there is a conviction, plea bargain, or confession. In the meantime, have enough spine to stand up to public pressure while that due process is happening. Even wife and child beaters are entitled to due process. (Like in the old Westerns - give them a fair trial...and then hang them!)


----------



## painterswife

MO_cows said:


> The "political correctness" part is how the teams and the NFL are falling all over themselves reacting to the court of public opinion. The law of the land is, innocent until proven guilty. So an indictment or arrest shouldn't trigger action against a player for something that happened outside the field or locker room - you would take appropriate action when there is a conviction, plea bargain, or confession. In the meantime, have enough spine to stand up to public pressure while that due process is happening. Even wife and child beaters are entitled to due process. (Like in the old Westerns - give them a fair trial...and then hang them!)


These players sign contracts with clauses about behavior. The league reacts to public opinion because it can hit their bottom line. It is business pure and simple, not political correctness.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Tiempo said:


> Does using a tree branch to inflict bleeding and bruises on a 4 year old's body, including his scrotum and defensive wounds on his hands represent Christian morality?


What gets me -also-about all this is the people who are saying they were disciplined like this..."my G'ma ALWAYS used a switch on us", etc etc...I guarantee if their G'ma beat them bloody all over their body, it was CHILD ABUSE and against the law then too.
I knew kids who had to go get a switch off the elm outside & take it to their mom...then got a TAP with it...the whole ordeal was more frightening than the TAP.


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> So speaking out against hitting a woman hard enough to knock her out or hitting a four year old with a stick hard enough to require medical care is politically correct? Sign me up, I just thought it was the right thing to do.


Abuse such as these 2 examples have no D or R attached...hopefully b/c the people are celebrities, something can be done across the country.


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> Why not speak out against both?


I see this as an opportunity to try to do something about the problem.
Unfortunately, the entertainment industry is not going to do a thing...and libs will squelch anything going against rap b/c we're being racists to call attention to the ugliness of rap.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I think so... if "spare the rod and spoil the child" is still among the Christian beliefs. I know it was when I was a wee lad. Mom kept a stick about as big around as an adults thumb and a couple feet long handy, granny was more into a fresh cut willer switch, dear old dad was more of a belt man. I know when I was growing up I never heard of a kid that didnt get a lickin now and then.


Beating a child bloody is NOT a Christain principle. I doubt you were beat to a bloody pulp.


----------



## MO_cows

painterswife said:


> These players sign contracts with clauses about behavior. The league reacts to public opinion because it can hit their bottom line. It is business pure and simple, not political correctness.


Popularity is their business to a large degree, the two go hand in hand in this case.

Somehow I don't think that if all the Ultraviolet members stop coming to NFL games, they will notice a drop in the gate take.


----------



## painterswife

MO_cows said:


> Popularity is their business to a large degree, the two go hand in hand in this case.
> 
> Somehow I don't think that if all the Ultraviolet members stop coming to NFL games, they will notice a drop in the gate take.


I also don't think it is about whoever the Ultraviolet is or if they go to games. I am disgusted with what he did and I don't know who or care who the Ultraviolet is. I would think there are many more than me who think the same.


----------



## Evons hubby

Tricky Grama said:


> Beating a child bloody is NOT a Christain principle. I doubt you were beat to a bloody pulp.


I had my fair share of welts growing up but you are correct, I dont recall any blood for my part... but my oldest brother bled pretty good a few times. I think the worst was -probably the time he got himself tied to the tree and was whipped with trace chains off an old harness. Of course he wasnt 4 years old... about 16 I think... but he had been a very bad boy. Something about stealing one neighbors guns and using another neighbors prize bull for target practice.


----------



## MO_cows

painterswife said:


> I also don't think it is about whoever the Ultraviolet is or if they go to games. I am disgusted with what he did and I don't know who or care who the Ultraviolet is. I would think there are many more than me who think the same.


I'm disturbed and disgusted by it, too, who wouldn't be? But until it becomes more than a media report, you don't destroy a person's career. The video I have seen is so blurry, I couldn't recognize the man from it. Maybe someone who actually knows him could, but that's where the due process comes in. If he confesses or cops a plea or is convicted, then it's time to act. I think they hurriedly threw out the 2 game suspension to shut down the negative buzz and try to show they were PC. If they would not have acted so hastily and waited for the due process, they wouldn't have painted themselves into a corner like they have.


----------



## painterswife

MO_cows said:


> I'm disturbed and disgusted by it, too, who wouldn't be? But until it becomes more than a media report, you don't destroy a person's career. The video I have seen is so blurry, I couldn't recognize the man from it. Maybe someone who actually knows him could, but that's where the due process comes in. If he confesses or cops a plea or is convicted, then it's time to act. I think they hurriedly threw out the 2 game suspension to shut down the negative buzz and try to show they were PC. If they would not have acted so hastily and waited for the due process, they wouldn't have painted themselves into a corner like they have.


He adnitted he did it. No speculation required.


----------



## JerimiahJ

MoonRiver said:


> Because our laws reflect our morality and our morality is based on the Bible.


Speak for yourself. Morality is subjective.


----------



## MoonRiver

JerimiahJ said:


> Speak for yourself. Morality is subjective.


Why is it that beheading, slavery, persecution of gays, and mercy killings are practiced under Sharia and not under the Constitution? Is it because of this subjective morality you talk about or because the US was founded on Judeo-Christian principles?


----------



## wally

To be PC the phrase "single parent" would only apply to a person (parent) who adopted a child. All other parents would have to be unwed,divorced,abandoned, or widowed.


----------



## Trainwrek

MDKatie said:


> You all keep saying the same thing...they're trying to "force" their beliefs/lifestyle/agenda on us. BULL. They are simply trying to get EQUAL treatment for what everyone else already has. Nobody said you have to like it, partake in it, accept it...you just can't keep them from doing what other citizens already area able to do (get married).





mmoetc said:


> Trainwrek said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK I'm going to put my 2cents in even though I know the post is not directed at me;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is trying to "force" you to believe anything. Many are pointing out that they believe that your beliefs are wrong headed but there are no laws that I know of forthcoming that limit what you can believe.
> 
> 
> 
> HA!:hysterical:
> 
> I see what the issue is here. You guys really have no clue what this issue is about!
> 
> They just sued a baker who wouldn't bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding. They don't just want to live in peace and allow you to have your beliefs so long as they can have theirs. They want to use the power of government to FORCE you to accept of their lifestyle.
> 
> If its just about allowing them to live their lives as they see fit without interference, then I'm all for it. But that right should also extend to Christians who have their beliefs and lifestyle choices based on their religion. Its not "tolerance" if you only tolerate the beliefs that the far left approves of.
> 
> 
> I have no problem with gays as individuals, I do have a problem with the gay agenda.
Click to expand...


----------



## mmoetc

Trainwrek said:


> mmoetc said:
> 
> 
> 
> HA!:hysterical:
> 
> I see what the issue is here. You guys really have no clue what this issue is about!
> 
> They just sued a baker who wouldn't bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding. They don't just want to live in peace and allow you to have your beliefs so long as they can have theirs. They want to use the power of government to FORCE you to accept of their lifestyle.
> 
> If its just about allowing them to live their lives as they see fit without interference, then I'm all for it. But that right should also extend to Christians who have their beliefs and lifestyle choices based on their religion. Its not "tolerance" if you only tolerate the beliefs that the far left approves of.
> 
> 
> I have no problem with gays as individuals, I do have a problem with the gay agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> They sued the baker because they walked in off the street just like any member of the public the store was open to and tried to buy a cake. There are no allegations that they engaged in disruptive behavior while in the store or did anything else that would have made the owners ask them to leave the premises. They simply asked to do what the bakery is in business to do- engage in a transaction where they exchange money for cake. If the owners wish, they could open up a private, members only bakery and screen their customers. If they wish to be open to the public, they need to be open to all the public.
> 
> I think of Seinfeld and the "Soup Nazi" whenever I hear this arguement. Would that episode had been so funny and the soup nazi so well received if instead of not giving soup because he didn't like the behavior of some of his customers he had denied Jerry and Elaine his delicious soup because they were Jewish and thus not deserving of his soup?
Click to expand...


----------



## Trainwrek

mmoetc said:


> Trainwrek said:
> 
> 
> 
> They sued the baker because they walked in off the street just like any member of the public the store was open to and tried to buy a cake. There are no allegations that they engaged in disruptive behavior while in the store or did anything else that would have made the owners ask them to leave the premises. They simply asked to do what the bakery is in business to do- engage in a transaction where they exchange money for cake. If the owners wish, they could open up a private, members only bakery and screen their customers. If they wish to be open to the public, they need to be open to all the public.
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not true, I see signs in many PRIVATE businesses that read 'we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason'. This idea that when you open a business that you are suddenly a public entity is false. It's a private business. The hallmark of private enterprise is VOLUNTARY EXCHANGE of goods and services.
> 
> And the baker did not throw the gay couple out. He told them that he did not provide the service that they were looking for.
> 
> Suppose the gay couple were looking for a christian minister to conduct the service? Should they be able to FORCE a christian minister to perform a gay wedding because he offers that service to the public? Many gay activists would say yes.
Click to expand...


----------



## painterswife

Trainwrek said:


> mmoetc said:
> 
> 
> 
> HA!:hysterical:
> 
> I see what the issue is here. You guys really have no clue what this issue is about!
> 
> They just sued a baker who wouldn't bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding. They don't just want to live in peace and allow you to have your beliefs so long as they can have theirs. They want to use the power of government to FORCE you to accept of their lifestyle.
> 
> If its just about allowing them to live their lives as they see fit without interference, then I'm all for it. But that right should also extend to Christians who have their beliefs and lifestyle choices based on their religion. Its not "tolerance" if you only tolerate the beliefs that the far left approves of.
> 
> 
> I have no problem with gays as individuals, I do have a problem with the gay agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> They sued a baker who would bake a cake for a dogs wedding but not a legal same sex marriage. They could not prove that they made wedding cakes for people based only on their religious beliefs. Either walk the walk or get off the sidewalk.
Click to expand...


----------



## willow_girl

> veryone makes that decision at some point. We boys grow up playing with other boys. They are our best friends and girls are gross. So I guess we all start of gay. Then those of us raised in good homes see how the family is supposed to function and it makes sense so our mind decides that is what we must do. The mind is a powerful tool. You can literally make your self sick of you think about being sick. It can make you believe all sorts of things of you think about it long enough. And it can play tricks on you very often. Homosexuality could really be a form of ptsd. We just don't know.


If you started out having sexual experiences with other boys and enjoyed it, but later decided to become sexually involved with girls/women, and liked that too, and decided to stick with it -- congrats! You're bi! :happy2:

We have a choice. For most people, it isn't so easy.


----------



## Evons hubby

Trainwrek said:


> mmoetc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not true, I see signs in many PRIVATE businesses that read 'we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason'. This idea that when you open a business that you are suddenly a public entity is false. It's a private business. The hallmark of private enterprise is VOLUNTARY EXCHANGE of goods and services.
> 
> And the baker did not throw the gay couple out. He told them that he did not provide the service that they were looking for.
> 
> Suppose the gay couple were looking for a christian minister to conduct the service? Should they be able to FORCE a christian minister to perform a gay wedding because he offers that service to the public? Many gay activists would say yes.
Click to expand...

If he offers that service to the public, gays being part of the public, then yes, a Christian minister should marry them. However most ministers do not offer their service to "the public", they offer their services to church members or those who at least meet basic qualifications that the church itself adheres to. I was turned down by several ministers who refused to perform our wedding simply because I had been divorced. First one I asked wouldnt do it because I was not a member of his church. I didnt sue any of them, I just shopped around til I found one whose morals were low enough to perform said service, payed him his fifty bucks, and we are now married.


----------



## Trainwrek

painterswife said:


> painterswife said:
> 
> 
> 
> They sued a baker who would bake a cake for a dogs wedding but not a legal same sex marriage. They could not prove that they made wedding cakes for people based only on their religious beliefs. Either walk the walk or get off the sidewalk.
> 
> 
> 
> He should be able to bake his cakes for who ever he wants. I don't believe you have the right to force someone to exchange goods. His religious beliefs prevented him from baking a gay wedding cake. One group wants to live their lives as gay, another group wants to live their lives as christians. If your goal is to be "tolerant", why do you only advocate for one but condemn the other? Thats not tolerance, its discrimination. Ironically, exactly what you claim to be against!
Click to expand...


----------



## Trainwrek

Yvonne's hubby said:


> If he offers that service to the public, gays being part of the public, then yes, a Christian minister should marry them.


Ok I guess there's where we disagree. I dont believe that anyone should be forced to trade with anyone they don't want to. Its wrong. This whole idea of "public" business has gotten warped. A public business, is really one run BY the public or government. A court house is a 'public' building. Joe's sandwich shop is a private business. I dont think we should have the right to FORCE Joe to make a sandwich if he doesn't want to.


----------



## mmoetc

Trainwrek said:


> mmoetc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not true, I see signs in many PRIVATE businesses that read 'we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason'. This idea that when you open a business that you are suddenly a public entity is false. It's a private business. The hallmark of private enterprise is VOLUNTARY EXCHANGE of goods and services.
> 
> And the baker did not throw the gay couple out. He told them that he did not provide the service that they were looking for.
> 
> Suppose the gay couple were looking for a christian minister to conduct the service? Should they be able to FORCE a christian minister to perform a gay wedding because he offers that service to the public? Many gay activists would say yes.
> 
> 
> 
> Putting up a sign doesn't make something legal. The quickest example I could is this referring to restaurants. http://www.gaebler.com/When-Restaurants-Can-Choose-Not-to-Serve-a-Customer.htm. You'll notice all the behaviors have to do with something being disruptive or interfering with the businesses normal operation. If your normal operation is to bake and sell cakes it's hard to see how someone walking in and trying to engage in that activity disrupts your business.
Click to expand...


----------



## Trainwrek

mmoetc said:


> mmoetc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Putting up a sign doesn't make something legal. The quickest example I could is this referring to restaurants. http://www.gaebler.com/When-Restaurants-Can-Choose-Not-to-Serve-a-Customer.htm. You'll notice all the behaviors have to do with something being disruptive or interfering with the businesses normal operation. If your normal operation is to bake and sell cakes it's hard to see how someone walking in and trying to engage in that activity disrupts your business.
> 
> 
> 
> Asking for a service that you don't provide and sueing you over it isn't interfering with your business? I don't think that bakery is in business baking cakes anymore. Sounds like they disrupted his entire trade.
Click to expand...


----------



## Evons hubby

Trainwrek said:


> Ok I guess there's where we disagree. I dont believe that anyone should be forced to trade with anyone they don't want to. Its wrong. This whole idea of "public" business has gotten warped. A public business, is really one run BY the public or government. A court house is a 'public' building. Joe's sandwich shop is a private business. I dont think we should have the right to FORCE Joe to make a sandwich if he doesn't want to.


It used to be that way in this country... some businesses would serve anyone.... just had to sit in that section over there if you were black, or hispanic or some other "reason". Others simply refused to serve people of a given group they thought were inferior. Federal laws have since been passed making some forms of bigotry illegal for business owners to practice. Oddly enough the world didnt come to an end when that happened. Personally I think it got a little bit better.


----------



## Evons hubby

Trainwrek said:


> Asking for a service that you don't provide and sueing you over it isn't interfering with your business? I don't think that bakery is in business baking cakes anymore. Sounds like they disrupted his entire trade.


If I remember right, this baker provided the service of baking cakes. How does asking him to bake a cake asking for a service not provided? He was sued for being a bigot and refusing his normally provided service to someone whose perfectly legal lifestyle he didnt happen to like.


----------



## Trainwrek

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It used to be that way in this country... some businesses would serve anyone.... just had to sit in that section over there if you were black, or hispanic or some other "reason". Others simply refused to serve people of a given group they thought were inferior. Federal laws have since been passed making some forms of bigotry illegal for business owners to practice. Oddly enough the world didnt come to an end when that happened. Personally I think it got a little bit better.


Well now your making the error that the whole basis of this discussion rests on.
Whether or not homosexuality is a choice or a genetic condition becomes very important in our discussion about whether or not these laws should apply.

If some group were to claim foot fetishes by birth, are they minorities now too? Should my choice to walk around nude because I claim to have been born nudist be enough to grant me similar protections?


----------



## JerimiahJ

MoonRiver said:


> Why is it that beheading, slavery, persecution of gays, and mercy killings are practiced under Sharia and not under the Constitution? Is it because of this subjective morality you talk about or because the US was founded on Judeo-Christian principles?


All of the things you've cited have been done in this country at one time or another in the name of Judeo-Christian principles. Did "our" Judeo-Christian principles allow for the slaughter of nearly a quarter-million civilian citizens in Iraq?

Please keep your collectivist morality to yourself (or yourselves, as it were,) I would prefer not to be grouped in.


----------



## ddgresham1

Tricky Grama said:


> I was answering the post that said in this country we are free to marry whomever we want. No spin at all.



Whom refers to people not animals. Have you ever referred to animals as whom? You shouldn't as it is incorrect.


----------



## Trainwrek

Yvonne's hubby said:


> If I remember right, this baker provided the service of baking cakes. How does asking him to bake a cake asking for a service not provided? He was sued for being a bigot and refusing his normally provided service to someone whose perfectly legal lifestyle he didnt happen to like.


I dont see what is wrong with people having the freedom to trade with whom they choose. If you don't like bigotry you also have the right not to associate or do business with bigots. Thats a free market. If a black business only wants to conduct trade with other blacks, then I support their right to do so. I might not agree with it, but I certainly recognize that people should not be forced to associate or trade their property.

Im not sure the term "bigot" can apply here. Since gay-ness is not necessarily a condition but likely a choice. Can you be "bigoted" against smokers?


----------



## Evons hubby

Trainwrek said:


> Well now your making the error that the whole basis of this discussion rests on.
> Whether or not homosexuality is a choice or a genetic condition becomes very important in our discussion about whether or not these laws should apply.


Are you implying that it makes a difference whether or not homosexuality is a "genetic defect" or a matter of choice when it comes to providing a service? My copy of the Constitution provides a definition of exactly who is and is not a citizen in this country... it also mentions that ALL citizens are to have equal protection under the law.


----------



## painterswife

Trainwrek said:


> painterswife said:
> 
> 
> 
> He should be able to bake his cakes for who ever he wants. I don't believe you have the right to force someone to exchange goods. His religious beliefs prevented him from baking a gay wedding cake. One group wants to live their lives as gay, another group wants to live their lives as christians. If your goal is to be "tolerant", why do you only advocate for one but condemn the other? Thats not tolerance, its discrimination. Ironically, exactly what you claim to be against!
> 
> 
> 
> We have discrimination laws in this country. You don't get to break them unless you can prove you are doing it for a reason that will stand up such as religious views. The baker failed royally on that one by baking a wedding cake for dogs.
> 
> We also have lots of laws that have to do with commerce and so far they have held up when they have gone to court. What you believe and what is law are not the same thing Kirk.
Click to expand...


----------



## Evons hubby

Trainwrek said:


> I dont see what is wrong with people having the freedom to trade with whom they choose. If you don't like bigotry you also have the right not to associate or do business with bigots. Thats a free market. If a black business only wants to conduct trade with other blacks, then I support their right to do so. I might not agree with it, but I certainly recognize that people should not be forced to associate or trade their property.
> 
> Im not sure the term "bigot" can apply here. Since gay-ness is not necessarily a condition but likely a choice. Can you be "bigoted" against smokers?


Do you feel strongly attracted to members of your own sex? Do you consciously choose to be straight? 

And yes, the word bigot is the correct word in this discussion. It has nothing to do with whether or not gay is a choice or a "genetic condition" and yes, many people are very bigoted when it comes to smokers.


----------



## JerimiahJ

To no one in particular:

With a truly free state comes the reality that sometimes individuals will do things that you or I may not like or agree with. When you start limiting freedoms, you limit your own as well. The baker should not have to make the cake. The priest should not (and does not, ironically) have to perform the wedding.

Freedom has to move in all directions, not just the directions that some may prefer, to the exclusion of others.


----------



## JerimiahJ

painterswife said:


> We have discrimination laws in this country. You don't get to break them unless you can prove you are doing it for a reason that will stand up such as religious views. The baker failed royally on that one by baking a wedding cake for dogs.


So you suppose that the baker's claim to conflicting deep religious beliefs should be summarily dismissed because he baked a silly novelty cake for someone's pooch?

Doesn't sound like freedom to me.


----------



## painterswife

JerimiahJ said:


> To no one in particular:
> 
> With a truly free state comes the reality that sometimes individuals will do things that you or I may not like or agree with. When you start limiting freedoms, you limit your own as well. The baker should not have to make the cake. The priest should not (and does not, ironically) have to perform the wedding.
> 
> Freedom has to move in all directions, not just the directions that some may prefer, to the exclusion of others.


You do not have the freedom to discriminate, nor should you. You don't have the freedom to murder. nor should you.

No one has or ever will have complete freedom.


----------



## painterswife

JerimiahJ said:


> So you suppose that the baker's claim to conflicting deep religious beliefs should be dismissed because he baked a silly novelty cake for someone's pooch?
> 
> Come on...


I do. If you have a conviction based on anything then you stick to it or it is discrimination. He would have won if he could prove he held to his convictions and it had to do with his religious beliefs.

PS, I read the correct verdict so I have done my homework.


----------



## JerimiahJ

painterswife said:


> I do. If you have a conviction based on anything then you stick to it or it is discrimination. He would have won if he could prove he held to his convictions and it had to do with his religious beliefs.
> 
> PS, I read the correct verdict so I have done my homework.


A court-issued verdict does not necessarily render a point philosophically sound or not, comrade.


----------



## JerimiahJ

JerimiahJ said:


> To no one in particular:
> 
> With a truly free state comes the reality that sometimes individuals will do things that you or I may not like or agree with. When you start limiting freedoms, you limit your own as well. The baker should not have to make the cake. The priest should not (and does not, ironically) have to perform the wedding.
> 
> Freedom has to move in all directions, not just the directions that some may prefer, to the exclusion of others.





painterswife said:


> You do not have the freedom to discriminate, nor should you. You don't have the freedom to murder. nor should you.
> 
> No one has or ever will have complete freedom.


Who said anything about murder? Let's not get all silly now...

If you rent out a field for private events and a prospective client would like to stage a pagan orgy on your property, shouldn't you be allowed to refuse service?


----------



## painterswife

JerimiahJ said:


> A court-issued verdict does not necessarily render a point philosophically sound or not, comrade.


No it does not. I would have however stood by the baker if he was a man of his convictions. I don't believe in discrimination but I do believe he had the right to discriminate in this instance if he always makes sure he does not sell cakes to same sex weddings or dog weddings and such.


----------



## painterswife

JerimiahJ said:


> Who said anything about murder? Let's not get silly now...
> 
> If you rent out a field for private events and a prospective client would like to stage a pagan orgy on your property, shouldn't you be allowed to refuse service?


Public sex is illegal. They can refuse.


----------



## Evons hubby

painterswife said:


> Public sex is illegal. They can refuse.


I agree, they can refuse.... but why would they?!?!


----------



## painterswife

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I agree, they can refuse.... but why would they?!?!


The real problem would be when they rent out all the rooms and have an orgy behind closed doors. Try to stop that and you would be in court pretty fast I think.


----------



## JerimiahJ

painterswife said:


> You do not have the freedom to discriminate, nor should you. You don't have the freedom to murder. nor should you.
> 
> No one has or ever will have complete freedom.





painterswife said:


> No it does not. I would have however stood by the baker if he was a man of his convictions. I don't believe in discrimination but I do believe he had the right to discriminate in this instance if he always makes sure he does not sell cakes to same sex weddings or dog weddings and such.


I think you are treading on a very thin argument and you know it. Questioning a man's religious convictions based on a meaningless novelty cake is a weak leg to stand on, at best.

Do you think that it is correct to compare gays to dogs?


----------



## JerimiahJ

painterswife said:


> Public sex is illegal. They can refuse.


OK, then how about a ritualistic feast? An orgy of food, as it were...

Also, it would not be public sex if it were on private land, in an encolsure placed on a rented venue...


----------



## JerimiahJ

painterswife said:


> The real problem would be when they rent out all the rooms and have an orgy behind closed doors. Try to stop that and you would be in court pretty fast I think.


If they stated their intention and you refused based on your religious beliefs, should you then be forced by a court to accommodate them under penalty of law?

Cherry-picking freedoms is a slippery slope...


----------



## JerimiahJ

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I agree, they can refuse.... but why would they?!?!


Personally, I encourage such activity. :nanner:


----------



## Evons hubby

painterswife said:


> The real problem would be when they rent out all the rooms and have an orgy behind closed doors. Try to stop that and you would be in court pretty fast I think.


I think the same would apply even outdoors, provided the field was secluded and not in view of "the public". Once the private club has rented the field, its no longer a public place... it is temporarily "owned" by the pagans and not open to the public anymore... therefor the sex in public charge becomes moot. The only possible reason for the owner to refuse to rent the field to them becomes refusing on grounds of their faith... bigotry at its finest.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

JerimiahJ said:


> I think you are treading on a very thin argument and you know it. Questioning a man's religious convictions based on a meaningless novelty cake is a weak leg to stand on, at best.
> 
> Do you think that it is correct to compare gays to dogs?


Many gays and scientist do when comparing homosexuality activity to the wild and nature. Sadly they use that as comparison to why is natural. Animals with no cognitive thought. Good comparison huh? Even I would be offended by that.


----------



## Evons hubby

JerimiahJ said:


> Personally, I encourage such activity. :nanner:


I have been known to attend some events staged by some pagans and there were no orgies.... durnit! Even without the orgies, it was still a lotta fun.


----------



## painterswife

JerimiahJ said:


> I think you are treading on a very thin argument and you know it. Questioning a man's religious convictions based on a meaningless novelty cake is a weak leg to stand on, at best.
> 
> Do you think that it is correct to compare gays to dogs?


I disagree. Did not compare same sex to dogs. No thin argument for me , pretty clear that the baker did not have religious convictions about wedding cakes when he made one for dogs.


----------



## painterswife

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I think the same would apply even outdoors, provided the field was secluded and not in view of "the public". Once the private club has rented the field, its no longer a public place... it is temporarily "owned" by the pagans and not open to the public anymore... therefor the sex in public charge becomes moot. The only possible reason for the owner to refuse to rent the field to them becomes refusing on grounds of their faith... bigotry at its finest.


That would really depend on whether anyone could see the activities in any way. If you have sex on your own private property in view of others( say your back yard and the neighbors can see it from their windows) you can be charged.


----------



## JerimiahJ

painterswife said:


> I disagree. Did not compare same sex to dogs. No thin argument for me , pretty clear that the baker did not have religious convictions about wedding cakes when he made one for dogs.


:hysterical:


----------



## Evons hubby

painterswife said:


> That would really depend on whether anyone could see the activities in any way. If you have sex on your own private property in view of others( say your back yard and the neighbors can see it from their windows) you can be charged.


This reminds me of the old gal who called the cops about the teens running around naked in their backyard by the pool. When the cops arrived they couldnt see the offenders at all, and told the old lady so. She handed them a mirror fixed to a broom handle and said... "just lean out over my railing, hold this at just the right angle over the fence and you can see them plain as day".


----------



## mmoetc

Trainwrek said:


> mmoetc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asking for a service that you don't provide and sueing you over it isn't interfering with your business? I don't think that bakery is in business baking cakes anymore. Sounds like they disrupted his entire trade.
> 
> 
> 
> What service don't they provide. They bake cakes. Some of those cakes are used in weddings. The couple asked them to bake a cake. They planned to use that cake in their wedding celebration. What was out of the realm of the bakery's usual business of making and selling cakes?
Click to expand...


----------



## MDKatie

Trainwrek said:


> Should my choice to walk around nude because I claim to have been born nudist be enough to grant me similar protections?


You're welcome to walk around naked all day long in your own home, in private. Public nudity is illegal.


----------



## mmoetc

Trainwrek said:


> I dont see what is wrong with people having the freedom to trade with whom they choose. If you don't like bigotry you also have the right not to associate or do business with bigots. Thats a free market. If a black business only wants to conduct trade with other blacks, then I support their right to do so. I might not agree with it, but I certainly recognize that people should not be forced to associate or trade their property.
> 
> Im not sure the term "bigot" can apply here. Since gay-ness is not necessarily a condition but likely a choice. Can you be "bigoted" against smokers?


And nothing is stopping these businesses from setting up their businesses in a way that allows them to them trade with only who they wish. Even the president couldn't get a tee time on some private golf courses recently. The courses didn't legally discriminate. Non members can't get access at certain times, sometimes never. Perfectly legal.


----------



## mmoetc

JerimiahJ said:


> If they stated their intention and you refused based on your religious beliefs, should you then be forced by a court to accommodate them under penalty of law?
> 
> Cherry-picking freedoms is a slippery slope...


It's perfectly legitimate to not allow certain activities on your land. But you can't say Christians can have orgies but pagans can not. Either you allow an activity or you don't. If you rent your venue out for weddings you don't get to decide on the legitimacy of that wedding.


----------



## painterswife

mmoetc said:


> It's perfectly legitimate to not allow certain activities on your land. But you can't say Christians can have orgies but pagans can not. Either you allow an activity or you don't. If you rent your venue out for weddings you don't get to decide on the legitimacy of that wedding.


So well said! Perfectly on point.


----------



## Trainwrek

painterswife said:


> Public sex is illegal. They can refuse.


Well again, are we talking about what is legal or what is right? Homosexuality used to be illegal, so was it right to discriminate against gays 30 years ago?


----------



## painterswife

Trainwrek said:


> Well again, are we talking about what is legal or what is right? Homosexuality used to be illegal, so was it right to discriminate against gays 30 years ago?





mmoetc said:


> It's perfectly legitimate to not allow certain activities on your land. But you can't say Christians can have orgies but pagans can not. Either you allow an activity or you don't. If you rent your venue out for weddings you don't get to decide on the legitimacy of that wedding.


MMoetc said it best.


----------



## mmoetc

Trainwrek said:


> Well again, are we talking about what is legal or what is right? Homosexuality used to be illegal, so was it right to discriminate against gays 30 years ago?


Nope. Nor was it right to keep slaves 200 years ago. Just because something was legally done in the past never made it "right" to do. Some people knew it then, too.


----------



## mmoetc

JerimiahJ said:


> To no one in particular:
> 
> With a truly free state comes the reality that sometimes individuals will do things that you or I may not like or agree with. When you start limiting freedoms, you limit your own as well. The baker should not have to make the cake. The priest should not (and does not, ironically) have to perform the wedding.
> 
> Freedom has to move in all directions, not just the directions that some may prefer, to the exclusion of others.


But the baker doesn't have to make the cake. He can stand on whatever principles he likes and refuse to do so. He will then suffer criminal and possibly civil penalties. Sometimes it costs something to stand for one's convictions. I think all you good Christians remember some guy who died on a cross for his.


----------



## Trainwrek

mmoetc said:


> But the baker doesn't have to make the cake. He can stand on whatever principles he likes and refuse to do so. He will then suffer criminal and possibly civil penalties. Sometimes it costs something to stand for one's convictions. I think all you good Christians remember some guy who died on a cross for his.


So basically, you all are for imposing your moral opinions on people through force of government, but when the christian guy wants to impose his values on you then "your values have no business in my life". What a load of hypocrisy.

If you really didnt want moral opinions to be pushed onto other people who don't agree, then you support people's right to sell their cakes to whomever they want. It's very ironic how people are completely incapable of viewing themselves by the same lens that they view other's through.


----------



## JerimiahJ

mmoetc said:


> It's perfectly legitimate to not allow certain activities on your land. But you can't say Christians can have orgies but pagans can not. Either you allow an activity or you don't. If you rent your venue out for weddings you don't get to decide on the legitimacy of that wedding.


Actually, yes you do get to decide, in so far as how you view it. And, based on that you, as the OWNER of the land, can decide to whom you rent your land out. Conversely, as a prospective client, you are also free to either give them your business or not to based on your opinion. A private business is an owned property, and you are not obliged to act against your chosen religious faith to satisfy anyone's lifestyle. You may, however, choose to do so...for the time being, anyhow.

The court grasped at a ludicrous straw in the baker's case to provide a thin (and unconstitutional, IMO) verdict with the intention of pleasing their constituents and satisfying the media frenzy. In doing so, they took freedom of choice away from the business owner (and ruined his business,) while you and I lost another right.

Would you have the GVMT penalize a consumer for choosing not to do business with a person or group that had opposing religious beliefs? Do I have to buy the cake for my daughter's commencement from a gay-atheist baker?


----------



## kasilofhome

So when will the government come after those who boycotted chick fila.

They were refusing to go to the place due to discrimination. They were actively involved economical terrorism... ok it failed but the tried. Intent matters.....destroy those that fail to your will. No One causes no harm by just refusing to make money on an act they know to be immoral to there faith.


----------



## JerimiahJ

mmoetc said:


> Sometimes it costs something to stand for one's convictions. I think all you good Christians remember some guy who died on a cross for his.


I also remember reading about "witches" being burned at the stake in Salem MA in the name of moral righteousness. 

I doubt you would be as glib and dismissive about it if it were your livelihood were destroyed based on your religious beliefs in a country that claims to boast freedom of religion. Easy to grin and smirk when it's happening to someone else.


----------



## painterswife

Trainwrek said:


> So basically, you all are for imposing your moral opinions on people through force of government, but when the christian guy wants to impose his values on you then "your values have no business in my life". What a load of hypocrisy.
> 
> If you really didnt want moral opinions to be pushed onto other people who don't agree, then you support people's right to sell their cakes to whomever they want. It's very ironic how people are completely incapable of viewing themselves by the same lens that they view other's through.


The country as a whole gets to decide on what morals make it into laws. Those morals should not be religion specific but human decency specific.

Please tell me how two people of the same sex marrying is forcing anything on you. We keep asking that question Kirk but you keep ignoring it.


----------



## mmoetc

Trainwrek said:


> So basically, you all are for imposing your moral opinions on people through force of government, but when the christian guy wants to impose his values on you then "your values have no business in my life". What a load of hypocrisy.
> 
> If you really didnt want moral opinions to be pushed onto other people who don't agree, then you support people's right to sell their cakes to whomever they want. It's very ironic how people are completely incapable of viewing themselves by the same lens that they view other's through.


Not hypocritical at all. There are many ways to set up a business legally to allow the business owner to discriminate in any way they wish. If you choose one of those options more power to you. If you , however choose to open your business to the public, that public includes everyone.


----------



## Evons hubby

Trainwrek said:


> So basically, you all are for imposing your moral opinions on people through force of government, but when the christian guy wants to impose his values on you then "your values have no business in my life". What a load of hypocrisy.
> 
> If you really didnt want moral opinions to be pushed onto other people who don't agree, then you support people's right to sell their cakes to whomever they want. It's very ironic how people are completely incapable of viewing themselves by the same lens that they view other's through.


I think you are missing something here. Nobody says the baker has to support homosexuality, or marry a person he doesnt want to. What we are saying is that he is totally free to sell cakes to any one he wants to... and even to those whose political leanings fit with his. What he is not allowed to do is deny someone the right to purchase his cakes based upon their politics, religion or other discriminatory practices. If he is in business to sell cakes, he needs to sell his cakes to anyone who walks through his open door and wants one. The sign says "cakes for sale".... so sell the durn cakes! It really should make no difference to the baker what the cake is to be used for after its sold.... he no longer owns it.


----------



## JerimiahJ

I'm certain that if they walked in, picked out a cake, and went to the counter to pay, they would have encountered no resistance. 

Let's remember that the gay couple in question did not just walk in and buy a cake, they were attempting to contract the baker to provide a custom service. Two very different scenarios. The baker is not refusing to sell cakes to gays, he is refusing to enter into a contracted agreement wherein he must do labor which goes against his personal religious beliefs.

We are all free to choose which contracts we do or do not participate in/ agree to...or so I thought. This is still America, yes?


----------



## Evons hubby

JerimiahJ said:


> Actually, yes you do get to decide, in so far as how you view it. And, based on that you, as the OWNER of the land, can decide to whom you rent your land out. Conversely, as a prospective client, you are also free to either give them your business or not to based on your opinion. A private business is an owned property, and you are not obliged to act against your chosen religious faith to satisfy anyone's lifestyle. You may, however, choose to do so...for the time being, anyhow.
> 
> The court grasped at a ludicrous straw in the baker's case to provide a thin (and unconstitutional, IMO) verdict with the intention of pleasing their constituents and satisfying the media frenzy. In doing so, they took freedom of choice away from the business owner (and ruined his business,) while you and I lost another right.
> 
> Would you have the GVMT penalize a consumer for choosing not to do business with a person or group that had opposing religious beliefs? Do I have to buy the cake for my daughter's commencement from a gay-atheist baker?


There is a difference between buyers and sellers, and NO you do not get to discriminate when renting or selling real estate. You might want to have a glance at the Fair Housing Act of 1968 if you think otherwise. Race, religion, familial status and a few others are named in that law designed to prevent discrimination when renting or selling real property. Buyers have never been required to purchase anything from any seller at all. Up until Obamaco violated our Constitution in at least a dozen ways, NOBODY was ever required to buy anything they did not want. Now of course we have to buy health insurance in order to avoid the fine.... erm "tax". 

Sellers on the other hand do not get to pick and choose their customers. Some customers can be sent packing, like if they are being disruptive or obnoxious, creating a problem towards the store owner or other customers, but thats a whole nother part of the equation. If you sell cakes or roofing supplies, you will be required to sell to anyone who comes walking in wishing to buy them.


----------



## Evons hubby

JerimiahJ said:


> I'm certain that if they walked in, picked out a cake, and went to the counter to pay, they would have encountered no resistance.
> 
> Let's remember that the gay couple in question did not just walk in and buy a cake, they were attempting to contract the baker to provide a custom service. Two very different scenarios. The baker is not refusing to sell cakes to gays, he is refusing to enter into a contracted agreement wherein he must do labor which goes against his personal religious beliefs.
> 
> We are all free to choose which contracts we do or do not participate in/ agree to...or so I thought. This is America, yes?


And how, pray tell, does contracting to bake a cake go against his religious beliefs? I am pretty sure the baker in question had contracted his skills to others in the past. :shrug:


----------



## JerimiahJ

painterswife said:


> The country as a whole gets to decide on what morals make it into laws. Those morals should not be religion specific but human decency specific.


No. 

The government's job is not to legislate morality, but rather to govern from a place of reason, logic, and fact, with the protection of individual freedoms and liberty of its people foremost in mind.

There is no such thing as moral fact. It does not exist (except in the imaginations of some.)


----------



## JerimiahJ

Yvonne's hubby said:


> And how, pray tell, does contracting to bake a cake go against his religious beliefs? I am pretty sure the baker in question had contracted his skills to others in the past. :shrug:


Does it need to be said? He feels that doing work on a gay wedding goes against his faith, that same-sex marriage goes against the word of his chosen deity. He is not alone in that notion, and he should not be bullied and destroyed by GVMT for expressing it and living his life by it. 

Personally, I would have baked the cake. Money is money, and I have zero problems with same-sex marriage. But I value our freedom to make that choice for ourselves.


----------



## painterswife

JerimiahJ said:


> Does it need to be said? He feels that doing work on a gay wedding goes against his faith, that gay marriage goes against the word of his chosen deity. He is not alone in that notion, nor should he be bullied and destroyed by GVMT for expressing it and living his life by it.
> 
> Personally, I would have baked the cake. Money is money, and I have zero problems with same-sex marriage. But I value our freedom to make that choice for ourselves.


He however baked a cake for a wedding for some dogs. Either wedding cakes are for different sex couples only because of your religion or they are for everyone.


----------



## Evons hubby

JerimiahJ said:


> Does it need to be said? He feels that doing work on a gay wedding goes against his faith, that gay marriage goes against the word of his chosen deity. He is not alone in that notion, and he should not be bullied and destroyed by GVMT for expressing it and living his life by it.
> 
> Personally, I would have baked the cake. Money is money, and I have zero problems with same-sex marriage. But I value our freedom to make that choice for ourselves.


But he was not being asked to "work on a gay wedding", he was simply asked to do what he was in business to do... bake a cake. He wasnt asked to donate his time, effort or ingredients. He would have been paid his asking price for a product that was routine in his line of work. When that cake left his hands, it would have no longer been his to be offended by or have control over.

He was not bullied nor destroyed by anyone but himself.... and his own bigotry.


----------



## JerimiahJ

painterswife said:


> He however baked a cake for a wedding for some dogs. Either wedding cakes are for different sex couples only because of your religion or they are for everyone.


Dogs are not people, silly. There was no actual marriage involved. 

I wonder if it was a same-sex dog marriage...:hrm:


----------



## JerimiahJ

Yvonne's hubby said:


> But he was not being asked to "work on a gay wedding", he was simply asked to do what he was in business to do... bake a cake. He wasnt asked to donate his time, effort or ingredients. He would have been paid his asking price for a product that was routine in his line of work. When that cake left his hands, it would have no longer been his to be offended by or have control over.


And he chose not to work for them, he turned down their offer. He was within his rights. This is not about a shopkeeper selling an item.

No one should have to work for anyone else against their will. EVER. I don't care whose 'good idea' it is.


----------



## painterswife

JerimiahJ said:


> Dogs are not people, silly. There was no actual marriage involved.
> 
> Meanwhile, back in the real world...


Did you just call me silly?

Legal marriage no, marriage ceremony yes. Does he ask if all marriage ceremonies he makes wedding cakes for are legal? He used is religion as a reason to discriminate. He proved that weddings cakes don't matter to his religion.


----------



## Trainwrek

JerimiahJ said:


> And he chose not to work for them, he turned down their offer. He was within his rights. This is not about a shopkeeper selling an item.
> 
> No one should have to work for anyone else against their will. EVER. I don't care whose 'good idea' it is.


You see Jeremiah, what you are missing here is that these people are completely incapable of recognizing their own hypocrisy. Religious guy has no right imposing his morality on them, but they applaud when a man is run out of business based on their own moral beliefs. They are doing exactly the same thing, and using all the same arguments. The politically correct people of today are the same people that supported discriminatory laws in the past. They just changed sides. They believe that their morality is the right one, and they are totally justified in imposing it on you.

That's political correctness at it's core. Affirmative action basically was supposed to fix discrimination of blacks by discriminating against whites. Now we are discriminating against christians to fix discrimination of gays. There's no progress there. They are incapable of understanding that the problem is not gays, or christians, or blacks, or white males, its them.


----------



## JerimiahJ

painterswife said:


> Did you just call me silly?
> 
> Legal marriage no, marriage ceremony yes. Does he ask if all marriage ceremonies he makes wedding cakes for are legal? He used is religion as a reason to discriminate. He proved that weddings cakes don't matter to his religion.


I did. Twice, actually. You keep going back to this dog thing as though it is an argument that holds even a drop of water. It was not a wedding cake, it was a "wedding cake." A gag. 

I have the right to decide whether or not to enter into contract with any one, for any reason...or no reason at all.


----------



## painterswife

JerimiahJ said:


> I did. Twice, actually. You keep going back to this dog thing as though it is an argument that holds even a drop of water. It was not a wedding cake, it was a "wedding cake." A gag gift.
> 
> I have the right to decide whether or not to enter into contract with any one, for any reason...or no reason at all.


If a wedding gift can be a gag gift then it is not something protected by his religious beliefs.


----------



## Evons hubby

JerimiahJ said:


> No one should have to work for anyone else against their will. EVER. I don't care whose 'good idea' it is.


You are aware that the doctor who invented the technic for storing blood plasma to be used for transfusions bled to death on the hospital steps because there was a time in this country when "nobody had to work for anyone they didnt want to"? Right? Me? I am kinda glad we are getting passed all that nonsense. Hospitals no longer are allowed to discriminate, legally they have to work for anyone who walks or crawls or is carried through their doors. This to you is a bad thing?


----------



## Trainwrek

painterswife said:


> *The country as a whole gets to decide on what morals make it into laws. Those morals should not be religion specific but human decency specific.*
> 
> 
> 
> Who says where their morals should come from? Who made you the authority on who gets to impose their morals on someone else? Ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Please tell me how two people of the same sex marrying is forcing anything on you. We keep asking that question Kirk but you keep ignoring it.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It isn't. But forcing a business man with religious convictions that preclude him from entering into a contract IS. And who is Kirk? Why do you keep calling me that?
Click to expand...


----------



## painterswife

JerimiahJ said:


> I did. Twice, actually. You keep going back to this dog thing as though it is an argument that holds even a drop of water. It was not a wedding cake, it was a "wedding cake." A gag gift.
> 
> I have the right to decide whether or not to enter into contract with any one, for any reason...or no reason at all.


If a wedding gift can be a gag gift then it is not something protected by his religious beliefs. 

You don't have the right to discriminate when you sell things here in the US if you are a open to the public business. You might like to think so but the facts prove otherwise.


----------



## Trainwrek

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You are aware that the doctor who invented the technic for storing blood plasma to be used for transfusions bled to death on the hospital steps because there was a time in this country when "nobody had to work for anyone they didnt want to"? Right? Me? I am kinda glad we are getting passed all that nonsense.


You're glad and you like it, so you feel entitle to impose your morality on others? But you kicked and screamed that the religious guy had no right to impose his morals on you. Why do you think you have the right to force people to do what want, but nobody has the right to impose their values on you?


----------



## painterswife

Trainwrek said:


> painterswife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who says where their morals should come from? Who made you the authority on who gets to impose their morals on someone else? Ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't. But forcing a business man with religious convictions that preclude him from entering into a contract IS. And who is Kirk? Why do you keep calling me that?
> 
> 
> 
> I am not the entire country so I would say that means I don't get to decide. I do get to have an opinion though.
Click to expand...


----------



## JerimiahJ

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You are aware that the doctor who invented the technic for storing blood plasma to be used for transfusions bled to death on the hospital steps because there was a time in this country when "nobody had to work for anyone they didnt want to"? Right? Me? I am kinda glad we are getting passed all that nonsense.


Not sure what you're getting at...comparing a contract for a wedding cake to man's life? You're really reaching on that one. I do not agree that these scenarios are similar in any way.

Individual liberty and freedom are not nonsense to be gotten past, at least not where I come from. Many gave up their lives to secure them. It bothers me to see it handled in such irresponsible fashion by a fascist government. I am sorry that you do not see this.


----------



## JerimiahJ

painterswife said:


> If a wedding gift can be a gag gift then it is not something protected by his religious beliefs.


Says who? You? Please.

What facts?


----------



## JerimiahJ

painterswife said:


> You don't have the right to discriminate when you sell things here in the US if you are a open to the public business. You might like to think so but the facts prove otherwise.



Not selling things, but rather entering into a contract for a service.


----------



## painterswife

JerimiahJ said:


> Not selling things, but rather entering into a contract for a service.


Advertising wedding cakes for sale is selling, sorry to burst your bubble.


----------



## painterswife

JerimiahJ said:


> Says who? You? Please.


Which statement would you like me to respond to? Both have gone through the legal system and they have ruled against both. I agree.


----------



## Evons hubby

JerimiahJ said:


> I have the right to decide whether or not to enter into contract with any one, for any reason...or no reason at all.


:umno: A lot of folks seem to hold this opinion.... but it just aint so.... I am pretty sure there is a feller who used to run a bakery that could explain it better to you than I can. When you advertise a product or service for sale to the public... you become legally obligated to sell that product or service to the public. You give up your right to pick and choose your clients when you open your doors to the public.


----------



## Evons hubby

JerimiahJ said:


> Says who? You? Please.
> 
> What facts?


says who? the courts, and they are backed up by our Constitution.


----------



## Trainwrek

Yvonne's hubby said:


> says who? the courts, and they are backed up by our Constitution.


:hysterical::hysterical: And the courts in the 1930's said segregation was the law. Do you agree with segregation? I bet you would have, and probably regurgitate the same arguments.


----------



## JerimiahJ

Yvonne's hubby said:


> :umno: A lot of folks seem to hold this opinion.... but it just aint so.... I am pretty sure there is a feller who used to run a bakery that could explain it better to you than I can. When you advertise a product or service for sale to the public... you become legally obligated to sell that product or service to the public. You give up your right to pick and choose your clients when you open your doors to the public.


Disagree. I own a consulting company, I turn down contracts all the time. I do not need to give any reason. I dare anyone to try drag me into court for it, I will bankrupt them. This guy spoke his mind and was singled out and crucified by the mob for his point of view. If he had not stated that he took issue with same-sex marriage, this case would have ended up in the Judge's wastebasket.

This case was politicized and sensationalized. They used the ridiculous example of a wedding cake for a dog to get the political result that they were looking for.

Just because they do it don't make it right. This guy got skewered for his religious convictions. I do not call that just or right.


----------



## kasilofhome

Shop owner refuse to sell spray paint to youths a week befor Halloween...they openly discriminate by age as vandalism goes against their values. So the miss out on such sales. do not cake shop owners have the freedom to to accept work and not be forced to work for mobey? Think about some on welfare the can't be forced to work but a taxpayer can ....upside down


----------



## Trainwrek

kasilofhome said:


> Shop owner refuse to sell spray paint to youths a week befor Halloween...they openly discriminate by age as vandalism goes against their values. So the miss out on such sales. do not cake shop owners have the freedom to to accept work and not be forced to work for mobey? *Think about some on welfare the can't be forced to work but a taxpayer can ....upside down*


Exactly


----------



## painterswife

JerimiahJ said:


> Disagree. I own a consulting company, I turn down contracts all the time. I do not need to give any reason. I dare anyone to try drag me into court for it, I will bankrupt them. This guy spoke his mind and was singled out and crucified by the mob for his point of view. If he had not stated that he took issue with same-sex marriage, this case would have ended up in the Judge's wastebasket.
> 
> This case was politicized and sensationalized. They used the ridiculous example of a wedding cake for a dog to get the political result that they were looking for.
> 
> Just because they do it don't make it right. This guy got skewered for his religious convictions. I do not call that just or right.


He did give a reason and he could not back it up with proof. He got sued and he lost.


----------



## Evons hubby

JerimiahJ said:


> Not sure what you're getting at...comparing a contract for a wedding cake to man's life? You're really reaching on that one. I do not agree that these scenarios are similar in any way.
> 
> Individual liberty and freedom are not nonsense to be gotten past, at least not where I come from. Many gave up their lives to secure them. It bothers me to see it handled in such irresponsible fashion by a fascist government. I am sorry that you do not see this.


Those scenarios are exactly the same.... one feller refusing to provide a service commonly afforded to the public, to another feller because of his religion. That is plain and simple bigotry. I will agree with you, a bit different outcomes in the two cases, but it was still the very same reason. I also agree with you whole heartedly about the need to protect all of our citizens freedoms. The difference between us only seems to be with the issue of whose freedoms should be protected? Just those who happen to look and dress like us? go to our church? Hang out together at the same pubs..... or everyones. I think everyones rights and freedoms need to be protected.... even those whose skin is a different shade of brown, or those who attend a different church, and yes, even those who engage in what I consider to be repulsive sex acts. Everyone should be able to buy a durned cake... and any foolish baker who refuses to sell one to someone because of his choice of marriage partner is not only a poor businessman, but an obvious bigot as well.


----------



## Evons hubby

Trainwrek said:


> You're glad and you like it, so you feel entitle to impose your morality on others? But you kicked and screamed that the religious guy had no right to impose his morals on you. Why do you think you have the right to force people to do what want, but nobody has the right to impose their values on you?


I didnt say I had a right to impose my values or morals on anyone.... Heck, I dont have enough of either one to be sharing with anyone! All I am saying is that no one has the right to discriminate against others for reasons of race, religion (or lack thereof), ethnicity, etc etc. If you have a product or service advertised for sale to the public, sell it to the public... any and all of them, not just the ones you happen to agree with or like... but all of them.


----------



## JerimiahJ

painterswife said:


> He did give a reason and he could not back it up with proof. He got sued and he lost.


He doesn't have to provide proof. The evidence of his faith was in his persistence, but that was ignored (along with his religious freedom) in favor of political pandering.

I wonder how this would have went if he refused a contract for a Klu Klux Klan wedding cake...


----------



## Evons hubby

JerimiahJ said:


> Disagree. I own a consulting company, I turn down contracts all the time. I do not need to give any reason. I dare anyone to try drag me into court for it, I will bankrupt them. This guy spoke his mind and was singled out and crucified by the mob for his point of view. If he had not stated that he took issue with same-sex marriage, this case would have ended up in the Judge's wastebasket.
> 
> This case was politicized and sensationalized. They used the ridiculous example of a wedding cake for a dog to get the political result that they were looking for.
> 
> Just because they do it don't make it right. This guy got skewered for his religious convictions. I do not call that just or right.


I am quite sure many people refuse to enter contracts that dont suit their needs, and there is absolutely nothing wrong nor illegal with that. However if one refuses a real estate contract (rental, sales, lease etc) that would satisfy their needs as advertised, and the only reason they refuse said contract is because of the persons religious beliefs, their race, ethnicity... then it might just be interesting to see who bankrupts whom when it goes to court.  

The reason I refer to the real estate contracts is because I was a full time real estate agent for over a decade and am familiar with those particular laws. Apparently the courts are also dealing with other discriminatory practices using similar laws.


----------



## painterswife

JerimiahJ said:


> He doesn't have to provide proof. The evidence of his faith was in his persistence, but that was ignored (along with his religious freedom) in favor of political pandering.
> 
> I wonder how this would have went if he refused a contract for a Klu Klux Klan wedding cake...


Your opinion. I disagree and the courts did as well.


----------



## JerimiahJ

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Those scenarios are exactly the same.... one feller refusing to provide a service commonly afforded to the public, to another feller because of his religion. That is plain and simple bigotry. I will agree with you, a bit different outcomes in the two cases, but it was still the very same reason. I also agree with you whole heartedly about the need to protect all of our citizens freedoms. The difference between us only seems to be with the issue of whose freedoms should be protected? Just those who happen to look and dress like us? go to our church? Hang out together at the same pubs..... or everyones. I think everyones rights and freedoms need to be protected.... even those whose skin is a different shade of brown, or those who attend a different church, and yes, even those who engage in what I consider to be repulsive sex acts. Everyone should be able to buy a durned cake... and any foolish baker who refuses to sell one to someone because of his choice of marriage partner is not only a poor businessman, but an obvious bigot as well.


Disagree. Homosexuality is neither race nor religion.

Any person has a right to medical treatment regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, political views... on this we can agree. 

I do not, however, agree that the government has the correct philosophical position when it rules that a free man is required to enter into a business contract against his will and religious practice for ANY reason.


----------



## kasilofhome

Can I demand that a kosher butcher handle the processing of my pig
Or a Muslim butcher?

Can I demand a rapper perform but only do traditional polka music.

We have a clue that this was to force the homosexual lifestyle on the baker. Not the baker bully the homosexual. I use homosexual because a lot of folk use slang and I want to call a spade a spade with respect by using the proper term.


----------



## JerimiahJ

painterswife said:


> Your opinion. I disagree and the courts did as well.


I think that you disagree BECAUSE of the court's ruling.

I think you go the way the wind blows.


----------



## JerimiahJ

kasilofhome said:


> Can I demand that a kosher butcher handle the processing of my pig
> Or a Muslim butcher?
> 
> Can I demand a rapper perform but only do traditional polka music.
> 
> We have a clue that this was to force the homosexual lifestyle on the baker. Not the baker bully the homosexual. I use homosexual because a lot of folk use slang and I want to call a spade a spade with respect by using the proper term.


You can do all of those things, and they are free to turn down your business.


----------



## Evons hubby

JerimiahJ said:


> He doesn't have to provide proof. The evidence of his faith was in his persistence, but that was ignored (along with his religious freedom) in favor of political pandering.
> 
> I wonder how this would have went if he refused a contract for a Klu Klux Klan wedding cake...


Due to his bigoted stance in this case... I sincerely doubt he would have refused to bake a cake for his buds.


----------



## Paumon

Non sequiturs.



JerimiahJ said:


> Would you have the GVMT penalize a consumer for choosing not to do business with a person or group that had opposing religious beliefs?


How would the government know about it? How would the person you chose not to do business with know about it, unless you said something to them and made a big issue about it?



JerimiahJ said:


> Do I have to buy the cake for my daughter's commencement from a gay-atheist baker?


You don't have to buy it from anyone you don't want to and nobody would know about it if you didn't say anything about it. 

How would you know that the baker you get your daughter's commencement cake from is or is not a gay atheist? Are you going to go around to all the available bakers asking them what their religious beliefs are before you choose who you will do business with? 

If all the bakers choose not to do business with you because they think you were discriminatory because you asked personal questions about their religion or because you told them what your own religion is and explained you want a baker with the same beliefs as you, what will you do about a cake for your daughter? Will you take a baker to court because of that?

And last but not least - why not get your daughter's commencement cake from a gay atheist? If a gay atheist bakes her cake does that mean the cake is corrupted and befouled? Will the spirit and purpose of the cake be wrong and sullied or somehow toxic because it was baked by somebody who doesn't care about your religious beliefs?

Because if it is then that means that everyone everywhere has huge problems with all the food they buy from all suppliers everywhere.


----------



## Trainwrek

JerimiahJ said:


> I think that you disagree BECAUSE of the court's ruling.
> 
> I think you go the way the wind blows.


Right, she says the courts ruled so it must be correct. The courts ruled that segregation was the law for decades, so I guess segregation on the basis of color was morally correct. Boys, we might have us a couple of segregationists here.


----------



## painterswife

JerimiahJ said:


> I think that you disagree BECAUSE of the court's ruling.
> 
> I think you go the way the wind blows.


Maybe you should read some more of my postings then. I have said it several times that I would have had no problem with him posting a sign and making sure that he verified that everything he advertised to the public and sold was not used to celebrate a wedding that went against his religion.

I would not like it or agree with it but I would support his right with regards to his religion if he walked that path and made sure to never stepped off of it.


----------



## Trainwrek

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Due to his bigoted stance in this case... I sincerely doubt he would have refused to bake a cake for his buds.


Anti-chistian...isn't that bigotry? Anti-freedom....isnt that communism?


----------



## kasilofhome

Y. H.

Do those same rules apply to ALL type a real estate contracts. There is another line. Because one can legally do just that.


----------



## Evons hubby

JerimiahJ said:


> Disagree. Homosexuality is neither race nor religion.
> 
> Any person has a right to medical treatment regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, political views... on this we can agree.
> 
> I do not, however, agree that the government has the correct philosophical position when it rules that a free man is required to enter into a business contract against his will and religious practice for ANY reason.


If homosexuality doesnt fall under the "religion" tent... how can anyone be opposed to it on the basis of their own religion? It is either a religious issue, or it is not. ya just cant have it both ways.


----------



## painterswife

What does how someone has sex have to do with this discussion? Getting married has nothing to do with how you have sex or even if you do.


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> Y. H.
> 
> Do those same rules apply to ALL type a real estate contracts. There is another line. Because one can legally do just that.


There are some exceptions in the Fair Housing Act. Something about having four residences and the owner occupying one of them... and there is one about age discrimination if the entire housing unit is restricted to over 50 or 55. But overall, one is not allowed to discriminate in housing in most situations. When I was in the game our office avoided any discrimination practices of any kind.... if someone had the price of admission... they could play, didnt care how old, what sex, how many kids, pretty much anyone could get in the game. 

Our ONLY discriminatory habit was that of allowing letters requesting information accidentally fall in the trash if they came from a correctional facility. Now, if an ex con were to call or come by in person.... that was different, and they were treated just like everyone else... if they had the price of admission, they could play too.


----------



## MDKatie

kasilofhome said:


> Can I demand that a kosher butcher handle the processing of my pig
> Or a Muslim butcher?
> 
> Can I demand a rapper perform but only do traditional polka music.


Uh, that's not the same thing at all. If they don't provide those services, you can't demand them. It's not like the gay couple sued the baker because he refused to bake them a lasagna.



> We have a clue that this was to force the homosexual lifestyle on the baker.


Really? They wanted him to bake a cake and engage in homosexual physical acts? C'mon.


----------



## kasilofhome

Homosexuality is duly noted as evil sin in the bible. So are many other sins so being rejected for 

Congratulations on you 2000th trick 
With out getting a sexual transmitted
Disease 

Cake is out to

No a homosexual asking for a birthday cake to be made is fine
Hate the sin....not the dinner

Now some of you all seem to be able to reason none emotionally some where their hearts on you sleeves.

Rejecting making a cake for a sin is akin to being an accomplices of the sin... 
Now aiding a bank robber by driving the get away car is wrong to the point that one gets to meet a judge live and in person.

You guys know you just want people to give up the freedom and some of us stand firm.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

painterswife said:


> What does how someone has sex have to do with this discussion? Getting married has nothing to do with how you have sex or even if you do.


Because it speaks to the point of born that way or not and the mental state which plays a heavy rule in who is protected by law and what laws. And even though it was extremely valid it looks to have been deleted.


----------



## painterswife

Vahomesteaders said:


> Because it speaks to the point of born that way or not and the mental state which plays a heavy rule in who is protected by law and what laws.


So then you have no problem with two people of the same sex getting married as long as they don't have sex that your religion disapproves of?

Do you ask all heterosexual couples if they are having sex you disapprove of before you do business with them?


----------



## Oggie

Vahomesteaders said:


> Because it speaks to the point of born that way or not and the mental state which plays a heavy rule in who is protected by law and what laws. And even though it was extremely valid it looks to have been deleted.


Religion is a protected class and folks aren't necessarily "born that way."


----------



## Vahomesteaders

painterswife said:


> So then you have no problem with two people of the same sex getting married as long as they don't have sex that your religion disapproves of?
> 
> Do you ask all heterosexual couples if they are having sex you disapprove of before you do business with them?


I think anybody who does that is mental. It's a sick fetish. If homosexuality is a disorder it changes everything.


----------



## kasilofhome

Why would it change if born that way...innately man is selfish with survival need chartering many major choices.

Freewill to avoid sin or tempting others to sin (see cake maker for homosexual wedding cake) is a fact of man's need for the grace of God for flesh will always fail. Temptation is always there. Each of us face our own temptations. I understand that the effort to do follow is important. 

Sex 

Boose

Lazy

Etc.


----------



## Evons hubby

Trainwrek said:


> Anti-chistian...isn't that bigotry? Anti-freedom....isnt that communism?


I dont recall anyone here being "anti Christian". Anti freedom covers a lot of ground.... not just communism, but I agree that people should be free to purchase any commondity put on the market if they have the where-with-all to pay the price of admission. 

ETA: ouch! I really should have waited for one more post before I posted this! LOL


----------



## Tricky Grama

ddgresham1 said:


> Whom refers to people not animals. Have you ever referred to animals as whom? You shouldn't as it is incorrect.


I'm almost out of crayons & puppets but one more time...a poster said we live in a country where we can marry anyone we want.
I answered: try to marry your daughter or sister.
No spin.
No animals.
Owls say who? 
Just in case there's another post about something not relevant.


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> Trainwrek said:
> 
> 
> 
> What service don't they provide. They bake cakes. Some of those cakes are used in weddings. The couple asked them to bake a cake. They planned to use that cake in their wedding celebration. What was out of the realm of the bakery's usual business of making and selling cakes?
> 
> 
> 
> The baker didn't have the double groom topper.
Click to expand...


----------



## wally

MDKatie said:


> You're welcome to walk around naked all day long in your own home, in private. Public nudity is illegal.


It is totally legal in Topeka,Ks..The city is trying to make it ileagal


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> He however baked a cake for a wedding for some dogs. Either wedding cakes are for different sex couples only because of your religion or they are for everyone.


I have to laugh every time this is brought up, like it proves something! Like it's an analogy! There WAS NO marriage b/w the dogs! NONE. It's as relevant as saying...well he did a cake for a cat's confirmation.


----------



## Oggie

Cat's can't be confirmed.

Mainly because they are filled with evil.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> If a wedding gift can be a gag gift then it is not something protected by his religious beliefs.
> 
> You don't have the right to discriminate when you sell things here in the US if you are a open to the public business. You might like to think so but the facts prove otherwise.


Wow you're not gonna rest til you have this bakers inventory completely revamped.


----------



## MDKatie

For the record, I think you should be able to marry anyone you want at all..even relatives. Not that *I* would ever want to do that, but hey, if 2 consenting adults want to do that, why not? I guess there's a chance of producing children with issues, but there are plenty of children with issues born to unrelated people every day, right?


And the argument of "they shouldn't get married because it offends me" is like saying, "You can't have a cookie because I'm on a diet." (saw that online recently)


----------



## unregistered353870

painterswife said:


> I disagree. Did not compare same sex to dogs. No thin argument for me , pretty clear that the baker did not have religious convictions about wedding cakes when he made one for dogs.


I don't get this line of thought. Maybe his religion prohibits gay marriage but not dog marriage.


----------



## Evons hubby

Tricky Grama said:


> Wow you're not gonna rest til you have this bakers inventory completely revamped.


The man bakes cakes for a living...... I really dont see any need in revamping his inventory... Flour, sugar, lard.... etc. I dont see how a wedding cake is going to change its ingredients much between a "same sex" wedding and that of any one elses, or a dog wedding. :shrug:


----------



## mmoetc

Trainwrek said:


> So basically, you all are for imposing your moral opinions on people through force of government, but when the christian guy wants to impose his values on you then "your values have no business in my life". What a load of hypocrisy.
> 
> If you really didnt want moral opinions to be pushed onto other people who don't agree, then you support people's right to sell their cakes to whomever they want. It's very ironic how people are completely incapable of viewing themselves by the same lens that they view other's through.


I'm not trying to impose my morals on anyone and as far as I have been able to tell neither did the couple in question. They just wished to buy a cake. The same cake that would have been sold to the heterosexual couple in front of them or the heterosexual couple directly behind them without any questions being asked if those unions fit the morals of bakers. I don't really care what your or anyone else's moral stance is. It shouldn't affect me. If, however, you use that moral stance illegally to discriminate against me I will act against such treatment. I won't ask you to change your morals. I will ask you to treat me as you would any other customer. If you refuse I will stand up for my morals and bring what recourse I can against you. Not in an effort to change your morals but to get you to comply with the law. I actually admire the bakers for standing up for their beliefs even though I disagree with them and agree with the judge's decision. They were willing to put their money where their mouth was, so to speak. I've said it before and I'll repeat it, living according to one's moral compass often has a price. Its something many seem to have forgotten. I'll also point out again that there are many ways the bakers could sell wedding cakes and remain true to their beliefs. Operating a store front that invites the public in to purchase them is not one of them.


----------



## kasilofhome

The cake baker should be forced to be an accomplice in violating what to him is a sin for which even tempting some or aiding holds him accountable to God. I understand that this does not make sense to those who are not with such faith and conviction. If I might try another analogy.

Many tribal people view it wrong or evil to have their photo take where as quite a few post every life event on face book. What the typical American would view as not causing harm to the person being in a photo could cause the person in the photo great stress, worry, fear, or anxiety.

We make these mistakes sometime quite innocently but the impact on the other person is quite severe.

It appears that to that cake baker that is the case.

I had a neighbor in scarsdale that we often walked together. Me with a poodle and he for his health. He was disabled and he enjoyed the company. He also was a strict Jew.
He stumbled and fell once I went o give him aid ....this very peaceful man became quickly very angry as I had touched him. Once steadied he hobbled faster than I had ever expected him to move. He did not come out for days I called on his family and I was invited the next week to lunch. 

His faith did not allow him to be touched by any woman not him wife or family. My touching him in getting him.up caused him to need to be cleaned be for some weekly ritual.

He would have rather me to stay and wait with him as he shifted to be able to get up or that I return to him family for help.

I find it so insensitive to not value the cake maker's beliefs and only focus on the homosexuals who could have shown respect to the cake maker and ask for a referral to another cake maker.


----------



## kasilofhome

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The man bakes cakes for a living...... I really dont see any need in revamping his inventory... Flour, sugar, lard.... etc. I dont see how a wedding cake is going to change its ingredients much between a "same sex" wedding and that of any one elses, or a dog wedding. :shrug:


The cake topping is in a cake shop not planning on doing homosexual wedding cakes bride and groom. Often times they are one unit. Not planning on homosexual weddings would mean not stocking homosexual toppers.

Thus his inventory might not be suited for the cake, in as much as such a demanding....as shown by not accepting a refusal to make a cake they might have tossed an equal fit if there was no topper or a heterosexual topper on their
Wedding cake.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> The cake baker should be forced to be an accomplice in violating what to him is a sin for which even tempting some or aiding holds him accountable to God. I understand that this does not make sense to those who are not with such faith and conviction. If I might try another analogy.
> 
> Many tribal people view it wrong or evil to have their photo take where as quite a few post every life event on face book. What the typical American would view as not causing harm to the person being in a photo could cause the person in the photo great stress, worry, fear, or anxiety.
> 
> We make these mistakes sometime quite innocently but the impact on the other person is quite severe.
> 
> It appears that to that cake baker that is the case.
> 
> I had a neighbor in scarsdale that we often walked together. Me with a poodle and he for his health. He was disabled and he enjoyed the company. He also was a strict Jew.
> He stumbled and fell once I went o give him aid ....this very peaceful man became quickly very angry as I had touched him. Once steadied he hobbled faster than I had ever expected him to move. He did not come out for days I called on his family and I was invited the next week to lunch.
> 
> His faith did not allow him to be touched by any woman not him wife or family. My touching him in getting him.up caused him to need to be cleaned be for some weekly ritual.
> 
> He would have rather me to stay and wait with him as he shifted to be able to get up or that I return to him family for help.
> 
> I find it so insensitive to not value the cake maker's beliefs and only focus on the homosexuals who could have shown respect to the cake maker and ask for a referral to another cake maker.


Baking a cake is not a sin. Following your example the cake baker should be asking every customer what their purchase is for so they don't become part of anything that could be a sin.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

painterswife said:


> Baking a cake is not a sin. Following your example the cake baker should be asking every customer what their purchase is for so they don't become part of anything that could be a sin.


Knowing to do what's right and not doing it is sin. The baker probably had baked a cake for a gay person because they didn't tell him. This couple obviously told him they were gay so he refused. The Bible says remove yourself from even the appearance of sin and evil. So he did what he was biblically told to do.


----------



## mmoetc

kasilofhome said:


> The cake baker should be forced to be an accomplice in violating what to him is a sin for which even tempting some or aiding holds him accountable to God. I understand that this does not make sense to those who are not with such faith and conviction. If I might try another analogy.
> 
> Many tribal people view it wrong or evil to have their photo take where as quite a few post every life event on face book. What the typical American would view as not causing harm to the person being in a photo could cause the person in the photo great stress, worry, fear, or anxiety.
> 
> We make these mistakes sometime quite innocently but the impact on the other person is quite severe.
> 
> It appears that to that cake baker that is the case.
> 
> I had a neighbor in scarsdale that we often walked together. Me with a poodle and he for his health. He was disabled and he enjoyed the company. He also was a strict Jew.
> He stumbled and fell once I went o give him aid ....this very peaceful man became quickly very angry as I had touched him. Once steadied he hobbled faster than I had ever expected him to move. He did not come out for days I called on his family and I was invited the next week to lunch.
> 
> His faith did not allow him to be touched by any woman not him wife or family. My touching him in getting him.up caused him to need to be cleaned be for some weekly ritual.
> 
> He would have rather me to stay and wait with him as he shifted to be able to get up or that I return to him family for help.
> 
> I find it so insensitive to not value the cake maker's beliefs and only focus on the homosexuals who could have shown respect to the cake maker and ask for a referral to another cake maker.


The cake baker is not forced to bake cakes for those he is morally opposed to. He can refuse and face the legal consequences which is what happened. He should actually be applauded for taking such action and paying such a price for his beliefs. The Jewish gentleman was devout in his beliefs and felt that his God expected him to atone for even an accidental touching that was no fault of his own. It doesn't matter to me what the depth of the baker's beliefs are. That us between him and his God. I care only that I can walk into any bakery at any time they are open and buy any donut in the case without restriction. I have to ask, however, how will they explain to their God all of the immoral weddings they participated in by baking cakes for people they did not question.


----------



## mmoetc

Vahomesteaders said:


> Knowing to do what's right and not doing it is sin. The baker probably had baked a cake for a gay person because they didn't tell him. This couple obviously told him they were gay so he refused. The Bible says remove yourself from even the appearance of sin and evil. So he did what he was biblically told to do.


And he did and he paid the worldly price for it. Hopefully for him he'll reap the reward he deserves in whatever afterlife there may be.


----------



## painterswife

Vahomesteaders said:


> Knowing to do what's right and not doing it is sin. The baker probably had baked a cake for a gay person because they didn't tell him. This couple obviously told him they were gay so he refused. The Bible says remove yourself from even the appearance of sin and evil. So he did what he was biblically told to do.


No problem then. The baker should from now on post a sign or tell all customers that he can't know who the wedding cake is for so that he does not participate in the sin.

The customer gets a cake and the baker is sin free.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Oggie said:


> Cat's can't be confirmed.
> 
> Mainly because they are filled with evil.


Ack! I forgot!


----------



## mmoetc

painterswife said:


> No problem then. The baker should from now on post a sign or tell all customers that he can't know who the wedding cake is for so that he does not participate in the sin.
> 
> The customer gets a cake and the baker is sin free.


I would argue that he's not. Willful ignorance should never be an excuse for bad action. If you have the ability to know, you have the obligation to know. If your buddy asks for a ride to the bank and shows up in a ski mask holding a shotgun you might be held as an accomplice. The proper action is to post all the rules of their religion regarding marriage and not sell a wedding cake to anyone who doesn't meet every criteria.


----------



## painterswife

mmoetc said:


> I would argue that he's not. Willful ignorance should never be an excuse for bad action. If you have the ability to know, you have the obligation to know. If your buddy asks for a ride to the bank and shows up in a ski mask holding a shotgun you might be held as an accomplice. The proper action is to post all the rules of their religion regarding marriage and not sell a wedding cake to anyone who doesn't meet every criteria.


I agree. No point in having morals if you don't use them all the time.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Aha! I thought of something...since the baker obviously does NOT have double-groom-toppers in his inventory, is he now obliged to order those & have in stock?


----------



## MDKatie

Tricky Grama said:


> Aha! I thought of something...since the baker obviously does NOT have double-groom-toppers in his inventory, is he now obliged to order those & have in stock?


No. He can tell people to go buy their own topper if they don't like what he has available.


----------



## Evons hubby

Tricky Grama said:


> Aha! I thought of something...since the baker obviously does NOT have double-groom-toppers in his inventory, is he now obliged to order those & have in stock?


Nope. And my service station is not required to stock, sell, or mount a particular brand of tires either, I do however expect him to sell the brand he does have to me if I want them.... even if I plan on robbing the bank and using my own car as the getaway car.


----------



## kasilofhome

There is a problem 
The constitution has not been followed in as much as his right to express his faith was removed by the judge and you you got what you want and that is fine with you.

Close your eyes and jump for joy. 

No,law was made in as much as judges can not make laws.....go back to school if you think I am wrong.... the make rulings.... regs...they define and clarifies and the make mistakes.

Yes the baker is the hero and the homosexuals were not hero the are the bullies in this issue


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> There is a problem
> The constitution has not been followed in as much as his right to express his faith was removed by the judge and you you got what you want and that is fine with you.
> 
> Close your eyes and jump for joy.
> 
> No,law was made in as much as judges can not make laws.....go back to school if you think I am wrong.... the make rulings.... regs...they define and clarifies and the make mistakes.
> 
> Yes the baker is the hero and the homosexuals were not hero the are the bullies in this issue


Some where there is a line where your actions with regards to your faith and how it impacts others meet. Those lines get tested by our legal system with regards to our laws and our constitution. There is never going to be a perfect situation where they don't conflict is some way.


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> Yes the baker is the hero and the homosexuals were not hero the are the bullies in this issue


I dont think there were any "heros" in this case... The baker was a jerk, and so were these particular homosexuals... The baker refused service to law abiding citizens based upon their sexual preferences.... he was nothing more than any other bigot. The couple were also being jerks, they should have simply found another baker who was a bit more enlightened to the world as it exists, not how some would like it to be.


----------



## kasilofhome

Yes paint it does thus the bakers are the heroes and the homosexuals the bullies.
Y, no it was not that they were homosexual but that the homosexuals demanded that he become an accomplice in the sin

A
Lastly painter

You may believe that you determine what is sin for everyone...as if you are God but you are not. Each one of us must determine want is sin for us.

For me I can drink booze if I want my dearest girlfriend can not.
Why because of her fact that drinking booze causes her loose the will power to follow God as she understand and personally ultimately wants to.

But your eyes are blind.


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> Y, no it was not that they were homosexual but that the homosexuals demanded that he become an accomplice in the sin


Oh, I was not aware that they insisted he have sex with them. That would indeed change things! I was under the impression they just wanted him to bake a cake.


----------



## kasilofhome

Law abiding people do not force people to work for them.
There was no contract to fulfill. 
Ok let's examine if there was an implied contract.

If the homosexuals wanted a cake off the shelf there would have been an implied contract butt they wanted to commission ....special cake to meet a special request. 
Thus no implied contract was involved simply negotiations for which they were refused.

So, should gunshops take on the banks that have provided credit card servicing to the for years but now refuse because they do not .....due to political control want to continue servicing them.

The gunshops are making dealing with this. These are law abiding businessmen. Why is this not discriminating ....


----------



## kasilofhome

No, accomplice aids but does not partake in the deed. Expanding one vocabulary is helpful. Glad I could help you.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Yes paint it does thus the bakers are the heroes and the homosexuals the bullies.
> Y, no it was not that they were homosexual but that the homosexuals demanded that he become an accomplice in the sin
> 
> A
> Lastly painter
> 
> You may believe that you determine what is sin for everyone...as if you are God but you are not. Each one of us must determine want is sin for us.
> 
> For me I can drink booze if I want my dearest girlfriend can not.
> Why because of her fact that drinking booze causes her loose the will power to follow God as she understand and personally ultimately wants to.
> 
> But your eyes are blind.


My eyes are wide open and I don't need a God to tell me what is right or wrong. I don't decide for anyone what they believe is sin. I do however see hypocrisy quite clearly.

I also don't need anyone to proselytize to me because they think I am blind because I don't believe in God. Feel free to exchange ideas but please stop with telling me what or who you think I am or am not.


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> Law abiding people do not force people to work for them.
> There was no contract to fulfill.
> Ok let's examine if there was an implied contract.
> 
> If the homosexuals wanted a cake off the shelf there would have been an implied contract butt they wanted to commission ....special cake to meet a special request.
> Thus no implied contract was involved simply negotiations for which they were refused.
> 
> So, should gunshops take on the banks that have provided credit card servicing to the for years but now refuse because they do not .....due to political control want to continue servicing them.
> 
> The gunshops are making dealing with this. These are law abiding businessmen. Why is this not discriminating ....


Ok, lets stay with the oranges and lose the apples...

There was an implied contract... that the baker would "negotiate" to bake special order cakes... just like he was doing with other couples. Had they simply been unable to come to terms due to time frames involved, or price, and no contract was able to be reached, that wouldnt have been a problem. The problem arose when the baker refused to negotiate because they were gay. That is discrimination and it is illegal.


----------



## kasilofhome

Wedding cakes are not off the shelf cakes but custom cakes thus negotiated as to what the baker can do as well as cost.


----------



## wr

The baker and the cake seems to be a big deal on this thread and I honestly can't understand why a business owner would decline business the way that would set them up for a lawsuit when it could have been done diplomatically. 

I've been in service industries for many years and have declined people's business more than a few times for various reasons but have never insulted anyone nor could I ever be accused of discrimination. It's done so simply with so little fuss that I get the impression the bakery owner wanted the attention.


----------



## kasilofhome

painterswife said:


> No problem then. The baker should from now on post a sign or tell all customers that he can't know who the wedding cake is for so that he does not participate in the sin.
> 
> The customer gets a cake and the baker is sin free.


How is it that you can absolve sin....many faiths leave that job to God......is there something about you that you have not shared with us.

Talk about religious control.


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> Wedding cakes are not off the shelf cakes but custom cakes thus negotiated as to what the baker can do as well as cost.


Exactly. This baker did not refuse because of his ability to bake the cake, nor did he refuse because they would not meet his price... he refused because he was a bigot... no more, no less. You can put all the colorful icing on this cake you want.... but its still made of pure bigotry and that just doesnt sell well, off the shelf, or customized to order.


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> No, accomplice aids but does not partake in the deed. Expanding one vocabulary is helpful. Glad I could help you.


I am aware of an accomplices role in any crime... It is one who assists a criminal in committing a crime. and thats why its called an accomplice instead of criminal. Baking a wedding cake and selling it, is not being an accomplice any more than a man who sells a used car to a bank robber, its being a baker. He was not asked to assist in any crime, or sin, he was asked to bake a cake. Glad I could help.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> How is it that you can absolve sin....many faiths leave that job to God......is there something about you that you have not shared with us.
> 
> Talk about religious control.


I don't absolve or place sin. I am just giving an example where the baker( or others in this situation) can skirt the situation because they seem to think baking a wedding cake for a same sex couple is a sin.


----------



## painterswife

When did two people of the same sex getting married become a sin? I thought it was all about the sex not the marriage.


----------



## kasilofhome

wr said:


> The baker and the cake seems to be a big deal on this thread and I honestly can't understand why a business owner would decline business the way that would set them up for a lawsuit when it could have been done diplomatically.
> 
> I've been in service industries for many years and have declined people's business more than a few times for various reasons but have never insulted anyone nor could I ever be accused of discrimination. It's done so simply with so little fuss that I get the impression the bakery owner wanted the attention.




I accept that I was not present thus I do not know I'd he was diplomatic or not....I do not know if the cake buyers were there to simply control a religious man. I get the impression that the cake maker wanted to make cakes and never believed his faith would be at risk.

Having rented out many homes and apts I know when people applying to rent a no pet place would claim but it's a service animal I would state service animals are not pets... please bring the service animals paperwork from the training site along with vet records.


----------



## Evons hubby

painterswife said:


> When did two people of the same sex getting married become a sin? I thought it was all about the sex not the marriage.


The baker must have been peekin! While being a peep may not be a sin, it is illegal, and disgusting.


----------



## AngieM2

The subject of the baker and the same sex couple have been gone over at least 3 or 4 pages, and nothing except annoying the other has been accomplished.
Time for another subject.


----------

