# social issues



## bruce2288 (Jul 10, 2009)

Read thread on gay marriage and got thinking. There is the group that has a firm line in the sand and is against it, and the tolerant its okay group. I understand the position of the anti group it is pretty black and white. the tolerant group, I would ask are there lines not to be crossed? How about a 15 year old marrying a 40yr old? or 14 or13 or 12? Remember they are in love, let them be happy. Polygamy?
It seems that to an increaseing number of people there is no right and wrong, maybe that is a good thing but doesn't seem so to me. If gay partnerships, civil unions what ever you want to call it get some legal standing fine, but make it marriage that deminishes the institution of marriage.
Back to my original thought. Is right and wrong, no longer acceptable in this country?


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Right and wrong do still exist but in the minds of far leftists, they have reversed meanings. Right is now wrong and wrong is now right in their world. Nothing is 100% but taken as a group, leftists think it is wrong to kill a murderer but okay to kill an unborn child. They think it is right for government to take from those who earned it and give it to those who made no effort. The list is long. Evil is seen as good to them and good is evil. I call it muddled thinking. The Bible calls it a reprobate mind.


----------



## edcopp (Oct 9, 2004)

When I was a youngster the word "Gay" meant happy, joyous, and free. Now the socialist, communists who are taking over our country have managed to change our constitution to the point where it describes some group of people. 

We lose our rights one nibble at a time, while at the same time we manage to be required to pay all the expenses for the change of our society.

This once was a matter that was kept in a closet at very little cost to the public. Now we spend hundreds of billions on dollars for the irresponsible habits of others.

Protected class of people, NO WAY.

LAWYERS dream retirement plan, you bet.

As a taxpayer I can't afford to play this game any more.


----------



## Lazydaisy67 (Jan 28, 2008)

I have a gay sister in law AND a gay brother in law. I treat them with respect and kindness, they're welcome in my home. I genuinely like them. I do not have to "agree" with what they do in their bedroom to be able to be kind to them. I don't think they were born that way, I believe it was their choice. I believe it's a sin, but I also think having sex before marriage is a sin, and adultery, and murder, etc. etc. It no more or less of a sin than any other sin.
To my husband and I there are so many other qualities to his siblings than how they have sex. Just like for me, I am SOOOO many other things in addition to a heterosexual. I don't get the whole "it's who I am" thing?? Are human being not more that the way in which they have sex? 

I asked a gay man once, "why do gay people want to get married so badly?" His reply was, "We don't want to get married, we just don't want anybody telling us that we can't!"


----------



## Pearl B (Sep 27, 2008)

Part of the difference is that 14,13, 12 yr olds are not consenting adults.



> How about a 15 year old marrying a 40yr old? or 14 or13 or 12? Remember they are in love, let them be happy. Polygamy?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

bruce2288 said:


> Read thread on gay marriage and got thinking. There is the group that has a firm line in the sand and is against it, and the tolerant its okay group. I understand the position of the anti group it is pretty black and white. the tolerant group, I would ask are there lines not to be crossed? How about a 15 year old marrying a 40yr old? or 14 or13 or 12? Remember they are in love, let them be happy. Polygamy?
> It seems that to an increaseing number of people there is no right and wrong, maybe that is a good thing but doesn't seem so to me. If gay partnerships, civil unions what ever you want to call it get some legal standing fine, but make it marriage that deminishes the institution of marriage.
> Back to my original thought. Is right and wrong, no longer acceptable in this country?


There is still right and wrong in our country.
What we lack is equality. Some people think it is their right to make decisions for other people. They get to choose what is right and wrong for everyone.
If a single person feels they have a right, that right should go for every other person.
I think we are still a ways off before we will see true equality.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Pearl B said:


> Part of the difference is that 14,13, 12 yr olds are not consenting adults.


But that is only due to our laws. In many cultures they are eligible to marry at that age and it was legal in this country also at one time.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

pancho said:


> There is still right and wrong in our country.
> What we lack is equality. Some people think it is their right to make decisions for other people. They get to choose what is right and wrong for everyone.
> If a single person feels they have a right, that right should go for every other person.
> I think we are still a ways off before we will see true equality.


I disagree. Society sets the rules through our elected officials according to what most people feel is best for society at large. That's why we have laws against robbery, rape, and many other things. If we're going for pure equality, the guy with no bread should have the right to rob you of half of yours. Society's views may be changing as to what it wants but a strong argument can be made that as these changes have gradually occurred, the quality of our society has declined. One needs only compare the number of unwed mothers, murders, rapes, school dropouts, STD's, etc. today with 50 years ago to see the result.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

poppy said:


> I disagree. Society sets the rules through our elected officials according to what most people feel is best for society at large. That's why we have laws against robbery, rape, and many other things. If we're going for pure equality, the guy with no bread should have the right to rob you of half of yours. Society's views may be changing as to what it wants but a strong argument can be made that as these changes have gradually occurred, the quality of our society has declined. One needs only compare the number of unwed mothers, murders, rapes, school dropouts, STD's, etc. today with 50 years ago to see the result.


Oh yeah the"good old days" arguement. 

Those good old days were not good for everyone. Just sayin.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Bruce, I'd say it's not that complicated. What consenting adults do is between them, and it's generally ok. When you bring in someone that's not a consenting adult (even if they are consenting) then we have a problem.

ETA: What I'm saying is it's pretty black and white on both sides of the issue. One side says we should be able to tell two consenting adults no, the other side says we shouldn't. Anything else added to the discussion is generally fluff and straw-men. (Not always, but generally) When you for example suggest we would allow minors to be involved, it's a strawman and has no place in the discussion.

What about polygamy? Why do you care if I took 3 wives? If I'm happy and my 3 wives were happy what's the problem? IS it that I'm getting all the chicks and leaving less to go around?


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

gideonprime said:


> Oh yeah the"good old days" arguement.
> 
> Those good old days were not good for everyone. Just sayin.


Are you suggesting things are better today? There are more blacks killed every weekend in cities in this country than were lynched by ******** in a year long ago. Judging by OWS, things are not good for everyone now. Back then, society worked much better. People were not running to doctors in hordes to get mind altering drugs, plus buying illegal ones on the street. There was some bootlegging, but not nearly to the extent drugs are abused today. Average people did not have a lot, but they did have family. They grew up responsibly and proceeded to raise their own families without a thought about why government should step in to help for the most part.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

poppy said:


> Are you suggesting things are better today? There are more blacks killed every weekend in cities in this country than were lynched by ******** in a year long ago. Judging by OWS, things are not good for everyone now. Back then, society worked much better. People were not running to doctors in hordes to get mind altering drugs, plus buying illegal ones on the street. There was some bootlegging, but not nearly to the extent drugs are abused today. Average people did not have a lot, but they did have family. They grew up responsibly and proceeded to raise their own families without a thought about why government should step in to help for the most part.


 So what I'm reading here is things are worse now because black people are killing each other in record numbers. Back in the good ol' days they were kept in check....


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

bruce2288 said:


> Back to my original thought. Is right and wrong, no longer acceptable in this country?


Whose call is it, as to what is "right and wrong" ?

Your's? Mine?

The bottom line is that some, decide that their interpretation of the bible, which says that gays, not only should not be allowed to marry, but should be killed, is what the laws should be based on, but sine killing is illegal, they will just not let them get married, since they _own _marriage.

The other side, thinks that since gays are also indeed human and therefore, should be allowed the same human rights, that "straight" people get.

Is one side really more valid than the other?

Sure, just ask the opposing side. :grit:


----------



## CountryWannabe (May 31, 2004)

poppy said:


> There are more blacks killed every weekend in cities in this country than were lynched by ******** in a year long ago. Judging by OWS, things are not good for everyone now. Back then, society worked much better. People were not running to doctors in hordes to get mind altering drugs, plus buying illegal ones on the street.



WOW!! I had no idea that gays were murdering blacks and ruining society as we know it. The ones I know are regular, hardworking people that have jobs and pay taxes. Just goes to show...:huh:

Mary


----------



## AR Cattails (Dec 22, 2005)

poppy said:


> But that is only due to our laws. In many cultures they are eligible to marry at that age and it was legal in this country also at one time.


Yep. When I was 12 years old, in the sixth grade, my best friend told me one day that she wasn't coming back to school anymore after that week. She said her mama said she had to get married to this guy. She didn't want to but she had to do what her mama said. The guy was probably 5-10 years older than her. It was an arranged marriage between two back-in-the-hills, country families. 

That area I was raised in had a lot of that kind of stuff going on. Also a lot of families interbreeding. But I didnt' understand any of that at that time. It was about 1969. All I knew was that my world was turned upside down and I missed my best friend a lot.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

InvalidID said:


> So what I'm reading here is things are worse now because black people are killing each other in record numbers. Back in the good ol' days they were kept in check....


I read it as liberals have gotten their way socialy for so long, that things have gotten worse because of their policy's everywhere they have been implimented. Look at welfare(slaves), school systems(epic fail), war(can't win one because of jags), environmentalism(loss of jobs, freedom of choice), incredibaly high taxes, etc... yeah, I like the good old days better!


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

I think one reason people like the old days is they didn't know as much about the world in general. It is easy to be happy if you don't know much of what is going on.
As we get older we learn what people are capable of doing.
People are really about the same now as they were in the old days.
Just more of them and communication is much better.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

JeffreyD said:


> I read it as liberals have gotten their way socialy for so long, that things have gotten worse because of their policy's everywhere they have been implimented. Look at welfare(slaves), school systems(epic fail), war(can't win one because of jags), *environmentalism(loss of jobs, freedom of choice)*, incredibaly high taxes, etc... yeah, I like the good old days better!


yeah those good old days when rivers would catch fire. FIsh caught in them were inedible thanks to industrial waste dumped directly into the river. Air was so poluted that it would make you sick just to breathe it.:huh:

OOOOWWWWEEEEEE! The good old days.:smack


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

JeffreyD said:


> I read it as liberals have gotten their way socialy for so long, that things have gotten worse because of their policy's everywhere they have been implimented. Look at welfare(slaves), school systems(epic fail), war(can't win one because of jags), environmentalism(loss of jobs, freedom of choice), incredibaly high taxes, etc... yeah, I like the good old days better!


 Some of those things are good though. A certain amount of environmentalism is good for example. Have you ever seen the exhaust from an airliner in the 70s? There was a lot of unburned oil there. Leaded gas was kinda dumb right? Of course the liberal hippie jackasses took it too far...

War, the draft ended so we don't send all our young off to fight and die for things we have no business being involved in. That's not all bad.

High taxes? You're kidding me right? Taxes are lower now than they have been in 60+ years!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Morals and right and wrong do not need to be based and should not be, in religion. I am sure that people were living lives that embraced the 10 commandments long before they were know about. 

Consenting adults should be able to do what they want as long as they involve no one else. Polygamy is fine with me as long as each person involved had the right to decline. 
14 or 15 is not an adult even though they play at adult things.

The rate of unwed mothers may have gone up but that does not mean it is wrong. I see no problem with single parents of either sex. I am a result of that type of family. I have gone on to a stable no divorce marriage as have all of my 5 brothers and sisters.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

poppy said:


> Right and wrong do still exist but in the minds of far leftists, they have reversed meanings. Right is now wrong and wrong is now right in their world. Nothing is 100% but taken as a group, leftists think it is wrong to kill a murderer but okay to kill an unborn child. They think it is right for government to take from those who earned it and give it to those who made no effort. The list is long. Evil is seen as good to them and good is evil. I call it muddled thinking. The Bible calls it a reprobate mind.


You statements are ridiculous. That you and anyone who would categorize an entire group of people in such a way without knowing them is down right sad and not worth anyone taking the time to read them.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

gideonprime said:


> yeah those good old days when rivers would catch fire. FIsh caught in them were inedible thanks to industrial waste dumped directly into the river. Air was so poluted that it would make you sick just to breathe it.:huh:
> 
> OOOOWWWWEEEEEE! The good old days.:smack


Never saw a river on fire. I live in Los Angeles, so I remember the air quality, it wasn't great, but we never got sick from it! Used to go swimming in the L.A. river, were still here!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

InvalidID said:


> Some of those things are good though. A certain amount of environmentalism is good for example. Have you ever seen the exhaust from an airliner in the 70s? There was a lot of unburned oil there. Leaded gas was kinda dumb right? Of course the liberal hippie jackasses took it too far...
> 
> War, the draft ended so we don't send all our young off to fight and die for things we have no business being involved in. That's not all bad.
> 
> High taxes? You're kidding me right? Taxes are lower now than they have been in 60+ years!


I lived under the flight path for Burbank airport, so I do remember jet exhaust. Never bothered us, never left anything on our plants or cars, so it must have evaporated. I really miss leaded gas. I hate the alcohol laden carp we get now, it's great for fuel lines and anything rubber in your fuel system! Taxes are not lower then they have been. I pay more overall than I ever have. Got some proof that we pay less now than 60 years ago. Not possible. Our state sales tax is higher than ever, state income tax is higher than ever, business taxes are higher than ever. Car taxes are higher, dog taxes are higher, cigarette taxes are higher, luxury taxes are higher. What isn't? I wanna live in your world!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> You statements are ridiculous. That you and anyone who would categorize an entire group of people in such a way without knowing them is down right sad and not worth anyone taking the time to read them.


You did! What wasn't true?


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

JeffreyD said:


> Never saw a river on fire. I live in Los Angeles, so I remember the air quality, it wasn't great, but we never got sick from it! Used to go swimming in the L.A. river, were still here!


Look up "Cuyahoga River fire" on google. 

You'll find out about a burning river in Ohio.

Also the "Schuylkill River" in PA has been on fire.

You are lucky you're in LA I guess.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

painterswife said:


> You statements are ridiculous. That you and anyone who would categorize an entire group of people in such a way without knowing them is down right sad and not worth anyone taking the time to read them.


Really? Which party is against the death penalty? Which one wants to allow abortion? Which one wants government to collect more taxes and expand welfare programs? You're either playing dumb or are too naive to even know what your party stands for.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

poppy said:


> Really? Which party is against the death penalty? Which one wants to allow abortion? Which one wants government to collect more taxes and expand welfare programs? You're either playing dumb or are too naive to even know what your party stands for.


Do you not understand that there are people on both sides of all those situations in all the parties? That is neither naive or dumb it is a fact.

PS, I belong to no party.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

gideonprime said:


> Look up "Cuyahoga River fire" on google.
> 
> You'll find out about a burning river in Ohio.
> 
> ...


I wouldn't be here if we didn't own an areospace company that's based here.( were looking at moving to AZ) I've lived here on and off my entire life and can say with certainty that because of Californias liberal policy's things are much worse than ever before, like I said in my previous post. I do remeber the hype and miss information about things like ddt, and Love Canal, spotted owl, desert tortise, 3 spine sticle back fish, some toad that only showed up after a certain biologist looked for them.(they were geneticly identicle to the ones in his lab). I guess I'm lucky!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Do you not understand that there are people on both sides of all those situations in all the parties? That is neither naive or dumb it is a fact.


All the folks I have ever come across that live in section 8 housing, are liberal, all those I know that are collecting welfare are liberals, all those who want to tax me more are liberals. It;s proven that single parent households are not better than a traditional family unit of a husband and wife.


----------



## Haven (Aug 16, 2010)

The amount of HT members who seem to live in a little bubble where everything is left and right, and liberal and conservative is mind boggling.

It is amazing how eye opening and refreshing the world can be when you take the time to go out and meet people who do not belong to your religious or political cult. These politically obsessive and bigoted black/white posts are simply laughable when read by people who live outside "the bubble".


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

I don't believe "better" was ever said.

I would also venture they are better than a two parent family in which one of both parents is/are a rage filled alchoholic, or abuser, or pedophile or just don't give a ---- about the child they didn't want but had anyway.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Haven said:


> The amount of HT members who seem to live in a little bubble where everything is left and right, and liberal and conservative is mind boggling.
> 
> It is amazing how eye opening and refreshing the world can be when you take the time to go out and meet people who do not belong to your religious or political cult. These politically obsessive and bigoted black/white posts are simply laughable when read by people who live outside "the bubble".


It is amazing and so very sad.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

JeffreyD said:


> I lived under the flight path for Burbank airport, so I do remember jet exhaust. Never bothered us, never left anything on our plants or cars, so it must have evaporated. I really miss leaded gas. I hate the alcohol laden carp we get now, it's great for fuel lines and anything rubber in your fuel system! Taxes are not lower then they have been. I pay more overall than I ever have. Got some proof that we pay less now than 60 years ago. Not possible. Our state sales tax is higher than ever, state income tax is higher than ever, business taxes are higher than ever. Car taxes are higher, dog taxes are higher, cigarette taxes are higher, luxury taxes are higher. What isn't? I wanna live in your world!


 I can post a link later but my phone is smarter than I am so it has to wait. You can got to The Tax Foundation - Educating Taxpayers Since 1937 and look it up for yourself though.

Pulling this from memory I seem to remember the top tax rate in 1952 was 92 percent. The bottom rate (if you made more than 0 dollars) was 22 percent. Today the rates are 35 and 0 percent respectively. Federal taxes have never been lower in your life than they are today.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

gideonprime said:


> I don't believe "better" was ever said.
> 
> I would also venture they are better than a two parent family in which one of both parents is/are a rage filled alchoholic, or abuser, or pedophile or just don't give a ---- about the child they didn't want but had anyway.


It is all black and white to them and I don't mean with regards to race. There is no point in trying to have a discussion. They don't really want to understand other people, they just want to pontificate.


----------



## unregistered41671 (Dec 29, 2009)

painterswife said:


> It is all black and white to them and I don't mean with regards to race. There is no point in trying to have a discussion. They don't really want to understand other people, they just want to pontificate.


You might need to look in your mirror.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Possum Belly said:


> You might need to look in your mirror.


I look in the mirror all the time. I don't intentionally make sweeping statements. I don't believe that all Christians believe abortion is murder. I don't believe that all people that believe in religion are misguided. I don't believe that all who don't are evil. I don't believe that all people that need welfare are liberals . I don't believe that all Republicans believe in the death penalty.

I will take each person's statements and actions into account when I make a decision about how I feel about them.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

bruce2288 said:


> Back to my original thought. Is right and wrong, no longer acceptable in this country?


Right& Wrong Still exist. 
Always have. Always will.

It's just that for the last 3-4 generations 'the system' has brainwashed / programmed us to call wrong right, call right wrong. 
It has also programmed so many against anyone who holds fast to their faith that proclaims a clear right and wrong line.
It's human nature. Stained and riddled.
It's the evil one. He is the prince of this earth, of our air.

I don't think I have heard one proclaimed atheist say 'gay marriage is wrong'.
I wonder what all those who follow the religion of humanism would say to that. 
An atheist that disagrees with 'gay marriage' doesn't say this because of 'religious' reasons. 
I wonder how the humanists respond to him/her?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> It has also programmed so many against anyone who holds fast to their faith that proclaims a clear right and wrong line.


What if those who hold fast to their faith, are indeed wrong?

It's not like it has not happened before.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

InvalidID said:


> I can post a link later but my phone is smarter than I am so it has to wait. You can got to The Tax Foundation - Educating Taxpayers Since 1937 and look it up for yourself though.
> 
> Pulling this from memory I seem to remember the top tax rate in 1952 was 92 percent. The bottom rate (if you made more than 0 dollars) was 22 percent. Today the rates are 35 and 0 percent respectively. Federal taxes have never been lower in your life than they are today.


No one paid near those rates. There were many deductions back then that reduced the effective rate to about what they are today or even less. Those deductions vanished when they tried to simplify taxes years ago.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

InvalidID said:


> I can post a link later but my phone is smarter than I am so it has to wait. You can got to The Tax Foundation - Educating Taxpayers Since 1937 and look it up for yourself though.
> 
> Pulling this from memory I seem to remember the top tax rate in 1952 was 92 percent. The bottom rate (if you made more than 0 dollars) was 22 percent. Today the rates are 35 and 0 percent respectively. Federal taxes have never been lower in your life than they are today.


You didn't specify what taxes, I. Lump them all together. I just know what I pay. Are you also saying that the taxes I listed were higher than they are today. I agree about the smart phone though, that's what I'm on right now!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Haven said:


> You probably never will either, since atheists do not belong to a cult that teaches them to judge/hate/obsess with what other adults do behind closed doors in the bedroom.


Atheists are as much a cult as any other religion, and they do judge/ hate/ obsess as much, if not more than other folks! Get out and see the world for what it is, not the way you want it to be.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Haven said:


> You probably never will either, since atheists do not belong to a cult that teaches them to judge/hate/obsess with what other adults do behind closed doors in the bedroom.


No, they just hate and obsess about other things all on their own! Atheists are the most hatefull, greedy, self-centered folks I have ever met.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

JeffreyD said:


> No, they just hate and obsess about other things all on their own! Atheists are the most hatefull, greedy, self-centered folks I have ever met.


Sorry to hear it JD. 

The least tolerant most hateful folks I have met were religious people.

Not all Athiests are bad. 

Just as not all religious people are intolerant and hateful.

There are good and bad in all groups.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

gideonprime said:


> Sorry to hear it JD.
> 
> The least tolerant most hateful folks I have met were religious people.
> 
> ...


I agree that not all athiests are bad, just the ones I have had contact with have been. And yes, I also agree that there are good and bad from all walks of life.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

JeffreyD said:


> You didn't specify what taxes, I. Lump them all together. I just know what I pay. Are you also saying that the taxes I listed were higher than they are today. I agree about the smart phone though, that's what I'm on right now!


Much of what you listed are fees not taxes. Even still, I can only offer you the solution I found... Move out of California. 

But considering the federal tax rate from 60 years ago Id bet your taxes are still lower over all than theirs were.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Pearl B said:


> Part of the difference is that 14,13, 12 yr olds are not consenting adults.


IIRC, a 14 y.o. can be charged as an adult in a crime. If the government considers them adult enough to be held accountable for their actions why can't it say they are old enough to marry?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

InvalidID said:


> Much of what you listed are fees not taxes. Even still, I can only offer you the solution I found... Move out of California.
> 
> But considering the federal tax rate from 60 years ago Id bet your taxes are still lower over all than theirs were.


Really, Fees, you have got to be kidding! Nothing I listed is a fee, their ALL taxes. I pay more now in Federal taxes than I ever have before. I still have the same accountant that I've had for the last 18 years, she's as sharp as they come, I think she knows more about the tax codes than you do, unless your an accountant or work for the irs.

I know how much we pay and I know how much we've paid in the past. There are many more taxes we pay everyday lik gas taxes, employment taxes, property taxes, taxes on the inventory in stock, taxes in advance of what were going to sell, taxes on food, taxes on the fixtures at our company that we already paid taxes on and will continue to pay as long as were in business, taxes on my utilities, cell phones, landline, etc... the list is endless.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

gideonprime said:


> Oh yeah the"good old days" arguement.
> 
> Those good old days were not good for everyone. Just sayin.


yeah, the good old days were not good for the bums who wanted someone to give them everything. They like the new days much better.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

InvalidID said:


> Bruce, I'd say it's not that complicated. What consenting adults do is between them, and it's generally ok. When you bring in someone that's not a consenting adult (even if they are consenting) then we have a problem.
> 
> ETA: What I'm saying is it's pretty black and white on both sides of the issue. One side says we should be able to tell two consenting adults no, the other side says we shouldn't. Anything else added to the discussion is generally fluff and straw-men. (Not always, but generally) When you for example suggest we would allow minors to be involved, it's a strawman and has no place in the discussion.
> 
> What about polygamy? Why do you care if I took 3 wives? If I'm happy and my 3 wives were happy what's the problem? IS it that I'm getting all the chicks and leaving less to go around?


So if your 18 y.o. neighbor wants to marry his twin sister you'd give them your blessing?


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

watcher said:


> yeah, the good old days were not good for the bums who wanted someone to give them everything. They like the new days much better.


We had higher quality bums back then. I was raised about 2 blocks from a railroad on a state highway and saw literally hundreds of bums growing up. You could see 4 or 5 riding in a boxcar with the door open and their legs hanging down. Occasionally one or 2 would get off the train and hitchhike in front of our house and my parents often gave them a sandwich or something. We heard a few sad stories but mostly they were a happy go lucky bunch who knew they did not want to work and didn't expect others to provide their living. Today's bums are demanding thugs.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

poppy said:


> But that is only due to our laws. In many cultures they are eligible to marry at that age and it was legal in this country also at one time.


And they still are in many states.... depending upon circumstance. Parental consent... judicial permission.... pregnancy are among the special circumstances that permit children under 18 to get married. There is a difference between "consenting adults" and innocent children. Not so distant history (less than a decade) shows us several states allowed girls as young as 14 could marry without a parent or judges signature.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

right and wrong? according to whom? I like the basic foundation the founding fathers strived to create... freedom for all to live their lives as they durn well pleased..... as long as their pleasures did not infringe upon the next fellers freedoms. This pretty well sums up right and wrong.... do as you will, but leave room for the next feller, dont steal his stuff, dont break his arms, and legs, and whatever else you do... leave his wife and kids alone! I honestly dont get whats so very difficult to understand here. :shrug:


----------



## bruce2288 (Jul 10, 2009)

Thanks folks. I wasn't talking about legal or not but personal opinion. I think it is wrong to put clothes on dogs, but I don't think we need a law about it.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

watcher said:


> So if your 18 y.o. neighbor wants to marry his twin sister you'd give them your blessing?


 Blessing? Not a chance, though it's likely I'd mind my own business... and maybe search for a new neighborhood. It's interesting you'd equate gay to incest.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

bruce2288 said:


> Thanks folks. I wasn't talking about legal or not but personal opinion. I think it is wrong to put clothes on dogs, but I don't think we need a law about it.


 Oh, personal opinion outside of law? In that case I honestly don't care either way.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

JeffreyD said:


> Really, Fees, you have got to be kidding! Nothing I listed is a fee, their ALL taxes. I pay more now in Federal taxes than I ever have before. I still have the same accountant that I've had for the last 18 years, she's as sharp as they come, I think she knows more about the tax codes than you do, unless your an accountant or work for the irs.
> 
> I know how much we pay and I know how much we've paid in the past. There are many more taxes we pay everyday lik gas taxes, employment taxes, property taxes, taxes on the inventory in stock, taxes in advance of what were going to sell, taxes on food, taxes on the fixtures at our company that we already paid taxes on and will continue to pay as long as were in business, taxes on my utilities, cell phones, landline, etc... the list is endless.


 Oh yeah, I forgot what it's like in California. I told you I left for a reason. They are starting that crap here too and I'm going to have to move somewhere I won't like as much because of it.

If you're paying more now in Fed taxes than ever before it's because you're making more. I'd suggest talking to another accountant too, as I'm not paying more now than I was 2-4 years ago. In fact I got a break on taxes with the payroll tax holiday.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Right& Wrong Still exist.
> Always have. Always will.


True, but what's considered right or wrong changes over time. :shrug:


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

plowjockey said:


> *What if those who hold fast to their faith, are indeed wrong?*
> 
> It's not like it has not happened before.


That is an awesome question. 
If you are asking "what if The Faith, one is holding to is wrong"....I ask this:

What if Global Warming / Cooling is wrong?
What if Darwin is wrong?
What if Science is wrong?
What if the Mayan's are wrong?
What if Astrologers are wrong?
What if my Professor is wrong?

If you are asking "what if what the Faith tells them is wrong".....
All I have on that one is: 
That's why they call it 'faith'. 
It's really hard to explain on the internet.

I hope I answered your question. 
Please know that I am not being a jack wagon, and I am 'judging' no one. (My Faith in Christ tells me NOT to judge those who do not claim Him as their own). 

There are absolute truths, and there is a right and there is a wrong.
Otherwise earth would spin off her axis into space and we would all explode!!


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> There are absolute truths, and there is a right and there is a wrong.


Maybe, but you won't find them in the Bible.

Unless, of course, you believe that slaves really should obey their masters ... and the proper solution to rape is for the victim to marry her attacker.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

willow_girl said:


> Maybe, but you won't find them in the Bible.
> 
> Unless, of course, you believe that slaves really should obey their masters ... and the proper solution to rape is for the victim to marry her attacker.


:kissy:

Cleaned out my attic and thought of you.....
1990 was the last time the buc-o's were in the play offs. 
My dh went to a game and brought home a 'beer cup' as a souvenir. 
It went in a box, and in the attic.
Well.......as we were cleaning things out and throwing things away, we found the cup. 
I told him to put it next to the TV so the buc-o's could see it (like a rally cap) and start winning......

And they have won 8 out of the last 10 games!!
HAHHAHAHHAHAAH
DH said if they go to the play offs, he's gonna type up this story (with all the details) and mail them the cup!!!


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

You keep that cup right there missy! ound:

Hey, they did pretty good yesterday, even in the rain.

I figured if they could play baseball in the rain, I could spread mulch ... LOL.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

willow_girl said:


> You keep that cup right there missy! ound:
> 
> Hey, they did pretty good yesterday, even in the rain.
> 
> I figured if they could play baseball in the rain, I could spread mulch ... LOL.


I will take a picture of it and post it up. That cup is hilarious!
It was clear skies here yesterday! Transplanted a bunch of tomatoes into buckets. Got a running experiment with soil and location in my yard!!


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

I hope you have better luck with your tomatoes this year, Laura!


----------



## Ohio Rusty (Jan 18, 2008)

Laura Zone 5 wrote:
_It's just that for the last 3-4 generations 'the system' has brainwashed / programmed us to call wrong right, call right wrong. _

I don't know if it is necessarily brainwashing. Right and wrong evolve depending on what we legislate and how views/attitudes adapt and change.

At one time 11 and 12 years olds worked and died in coal mines. Then it was right, now it is wrong. 

At one time Black people were sold as property and wore chains. Then it was right, now it is wrong. 

Until recently cars never had air bags and few had seat belts. Then it was right, now it is wrong. 

Medicine bottles never came with a protective tamper -resistant seal. Then it was right, now it is wrong. 

I could go on and on with these changes to our society. No one today would even consider any of the above mentioned items as being OK. People will adapt to what issues are right and wrong. There are clearly issues that will never have a right -- murder, rape, robbery, theft, etc. Those aren't social issues. Biblically or not, those are crimes against people that all in a civilised soociety agree are wrong. The lines being drawn in the sand are social issues. Times change, people change. There will always be people against something, and there will always be people that will disagree with you as they have a different viewpoint. Much that is said here about these issues are correct on both sides of the fence. It's the parts we all disagree on that makes this such a hot and heated debate topic.

Ohio Rusty ><>

Pay cash --- Starve a bank.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

Ohio Rusty said:


> Laura Zone 5 wrote:
> _It's just that for the last 3-4 generations 'the system' has brainwashed / programmed us to call wrong right, call right wrong. _
> 
> I don't know if it is necessarily brainwashing. Right and wrong evolve depending on what we legislate and how views/attitudes adapt and change.
> ...


Awesome post!


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

poppy said:


> Right and wrong do still exist but in the minds of far leftists, they have reversed meanings. Right is now wrong and wrong is now right in their world. Nothing is 100% but taken as a group, leftists think it is wrong to kill a murderer but okay to kill an unborn child. They think it is right for government to take from those who earned it and give it to those who made no effort. The list is long. Evil is seen as good to them and good is evil. I call it muddled thinking. The Bible calls it a reprobate mind.


The Bible tells us that in the last days men will think of good as evil and evil as good.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

InvalidID said:


> Blessing? Not a chance, though it's likely I'd mind my own business... and maybe search for a new neighborhood. It's interesting you'd equate gay to incest.


There's a very simple reason; both have been considered taboo in most cultures for generations. If you are going to break one taboo why not another?

I "equate gay" with every other sin. Everything from gossiping to adultery to murder. Each is equally "bad" in God's eyes.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> True, but what's considered right or wrong changes over time. :shrug:


Only in man's eyes. The standards set in the Bible have not changed.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

watcher said:


> Only in man's eyes. The standards set in the Bible have not changed.


Which if fine if you believe in that particular version of the troof.

Those of us who do not buy into the bible are not ruled by those standards. If you want to be that's fine . . .don't get into a gay marriage.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Ohio Rusty said:


> Laura Zone 5 wrote:
> _It's just that for the last 3-4 generations 'the system' has brainwashed / programmed us to call wrong right, call right wrong. _
> 
> I don't know if it is necessarily brainwashing. Right and wrong evolve depending on what we legislate and how views/attitudes adapt and change.
> ...


There is one glaring question which must be asked, WHY? Why was it "right" then but "wrong" now. I'll wait for your answer before I give my POV.

But there is an even bigger issue. As you point out w/o a set standard what is considered right and wrong change. What if the standards change as they did in Germany from in the 30s and 40s? What if the standard changes to where it is 'right' to say, kill anyone over 6' 4"? According to your thought train it would then be 'wrong' for you to see a tall person and allow them to live. Are you willing to kill someone because society says its wrong not to?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

I don't believe in the bible or any religion.
I stay out of churches.
If you don't believe in gays, do not have a relationship with one.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

watcher said:


> There is one glaring question which must be asked, WHY? Why was it "right" then but "wrong" now. I'll wait for your answer before I give my POV.
> 
> But there is an even bigger issue. As you point out w/o a set standard what is considered right and wrong change. What if the standards change as they did in Germany from in the 30s and 40s? What if the standard changes to where it is 'right' to say, kill anyone over 6' 4"? According to your thought train it would then be 'wrong' for you to see a tall person and allow them to live. Are you willing to kill someone because society says its wrong not to?


So now gays marrying is equated to the murder of the jews in Nazi germany and for some reason tall people?:smack

I call Red flag false herring!


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Ohio Rusty said:


> Laura Zone 5 wrote:
> _It's just that for the last 3-4 generations 'the system' has brainwashed / programmed us to call wrong right, call right wrong. _
> 
> I don't know if it is necessarily brainwashing. Right and wrong evolve depending on what we legislate and how views/attitudes adapt and change.
> ...


No, that was never "right". It was permitted. It was promoted. It was allowed.



> At one time Black people were sold as property and wore chains. Then it was right, now it is wrong.


No, that was never "right". It was permitted. It was forced. It was promoted. It was allowed.



> Until recently cars never had air bags and few had seat belts. Then it was right, now it is wrong.


No, it was not 'right' then and it's not 'right' now. 
Then, there was not enough statistics to show how adding a feature BENEFITED humans. So the stats and technology was not there.
Now, our ability to CHOOSE has been taken away from us. That's not right either.
We have the information, yet our government tells us, by way of silly laws, that we are not intelligent enough (or 'evolved' enough) to make our own decisions.



> Medicine bottles never came with a protective tamper -resistant seal. Then it was right, now it is wrong.


No, it was not 'right' then and it's not 'right' now. 
Then, there was not enough statistics to show how adding a feature BENEFITED humans. So the stats and technology was not there.
Now, our ability to CHOOSE has been taken away from us. That's not right either.
We have the information, yet our government tells us, by way of silly laws, (AND parent(s) do not parent anymore) that we are not intelligent enough (or 'evolved' enough) to make our own decisions.



> I could go on and on with these changes to our society. No one today would even consider any of the above mentioned items as being OK. People will adapt to what issues are right and wrong. There are clearly issues that will never have a right -- murder, rape, robbery, theft, etc. Those aren't social issues.


You are saying that murder, rape, robbery and theft are not social issues? Don't these crimes affect.....society?



> Biblically or not, those are crimes against people that all in a civilised soociety agree are wrong.


That same society approves of the death penalty and abortion and euthanasia of the old.......



> The lines being drawn in the sand are social issues. Times change, people change. There will always be people against something, and there will always be people that will disagree with you as they have a different viewpoint. Much that is said here about these issues are correct on both sides of the fence. It's the parts we all disagree on that makes this such a hot and heated debate topic.
> 
> Ohio Rusty ><>
> 
> Pay cash --- Starve a bank.


There is nothing new under the sun.
People are the same as they were the day they were Created. 
It's just what those folks accept and don't accept; THAT is what has changed.
Humans are no different. Issues are the same as they have always been....at the root.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

pancho said:


> I don't believe in the bible or any religion.
> I stay out of churches.
> If you don't believe in gays, do not have a relationship with one.


Deal.
If the gays don't force their way and their lifestyle on me, I won't push Jesus on them.
I think that's a GREAT deal!!


----------



## Pearl B (Sep 27, 2008)

Sonshine said:


> The Bible tells us that in the last days men will think of good as evil and evil as good.


The Bible also tells us that the good will be separated from the bad and saved.

The Bible also warns against excessive zealotry.

Do you think people can be forced to follow and worship Gods ways?


----------



## Pearl B (Sep 27, 2008)

watcher said:


> IIRC, a 14 y.o. can be charged as an adult in a crime. If the government considers them adult enough to be held accountable for their actions why can't it say they are old enough to marry?


Basically the government can and does whatever its wants, whether its right or wrong to due so.

I would have to agree that minors should be held accountable on the same level as adults. I dont.

There is a reason they are not adults, its because they are not.
Biologically, mentally, physically, emotionally.

Using that example and logic, why dont we send minors to the battlefields?

Should minors be held accountable as adults in criminal acts?

Are not minors that are charged as adults suspected of rather egregious crimes?

As far as that one goes, I think there are criminal acts that are comitted, that no matter the age, they are basically unforgivable in the sense that a person who commits such, can never really be rehabbed enough to not be a clear and present danger to those around them.

I dont put the sexual acts of 2 consenting adults in the same category.

I dont even put the the marriage of a minor (15 and above)to an adult in the same category.

Things were different in those days. Often the best a girl/women could hope for was a good marriage to a decent man. 

And if that would have often worked out well, do you think any one, especially women would have wanted that changed? 

Is not often the motivation for change due to the fact people are unhappy with the way things are?


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Pearl B said:


> The Bible also tells us that the good will be separated from the bad and saved.
> 
> The Bible also warns against excessive zealotry.
> 
> Do you think people can be forced to follow and worship Gods ways?


Right.
Right.
No.
It's a choice. Some choose to. Some don't.
Those who do chose to follow and Worship God: they should not be forced to bow to other gods.
Those who do not choose to follow and Worship God should not be forced to bow to God.
Freedom of Choice in it's purest form!!!


----------



## Pearl B (Sep 27, 2008)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Right.
> Right.
> No.
> It's a choice. Some choose to. Some don't.
> ...


Exactlty!! And I do believe thats what God wants.

Its also what the founding forefathers tried to set up.

A system where people were free to live and worship as they saw fit,
provided it didnt interfere with others rights to do the same.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

"There is the group that has a firm line in the sand and is against it,"

Then the people in that group should never marry anybody of the same gender. I can't see where they think they get the "right" to try to tell other people who they should or shouldn't marry, though. Funny how many of the people who say MYOB seem to forget what is their business.:huh:


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

bruce2288 said:


> Read thread on gay marriage and got thinking. There is the group that has a firm line in the sand and is against it, and the tolerant its okay group. I understand the position of the anti group it is pretty black and white. the tolerant group, I would ask are there lines not to be crossed? How about a 15 year old marrying a 40yr old? or 14 or13 or 12? Remember they are in love, let them be happy. Polygamy?
> It seems that to an increaseing number of people there is no right and wrong, maybe that is a good thing but doesn't seem so to me. If gay partnerships, civil unions what ever you want to call it get some legal standing fine, but make it marriage that deminishes the institution of marriage.
> Back to my original thought. Is right and wrong, no longer acceptable in this country?


There is the legal (state) institution of marriage, and there is the religious institution of marriage. The two are simply not the same, as evidenced by the early Mormons, "open" marriages, and so on. Am I personally threatened because the state says two gays can marry? meh. I don't think so, any more than I am threatened when an old-school Mormon wants to practice polygamy. Heh, look up how many wives Solomon or David had sometime (and the ages). The state wants to be able to exact more tribute (taxes) from me. That affects me a lot more than if Joe beds Ralph and gets a tax deduction and the right to be at his bedside as he dies.

There is not a "right" way to live life. There are guidelines that seem to work, but even those aren't absolute. Those who claim there is a "right" way are into self-deception and attempting to cover their tracks. Example: The Bakkers were both sad and funny in their ministry. 

The problem with "right" and "wrong" thinking is that just about every "right" has a wrong built in to it, and the reverse. Lincoln absolutely went against the Constitution when he invaded the South. There are no ifs, ands, or buts, it was illegal and unconstitutional. However, had he not done so, we might not have survived World War II. Was he right or wrong?

A child has a hand slapped as he reaches for a stove burner. Technically, it is an assault. Is it right or wrong. There is a teaching about avoiding legalisms. Some may have missed that class.

The Bellamy salute, which gained favor in the U.S. to show patriotism towards our flag, was co-opted by the NAZIs, and became symbolic of the excesses of NAZI extremism. It was the _same_ salute. In the U.S., it was gaining favor as "good", but immediately got labeled "bad" when used by a foe. Hmmmmm... Right or wrong?

As I examine the original post a little deeper, I find that I can re-frame it.

I could cite examples of marriages between people of wildly different ages in early America. It was actually fairly common, for various reasons, until recently. I can remember "bachelor" men and "spinster" women who were obviously living with same sex partners in a pretty rigid New England town.

What the original post says (re-framing it) is "Shouldn't we accept the increasing restrictions on our lives as being "good" and proper?", and "Shouldn't the government be even MORE restrictive than it already is?"

There are some married couples that want fish on Friday, church on Sunday morning, and the required sex to have children on Thursdays between 8:45PM and 9 PM. If the two of them want that, great. If they want to impose those rules on me, or the rules of their beliefs in general, then I'm going to tell them "That isn't RIGHT."

Go ahead, tell me I am WRONG.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Pearl B said:


> The Bible also tells us that the good will be separated from the bad and saved.
> 
> The Bible also warns against excessive zealotry.
> 
> Do you think people can be forced to follow and worship Gods ways?


No, you can't force a person to have faith in God, but on the other hand, don't Christians have as much right to fight for what they believe as others? If a law goes against my Christian principals I will fight tooth and nail to get it changed. If I see my country going down a lane that goes against my Christian values I will speak out and try to prevent it from happening. I teach children in Church. In the past 26 years of teaching them I have had to delve into areas I never thought I would have to because of how lax moral values have become in their everyday lives. They see things on the television today that they didn't when I was a kid. So, as a Christian I will try to put into office those who respect my values. Those who are not Christians have the right to do the same.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Sonshine said:


> No, you can't force a person to have faith in God, but on the other hand, don't Christians have as much right to fight for what they believe as others? If a law goes against my Christian principals I will fight tooth and nail to get it changed. If I see my country going down a lane that goes against my Christian values I will speak out and try to prevent it from happening. I teach children in Church. In the past 26 years of teaching them I have had to delve into areas I never thought I would have to because of how lax moral values have become in their everyday lives. They see things on the television today that they didn't when I was a kid. So, as a Christian I will try to put into office those who respect my values. Those who are not Christians have the right to do the same.



I guess you are fine with religious groups "fighting tooth and nail" for what they believe is the principals of their religion? Do you have a right to impose your religious beliefs on others?

Many wars have been fought, people killed because they thought their religion was right had had precedence.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

painterswife said:


> I guess you are fine with religious groups "fighting tooth and nail" for what they believe is the principals of their religion? *Do you have a right to impose your religious beliefs on others?*
> 
> Many wars have been fought, people killed because they thought their religion was right had had precedence.


No. Absolutely not.
I know how much *I* hate it when I am forced to adhere to other religions.

***See posts 76 and 79****

Sinful things like this ARE going to happen and it's going to get WORSE.
AS BAD as that is, for a Believer and Follower of Christ, we know that means He's closer to coming back than He was yesterday......We were given "signs".


----------



## dollmaker (Jun 24, 2010)

painterswife said:


> I guess you are fine with religious groups "fighting tooth and nail" for what they believe is the principals of their religion? Do you have a right to impose your religious beliefs on others?
> 
> Many wars have been fought, people killed because they thought their religion was right had had precedence.


Do non-religious folks have a right to impose their secular beliefs on others?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

dollmaker said:


> Do non-religious folks have a right to impose their secular beliefs on others?


How are they doing that? By asking to be left alone do live their lives as they see fit? Why do you have the right to live yours as you want but they don't. It is very hypocritical to think that you can have your religion and they can not have theirs.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

dollmaker said:


> Do non-religious folks have a right to impose their secular beliefs on others?


Of course they do!
Look at the media.....the newspaper.....magazines....movies.....sitcoms.
Then look into the schools, colleges, and other 'learning places'.
Then look at the work place.

Yep. You are totally cool, kum-by-ya 'co-existing' until you actually have a 'belief or faith system' (last time I check um, Islam denounced homosexuality too......) and ESPECIALLY if you claim 'Christ as Savior'.
Well then all bets are off sister.
You just went from the coolest cat on the block to some 3 headed monster from the deep.
And all you have to say is "Yes, I am a Believer". 
Heck, these days, all you have to say is "I'm a christian" and it's ON!!!

Is it right?
Nope.
Is it true.......read this thread and 100 others like it.

That's why I am all for you do your thing, and you keep it to your self until I ask a question. 
Don't force it on me. Don't demand I embrace it, celebrate it, 'get educated' on it, or any other of your agenda items. I am not interested. When I ask, feel free to give me more information than I asked for.
Until then.......keep it in your own bedroom.

I will extend you the same grace. Until you ask, I will not force Him on you. I will not ask you to embrace Him. I will not ask you to "celebrate" HIm. I won't ask you to go to church and get 'educated' on Him.

I think that is a great plan!!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

dollmaker said:


> Do non-religious folks have a right to impose their secular beliefs on others?


What is your problem with a secular government? Keep in mind that the entire purpose of having a secular government is to assure freedom of religion. Why would you be against that?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Of course they do!
> Look at the media.....the newspaper.....magazines....movies.....sitcoms.
> Then look into the schools, colleges, and other 'learning places'.
> Then look at the work place.
> ...


I agree with you that no one should be forced to believe any of it. However most religions have been doing this for and will continue to. I don't see how most non religious people are forcing their views on anyone. yes there will be a few zealots just as there are in all religions but I think the Christians have done really well at forcing their religion as well.


----------



## unregistered41671 (Dec 29, 2009)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Of course they do!
> Look at the media.....the newspaper.....magazines....movies.....sitcoms.
> Then look into the schools, colleges, and other 'learning places'.
> Then look at the work place.
> ...


Great post Laura.


----------



## Pearl B (Sep 27, 2008)

> That's why I am all for you do your thing, and you keep it to your self until I ask a question. Don't force it on me. Don't demand I embrace it, celebrate it, 'get educated' on it, or any other of your agenda items. I am not interested. When I ask, feel free to give me more information than I asked for. Until then.......keep it in your own bedroom.
> 
> I will extend you the same grace. Until you ask, I will not force Him on you. I will not ask you to embrace Him. I will not ask you to "celebrate" HIm. I won't ask you to go to church and get 'educated' on Him.
> 
> I think that is a great plan!!


I couldn't have said it any better, and I don't know why that's so hard for others to get.

I also think that will bring more to look at the teachings of Christ than all the 'forced legislation ' ever will


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

painterswife said:


> I guess you are fine with religious groups "fighting tooth and nail" for what they believe is the principals of their religion? Do you have a right to impose your religious beliefs on others?
> 
> Many wars have been fought, people killed because they thought their religion was right had had precedence.


How does me voting for officials with my values impose religious beliefs on others? I don't force them to pray, I don't force them to go to Church or read the Bible. Faith is not something that can be forced, so this statement isn't relative. We are not fighting wars based on religion, we are trying to elect people who support our values, same as others are.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

painterswife said:


> How are they doing that? By asking to be left alone do live their lives as they see fit? Why do you have the right to live yours as you want but they don't. It is very hypocritical to think that you can have your religion and they can not have theirs.


How are we forcing you to lie as we see fit?


----------



## chamoisee (May 15, 2005)

I am OK with legalizing polygamy, provided that the women are of age (18 or older), have not been pressured into the marriage or groomed for it and have legal protection, for example, child support, alimony, etc if they should divorce. The people who want polygamy are going to do it and I think that the interests and well being of the women and their children who are not currently protected by the law should be. I personally don't think polygamy confers equal status on women and so I find it demeaning, but that's not sufficient reason to make it illegal. 

I think that all people who get married should be at least 18 and that they should go into marriage willingly, not under any pressure from their parents or church family etc. The human brain isn't done developing even at 18, but it's a lot closer to being mature than at 16 or 12. People who do not have a mature brain capable of making serious decisions shouldn't be getting married. 

I am opposed to incest as I think it is unhealthy on a societal basis and is likely to involve child molestation if allowed.

Opposed to bestiality as it is not a union of equals with equal rights, power and decision making capability.


----------



## Pearl B (Sep 27, 2008)

Sonshine said:


> No, you can't force a person to have faith in God, but on the other hand, don't Christians have as much right to fight for what they believe as others? If a law goes against my Christian principals I will fight tooth and nail to get it changed. If I see my country going down a lane that goes against my Christian values I will speak out and try to prevent it from happening. I teach children in Church. In the past 26 years of teaching them I have had to delve into areas I never thought I would have to because of how lax moral values have become in their everyday lives. They see things on the television today that they didn't when I was a kid. So, as a Christian I will try to put into office those who respect my values. Those who are not Christians have the right to do the same.


Sure you do. When you go down the path of forced legislation you are opening the door to allowing those who would make your religion and God illegal to worship as you see fit.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

Sonshine said:


> How are we forcing you to lie as we see fit?


By insisting that laws conform to your christian idea of morality and what is "acceptable" behavior even for those who are not christian.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Sonshine said:


> How are we forcing you to lie as we see fit?


You might want to ask that question again, as I never said anything remotely like that.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Pearl B said:


> Sure you do. When you go down the path of forced legislation you are opening the door to allowing those who would make your religion and God illegal to worship as you see fit.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Since I'm a Children's Pastor, the parents bring their kids to me willingly to teach their children what the Bible says and I am very careful of what I teach the kids because I know what the Bible says about misleading a child. As for legislation, when it goes against God's laws I believe it's a Christian's duty to speak out against it. When it comes to man's laws versus God's laws, I will always follow God's laws. When they are trying to change the meaning of marriage, who is forcing legislation? It's not the Christians who are trying to redefine marriage.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Sonshine said:


> How does me voting for officials with my values impose religious beliefs on others? I don't force them to pray, I don't force them to go to Church or read the Bible. Faith is not something that can be forced, so this statement isn't relative. We are not fighting wars based on religion, we are trying to elect people who support our values, same as others are.


Vote for those officials all you like but do not expect that they can legally make laws that will have anyone else live their lives as you think they should according to your religious beliefs. That is a fight you have already lost.


----------



## Ohio Rusty (Jan 18, 2008)

Painterswife wrote:
_Do you have a right to impose your religious beliefs on others?_

Let's re-phrase this in the context of this debate: 

Do Gays and Lesbians have the right to impose their marrying beliefs on the Government and the Citizens of this country ??

That is exactly what is happening and is the cause for this current issue to have a line drawn in the sand. The gay community (GLBT) is forcing the issue by lobbying and pressuring local, state and federal governmets saying they have a right that never existed and now want the same sex marriage right. Is it right for them to impose their beliefs on others and force them to change their viewpoints or ways of thinking .... Is it right for the GLBT community for force upon others acceptance of their lifestyle ????

Same difference ????

What do we do if a large group of people say they have the right to marry animals like dogs or cats?? or a squid ?? ......That they have the right to be partners with and marry any animal ....... Do we also tell them that is OK too?? (There is nothing in the bible against marrying animals) Where does acceptance begin and stop ?? If you think this is wrong, it is the same exact thinking that heterosexuals have believing that same sex marriage is wrong. Where does the never ending spiral end ??

Ohio Rusty ><>

Pay cash --- starve a bank.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Sonshine said:


> Since I'm a Children's Pastor, the parents bring their kids to me willingly to teach their children what the Bible says and I am very careful of what I teach the kids because I know what the Bible says about misleading a child. As for legislation, when it goes against God's laws I believe it's a Christian's duty to speak out against it. When it comes to man's laws versus God's laws, I will always follow God's laws. When they are trying to change the meaning of marriage, who is forcing legislation? It's not the Christians who are trying to redefine marriage.


Follow your God's laws, just don't expect that you can make others do so as well. They are not changing my meaning of marriage.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Ohio Rusty said:


> Painterswife wrote:
> _Do you have a right to impose your religious beliefs on others?_
> 
> Let's re-phrase this in the context of this debate:
> ...



They are not forcing it on anyone. You live you marriage as you wish and keep out of theirs. Animals can not marry because they can not consent so you are barking up the wrong tree.


----------



## Pearl B (Sep 27, 2008)

Sonshine said:


> Since I'm a Children's Pastor, the parents bring their kids to me willingly to teach their children what the Bible says and I am very careful of what I teach the kids because I know what the Bible says about misleading a child. As for legislation, when it goes against God's laws I believe it's a Christian's duty to speak out against it. When it comes to man's laws versus God's laws, I will always follow God's laws. When they are trying to change the meaning of marriage, who is forcing legislation? It's not the Christians who are trying to redefine marriage.


I respect you and your religious beliefs. I do. I took out the last part cause I thought it could come across as not intended. 

Why was it right to define it that way in the 1st place?

Theres no problem speaking out against it, none at all. 
There is a diffence between speaking out, and making it legally unavailable to others.

When you deny others, you ultimately deny yourself the same.

Thats as close as I can get to trying to convey my thoughts on the subject.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

gideonprime said:


> By insisting that laws conform to your christian idea of morality and what is "acceptable" behavior even for those who are not christian.


So it's ok for Christians to be forced to conform to non-believers ideas of accepted behavior? I don't see where there's any difference in the two, other than one bases their values on the teachings of the Bible. Why should I have to support or like legislation that goes against my beliefs?


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

Sonshine said:


> So it's ok for Christians to be forced to conform to non-believers ideas of accepted behavior? I don't see where there's any difference in the two, other than one bases their values on the teachings of the Bible. Why should I have to support or like legislation that goes against my beliefs?


Who is trying to get you to conform and enter into a same sex marriage? 

All I am saying is if two men or women want to get married . . . that is between them.

Because you are supporting intolerance and trying to use the laws of this nation to deny people somthing that you have. (answer to last question).

NO one is forcing you to their ideas of accepted behavior, they are trying to get you to stop forcing them to live by yours.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

painterswife said:


> You might want to ask that question again, as I never said anything remotely like that.


Sorry, it was a typo. My V key is sticking.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Vote for those officials all you like but do not expect that they can legally make laws that will have anyone else live their lives as you think they should according to your religious beliefs. That is a fight you have already lost.


They aren't the ones trying to change the laws to fit their agenda, such as changing the meaning of marriage.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Follow your God's laws, just don't expect that you can make others do so as well. They are not changing my meaning of marriage.


Then why even have the debate? Yes, they are changing the meaning of marriage, or at least, they are trying to.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Sonshine said:


> They aren't the ones trying to change the laws to fit their agenda, such as changing the meaning of marriage.


How many times do we have to say this. It is your meaning of the word marriage and it is directly related to your religion. I do not have that same meaning and I am in a heterosexual marriage. It does not impact me in any way to have consenting adults of the same sex married.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

gideonprime said:


> So now gays marrying is equated to the murder of the jews in Nazi germany and for some reason tall people?:smack
> 
> I call Red flag false herring!


Standard librial response. AVOID the questions asked and try to change the issue.

I'll ask you again: 

_*There is one glaring question which must be asked, WHY? Why was it "right" then but "wrong" now. I'll wait for your answer before I give my POV.*_

Very simple question isn't it?


_*But there is an even bigger issue. As you point out w/o a set standard what is considered right and wrong change. What if the standards change as they did in Germany from in the 30s and 40s? What if the standard changes to where it is 'right' to say, kill anyone over 6' 4"? According to your thought train it would then be 'wrong' for you to see a tall person and allow them to live. Are you willing to kill someone because society says its wrong not to?*_

Those are a bit more difficult because they force you to THINK. I'm sorry about that but sometimes you have to disengage heart and engage your brain. I know its hard but please do try. 

I really would like to know why you think right and wrong can only change for what you see as the good when history has shown when standards are flexible the change can go either way.


----------



## Ohio Rusty (Jan 18, 2008)

Firstof all Painterswife, Please know I'm not attacking you in anyway. I want to to use your points of view to for my topic of debate: 
Painterswife wrote:
_They are not forcing it on anyone_

Making States create laws that accept same sex marriage isn't forcing the issue ???? I believe that is truly forcing the issue via legislation ...

..... And how do we know animals don't consent ??? When animals wag their tails, that could be construed as consent in a court of law depending on the opinion of a judge ..... Our courts seem to be getting more weird all the time .....

You validated my point. Thank you. You thought it was weird and strange and was immediately against the idea of people marrying animals.... You even gave an example of why it should not be tolerated. Just like many today are immediately against the idea of men marrying men and women marrying women and it shouldn't be tolerated in this country.... They cite examples referring to the diseases, biblical and constitutional laws. But people are taking sides because of personal beliefs. I guarantee this issue will come to a head in November .......

Here are some things everyone needs to remember .... According to the CDC, more than 6000 children a day are catching STD's, and many of those are HIV. Education of our kids is a must .......

Painterswife wrote:
_It does not impact me in any way to have consenting adults of the same sex married_
Unless your child is in a same sex relationship, contracts HIV/AIDS at a young age and dies in your arms, and you could have changed that. That would be a terrible impact. So You would encourage your children to participate in a same sex relationship?? 

GLBT folks cannot have kids on their own, so they are going to be coming after yours ..... So they need to 'educate, brainwash and make you accept' the belief that it's OK for your children to have a non-heterosexual lifestyle. They are forcing that issue on all of us with all the media hype and current arguments/debates that are raging all over this country.

Ohio Rusty ><>

Pay cash --- starve a bank.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

Sonshine said:


> Then why even have the debate? Yes, they are changing the meaning of marriage, or at least, they are trying to.


Marriage already has more than one meaning, the marrige or music and emotion for instance.

Music and Emoton are not even human but you can marry the two. IE> Unite into a whole greater than the individual parts.

Only one deffinition of marriage mentions the sex of those invalved. I'll have to check my old timey dictionary at home and see if it has always been mentioned. It may not but has been added recently.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Ohio Rusty said:


> Painterswife wrote:
> _They are not forcing it on anyone_
> 
> Making States create laws that accept same sex marriage isn't forcing the issue ???? I believe that is truly forcing the issue via legislation ...
> ...


So glad to have validated your point ( in your own mind).

Forcing an issue by being allowed to live their lives as they see fit? When they out law your heterosexual marriage I may agree with you but until then you have no standing in someone else's marriage.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Pearl B said:


> I respect you and your religious beliefs. I do. I took out the last part cause I thought it could come across as not intended.
> 
> Why was it right to define it that way in the 1st place?
> 
> ...


So many are saying that Christians are trying to force our veiws on others, yet we aren't the ones who are trying to change the laws regarding marriage. So who is pushing their beliefs? As I've stated many times, what others do is between them and God. I don't believe that it's the government's business as I believe that marriage is something that is ordained by God. But when the government does get involved and tries to make marriage a legal matter, then as a Christian and a citizen I will voice my concern regarding the matter. I do understand the plight of the homosexual community regarding benefits denied them which is why I have no problem with creating legislation regarding civil unions and giving them the same benefits as traditional marriages. I have a friend who's life partnered passes away about 6 years ago. I know the problems he faced during the sickness and eventual death of his partner, which is why my outlook on the issues have changed. I would like for civil unions to be recognized and benefits equal to marriages. He now has another partner and I want them to be able to enjoy the same benefits as my DH and I do. So, why not just make legislation to allow for civil unions to have the same benefits without changing the existing laws regarding marriage?


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

Ohio Rusty said:


> Painterswife wrote:
> _They are not forcing it on anyone_
> 
> Making States create laws that accept same sex marriage isn't forcing the issue ???? I believe that is truly forcing the issue via legislation ...
> ...


To the bolded -- utter Bull Puckey. 

Females can have children and really don;t need a man around. Just a specimen will do.  Gays have kids and have for years why would they want to "come after yours".

Oh right because it sounds scary and maybe you can spook some folks into agreeing with your POV.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

gideonprime said:


> Who is trying to get you to conform and enter into a same sex marriage?
> 
> All I am saying is if two men or women want to get married . . . that is between them.
> 
> ...


I think I have explained my reasons in the above posts. Why are they so concerned with the terminology of marriage? Why not just give civil unions the same benefits as marriage? I think that may be a compromise that most could accept.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Pearl B said:


> Basically the government can and does whatever its wants, whether its right or wrong to due so.


Which is the problem. When you do not have a set standards you can wind up with anything.




Pearl B said:


> There is a reason they are not adults, its because they are not.
> Biologically, mentally, physically, emotionally.


Sorry but that's not what the people through the government want. They want to have children treated like adults when it suits them. Therefore if they want to then would it not become "right" to allow 12 y.o. people to marry? After all isn't the government's job to set 'right' and 'wrong'?




Pearl B said:


> Using that example and logic, why dont we send minors to the battlefields?


Because the people via the government has decided it is 'wrong'. But what if the law was changed would that suddenly make it 'right' to do so?




Pearl B said:


> Is not often the motivation for change due to the fact people are unhappy with the way things are?


Yes and it leads to good and bad things happening. I again raise the specter of what the people in Germany were unhappy about and what change came about to make them happy. All of you who think flexible standards only bring good things need to take the rose colored glass off and look back at history.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

painterswife said:


> How many times do we have to say this. It is your meaning of the word marriage and it is directly related to your religion. I do not have that same meaning and I am in a heterosexual marriage. It does not impact me in any way to have consenting adults of the same sex married.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the LEGAL meaning of the word marriage? Isn't that what this is all about, changing the legalalites of marriage?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> What is your problem with a secular government? Keep in mind that the entire purpose of having a secular government is to assure freedom of religion. Why would you be against that?


The problem is we seem to have reached the point of people demanding freedom FROM religion, not freedom of religion.


----------



## chamoisee (May 15, 2005)

> To the bolded -- utter Bull Puckey.
> 
> Females can have children and really don;t need a man around. Just a specimen will do. Gays have kids and have for years why would they want to "come after yours".
> 
> Oh right because t sounds scary and maybe you can spook some folks into agreeing with your POV.


They seem to think not only that gay people cannot and do not have kids, but also that all people are either 100% straight or 100% gay, leaving out completely those of us who are bisexual, mostly (but not completely) straight or mostly (but not completely) gay.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

Sonshine said:


> So many are saying that Christians are trying to force our veiws on others, yet we aren't the ones who are trying to change the laws regarding marriage. So who is pushing their beliefs? As I've stated many times, what others do is between them and God. I don't believe that it's the government's business as I believe that marriage is something that is ordained by God. But when the government does get involved and tries to make marriage a legal matter, then as a Christian and a citizen I will voice my concern regarding the matter. I do understand the plight of the homosexual community regarding benefits denied them which is why I have no problem with creating legislation regarding civil unions and giving them the same benefits as traditional marriages. I have a friend who's life partnered passes away about 6 years ago. I know the problems he faced during the sickness and eventual death of his partner, which is why my outlook on the issues have changed. *I would like for civil unions to be recognized and benefits equal to marriages*. He now has another partner and I want them to be able to enjoy the same benefits as my DH and I do. So, why not just make legislation to allow for civil unions to have the same benefits without changing the existing laws regarding marriage?


Seperate but equal? Didn't we as a nation decide that wasn't equal at all?

How about marriage has no govt benefits only civil unions be they gay or straight.

Marriage is just a religious thing.

You no longer get a marriage license but a civil union license.

Would that work for you? Marriage (the word) strictly religious not governmental?


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

Sonshine said:


> I think I have explained my reasons in the above posts. Why are they so concerned with the terminology of marriage? Why not just give civil unions the same benefits as marriage? I think that may be a compromise that most could accept.


Why are you so concerned about it?

Seperate but equal does not fly.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

gideonprime said:


> Marriage already has more than one meaning, the marrige or music and emotion for instance.
> 
> Music and Emoton are not even human but you can marry the two. IE> Unite into a whole greater than the individual parts.
> 
> Only one deffinition of marriage mentions the sex of those invalved. I'll have to check my old timey dictionary at home and see if it has always been mentioned. It may not but has been added recently.


We are discussing the legal definition of marriage which is "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word âmarriageâ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word âspouseâ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." 1 USC Â§ 7 - Definition of


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Sonshine said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the LEGAL meaning of the word marriage? Isn't that what this is all about, changing the legalalites of marriage?


In case you have not heard it is not any longer the legal meaning of the word marriage in many places in the world including the US. It may be in some states but only because it has not hit the Supreme Court yet. It has already changed.


----------



## chamoisee (May 15, 2005)

I just noticed...that he used the terminology *GLBT*, apparently without even realizing that it specifically refers to bisexuals and transgender people along with gays and lesbians....


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

Sonshine said:


> We are discussing the legal definition of marriage which is "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word âmarriageâ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word âspouseâ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." 1 USC Â§ 7 - Definition of


you said earlier, perhaps in the other gay marriage thread that it was ttheir use of the word marriage which is sancitified by god (paraphrasing).

If it was not you SOnshine I do appolgize I was 99% sure it was you though.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Sonshine said:


> The Bible tells us that in the last days men will think of good as evil and evil as good.


 What is considered the time frame for the 'last days'?

If we look carefully and thoroughly at the social history of the western world, it could be argued that we have been in the 'last days' for at least 2000 years.


----------



## Pearl B (Sep 27, 2008)

watcher said:


> The problem is we seem to have reached the point of people demanding freedom FROM religion, not freedom of religion.


Isnt that also what the constitution tried to give as well.

Werent some of the founding fathers trying to get away from a certain religion/view the english crown was trying to force upon them?

I think thats exactly why the constitution is the way it is.

Some people want exactly that, freedom from others religion(s).


----------



## Ohio Rusty (Jan 18, 2008)

Chamoisee wrote:
_I just noticed...that he used the terminology GLBT_

We need to get all the groups involved in the issues at hand!! No sense in leaving anyone out now ..... Many of the trangendered people are gay also ....... so they should be rightly included.
A guy putting on a dress and a wig and performing sodomy with a man doesn't make you a woman .....

Ohio Rusty ><>

Pay cash --- starve a bank.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

gideonprime said:


> Seperate but equal? Didn't we as a nation decide that wasn't equal at all?
> 
> How about marriage has no govt benefits only civil unions be they gay or straight.
> 
> ...


I wouldn't have an issue with that. Let marriages be done in the church and leave the government out of it.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

Ohio Rusty said:


> Chamoisee wrote:
> _I just noticed...that he used the terminology GLBT_
> 
> We need to get all the groups involved in the issues at hand!! No sense in leaving anyone out now ..... Many of the trangendered people are gay also ....... so they should be rightly included.
> ...


No but a man putting on a dress and wig could make him famous! not to mention FABULOUS!

RuPaul comes to mind!

There are straight guys who like to put on a wig and dress and play lesbian with their girl friends, that doesn;t make them gay either. Just adventerous!:tmi:


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

painterswife said:


> How many times do we have to say this. *It is your meaning of the word marriage and it is directly related to your religion.* I do not have that same meaning and I am in a heterosexual marriage. It does not impact me in any way to have consenting adults of the same sex married.


Actually it is the legal definition of marriage.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

painterswife said:


> In case you have not heard it is not any longer the legal meaning of the word marriage in many places in the world including the US. It may be in some states but only because it has not hit the Supreme Court yet. It has already changed.


Not until the Supreme Court says it has.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

gideonprime said:


> you said earlier, perhaps in the other gay marriage thread that it was ttheir use of the word marriage which is sancitified by god (paraphrasing).
> 
> If it was not you SOnshine I do appolgize I was 99% sure it was you though.


Yes that was me. I wouldn't mind seeing marriage confined to the Church and the government change it to civil union.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Tiempo said:


> What is considered the time frame for the 'last days'?
> 
> If we look carefully and thoroughly at the social history of the western world, it could be argued that we have been in the 'last days' for at least 2000 years.


It would take a lot for me to explain the last days and many scholars have varying opinions regarding it, but the Bible does tell us of signs to watch for and that is one of the signs that men will think of evil as good and good as evil.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> The problem is we seem to have reached the point of people demanding freedom FROM religion, not freedom of religion.


Which is their right. something about congress passing NO law regarding the establishment of religion....


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

painterswife said:


> I agree with you that no one should be forced to believe any of it. However most religions have been doing this for and will continue to. *I don't see how most non religious people are forcing their views on anyon*e. yes there will be a few zealots just as there are in all religions but I think the Christians have done really well at forcing their religion as well.


I will gently bow out of this conversation now!!


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Pearl B said:


> I respect you and your religious beliefs. I do. I took out the last part cause I thought it could come across as not intended.
> 
> Why was it right to define it that way in the 1st place?
> 
> ...


Kinda like when Target said NO to the Salvation Army Bell ringers.
They said no to EVERYONE.
No to the girl scouts
No to the satanist frat house
No to the muslim brotherhood......
NO TO EVERYONE.
Target allows no one to solicit, no matter HOW good their cause, in front of or on the grounds of their stores.
No across the board. You are free to shop there if you please. You are free to go to walmart. You are free to bad mouth Target. You are free to give them ALL your business.

Same with this whole gay marriage thing.
What you do in your bedroom is your business. I don't want to know about it.
What I do in mine, is my business. 
And I won't tell you, unless you ask.

That is the best way. BUT that is NOT how this is gonna go down.......


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Tiempo said:


> What is considered the time frame for the 'last days'?
> 
> If we look carefully and thoroughly at the social history of the western world, it could be argued that *we have been in the 'last days' for at least 2000 years.*


Yep
A day is a thousand years and a thousand years is but a day to The Lord!!!
We have been in the 'last days' since He asccended.
The 'signs' of His return are really showing themselves in the last 50 years though....


----------



## dollmaker (Jun 24, 2010)

painterswife said:


> How are they doing that? By asking to be left alone do live their lives as they see fit? Why do you have the right to live yours as you want but they don't. It is very hypocritical to think that you can have your religion and they can not have theirs.


I have the right to try to preserve the American way of life by my vote....fighting tooth and nail, as someone else said.

The non-religious have the right to try to change things to their way of thinking. And they are doing that.

I don't have to like it, though. You can't force me to give up my right to try to preserve my way of life just because you think I'm not playing fair.

Get out and vote!!!!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

dollmaker said:


> I have the right to try to preserve the American way of life by my vote....fighting tooth and nail, as someone else said.
> 
> The non-religious have the right to try to change things to their way of thinking. And they are doing that.
> 
> ...


Ok.... so you want to preserve bigotry. you vote your way.... I will vote mine.... which amounts to voting for those who lean toward upholding our Constitution and preserving each and every citizens inalienable rights.... the ones I like, and the ones I personally may not agree with. Remember, the last major battle fought over "defending our way of life" wound up costing in excess of half a million lives, and resulted in defeat... along with having all their slaves set free.


----------



## dollmaker (Jun 24, 2010)

Oh my goodness...we can't have that...so let me vote AGAINST everything I believe in. And here I thought it was OK to vote my way. What was I thinking.

Why even have an election? Let's just keep the guy we've got now.


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

JeffreyD said:


> No, they just hate and obsess about other things all on their own! Atheists are the most hatefull, greedy, self-centered folks I have ever met.


The really militant ones, who are more anti-Christian than anything else - oh, yeah, you're right about that. The ones who just plain old don't believe in God or any other higher power are usually quite tolerant of those who do.

I recently unfriended a relative on Facebook because he was spamming the board with some really disgusting anti-Christian stuff. If people were writing things like that about Jews, they'd have the police, FBI, etc. at their door.


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

Several months ago, I heard a really disturbing song on a country music station. I have no idea who sang it, but it said, in effect, that our ancestors did not question authority, and that we should go back to that.

Um, no, that's not true, and even if it was, we shouldn't be that way. That's how the Rwandan holocaust happened.


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

Pearl B said:


> Sure you do. When you go down the path of forced legislation you are opening the door to allowing those who would make your religion and God illegal to worship as you see fit.


And it's called a theocracy.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

dollmaker said:


> I have the right to try to preserve the American way of life by my vote....fighting tooth and nail, as someone else said.
> 
> The non-religious have the right to try to change things to their way of thinking. And they are doing that.
> 
> ...



Are you saying that if you believe something like "women should not vote" then you can vote for that and if enough people agree you can outlaw it?

You have the right to live one way but you don not have the right to make laws to make people live their lives like you want in regards to their personal lives.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

Yep, The Christan's want to impose their beliefs on the rest of us///

Christians ask your self this. Is getting permission from the government a requirement in the sacrament of marriage? Are you supposed to follow gods laws? Do his laws bend to the will of man? Why get a license from the state to proclaim what god has ordained. You Christians dropped the proverbial ball more than 50 years ago with this egregious capitulation. You put it in mans hands so you get the fruit of what you have sown.

Jesus could die on the cross for you... You worry about taxes? (ever here of the marriage penalty?)

Liberals//
So you suggest perpetuating the marriage license is a good thing? These originated in the Jim crow laws in the south. Those southern Democrats didn't want no good white girl marring no black man... Those good church going Southern Baptists didn't want no daughter of mine marring no ******. 

Equality at it's core...

-------------------------------------------------------------

To both groups//

This whole thing is the Fruits of your miss begotten past. You can't fix stupid. End It.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

watcher said:


> The problem is we seem to have reached the point of people demanding freedom FROM religion, not freedom of religion.


If that's a problem, you should find a theocracy to live under. If you don't have freedom FROM religion, you don't have freedom OF religion. They are inextricably linked.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

dollmaker said:


> Oh my goodness...we can't have that...so let me vote AGAINST everything I believe in. And here I thought it was OK to vote my way. What was I thinking.
> 
> Why even have an election? Let's just keep the guy we've got now.


I think you missed my point. I am all about protecting your right to vote as you please. (along with all of your other rights) I dont like Obama any more than any other rational thinking person and would love to see him voted out of office, the sooner the better. What I was pointing out is that we ALL need to stand up for each others basic rights.... even when we dont happen to agree with their views..... or should I say "especially" when we dont agree with them. All of us need to be able to express our views, and exercise our rights.... because when society denies anyone their rights, we not only "might" be next... its almost a certainty.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

watcher said:


> The problem is we seem to have reached the point of people demanding freedom FROM religion, not freedom of religion.


Holy Moly...what a comment!

Of course we have, but I can't imagine why that's a problem!


----------



## dollmaker (Jun 24, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Are you saying that if you believe something like "women should not vote" then you can vote for that and if enough people agree you can outlaw it?
> 
> You have the right to live one way but you don not have the right to make laws to make people live their lives like you want in regards to their personal lives.


Really? I'm being made to do all sorts of things I don't want to do....by laws and regulations. Most of them forced onto me by liberals.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

dollmaker said:


> Really? I'm being made to do all sorts of things I don't want to do....by laws and regulations. Most of them forced onto me by liberals.


Really! Well go for it, organize and vote. The Supreme court will be striking down those laws before you know what hit you.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

dollmaker said:


> Really? I'm being made to do all sorts of things I don't want to do....by laws and regulations. Most of them forced onto me by liberals.


Obamacare is about the only law I know of "forcing" me to do anything other than paying my taxes. I will agree that the liberals were behind Obamacare.... and a greedy for power federal government imposed a lot of fed taxes upon me too. Most laws tend to "restrict" our behaviors, rather than "forcing" us to do anything. Now, that being said, I do have to agree that liberals have indeed restricted me quite a bit, here in my own part of the world even. That does NOT make it right, and it certainly does not excuse conservatives for their own meddling laws.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Pearl B said:


> Isnt that also what the constitution tried to give as well.
> 
> Werent some of the founding fathers trying to get away from a certain religion/view the english crown was trying to force upon them?
> 
> ...


No, not at all. If you read the USC you will see they wanted to prevent a national religion and to prevent the federal government from stopping a religion. They clearly meant for religion to be allowed, after all they were the ones who started the first congress with a prayer and took their oaths on Bibles.

They also felt the individual states had the right to establish a state religions if they wished. IOW, if NY wanted to establish Duridism as its state religion the founders had no problem with it. This is clear if you read the bill of rights. The 1st sets limits ONLY on the laws the federal government could pass and the 10th says if something is not forbidden to the states the states have the right to do it.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

FourDeuce said:


> If that's a problem, you should find a theocracy to live under. If you don't have freedom FROM religion, you don't have freedom OF religion. They are inextricably linked.


I have no right to not be exposed to religion because it offends me. I have no right to tell you that you can not pray in a public building if you are just a private citizen or an elected official because it offends me. I have no right to demand you stop practicing your religion just because it offends me.

It you allow this where does it stop? Do I have the right to tell you that you can't wear a Red Sox shirt in public because as a Yankee fan it offends me? Do I have the right to tell you not to sing a Justin Bieber in public because as an AC/DC fan it offends me?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Tiempo said:


> Holy Moly...what a comment!
> 
> Of course we have, but I can't imagine why that's a problem!


Because to have freedom from religion you must demand that religion be removed. The only way to do this is to have people stop practicing their religion.

Think about this way. You go to a meeting and they tell you have the freedom to eat. There is a huge buffet set up with all kinds of food and you can get what you want or you can bring your own food. But some people start complaining. They want the freedom from the food they don't like. They don't like that food, eating this makes them sick, the smell of that offends them, etc, etc. So the people running the meeting start removing that food and this food and the other food and telling people they can't bring this or that. After while there is no food left. Now you have freedom from eating. The problem is a lot of people want to eat but they no longer have that freedom.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

watcher said:


> I have no right to not be exposed to religion because it offends me.
> 
> *Nobody said you did. Many people get confused just like that when discussing freedom from religion. Freedom from religion doesn't mean protection from ever having to see any religious stuff. That's the Straw Man argument dishonest people build so they don't have to discuss what freedom from religion actually means.*
> 
> ...


Many religious people in America think it's one of THEIR rights to force everybody around them to sit and listen while they pray. If you think that's one of your rights, then you should prove that. You have the right to pray whenever and wherever you want to, but you don't have the right to dictate to other people that they must sit and pretend to respect your display of piousness(which many people say their bible actually forbids). Freedom from religion actually means being free from having other people force their religion on us, especially through government entanglement. :clap:


----------



## Pearl B (Sep 27, 2008)

watcher said:


> No, not at all. If you read the USC you will see they wanted to prevent a national religion and to prevent the federal government from stopping a religion. They clearly meant for religion to be allowed, after all they were the ones who started the first congress with a prayer and took their oaths on Bibles.
> 
> They also felt the individual states had the right to establish a state religions if they wished. IOW, if NY wanted to establish Duridism as its state religion the founders had no problem with it. This is clear if you read the bill of rights. The 1st sets limits ONLY on the laws the federal government could pass and the 10th says if something is not forbidden to the states the states have the right to do it.


I didnt know the states could do that. Thanks.


----------



## chamoisee (May 15, 2005)

watcher said:


> Think about this way. You go to a meeting and they tell you have the freedom to eat. There is a huge buffet set up with all kinds of food and you can get what you want or you can bring your own food. But some people start complaining. They want the freedom from the food they don't like. They don't like that food, eating this makes them sick, the smell of that offends them, etc, etc. So the people running the meeting start removing that food and this food and the other food and telling people they can't bring this or that. After while there is no food left. Now you have freedom from eating. The problem is a lot of people want to eat but they no longer have that freedom.


No, it's more like having a potluck for a very varied group of people, and then deciding that anything which is not mainstream meat and potatoes doesn't get to stay there, and trying to claim that God is a white American male who likes meat and potatoes so that is all anyone should get to eat.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

FourDeuce said:


> Many religious people in America think it's one of THEIR rights to force everybody around them to sit and listen while they pray. If you think that's one of your rights, then you should prove that. You have the right to pray whenever and wherever you want to, but you don't have the right to dictate to other people that they must sit and pretend to respect your display of piousness(which many people say their bible actually forbids). *Freedom from religion actually means being free from having other people force their religion on us, especially through government entanglement*. :clap:


AMEN
That includes the religion of humanism being rammed down your throat!!

You are totally correct. Believer can and should pray "without ceasing" meaning we have an open line of communication with Him 24/7/365 and we should be using it.
You are double correct when you say "piousness" because it is denounced by Christ to "stand on the street corners and blather on and on......for they have received their reward in full". He says "go into your closet and pray".

A moment of silence hurts no one. It gives everyone and every religion the opportunity to be recognized, in it's followers head. 
But quite frankly if they took THAT away......so be it fine.
No biggie.
That seems pretty cut and dried.

Now where it gets sticky is what is the definition of *force their religion on us, especially through government entanglement?

*How do we come to a clear defining statement?
Because to ME, the religion of humanism is crammed down my throat every time I walk into a school, college, or any other type of learning place. Every time. 

So what is 'religion', and how is it forced via the government, and how do we stop it?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> AMEN
> That includes the religion of humanism being rammed down your throat!!
> 
> You are totally correct. Believer can and should pray "without ceasing" meaning we have an open line of communication with Him 24/7/365 and we should be using it.
> ...



I am beyond words (almost). There is no response that will lead to a reasonable conversation if you believe science is a religion.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

painterswife said:


> I am beyond words (almost). There is no response that will lead to a reasonable conversation if you believe science is a religion.


Equally, we cannot have a reasonable conversation if you believe science is NOT a religion.
So as they say in some 'christian' circles: We will just have to agree, to disagree!!:happy:


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

FourDeuce said:


> Many religious people in America think it's one of THEIR rights to force everybody around them to sit and listen while they pray. If you think that's one of your rights, then you should prove that. You have the right to pray whenever and wherever you want to, but you don't have the right to dictate to other people that they must sit and pretend to respect your display of piousness(which many people say their bible actually forbids). Freedom from religion actually means being free from having other people force their religion on us, especially through government entanglement. :clap:


Well I guess I'd better get upset next time I hear a Muslim call to prayer.. Problem is I don't feel forced to start praying.. I don't begrudge anyone their religion or their practice of such whether or not I see or hear it.. Not the least bit infringed upon.. nor do I feel dictated to.. But than again I am strong in my own beliefs and not easily influenced.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Which is their right. something about congress passing NO law regarding the establishment of religion....


So what religion is congress making a law to establish?


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

FourDeuce said:


> Many religious people in America think it's one of THEIR rights to force everybody around them to sit and listen while they pray. If you think that's one of your rights, then you should prove that. You have the right to pray whenever and wherever you want to, but you don't have the right to dictate to other people that they must sit and pretend to respect your display of piousness(which many people say their bible actually forbids). Freedom from religion actually means being free from having other people force their religion on us, especially through government entanglement. :clap:


Sorry, but this doesn't fly. I have never seen a Christian forcibly hold a person down and make them listen to the pray. It's your right to not listen if you don't want to hear it.

Constitutional Topic: The Constitution and Religion - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Religion makes only one direct and obvious appearance in the original Constitution that seems to point to a desire for some degree of religious freedom. That appearance is in Article 6, at the end of the third clause:

[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

This statement is simple and straight-forward, and applies to all offices in the entire United States, both state and federal. The clause simply means that no public position can be required to be held by any one of any religious denomination. It would be unconstitutional for there to be a requirement that the President by Lutheran, or even for the mayor of a small town to be Christian. Likewise, it would be unconstitutional for a law to forbid a Jew or Muslim from holding any office in any governmental jurisdiction in the United States. (This having been said, it should be noted that several state constitutions do have a religious test â specifically, they deny office to anyone unwilling to acknowledge God or a Supreme Being.)

Also on this site:
Through the debates in the House, Senate, and conference committees, the wording of all of these proposals was whittled down to the religion clauses of what is our 1st Amendment:

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

Please show me where it says that as a Christian I can't pray in public or anywhere else. The whole concept that the constitution was designed to silence Christians is crazy. It was designed to keep our rights in place. It wasn't created for the government, but to protect us from the government and to prevent them from interfering with our rights to worship as we choose.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Pearl B said:


> I didnt know the states could do that. Thanks.


This is covered on the link I posted above.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

FourDeuce said:


> Many religious people in America think it's one of THEIR rights to force everybody around them to sit and listen while they pray. If you think that's one of your rights, then you should prove that. You have the right to pray whenever and wherever you want to, but you don't have the right to dictate to other people that they must sit and pretend to respect your display of piousness(which many people say their bible actually forbids). Freedom from religion actually means being free from having other people force their religion on us, especially through government entanglement. :clap:


Here's a few things for ya. 

One please point out to me where anyone is FORCED to sit and listen while I pray.

Two, if you take the time to read the USC you will find it ONLY limits the federal government. "_*Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof*_". How is telling someone they can not pray not prohibiting free exercise?

Third, the USC, based on the 10th, clearly gives the individual states the right to set what ever religious rules/laws they want. There is nothing in the USC which limits the state from doing this and there's nothing in there which gives the federal government the power to prevent it. Therefore it is perfectly constitutional for a local or state government agency to have prayer or even Bible reading during its meetings.

Four, please show me where in the USC it says you have the right to not be exposed to a religion you disagree with.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Pearl B said:


> I didnt know the states could do that. Thanks.


Depends on the state constitution. Its easily proven.

Read the 1st Amendment on it.

*[UCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[/U]*

And Art 1 Sec 1 (which defines congress)

*Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.*

Its clear that the 1st Amendment ONLY applies to the laws enacted by the US Congress which directly establish a religion or forbid a religion.

Now if you read the 10th you find:

*The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.*

The 1st clearly removes that power from the federal government. But if you read the entire USC you will find NOTHING which prohibits the individual states from establishing a religion nor even prohibiting one. Therefore that power is "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

chamoisee said:


> No, it's more like having a potluck for a very varied group of people, and then deciding that anything which is not mainstream meat and potatoes doesn't get to stay there, and trying to claim that God is a white American male who likes meat and potatoes so that is all anyone should get to eat.


How so because you are the one which is demanding that this food or that food not be allowed.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

painterswife said:


> I am beyond words (almost). There is no response that will lead to a reasonable conversation if you believe science is a religion.


Please define religion and well go from there.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Sonshine said:


> So what religion is congress making a law to establish?


None that I know of. :shrug:


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

watcher said:


> Here's a few things for ya.
> 
> One please point out to me where anyone is FORCED to sit and listen while I pray.
> 
> ...


I'm confused. Why are you asking me to show you something I never claimed? Can you show where I claimed that?:smack


----------



## Haven (Aug 16, 2010)

Ambereyes said:


> Well I guess I'd better get upset next time I hear a Muslim call to prayer.. Problem is I don't feel forced to start praying.. I don't begrudge anyone their religion or their practice of such whether or not I see or hear it..


1-How many here in the USA have found themselves in a public Muslim call to prayer? 2-How many people here have found themselves in the middle of a public christian call to prayer? 

I bet very few average US citizens would answer yes to the 1st question, while 100% would say yes to #2. A very large % of people would also be outraged at a public call to prayer by Muslims or various other non Christian religions.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Haven said:


> 1-How many here in the USA have found themselves in a public Muslim call to prayer? 2-How many people here have found themselves in the middle of a public christian call to prayer?
> 
> I bet very few average US citizens would answer yes to the 1st question, while 100% would say yes to #2. A very large % of people would also be outraged at a public call to prayer by Muslims or various other non Christian religions.


YOU are right.
Well, unless you live in Dearborn MI.

Now, how many people have kids who, at 'christmas' time had to color pictures of the menora, kwanza, and st. lucia, along with santa AND NO mention of Jesus, God, or anything else 'christian'?????

And how many times have we seen in the news where when a kid does a report about Jesus, or draws a picture of Jesus, he is given and F or expelled?

(santa, satan....both wear red, same letters just jumbled :hrm


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> YOU are right.
> Well, unless you live in Dearborn MI.
> 
> Now, how many people have kids who, at 'christmas' time had to color pictures of the menora, kwanza, and st. lucia, along with santa AND NO mention of Jesus, God, or anything else 'christian'?????
> ...


I had a dear friend that started homeschooling because her teenage daughter was told to write about a person she admired, either dead or alive and she wrote about Jesus and was given an F. The Mother went to talk to the teacher but never could get the issue resolved, so she pulled both her kids. They are now adults and doing very well in their chosen career fields.


----------



## Haven (Aug 16, 2010)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> YOU are right.
> Well, unless you live in Dearborn MI.


I lived 15 mins from there until 6 years ago. My male counterpart was born there and has worked as an engineer, program manager, and designing autos for the Big 3 and their suppliers for his entire career.

I may be wrong, but I believe this region has the largest Middle Eastern population in the USA. The Muslims (many) he worked with for years did go to pray each day during work; the wandered off into another room and did their thing. There was nothing public about it and an outsider would have no idea it was taking place, unless told.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Now, how many people have kids who, at 'christmas' time had to color pictures of the menora, kwanza, and st. lucia, along with santa AND NO mention of Jesus, God, or anything else 'christian'?????
> 
> And how many times have we seen in the news where when a kid does a report about Jesus, or draws a picture of Jesus, he is given and F or expelled?
> 
> (santa, satan....both wear red, same letters just jumbled :hrm





Haven said:


> I lived 15 mins from there until 6 years ago. My male counterpart was born there and has worked as an engineer, program manager, and designing autos for the Big 3 and their suppliers for his entire career.
> 
> I may be wrong, but I believe this region has the largest Middle Eastern population in the USA. The Muslims (many) he worked with for years did go to pray each day during work; the wandered off into another room and did their thing. There was nothing public about it and an outsider would have no idea it was taking place, unless told.


Can you speak to my other comment, please?


----------



## Haven (Aug 16, 2010)

I don't know anything about kids so I did not comment. I have never heard of a child drawing Jesus and being expelled from school. If it is true, that is not good at all.

A very large % of people in my immediate and extended family are in public education ranging from owning pre schools, up to the president of a university; most are teachers, and a few principles. I honestly have never heard anyone ever mention anything about a student and religion in the classroom, so I did not comment. Actually, I have heard them speak about home schoolers, but not religion in particular. I have found that cutbacks and behavioral disorders, etc., are the main concern of most teachers and religion never crosses their minds.


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

I do not understand why any one allows any one to tear down their faith like this. it's not their business. If they don't like it That's too bad.
We don't have to change for them. We don't have to explain ourselves. 
Of all things the Bible and it's teachings are not up for debate.
We don't have to accept immoral things. It's not like people of faith will get anything if we do, They will just push for us to accept the next immoral action.
So the gay people would get to get married, what do you get? Seriously, or should I ask what would you loose? 
They are already badgering and bullying people even though they want something from us, How will they treat us, when we no longer have something to give. It's our decision if we accept them, not theirs.


----------



## unregistered41671 (Dec 29, 2009)

Haven said:


> 1-How many here in the USA have found themselves in a public Muslim call to prayer? 2-How many people here have found themselves in the middle of a public christian call to prayer?
> 
> I bet very few average US citizens would answer yes to the 1st question, while 100% would say yes to #2. A very large % of people would also be outraged at a public call to prayer by Muslims or various other non Christian religions.


That is not what our president wants us to believe.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

SquashNut said:


> I do not understand why any one allows any one to tear down their faith like this. it's not their business. If they don't like it That's too bad.
> We don't have to change for them. We don't have to explain ourselves.
> Of all things the Bible and it's teachings are not up for debate.
> We don't have to accept immoral things. It's not like people of faith will get anything if we do, They will just push for us to accept the next immoral action.
> ...


Good points. I guess in my case I keep hoping that if I treat them with respect it may make a difference.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Haven said:


> I don't know anything about kids so I did not comment. I have never heard of a child drawing Jesus and being expelled from school. If it is true, that is not good at all.
> 
> A very large % of people in my immediate and extended family are in public education ranging from owning pre schools, up to the president of a university; most are teachers, and a few principles. I honestly have never heard anyone ever mention anything about a student and religion in the classroom, so I did not comment. Actually, I have heard them speak about home schoolers, but not religion in particular. I have found that cutbacks and behavioral disorders, etc., are the main concern of most teachers and religion never crosses their minds.


When my oldest was in 1rst grade (14 years ago) she attended a public school, in the suburbs, town of about 25,000, predominately white, but a growing latino population.......
Ok, back to 1rst grade. 
The class was having a 'thanksgiving celebration' in their rooms, each child at their own desk. 
My daughter bowed her head to pray before she ate and the teach told her she CAN NOT pray in school.

In 3rd grade, (same school) the kids received a Bible at Sunday School. 
It was a kids Bible, so it had pictures and stuff in it.
As school, they had 30 min of "free reading time"......where by the rules, the teacher said they could read whatever they wanted. 
My daughters Bible had a cover on it so you didn't know what the book was from the outside.
She was told, by the teacher to take it home.....and never bring it back.

Same school ,same year, christmas time.
Each week in Dec, the kids colored a picture. Each was a different 'religions' celebration in December.
St. Lucia, Mennora, Kwanza, and Santa Clause.
Along with the page they colored, they learned about each of those religions and what and how they celebrate in december......
The third grade in her school that year had 6 classrooms of 25 kids each. That's 150 kids that did the above exercise.

Now. That's fine with me. 
I don't mind learning about different cultures, different religions. Information is good!!!
But.
I find it a bit interesting that ANY mention of Jesus/The Bible is not only squelched....but avoided at all costs. 
Banned, banished, etc.

Those who scream 'freedom from religion' don't mind Kwanza, Santa, St.Lucia, or really even Islam........clearly that is true because it is permitted in schools and the workplace.
BUT as SOON as you mention Jesus / The Bible....or silently bow your head to pray, somehow you become this monster that needs to be slayed and removed?
I don't get it?
*I'm ok with it...but I don't get it, and I cannot get anyone to explain it to me.*


Squashnut:
Gays want to 'marry'?
Fine.
BUT don't force Pastors, Preachers, Preists to go against THEIR Faith to do it.
Go to a JP. Go to a church that has gay ordained ministers.
Don't force YOUR choice on those who's faith says it's a sin.......


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

SquashNut said:


> I do not understand why any one allows any one to tear down their faith like this. it's not their business. If they don't like it That's too bad.
> We don't have to change for them. We don't have to explain ourselves.
> Of all things the Bible and it's teachings are not up for debate.
> We don't have to accept immoral things. It's not like people of faith will get anything if we do, They will just push for us to accept the next immoral action.
> ...


When you use the Bible as a reason to deny something such as marriage then is sure is up for debate. You expect us to explain and defend our reasons for it but you refuse to do the same? Pure Hypocrisy.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Haven said:


> 1-How many here in the USA have found themselves in a public Muslim call to prayer? 2-How many people here have found themselves in the middle of a public christian call to prayer?
> 
> I bet very few average US citizens would answer yes to the 1st question, while 100% would say yes to #2. A very large % of people would also be outraged at a public call to prayer by Muslims or various other non Christian religions.


Well I have been around the Muslim call to prayer quite a few times, and the Christian, by which I guess you mean bells. As I am neither, I feel no discomfort with hearing or seeing them.. But some people I guess are ultra sensitive and have problems dealing with others differences, I truly feel sorry for those people.. They must have some real problems with the ability to interact with anyone that is different..


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

SquashNut said:


> I do not understand why any one allows any one to tear down their faith like this.
> 
> *I didn't even know it was possible for one person to "tear down" another person's faith.*
> 
> ...


Accept them? I didn't know your acceptance was required by anybody in the US.:hrm:


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> When my oldest was in 1rst grade (14 years ago) she attended a public school, in the suburbs, town of about 25,000, predominately white, but a growing latino population.......
> Ok, back to 1rst grade.
> The class was having a 'thanksgiving celebration' in their rooms, each child at their own desk.
> My daughter bowed her head to pray before she ate and the teach told her she CAN NOT pray in school.
> ...



Anyone?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Anyone?


I will answer as I can. Some people no matter what religion, orientation or lack there of go to far in trying to get others to accept them. It is not right but it happens in all situations.

Think of it this way. You had to eat creamed potatoes(which you hate) for years because your parents said so. When you get older and can tell your parents No, you go a bit overboard and demand that you never see it again. Instead of saying yes you can make it, I just won't eat it you rant and rave and say you hate it and don't put it on the table ever again. I personally had to apologize to my mother several times because I did that.

PS I don't think you should force any one(Pastor, Priest) of any religion to perform same sex marriages.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

painterswife said:


> I will answer as I can. Some people no matter what religion, orientation or lack there of go to far in trying to get others to accept them. It is not right but it happens in all situations.
> 
> Think of it this way. You had to eat creamed potatoes(which you hate) for years because your parents said so. When you get older and can tell your parents No, you go a bit overboard and demand that you never see it again. Instead of saying yes you can make it, I just won't eat it you rant and rave and say you hate it and don't put it on the table ever again. I personally had to apologize to my mother several times because I did that.


So kind of like the pendulum swinging from one extreme to the other, instead of just swaying gently in the middle.
One side is the 'extreme' religious.
One side is the 'extreme' opposite of religious.

Somewhere in the middle.....people can maintain their religions that are different and choices that are different, and still treat each other with basic human respect, and not expect anyone to conform to their 'beliefs or choices'
We just haven't found that place yet.

Is that about right?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> So kind of like the pendulum swinging from one extreme to the other, instead of just swaying gently in the middle.
> One side is the 'extreme' religious.
> One side is the 'extreme' opposite of religious.
> 
> ...


Yes, but that is not everyone. There are many of us that are perfectly happy in the middle right now. You do your thing , I do my thing. I respect your religion, you respect mine.

I grew up in a multicultural, multi-religion family. I have attended everything from East Indian religious ceremonies, Buddhist, Mennonite, Mormon, Jewish and a few more. I followed all the customs for each in respect. In fact almost all of those were for members of my close family.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Yes, but that is not everyone. There are many of us that are perfectly happy in the middle right now. You do your thing , I do my thing. I respect your religion, you respect mine.


Totally agree! 



> I grew up in a multicultural, multi-religion family. I have attended everything from East Indian religious ceremonies, Buddhist, Mennonite, Mormon, Jewish and a few more. I followed all the customs for each in respect. In fact almost all of those were for members of my close family.


I will be honest with you, I have not done deep intense study on a vast array of religions.....so when I ask questions, it is out of lack of knowledge.

Is "Christianity" the only religion that sees homosexuality, as a sin or offense to their god? 
Are there other religions that take the same 'hard line' stance in it's 'holy writ'?


----------



## Elffriend (Mar 2, 2003)

Laura, the teacher who wouldn't let your daughter say grace over her food and the one that wouldn't let her read her Bible during free reading time were both WRONG. If you didn't go up to the school and make a stink about it, you should have. Student initiated prayer that does not disrupt the classroom is allowed in schools. What wouldn't be allowed is the teacher, who is a government employee and an authority figure in the classroom, standing up and leading the class in prayer. Some teachers get it wrong. Some school systems get it wrong. They need to be challenged when they do.

As for learning about different holidays in December, do you think there were any kids in the school that didn't know about Christmas? If the population was mostly white and latino, those kids were probably already well familiar with Christmas and the Baby Jesus and not at all familiar with Chanukkah, Kwanza or St. Lucia Day. And St. Lucia IS a Christian holiday, even if not all Christians celebrate it. 

I'm not sure the pendulum analogy quite works. I think there's more like three extremes, Christianity on one side, anti-religious folks on another, and all the non-Christian religious folks on a third. Anti-religious folks don't want religion in the schools or in any other government institutions, but some are willing to tolerate learning about minority religions in the name of multiculturalism and diversity. While you might be fine with your kids learning about other religions, there are an awful lot of Christians who aren't. There are many Christians who want things like school prayer, but they mean Christian prayers. The non-Christian minority religions want to be heard, too. If any religion is going to be allowed, they want to make sure that they are being represented. 

I think it's hard to know where to draw the line. What some people would see as educating kids about a variety of religions, others would see as proselytizing.


----------



## chamoisee (May 15, 2005)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Is "Christianity" the only religion that sees homosexuality, as a sin or offense to their god?


Actually, not all Christians or all factions of Christianity see homosexuality in this light. Certainly most of the fundamentalist churches do, but for an example, the Quaker Meeting I belong to welcomes all orientations as well as transgender folk, etc. North Pacific Yearly Meeting - Faith and Practice


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

"Some people no matter what religion, orientation or lack there of go to far in trying to get others to accept them."

While other people seem to think they have to decide whether to ACCEPT other people. Maybe I live in the wrong country, but here in the US it isn't necessary for people to be "accepted" by anybody to have their rights as citizens.:hrm:


----------



## Haven (Aug 16, 2010)

painterswife said:


> I grew up in a multicultural, multi-religion family. I have attended everything from East Indian religious ceremonies, Buddhist, Mennonite, Mormon, Jewish and a few more. I followed all the customs for each in respect. In fact almost all of those were for members of my close family.


Same here. When I was a kid we hosted many exchange students from Japan, Sweden, Africa, etc. I can remember and African woman and her 2 daughters that stayed with us once when I was in high school - I watched in amazement as she wrapped her 3 foot long dread locks up over her head before she got in the hot tub with my parents. A Japanese girl once wore a kimono and did a traditional dance for me in our living room, and I sat at the kitchen table and she taught me how to write my name in Japanese and we did origami for hours.

The world would be a wonderful place if everyone could grow up being exposed to people of all cultures and beliefs. It's fascinating and a great learning experience for kids. It's easy too judge others' beliefs and customs when you have never been exposed to other cultures or lifestyles - people view them as less than human.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I dont like Zucchini... sliced and diced in a salad, broiled on a stick, boiled in soup or baked in a loaf of bread.... I refuse to "accept" it on my plate period!. That being said however I have no quarrel with those sick minded individuals who actually claim to LIKE the nasty stuff. They are entitled to eat anything they want to.... as long as... and thats the critical part.... as long as they dont put it on my plate and expect me to eat it. 

Its my understanding that there are those in this world who not only do not want zucchini on their own plate..... they dont want anyone else to have it either.... now... thats just going a bit too far. My copy of the Constitution says that basically we all have the same basic rights to pursue our own way of life.... as long as.... we dont try to force anyone else to live according to our own ways.


----------



## gryndlgoat (May 27, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I dont like Zucchini... sliced and diced in a salad, broiled on a stick, boiled in soup or baked in a loaf of bread.... I refuse to "accept" it on my plate period!. That being said however I have no quarrel with those sick minded individuals who actually claim to LIKE the nasty stuff. They are entitled to eat anything they want to.... as long as... and thats the critical part.... as long as they dont put it on my plate and expect me to eat it.
> 
> Its my understanding that there are those in this world who not only do not want zucchini on their own plate..... they dont want anyone else to have it either.... now... thats just going a bit too far. My copy of the Constitution says that basically we all have the same basic rights to pursue our own way of life.... as long as.... we dont try to force anyone else to live according to our own ways.


But someone will now complain that the public schools will start teaching about zucchini and introduce zucchini to kids whose parents refuse to recognize it as a healthy vegetable. They would prefer that their kids not know about zucchini or that some kids in their classroom have zucchini-eating parents. So all zucchini should be banned to protect their children from reality, instead of having them step up as parents and explain why they BELIEVE that zucchini is bad and why in their home zucchini would not be served.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

gryndlgoat said:


> But someone will now complain that the public schools will start teaching about zucchini and introduce zucchini to kids whose parents refuse to recognize it as a healthy vegetable. They would prefer that their kids not know about zucchini or that some kids in their classroom have zucchini-eating parents. So all zucchini should be banned to protect their children from reality, *instead of having them step up as parents and explain why they BELIEVE that zucchini is bad and why in their home zucchini would not be served.*


Yep.
Lazy parents expect the schools to do their jobs.
And they they want to whine and cry when they don't like it.
Insane huh?


----------



## unregistered168043 (Sep 9, 2011)

The question is more about who has the right to impose their morality/opinions on others. Consenting adults should have the right to define their own relationships without government interference.

People talking about children marrying animals and whatnot are confused about the issue. Marriage is a contract. Can a 12 year old and a zebra enter into a contract? There is your answer.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Darntootin said:


> The question is more about who has the right to impose their morality/opinions on others. Consenting adults should have the right to define their own relationships without government interference.
> 
> People talking about children marrying animals and whatnot are confused about the issue. Marriage is a contract. Can a 12 year old and a zebra enter into a contract? There is your answer.


Government has no business being in the marriage business, period.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

gryndlgoat said:


> But someone will now complain that the public schools will start teaching about zucchini and introduce zucchini to kids whose parents refuse to recognize it as a healthy vegetable. They would prefer that their kids not know about zucchini or that some kids in their classroom have zucchini-eating parents. So all zucchini should be banned to protect their children from reality, instead of having them step up as parents and explain why they BELIEVE that zucchini is bad and why in their home zucchini would not be served.


I was sorta under the impression that the whole purpose of schools was to educate the little tykes so they would be prepared for adult life when they grow up.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I was sorta under the impression that the whole purpose of schools was to educate the little tykes so they would be prepared for adult life when they grow up.


Yep
Readin', Writin' and Rithmatick.
Not morals. Good or lack there of.
That is the parents responsibility.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

The problem is parents are teaching their kids one important thing.
They don't have to take the time to teach their kids anything.
The school will do it for them.


----------



## PaulNKS (Jan 11, 2009)

JeffreyD said:


> ... It;s proven that single parent households are not better than a traditional family unit of a husband and wife.


That has to be the most ridiculous posting I've ever read anywhere. Prove your statement. Provide a link to prove what you say. If you can do that I'll gladly produce "neutral" studies that prove you wrong.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

PaulNKS said:


> That has to be the most ridiculous posting I've ever read anywhere. Prove your statement. Provide a link to prove what you say. If you can do that I'll gladly produce "neutral" studies that prove you wrong.


You really think that a single parent household is better for the kids,really? It's just common sense isn't it? Ok, here we go:

http://papers.ccpr.ucla.edu/papers/PWP-CCPR-2008-022/PWP-CCPR-2008-022.pdf

"We conclude that while children do better, on average, living with two biological married parents"


Children in single parent families 'worse behaved' - Telegraph

Children raised by single mothers are twice as likely to misbehave as those born into traditional two-parent families, according to research

Some 12 per cent of children brought up by one parent displayed series behavioural problems by the age of seven, it was disclosed, compared with just six per cent of youngsters raised by both natural parents. 

The disclosure is made as part of a major study of around 14,000 children born in Britain between 2000 and 2002.

In one study, researchers surveyed 13,500 mothers to gage childrenâs behaviour. They were asked to rate their hyperactivity, conduct, emotional problems and relationships with peers. Researchers then grouped children into three categories ranging from ânormalâ to âserious behavioural problemsâ. 

It found that stepchildren and children with lone parents were most likely to be badly behaved. Fifteen per cent of stepchildren and 12 per cent of children with lone parents fell into this category, compared with six per cent living with both natural parents. 

Behavioural problems were less likely among children living in families with higher levels of parental qualifications, it was disclosed. 

Academics insisted further research was needed into the link between single parents and childrenâs behaviour. 

But previous studies have found children raised by lone mothers are likely to have less economic security, less attention and guidance and more likely to live in deprived areas. 

A separate analysis of the Millennium Cohort Study â based at the Institute of Education â tracked the effect of mothersâ age on childrenâs early development. 

It found those with mothers aged under 30 had to cope with âfar more upheaval than other children during their first seven yearsâ.


----------



## unregistered168043 (Sep 9, 2011)

As an American and a libertarian I believe that everyone should be free to speak, believe, do and say what they believe.

Personally, I find it silly that two men would want to marry and live together like a man and a woman. I think it is comical when they act out those roles. However, I do recognize that I am limited as a human being and have no business telling other people how to live their lives.

If two consenting adults can find a church to marry them, then by all means they should do what makes them happy. Have a ceremony, say your vows, and live as a married couple. If someone else doesn't think it is legitimate then they have the right to think and say so. If i own a company and I choose to extend family benefits to traditionally married people and not to same sex marriages, then that is my right. And they have the right to work for a company that does. Also, vice versa.

The thing that irks me is when people try to use the power of the government to force others to do as they do, and believe as they believe. That is not a legitimate role for government. Government should never have the authority to define our personal relationships.

Gays need to get away from the idea that everyone has to accept them and their practices. You can't get the government to force everyone to like you. Likewise, religious and social conservatives have to get away from the idea that everyone must think and do as they do. You don't know it all. And using the government to impose your will over other people's personal lives destroys all the credibility of your 'small government' rhetoric and just makes you seem ridiculous and small.


----------



## PaulNKS (Jan 11, 2009)

Darntootin said:


> As an American and a libertarian I believe that everyone should be free to speak, believe, do and say what they believe.
> 
> Personally, I find it silly that two men would want to marry and live together like a man and a woman. I think it is comical when they act out those roles.


Most gay couples do not have "male/female" roles. You thinking that is what's comical.



> If two consenting adults can find a church to marry them, then by all means they should do what makes them happy. Have a ceremony, say your vows, and live as a married couple.


Most gay people are not looking for a church to marry them. They only want the legal protections that hetero couples are entitled to.



> If someone else doesn't think it is legitimate then they have the right to think and say so. If i own a company and I choose to extend family benefits to traditionally married people and not to same sex marriages, then that is my right. And they have the right to work for a company that does. Also, vice versa.


I completely agree. As a business owner you should have the right to run your business as you see fit.



> The thing that irks me is when people try to use the power of the government to force others to do as they do, and believe as they believe. That is not a legitimate role for government. Government should never have the authority to define our personal relationships.


What makes you think that gays are trying to force others to do as they do or to believe as they believe. That is the farthest thing from their agenda. All they want is to not be discriminated against in their own relationships.



> Gays need to get away from the idea that everyone has to accept them and their practices. You can't get the government to force everyone to like you. Likewise, religious and social conservatives have to get away from the idea that everyone must think and do as they do. You don't know it all. And using the government to impose your will over other people's personal lives destroys all the credibility of your 'small government' rhetoric and just makes you seem ridiculous and small.


There are a few things people should realize. It is obvious from statements such as these that some people have no idea what this is all about. Some people need to educate themselves on the issues so they can actually discuss it without making so many false statements.

Gay men and women want NOTHING more than an equal right. They don't want to have to pay estate taxes when a partner dies. They don't want to have to spend two or three thousand dollars on legal documents to protect a surviving partner when a hetero couple doesn't have to. They aren't looking for any recognition from the Christian community or the churches. This is all about legalities, not religion. 

One other major fact to consider.... The battle from the fundamentalist Christian community has already been lost. The public opinion polls are swinging at alarming rates. Americans are no longer wanting their politics and their social lives determined by the religious right. 

Before anyone lynches me. I'm as conservative a Christian as anyone here, with the one exception on equal rights.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Anyone?


No offense, but you're asking us, when you should have been asking the Teachers, the Pricnipal and even the School Board, what the problem is, that some religious activities is OK, but your religion's activities are not.

Their answer would be the one that is important, one way or the other.

Parents need to stand up for their child's rights, at school - always.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

plowjockey said:


> No offense, but you're asking us, when you should have been asking the Teachers, the Pricnipal and even the School Board, what the problem is, that some religious activities is OK, but your religion's activities are not.
> 
> Their answer would be the one that is important, one way or the other.
> 
> Parents need to stand up for their child's rights, at school - always.


This is the question I was askin' ya'all:




> Those who scream 'freedom from religion' don't mind Kwanza, Santa, St.Lucia, or really even Islam........clearly that is true because it is permitted in schools and the workplace.
> BUT as SOON as you mention Jesus / The Bible....or silently bow your head to pray, somehow you become this monster that needs to be slayed and removed?
> I don't get it?





> ]*I'm ok with it...but I don't get it, and I cannot get anyone to explain it to me.*



I addressed the situation at school (this was YEARS ago).
My kids had no 'rights'. And trust me, the second you try to 'invoke your rights'......it's taken out on your kid when you are not there.
So instead of beating my head against a brick wall, I brought the kids home and home schooled. 
My only regret? That I didn't do it sooner!!!


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

PaulNKS said:


> Most gay couples do not have "male/female" roles. You thinking that is what's comical.
> 
> 
> Most gay people are not looking for a church to marry them. They only want the legal protections that hetero couples are entitled to.
> ...


This I agree with and have actually stated in other threads that I believe the government shouldn't be involved in the marriage issue, period, but instead make every "legal" union just that, a legal or civil union, with the same rights and benefits that are presently only given to heterosexual marriages. Leave marriages to the Churches, not the government.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

sonshine said:


> this i agree with and have actually stated in other threads that i believe the government shouldn't be involved in the marriage issue, period, but instead make every "legal" union just that, a legal or civil union, with the same rights and benefits that are presently only given to heterosexual marriages. *leave marriages to the churches, not the government*.


^^^^^^ this ^^^^^^


----------



## unregistered168043 (Sep 9, 2011)

PaulNKS said:


> Most gay couples do not have "male/female" roles. You thinking that is what's comical


Oh yes they do. Lets deal in reality.




> Most gay people are not looking for a church to marry them. They only want the legal protections that hetero couples are entitled to.


My point was that marriage should be left to the church, not government.





> What makes you think that gays are trying to force others to do as they do or to believe as they believe. That is the farthest thing from their agenda. All they want is to not be discriminated against in their own relationships.


Well...lets see, books like 'Heather has two Mommies' that are pushed onto public schools by gay organizations?? There is a very concerted effort within the gay community to push their agenda of acceptance. For many, the gay marriage issue is an integral part of that.




> There are a few things people should realize. It is obvious from statements such as these that some people have no idea what this is all about. Some people need to educate themselves on the issues so they can actually discuss it without making so many false statements.


If we are using your post as an example then I agree wholeheartedly.



> They don't want to have to pay estate taxes when a partner dies. They don't want to have to spend two or three thousand dollars on legal documents to protect a surviving partner when a hetero couple doesn't have to. They aren't looking for any recognition from the Christian community or the churches. This is all about legalities, not religion.


Thats kind of my point. Government should not be involved in marriage, granting special privileges to people who choose one way of life over another. I should be able to pass my benefits and estate to whom ever I choose regardless of how government defines our relationship.


----------



## unregistered41671 (Dec 29, 2009)

Darntootin said:


> Well...lets see, books like 'Heather has two Mommies' that are pushed onto public schools by gay organizations?? There is a very concerted effort within the gay community to push their agenda of acceptance. For many, the gay marriage issue is an integral part of that.


Kids are being indoctrinated to the homosexual agenda. I have a link that shows videos and printed material that is pushed on small kids in public schools. I posted it here a week or so ago and after I read some of the stuff in the link, I decided that it was to raunchy for HT and asked one of the mods to delete the thread.


----------

