Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Karlis

California Marriage Amendment to be decided

766 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

HerNibs

A church should be able to say whatever they want, cause they are free. Or so we are told.

The government is not "scaring" any of them with threatening to remove the tax exempt status. When they applied to be a "church" or religion they agreed to certain things. One of those being not politically motivated.

If the church opts to take a stand, they KNOWINGLY do so at their own risk.

Nibs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sear
"A church may NOT endorse a politician. If you don't know that, you need to get out of this forum." eqg

It's not that simple.

A church jeopardizes its tax exemption when it entertains the political.

BUT!!!

Churches have done so conspicuously in the past, and retained their tax exemption.

In recent years there's been a crackdown on that. But it has already happened. When Reverend Jesse Jackson was a candidate, many churches openly endorsed him. And I believe some actually provided him a forum to "preach" (campaign) in the church.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horrendus Formidonis

Westboro style rantings, indeed. Those people are nutcases. Not to mention the fact that 80% of the 100 person church is related to the pastor, Fred Phelps. Many conservatives think freedom of speech applies onyl to them. THEY have the RIGHT to say what THEY want, even it infringes on YOUR beliefs. THEY have the RIGHT to regulate YOUR personal life. What YOU want does'nt matter because THEY get their information from a really old book, so it MUST be true! I have yet to see anyone support the anti-LGTB agenda with anything besides what is said in the bible.

I really hope you aren't confusing gay people suing a church, to the church carrying out unjust disciplinary actions against preachers who marry homosexual persons, like the case of Jimmy Creech. Of course, the United Methodist Church has come far from being a formerly racist, sexist denomination. That's why I love my denomination, we lobby for equal rights, then turn directly around and defrock someone who marries a gay couple.

On a separate note, why do people love picking on minorities? Way back, the church picked on women, then black people, now the LGTB community, what next? Notice how everytime it is for something they can't change. Prejudice against left handed people seems to be gaining popularity recently.

Edited by Shannons_Reality

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Karlis

Hi Cadetak, I posted the following: QUOTE Karlis, on 15 January 2010 - 01:47 AM, said:

I still have the feeling that this point is *not* the issue that gay right fighters are campaigning for. It is a reason they give, for sure ... but it's not the major reason; but again, that's just my gut feeling QUOTE

To which you replied:

So you expect that there is some unknown alternative agenda that is secretly happening but can't show it or even know what it could be? But because of some 'gut' feeling you believe its true and happening?

With all do respect Karlis, and note I said with all do respect...that is not only completely illogical but also an irresponsible way to go about making social decisions.

I “begged off” answering you then, as it was late and I wanted my answer to do justice to your post.

I'm just about off to bed Cadatek -- and because your post deserves a somewhat detailed reply, I'll leave this till another day. If I don't reply soon please remind me in a day or two.

Cheers,

Karlis

Cadetak, I wrote I had a ‘gut feeling’ there exist “ulterior gay agendas”, apart from the gay marriage issue. As I said, your post deserves a serious reply. A book titled, “After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's”, by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen gives that answer.

That book addresses gay agendas, and how to act to achieve these agendas. I also copied a couple of reviews from Amazon, by readers of that book, to help illustrate what the book contains.

That said, I have a neutral stance on this whole issue, but I believe that there has never been a major social issue where things were all black and white; there always – without exception – are many levels involved in such social issues.

Eventually one specific issue inevitably surfaces, which is used as a platform to rally public support for any social agenda, irrespective of the validity of such an agenda. There are examples of constructive and destructive agendas throughout history. A couple of examples, one of a constructive agenda and another of a destructive agenda:

*The fight for equality for women started with “Women's suffrage” -- the right of women to vote.

*Hitler blamed Marxism and Jewish capitalism for Germany’s economic problems. The key rallying platform that eventually emerged was anti-Semitism and the superiority of the Aryan race.

In the case of gay activism, the “key platform” has turned out to be the question of gay marriage.

Thus, to claim that the gay marriage issue is *the* issue for gays is, imo, too simplistic an argument – and that point is put forward by the authors of the book, “After the Ball”.

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

To overcome Americans' deep-rooted aversion to gay men and women, psychologist Kirk and ad man Madsen propose a massive media campaign designed to correct stereotypes and neutralize anti-gay prejudice. ...

Link to Amazon books

It is an agenda that they basically set in the late 1980s, in a book called After the Ball,[15] where they laid out a six-point plan for how they could transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to homosexual behaviorin a decade-long time frame.... They admit it privately, but they will not say that publicly. In their private publications, homosexual activists make it very clear that there is an agenda.

The six-point agenda that they laid out in 1989 was explicit:

*Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible(...)

*Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers(...)

*Give homosexual protectors a just cause(...)

*Make gays look good(...)

*Make the victimizers look bad(...)

*Get funds from corporate America(...)[1]

After the Ball[15] is a book published in 1989 by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. It argues that after the gay liberation phase of the 1970s and 1980s, gay rights groups should adopt more professional public relations techniques to convey their message.

According to a Christian Broadcasting Network article by Paul Strand, Sears and Osten argue that After the Ball follows from "a 1988 summit of gay leaders in Warrenton, Virginia, who came together to agree on the agenda" and that "the two men (Kirk and Madsen) proposed using tactics on 'straight' America that are remarkably similar to the brainwashing methods of Mao Tse-Tung's Communist Chinese -- mixed with Madison Avenue's most persuasive selling techniques."[16]

The article goes on to claim that films such as Brokeback Mountain are part of this "well-planned propaganda campaign". Link to wiki source

BOOK REVIEWS from Amazon readers

[ Interesting how two readers can arrive at almost diametrically opposing conclusions, while quoting the exact same source.]

As a summary of methods to manipulate and control opinion, this book is an example of how to achieve a goal (public opinion modification), without recourse to fact, reason, or fair play.

A propagandists dream, it is best summed up in two of its own quotes

*"Thus propagandistic advertising can depict all opponents of the gay movement as homophobic bigots who are 'not Christian' and the propoganda can further show them as being criticized, hated and shunned}"....

*"Our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic or proof.... the person's beliefs can be altered whether he is conscious of the attack or not" (p. 152-153)

-=-=-

This book is a look at how gay activism can become more pragmatic and realistic. While "shock" tactics may be fun and a wonderful outlet for our pent up emotions (and may even have their place), this book shows why they are not effective at changing society or government.

The first part of this book shows how to change society, using the same propaganda that is unfortunately being used against us by ignorant ministers and politicans whose lies and propaganda are absorbed faster than truth and reason by our society.

The second half of the book explains how, despite the wonder and goodness of much of the gay community, some maladaptive behaviors have appeared in the gay community (primarily due to its persecution from less evolved members of our society) and how we can combat them to make our community even better and more nurturing. I don't agree with every conclusion the author makes, but it is a truly sobering message for gays and lesbians today; work with the system as it is or be second class citizens forever. Link to Amazon reviews

OK Cadetak, that's my penny's worth. That said, please keep in mind that I don't have a dog in this issue, :tu:

Karlis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TRUEYOUTRUEME

Personally I think that the alternative agenda of the left-wing in regards to this issue are obvious. The left-wing have an agenda of limiting the "right to representation" of the American people in regards to issues of sexual behavior.

Of course this agenda also runs hand in hand with limiting the rights of their most powerful moral competitor which is the western traditional values crowd and religion.

If we do not have a right to have representation on what the definition of marraige is for the public then why should we believe that we will not lose the right of representation as well in regards to the age of consent as well? Why should you be able to tell another family when they deem their children ready for sexual relations? (I could hear it now)

Or on issues of public decency? Or on the issue of polygamy? Or how many other issues of how the public deals with sexual behavior?

The overall aternative agenda of the left-wing is to limit the rights of the people on issues of sexual behavior and thus destroy the traditional family morality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TRUEYOUTRUEME

Westboro style rantings, indeed. Those people are nutcases. Not to mention the fact that 80% of the 100 person church is related to the pastor, Fred Phelps. Many conservatives think freedom of speech applies onyl to them. THEY have the RIGHT to say what THEY want, even it infringes on YOUR beliefs. THEY have the RIGHT to regulate YOUR personal life. What YOU want does'nt matter because THEY get their information from a really old book, so it MUST be true! I have yet to see anyone support the anti-LGTB agenda with anything besides what is said in the bible.

Are you talking about this life-long democrat party anti-American nutcase?

al_gore_fred_phelps.jpg

Who was good friends with Al Gore.

My group has counter-protested against this life-long America hater many times. He is no conservative but is a democrat.

It is the nutcase progressive movement that is trying to force their perverse morality on the rest of the country. The People of California have spoken on this public issue of sexual behavior through the ballot box. It is the left-wing nutcases who want their perverse morality forced upon the rest of society through the Courts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack_of_Blades
If we do not have a right to have representation on what the definition of marraige is for the public then why should we believe that we will not lose the right of representation as well in regards to the age of consent as well?

Staggering.... :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Silver Thong

Personally I think that the alternative agenda of the left-wing in regards to this issue are obvious. The left-wing have an agenda of limiting the "right to representation" of the American people in regards to issues of sexual behavior.

Of course this agenda also runs hand in hand with limiting the rights of their most powerful moral competitor which is the western traditional values crowd and religion.

If we do not have a right to have representation on what the definition of marraige is for the public then why should we believe that we will not lose the right of representation as well in regards to the age of consent as well? Why should you be able to tell another family when they deem their children ready for sexual relations? (I could hear it now)

Or on issues of public decency? Or on the issue of polygamy? Or how many other issues of how the public deals with sexual behavior?

The overall aternative agenda of the left-wing is to limit the rights of the people on issues of sexual behavior and thus destroy the traditional family morality.

So basically what your saying is that gay people want the right to have sex in public while you ride the bus to work in the morning. Is that what your saying gay people want. To throw out laws against public sexual behavior? I can tell you thats not the case because the law is very clear as to what is acceptable and what is not in the public square and what you suggest is the gay community want zero laws as to there sexual conduct. You must think all gay people want to run around in leather chaps with there asss hanging out LOL then you want it to be ok for heterosexual people to be able to do the same but no gays allowed. Your message is clear ban homosexuality but promote perverse hetero sexual activity. At least that what I'm getting from you, are you more of a dictator than I thought and want to limit heterosexual peoples sexual activity as well. Do you want to ban kissing in the public square do you want to ban holding hands hell I bet you want to ban giving flowers in public as well.

The public square as you so much like to refer to is a public square but you want to ban it being public hence make the public square a religious only zone that does not allow gays. Your public square would be an empty pitifully place if that was the case. Get your agenda out of the public square hypocrite and welcome all to it. You want a public square, than act like you do as it's clear your public square has a bias members only agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
THE MATRIX

The overall aternative agenda of the left-wing is to limit the rights of the people on issues of sexual behavior and thus destroy the traditional family morality.

You often talk about how gay marriage will destroy the traditional of family morality.

Can you define what exactly is your definition of family morality?

Then can you also explain to me why in a country where the majority are Christians the divorce is high, the high rate of STDs, the number extramarital affairs, the number of children born out of wedlocks, the record numbers of teenage pregnancies, and how televisions glorifies these things?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TRUEYOUTRUEME

So basically what your saying is that gay people want the right to have sex in public while you ride the bus to work in the morning. Is that what your saying gay people want. To throw out laws against public sexual behavior? I can tell you thats not the case because the law is very clear as to what is acceptable and what is not in the public square and what you suggest is the gay community want zero laws as to there sexual conduct. You must think all gay people want to run around in leather chaps with there asss hanging out LOL then you want it to be ok for heterosexual people to be able to do the same but no gays allowed. Your message is clear ban homosexuality but promote perverse hetero sexual activity. At least that what I'm getting from you, are you more of a dictator than I thought and want to limit heterosexual peoples sexual activity as well. Do you want to ban kissing in the public square do you want to ban holding hands hell I bet you want to ban giving flowers in public as well.

The public square as you so much like to refer to is a public square but you want to ban it being public hence make the public square a religious only zone that does not allow gays. Your public square would be an empty pitifully place if that was the case. Get your agenda out of the public square hypocrite and welcome all to it. You want a public square, than act like you do as it's clear your public square has a bias members only agenda.

You can go on all of the insultive rants that you want towards my point of view but all I am simply claiming is that I believe that the People should ALL have EQUAL representation on issues of how all types of sexual behavior are dealt with in the public square by government.

You seem to want all relgious views driven behind closed doors and to see a Court decision that will limit all objections to gay marraige or gay behavior in public by all of the People.

You have the right to your opinion and I also support your right (if you were American) to have representation to support pro-homosexual policies in law. It is you though who have the attitude of a dictator and want to oppress the people by denying having EQUAL representation on this issue of how the public deals with sexual behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TRUEYOUTRUEME

You often talk about how gay marriage will destroy the traditional of family morality.

Can you define what exactly is your definition of family morality?

Then can you also explain to me why in a country where the majority are Christians the divorce is high, the high rate of STDs, the number extramarital affairs, the number of children born out of wedlocks, the record numbers of teenage pregnancies, and how televisions glorifies these things?

Family morality is simply the People having a say on how government deals with sexuality in public. For years we have had that say until this recent challenge by the left-wing to deny us our rights to have a say. The American people believe that we all have a stake on ow these issues of family are dealt with and have done a fair job up to now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
THE MATRIX

Family morality is simply the People having a say on how government deals with sexuality in public. For years we have had that say until this recent challenge by the left-wing to deny us our rights to have a say. The American people believe that we all have a stake on ow these issues of family are dealt with and have done a fair job up to now.

I wasn't asking what other people think. I was asking you directly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TRUEYOUTRUEME

I wasn't asking what other people think. I was asking you directly.

Well I'm sorry but I did not invent family values. It was the People as a whole who did by having them all having an equal say. A father, and mother who raise thier own children and have a say in the values and morality of their communities.

I am just speaking out for the rights of these millions of people against the left-wing nutjobs who want to say that they do not have a right to define family values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
THE MATRIX

Well I'm sorry but I did not invent family values. It was the People as a whole who did by having them all having an equal say. A father, and mother who raise thier own children and have a say in the values and morality of their communities.

I am just speaking out for the rights of these millions of people against the left-wing nutjobs who want to say that they do not have a right to define family values.

OK. Now can you answer my second question?

Then can you also explain to me why in a country where the majority are Christians the divorce is high, the high rate of STDs, the number extramarital affairs, the number of children born out of wedlocks, the record numbers of teenage pregnancies, and how televisions glorifies these things?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Silver Thong

You seem to want all relgious views driven behind closed doors and to see a Court decision that will limit all objections to gay marraige or gay behavior in public by all of the People.

Religion and personal beliefs should be kept behind closed doors as it is a personal belief. You seem to think that a personal belief should be put on public display for all to see, why is that. Why do personal beliefs have to become everyones personal beliefs. You are not for equal rights and you have never been for equal rights. You want doctrine to rule the land and that is not acceptable in any public square, never. If you say otherwise it proves you want religious doctrine to rule society and guess what, thats not acceptable nor what America wanted from the get go. All men (people) created equal, however you don't agree with that, so be it. Quit trying to suppress when people want freedom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Startraveler
I am just speaking out for the rights of these millions of people against the left-wing nutjobs who want to say that they do not have a right to define family values.

There's something very ironic here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TRUEYOUTRUEME

OK. Now can you answer my second question?

Then can you also explain to me why in a country where the majority are Christians the divorce is high, the high rate of STDs, the number extramarital affairs, the number of children born out of wedlocks, the record numbers of teenage pregnancies, and how televisions glorifies these things?

I would say it is because of the left-wing "sexual revolution" of the Marxist sixties movement. As well as the left-wing hold over the media and the Universities that promote the same sexual freedom ideals.

In my lifetime I have seen these ideals pushed by left-wingers to extremes in an effort to sexualize the children of America in perverse ways. Hollyweird and many companies even push it full tilt.

I remember when the AIDS epidemic was in the news big time and I thought that maybe the culture and the media would stop trying to radically sexualize society and children but they never did. It is a anti-family values left-wing agenda.

Edited by TRUEYOUTRUEME

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Silver Thong

There's something very ironic here.

:lol:

I mean what, I couldn't see it at all :innocent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TRUEYOUTRUEME

Here is the real irony on this issue - It is only the far left-wing that believe that the people have no right to representation on this issue. Many democrats have a problem with this extreme left-wing position that claims that the people have no right to define marraige.

Gays vs. Democratic Party

They’re fond of your checkbooks — and deaf to your demands for equal rights. What will it take for the Democratic Party to step up?

That is why of course that these far left-wing radicals are trying to use the Court to try and force their radical perverse morality on the People. They do not have the support of the People on this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pseudo Intellectual
and how televisions glorifies these things

I didn't know the Hollywood nut jobs were Christian...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cadetak

Hi Cadetak, I posted the following: QUOTE Karlis, on 15 January 2010 - 01:47 AM, said:

I still have the feeling that this point is *not* the issue that gay right fighters are campaigning for. It is a reason they give, for sure ... but it's not the major reason; but again, that's just my gut feeling QUOTE

To which you replied:

I “begged off” answering you then, as it was late and I wanted my answer to do justice to your post.

Cadetak, I wrote I had a ‘gut feeling’ there exist “ulterior gay agendas”, apart from the gay marriage issue. As I said, your post deserves a serious reply. A book titled, “After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's”, by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen gives that answer.

That book addresses gay agendas, and how to act to achieve these agendas. I also copied a couple of reviews from Amazon, by readers of that book, to help illustrate what the book contains.

That said, I have a neutral stance on this whole issue, but I believe that there has never been a major social issue where things were all black and white; there always – without exception – are many levels involved in such social issues.

Eventually one specific issue inevitably surfaces, which is used as a platform to rally public support for any social agenda, irrespective of the validity of such an agenda. There are examples of constructive and destructive agendas throughout history. A couple of examples, one of a constructive agenda and another of a destructive agenda:

*The fight for equality for women started with “Women's suffrage” -- the right of women to vote.

*Hitler blamed Marxism and Jewish capitalism for Germany’s economic problems. The key rallying platform that eventually emerged was anti-Semitism and the superiority of the Aryan race.

In the case of gay activism, the “key platform” has turned out to be the question of gay marriage.

Thus, to claim that the gay marriage issue is *the* issue for gays is, imo, too simplistic an argument – and that point is put forward by the authors of the book, “After the Ball”.

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

To overcome Americans' deep-rooted aversion to gay men and women, psychologist Kirk and ad man Madsen propose a massive media campaign designed to correct stereotypes and neutralize anti-gay prejudice. ...

Link to Amazon books

It is an agenda that they basically set in the late 1980s, in a book called After the Ball,[15] where they laid out a six-point plan for how they could transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to homosexual behaviorin a decade-long time frame.... They admit it privately, but they will not say that publicly. In their private publications, homosexual activists make it very clear that there is an agenda.

The six-point agenda that they laid out in 1989 was explicit:

*Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible(...)

*Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers(...)

*Give homosexual protectors a just cause(...)

*Make gays look good(...)

*Make the victimizers look bad(...)

*Get funds from corporate America(...)[1]

After the Ball[15] is a book published in 1989 by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. It argues that after the gay liberation phase of the 1970s and 1980s, gay rights groups should adopt more professional public relations techniques to convey their message.

According to a Christian Broadcasting Network article by Paul Strand, Sears and Osten argue that After the Ball follows from "a 1988 summit of gay leaders in Warrenton, Virginia, who came together to agree on the agenda" and that "the two men (Kirk and Madsen) proposed using tactics on 'straight' America that are remarkably similar to the brainwashing methods of Mao Tse-Tung's Communist Chinese -- mixed with Madison Avenue's most persuasive selling techniques."[16]

The article goes on to claim that films such as Brokeback Mountain are part of this "well-planned propaganda campaign". Link to wiki source

BOOK REVIEWS from Amazon readers

[ Interesting how two readers can arrive at almost diametrically opposing conclusions, while quoting the exact same source.]

As a summary of methods to manipulate and control opinion, this book is an example of how to achieve a goal (public opinion modification), without recourse to fact, reason, or fair play.

A propagandists dream, it is best summed up in two of its own quotes

*"Thus propagandistic advertising can depict all opponents of the gay movement as homophobic bigots who are 'not Christian' and the propoganda can further show them as being criticized, hated and shunned}"....

*"Our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic or proof.... the person's beliefs can be altered whether he is conscious of the attack or not" (p. 152-153)

-=-=-

This book is a look at how gay activism can become more pragmatic and realistic. While "shock" tactics may be fun and a wonderful outlet for our pent up emotions (and may even have their place), this book shows why they are not effective at changing society or government.

The first part of this book shows how to change society, using the same propaganda that is unfortunately being used against us by ignorant ministers and politicans whose lies and propaganda are absorbed faster than truth and reason by our society.

The second half of the book explains how, despite the wonder and goodness of much of the gay community, some maladaptive behaviors have appeared in the gay community (primarily due to its persecution from less evolved members of our society) and how we can combat them to make our community even better and more nurturing. I don't agree with every conclusion the author makes, but it is a truly sobering message for gays and lesbians today; work with the system as it is or be second class citizens forever. Link to Amazon reviews

OK Cadetak, that's my penny's worth. That said, please keep in mind that I don't have a dog in this issue, :tu:

Karlis

I'm confused as this book you are citing and especially its related opinionated reviews don't really mean or show anything.

First, its one book by one author. The content of which, is basically a general playbook for an agenda. You can take that book and trade the word gay for woman, african american, christian, or anybody and the agenda strategy would still apply. So in practice it is no more evident of agenda or conspiracy then any other book of its type for which there are many of.

For the sake of argument lets say there is there is an agenda, as there are gay activists groups there most probably is and as there are anti-gay activists groups there is most probably agenda there(activists groups of course not representing their entire populace). The great Slippery Slope comes directly to mind...

Slippery Slope-Is an argument that if one thing happens we open the door for everything else to happen. I assume your familiar with the fallacy. In the case of Gay Marriage, the train of thought may be "if we allow Gay marriage it will open the door for Gay Adoption" and perhaps more extremely "trying to turn kids gay". In practice however we know that it is a case by case issue...we can vote for Gay Marriage and stop it there if we wish. Just as we can allow for religious practice and not become a theocracy...simply put one thing doesn't always lead to another. If the 'Slippery Slope' fallacy was used all the time nothing would ever get done...UM's Politics, Religion, and Conspiracy boards are filled everyday with agendas and conspiracies by every single group on the planet...if we voted against them all everytime utilizing a "Slippery Slope" fallacy we would never vote(do to paranoia).

Lets say that after Gay marriage the next step is Gay Adoption. Lets say that you have nothing against the legalization of Gay marriage but hate the idea of Gay Adoption. Using your process you would vote against Gay marriage just to assure it never gets to Gay Adoption...heck using your process you may vote to get rid of all government recognized marriage whatsoever so gay marriage can never come up and therefore it can never get to Gay Adoption. However in reality you can simply vote for Gay marriage and then go be against Gay Adoption.

Whether a clear agenda is present or not is not very relevant. Because there is no clause, loopholes, or fine print in the proposed law change that reads"allow for any and all gay agenda" the only issue is Gay Marriage...when the issue changes to something else then we present new arguments, we do not present them now and lump them all together.

In short voting against something soley utilizing a fallacy is of course illogical...and casting votes based soley on such things as 'gut feelings' is irresponsible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cadetak

Personally I think that the alternative agenda of the left-wing in regards to this issue are obvious. The left-wing have an agenda of limiting the "right to representation" of the American people in regards to issues of sexual behavior.

The right-wing apparently have an agenda that somehow reasons that 'sexual behavior' is anything but a personal matter. The people, the majority, have no right to impose on another group ideologies that do not effect them.

Simply put what two consenting adults do in their bedroom is not your bussiness.

Of course this agenda also runs hand in hand with limiting the rights of their most powerful moral competitor which is the western traditional values crowd and religion.

Oh yes of course! Paranoia unless it can actually be shown that in the changing of the marriage law there is clause or fine print that includes "destroyt he church"

If we do not have a right to have representation on what the definition of marraige is for the public then why should we believe that we will not lose the right of representation as well in regards to the age of consent as well? Why should you be able to tell another family when they deem their children ready for sexual relations? (I could hear it now)

Slippery Slope argument is illogical. See my post to Karlis.

Or on issues of public decency? Or on the issue of polygamy? Or how many other issues of how the public deals with sexual behavior?

We should ban heterosexual sex and marriage because obviously it has opened the door for every possible thing ever. We should ban religion because it has opened the door for terrorism and will of course lead to theocracy.

Slippery slope, get it?

The overall aternative agenda of the left-wing is to limit the rights of the people on issues of sexual behavior and thus destroy the traditional family morality.

Simply epic.

Edited by Cadetak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TRUEYOUTRUEME

The right-wing apparently have an agenda that somehow reasons that 'sexual behavior' is anything but a personal matter. The people, the majority, have no right to impose on another group ideologies that do not effect them.

How issues of sexuality are dealt with in public is the People's business and we do have a right to define and legislate on issues of public sexuality. This is a public issue. That is why it is in a public Court. Didn't you realize that this was a public issue in a public Court?

Simply put what two consenting adults do in their bedroom is not your bussiness.

This is the typical left-wing strawman argument claiming that everyone opposed to enforcing the peverse left-wing morality of gay marraige upon the people through the Court want to spy into people's bedrooms and tell them what to do. It is pure BS as there is no right-wing movement at all to do such a thing.

Oh yes of course! Paranoia unless it can actually be shown that in the changing of the marriage law there is clause or fine print that includes "destroyt he church"

It is obvious that the far left-wing hate the church. They make it clear that they should keep all of their public or political opinions behind closed doors.

Slippery Slope argument is illogical. See my post to Karlis.

We should ban heterosexual sex and marriage because obviously it has opened the door for every possible thing ever. We should ban religion because it has opened the door for terrorism and will of course lead to theocracy.

No the slippery slope argument is not illogical. There is a legal precedent at stake here as to whether or not the People have a right to define sexuality trough their representation or as to whether these definitions will be dictated to all of the People by a panel of judges in black robes.

Slippery slope, get it?

Simply epic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cadetak

There is no point in responding you to TRUE, I could point out the fallacy and hypocrisy in your statements...i can present every piece of work I have ever done on the subject...but it doesn't matter because your incredible and unrelenting bias in the realm of politics has clearly and completely blinded you.

Since I have no intention of actually changing your mind and have now given up on trying to help you realize the fallacy and poor construction of your arguments and as it seems nobody else in the community seems to take you all that seriously there is no point here...well its still kinda funny I'll give you that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TRUEYOUTRUEME

There is no point in responding you to TRUE, I could point out the fallacy and hypocrisy in your statements...i can present every piece of work I have ever done on the subject...but it doesn't matter because your incredible and unrelenting bias in the realm of politics has clearly and completely blinded you.

Since I have no intention of actually changing your mind and have now given up on trying to help you realize the fallacy and poor construction of your arguments and as it seems nobody else in the community seems to take you all that seriously there is no point here...well its still kinda funny I'll give you that.

Are you the spokesperson for the UM community?

If you do not want to repsond to me then that is ok, or if you change your mind and do then want to respond to me, then that is ok as well with me.

All the best!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.