The radical homosexual agenda and the destruction of standards

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
Aren't YOU the one trying to force everyone to believe as you do? How many Gays have you seen posting that "theirs is the ONLY way"?


Force everyone? Absolutely not, I was not forced.....I just try to spread the message...

And as for giving my religion a bad name, well let me explain something. Christians have been quiet the last half century and they have watched our society become more immoral by the day. It is time to speak up and stand our ground, or pretty soon we will be Christians only in our closet and homes and that is not what built this nation.

Muslims hate us because of out immoral society that we force on them and in a sence they are right, it is that attitude that has come in the last 25 years from the youngest of generations, you know if it feels good do it and to hell with the consequences.


As for most articles....I count 7 including this one and I must have 30 on terror, 30 on politics....so I guess its a scale thing.....



As for the Joke, no ill taken at all, twin he is not, we disagree on many thing one being the death penalty.........



[edit on 12-3-2005 by edsinger]




posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Force everyone? Absolutely not, I was not forced.....I just try to spread the message...


Isnt that what what you condemn them for?



Christians have been quiet the last half century and they have watched our society become more immoral by the day. It is time to speak up and stand our ground, or pretty soon we will be Christians only in our closet and homes and that is not what built this nation.


I have no problems with you stating your opinion on the subject where I have a problem is you claiming everyone "knows" your right or that basically your way is the ONLY acceptable way. I will still defend your right to say it just as I will defend the Gays right to openly express theirs.



Muslims hate us because of out immoral society that we force on them and in a sence they are right, it is that attitude that has come in the last 25 years from the youngest of generations, you know if it feels good do it and to hell with the consequences.


So we should stone rape victims and cover women from head to toe while not allowing them medical attention, etc? Should the Bible be the ultimate law in the USA? Should we use the ENTIRE Old Testament or just pick and choose what pleases our religious masters in this brave new world?

Do you REALLY think we should be a Christian Taliban?

BTW I turn 55 in April.

Hardly the younger generation



[edit on 12-3-2005 by Amuk]



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 11:40 AM
link   
What I meant by the Muslim comment was things such as I will call the 'porn' society that we are spreading around the world.

Not stoning, no not at all. But at least lets call a spade a spade and not sugar coat it..


Example : You think homosexuality is ok and should be accepted as normal in society, I don't. I do not think it should be recognized as any special 'condition'. Is that going to stop them? Nope, but they can do whatever they wish in the bedroom but it should stay there and not be forced upon the majority as normal. Marriage is the great example. Civil Unions should suffice, but no, they want to take that one thing they have not had yet....


Marriage is in bad enough shape as it is divorce and such. Society has lost its moral basis.


As for age, I'm 36 and been married 12 years and never cheated or even thought about it.....


Should we be the Christian Tali-ban? No. Were we the Christian Taliban the 1950's?.....NO...but what we were was a resoundingly Christian Nation that's laws were based on such things.

I know you are in Arkansas and the only place I can think of a large population of gays would be Little Rock or Hot Springs...I have been there in the last 2 years and growing up in Mississippi, it was the South for sure.


The reason I say that is where I live is a HUGE population and with the numbers to have serious political clout. To me it is not different than the enviroterror wacko's, they want to force society to accept their version of the way things should be and I guess I am doing the same thing but there is one small difference, I value the human life more than any other.

When we let gays marry, the next thing will be other immoral acts that will become legal, there will be rated x things on cable, then the networks as they need the advertising revenue. The government should do what it can to at least keep society on the straight path...


It is coming to a head one day......things have made a decent turn this last November so I guess we will wait and see......



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 06:14 PM
link   

The government should do what it can to at least keep society on the straight path...


Its not the governments job to enforce ideas that are used to brainwash the masses nor is it the governments job to keep society on track that is the job of the people funny how consertives are against welfare and yet they are quite happy for the government to run our lives.


Why shouldnt gays be allowed to get married ? Gay marriage wont affect your marriage or anyone elses by imposing so called "standards" all you do is divide society.


[edit on 12-3-2005 by xpert11]



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11Why shouldnt gays be allowed to get married ? Gay marriage wont affect your marriage or anyone elses by imposing so called "standards" all you do is divide society.


Quite simply,

Because marriage is between a man and a woman, not man-man or woman-woman

the social institution under which a man and woman live as husband and wife by legal or religious commitments.


Notice the legal part?



Why can gays not have civil unions? Would that not suffice if it granted them all the rights of marriage?

No, it will never do, because by being allowed to marry it will legitimize what they do to be accepted as a normal act, which it is not.



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 07:02 PM
link   


Why can gays not have civil unions? Would that not suffice if it granted them all the rights of marriage?

No, it will never do, because by being allowed to marry it will legitimize what they do to be accepted as a normal act, which it is not.


The law can be changed and who says that marriage is bewteen a man and a women the bible? Here in NZ gays can get a civil union why not go the whole hog and call it marriage?

The only thing that isnt normal is the fact that people think they can impose there morals because they read it in a book.

When people start to impose there morals on others they are either covering up there own problems or they think it is there right to impose there so called morals on others. I dont want to offernd anybody I just call it as I see it.



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
The government should do what it can to at least keep society on the straight path...


Turn in your "Conservative" card right now. What a joke. What happened to you people? Republicans I mean. Your party is joke. Biggest liberals around (but not in the good way).

If this is just a religious thing, then yes it's no different than the Taliban. Theocratic government. If it's some political thing, then it's government forced anti-individual authoritarian social enginneering.

And you know it. You haven't addressed these points yet. Why? Because you know you're a liberal here. Not a conservative at all. Or know you're a theocrat. Just like the Taliban.

Well? Answer without mentioning gays please. If it's not merely prejudice you should be able to do so from the standpoint of logic. Let's just replace "gay marriage" with something comparable, and once equally opposed (whether you agree with it now or not).

Interracial marriage? Too close to home?

Okay, then make the hypothetical inter-generational marriage.

People of over 40 years age difference marrying. What if it caught on? Just because it's legal for a 18 year old girl to marry a 60 year old man, doesn't make it right. Think of all it might lead too... Marrying babies! Or all women wanting to marry men so old they can't reproduce so humanity dies out. The purpose of marriage is not just man and woman, but family. Healthy reproductive organs are involved. Some potential for babies, not just the sick pleasure derived between 18 year old wrinkle chasers and dirty old men. It cheapens my intra-generational marriage to know that inter-generationals can even do this! The government should really do something. It didn't used to be like this. Back when we were a Christian nation.


Well, I gave you a head start. But let's it hear it liberal. Argue for government control of marriage in that regard leaving out gays altogether, and sound smart about it.


Or just admit, you know better than free men, you're not a conservative at all, you hate individual rights, and love government imposed social engineering.

Well?

[edit on 12-3-2005 by RANT]



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Most Conservatives i know are for welfare including Ed.

Most Republican i know are for big government as are the democrats for evev bigger government.

I am definitely for welfare but against government welfare. Government is by nature inept.

I think helping others is the Church's responsibility. That way there is some accountability and other can compare our beliefs with those the Moslem's, Buddhists and Hindu's.
ie.
If you are an untouchable in Hindu society you may find a Christian soup kitchen helpful. We do not insist you convert only fill your belly.That is how we are supposed to brainwash the masses


If you are a Muslim and you see Christians out there dodging bullets to build your Shiite schools. It may make you wonder why?

When you hear those Mullahs preaching hate to their masses about evil Christians yet when your country is rocked by an earthquake and thousand are in need of medical attention, it may make you wonder why the filthy rich Saudis are not there when we despised Christians are.



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Interracial marriage? What? Have no problem with it if that is what they want, but that is not the same thing.

Oh I am a conservative - right winger for sure and happily admit it. Is this Bush government doing everything I like, hell no but I like what I see better than under the most ethical administration in history, you know a broken Clintonian promise.

Bush isn't doing a bad job, nor is he doing a great job, but he is doing the best job of the 2 choices we had.


What you refer to is condoning sexual immorality.........Why wont you support Civil Unions? Isn't that a middle ground? Nope, its all or nothing, first the boy scouts, then benefits same as a married couple, forcing your lifestyle choice on people as if you are now a minority in the sense of a ethic background, then the marriage.....where will it stop?


By your reckoning, then men should marry boys, heck transvestites marry whatever......Civil unions are fine with me, I don't care. Marriage I do.

RWOG
Me for welfare as it exists distributed by crooks and lazy government inefficient workers? What the hell have you been smoking?



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 08:54 PM
link   
I thought you were for food stamps for the poor?



Maybe I was wrong. Sorry



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Well as it sounds its ok, but when I see them buying porterhouse steaks to use as dog food since you cant buy dog food with them while I work minimum wage jobs so I can get hamburger heck no, I think that food Banks are a much better idea. The FDA food stamp program is so damn corrupt I hope it goes when the IRS does.


Edit, Btw, that woman had crushed eggs....


And RWOG, I dont think you want to call me on this topic do you?

Govment Cheese is Good!

[edit on 12-3-2005 by edsinger]



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
What you refer to is condoning sexual immorality.........


Nope. Civil liberties and states rights.


Why wont you support Civil Unions? Isn't that a middle ground?


I do. Or gay marriage. Or none at all. Whatever the state wants. With no federal government telling states what they can do on the matter. Just like Kerry supported.

See, I'm the conservative in this discussion. You aren't.


Nope, its all or nothing, first the boy scouts, then benefits same as a married couple, forcing your lifestyle choice on people as if you are now a minority in the sense of a ethic background, then the marriage.....where will it stop?


Nope, that's neo-con black and white thinking. Big government must make NY be like Alabama. And in that regard, where will that stop?


By your reckoning, then men should marry boys, heck transvestites marry whatever......


Nope. Not my reckoning. Pedophillia will never be legal. Know why? People won't vote for it in their state. But they do vote for gay marriage in some states and you think you know better than the people in Vermont or Massachusetts and want the government to "do something." By your reckoning, why don't the people in Vermont just make you King, you think so highly of your world view.


Civil unions are fine with me, I don't care. Marriage I do.


And it's your authoritative insistance that everyone agree no matter what they think or vote on the matter, that makes you wrong on this issue.

Not wrong in the sense of opinion. You can call Massachusetts stupid all day, like I might think those in the 11 states that voted to ban gay marriage are stupid. But I'm not trying to overturn those rulings at the federal level am I?

You're trying to impose upon the federal government to force people in state's that don't agree with you to agree with you.

Unless you aren't for the Constitutional amendment ban and are just running your mouth about what Massachusetts should do, in which case who cares?

Louisiana doesn't care what I think. Why should NY care what you think?

[Renamed Post Title to Accurately Reflect This Topic]

[edit on 12-3-2005 by RANT]



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger

What you refer to is condoning sexual immorality.........Why wont you support Civil Unions? Isn't that a middle ground? Nope, its all or nothing, first the boy scouts, then benefits same as a married couple, forcing your lifestyle choice on people as if you are now a minority in the sense of a ethic background, then the marriage.....where will it stop?


I support civil unions your so called morals have nothing to do with the boy scouts. Allowing gay marriage dosnt make straight people gay so your not forcing a lifestlye choice on anyone!



By your reckoning, then men should marry boys, heck transvestites marry whatever......Civil unions are fine with me, I don't care. Marriage I do.


What have you been smoking?


RWOG
Me for welfare as it exists distributed by crooks and lazy government inefficient workers? What the hell have you been smoking?

I bet you will sing a differnt tune if you ever need to find a job. 30yrs you could walk from job to job today they expect you to have experiance and a bit of paper from a training provider that is useless wake up in todays world.



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Wow Rant I can accept that, not sure on the ban but there is no way around one little issue if you leave it to states.

So they get married in Vermont, come down to my shop in Alabama and want a job, I can not discriminate against them, so I have no way of knowing that what they do in the bedroom can now cause my insurance rates to jump 5000% because of AIDS or something. I get sued if I don't hire them, I have to recognize the marriage even if in another state and yet I still pay the costs.


I could give a ship less what Vermont does, but it stays in VERMONT! Don't force a bunch of turdblossom lackey's immoral values on me when I choose to not accept deviant behavior.



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
I bet you will sing a differnt tune if you ever need to find a job. 30yrs you could walk from job to job today they expect you to have experiance and a bit of paper from a training provider that is useless wake up in todays world.


Well let me tell you something, when I did loose my job there was no help for me, I paid cash (sold items I owned) to pay for the birth of my daughter, why you ask?

Well I have my suspicions, I was a Caucasian male that owned a $10k truck, well now I dont........

I had only asked for help with the medical bills only, no food stamps, nothing else. Was denied, why don't you get a job? Well I am in school trying to be an engineer......tough no help.


So screw our socialistic crappy free handouts , most of the ones I have know on it could get off it but why? Whats the point? they make more sitting on the arse than they can working. When those that do need it get denied and not just me..


ScZREW them.



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 09:44 PM
link   
That inter-state issue is the only thing, but in my understanding there's no federal marriage anyway, and I'm opposed to getting the feds in the marriage business based on this or any other issue.

It's a county thing, as overseen by the state (I think). We just have a lazy tradition of recognition between states for the legality of marriage (meaning you don't have to sign another form each time you move) and the federal government pretty much takes your word for it on taxes. So I think some compromise could be reached about recognition by those states that choose to recognize others, or not.

Obviously none of this changes what a Church can or can't do for the religious "marriage" aspect as they can marry or not marry who they like. That has nothing to do with the legal rights of marriage. The legal rights are the only issue. The part "recognized" and by whom. I think civil unions would be a no brainer for all state's to do, but some just took it further and said "marriage" (but that's just semantics). The reason they want it though is they may be religious, and some churchs do marry gays. So they have a right to religious expression too.

There will be huge incentive for both cases. State's recognizing gay marriage will attract employer's that want the best employees regardless. State's that don't want it, well they'll get what they want anyway. As to insurance, it's probably a wash. Breeders
needing extended hospital stays for pregnancy complications, maternitity leave, and absenses for sick kids... are far more expensive to maintain employees than gays. State's may even chose to recognize gay marriage purely for those incentive reasons. It pays well tax wise. Dual income gay households are an economic boon for every community they enter. They spend like crazy. Fix up and gentrify failing neighborhoods. Don't fill overcrowded public schools with rugrats and pay taxes like everybody eles. Though that's another discussion, it is a conservative economic argument some state's consider.

But this doesn't hurt church authority to recognize marriage in any way, even in a state that legally recognizes "gay marriage." Your church doesn't ever have to... and that will never change.



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANTDual income gay households are an economic boon for every community they enter. They spend like crazy. Fix up and gentrify failing neighborhoods. Don't fill overcrowded public schools with rugrats and pay taxes like everybody eles. .


At least you have a sense of humor about it..........



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Damn Rant when did the Democrats start sounding more like the Libertarians than the "small government, mind your own business, etc" Republicans.

I am with you in regard with I fail to see how the Republican party can claim to be "Conservative".

I see now that the only way we can maintain our freedom is to let the Federal Government control every aspect of our lives, who we sleep with, what we read, what we see on TV, what religion our children are taught, etc.

Otherwise we will become Dirty Commies

Yep sounds like the party for a true Indivivulist.....LOL



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 10:06 PM
link   


Well let me tell you something, when I did loose my job there was no help for me, I paid cash (sold items I owned) to pay for the birth of my daughter, why you ask?

Because your not living in the real world you were lucky that you had owned stuff to sell.



I had only asked for help with the medical bills only, no food stamps, nothing else. Was denied, why don't you get a job? Well I am in school trying to be an engineer......tough no help.


Now your a hypercrit its ok for you to ask for help and not others.



So screw our socialistic crappy free handouts , most of the ones I have know on it could get off it but why? Whats the point? they make more sitting on the arse than they can working. When those that do need it get denied and not just me..


ScZREW them.


You cant live off welfare thats incentive enough to get a job.
Good luck with your degree I hope you will have enough cash to finish it.

[edit on 12-3-2005 by xpert11]



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11Because your not living in the real world you were lucky that you had owned stuff to sell.


Well so did most of the others that were on it and yes I asked because the doctors told me that with no insurance I had to pay cash and the truck was my transportation....



Originally posted by xpert11Now your a hypercrit its ok for you to ask for help and not others.


Oh not at all, I am positive there are those who need help, but many abuse the help they receive, to those that need it wouldn't a local solution be more in line with helping your neighbor in need? Ah but we are much to selfish for that...




Originally posted by xpert11You cant live off welfare thats incentive enough to get a job. Good luck with your degree I hope you will have enough cash to finish it.


Already finished it, on BORROWED money, all the while watching many beside me doing it on a free ride paid for by Uncle Sam, no I paid for mine and will be paying it back for many more years....





new topics
top topics
 
1
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join