One Million Moms rally at JcPenny's to fire Ellen Degeneres for being GAY!

reply to post by Charmed707

Marriage is not a right.

Then any two people should be able to get married to each other any time they want - right? Legally, there should be nothing preventing them - if it's not a right. It would be a legal contract between two individuals - and not something they needed permission from the government to do

This is no more discriminatory against homosexuals than polygamists, two old sisters cohabiting, or people who simply don't believe in marriage.

So, polygamy - for starters. Why are people not allowed more than one wife or husband? They could absolutely live with more than one partner if they wanted to - but they can't marry them - why not?

Siblings don't need special permission to live with each other - unmarried couples - you're right - they can just live together for as long as they want. Though there are laws that treat those relationships the same as a marriage - those laws vary from place to place. Point is - if they want to get married - they can

Aside from the obvious legal reasons why a couple would want to be married - there are things that are harder to explain to certain people. Like the idea that they want a way to declare their love and commitment to each other the same way as any other couple

let me ask you this - why does anybody get married? Then I'd like to ask - why can't two people of the same sex get married?

Again...not rights. Demanding marriage be redefined and claiming it as your 'right' is an indication of a sense of entitlement.

Yup - you got that right. And more power to them. More power to anyone that has to fight to be treated equally under the law. Is that a little too uppity for you? You think some people are born with certain inalienable rights - and that everyone else should just accept that they are not? Many things have been redefined over the centuries. Humanity makes certain adjustments as it grows up - it matures

'People of color' are not the only racial groups to be treated as subhumans. No human being is 'equal' to another human being. People are individuals.

So? You've said exactly nothing here. Care to elaborate?

If homosexuals themselves are comfortable with their sexuality, they wouldn't feel the need to tout it as 'equal' to heterosexuality. They would have no qualms about accepting that it's NOT the same.

You're argument here (if I might be so bold) is that, since they are NOT equal to heterosexuals (clearly... :shk: ) they shouldn't want to be treated like everyone else? Because - as long as they are comfortable being who they are - they should also be happy with separate but not even close to equal? Heterosexuality obviously being superior to homosexuality? :-)

And yes - not segregated physically - but clearly held at arms length as far as the law is concerned.

Why should gay people not be allowed to get married? Let's just get on with it - shall we?

You mean you're completely unaware of 'teaching tolerance' infiltrating schools? What about young children having to read such non-sense as 'Heather Has Two Mommies'? Then there's this:

What's wrong with teaching tolerance? It's not teaching kids how to be gay - and it certainly isn't advocating a gay lifestyle - it's teaching kids that the world is made up of all kinds of different people - and how maybe we should all try to learn to accept each other and get along. Is this wrong? :-)

Do you also have a problem with Black History Month?

If Heather does have two mommies - how can it hurt kids to understand why?

Liberals need to do the same- branch off from the public school system and get their own private schools where they teach 'tolerance', homosexuality, white guilt, 'gender-neutral' language, etc. If such things are so important to teach to your children, then surely libs would have no problem paying extra for it. Leave public schools to focus on the 3 R's and leaving kids with actual knowledge and skills, free of any political slant. Public schools have become clown schools ever since cultural Marxism has seeped its way in.

Schools - all schools - are there to prepare our kids for life. Information alone doesn't really do that. They also teach kids not to bite, not to butt in line, not to steal, not to spit on each other - to share, to wait their turn, say please and thank you...wash their hands... Or - do you not get that school isn't only about information - it's as much about socialization as knowledge.

No - not socialism - don't have a panic attack... :-)

many of us enjoy being part of the messiness of life - this beautiful messiness that is mankind. I can see you don't feel the same way. It's a shame

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

I merely pointed out that the counterculture used not wanting marriage as a way to poke at traditional institutions and now it's just the opposite.
As for gays supporting unborn babies, yes, I stand corrected on that issue. Are you not now using that as a self-righteous way to make yourself superior to me?

Are you next going to tell me that man-boy love is an acceptable practice and people like myself are standing in the way of a man marrying a child?

edit on 5-2-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

Per your signature, I forgive you for your error. And if I was in error in detecting major sarcasm in your response to the link I provided you, please forgive me mine.

Originally posted by kaylaluv
And if I was in error in detecting major sarcasm in your response to the link

Yeah - - just want to say - - it could have been taken either way. I wasn't sure either.

Could have said: "I stand corrected".

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Could it be that the counterculture was against the state's involvement of marriage?

Ok let's clarify this point then. If the counterculture wanted the State out of their desire to live together, then why do Gays need the State to live together? Could it be that this is more about visiting dying people in hospitals and getting health insurance or what happens to the estate when someone dies? Taxes? inheritances? Or is it a need to be accepted by society?
Clearly Gays want the State involved if they are demanding laws be changed.

Why do any of us need the state to be married? If affords us legal rights. The counterculture was a whole different animal back then. Most gays don't want to be counterculture, they want to be a part of our society - equal - with equal rights. If you have the right to get that marriage license, then so should they.

BTW, the counterculture still had the right to get that marriage license - they just exercised their freedom not to get it. Gays don't have that choice. They want the choice. What's so wrong with having the same legal choices that you have? They are citizens of America and pay taxes just like you do.

I don't feel the need to stop anyone from doing this. And by all means, let them have the same fun at tax time everyone else does.
What I'm hearing from you is that a marriage in the eyes of God(Church wedding) is not what they are really seeking, but a license from the State, a civil union which grants them certain economic rights involving taxes and children.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

I merely pointed out that the counterculture used not wanting marriage as a way to poke at traditional institutions and now it's just the opposite.
As for gays supporting unborn babies, yes, I stand corrected on that issue. Are you not now using that as a self-righteous way to make yourself superior to me?

Are you next going to tell me that man-boy love is an acceptable practice and people like myself are standing in the way of a man marrying a child?

edit on 5-2-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

Per your signature, I forgive you for your error. And if I was in error in detecting major sarcasm in your response to the link I provided you, please forgive me mine.

edit on 5-2-2012 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)

Yes, you very much misread a statement inserting sarcasm where there was only a humble admittance of error. What's new here?
Yes, this is why I have the forgiveness statement in my signature because as humans we all make mistakes.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by kaylaluv
And if I was in error in detecting major sarcasm in your response to the link

Yeah - - just want to say - - it could have been taken either way. I wasn't sure either.

Could have said: "I stand corrected".

So, now you are trying to decide how I must admit an error? Omg what hubris. Would you also like to tell me what to eat and how to dress myself?

All the gays I've known have been Christian/Catholic. Yes they want a church wedding in the eyes of their God.

I just choose not to discuss that point.

LEGAL EQUALITY. That is my position. Legal Government Marriage - - same for everyone.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

I don't feel the need to stop anyone from doing this. And by all means, let them have the same fun at tax time everyone else does.
What I'm hearing from you is that a marriage in the eyes of God(Church wedding) is not what they are really seeking, but a license from the State, a civil union which grants them certain economic rights involving taxes and children.

Yes, I am saying that gays can already get married in a church right now. They are wanting the EXACT same license from the state that heterosexuals can get. That's it.

BTW, no one is saying that anyone should be allowed to marry minors, or animals, or direct family members. We're talking the same restrictions as heterosexuals have.

Originally posted by Annee
All the gays I've known have been Christian/Catholic. Yes they want a church wedding in the eyes of their God.

I just choose not to discuss that point.

LEGAL EQUALITY. That is my position. Legal Government Marriage - - same for everyone.

edit on 5-2-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)

All the gays I've known have been happy to get married in a church such as Unitarian. I also know a Buddhist couple who had a Buddhist ceremony. There will always be churches of many denominations who will marry gays.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by Annee
All the gays I've known have been Christian/Catholic. Yes they want a church wedding in the eyes of their God.

I just choose not to discuss that point.

LEGAL EQUALITY. That is my position. Legal Government Marriage - - same for everyone.

edit on 5-2-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)

All the gays I've known have been happy to get married in a church such as Unitarian. I also know a Buddhist couple who had a Buddhist ceremony. There will always be churches of many denominations who will marry gays.

Yes - there is even a Gay Catholic church in Los Angeles. Of course the priest was ex-communicated.

My church (similar to Unitarian) has a Lesbian minister and the president and vice-president are a Lesbian couple. They already perform gay union ceremonies.

There are plenty of churches ready to celebrate gay marriage.

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

Schools - all schools - are there to prepare our kids for life. Information alone doesn't really do that.

Oh right, telling kids how to do math and write proper grammatical statements isn't enough. You must bring social engineering into the mix. That goes back to John Dewey,

John Dewey Lecture "I believe that education is the fundamental method of social progress and reform. All reforms which rest simply upon the law, or the threatening of certain penalties, or upon changes in mechanical or outward arrangements, are transitory and futile.... But through education society can formulate its own purposes, can organize its own means and resources, and thus shape itself with definiteness and economy in the direction in which it wishes to move.... Education thus conceived marks the most perfect and intimate union of science and art conceivable in human experience." --John Dewey, My Pedagogic Creed, 1897

www.freerepublic.com...

And I have to go back to Antony Sutton here, as he exposed John Dewey as part of the mechanism TPTB aka Skull and Bones uses for social engineering the masses.

We can deduce The Order's objectives for education from evidence already presented and by examining the work and influence of John Dewey, the arch creator of modern educational theory.
How do we do this? We first need to examine Dewey's relationship with The Order. Then compare Dewey's philosophy with Hegel and with the philosophy and objectives of modern educational practice.

Looking back at John Dewey after 80 years of his influence, he can be recognized as the pre-eminent factor in the collectivisation, or Hegelianization, of American Schools. Dewey was consistently a philosopher of social change. That's why his impact has been so deep and pervasive. And it is in the work and implementation of the ideas of John Dewey that we can find the objective of The Order.
When The Order brought G. Stanley Hall from Leipzig to Johns Hopkins University, John Dewey was already there, waiting to write his doctoral dissertation on "The Psychology of Kant." Already a Hegelian in philosophy, he acquired and adapted the experimental psychology of Wundt and Hall to his concept of education for social change. To illustrate this, here's a quote from John Dewey in My Pedagogic Creed:

"The school is primarily a social institution. Education being a social process, the school is simply that form of community life in which all those agencies are concentrated that will be most effective in bringing the child to share in the inherited resources of the race, and to use his own powers for social ends. Education, therefore, is a process of living and not a preparation for future living."
What we learn from this is that Dewey's education is not child centered but State centered, because for the Hegelian, "social ends" are always State ends.
This is where the gulf of misunderstanding between modern parents and the educational system begins. Parents believe a child goes to school to learn skills to use in the adult world, but Dewey states specifically that education is "not a preparation for future living." The Dewey educational system does not accept the role of developing a child's talents but, contrarily, only to prepare the child to function as a unit in an organic whole - in blunt terms a cog in the wheel of an organic society.

www.sntp.net...

So given this knowledge that the Dewey system of education is used to bring about social change, what do you think are the changes that The Order would like to achieve in society?

While you are thinking about that, ask yourself why would the President appoint someone like Kevin Jennings as "School Safety Czar".

Crickets....

Originally posted by deepankarm

Originally posted by technical difficulties

Originally posted by TheRedneck
The problem with equality is that both sides of a disagreement are allowed to voice their views. While I don't really care if Ms. Degeneres is the spokesperson or not, I do find it ironic that after so many protests for "gay rights" and "gay marriage", this protest is denigrated by those who have used protests to advance their agendas.

Execpt that their agenda is "being gay is wrong" whereas the gays agenda is that " but being gay isn't wrong, we should be treated equally".

Of course both sides are allowed to support their views, but just because they both have the equal right to voice their views doesn't make them equally right. The valid arguments for gay marriage and gay rights far outweigh the arguments against it.

I bet you wouldn't be saying this about the protests for women's rights or civil rights (Granted the gay rights issue is not as bad as those but you get my point).

Love how some people twist meanings.
How is homo marriage equal to normal marriage??
Please enlighten me.

The only people here twisting things here are the christians trying to twist homophobia by claiming they're pro-family, or that gay marriage is going to destroy america. Nice try though, but I know projection when I see it.

I'll answer that question with another question: how is not equal to straight marriage? There's no valid reasons as to why it isn't. Please explain to me why you stand behind your irrational position. I'm not expecting any valid arguments (because your side has none), just an explanation.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Crickets....

Oh - you want a response.

I think you are paranoid.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

So given this knowledge that the Dewey system of education is used to bring about social change, what do you think are the changes that The Order would like to achieve in society?

While you are thinking about that, ask yourself why would the President appoint someone like Kevin Jennings as "School Safety Czar".

What does any of this have to do with the OP?

Oh, I forget - socialism is going to turn civilization on it's head by teaching kids about 'gayness'

I'm sorry to disappoint you - but I'm not even going to touch this

I'm not someone who sees everything in life as a conspiracy by the powers that be to bring about our ruin

Seems like if 'they' had that kind of stamina, smarts and power - we'd all be yoked to a plow somewhere by now

We're not. What the hell are they waiting for anyhow? Doesn't seem like we could get any dumber

Meantime - how do you feel about Ellen Degeneres becoming the new spokesperson for JCPenny?

pretty cool - right?

:-)

Originally posted by technical difficulties

Originally posted by deepankarm

Originally posted by technical difficulties

Originally posted by TheRedneck
The problem with equality is that both sides of a disagreement are allowed to voice their views. While I don't really care if Ms. Degeneres is the spokesperson or not, I do find it ironic that after so many protests for "gay rights" and "gay marriage", this protest is denigrated by those who have used protests to advance their agendas.

Execpt that their agenda is "being gay is wrong" whereas the gays agenda is that " but being gay isn't wrong, we should be treated equally".

Of course both sides are allowed to support their views, but just because they both have the equal right to voice their views doesn't make them equally right. The valid arguments for gay marriage and gay rights far outweigh the arguments against it.

I bet you wouldn't be saying this about the protests for women's rights or civil rights (Granted the gay rights issue is not as bad as those but you get my point).

Love how some people twist meanings.
How is homo marriage equal to normal marriage??
Please enlighten me.

The only people here twisting things here are the christians trying to twist homophobia by claiming they're pro-family, or that gay marriage is going to destroy america. Nice try though, but I know projection when I see it.

I'll answer that question with another question: how is not equal to straight marriage? There's no valid reasons as to why it isn't. Please explain to me why you stand behind your irrational position. I'm not expecting any valid arguments (because your side has none), just an explanation.

edit on 5-2-2012 by technical difficulties because: (no reason given)

So do you feel that society should go this far in promoting "equality and social justice"?

Among other vows, Obama said he is urging Congress to pass the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act to guarantee the full range of benefits to LGBT couples and their children. He is also working to pass the employee non-discrimination bill as well as the hate crimes bill which would expand federal protections to the LGBT community.

I'm not certain if this is a run-around current marriage laws or not. Given POTUS' proclivity towards Executive Orders and end run around the Constitution to achieve his goals, I am not surprised.
www.dakotavoice.com...

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


This is a conspiracy website. So what are you doing here? Debunking the possibility that such a wild conspiracy to indoctrinate the masses should exist? Then tell me exactly why it is necessary to use propaganda in the schools to achieve certain goals ?

Would you care to explain why Heather Has Two Mommies goes home in first graders bookbags as a covert way to influence them?
Would you object if The Christmas Sweater went home instead?

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

Meantime - how do you feel about Ellen Degeneres becoming the new spokesperson for JCPenny?

I have nothing personal against Ellen. I do think she is a good comedienne, and very talented. I really do not care what she does in her personal life as long as it's legal. Her personal happiness is her business. If no one knew what her personal leaning was, would it be an issue for her to be a spokesperson? Likely not.
As for JC Penney, if they want to pander that is their business. They are a lot like politicians in this regard, whatever makes them money or gives them power. The power of a celebrity icon may give them some status, however temporary or permanent it may be. It is clearly a point of product branding going on here. JC Penney is changing their branding from "family" to something else.

George Harrison wrote a great song called "All Things Must Pass". This song is really commentary on the illusion of temporary manifestation.

Did anyone every protest Perry Ellis? I never noticed if they did.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

So do you feel that society should go this far in promoting "equality and social justice"?

Among other vows, Obama said he is urging Congress to pass the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act to guarantee the full range of benefits to LGBT couples and their children. He is also working to pass the employee non-discrimination bill as well as the hate crimes bill which would expand federal protections to the LGBT community.

I'm not certain if this is a run-around current marriage laws or not. Given POTUS' proclivity towards Executive Orders and end run around the Constitution to achieve his goals, I am not surprised.
www.dakotavoice.com...

edit on 5-2-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

While I'm all for non-discrimination, I am against the Domestic Partners Act. Gays should have the same license that heterosexuals have. Giving them something "special", but not the same, discriminates against them, IMO. This is Obama's way of trying to compromise and please the right and the left, and it's one of the things I don't like about him.

If the government was Christian, then it wouldn't be giving out marriage licenses to American Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, etc. - but since it does, then it should also give out marriage licenses to American gays, regardless of whether if fits in line with Christian ideology.

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


Oh, you do not see the NWO conspiracy in this by any chance?

The National Education Association, the lobby for education, produced a program for the 1976 Bicentennial entitled "A Declaration Of Interdependence: Education For A Global Community."
On page 6 of this document we find:

"We are committed to the idea of Education for Global Community. You are invited to help turn the commitment into action and mobilizing world education for development of a world community."

www.sntp.net...

I have discussed Antony Sutton many times on this forum and my stance has not changed ever. TPTB just use different issues to divide people and break down society.