The Homosexual Agenda

Originally posted by MacMerdin
what is the difference between entering a social contract for the same benefits of marriage and marriage itself?

I said a legal contract. To enter into such a contract one would not need a marriage license. Such a contract would insure that one's partner had all the rights the contract would address pertaining to property and inheritance and whatever else one would care to include. Some states have very strict inheritance laws covering who can inherit what. Such a contract would need to have priority over such laws and the state legislatures would have to pass appropriate laws.

I'm not a lawyer, but that would be what I would support. If they want to call it a civil union, then so be it.

Originally posted by General Zapata
This thread is about the homosexual agenda. It has just been usurped into a thread about homosexual marriage. My comment was just a blanket statement.

This thread was usurped when it became an ad hominem attack on yours truly. Same-sex marriage is certainly an element of a homosexual agenda, in my opinion and is certainly a fair topic of discussion.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I am not going to produce a monograph here to explain the fundamentals of sociology and cultural anthropology.

So, you can do your own research and as far as I'm concerned the burden is really on you to prove that I am wrong in so far as some things are so fundamental as to be axiomatic.

I fail to see how your inability to prove anything you've said reflects on me.
None of the sources you've mentioned have shown me that anything you've said has anything to do with reality.
Marriage doesn't have a beneficial affect on society just because you say so. And if it does why not allow more of it?
Why not encourage stable, intimate, 2 person, long term relationships?
Because you can't imagine to people loving each other just because their the same gender, so it can't possibly bennefit society?


[edit on 6-1-2005 by I_AM_that_I_AM]

Marriage doesn't have a beneficial effect on society because I say it does, but the fact that it does is so universally recognized that, as I said before, it is axiomatic. If, for whatever reason, the importance of marriage and family to society is beyond your ability to comprehend, my beating my fingertips back and bloody will do no good whatsoever.

I would simply encourage you to do your own research and come to your own conclusions.

As mentioned above, all the "proof" (if proof is determinable here) in the world wont matter when the opposition closes its eyes and continues to believe in fiction. This is not exclusive to this topic, i see it all the time around ATS. Looking back thru this thread (33 pages) it seems that even some pro people acknowlege that there is some kind of agenda, or as some put, social equality issue....weather they agree that the agenda is right or wrong is another story, but it seems evident that most of us die hard posters contributing to this debate in depth seem to feel that an agenda is in play. (on both sides)

Agreed there is an agenda on both sides but having an agenda per se is not in itself a bad/sinister thing. We have to examine what the agenda is actually seeking to achieve and then make a judgement on it's merits or negative implications not make apriori assumptions that the gays are out to rule the earth or the Christ nazis are on the march and gays will be burnt in the town square. Whether an agenda is at play is secondary to what the actual issues being raised are and some people have a hard time getting past that.

Again, while neither reason is the sole reason used for either position....these untangible things that cant be quantified into workable policy offer little more than emotive tugs at heart strings (either way) and offer nothing that can be applied in a tangible, measurable fashion to solve this dilema. A person can say they have these intangible and un measurable feelings (either way) yet how can they be proven, let alone used to work into a policy legally or culturally?

Intangibles or not when they are incorporated into a societies cultural mores, laws and traditions we can arrive at conclusions by examining and measuring their affect. Bias/tolerance has an impact.

I will agree with Uber in that MANY factors go into determing "cultural identity/values", including sitting around having tea and discussing it all the way to physical confrontation...Time is a key factor reguardless of the tactics used to make this decision. So far with demonization of the opposition the MAIN tool in use by the pro side...im not suprised that they are not able to get more support, and indeed apear to be losing it.

Hhmm but again that demonisation seems to work both ways no, in fact some extreme religious argument literally accuses us of being demons. But I disagree that this is the main tool being used by pro gay supporters. Some civil disobedience on the part of gay couples and maverick judges making a statement by getting married regardless of the law (which is essentially a pretty empty, disempowered gesture) is the exception rather than the rule and pales to insignificance when compared to Pastor Psycho extorting his flock to go out and kill all gays.

Majority determination as sacrosanct is a myth and a fallacy.
Only if you begin from the premise that individule entitlments somehow override or are more important than the societies cultural order.
If you try and take the stance that "united we satnd" is not as important as "Me first, everyone else in line after that", than you have no problems abusing the rights of others to get what you want. Cultures thru time have dissolved, crumbled from infighting, or been weakened so much that a foriegn power could easily take over because their cultural identity became so diluted, there was no longer enough cultural unity to hold them together. How much erosion of USA social values can we withtand before we are no longer the country recognizable as the USA? basically how much water can you pour into a coke untill its no longer coke, but water?

I don't think any responsible people on either side of this debate are really pushing for a 'me first' scenario, certainly it's telling that many gay posters are moderate in their veiws on gay marriage, many preferring or at least happy to accept civil union and again the me first argument has to be compared to the 'I'm alright jack' attitude of those who are in total opposition to any kind of social equality regarding gay/lesbian issues don't you think? As to the dilution of culture I don't believe the issues so far examined are likely to lead to any fracturing or fundamental dissolution of our recognised cultural heritage, straight people will continue to marry have children and promote family values and I'm happy with that.it's the kind of society I want to live in with just the addendum that those who are not capable of contributing in such a way are still valued and recognised for the contribution that they make. This is not about destroying the culture it's about creating a niche for some of it's citizens within the existing context.

Alert to fallicy here!!! Actually the MINORITY of people were wealthy enough to actually own a slave, let alone many slaves. As is now, it was then, the wealthy and politically influential were dictating policy to the masses (more so then as education levels and communication abillity (media) were far lower and slower than it is today) Not everyone in a slave state believed slavery was just..like no southerners helped slaves get into the underground railroad..like no black units were in the southern army..slavery wasnt even the main issue during the civil war.....indeed there was a large chunk of populace that was predjudice, that doesnt mean they were pro slavery if the were for segregation.

Ok bad example but the point remains you cannot always trust the majority to make fair and unbiased decisions. As the title of this thread suggests there were probably many who voted against because of some ill informed fear of 'the other' and their plans for world domination, while some simply falied to make a distinction between their dislike of a certain group and the rights that group should be entitled to regardless of personal opinion. This is bad democracy.

In SUPPORT of Uber, and other pro "gay agenda" people like MacMerdin and others...you have been moderate in your discussions and have not fallen into just emotive spewing...you are a credit to those that seek inclusion by practice. The pro side needs more people like you to both acknowlege concerns (even those based on religion are concerns) of those against and try to build bridges in understanding and work twords some kind of reasonable accodomations FOR ALL CITIZENS that dont sacrifice too much one way or the other...but know this, SOME sacrifice is nessisary even if it means not getting what you seek because the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. This is a basic idea of cultural identity as well...participation in government and society is VOLUNTARY...meaning you can choose to be "outside" the cultural norms if you so desire, but this does not mean that the culture cant set these guidlines for its citizens to relate to each other and to others.

Well thank you for your comments Caz and you seem to have hit the nail on the head, a certain amount of balance and sacrifice on both sides generally works for the best. Granted we may have differing ideas about what degree is needed but at least this can be debated without any one being sent to stand in the naughty corner.

What consenting adults do in privite is up to them, I don't buy any of this sin stuff as I am not religious but I think that promotion of Homosexuality as a lifestyle choice is not so good. When a person starts to become sexually active if they find they are attracted to the same sex no one should be able to tell them they are evil or wrong or that they do not deserve the same rights as Hetrosexuals. But promotion of this lifestyle is not right, in my opinion it promotes experementation by youngsters, but this could be said of many adverts & pop videos that use aggresive sexualisation of women which I dont think is to good.

However.....

Originally posted by ZeroDeep



What exactly is wrong with NAMBLA ? Can men not enjoy sexual relations with younger boys ? In what natural law are you deriving otherwise ?

Deep

I have a major problem with this comment.

If I found that a 30 yr old man had taken advantage of my 16yr old daughter I would be sickened. Its not so much the age difference, If she was 20 and him 34 I would have less of a problem but really a growen man should not be dating a 16yr old.

Would you agree?

What if my child was a 16yr old boy and I found a 30yr old man had taken advantage of him(which is perfectly legal in the UK) Would you say this is OK

I would n't but maybe I have an irrational hatred of my Child being Beasted by some 30yr old Perv no matter what his sexual orientation.

HMMM, with a member name of Bobjohnson,
couldnt this be misconstrued? Especially on THIS thread?

Seriously,
NAMBLA has been used to both equate gay behaivior to (which is not a fair comparison)
as well as to talk about the "slippery slope" of which group is next as a special intrest minority group to attempt to try pushing an agenda onto the society (a fair question using a group that is almost always despized as an example test group)

the quote you cite from zero (who i disagree on this issue with) IS slightly out of the context of the debate that was going on at that time. I dont believe zero actually suppports NAMBLA, i have yet to see any member actually say they did.

IF as you say a 16yr boy could have relations with a 30+ yr old man (or girl/man situation) in England, than i would feel uncomfortable with that as a rule, and think slightly LESS of a country i hold in high reguard....
BECAUSE the "face" this puts on their culture overall is not one id have expected from them OR that i would condone.
This is exactly why i argue that any culture has the right to put a "face" onto their culture as they see fit, both to give its citizens a "common identity" as well as to show OTHER nations what it means to in this case be Brittish.
I feel America has the right to be different from brittan in this manner which is why, here this relationship would be illegal.

Originally posted by CazMedia
HMMM, with a member name of Bobjohnson,
couldnt this be misconstrued? Especially on THIS thread?

.

You leave Bobs Johnson out of this lol

There is a stand up over here called Ricky Gervais made a good point on this in one of his shows.

He was saying how protesting could make a difference and used the protests to bring down the Homosexual age of consent down to 16 as an example.

As he pointed out there were not many 16yr olds on this march

Nor were there any parents chanting

"What do want, Our kids to be buggered"

"When do we want it, soon B4 they turn 17"

The age of consent should be 18 for all, then it's equal and set at an age when people can start making more informed choices.

16 is too young, as a society we sexualise our children at far too early an age and allow a peer pressure culture to flourish.

Originally posted by CazMedia
Certantly ive maintained all along, since i joined this thread and others, that BOTH sides of this issue have been involved in use of demonizing terms, and refusal to CONSIDER the opposing view. When these positions are put forth, just look at the (mostly) only emotive and bashing resoponces in defense of the pro side, that tells me they really are clueless about things and only looking at the issue in a self centered view, instead of the rammifications for ALL citizens on the issue.

I've seen alot of bashing by the anti side on other threads, it's hardly limited to one side.

As mentioned above, all the "proof" (if proof is determinable here) in the world wont matter when the opposition closes its eyes and continues to believe in fiction.

Yes, you are absolutely correct. All the "proof" in the world doesn't mean a thing when people of either side close their eyes.

On reasons for marriage, specifically that love justifies legitimizing gay marriage;Again, while neither reason is the sole reason used for either position....these untangible things that cant be quantified into workable policy offer little more than emotive tugs at heart strings (either way) and offer nothing that can be applied in a tangible, measurable fashion to solve this dilema. A person can say they have these intangible and un measurable feelings (either way) yet how can they be proven, let alone used to work into a policy legally or culturally?

By that reasoning then we shouldn't have marriage-period!

I will agree with Uber in that MANY factors go into determing "cultural identity/values", including sitting around having tea and discussing it all the way to physical confrontation...Time is a key factor reguardless of the tactics used to make this decision. So far with demonization of the opposition the MAIN tool in use by the pro side...im not suprised that they are not able to get more support, and indeed apear to be losing it.

Actually, I see far more demonization on the anti side than the pro.
And the pro's apparant loss of support is, I honestly believe, a reaction to their attempt to rush things. They hurried to do things too fast and this is just some backlash from that. The anti side is slowly losing grounds and eventually I think will lose enough ground for the pro side to get gay marriage. Eventually....

..but that's just my opinion and could certainly be wrong.

Only if you begin from the premise that individule entitlments somehow override or are more important than the societies cultural order.
If you try and take the stance that "united we satnd" is not as important as "Me first, everyone else in line after that", than you have no problems abusing the rights of others to get what you want.

I agree, I dont' understand the anti side hurry to abuse the rights of others to have the opportunately to access the entitlement(which is what the term" the right to marry" and such really refer to) based soly on their sexual preferences/oreintation. I and I don't see why their selfish ness is more important maintaining societies cultural order.

Cultures thru time have dissolved, crumbled from infighting, or been weakened so much that a foriegn power could easily take over because their cultural identity became so diluted, there was no longer enough cultural unity to hold them together.

Can you list some specific examples a country where this happened?

How much erosion of USA social values can we withtand before we are no longer the country recognizable as the USA? basically how much water can you pour into a coke untill its no longer coke, but water?

I'd rather be water than coke. It's healthier.

Seriously though, your assuming that american culture is somehow concrete or static and that if we don't keep close to the "values" that we started with we will some how dissolve as a people.
In reality, our "values" and culture has been constantly changing since day one (actually since long before then) and will keep on changing despite frantic attempts to stop it. The key is to control that change. And while we may not be recognizable as americans to our ancestors we still are americans.

Alert to fallicy here!!! Actually the MINORITY of people were wealthy enough to actually own a slave, let alone many slaves. As is now, it was then, the wealthy and politically influential were dictating policy to the masses (more so then as education levels and communication abillity (media) were far lower and slower than it is today) Not everyone in a slave state believed slavery was just..like no southerners helped slaves get into the underground railroad..like no black units were in the southern army..slavery wasnt even the main issue during the civil war.....indeed there was a large chunk of populace that was predjudice, that doesnt mean they were pro slavery if the were for segregation.

While you are speaking of the racist crap we call slavery that happened in the US. The truth is that the state of slavery known as serfdom (or wahtever the lowest caste is called) existed at the whim of the majority for quite a long time.

Im glad you see that the points raised by grady and myself along these lines have some merit to this issue...if only others would say the same...
YET,
look at the term "sacred cow" used to do what in your phrase? to delegitimize the position at the least, demonize it to lessen the appeal of this position, imply some degree of "wrongness" to it, even tho you acknowlege it has merit?

That was not what he meant by it, but rather it was used to point out that they felt it was not something to be touched/harmed like a true sacred cow.
I don't see how this usage demonizes the opposition.

This is a basic idea of cultural identity as well...participation in government and society is VOLUNTARY...meaning you can choose to be "outside" the cultural norms if you so desire, but this does not mean that the culture cant set these guidlines for its citizens to relate to each other and to others.

Culture may do as it wishes, but when it uses goverment to force others to go by these guildlines then people start to have a problem.

This is mostly true when the guildlines have to do with things that involve 2 or more willing adults.

I can certainly agree that culture can and should set guildlines for interaction, if govermetn prevents people form acting outside of these cultural norms then you have what is called "a tyrany of the Majority."

While I can understand fears some have about those who act outside of the cultural norm trying to use the govermetn to get other sto accept them as the norm. As that would be a Tryany ;of the minority" I don't see why it should be used as an excuse(as if often is the anti crowd) to create a tyrany of the majority.

Note: The use of the term tyrany is just used to refer to a form of gov't and does not reflect on persons of either side of the debate.

I am and i find the middle ground, agreeing that "demonization of the opposition" and "closing ones eyes" when shown legitimate positions exist on BOTH sides of the issue...
YET,
I must dissagree with him here, when i say that "love" is an intangible and that it is hard to work with from a legal/socio-cultural standpoint and he counters with,

By that reasoning then we shouldn't have marriage-period!

As has been stated before, "love" isnt the only reason marriage occurs or exists as a social institution. The primary purpose in a society upholding marriage as an institution is to care and nurture the children that result from male/female couplings, so that they learn to be good citizens of the community (socialization) and dont become a burden to society for growing up to become criminals, or some kind of other dependant of society.
There are other reasons that cultures promote the institution of marriage, but that is the primary one. Its importance has been recognized by most civilized cultures and this "family unit" is considered by the UN commission on human rights as essental to societies and a basic unit (group) for cultures.

I am says,

The anti side is slowly losing grounds and eventually I think will lose enough ground for the pro side to get gay marriage.

How do you see 11 more states passing defense of marriage laws as the anti side losing ground? sounds like a victory for them if you ask me, as well as an increase in the #'s of states that are doing so....

I'll agree with you AGAIN, that the pro side is pushing things too fast and that it is part of the reason they are inded suffering a backlash...that and the devicive tacticts they use, as well as not trying to assist/promote discussions about HOW this change could be implemented but only a list of demands is also contributing to the backlash against the pro side.
The anti-side is mearly holding its ground....and attacking a defensive position is always harder than being the defender, especially one with a thousand years of cultural evolution supporting a non gay stance.

I am says,

I agree, I dont' understand the anti side hurry to abuse the rights of others to have the opportunately to access the entitlement(which is what the term" the right to marry" and such really refer to) based soly on their sexual preferences/oreintation.

Where you see this as "hurry", i see it as a group of people "waking-up" to the fact that doing nothing will result in their position being burried by the assault of the pro-side. I also see this issue as having been brewing for at least 10 years.

This brings us to cultural evolution, or as you say,

our "values" and culture has been constantly changing since day one (actually since long before then) and will keep on changing despite frantic attempts to stop it. The key is to control that change.

I agree that change is a slow constant....very slow on this issue, which is comming to the forefront at this time, but has been around for centuries of mankind...(gays have always been known to exist, just not institutionalized as a main tennant of any society) This is where the studies of sociology and anthropology can be cited as a history of human behaiviour that does NOT include homosexuality as a celebrated, official, or legal situation for any known cultures.

This does not say that cultures have not accepted gays being around, just that they have not been given special recognition, or adoption of them "institutionally" into a "social values" situation. Marriage does have a long historical basis when studying social sciences...which is yet another reason these "cultural values" must be big considerations when dealing with this issue.

You say this is an "excuse" for a majority to subjagate a minority, yet this is one of the fundamental ideas of social studies...that cultures have evolved systems (like democracy) and "cultural norms" thru time to define themselves, to pass along a heritage to new generations, as well as to distinguish them from other cultures. Id call this less of an excuse, and more of the situational reality of mans cultural evolution.

I am says,

Culture may do as it wishes, but when it uses goverment to force others to go by these guildlines then people start to have a problem.

government is what enforces a cultures guidlines....otherwise how does a culture maintain these boundaries? what other mechanism is in place for this "enforcment"? How can cultural values not represent the "tyrany of the majority"? The overall cultural values is what defines the society, not minority values, otherwise the minority would represent/BE the majority...

Dear CazMedia;
Please stop speakin in thrid pwerson, it make you seem liekan idot regardelss of what you actually say.
You otherwise seem intelligent, and this detracts both from that and from your arguments.

Thankfully,
ME

Originally posted by CazMedia
As has been stated before, "love" isnt the only reason marriage occurs or exists as a social institution. The primary purpose in a society upholding marriage as an institution is to care and nurture the children that result from male/female couplings, so that they learn to be good citizens of the community (socialization) and dont become a burden to society for growing up to become criminals, or some kind of other dependant of society.
There are other reasons that cultures promote the institution of marriage, but that is the primary one.

And yet, I see no reason why this prevents Gay couples from marrying.
They can and do raise normal(straight) children who fit in with society.
Assuming, as you do, that the main resaonto have marriage is to do that.

Its importance has been recognized by most civilized cultures and this "family unit" is considered by the UN commission on human rights as essental to societies and a basic unit (group) for cultures.

Actually, no offense but most cultures seem to be more polygamal. Just look at the bible.
Polygamy every where.
The idea of 1 man and 1 women is a relativaly new idea.

[How do you see 11 more states passing defense of marriage laws as the anti side losing ground? sounds like a victory for them if you ask me, as well as an increase in the #'s of states that are doing so....

That was just a backlash against rushing things. In the long run gays are for more exepted today than they ever have been.

....and attacking a defensive position is always harder than being the defender, especially one with a thousand years of cultural evolution supporting a non gay stance.

Eh, history is a bit more neutral than that. In fact in many cultures. Greek, mongolian, native american et cetera
It wasn't an unusual thing to have male lover. Gengis Khan did.

I agree that change is a slow constant....very slow on this issue, which is comming to the forefront at this time, but has been around for centuries of mankind...(gays have always been known to exist, just not institutionalized as a main tennant of any society) This is where the studies of sociology and anthropology can be cited as a history of human behaiviour that does NOT include homosexuality as a celebrated, official, or legal situation for any known cultures.

So?
I fail to see your point here. I could say the same thing about giant metal airplanes. Should we outlaw Airplanes then?
Societies develope and change. Technology has altered our world in unimaginable ways.
Does that mean it's bad?
Does the fact that I can truthfully say about interacial marriage "This is where the studies of sociology and anthropology can be cited as a history of human behaiviour that does NOT include interacial marriage as a celebrated, official, or legal situation for any known cultures" prevent it from happening?
And don't tell me that's something different. ALL the arguements being made against gays were made against it.

This does not say that cultures have not accepted gays being around, just that they have not been given special recognition, or adoption of them "institutionally" into a "social values" situation.

So?
They aren't asking for the "special recognition" that you are giving them by denying them the right to be able to get married. They just want the same right to be able to get married as you have.

Marriage does have a long historical basis when studying social sciences...which is yet another reason these "cultural values" must be big considerations when dealing with this issue.

YES! I guy marrying a bunch of women DOES have a long historical basis.
Unlike the 1manto 1woman stuff that came along recently.

government is what enforces a cultures guidlines....

NO, religion is what does that. 'and parents. Gov't enforces laws based on them. NOT the values themselves. Otherwise we'd live in a theocracy.

otherwise how does a culture maintain these boundaries?

Parental discpline. Religions active in communities. Even Schools play a part in this.

what other mechanism is in place for this "enforcment"?

See above.

How can cultural values not represent the "tyrany of the majority"?

By allowing for other people to have their beliefs.

The overall cultural values is what defines the society, not minority values, otherwise the minority would represent/BE the majority...

That's a half truth and you know it.
The minority of people in power can force their will on the majority.
This can be a bad thing. Suddam comes to mind.
But it can also be a good thing.
Ending segregaton comes to mind.

CazMedia says,
CazMedia shall address himself in any manner in which CazMedia chooses.
You may read into that what you will. I dont recall doing this however???

So you either dont see or dont approve of cultures setting boundaries for behaivior, laws, entitlments etc, in order to identify itself to its citizens (socialization) or to other cultures? (culturalization)
Which is it?

I am says,

I see no reason why this prevents Gay couples from marrying.
They can and do raise normal(straight) children who fit in with society.
Assuming, as you do, that the main resaonto have marriage is to do that.

This is not an assumption, it has been studied in both anthropology and sociology, and is a recognized major reason for marriage in most cultures.
Also;
Gays being able to adopt was a VERY contentious matter, just as much or more so than the issue of gay marriage. I feel that culturally, this society decided that placing children into these "families" was better than having them as wards of the state, more so that any risk (which i feel also wasnt examined in detail before enacting) that a child growing in this envioronment would be harmed.
Basically, giving childern a home where they were wanted was better than not because of concerns over being gay.
Again, gays only have this abillity because the CULTURE decided to allow this as part of the overall social identity/order.

Poligamy is also studied in the social sciences, and is generally considered an outdated ideology.

I am says,

That was just a backlash against rushing things. In the long run gays are for more exepted today than they ever have been.

I agree that a person being gay is FAR more excepted these days,
BUT
that acceptance doesnt automatically open up entitlments to them....
people with body piercings and tattoos are more accepted these days too, are there entitlments just because of this acceptance?
And YES some of it could be backlash, and/or some of it could be the culture choosing how to define itself.

I am says about past societies,

It wasn't an unusual thing to have male lover.

No it wasnt,
BUT
WHERE do you see those societies institutionalizing homosexuality...meaning into laws, cultural things like holidays, festivals,
or adopting as an ideology that a culture promoted as their ideal?
As we havnt seen this in other cultures to date,
one should ask WHY NOT? What about it in the past caused this to not manifest? Why/how is that applicable to today?
Dig deeper than just the feel good coating of being nice to someone and ask the real questions behind it. Being nice is great and all, but with thousands of years of gays being partially accepted, why hasnt a "gay culture" evolved? Where is it?
Why isnt it?

This is not to say societies dont change, but on this issue, looking at the "why hasnt this occured before now" is a legitimate question and sheds light on things now.

Gays have the right to get married now....no one is stopping them from marrying AS LONG AS THEY ARE MEETING THE ESTABLISHED CRITERIA, which would mean marrying a member of the opposite sex, not the same sex.
The culture does not have to change this criteria if they do not wish to for ANY reason.

Both government and religion have been used to "rule/enforce" social boundaries and cultures...
today, in the USA, the government does this, as reflected thru our democratic process, resulting in laws and the "controls" by gov onto the culture. Religion still plays a part, but only for some. There are other reasons to oppose gay marriage as you have learned about if youve read this whole thread.
You wont see me use religion at any point.

Yes the minority can subjigate the will of the majority, even under our form of governance, however,
That is not the spirit of democracy....
if we are not to use democracy as the seemingly most fair way for cultures of our size and scope to effect the will of the governed, then what form of governance are we to be using?
What other form of government is as fair as democracy?
Democracy is not perfect, but it seems like the fairest one i can think of for allowing avg citizens some control into their government activities.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by General Zapata
This thread is about the homosexual agenda. It has just been usurped into a thread about homosexual marriage. My comment was just a blanket statement.

This thread was usurped when it became an ad hominem attack on yours truly. Same-sex marriage is certainly an element of a homosexual agenda, in my opinion and is certainly a fair topic of discussion.

That seems to happen to us a lot Grady, The agenda is now well documented and we all know it.....


Gays Going straight? Can it happen?

View homosexually tolerant film, or school faces lawsuit

The Battle For The Boy Scouts

SpongeBob, Barney promote 'gay' tolerance


These are just to name a few......

Wrong post... looks intense here ... moving slowly away ...
[edit on 25-3-2005 by rapier28]

[edit on 25-3-2005 by rapier28]

I'm sure there is, just look at this www.big-boys.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">clip.

There are assholes in high places supporting this!!!

Corrected link.


Very funny commercial.

[edit on 05/3/31 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by CazMedia
So you either dont see or dont approve of cultures setting boundaries for behaivior, laws, entitlments etc, in order to identify itself to its citizens (socialization) or to other cultures? (culturalization)
Which is it?

That is a false question based on a false premise.
American doesn't have a "culture"Period. Mainstream or otherwise. It contains many within it's boundries but I don't see why one "culture" should be able to impose itself on another.

Originally posted by CazMedia

Me
I see no reason why this prevents Gay couples from marrying.
They can and do raise normal(straight) children who fit in with society.
Assuming, as you do, that the main reason to have marriage is to do that.

This is not an assumption, it has been studied in both anthropology and sociology, and is a recognized major reason for marriage in most cultures.

And yet everytime I've asked for proof of this I get nadda.
Just rhetoric about thow it's"obvious and thus doesn't need to be proved".
And yet I've seen no one able(or at least willing) to prove it.....

Originally posted by CazMediaPoligamy is also studied in the social sciences, and is generally considered an outdated ideology.

Not by any true anthropologists, who see no one society as being intrisictly "better" or "outdated" than another.

Originally posted by CazMedia.....that acceptance doesnt automatically open up entitlments to them....
people with body piercings and tattoos are more accepted these days too, are there entitlments just because of this acceptance?

They aren't denied them either, are they?
(Actually name one that is denied to tatooed/body pierced persons.)

Originally posted by CazMediaWHERE do you see those societies institutionalizing homosexuality...meaning into laws, cultural things like holidays, festivals,
or adopting as an ideology that a culture promoted as their ideal?

Let's see, just off the top of my head there's.....
____________________________________________________________
1)Sparta, they were an immense impact on our own society. You could amke the argument that without them, then greeces goes and without greece where would Western society be?

2)Mongolians, the tradition of the "Anda" Relationships between men.
The term might be loosely translated as "blood brother".
Two boys usually declare themselves anda when quite young:they exchange simple gifts. And promise support for one another in good times and bad. It is a personal bond and is as much between equals as modern day marriage.
The anda relationship often requires renewal. In adolescence or adulthood these gifts are often quite expensive. At such an age, affirmation of the anda relationship often brings sexual gratification as the pair might sleep together under a single blanket and love one another.

I would also like to point out that "cultures" do NOT have to use the goverment to protect themselves form disintergration(to a degree).
While it's true a "culture" does establish standards of conduct and moral/ethical laws that it's members CHOOSE to adhere to, a "culture" has no inherent right to enforce these laws on the unwilling (i.e.to force these standards of conduct on others through the gov't).

For those who support the Homosexual Agenda, here's a way to say it loud and say it proud:

Homosexual Agenda Attire