Did GLAAD mess with the wrong duck? Could this be a tipping point in the culture wars?

reply to post by Gryphon66

I'm sure that the fact that A&E issued a basically meaningless "suspension" right before broadcasting a marathon of one of its top-rated shows during a time when most folks are home on vacation and just before a new season starts in January ... is COMPLETELY coincidental. In every way.

Revisionism much?

Had the glaadiators not stepped in with their appeal to OUTRAGE, something you have supported all along, btw, AE would not have had to issue any suspension. But after glaad got on them to take a stand, they suspended the guy indefinitely. Then the BACKLASH came from the other direction with such force that AE, the sponsor that caved (Cracker Barrel), and twitter (who blocked links to istandwithphil.com and then unblocked it after the reaction), all reversed course. The only thing that made that suspension meaningless is the backlash against AE and the glaadiators.

The marathon was already planned when this thing broke, so whatever their faults, AE can't be accused of jumping on the reaction wagon.

This whole idea of AE planning this is lame. They already have the top rated reality show in history and are going to score bigtime ratings with the marathon and new season. It's their golden goose.

So, hey, here's a great idea. Let's get our viewers really pissed at us and boycott us and do serious damage to our brand by pretending to be OUTRAGED by some comments Daddy Duck said in an interview in a magazine. Brilliant, eh?

reply to post by BlueMoonJoe


The world is truly not limited only to diametrically opposed positions -- black or white, right or wrong, agree or disagree -- on every issue all the time. Attempts to make every discussion and issue resolve as such are amateurish attempts at controlling a dialog.

Attempts to redefine statements so that they are more easily refuted is a commonly deployed tactic by debaters, and any statement that my posts have supported anything throughout this discussion aside from the fact that every player had the right to speak their minds and acts in accordance with their own missions, values, business interests, etc is inaccurate.

There is not now nor has there been any concrete evidence presented in this thread by anyone that proves that A&E was somehow commanded by GLAAD to suspend Phil Robertson. There is no reason to presume, lacking that evidence, that GLAAD has some kind of nefarious powers or control over A&E or any other entity for that matter. Being intimidated by the very idea of GLAAD's exercising its own"freedom of speech" to the point of ad hominem attacks is laughable.

In the real world, one finds that individuals can have nuanced and complex opinions on subjects, and that not every point-of-view is reducible to the simplistic "us against them" "right against left" "conservative against liberal" and so on.

Finally, buzzwords that are utterly out of place like "revisionism" are tiresome without evidence to back them up. It is hardly revisionist to realize that in this situation, like almost every other one we encounter in life, ideologies usually collapse before the almighty dollar.

reply to post by Gryphon66

Use of the phrases "everyone can see this" or "anyone can see this themselves" is usually a dead giveaway to attempts to conceal ignorance and prejudice that can't be substantiated in any other way except to imply that any "right thinking" individual would agree with one's position.

You mean like when you do just that here:

COME ON. Anyone who heard the comment knows what he was saying. It's utterly specious, even if semantically possible, to suggest otherwise, in my opinion. post by Gryphon66

Good to know.

reply to post by Gryphon66

Pedophilia when acted upon is child molestation, which is a crime of an adult individual abusing a child sexually. Last time I checked, reported incidences of child molestation are most predominant as being perpetrated by 1) family members, 2) members of the clergy, and 3) educators.

Further, an expert panel of researchers convened by the National Academy of Sciences noted in a 1993 report: "The distinction between homosexual and heterosexual child molesters relies on the premise that male molesters of male victims are homosexual in orientation. Most molesters of boys do not report sexual interest in adult men, however" (National Research Council, 1993, p. 143). (Source)

The classic ideological trifecta of homosexuality=bestiality=pedophila is obviously alive and well though isn't it? What's the basic difference?

Homosexual sexual behavior occurs between two competent and consenting adults.

That is not the case with child molestation, bestiality or rape. Why? No adult consent.

Repeat after me.

Lovely. Wholly off point, but lovely still.

You put forth a statement saying when any group is seen as second class citizens we all are. I challenged that premise. With your spirited defense of the difference between homo and pedo, it would seem you agree with me. Otherwise, you would be defending your initial premise instead of dropping it like a hot rock.

Still, it looks like the tide is going against us pedophobes, as the pedo crowd are hammering away at the issue using a familiar playbook of destigmatization. From getting a new term, "minor-attracted persons" to pushing to have pedophilia seen as a sexual-orientation instead of a disorder, the lines are being actively blurred.

As for you firm notion that no adult consent is some kind of impassable barrier, don't look now, but there are groups fighting against age of consent laws, fighting against the "abuse" designation, fighting against the notion that a child cannot consent.

Sure, this all sounds like a big bucket of gtfooh, but it wasn't that long ago that the same strategies were used to turn homosexuality from a disorder and a crime to an accepted and celebrated lifestyle. And with the complete permeation of moral relativism and other PC means into the fabric of society, there's really no way to deny the poor pedos from their due acceptance.

After all, I have it on good authority that when one group is viewed as second class citizens, we all are.

Repeat after you, indeed.

SubTruth
reply to post by Gryphon66

 

You are wrong on many levels. YES there is a progressive movement trying to gain and retain power around the world including the US. They have tried in the past and failed and the time has come again to face this down again.



It is easy to see once you look for it and know the signs. They use fear and apathy as the main tools to control. They break down households and schools using the progressive mindset.




Whenever you see leaders putting the rights of the masses over the rights of the individual it is the calling card of the progressive PTB. They have or want oligarchies put in places of control across the world. Banking,schools,health care just to name a few.

Wow..!! Well said Sub Truth and with an economy of words which I lack. Well said.

The function of Government is to protect the rights of the individual...not to divide the people into classes...particularly enconomic classes and whatever they decide to do from there.

This means that if an individual does not want to roll in the mud with others they are not guilty of any higher moral and ethical crime. Particularly if they declare they do not want to roll in the mud with others.

I could never understand how someone being Rich was some kind of moral or ethical crime/tresspass in America and how someone gets so may people to jump on that bandwagon as if a person being rich has broken some law for which no one wants to declare what the statute is that was broken.
I've asked this of several people ..if being rich is somehow a crime and that people who are rich automatically by default owe more than others...because of some crime or tresspass they have committed?? What is the statue of the crime or tresspass they have committed?? No answer..but they are sure something was done by the Rich!! Astonishing!!

It has become the same here with this issue. If you dont agree somehow you are guilty of some moral and ethical law or tresspass. And particularly if you voice your opinion. I find this very dubious from groups looking for tolerance from others. And then you are subject to a time warp guilt going way back to history past.

The most disgusting thing I remember was that business with some fellow asking questions in a beauty contest and this fellow did not like the answer and proceeded to run this woman over the coals with a media machine. Much as they are trying to do with this fellow. I dont even remember the womans name but perhapsed some of you recall this in years past.
But the significance is that this fellow asked this woman's opinion and then did not like appreciate or respect the answer.
This is not tolerance. It is to me the same with this fellow.
I long ago got past all this drama stuff and realized how intolerant this group is ..and so too with the media...while expecting and demanding tolerance from others.
By the way Griffon66..from where I viewed and remembered it..this fellow who asked this question of the beauty contestant became judge, jury, and executioner. But few even in the media seemed to notice this about him.
I did not see or detect where this woman contestant committed some higher moral or ethical tresspass..or violated any law.



It just backfired with the chicken place last year or two. People are becoming disgusted with this issue and the tack these groups have taken over the years.
I do not appreciate nor respect such censorship.


By the way Griffon66..before I forget...

Please. The Bible also says "Judge not that ye be not judged."

This quote is often mischaracterized or misquoted. The Believer is to make judgements ..otherwise he would not know to separate leven from unleven...new wine from olde.

It also says to judge righteous judgement. This is avoided assiduously while making the quote for which you spoke.
It disarms most people...because they do not know the rest.

Thanks,
Orangetom

Adherents use the Bible as a literal document when it suits a particular argument and as open to interpretation when it doesn't. Some might call that spiritual discernment; others would call it rampant hypocrisy.

Greater context is of great value, however, when utilizing literature in discussions:

(1) Judge not, that ye be not judged. (2) For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. (3) And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Matthew 7:1-3, King James Version (KJV)

The intent here of the speaker, Jesus Christ, is clear advice that one should avoid judging others because the same criteria would be used to judge the judger. Finally, some of the best advice anywhere ... resolve your own problems/shortfalls/sins before attempting to fix someone else's.

Not so popular today, sadly.

reply to post by Gryphon66


Well Gryphon66.

As you want to take it that far..no problem. I will start back with my original premise some pages back and add to it.

To believers in the Word...they know not to define themselves by the standards or often the non standards of the world around them.

They define themselves by the God who lives in them daily.

One of the things they do not do is define who and what they are by their sexuality and sexual orientation. For this is what the nations surrounding Ancient Israel were alreday doing around their holydays and festivals. The children of Israel were not to do this..it was abomination.

One can find this informations in certain history books of the other religions as well as certain books on Occult religions and practices. It is also found in the Word.

Nonetheless this did not change in the era following the Cross. Believers still do not define themselves by their sexuality or sexual orientation. They define themselves by the God who lives in them daily.

This is a knowledge seldom posted on boards like this one and on this topic.

What I am speaking about here is the trend line of this world and the god of this world attempting to pass sexuality and sexual orientation on to people who find this to go against common sense and their Godly beliefs.

That one does not define who and what they are by their sexuality or sexual orientation. To do so is ignorance and stupidity..hetero or homo.

For common sense tells thinking people that people themselves are so much more than sexuality and sexual orientation.

What I am speaking against here is institutionalized stupidity...taught from the centers of highest learning in this country. And when I see leadership following this same pattern I realize that they are not leaders..but pimps..pimping for votes. They will sell or whore anyone out for a vote.
And whoredom here also means spiritual whoredom.

How do I know this..I watch their actions and compare it to what I know of the Word..from ancient times unto the present.
Also what I know from History.

It is not difficult.

When a Believer knows this pattern..from Olde Testament unto the New Testament..it makes your posts obvious.
For of what I am speaking from the Olde Testament unto the New Testament is of the greater context.

It also tells me the name of your god. No problem. I have known this for awhile now on this thread. I've dealt with more than this.

The instructions from God for His people are to separate from whoredom and idolotry..to come out from amongst them and be ye separate in the greater context. Not what you are saying in this thread. No problem again.
I post this for those readers who can see, hear, and understand.

This is what this duck fellow is saying in his very crude and untutored manner. That he would rather separate. And this gives offense to those who want to create normal for defining themselves by their sexuality and sexual orientation.

As a record of history ..people have defined themselves by their lineage, their occupations, or some great work they have done and left to posterity. For most of us this means our progeny.

But never our sexuality or sexual orientation. To do so is ignorance and stupidity. Most people have better sense than such.

I am speaking here not against sexuality and sexual orientation per se..but against ignorance and stupidity from the highest offices in the land...unto the lowest.

That we as a people have become so dumbed down we no longer know this fingerprint about either the Word or history itself.

Thanks,
Orangetom

BlueMoonJoe
reply to post by Gryphon66

 

This whole idea of AE planning this is lame. They already have the top rated reality show in history and are going to score bigtime ratings with the marathon and new season. It's their golden goose.

Top rated reality show in history eh? Sounds pretty impressive. Incredible, really.

So I did a bit of research. As it turns out, Survivor (CBS) is the top rated reality series in history. Unsurprisingly, since it has been running for much longer and appeals to a much wider fan base.

So, hey, here's a great idea. Let's get our viewers really pissed at us and boycott us and do serious damage to our brand by pretending to be OUTRAGED by some comments Daddy Duck said in an interview in a magazine. Brilliant, eh?

It's something more reactionary, like "alright some of our viewers could be pissed at us over some of these comments, so lets do some diplomatic damage control: pretend to be outraged by Mr. Robertson's comments and put him on temporary hiatus to appease the lefty-PC crowd while simultaneously outraging the righty-PC crowd causing a massive amount of publicity, get people talking about it before we bring it back and reap higher ratings."

The Bible certainly defines individuals by their sexuality multiple times. Specifically, for example in Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13 men who have sex with men are defined as "sinful" and Romans 1: 24-27 defines men who have sex with men as well as women who have sex with women in the same terms. (Source)

Laws patterned after the Bible have traditionally defined individuals by their sexuality and execution of those same laws against gays and Lesbians have resulted in death, torture, and imprisonment.

Cultures affected by the Bible define individuals by their sexuality by using pejorative (and hateful) terms for people based on homosexual acts.

When individuals are confronted with these cultures, laws and Bibles that have defined them by their sexuality and stripped them of all other personal characteristics, these individuals are forced to respond in kind and accept the labels that define difference and inequality as starting points in their efforts to demand their natural rights of equality.

To disclaim "defining people by their sexuality" is to utterly misrepresent the Bible and the laws and cultures it has influenced.

A review of actual evidence regarding the history of "age of consent" might be useful in understanding the situation.

"The first recorded age-of-consent law dates to 1275, in England, as part of the rape law, a statute, Westminster 1, made it a misdemeanor to "ravish" a "maiden within age," whether with or without her consent. The phrase "within age" was interpreted by jurist Sir Edward Coke as meaning the age of marriage, which at the time was 12 years of age." (Source)

"In the 12th century Gratian, the influential founder of Canon law in medieval Europe, accepted age of puberty for marriage to be between 12 and 14 but acknowledged consent to be meaningful if the children were older than 7. There were authorities that said that consent could take place earlier. Marriage would then be valid as long as neither of the two parties annulled the marital agreement before reaching puberty, or if they had already consummated the marriage. It should be noted that Judges honored marriages based on mutual consent at ages younger than 7, in spite of what Gratian had said; there are recorded marriages of 2 and 3 year olds." (Source)

"The American colonies followed the English tradition, and the law was more of a guide. For example, Mary Hathaway (Virginia, 1689) was only 9 when she was married to William Williams. Sir Edward Coke (England, 17th century) "made it clear that the marriage of girls under 12 was normal, and the age at which a girl who was a wife was eligible for a dower from her husband's estate was 9 even though her husband be only four years old." (Ibid)

"In the 16th century, a small number of Italian and German states set the minimum age for sexual intercourse for girls, setting it at 12 years. Towards the end of the 18th century, other European countries also began to enact similar laws. The first French Constitution of 1791 established the minimum age at 11 years. Portugal, Spain, Denmark and the Swiss cantons, initially set the minimum age at 10–12 years." (Source)

"While ages from 10 to 13 were typically regarded as acceptable ages for sexual consent in Western countries during the mid-19th century, by the end of the 19th century changing attitudes towards sexuality and childhood resulted in the raising of the age of consent to around 16." (Source)

In thirty (30) of the 50 United States, the legal age of consent currently established by States is 16 years old. (Source)

... and so on.

Based on this evidence it seems that heterosexuals have a far greater interest in what we would call pedophila than homosexuals, no?

Trotting out NAMBLA is standard at this point in the homosexual=pedophile argument, so I will clarify that in my own opinion, sex with any person of any gender below the age of consent is child molestation.

Child molestation is wrong because the child cannot give consent. Child molestation is child abuse. Period.


EDIT: This discussion is drifting far off topic and I don't want to overly participate in thread drift. I would encourage anyone with an interest in the tangential material to create a post in the appropriate forums with appropriate subject matter, and I will be glad to continue the discussion there.

orangetom1999


reply to post by Gryphon66

 

What I am speaking about here is the trend line of this world and the god of this world attempting to pass sexuality and sexual orientation on to people who find this to go against common sense and their Godly beliefs.

If sexuality goes against the very core of your being, you're under no obligation to indulge in it. Nobody is going into Christian homes and forcing them to perform immoral sexual acts.

I've noticed that many orthodox Christians find sexuality as a whole to be very sinful and repulsive, which is interesting when you consider the "miracle of childbirth", which is considered a blessing from God which results of sexuality, and the old Bible quote "For a good tree brings not forth corrupt fruit; neither does a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." Luke 6:43
So sexuality is a horribly corrupt thing...which brings forth good fruit. Interesting doublethink there.

Sexuality may go against your "common sense" and Godly beliefs, but for me and many others a sensible approach to sexuality is very much in line with our beliefs. For me, sexuality is not repulsive but rather beautiful. If you can get your mind past the fleshy bodies smacking together and secretion of bodily fluids (which admittedly are rather "icky") and see it for the whole, including the emotions, sensations, intimacy and expression of love, you might understand sexuality as a very wonderful thing. Perhaps even a holy gift.

That one does not define who and what they are by their sexuality or sexual orientation. To do so is ignorance and stupidity..hetero or homo.

Sexuality is not the whole of my identity, but it is a very important component thereof.

Other components of ones personal identity can include physical sex, gender identity, race, occupation, interests, hobbies, friends, family, community, accomplishments, etc.

To separate one of these components from one's own personal identity is fine. In some cases it may even be wise.

To declare that all people must separate one of these components from their personal identities is ignorant and stupid.

A&E were within theur rights to fire him.
Is it how he worded it so poorly or the very fact he disagrees with homosexual lifestyle?

If it's the latter, then no. These glaad morons need to stop whining about their rights to push an agenda onto others. If they'd stop being so sensitive and quit whining for awhile , dress normally, maybe people might come around to accepting gayness. Enough with them getting special treatment just because they formed an organization called GLAAD. Not everyone on the planet has learnt to filter their words. Maybe he did nt know any better when he said what he said?


However he's also within his rights to state his beliefs or say what he thinks of anything or anyone.
He shouldn't use the bible to justify what he said.
Saying God made me say it only makes matters worse. It makes it so all Christians or believers in God are all painted with the same brush , as if they all dislike gays. It causes a divide. Gays vs Christians. Or GLAAD vs Christians.

Time will tell if he sticks to his guns and stands by his beliefs.
Then hopefully they did mess with the wrong duck.

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” ― George Orwell

I think the message could be simplified to this point, you can do what you want to do among consenting adults, I just don't want to hear about it.

That being said, the whole religious rights objection to marriage between people of the same gender violates the logic stated above.

Honestly, I don't want to hear about your sexual hang ups either.

In this case, a reporter, probably with an agenda, was asking questions that seemed to aimed a smearing the interviewee for having opinions that the politically correct think they have the right to ban.

PC went too far once again, and a great many people are getting tired of the PC world trying to force their beliefs down everyone else's throats. In Many areas, PC philosophy is wrong, and it all needs to be rolled back a great deal.

poet1b

I think the message could be simplified to this point, you can do what you want to do among consenting adults, I just don't want to hear about it.

That being said, the whole religious rights objection to marriage between people of the same gender violates the logic stated above.

Honestly, I don't want to hear about your sexual hang ups either.

In this case, a reporter, probably with an agenda, was asking questions that seemed to aimed a smearing the interviewee for having opinions that the politically correct think they have the right to ban.

PC went too far once again, and a great many people are getting tired of the PC world trying to force their beliefs down everyone else's throats. In Many areas, PC philosophy is wrong, and it all needs to be rolled back a great deal.

The problem is that if marriage between people of the same gender is legalized, it will be demanded and forced into churches (which are against it). If they don't comply, the churches will be sued and/or closed. Bye bye freedom of religion.

reply to post by poet1b

poet1b
I think the message could be simplified to this point, you can do what you want to do among consenting adults, I just don't want to hear about it.

Not sure I understand... Whose message is that?

On the second point, I see and hear a LOT of things I don't want to see or hear. We don't (at least we shouldn't) have the power to silence someone, shut them up, or make them fake who they are. Whatever we hear about heterosexual couples, het sex and het reproduction, which is quite a lot, we will hear about homosexuals. Whenever you get repulsed about what you hear about a gay person, ask yourself how you'd feel if you heard the same thing about a straight person. That's equality, baby!

In this case, a reporter, probably with an agenda, was asking questions that seemed to aimed a smearing the interviewee for having opinions that the politically correct think they have the right to ban.

No one is going to ban anyone's opinions. Maybe GLAAD would LIKE to, but they won't succeed. Are they going too far? Probably. They've been persecuted for many years. They're gaining equality in the law. They're going to step over the bounds sometimes.

PC went too far once again, and a great many people are getting tired of the PC world trying to force their beliefs down everyone else's throats. In Many areas, PC philosophy is wrong, and it all needs to be rolled back a great deal.

I pretty much agree with this, but not completely. If this DD situation is what it purports to be, and not some scheme to get Phil off the show or make money for the network, then I think it was a mistake for A&E to fire him. Part of the beauty of this country is that we all have different opinions and we have the freedom to voice them. LEGALLY, A&E has every right, but in their shoes, I wouldn't have taken the same action (unless it was a direct violation of a contract, and we don't know what the contract said). PC CAN go too far and I think it probably did in this situation. Still, no one did anything illegal or immoral, IMO.

reply to post by Ansky

The problem is that if marriage between people of the same gender is legalized, it will be demanded and forced into churches (which are against it).

Please check the laws allowing same sex marriage which have been enacted in one third of the states before making such a claim.

Ansky
The problem is that if marriage between people of the same gender is legalized, it will be demanded and forced into churches (which are against it). If they don't comply, the churches will be sued and/or closed. Bye bye freedom of religion.

Not necessarily. The constitution protects freedom of religion; the government is unable to dictate what goes on within any religious institution. You can bet that churches will put up a huge fight, backed up by WBC if anyone attempts to force them to marry a same-sex couple. It would be extremely hypocritical to protect the constitutional rights of homosexuals while simultaneously striking down the constitutional rights of religious organizations. You're trying to twist the argument to make Christians the victims, when in reality there are TWO sides to this issue and both sides must have their rights protected.

I don't see why anyone would even want to get married in a church which was against it. Why would you want to hold a ceremony in such an atmosphere of hate and disapproval? There are other churches which support same-sex marriage and there's always the option of getting married without involving religious institutions.

Personally, I'd like to get married on a beach, maybe by a lake in the Rocky Mountains, far from any church which holds the opinion that my marriage is an abomination.

(edit) The topical drift is getting out of hand, I think its time to move along

reply to post by Ansky

Ansky
The problem is that if marriage between people of the same gender is legalized, it will be demanded and forced into churches (which are against it). If they don't comply, the churches will be sued and/or closed. Bye bye freedom of religion.

There is absolutely nothing to support this fantasy. In fact, it's just the opposite. After the federal government removed the ban on interracial marriages, they never forced churches to marry interracial couples. Marriage is a civil contract and that's what gay people want. The CIVIL marriage. This really has nothing to do with the church.

Freedom of religion is one of the foundational freedoms in this country. It's not going anywhere. That's just fear-mongering and an excuse to oppress a segment of society, which, by the way, violates the Constitution.

poet1b

I think the message could be simplified to this point, you can do what you want to do among consenting adults, I just don't want to hear about it.

That being said, the whole religious rights objection to marriage between people of the same gender violates the logic stated above.

Honestly, I don't want to hear about your sexual hang ups either.

In this case, a reporter, probably with an agenda, was asking questions that seemed to aimed a smearing the interviewee for having opinions that the politically correct think they have the right to ban.

PC went too far once again, and a great many people are getting tired of the PC world trying to force their beliefs down everyone else's throats. In Many areas, PC philosophy is wrong, and it all needs to be rolled back a great deal.

Wow!!! Spot on...in the bullseye...the X ring.

and once again with an economy of words ..much better than I could have so stated.

I dont care about another persons sex life..hetero or homo...and I believe that anyone who only has their sexuality and sexual orientation about which to boast of themselves and demand recognition and respect is a bottom feeder. Hetero as well as homo.

I feed the squirrels in my yard with ears of corn mounted on a nail. On occasion I watch them through my spotting telescope. One thing is obvious. That they have a sex life. How do I know this..they are increasing in number...or at least not fading out..perishing. I dont need to know about the specifics of their sex lives nor do I want to know.

I am not speaking against sex or sexuality here. I am speaking against what I see as a great amount of institutionalized, politically correct stupidity.

But this seems to go way over the heads of so many out here who cannot seem to get past sexuality and sexual orientation.


And furthermore...for those not well versed in history...try thinking some time.

Any of you ever looked at any type of history through actuary or death tables..how long a person lived at different periods of time.
Here on the east coast..ever gone through graveyards and seen how olde people were when they gave up the ghost?? You might want to do this and try some thinking along with it.

People did not on the average live that long. This is why the tendency to often marry young and even arranged marriages.
These people did not have the luxury of postponed marriages or the Options by which we today in our Educated Ignorance haven't a clue while we are trying to justify ourselves by sexuality and sexual orientation.

Around here ...on the coastline of Virginia..the graves go back into the late 1600s...early 1700s. There are alot of these graves where both males and females did not live into their 40s. Also of interest is the number of women and new born children burried next to each other ..and passed within a few days of each other. When you see this ..and can think ..it becomes obvious as to why people often married young. They did not often live that long. They also did not have the plethora of labor and time saving devices which we so take for granted today.

Keep this in mind when you see someone quoting history to make a point about justifying sexuality and sexual orientation.

The problem with these groups and the way they choose to label themselves...is that sexuality and sexual orientation is soley how they choose to identify and then demand respect and recognition...from others. People who can think for themselves do not go along with this. As some others have stated...this is trying to pass for PC and thinking people can see and understand further than this.

It is fine if they have sexualty and sexual orientation. But as some have stated..dont hang out a shingle on it. This has gone now so far that people are looking at leadership catering to this template and finding leadership wanting as well. So too with the media.
The trick seems to be want to use or misuse PC to stop people from thinking or even speaking out except as officially authorized or defaulted programs. People are tiring of this pattern.

Thanks,
Orangetom