A new thought

Well, I believe what George Washington and Robert Morris(grandfather) signed for. more in particular the first amendment. I am a firm believer in god and the bible but, that is my opinion people came to the united states to escape religious persecution. now that tells me right there why I love the U.S. and homosexuals have the same rights as me. I personally think it is nasty as hell, my friend sent me a video because I thought it was a nice town car he found I saw a little bit and I puked all over my laptop. Phil Robertson has no d*** say on nobody's life. His views sound be kept to himself, I see a gay couple and I automatically think they are going to hell.
 
We aren't talking about 'equality' here. Those who are demanding the sorts of 'change' to make themselves seem mainstream are actually demanding special treatment---jamming their difference in the faces of society and very stridently demanding approval of their distinctly minority way of doing things.

I've been married to the same woman for more than forty years. I don't invite anyone into the details of the relationship---it's none of your business. Please don't demand that I approve the details of yours.

KS
 
I don't know. But the slippery slope comes into play anytime you start making special provision for the demands of a minority. Please understand that everyone has the ability to be married. But not the right to change a definition simply because it doesn't fit with their wishes.

KS
 
But the slippery slope comes into play anytime you start making special provision for the demands of a minority
Click to expand...
you mean like the blacks demanding their civil rights at one time(or any minority). real slippery slope giving people the same thing as the rest.
they are not a minority making a "special" demand. they are asking for the same rights as the rest.
i see your view as extremely racist and self preserving in the face of change.
your hanging on to outdated views is what kept apartheid going for so many years.
it is only the religious right wing who most strongly opposes it.
and they do it under the guise that their rights trump the rights of others.(more a knee jerk reaction brought by the hatred of gays by the religious right who claim it is written within the bible. but that makes it a religious choice, not societal.prove god and jesus and your book as truth and you might make a case.)
as fordnut says, leave it to the majority of vote.
(there is a religious group who have a marriage to god, so this itself proves that man/woman is not traditional at all. it is only YOUR norm)
 
or like the mormons who were behind prop 8 in california, you should change that to between a man and a girl.
 
Worm, I'm reminded of the statement that, "There are none so blind as those who will not see." Your determination to see only through the eyes of the liberal/progressive leave your pronouncements so full of holes as to resemble a sieve. Nonetheless, I wish you well. Merry Christmas.

And Merry Christmas to all!!

KS
 
"There are none so blind as those who will not see."
Click to expand...
you do know they call it blind faith?
you mean i should view things from the single religious conservative side like you? too limited of a view.

happy holidays anyways. i wish you well as well.
 
cammerfe said:
Worm, I'm reminded of the statement that, "There are none so blind as those who will not see." Your determination to see only through the eyes of the liberal/progressive leave your pronouncements so full of holes as to resemble a sieve. Nonetheless, I wish you well. Merry Christmas.

And Merry Christmas to all!!

KS
Click to expand...
Merry Christmas to you and yours Ken
 
To update this discussion, how many are aware that the people who are part of the 'reality' TV program called 'Sister Wives' have started the legal process to legitimize their own sort of plural marriage? Are horses and dogs very far behind?

KS
 
mormons have been doing it for years. marrying 12 year old girls is just rampant now that slippery slope was set.
 
their church issues marriages. what happened to religious freedom?
as long as it's YOUR religious laws, it's ok. do you see the bigotry yet?
 
hrmwrm said:
their church issues marriages. what happened to religious freedom?
as long as it's YOUR religious laws, it's ok. do you see the bigotry yet?
Click to expand...

Probably it would do you good to examine the meaning of 'bigotry' since using it as you have simply doesn't 'scan'.

I don't know what you mean by 'their church 'issues' marriages'?

Even a nitwit knows that there is no such thing as absolute freedom. The most common comment has to do with yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre.

I don't have any 'religious laws'.

Your snarkiness is showing.

KS
 
their church recognizes their polygamous marriages, and the marriage of 12 year olds to middle age(or older) men. (whether recognized by the state/country is another matter.)
YOUR religious law is what you base your marriage ideals on. your 1 man, 1 woman, is religious bigotry. it is something you(and others like minded of you.) wish to impose on society as being the only right choice.
you better get your dictionary out again yourself.
 
hrmwrm said:
their church recognizes their polygamous marriages, and the marriage of 12 year olds to middle age(or older) men. (whether recognized by the state/country is another matter.)
YOUR religious law is what you base your marriage ideals on. your 1 man, 1 woman, is religious bigotry. it is something you(and others like minded of you.) wish to impose on society as being the only right choice.
you better get your dictionary out again yourself.
Click to expand...

I have had members of my extended family who were Latter Day Saints. I can therefore state from direct and extended personal observation that the larger church DOES NOT recognize polygamous marriage. There are small splinter sects off to one side or another who do practice polygamy and 'marriage' to children. They may be better known than those who use bestiality as a basis for marriage but they are no more accepted by the LDS than the 'dogs and ponies' way of doing things.

I, personally, am a main-stream Christian.

Please don't attempt to tell me what my beliefs are based on. In point of fact I have an AB in Sociology and base my views about marriage on the entirety of human history and the studies that show quite conclusively that one man and one woman, together, create the most stable family unit and therefore are the best basis, by far, for a functionally structured society.

You, on the other hand, are simply talking through your hat.

KS
 
In point of fact I have an AB in Sociology and base my views about marriage on the entirety of human history and the studies that show quite conclusively that one man and one woman, together, create the most stable family unit and therefore are the best basis, by far, for a functionally structured society.
Click to expand...
finally, you admit from your view it's the most stable, but not the only definition of marriage. point is, there are different versions of marriage. only 1 is man/woman.
I, personally, am a main-stream Christian.
Click to expand...
i think that was already a given from our conversations over the years. as for marriage to animals, it'll never happen, just as polygamy and underage haven't caught on in mainstream society.
so, no, it isn't a slippery slope.
your sociology is about 40 years out of date.
 
I see a lot of wishful thinking in your comments.

You'd be correct if you were to say that I started the academic study of Sociology 50+ years ago, but I do keep up. All of recorded civilization speaks to the one man-one woman model as being most likely to be stable.

The impermanence of same sex 'marriage' is well-known. Although there is some indication that to a certain extent it depends on whether one's talking about female-female or male-male, with females doing better than males. There has not been documented same-sex marriage long enough to get completely meaningful numbers but particularly with males, the 'ships-in-the-night' model is well enough known for there to be 'insider' songs about it.

Older gay males are the most likely of any group to be disconnected---regardless of how you define the disconnection.

KS
 
with females doing better than males
Click to expand...
at staying together or getting divorced? pretty open statement. but i assume it is women are better at staying together is what you are telling me. (or else you would have probably used the word worse in the context above.)
statistics wouldn't agree with you though.
in countries that allow gay marriage, the women are more likely to be unstable and divorce.
http://bigthink.com/dollars-and-sex/are-lesbian-marriages-doomed-for-failure

scroll down to divorce rates
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_of_same-sex_couples

as i stated, i don't think you are up to speed in world knowledge.
 
"...he speculated that..."

And you offer 18-year-old information and use it as your basis for making absolutist statements?

Com'on, Worm! Your attempts to offer personal attacks are not properly productive of good discourse!

I get around to such an extent that I regularly run across those who 'swing the other way'. As a group they are often engaging, witty, urbane, and offer a real opportunity for worthwhile conversation. And they have an underlying desperateness about themselves that is indicative of their foundational knowledge of themselves as out of the mainstream. Depending on other factors the result may be a layer of impenetrable secretiveness or the sort of acting out---demanding 'look at me, look at me'---one finds in an attempt to provide justification for their perceived 'otherness'.

"Do as you please in private, but don't jam your aberration in my face and demand that I tell you it's alright.. I do not find it to be so.

KS
 
2010, 2011, are 18 years ago?
an excerpt from my first link.
As Hattersley points out, however, male couples were much less likely to dissolve their relationship than were female couples: By the end of 2010, 1.6 % of male civil partnerships had ended in dissolution compared to 3.3 % of female partnerships.
Click to expand...
not even a quarter of 18 years. your a funny man ks.
take care.
 
Geezly---

You found a couple of later numbers. I'm glad for you.

Doesn't alter that most of your cites are significantly older.

And it doesn't alter the fact that same-sex relationships are significantly more transitory than are hetero ones .

KS

(By the way, that should be 'you're'.)
 
Doesn't alter that most of your cites are significantly older
Click to expand...
actually most are from 2010 to 2013. so, no, MOST are not significantly older. they used a reference in 97 in denmark, since it is a place that has alowed same sex unions for some time.
that's the ONLY number that is 18 years.
i truly don't believe you read anything in my links, but saw 1 old reference and thought them all old.
(By the way, that should be 'you're'.)
Click to expand...
correct on 1 thing. :D
 
and i get tired of conservative backwards religious bull****.
Right on MANY things
Click to expand...
correct. thank you. you shouldn't argue what you know not of.
i'll accept you concede this arguement.;););)

H.G.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 337 (members: 0, guests: 337)
Back
Top