|
|
Post by OziRiS on Sept 14, 2015 6:58:28 GMT
It all seems so easy, since we already have the legislation you speak of. If the loudmouths would shut the ---- up and go home everything would be fine. Personally I think that a big part of this movement to "impose their philosophy" on others as LW puts it, is a vain attempt to fill a hole in their lives by forcing others to accept them. Personally I see homosexuality as a mental disorder, not a lifestyle, excuse me if I don't gleefully accept it. Homosexuals are either feeling guilty about their lives, or lying about not feeling guilty about their lives. Deep inside they know that they are living an unnatural life and this guilt drives them to seek acceptance by force. Anything to justify their choices. Choices? Yes choice! You may not be able to control what you are attracted to, but you can control how you act on those attractions. Some guys are attracted to twelve year old girls, most of those men don't act on that. Some people are attracted to inanimate objects, like buildings, or an automobile, these people should seek counseling, not a license to marry that building or car. Steps down off soapbox, washes hands with said soap, cleaning away all signs of evil speak. I still maintain my position that as long as who you're "doing it" with is a consenting adult, it's nobody else's business. And that goes both ways. It's none of my business what you do behind closed doors, but it's also none of your business to make it my business. Keep it in YOUR house and out of MY face and we won't have any problems. |
|
|
|
Post by alabastersandman on Sept 30, 2015 7:09:57 GMT
I still maintain my position that as long as who you're "doing it" with is a consenting adult, it's nobody else's business. And that goes both ways. It's none of my business what you do behind closed doors, but it's also none of your business to make it my business. Keep it in YOUR house and out of MY face and we won't have any problems. You're absolutely right. It's a morality issue and people can only be accountable for themselves, and fittingly so, we are the only ones who will ultimately be accountable for what we do. If nobody is getting hurt and with a consenting adult (varies),maybe even by breed) then there is no victim. And guess what, I probably don't want what goes on in anyone else's house piped into mine. There are only a select few however who insist on being treated "fairly" and do so LOUDLY, as loudly and imposing as they can muster. A good rule of thumb should be that the louder you feel the need to shout, the farther you are from correct. And as a general rule, holds pretty true in todays climate. You could reverse engineer some of it by inverting "The squeaky wheel gets the oil" (not sure what that means, something Middle Eastern for sure though). When it comes right down to it, I don't care what anyone else does, but if I don't want to play along, it should be taken for granted that I don't want to hear about it. I don't appreciate the prospect of being forcibly made to bake anyone (to use an earlier example) a fabulous cake, much less eat a bullet from "god". Anti-discrimination laws discriminate against everyone who would otherwise enjoy personal freedom. That gives no one the right to be stupid about how they deal with others, but to feel as though you don't have the "freedom" to politely tell someone "No" is a blatant attack on one's freedom to do just that. In America, if you don't have respect for this you lost your way. As far as fabulous "marriage's" go, fine, a Civil Union would give every possible legal advantage, as well as disadvantages. Do we think that the "divorce" rate is going to raise proportionately? I do. What possible advantage is there to adopt the term "marriage" for these unions? Their only advantage to adopting "marriage" as a term for what they have is to slap everyone else in the face with what they are, and that somehow don't seem right. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 30, 2015 8:27:34 GMT
My own personal views....
And I stress, this is MY view, no one else owns it, and I dont care if anyone tries to disagree, because its MY view and not for anyone else to change.
Marriage is "For life".
For good bad and indifferent.
Its not just "The relationship I am in now"
Its not for the foreseeable future, its for the parts that become difficult, its for the parts when you have to have someone when perhaps you have little else, its a thing where you bind yourself to someone else because two are better than one, and when the cr@p hits the system, its the one person you know you can trust to pull you through the difficult bits, smile, say everything will work out, and be there to share a celebration when the hardest part of your life ends and you get back to the good times again.
And its doing that knowing the other half will have similar problems and you can be there for them, as part of the whole, that is your own personal joint life.
Marriage is NOT a "statement to the world"
Its a statement to yourself.
Its not a political movement to change the law.
Its more than that.
The world does not have to change to accommodate you....
You are not "special snowflake" to anyone else but you.
The you is the you that is you and the other half of you, its a joint you, and you are special.
To you.
Everyone else is the same.
You are not more special than anyone else who has the same arrangement.
You do NOT deserve better than them.
You dont even deserve the same as them.
You dont get anything that way.
You get what you put in.
What you take out?.. you do NOT take out anything.
Its all about putting in your whole life, not for reward, not for show, not for an award, its because you, the two of you, want to be together.
If you have that, then you ave got what everyone else in the same kind of relationship has.
Yeah sure celebrate that.
Just dont expect "Special" treatment above all others from other people....
We know already.
We that have been there know, we feel the same, maybe felt the same, so dont be saying "We are different", you are not.
Then finally...
There is a club called the Cortina owners club.
They all drive Ford Cortina's from the 80's 90's etc.
Turn up in a VW golf and "Demand" membership....
This is not the same is it?.
Maybe I can get closer to the truth?.
I am NOT a catholic.
Never have been.
Can I rock up to a Catholic Church and "Demand" conformation?...
Even less than I can "Demand" a "Bar Mitzvah"...
Maybe after a long involved declaration of becoming religious to that community, but not today is Friday I want it Monday thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 30, 2015 8:58:39 GMT
I have questions that perhaps I dont want people to answer. Especially if it makes them uncomfortable. So the law has changed.... For good or bad?... Straight in with the kidney punch?.. Oh yeah, I can be like that at time, I am honest and blunt when I need to be. This is NOT a question of LGBT, its the question of traditional religion. Can we just change religion BY LAW like this, and expect everyone to be "Just fine" because the man in the big house has said "let it be so" and he is right because he is always right.... This is NOT to deny the union of LGBT in some legal way that allows them the same "rights" as other people... You should have exactly the same rights, in that, you have my support, and if you read carefully, I think you have the whole boards support in your equal rights thing.... Legally there is and should be no difference to your rights. Tis is a question on Religion, and religious freedom. The Church "Traditional" view has always been marriage is a union of man and woman, tahts just the way it has been, always has been, and people want that tradition protected. The law now says that is false. Good or bad?. You just took a 2,000 year old tradition, older in may other religions, and altered that to something else.... Good or bad?. Anyone here from the Islamic community?... can I ask, is it the same in Islam?... and what are the exact requirements?.. Has the law now changed that?. Any Hindu input is welcome here..... I know we have some LDS on the board, how do they see it?. Go further into the Amish people. Can they accept the change in law?. www.caintv.com/idaho-city-tells-pastors-celebTheir religious beliefs say they cant do lgbt weddings, now they are threatened with JAIL... Rather tan find someone who will cater for them, LGBT are demanding those who feel uncomfortable to change THEIR life to accommodate others. Is that right?... I know for sure that I would not have gone in to a Jewish Synagogue or an Islamic Temple and demand that they did our wedding. We did it in the comfort of my Bro-in-Laws Hotel. Because we could fit EVERYONE in the family in there, it was a HUGE family affair, and we keep it in the family, because that is what family are for... And he asked us to do it there anyway to promote his business, now that he had a full licence to hold weddings.... We were the first, we helped him develop that side of the business, and we helped re-build part of his hotel to do that... Its a family thing. To say it went well is a massive understatement... I could not dream of a better three days wedding... (Yeah, it took three days, some parties are like that, you start and just dont want to stop?..) We are both Agnostic, to get hitched in Church that we do not attend seamed somehow wrong. Ours was a Civil wedding, no religion. But just as legal as a full church thing.... The same as a civil partnership for LGBT. We are all entitled to our own day in the spotlight.... But... At the expense of others?. If I have two options, one is welcoming and open, is ready to roll out the red carpet, and will bloody well enjoy doing it as much as my Family did, in which we had a hoot, all of us, including the Chef of the hotel who we woke up for breakfast hung over to hell but immediately started with the jokes... Option Two, someone who doesnt fully agree with what I am doing, but is facing JAIL if they dont. Where is the choice?... Again, put this as a Christian demanding a full Islamic wedding, or a known agnostic demanding a full Catholic. It wont happen. Maybe for the same reasons?... Do people really "get off" of having people threatened with legal action of the dont get their "special snowflake"?... If thats the only way you get your jollies, I hate to say this, but you are invalid as a person, you are shallower than a puddle of liquid hydrogen on a hot shovel, and about as welcome as a thunderstorm on a pick-nick. You cant "Force" people to agree with you. If you do that and threaten them with legal action, they will start to hate you. If this post is asking the wrong questions here, just say so, I will redact it.... |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Sept 30, 2015 10:58:37 GMT
I know we have some LDS on the board, how do they see it?. This came down back in the 1990s, and the church is in no hurry to change it. Welcome to the modern Progressive movement: If you don't agree with them, then they will do everything in their power to destroy you under the guise of "spreading enlightenment" or whatever nonsense they claim these days. Yes. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Sept 30, 2015 11:11:05 GMT
As an aside, this weekend will be five of the six sessions of the bi-annual General Conference, wherein the church leaders directly address the entire body of believers. The first session, the General Womens' Session, was this past Saturday night. You can watch the archived video here if you'd like. This upcoming Saturday will have three sessions, and this upcoming Sunday will have two. The sessions each day start around 10 AM American Mountain Standard Time, and LDS.org will feature a link on the main page to where you can stream video; I'd suggest getting connected about half an hour early, if not more, to make sure that you've got a good spot. If LDS.org is at capacity, then you can sometimes still get it through other outlets, like BYU TV's website. Although the primary purpose of Conference this time out will likely be to plug a number of holes in the senior leadership, it wouldn't surprise me if the leaders directly discuss what's been happening in the news recently, including the items you've asked about. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Sept 30, 2015 15:51:17 GMT
With some people, the problem is that it's insufficient that they win.
You have to lose.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Sept 30, 2015 17:58:50 GMT
With some people, the problem is that it's insufficient that they win. You have to lose. QFT. I can tell you horror story after horror story about how "enlightened progressives" responded to us "regressives" with violence, intimidation, censorship, and threats thereof in order to ensure that our voices were silenced. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Sept 30, 2015 21:56:17 GMT
See, what I'm having trouble understanding about this whole gay marriage thing is this:
Why do gay people even go to church?
Assuming for a moment that there is an almighty creator that cares about what we puny humans do with our average of 80 some odd years on this planet, either church has it right and God doesn't like gays, so not only are you not welcome, you're a sinner and you'll burn in Hell, or church has it wrong, so why are you wasting your time there?
Note that I'm not asking why gay people are religious. You can believe in any deity in whichever way you want to. People can disagree with you, but they can't prove you wrong, so go ahead and believe whatever you want to. But why go to church?
The whole point of any church is to gather a bunch of people who believe in a specific deity in a specific way, so they can worship that deity in the agreed upon manner. If you don't agree with the rest of the congregation, why go there? It kind of defeats the whole purpose of belonging to a church, doesn't it?
Again, assuming there is a God, whether he likes gays or not, SOMEONE has it wrong. Either God doesn't like gays, so he doesn't like you and won't give you his blessing anyway, or he does like gays, so he must not like the anti-gay sentiments that are prevalent in most churches. Either way, God doesn't want you in that building, so why keep insisting on being allowed in? If you truly believe in God, the whole thing is an exercise in utter futility!
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Sept 30, 2015 23:09:55 GMT
There are those who feel it their mission to force change upon whatever denomination that they belong to. These people rarely, if ever, follow the official protocol for requesting that changes be made, and so it's almost inevitable that they'll get kicked out before too long. Once they get kicked out, they then start whining to the media about how they were kicked out for being "different", with nary a mention of the fact that they were also being jerks about it.
It's rather comparable to what happened a few months back in the LDS faith. The media made it seem like this was a sweeping movement of women who wanted the priesthood, when in reality it was a small fraction of the active female membership (in reality, a lot of Mormon women don't want the priesthood because they don't want the responsibility and time-consuming obligations that come with it). The leader of the movement literally made a statement to the effect that "If I'm allowed into the building during the Priesthood session of General Conference, then the very sight of Meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!! in the audience will cause a revolution!".
Between her ego complex and her decision to stage a full-fledged march towards the building, it's no wonder they found themselves physically prevented from entering the building.
Nor was it any surprise when she got kicked out for being needlessly senseless about the whole affair.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 1, 2015 4:00:36 GMT
For my part: I am contractually obligated to disapprove of the act of homosexuality. therefore trying to legally require me to approve places me in an untenable position. adding being generally unlikeable doesn't help.
you see the issue here? this goes along with my irritation at the homosexual community appropriating words and images.
as I've said - my solution to this is to separate the legal side and the religious side completely.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 1, 2015 7:40:35 GMT
Now THERE is a thought.... I think I may have signed something like that back in my Forces days...
No its not still current, and thats good, because I dont think I believe in that any more amongst "Consenting" adults.
Its just I do not consent.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 1, 2015 13:43:24 GMT
It is one of those cases. they don't require me to approve of what they do in their spare time. however, they still choose to demand it. I recall years ago, my mother commented that when she was younger, if two women or two men chose to share a house it was assumed they were doing it for economic reasons and that was that. now, there are gay couples who are the social equivalent of that guy who can't go anywhere or do anything without preaching his particular brand of religion. - and THAT is what annoys me.
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Oct 2, 2015 0:02:25 GMT
Actually, I couldn't care less what two consenting adults do. What I do resent, and will not tolerate, is them trying to rub my nose in it ant then saying there is something wrong with ME if I don't approve of their perversions.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 2, 2015 0:08:21 GMT
Actually, I couldn't care less what two consenting adults do. What I do resent, and will not tolerate, is them trying to rub my nose in it ant then saying there is something wrong with ME if I don't approve of their perversions. or of anything they do. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Oct 2, 2015 0:12:23 GMT
Actually, I couldn't care less what two consenting adults do. What I do resent, and will not tolerate, is them trying to rub my nose in it ant then saying there is something wrong with ME if I don't approve of their perversions. or of anything they do. That too. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Oct 13, 2015 7:35:28 GMT
Our governor, Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown, recently signed a bill legalizing assisted suicide. Today, he vetoed a bill that would allow terminal patients to use experimental drugs not yet fully approved by the FDA. So, in California, you have the right to die, but not the right to try and live...  |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 13, 2015 14:09:35 GMT
Our governor, Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown, recently signed a bill legalizing assisted suicide. Today, he vetoed a bill that would allow terminal patients to use experimental drugs not yet fully approved by the FDA. So, in California, you have the right to die, but not the right to try and live... I'd have to see the text of the bill, to see whether it was a bill that allowed terminal patients to try new drugs, or it was a bill that allowed doctors to market false hopes in the form of unproven treatments. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Oct 14, 2015 9:05:42 GMT
Our governor, Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown, recently signed a bill legalizing assisted suicide. Today, he vetoed a bill that would allow terminal patients to use experimental drugs not yet fully approved by the FDA. So, in California, you have the right to die, but not the right to try and live... I'd have to see the text of the bill, to see whether it was a bill that allowed terminal patients to try new drugs, or it was a bill that allowed doctors to market false hopes in the form of unproven treatments. The law has been accepted in 24 states, including Oregon. When a person is terminal, there is no such thing as "false hope". You're lucky to have any hope at all. Terminal means dying, after all. And dying pretty soon. The drugs in question are experimental, just not fully approved by the FDA. That doesn't mean they'll work, or that they're useless. They are, however, someone's last hope. Personally, I think a person should be allowed just about anything in that condition. And as for marketing, experimental protocols are usually free because making promises about unproved drugs is illegal. They can, however, offer hope. I take this personally, as I have a friend that is currently unlikely to see the New Year, and it's pi$$ing me off. He's still got a chance with conventional treatment, but if they fail, why should anyone claim a moral right to deny him any alternatives? Especially a governor who just made it easier to kill yourself. We're from the government, and we're here to help? What? You're about to die, and you want something still being researched that might help? Tough luck. We government bureaucrats know better than you or your doctor. Your choice is to try to live; our choice is to let you die. We'll even make it easier for you! |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 14, 2015 13:27:50 GMT
I'd have to see the text of the bill, to see whether it was a bill that allowed terminal patients to try new drugs, or it was a bill that allowed doctors to market false hopes in the form of unproven treatments. The law has been accepted in 24 states, including Oregon. When a person is terminal, there is no such thing as "false hope". You're lucky to have any hope at all. Terminal means dying, after all. And dying pretty soon. The drugs in question are experimental, just not fully approved by the FDA. That doesn't mean they'll work, or that they're useless. They are, however, someone's last hope. Personally, I think a person should be allowed just about anything in that condition. And as for marketing, experimental protocols are usually free because making promises about unproved drugs is illegal. They can, however, offer hope. I take this personally, as I have a friend that is currently unlikely to see the New Year, and it's pi$$ing me off. He's still got a chance with conventional treatment, but if they fail, why should anyone claim a moral right to deny him any alternatives? Especially a governor who just made it easier to kill yourself. We're from the government, and we're here to help? What? You're about to die, and you want something still being researched that might help? Tough luck. We government bureaucrats know better than you or your doctor. Your choice is to try to live; our choice is to let you die. We'll even make it easier for you! I am involved in an ongoing discussion of brain death and end of life care on another board, and this subject came up. the beginning of the group was a case, from over a year ago, wherein a juvenile bled out and suffered brain death after a complex oral surgery (reasons unknown because the body has been kept on somatic support, while a parade of quacks apply their miracle cures ever since - hence no autopsy) I suspect that may be a part of the reasoning. at last report, the body was still lodged in New Jersey, where it is alleged that medicaid is footing the majority of the bill, while the family lives large on donations solicited through crowdfunding sites. so yeah, you have something you think might be a miracle cure: if you are confident enough to take responsibility for the cost of treatment, including the cost of treating any adverse effects it may cause, then I can see the possibility of providing an allowance for a terminally ill patient to volunteer for clinical trials. |
|
