|
Post by Cuchulain on Apr 6, 2014 21:38:16 GMT -5
It won't take 500. If you came back today after even 20 years the moral decay of this country would shock our ancestors. I can't, nor do I want to imagine what the next 20 will be like.. The moral decay in our society shocks me now, having grown to adulthood in the 60's. Fortunately, my parents have gone to their Eternal Reward - if they were still alive, God only knows what their take would be on today's society. BTW - my parents, children of the Great Depression and WWII - were lifelong Democrats. In their later years, they were crestfallen at the direction of our society and at the drift of the Democrat Party from being the party of the little guy to the party of special interests. They died in the nineties, with no clue of the abominations that would ensue after their passing.
|
|
|
Post by kemmer on Apr 6, 2014 22:34:31 GMT -5
No, just shows how many refuse to evolve with the world. I for one can't wait to see what these changes bring us in 500 years. Good or bad. Naturally if their is anything bad, no one will be willing to admit it. It's like the destruction of the family which has been slowly happening for decades. There are a plethora of sociological studies linking it to all kinds of issues, but very few listen, which is evident in the ever increasing number of single moms year after year. I agree that one parent raising a child on the dole has created no end of problems (and is continuing to do so.) However, gay marriage posits TWO people. That means, in the cases where there are children in the family, parents will have "in house" support, and the children will be getting that important double-message. (I am, of course, assuming the children aren't allowed to play one against the other, but that's an issue for hetero parents, too.)Also, gay couples are rarely low-income, therefore welfare dependency is not an issue. As for changes, consider what gay marriage means: no adultery, no sex before marriage, "'til death do we part." No more anonymous sex in restrooms, because, well the couple isn't married! IOW, all the taboos that used to apply to heteros will now apply to homos, as well. Frankly, gays who want to enter into life-long relationships, with all the restraints thus incurred, seem to fall on MY side of the moral equation. I really think it's important for societies to have sexual taboos. Monogamy does seem a fine way to cut down on bar fights, no?
|
|
|
Post by Cuchulain on Apr 6, 2014 22:54:54 GMT -5
I for one can't wait to see what these changes bring us in 500 years. Good or bad. Naturally if their is anything bad, no one will be willing to admit it. It's like the destruction of the family which has been slowly happening for decades. There are a plethora of sociological studies linking it to all kinds of issues, but very few listen, which is evident in the ever increasing number of single moms year after year. I agree that one parent raising a child on the dole has created no end of problems (and is continuing to do so.) However, gay marriage posits TWO people. That means, in the cases where there are children in the family, parents will have "in house" support, and the children will be getting that important double-message. (I am, of course, assuming the children aren't allowed to play one against the other, but that's an issue for hetero parents, too.)Also, gay couples are rarely low-income, therefore welfare dependency is not an issue. As for changes, consider what gay marriage means: no adultery, no sex before marriage, "'til death do we part." No more anonymous sex in restrooms, because, well the couple isn't married! IOW, all the taboos that used to apply to heteros will now apply to homos, as well. Frankly, gays who want to enter into life-long relationships, with all the restraints thus incurred, seem to fall on MY side of the moral equation. I really think it's important for societies to have sexual taboos. Monogamy does seem a fine way to cut down on bar fights, no? Monogamy, IMHO, is the only way to go. Can you give us some stats on the the longevity of legally authorized same-sex unions? I know it's a little early in the game, but I have to ask, skeptic that I am, how long these relationships will endure - and where the chidren who are brought into such arrangements, I presume by adoption or AI, will be left if they fail.
|
|
|
Post by kemmer on Apr 6, 2014 23:26:57 GMT -5
I agree that one parent raising a child on the dole has created no end of problems (and is continuing to do so.) However, gay marriage posits TWO people. That means, in the cases where there are children in the family, parents will have "in house" support, and the children will be getting that important double-message. (I am, of course, assuming the children aren't allowed to play one against the other, but that's an issue for hetero parents, too.)Also, gay couples are rarely low-income, therefore welfare dependency is not an issue. As for changes, consider what gay marriage means: no adultery, no sex before marriage, "'til death do we part." No more anonymous sex in restrooms, because, well the couple isn't married! IOW, all the taboos that used to apply to heteros will now apply to homos, as well. Frankly, gays who want to enter into life-long relationships, with all the restraints thus incurred, seem to fall on MY side of the moral equation. I really think it's important for societies to have sexual taboos. Monogamy does seem a fine way to cut down on bar fights, no? Monogamy, IMHO, is the only way to go. Can you give us some stats on the the longevity of legally authorized same-sex unions? I know it's a little early in the game, but I have to ask, skeptic that I am, how long these relationships will endure - and where the chidren who are brought into such arrangements, I presume by adoption or AI, will be left if they fail. WAAAAY to early to tell. After all, it's still illegal most places in the world. Call it an experiment. I would expect the failure rate would mimic the hetero failure rate. (Maybe a little lower, since some gay couples now marrying have already been living together for years. Thus, they're probably over the shocking discovery of all The Beloved's irritating little habits. As for children post-breakup, right now there are custody battles with no easy way to settle them in law. In the case of lesbians, absent legal marriage, the child "belongs" to the birth mother-- who can be just as bitchy as any hetero ex-wife-- or ex-husband. (What's the male equivalent of bitchy? Prickly?) Let's remember that legal marriage was all about inheritance. It eliminated calls of illegitimate children on the family purse. (That mattered, since quite a bit of the "family wealth" could have come from the bride's family. Why let it go to her cheating husband's by-blows?) Ordinary people just got married in church, without any license or input from the Government. If questions of inheritance arose, which rarely happened, the church records could be consulted. There was even "common law marriage" which declared couples "legally married" if they'd lived together for a certain number of years (usually 7) and called themselves husband and wife. (Again, it usually wasn't required, because there was no property to inherit.) "Legal" marriage, as opposed to "regular" marriage, used to be mostly a matter of contract law-- and the marriage contracts were written by lawyers before the wedding took place. Only in modern times have enough people owned property to require Big Brother's interest in marriage. A lot of the "gay rights" issues are really about property rights. We shall see what happens when high-income gay couples discover all the marriage penalties built into tax laws. Remember, a married couple with an income of $250,000 is called "rich", while that moniker doesn't kick in for two unmarried people living together until their household income hits $400,000. Got popcorn?
|
|
|
Post by Cuchulain on Apr 6, 2014 23:42:51 GMT -5
Monogamy, IMHO, is the only way to go. Can you give us some stats on the the longevity of legally authorized same-sex unions? I know it's a little early in the game, but I have to ask, skeptic that I am, how long these relationships will endure - and where the chidren who are brought into such arrangements, I presume by adoption or AI, will be left if they fail. WAAAAY to early to tell. After all, it's still illegal most places in the world. Call it an experiment. I would expect the failure rate would mimic the hetero failure rate. (Maybe a little lower, since some gay couples now marrying have already been living together for years. Thus, they're probably over the shocking discovery of all The Beloved's irritating little habits. As for children post-breakup, right now there are custody battles with no easy way to settle them in law. In the case of lesbians, absent legal marriage, the child "belongs" to the birth mother-- who can be just as bitchy as any hetero ex-wife-- or ex-husband. (What's the male equivalent of bitchy? Prickly?) Let's remember that legal marriage was all about inheritance. It eliminated calls of illegitimate children on the family purse. (That mattered, since quite a bit of the "family wealth" could have come from the bride's family. Why let it go to her cheating husband's by-blows?) Ordinary people just got married in church, without any license or input from the Government. If questions of inheritance arose, which rarely happened, the church records could be consulted. There was even "common law marriage" which declared couples "legally married" if they'd lived together for a certain number of years (usually 7) and called themselves husband and wife. (Again, it usually wasn't required, because there was no property to inherit.) "Legal" marriage, as opposed to "regular" marriage, used to be mostly a matter of contract law-- and the marriage contracts were written by lawyers before the wedding took place. Only in modern times have enough people owned property to require Big Brother's interest in marriage. A lot of the "gay rights" issues are really about property rights. We shall see what happens when high-income gay couples discover all he marriage penalties built into tax laws. Remember, a married couple with an income of $250,000 is called "rich", while that moniker doesn't kick in for two unmarried people living together until their household income hits $400,000. Got popcorn? Plenty of popcorn here. But it's the children we're talking about here. The children are the ones that I care about. If two people of the same gender want to enter into a binding relationship, It's none of my business. I have cousins who have done so, and I love them no less for it. So many children of divorce or otherwise broken homes in our society today - nothing good can come of it. My choice is for monoganous heterosexual marriage - it brought us up from the level of the lower animals and it's the bulwark of civilization and social order. What's next - the Polyamorists? They're on TV now - I guess in a few years that will be the next push for "Equal Rights."
|
|
|
Post by highmc2 on Apr 7, 2014 0:58:41 GMT -5
WAAAAY to early to tell. After all, it's still illegal most places in the world. Call it an experiment. I would expect the failure rate would mimic the hetero failure rate. (Maybe a little lower, since some gay couples now marrying have already been living together for years. Thus, they're probably over the shocking discovery of all The Beloved's irritating little habits. As for children post-breakup, right now there are custody battles with no easy way to settle them in law. In the case of lesbians, absent legal marriage, the child "belongs" to the birth mother-- who can be just as bitchy as any hetero ex-wife-- or ex-husband. (What's the male equivalent of bitchy? Prickly?) Let's remember that legal marriage was all about inheritance. It eliminated calls of illegitimate children on the family purse. (That mattered, since quite a bit of the "family wealth" could have come from the bride's family. Why let it go to her cheating husband's by-blows?) Ordinary people just got married in church, without any license or input from the Government. If questions of inheritance arose, which rarely happened, the church records could be consulted. There was even "common law marriage" which declared couples "legally married" if they'd lived together for a certain number of years (usually 7) and called themselves husband and wife. (Again, it usually wasn't required, because there was no property to inherit.) "Legal" marriage, as opposed to "regular" marriage, used to be mostly a matter of contract law-- and the marriage contracts were written by lawyers before the wedding took place. Only in modern times have enough people owned property to require Big Brother's interest in marriage. A lot of the "gay rights" issues are really about property rights. We shall see what happens when high-income gay couples discover all he marriage penalties built into tax laws. Remember, a married couple with an income of $250,000 is called "rich", while that moniker doesn't kick in for two unmarried people living together until their household income hits $400,000. Got popcorn? Plenty of popcorn here. But it's the children we're talking about here.
The children are the ones that I care about.If two people of the same gender want to enter into a binding relationship, It's none of my business. I have cousins who have done so, and I love them no less for it. So many children of divorce or otherwise broken homes in our society today - nothing good can come of it. My choice is for monoganous heterosexual marriage - it brought us up from the level of the lower animals and it's the bulwark of civilization and social order. What's next - the Polyamorists? They're on TV now - I guess in a few years that will be the next push for "Equal Rights." Bullstuff! You are just a coffee table politician pushing an agenda. Always be weary when one says "it's for the children". It's an ad for graham crackers. Buy or don't buy because of it. Does it affect me in any way? No! Libertarian view...freedom of choice in the free market.
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Apr 7, 2014 7:00:27 GMT -5
Plenty of popcorn here. But it's the children we're talking about here.
The children are the ones that I care about.If two people of the same gender want to enter into a binding relationship, It's none of my business. I have cousins who have done so, and I love them no less for it. So many children of divorce or otherwise broken homes in our society today - nothing good can come of it. My choice is for monoganous heterosexual marriage - it brought us up from the level of the lower animals and it's the bulwark of civilization and social order. What's next - the Polyamorists? They're on TV now - I guess in a few years that will be the next push for "Equal Rights." Bullstuff! You are just a coffee table politician pushing an agenda. Always be weary when one says "it's for the children". It's an ad for graham crackers. Buy or don't buy because of it. Does it affect me in any way? No! Libertarian view...freedom of choice in the free market. In the the perfect world I agree. In our world it becomes an issue. Incest, polygamy, polyandry, beastiality. These are all behaviors that I expect to become the next agenda that we must all celebrate or lose our jobs. Its all about love after all. Who cares about the children.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2014 7:46:44 GMT -5
I for one can't wait to see what these changes bring us in 500 years. Good or bad. Naturally if their is anything bad, no one will be willing to admit it. It's like the destruction of the family which has been slowly happening for decades. There are a plethora of sociological studies linking it to all kinds of issues, but very few listen, which is evident in the ever increasing number of single moms year after year. I agree that one parent raising a child on the dole has created no end of problems (and is continuing to do so.) However, gay marriage posits TWO people. That means, in the cases where there are children in the family, parents will have "in house" support, and the children will be getting that important double-message. (I am, of course, assuming the children aren't allowed to play one against the other, but that's an issue for hetero parents, too.)Also, gay couples are rarely low-income, therefore welfare dependency is not an issue. As for changes, consider what gay marriage means: no adultery, no sex before marriage, "'til death do we part." No more anonymous sex in restrooms, because, well the couple isn't married! IOW, all the taboos that used to apply to heteros will now apply to homos, as well. Frankly, gays who want to enter into life-long relationships, with all the restraints thus incurred, seem to fall on MY side of the moral equation. I really think it's important for societies to have sexual taboos. Monogamy does seem a fine way to cut down on bar fights, no? No doubt there may be positives, but there will also be unintended negatives as well. But as I said, no will discuss those.
|
|
|
Post by musicman on Apr 7, 2014 10:25:34 GMT -5
The few pushing their agenda on the masses. It's all very disgusting to me. Honey Maid has made a choice. So have I. Here is a list of things made by Nabisco that I will not be purchasing and will encourage others not to purchase. Chips Ahoy! Fig Newtons Mallomars Oreos Ritz Crackers Teddy Grahams Triscuit Wheat Thins Social Tea Nutter Butter Peek Freans Chicken in a Biskit
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Apr 7, 2014 12:21:10 GMT -5
Please boycott Nabisco products! That will encourage sales, and I will be able to buy them for less! I don't particularly like graham crackers, but I do like Triscuits now and then.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2014 12:56:56 GMT -5
Please boycott Nabisco products! That will encourage sales, and I will be able to buy them for less! I don't particularly like graham crackers, but I do like Triscuits now and then. The only flaw I see here is that increased sales would disincentivize the need for lower prices. Quite the opposite, I would think.
I don't doubt for a moment that Nabisco's decision to air this ad had little to do with what they considered right or wrong, but rather, who they decided it more financially propitious to piss off. In the end, I suppose, they gathered that at least for now, the LGBT community had a greater scale of influence than a Million Angry Moms or the AFA.
Such epiphanies are typically accompanied by a carefully drawn up marketing plan.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Apr 7, 2014 16:03:21 GMT -5
No, by sales I meant "sale prices".
Right now the gay community is finally being granted a measure of acceptance. They're on the cusp between mainstream and persecuted, and they can, for awhile, leverage the enormous political power that creates. Hey, if you don't want minorities to get that kind of power, don't start the persecution in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Apr 7, 2014 17:16:43 GMT -5
No, by sales I meant "sale prices". Right now the gay community is finally being granted a measure of acceptance. They're on the cusp between mainstream and persecuted, and they can, for awhile, leverage the enormous political power that creates. Hey, if you don't want minorities to get that kind of power, don't start the persecution in the first place. I am sure that NAMBLA is just waiting to take their persecuted place.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Apr 7, 2014 17:26:35 GMT -5
I am sure that NAMBLA is just waiting to take their persecuted place. We'll see, won't we? A key difference is that what NAMBLA advocates involves children, who are not consenting adults, and in addition what it advocates causes harm to those children. I'm sure a lot of people felt that "teh gays" would never be socially accepted, and so it's impossible to say that NAMBLA will never be socially accepted - but I like to think we're a long way from allowing people to harm children merely because they want to. On the other hand, we do in this country have a number of religious folks who think "a good beating every now and again is good for keepin wimmins and younguns in line..." So who can say?
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Apr 7, 2014 17:33:21 GMT -5
I am sure that NAMBLA is just waiting to take their persecuted place. We'll see, won't we? A key difference is that what NAMBLA advocates involves children, who are not consenting adults, and in addition what it advocates causes harm to those children. I'm sure a lot of people felt that "teh gays" would never be socially accepted, and so it's impossible to say that NAMBLA will never be socially accepted - but I like to think we're a long way from allowing people to harm children merely because they want to. On the other hand, we do in this country have a number of religious folks who think "a good beating every now and again is good for keepin wimmins and younguns in line..." So who can say? Seems that it is about LOVE after all. Those same arguments were pretty much used against gays. Who knows maybe children will become emancipated. Harm seems today to be in the eye of some old conservative kurmudgion, not some hip modern NAMBLA leftie. So I wouldn't really be surprised in 20 years to hear the NAMBLA types whining about being discriminated against and getting boycotts going if we don't all celebrate their LOVE.
|
|
|
Post by The New Sheriff of Rock Ridge on Apr 7, 2014 18:06:07 GMT -5
Are we really talking about NAMBLA on a Honeymaid thread?
Let's not go there.
|
|
|
Post by kashmir on Apr 7, 2014 18:47:24 GMT -5
It won't take 500. If you came back today after even 20 years the moral decay of this country would shock our ancestors. I can't, nor do I want to imagine what the next 20 will be like.. The moral decay in our society shocks me now, having grown to adulthood in the 60's. Fortunately, my parents have gone to their Eternal Reward - if they were still alive, God only knows what their take would be on today's society. BTW - my parents, children of the Great Depression and WWII - were lifelong Democrats. In their later years, they were crestfallen at the direction of our society and at the drift of the Democrat Party from being the party of the little guy to the party of special interests. They died in the nineties, with no clue of the abominations that would ensue after their passing. Okay Drama Queen. LOL
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Apr 7, 2014 18:55:52 GMT -5
Are we really talking about NAMBLA on a Honeymaid thread?
Let's not go there. Twenty years ago talking about gays getting married was also taboo.
|
|
|
Post by kashmir on Apr 7, 2014 19:04:26 GMT -5
Good for you!! I, on the other hand, will support and vote to equal rights, like the majority of Americans. You are in the minority now. Or as we like to say, "The wrong side of history". And you yourself are a perfect example of what happens when people don't agree with your lifestyle. Really?? You mean married to a member of the opposite sex with two children? That kind of "lifestyle"?
|
|
|
Post by kashmir on Apr 7, 2014 19:10:00 GMT -5
It won't take 500. If you came back today after even 20 years the moral decay of this country would shock our ancestors. I can't, nor do I want to imagine what the next 20 will be like.. You mean like men having sex with men, women having sex with women? I kind of think that has been going on for quite sometime, dare I say it, FOR CENTURIES, despite it all, here we still stand. You guys living under rocks or something? LOL
|
|
Foggy Dewhurst
Did you see it, did you see that paratroopers roll?
Posts: 178
|
Post by Foggy Dewhurst on Apr 7, 2014 21:20:58 GMT -5
No we don't live under rocks, but it was never shoved down our throats or glamorized like it is today..
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Apr 7, 2014 21:54:33 GMT -5
I am sure that NAMBLA is just waiting to take their persecuted place. We'll see, won't we? A key difference is that what NAMBLA advocates involves children, who are not consenting adults, and in addition what it advocates causes harm to those children. I'm sure a lot of people felt that "teh gays" would never be socially accepted, and so it's impossible to say that NAMBLA will never be socially accepted - but I like to think we're a long way from allowing people to harm children merely because they want to. On the other hand, we do in this country have a number of religious folks who think "a good beating every now and again is good for keepin wimmins and younguns in line..." So who can say? And you don't think gays harm children? When they are telling kids as young as 4 that "it's okay for you to be different, if you don't like who you are, just be gay"?
|
|
|
Post by The New Sheriff of Rock Ridge on Apr 7, 2014 22:40:59 GMT -5
We'll see, won't we? A key difference is that what NAMBLA advocates involves children, who are not consenting adults, and in addition what it advocates causes harm to those children. I'm sure a lot of people felt that "teh gays" would never be socially accepted, and so it's impossible to say that NAMBLA will never be socially accepted - but I like to think we're a long way from allowing people to harm children merely because they want to. On the other hand, we do in this country have a number of religious folks who think "a good beating every now and again is good for keepin wimmins and younguns in line..." So who can say? And you don't think gays harm children? When they are telling kids as young as 4 that "it's okay for you to be different, if you don't like who you are, just be gay"? That opinion is no more valid than someone telling you that letting kids use guns is harming them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2014 5:21:41 GMT -5
And you yourself are a perfect example of what happens when people don't agree with your lifestyle. Really?? You mean married to a member of the opposite sex with two children? That kind of "lifestyle"? Maybe lifestyle was the wrong word to use.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2014 5:34:16 GMT -5
It won't take 500. If you came back today after even 20 years the moral decay of this country would shock our ancestors. I can't, nor do I want to imagine what the next 20 will be like.. You mean like men having sex with men, women having sex with women? I kind of think that has been going on for quite sometime, dare I say it, FOR CENTURIES, despite it all, here we still stand. You guys living under rocks or something? LOL Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean you're living under a rock. I have good friends that are gay. They know I find everything about it repulsive, but they are still friends and I still care about them like any other friend. No one will ever convince me that homosexuality is "normal". You can look at a man and a woman and know what we were made for. And before anyone jumps all over it, that's not the same thing as saying people are or aren't "born that way". That said, I don't run around screaming that from the mountain tops and I treat all my friends with dignity and respect. I have friends who think I'm crazy for being Catholic. I know how they feel. We still manage. Not agreeing does not equal hate! Most people get that!
|
|