U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-14-2015, 04:28 PM
 
Location: Boston, MA
238 posts, read 239,827 times
Reputation: 223

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op View Post
It doesn't -- so long as full resposnibility is assumed.
I dont know of any data showing that gay people in any significant numbers are creating children in heterosexual relationships before bolting and leaving the children to be wards of the state. If you have such data, please share. I think that's part of the case you are trying to make? Sounds like a red herring but show me the money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op View Post
But I think most of us know that individual cases such as yours are more ofthen the exception than the norm.
Which norm are you referring to?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-14-2015, 04:47 PM
 
Location: West Hollywood
3,196 posts, read 2,366,957 times
Reputation: 5262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vector1 View Post
While the FF were not gods nor infallible men, they were some of the greatest minds humanity has ever known. They constructed a Constitutional Republic like no other, to allow people to live free. Sure there were limitations on what could be achieved in their time, and they were astute enough to know slavery was not something that could be stopped in their time, even though many abhorred the practice. They obviously knew what they were talking about because the issue almost tore our country apart down the road.
Yet we can still depend on their general wisdom to guide us so long as we do not look at them through a modern PC lens.
The founding fathers designed the Constitution to be changed with the times. Their greatest wisdom was knowing that they were not the wisest men to walk the Earth. If you knew anything about them you would know that they all wanted the Constitution to be malleable, not rigid and dogmatic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vector1 View Post
As to your assertion of separation of church and state, you may well like your version. You may also like how the SC's liberal rulings have distorted their intentions. However if you read the FF's writings to glean what they intended, they did not want a ruling church/religion. However that does not mean they wanted total separation either. They would laugh at how it has been distorted to prevent manger displays from being erected, or issues with artistry of the SC building and people wishing to have it removed. I say this not as a Christian, rather someone who has extensively read the Federalist papers and studied their minds/thoughts.
If they didn't want total separation they sure had an odd way of showing it. Not a single bit of scripture became an Amendment. Not one institution was established to promote Christianity. Many of the founding fathers wanted churches to be taxed the same as banks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vector1 View Post
BTW - You can say Christianity was not the unanimous religion of the FF's, but it was the overwhelming majority. Sure they did not take passages from the Bible and incorporate them into our Constitution. However their moral/values did derive to one extent or another from that basis.
It was not the overwhelming majority. That is a demonstrable mistruth. I suggest you do some actual research on the subject. As for the morals of Christianity being incorporated into the Constitution, that is also a fabrication. Nothing in the Constitution is Christian in nature.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2015, 04:49 PM
 
Location: West Hollywood
3,196 posts, read 2,366,957 times
Reputation: 5262
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op View Post
Slappity pappity goop goop gop gee!
Are you on crack or smack?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2015, 05:00 PM
 
Location: Nescopeck, Penna.
11,433 posts, read 6,848,240 times
Reputation: 14506
Like Mr/Ms jjrose. I don't want to go deeply into personal circumstances. But I own a good-sized house in a stable neighborhood and sometimes paid the bills for it while working out-of-town by renting it out. I've had a variety of tenants, including same-sex couples, and in one instance, saw one of them stabilize her life, and reduce the problems passed on to the landlord by finding a stable partner of the same sex.

So my problem isn't with sexuality -- it's with irresponsibility.

In the earlier times of a simpler, less-industrialized society, those in power also preyed upon the sexual mistakes of the young and the less-responsible -- usually by the route of the forced marriage or "shotgun wedding". And that sort of manipulation still goes on today -- moreso in less-cosmopolitan areas. I can't offer an answer for it -- the emotions, prejudices, and underlying causes all run too deep.

But I think it's time that our society identified the most irresponsible among the flock, and redeveloped the mechanism to hold them accountable, rather than continue to expand an unresponsive bureaucracy which has little interest in solving the problem and reducing its own power, influence, and budget. But our current national polarization over this issue is driven by the more-simplistic on both sides, of whom the OP of this thread is a prime example.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2015, 05:07 PM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
19,463 posts, read 9,802,622 times
Reputation: 7551
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op View Post
Like Mr/Ms jjrose. I don't want to go deeply into personal circumstances. But I own a good-sized house in a stable neighborhood and sometimes paid the bills for it while working out-of-town by renting it out. I've had a variety of tenants, including same-sex couples, and in one instance, saw one of them stabilize her life, and reduce the problems passed on to the landlord by finding a stable partner of the same sex.

So my problem isn't with sexuality -- it's with irresponsibility.

In the earlier times of a simpler, less-industrialized society, those in power also preyed upon the sexual mistakes of the young and the less-responsible -- usually by the route of the forced marriage or "shotgun wedding". And that sort of manipulation still goes on today -- moreso in less-cosmopolitan areas. I can't offer an answer for it -- the emotions, prejudices, and underlying causes all run too deep.

But I think it's time that our society identified the most irresponsible among the flock, and redeveloped the mechanism to hold them accountable, rather than continue to expand an unresponsive bureaucracy which has little interest in solving the problem and reducing its own power and influence. But our current national polarization over this issue is driven by the more-simplistic on both sides, of whom the OP of this thread is a prime example.
What does all of this have to do with your claim that same sex couples somehow harm opposite sex couples and their families?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2015, 05:09 PM
 
Location: Nescopeck, Penna.
11,433 posts, read 6,848,240 times
Reputation: 14506
Quote:
Originally Posted by MordinSolus View Post
Are you on crack or smack?
Sounds to me like you are -- and don't corrupt other people's posts!; if you can't fathom the logic of the argument, you are the one with the problem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2015, 05:15 PM
 
Location: West Hollywood
3,196 posts, read 2,366,957 times
Reputation: 5262
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op View Post
Like Mr/Ms jjrose. I don't want to go deeply into personal circumstances. But I own a good-sized house in a stable neighborhood and sometimes paid the bills for it while working out-of-town by renting it out. I've had a variety of tenants, including same-sex couples, and in one instance, saw one of them stabilize her life, and reduce the problems passed on to the landlord by finding a stable partner of the same sex.
So my problem isn't with sexuality -- it's with irresponsibility.
In the earlier times of a simpler, less-industrialized society, those in power also preyed upon the sexual mistakes of the young and the less-responsible -- usually by the route of the forced marriage or "shotgun wedding". And that sort of manipulation still goes on today -- moreso in less-cosmopolitan areas. I can't offer an answer for it -- the emotions, prejudices, and underlying causes all run too deep.
But I think it's time that our society identified the most irresponsible among the flock, and redeveloped the mechanism to hold them accountable, rather than continue to expand an unresponsive bureaucracy which has little interest in solving the problem and reducing its own power, influence, and budget. But our current national polarization over this issue is driven by the more-simplistic on both sides, of whom the OP of this thread is a prime example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op View Post
if you can't fathom the logic of the argument, you are the one with the problem.
Holy crap, dude. This is utter nonsense. It literally makes no sense. None of it has anything to do with gay marriage, the LGBT community, or anything at all because you're just spouting vague nonsense. What the hell are you talking about?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2015, 05:16 PM
 
511 posts, read 362,857 times
Reputation: 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati View Post
I see you've found an anti-gay hero. They're getting harder to come by these days, aren't they? It must be very depressing, living in an age in which sanctioned discrimination against gays is being rolled back virtually everywhere. All this equality, justice - such developments must be difficult to live with for you people who loathe such concepts.

Oh - nice touch with the "But... but... I just care to much about the children!" shtick. It ain't much, and it's incoherent nonsense, but since there is no coherent rationale for your anti-gay animus, I guess you've got to throw something out there.

But, do tell me this:
How does it benefit the child of gay parents in Kansas, when one of those parents is fired from a job not for job performance but for no reason other than the fact that he or she is gay? Or, when that parent is not hired in the first place for precisely that reason? Of course, it doesn't - it harms that child. And you don't care one bit.

Stop pretending you care at all about children. You don't. You're just upset that this generation is not raising another generation that shares your irrational dislike of gays.
I ride my bike with one arm.

I need to be a protected class also, since this something I cannot change. Nor will I decide to exercise my left arm as it is unnatural to me.

I am more comfortable using my right arm. Life is so unfair.... someone please help!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2015, 05:17 PM
 
Location: Nescopeck, Penna.
11,433 posts, read 6,848,240 times
Reputation: 14506
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose View Post
What does all of this have to do with your claim that same sex couples somehow harm opposite sex couples and their families?
Because the LGBT advocacy, for political reasons alone -- has chosen to align itself with a self-serving coalition of causes -- most of which are directly hostile to a conservative consensus. Some of that conservative group are simplistic social hard-liners, but others, myself among them, base our arguments on a belief that economic, as well as personal and expressionary freedoms, are unitary and inseparable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MordinSolus View Post
Holy crap, dude. This is utter nonsense. It literally makes no sense. None of it has anything to do with gay marriage, the LGBT community, or anything at all because you're just spouting vague nonsense. What the hell are you talking about?
Most prominently via abuse of executive power and judicial decision, the current campaigns by so-called "progressives' is weakening respect for individual rights on all fronts. If you can't recognize this you might as well join a couple of the other recent participants herein (Post #534 is a good example) as part of the lynch mob.

Last edited by 2nd trick op; 02-14-2015 at 05:31 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2015, 05:21 PM
 
107 posts, read 96,095 times
Reputation: 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by MordinSolus View Post
Holy crap, dude. This is utter nonsense. It literally makes no sense. None of it has anything to do with gay marriage, the LGBT community, or anything at all because you're just spouting vague nonsense. What the hell are you talking about?
This is how I feel about half of the posts from that 'side' of the debate in this thread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top