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.
yikesamillion, the only society in which you could live is one where everybody thinks the same, just like you.
Who says you have to tolerate the things (people) you don't like? Don't you have any guns?
The outspoken minoritiy segments of society are forcing their ways upon the majority, resulting in everybody having to change for their sake.
Nobody should have to tolerate anything that is disagreeable especially when it is immoral or illegal. This country should not be so accepting of the over 12 million illegal immigrants living here and having anchor babies for the legal citizens to finance through their taxes. Just the fact they are here illegally is criminal in itself.
Then the migrants expect us to accept their culture and adapt to their language? I don't think so! Migrants need to adapt to our language and culture and becomee legal citizens if they want to blend in.
Why is it that the feds seem to know about the millions of illegal immigrants residing in this country but are unwilling to do much about the problem?
On that note why should the majority of those legal citizens be forced to tolerate migrants living here illegally and milking off the welfare system?
Why should the law-abiding citizens of this great country be made to tolerate the lazy minority that refuse to speak English fluently? Why should anybody who lives in the United States of America be getting by with not communicating in the language of the land, which is English?
Why must I be forced to speak with a foreign-accented representative from some third-world country who I can barely understand when I call for technical assistance or banking information? Why, when I ask to be transferred to a person in the United States, am I denied that option; and why is that considered intolerant or racist?
Why must the majority be forced to tolerate abnormal lifstyles such as homosexuality? Why aren't the rabid quantity of AIDS cases and other STDs enough to convince people about the dangers to society when people engage in such degenerate methods?
Most of all, relative to the above issue, why do the majority of people have to sit on the sidelines and put up with an elite minority of high and mighty judges that legislate from their benches? Why is it okay when a judge ignores the basic foundations of society as well as the Constitution and makes a knee-jerk decision, but it's considered barbaric, homophobic, and backwoods when the majority of voters constitutionally approve bans on same-sex marriage?
Why do we all have to change the way we live and go green just to satisfy a small minority of outspoken doomsday environmentalists? Why can't this small group of activists change their ways and stop pushing legislation to affect the rest of our everyday lifestyles?
Why have we allowed ourselves to be shoved into a politically-correct state of so-called tolerance of unorthodox ways? Society is crumbling around us thanks to all this wonderful diversity, and we sit on our hands and swallow it like castor oil. Can anybody explain the reasons in a rational manner without the usual bashing or name-calling?
Because Political Correctness has run amok and trumps all else in this oh so great nation. But I disagree with homosexual aspect of your post, what people do in their own bedroom is no one else's business.
Let me see if I've got this right - you're saying that gay people can legally marry the partner of their choice when and wherever they choose???
How ever did I miss that breaking news?
They have exact same rights that I do when it comes to marriage. Are you suggesting we enact special legislation to grant a new form of marriage based on sexual preferences?
Wow.
Talk about discrimination. How is that any different than the 1960's "separate but equal" legislation? I thought segregation was determined to be a bad thing.
They have exact same rights that I do when it comes to marriage. Are you suggesting we enact special legislation to grant a new form of marriage based on sexual preferences?
Wow.
Talk about discrimination. How is that any different than the 1960's "separate but equal" legislation? I thought segregation was determined to be a bad thing.
For the last time.
Marraige is not a right and homosexuals do not have the same liberty to marry as heterosexuals do. If homosexuals dump their deviant lifestyles to become clean and straight they will be able to marry people of the opposite sex.
One man and one woman is how marriage has been for centuries. Why do you liberal activists want to change a sacred centuries-old tradition that works just fine? Homosexuals can fornicate in their closets and shut up about equal rights because they are not equal in this regard.
I want to add that the notion of separate but equal works perfectly well.
If you believe that is a bad thing as you put it, look at how people in society mingle even to this day. Blacks generally mix better with blacks, hispanics with hispanics, Asians with Asians, whites with whites and so on. That is why you see many ethnic neighborhoods in larger cities, Little Havana, Little Mexico, Chinatown. Suburban and rural America often attract more white people.
People of different races usually like to be around members of their own race because they are more comfortable. Forcing integration has not worked. People should live where they so choose.
Why is it that the feds seem to know about the millions of illegal immigrants residing in this country but are unwilling to do much about the problem?
How do you propose this be done? I think the issue is one of practicality. Folks on the sidelines can scream all day long but how exactly to you propose the US government go about rounding up 11 million people? Where will they be held? How long would it take to build these holding cells? How many cops would have to be hired? How many courthouses would have to be constructed? Practically, it can't happen so I think the next best step that people talk about is securing the borders and dealing with the immigrants. We can't ship them off. Bush had an idea but conservatives killed it and guess what... you're still complaining about it when there could have been a process to address it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yikesamillion
On that note why should the majority of those legal citizens be forced to tolerate migrants living here illegally and milking off the welfare system?
Illegal immigrants are not on welfare; they are not eligible. They are eligible for emergency care and that does strain the system in areas with high illegal immigration but most studies have shown that they are a net positive because many of them get illegal social security numbers and pay taxes but they will get nothing in return.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yikesamillion
Why should the law-abiding citizens of this great country be made to tolerate the lazy minority that refuse to speak English fluently? Why should anybody who lives in the United States of America be getting by with not communicating in the language of the land, which is English?
All citizens have to pass an English literacy test. Why does it bother you that some immigrants do not speak English? All it does is hurt their chances at advancing in this society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yikesamillion
Why must I be forced to speak with a foreign-accented representative from some third-world country who I can barely understand when I call for technical assistance or banking information? Why, when I ask to be transferred to a person in the United States, am I denied that option; and why is that considered intolerant or racist?
It's called outsourcing. If you don't like it, do business with a company that does not outsource to India. I hate it too but what are you going to do about it? It's a corporate decision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yikesamillion
Why must the majority be forced to tolerate abnormal lifstyles such as homosexuality? Why aren't the rabid quantity of AIDS cases and other STDs enough to convince people about the dangers to society when people engage in such degenerate methods?
Society has to tolerate it because abnormality is in the eye of the beholder. It wasn't nary 30-40 years ago that many states had laws against interractial marriage because it was "abnormal." Homosexuals exists... because you don't like it does not mean a thing. By the way, most AIDS cases and STDs are outside of the gay community. They have done a lot of education. Sadly, the highest rates of HIV are now among young Black women.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yikesamillion
Most of all, relative to the above issue, why do the majority of people have to sit on the sidelines and put up with an elite minority of high and mighty judges that legislate from their benches? Why is it okay when a judge ignores the basic foundations of society as well as the Constitution and makes a knee-jerk decision, but it's considered barbaric, homophobic, and backwoods when the majority of voters constitutionally approve bans on same-sex marriage?
You have to put up with high and might judges because that is the foundation of our laws; it's in the Constitution. It's called the system of checks and balances and if a state does not like the ruling of a court, they can always work to amend the constitution. Stop acting like a victim -- if people cared enough to change the law, they would. The judges rule based on their interpretation of the Constitution and the Constitution can always be changed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yikesamillion
Why do we all have to change the way we live and go green just to satisfy a small minority of outspoken doomsday environmentalists? Why can't this small group of activists change their ways and stop pushing legislation to affect the rest of our everyday lifestyles?
Again with the victim meme. Who's telling you to change the way you live? What legislation are you talking about? However, the general point is that where a threat to national security has been identified (e.g. dependence on mideast oil and global warming), the government has the right to incentivize certain actions to remove that threat.
Why have we allowed ourselves to be shoved into a politically-correct state of so-called tolerance of unorthodox ways? Society is crumbling around us thanks to all this wonderful diversity, and we sit on our hands and swallow it like castor oil. Can anybody explain the reasons in a rational manner without the usual bashing or name-calling?[/quote]
How do you propose this be done? I think the issue is one of practicality. Folks on the sidelines can scream all day long but how exactly to you propose the US government go about rounding up 11 million people? Where will they be held? How long would it take to build these holding cells? How many cops would have to be hired? How many courthouses would have to be constructed? Practically, it can't happen so I think the next best step that people talk about is securing the borders and dealing with the immigrants. We can't ship them off. Bush had an idea but conservatives killed it and guess what... you're still complaining about it when there could have been a process to address it.
Illegal immigrants are not on welfare; they are not eligible. They are eligible for emergency care and that does strain the system in areas with high illegal immigration but most studies have shown that they are a net positive because many of them get illegal social security numbers and pay taxes but they will get nothing in return.
All citizens have to pass an English literacy test. Why does it bother you that some immigrants do not speak English? All it does is hurt their chances at advancing in this society.
It's called outsourcing. If you don't like it, do business with a company that does not outsource to India. I hate it too but what are you going to do about it? It's a corporate decision.
Society has to tolerate it because abnormality is in the eye of the beholder. It wasn't nary 30-40 years ago that many states had laws against interractial marriage because it was "abnormal." Homosexuals exists... because you don't like it does not mean a thing. By the way, most AIDS cases and STDs are outside of the gay community. They have done a lot of education. Sadly, the highest rates of HIV are now among young Black women.
You have to put up with high and might judges because that is the foundation of our laws; it's in the Constitution. It's called the system of checks and balances and if a state does not like the ruling of a court, they can always work to amend the constitution. Stop acting like a victim -- if people cared enough to change the law, they would. The judges rule based on their interpretation of the Constitution and the Constitution can always be changed.
Again with the victim meme. Who's telling you to change the way you live? What legislation are you talking about? However, the general point is that where a threat to national security has been identified (e.g. dependence on mideast oil and global warming), the government has the right to incentivize certain actions to remove that threat.
Why have we allowed ourselves to be shoved into a politically-correct state of so-called tolerance of unorthodox ways? Society is crumbling around us thanks to all this wonderful diversity, and we sit on our hands and swallow it like castor oil. Can anybody explain the reasons in a rational manner without the usual bashing or name-calling?
[/quote]
To answer your first question, why did the feds allow all these millions of illegal immigrant criminals to live here in the first place? If they know about how many of them populate this country and where they are, why haven't they rectified the problem?
Illegal immigration has been an issue long before Mr. Bush was POTUS.
You are forgetting that illegals reproduce faster than rodents and drop off their anchor babies for the government to take care of by way of taxpayer money.
In addition these migrants are ineligible for insurance so they are a continuous strain on hospitals' budgets. They increase wait times in emergency rooms for people who have insurance and are able to pay.
They increase the crime rates. Border states like California, Arizona, and Texas have problems with hispanic drug cartels and identity theft. Illegals steal legal citizens' identity to create false profiles so they can qualify for government assistance.
People that live here and do not speak English are stresses on everyday business. Those migrants that speak broken English are just as bad because nobody can understand them. They disrupt the communication system in this country. It affects all of us!
Abnormal behavior should not be glorified, let alone legalized. Interracial marriage is immoral in my opinion but the majority have since made it more acceptable, and we have to go along with the majority. Fast forward to modern times, homosexual marriage has been turned down by registered voters in every state that has taken the issue to the voting polls. People do not wish to be forced to accept change when it destroys the moral fabric of society. Marriage is between one man and one woman only!
Marraige is not a right and homosexuals do not have the same liberty to marry as heterosexuals do. If homosexuals dump their deviant lifestyles to become clean and straight they will be able to marry people of the opposite sex.
One man and one woman is how marriage has been for centuries. Why do you liberal activists want to change a sacred centuries-old tradition that works just fine? Homosexuals can fornicate in their closets and shut up about equal rights because they are not equal in this regard.
Sorry to break it to you, but in the Supreme Court decision regarding Loving V Virginia, marriage was ruled a basic right of man.
So yes, it IS a right. Tradition? Personally, I don't like your morals and I choose not to adhere to them, considering your 'morals' judge others unfairly and create inequality where there shouldn't be any. Maybe you should move to a theocracy, it seems that you'd be more comfortable there.
look lady, heres a bit of a history lesson for you. aids want not aids till later. it was first "gay cancer". then GRID. but that makes no difference.
homosexual sex in itself does not spread HIV. the point is that if a homosexual has sex, that in and of itself does not put them in immeditate risk. unprotected sex with an infected person, of either sex/sex orientation does.
i hope you get it this time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yikesamillion
You are the one that needs some basic education and a history lesson.
HIV was discovered and diagnosed in the early 1980s as Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, primarily affecting those in the homosexual community.
I am not implying that AIDS is not affecting heterosexuals. It has spread from the homosexuals to the heterosexuals by way of transmission through unprotected intercourse, experimenting with multiple partners that are sexually active with the opposite sex and with the same sex.
fortunately this aint a theocracy (altho thats debateable)
some people are so happy with their freedoms that they would just as easily limit other peoples with out blinking an eye.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JetJockey
Sorry to break it to you, but in the Supreme Court decision regarding Loving V Virginia, marriage was ruled a basic right of man.
So yes, it IS a right. Tradition? Personally, I don't like your morals and I choose not to adhere to them, considering your 'morals' judge others unfairly and create inequality where there shouldn't be any. Maybe you should move to a theocracy, it seems that you'd be more comfortable there.
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.
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.
