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.
Personally I want my grandchildren to grow up in a world where "marriage" is about a man and a woman joining together to love each other and have children. I don't want them getting all messed up believing some store bought idea of a same sex "marriage" being anything close to the union God intended for a man and a woman. It is not natural.
That's the same rationale people used when miscegenation was illegal. Good grief, Loving v. Virginia was only 50 years ago (well, 48). It's great how much progress has been made since then.
I accept everybody as people: gay, lesbian, tranny, adult woman/man who is attracted to teenagers, relationships that involve more than 2 people, a gambler, a lazy person, etc. Doesn't mean I support their lifestyle.
Why can't LGTB accept a religious person? See, accepting goes both ways so I don't see why LGTB has to be special. This bakery issue reminds me of Chick Fil A. They accept ANYBODY in their restaurants, they simply don't support LGTB lifestyle.
There are a number of LGTB who are religious. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
1. In your original post you talked about teaching kids to "support homosexuality". However, the article talks about teaching kids to accept that others are different in terms of their sexuality. Accept does not equal support.
2. "whether true or I do not know, nor do I care". I'm thinking you meant "whether true or not I do not know, nor do I care". So you don't care if what you're arguing about is even accurate?????
3. You're all upset about something that didn't come to pass.
1. This was my only post, hence- no other. Thanks.
2. Glad you are the forum grammar police- I don't know what I would do without people like you.
3. Honestly- I don't care. I'll teach my kids the birds and the bees. You know- stuff that parents are obligated to do.
1. This was my only post, hence- no other. Thanks.
2. Glad you are the forum grammar police- I don't know what I would do without people like you.
3. Honestly- I don't care. I'll teach my kids the birds and the bees. You know- stuff that parents are obligated to do.
I apologize for mixing up what I remembered as being your earlier post with someone else's.
With #2 you missed the whole point. Why would anyone in a discussion say, "whether true or I do not know, nor do I care".
Good. Glad to hear you will teach your kids about the birds and the bees. The problem is -- most parents don't bother. Hence, the questions like this that come up in sex ed classes: "Is it true you can grow sperm in an aquarium?"
With #2 you missed the whole point. Why would anyone in a discussion say, "whether true or I do not know, nor do I care".
Good. Glad to hear you will teach your kids about the birds and the bees. The problem is -- most parents don't bother. Hence, the questions like this that come up in sex ed classes: "Is it true you can grow sperm in an aquarium?"
Then that is their choice, isn't it? I could give a rats boo what other parents do or don't do with this regard. It's their choice, their freedom whether you or I like it or not. However I do give a boo about a school covering topics unrelated to the curriculum they are charged to deliver. The reason I am flippant is that I don't care who is behind it, be it Planned Parenthood or the Royal Order of the Gilded Ladies Auxiliary- what we teach our children with regards to sexual matters is our business. In other words- I don't care who they are. It could be the Pope and I still wouldn't care. Got it?
The fact of the matter, in the context of my now 'original post' replying to another specific post, is that school systems have indeed introduced or at least attempted to introduce this matter in a not so appropriate setting at an arguably inappropriate age. That much is true.
The baker would never say no. You can't tell a person has high blood pressure and diabetes from looking at them. The bakery would never be sued for wrongful death, unless there was poison in the cake.
Those who sell alcohol (and have liquor licenses) can legally refuse service if the buyer appears to be intoxicated. If he attempts to enter a car, they can (and often do) call the police.
No idea on the gun store. If he discusses shooting someone, they would call the police. Otherwise, it's none of their business why he is purchasing the weapon.
As for the bakers in the case here, it is not their business what the buyers do with the cake.
This society is lacking in common sense and empathy.
Forcing anyone to do anything they would rather not do is an assault.
So you are equating baking a cake with assault? My first instinct is just to say, "That's the way the cookie crumbles." You obviously do not own a business. Unfortunately, back here on planet Earth, basic business common sense, is that the customer picks you. You typically do not get to pick your customer. Ok, this time it was about gays. What if it was about black people? Asians? Dutch people? Handicapped people? Old people?
Maybe your bakery would be really a hot spot, like one of those places in LA or NYC where you have to stand out side and hope you get picked to come in.
Yeah, I don't that will work either. You will have day olds by the truck load. And no one likes an old hard muffin.
So you are equating baking a cake with assault? My first instinct is just to say, "That's the way the cookie crumbles." You obviously do not own a business. Unfortunately, back here on planet Earth, basic business common sense, is that the customer picks you. You typically do not get to pick your customer. Ok, this time it was about gays. What if it was about black people? Asians? Dutch people? Handicapped people? Old people?
Maybe your bakery would be really a hot spot, like one of those places in LA or NYC where you have to stand out side and hope you get picked to come in.
Yeah, I don't that will work either. You will have day olds by the truck load. And no one likes an old hard muffin.
She (?) will never understand until she is the one who is denied service for some reason.
Does that mean that they only sell wedding cakes to a man and a woman who are *both virgins* until their wedding night? (If so, I'm sure they are going to go out of business...) and I write that as a woman who's waiting to have sex the first time on her wedding night. New term I learned recently, CHINO (Christian In Name Only) - that would be the bakers. (So, I guess the bakers were both virgins until their wedding night?) The bakers are ridiculous.
He who is without sin throw the first stone...
Agree. It seems religions show that homosexuality is a sin, ok, but how about the other sins as well such as lying, having sex before marriage, getting drunk, etc.? By rejecting LGTB like that X religion misses their opportunity to share their beliefs or whatever. There are cases where LGTB person, drunk, player, etc. has turned their lives around and left that lifestyle behind. Rejecting them like that won't help their religious goals.
Oh. So if I agree with everything you say then I am correct? Another expression commonly heard is “You should be more open minded/tolerant” which really means “You should just agree with me.”
Quote:
Marriage only came along much, much later…
Doesn’t matter if it came much later or not. It was originally just a legal union between a man and a woman, why change it? Would be like me trying to change vegetarianism to accommodate those who want to eat meat. Why not respect vegetarians, leave them alone and create my own new thing instead of wanting to be special?
Quote:
In fact among hunter-gatherers polygamy was pretty much the norm. Most of your Old Testament heroes had multiple wives. So you might take THAT as the norm - do you plan to throw your support behind marriage as a union between one man and 5 women now?
Read the whole book or ask someone that follows that faith. As far as I remember it was their way of living and then it changed. Homosexuality in their religion and other religions as well remains as a sin all the way through. Now that some groups in the USA are beginning to be heard about their preferences/orientations with more than one person, with a teenager, etc. I guess marriage’s original meaning will change quite a lot.
Quote:
In response to my telling you not to try to force your beliefs on other people who don't share them, you say:
Nobody is forcing anyone to become gay or to have gay sex. So this is also fallacious.
Nobody is forcing anyone to become a Muslim, Christian, or whatever. So let them believe what they want instead of suing them for not accepting your lifestyle and trying to change what they do just because a LGTB feels they deserve special treatment.
Quote:
If the baker in question had chosen to "live and let live", we wouldn't be having this conversation. Instead, the baker decided that because he/she/they are bigoted against gay people, they wouldn't do business with gay people, based on the idea that gay people are evil hell-bound sinners.
And I am not disagreeing with this. Doesn’t matter if the client wants to celebrate her/his relationship with his/her teenage lover (below 18). The baker is there to sell the cake, that’s it. It doesn’t matter if the baker is LGTB and the person buying it is a religious person who will use the cake for a religious event where they will talk about the sin of homosexuality. That baker’s job is to sell the cake, that’s it.
Quote:
An adult can ALREADY marry a teenager, as many teenagers also happen to be adults. An 18 year old is an adult, and can marry another 18-year old.
An adult marrying a teenager below 18 is what I meant.
Quote:
The "slippery slope" argument is just more nonsense. We just got RID of all the laws that allow adults to marry 12 year olds. We're certainly not going to bring those back. Keep in mind that it has been "traditional" all over the world for an adult male to marry girls as young as 3 years old. My mother-in-law was married at 13; her mother was married at 8, though her husband didn't have her come live with him until she was 12.
Now that's natural, as that is the way it has been for tens of thousands of years. Multiple girl-children married to one man - that's the most "natural" form of marriage. So if you truly believe in what's "natural", you have to support humping-at-will and polygamy between one man and multiple pre-pubescent girls.
As for "new preferences and orientations that we don't know about" - I can't imagine any, but as long as its between adult humans who choose marriage, and as long as the marriage can be dissolved by either partner at will, what do I care?
Yup. And since LGTB are all about celebrating diversity, tolerating differences, being open minded, letting love win, not being hateful, and so on then laws being changed to accommodate those couples that involve an adult and their teenage lover (below 18), more than 2 people, or whatever preference/orientation is out there then…why not? Right? Not so long ago saying that LGTB would parade the streets, have their tv shows, change laws to accommodate them, have them get married, have them sue religious organizations/establishments/publishers, etc. people would think you were crazy if you said that. Now look how far they have gotten. When alcohol was illegal imagine telling people one day alcohol would be sold in any super market or convenience store, there would be establishments that would focus on selling alcohol, etc. they would think you were crazy. So saying other preferences/orientations won’t start to be heard is not really that far off. So I don’t think you would totally be against it, would you?
Quote:
As long as you don't try to pass laws that allow you to discriminate against other human beings because there is something about them that DOESN'T AFFECT YOU AT ALL, but which you don't like.
As long as laws are not passed to discriminate against those who practice whatever religion as well and doesn’t affect you at.
Quote:
And yes, that means a human could marry an alien, or a sentient robot for that matter, if there happened to be one about who agreed to the union.
A robot, an alien, their horse, a teenager below 18, a 4 people union, etc. Yup. It’s just more preferences/orientations.
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.
Well thought out point of view
