why are we politically correct about gays?

[actsnoblemartin]

I mean, they get to have a parade. And they want to get married, and have children. You would almost think they are heterosexual :coffee:

I mean gay rights, thats the most politically correct piece of garbage thing ive ever heard.

The reason gays cant visit each other in the hospitical is because of president clinton and hippa, not jerry falwell, or his ilk

Since when didnt being gay get you special prizes.

I know im a simple man, but geez.

Look, its not that complicated. Go to a lawyer, set up inheritance or whatever, and quit trying to force people to accept your sexuality, lifestyle, or the way you were born or whatever.

Same goes for paligimists .

Of course i could be wrong :laugh2:

this is my humble opinion

what is yours

And by the way

why are the libs always picking on christianity for being against homosexuality but they never say a peep about islam or judaism because against, whats the matter afraid of having the balls to not pick the easy target?

[gabosaurus]

Like I said before Martin, considering your success rate with women, you shouldn't rule out any options...

[actsnoblemartin]

oh i love you gab :laugh2:

You see their is this thing called a topic

:lol:

and when a thread is made usually the idea is to respond to the topic

:D

by failing to do so, youre either incapable or un-willing to have an honest debate on an issue.

I may be passionate, but im not an elitest and im not a snob. I welcome dissent and opposing views. However, the personally attacks dont take character or class love.

I am not going to sink to your level, and therefore will not dignify youre smear with retaliation other to say i feel sorry that you feel the need to attack my character and question my sexuality rather then discuss my ideas in a mature adult manor




Like I said before Martin, considering your success rate with women, you shouldn't rule out any options...

[Microcosmos]

Where to begin.


Since when didnt being gay get you special prizes.

Being gay gets you prizes? When did this happen? I've never even won a toaster!


Look, its not that complicated. Go to a lawyer, set up inheritance or whatever, and quit trying to force people to accept your sexuality, lifestyle, or the way you were born or whatever.

Look, it's not that easy. Even with attorneys involved, the immediate family has rights over the widowed partner in a lot of cases. So everything that the couple worked for together can be taken apart piece by piece after a partner's death.


why are the libs always picking on christianity for being against homosexuality but they never say a peep about islam or judaism because against, whats the matter afraid of having the balls to not pick the easy target?

No offense, but I've never been to a mosque or a synagogue, so I just don't have that experience to draw from. I've been to my fair share of churches that preach intolerance, though I'd have to say to be fair that I've been to a good number of churches that accept homosexuality (I grew up in a church with a gay pastor, as a matter of fact), so I'm not saying that there are no devout Christians who accept homosexuals (and other minorities).


Same goes for polygimists.

Polygamists tend to marry minors. That's a problem. I personally don't see a problem with polygamy as long as everyone who gets married is an adult.


I mean gay rights, thats the most politically correct piece of garbage thing ive ever heard.

Okay, how about human rights? How about the right to equality?


I know im a simple man, but geez.

Of course i could be wrong

this is my humble opinion

what is yours

No one's asking you to treat us homos with undue respect. We can take a lickin' just like everybody else. But don't expect us to lay down and take a whuppin' 24/7, either.

[actsnoblemartin]

ok :)


Where to begin.



Being gay gets you prizes? When did this happen? I've never even won a toaster!

ME: They want government recognition, why?. They need my permission, or the government's approval of their relationships?

Look, it's not that easy. Even with attorneys involved, the immediate family has rights over the widowed partner in a lot of cases.

ME: then change the law, you dont need government approval for that. Hippa is a big problem to gays, they cant see each other in hospitals because of it. Gays and poligimists dont need government recognition or approval, just go on with your lives, and dont ask for government entitlements that are meant for marriages with men and women, most of which produce kids, which in-turn make them families, families that have been the cornerstone of our civilization for thousands of years.

So everything that the couple worked for together can be taken apart piece by piece after a partner's death.

ME: then change a specific law, that has nothing to do with the government saying we approve or disapprove of your relationship.

No offense, but I've never been to a mosque or a synagogue, so I just don't have that experience to draw from.

ME: no offense taken, and you dont have to be a muslim or jew to have an opinion, your opinion, whether you agree with me or not is just as valid as mine.

I've been to my fair share of churches that preach intolerance,

ME: define intolerance for me, because, if they saying for example: oh those stupid faggots, they are morons, andi hate them, yeah thats preety intolerant

But, if they are saying, ya know i believe gays are gonna burn in hell for their sins, thats not intolerance, thats what the preacher believes based on the bible, and they have right to believe that, and to believe those who dont believe in christ will go to hell for not accepting jesus. I dont have to agree, or i can agree, but to call them intolerance for not accepting homosexuality with all due respect to you is ridiculous

though I'd have to say to be fair that I've been to a good number of churches that accept homosexuality

ME: so your giving churchs a litmus test, accept homosexuality or youre bad?, are they not entitled to theyre opinion, are they forcing you to go there, stay in that seat and listen, and agree with the pastor.

(I grew up in a church with a gay pastor, as a matter of fact), so I'm not saying that there are no devout Christians who accept homosexuals (and other minorities).

ME: Christians, are entitled to tolerate, not tolerate, accept or not accept homosexuality or whatever they want, what they think feel or believe is not relavent, its what their actions are. would you rather have a guy who beat up a gay, cause they called his mother, a carpet eating bitch.. but he supported homosexuality, or not beat up by a guy who doesnt accept homosexuality, but think that committing violence against innonence is a sin.


Polygamists tend to marry minors.

ME: i wasnt talking about minors, but id like a link, and how about polygimists who are adults who only marry adults. I dont wanna get off topic, by bringing minors into the conversation, were talking about consenting adults

That's a problem. I personally don't see a problem with polygamy as long as everyone who gets married is an adult.

ME: I believe marriage is one man and one woman, and im tired of being verbally assaulted for my position, I dont hate gays, and i dont care if people wanna hate me for my beliefs, thats their problem, not mine. I believe I could be friends with gays, muslims, blacks, or anyone, and disagree with them on any issue. I dont see why i have to give them a litmus test, or they should give me one.



Okay, how about human rights? How about the right to equality?

ME: this isnt about human rights, nobody is saying gays cant have relationship, this is not about equality, this about gays trying to change the definition of marriage, and trying to force people to accept homosexuality is right, and demonizing those who believe its a sin, and/or against gay marriage, and i find that to be very fascist of them. Equality doesnt mean privaleges, traditional marriage, not homosexual relationships has been the reason our civilization has been around 5,000 years not homosexual relationships, so technically they are not equal, if you wanna play the equality card :coffee:



No one's asking you to treat us homos with undue respect.

ME: I dont know if youre gay, its none of my business. I am just as much against people who discriminate against, verbally or physically assault gays, as i am against anybody who acts badly

We can take a lickin' just like everybody else.

ME: who said i wanna abuse you

But don't expect us to lay down and take a whuppin' 24/7, either.

ME: who said i wanna abuse gays?, assuming youre saying your gay? none of my business. If you wanna believe that all people who dont agree with homosexuality and/or homosexual marriage hate gays then, i guess i could assume, all gays talk with a lisp and are good interior decorators, point is, its not true, in either case

[-Cp]

Where to begin.

No one's asking you to treat us homos with undue respect. We can take a lickin' just like everybody else. But don't expect us to lay down and take a whuppin' 24/7, either.

ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

a fudge-packer.... now THAT is NASTY!!!!!!!!!!

[gabosaurus]

ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

a fudge-packer.... now THAT is NASTY!!!!!!!!!!

Tell that to your local gay priest...

[Yurt]

Tell that to your local gay priest...

how about some of the city officials in SF? you know, like whose boyfriend burns down the fire chief's house.

[Lee~*]

I mean, they get to have a parade. And they want to get married, and have children. You would almost think they are heterosexual :coffee:

I mean gay rights, thats the most politically correct piece of garbage thing ive ever heard.

The reason gays cant visit each other in the hospitical is because of president clinton and hippa, not jerry falwell, or his ilk

Since when didnt being gay get you special prizes.

I know im a simple man, but geez.

Look, its not that complicated. Go to a lawyer, set up inheritance or whatever, and quit trying to force people to accept your sexuality, lifestyle, or the way you were born or whatever.

Same goes for paligimists .

Of course i could be wrong :laugh2:

this is my humble opinion

what is yours

And by the way

why are the libs always picking on christianity for being against homosexuality but they never say a peep about islam or judaism because against, whats the matter afraid of having the balls to not pick the easy target?

[I]Ah Martin, ya know I love ya! Remind me to get you a dictionary for Christmas! What on earth is a "[Same goes for paligimists ." ???
Did you by chance mean poligamist? as in a person with multiple spouses? (usually wives ... I can't see any woman wanting more than one husband unless shes just a glutton for punishment! LOL Lee~*/I]

[Lee~*]

Good question Martin! Just exactly what is the big deal! Maybe we should organize a hetero rights parade! Straight people unite ... Geez, I can see it now!
What really needs to happen is that they need to just get the the hell over it and go on about their lives ... I understand this may be hard to do though, for I'm fairly sure that most of them are not only GAY ... they are also LIBERALS! <egads> :laugh2: :laugh2: "Wah ... wah ... we want our cake and to eat it too ... wahhh .... wahhh ....

Ya know, I really don't give a tinkers damn who you sleep with, or what God you choose to worship, just mind your own business and keep yer fat nose outta mine! :slap: So there! :poke::poke: Lee~*

[nevadamedic]

Where to begin.



Being gay gets you prizes? When did this happen? I've never even won a toaster!



Look, it's not that easy. Even with attorneys involved, the immediate family has rights over the widowed partner in a lot of cases. So everything that the couple worked for together can be taken apart piece by piece after a partner's death.



No offense, but I've never been to a mosque or a synagogue, so I just don't have that experience to draw from. I've been to my fair share of churches that preach intolerance, though I'd have to say to be fair that I've been to a good number of churches that accept homosexuality (I grew up in a church with a gay pastor, as a matter of fact), so I'm not saying that there are no devout Christians who accept homosexuals (and other minorities).



Polygamists tend to marry minors. That's a problem. I personally don't see a problem with polygamy as long as everyone who gets married is an adult.



Okay, how about human rights? How about the right to equality?



No one's asking you to treat us homos with undue respect. We can take a lickin' just like everybody else. But don't expect us to lay down and take a whuppin' 24/7, either.



:lol:

[glockmail]

Martin:

To answer your question, the gays and their enablers will demonize you if you are not politically correct.

[avatar4321]

last time i checked. we weren't.

[theHawk]

Tell that to your local gay priest...

Or your local gay teacher, since teachers are far more likely to be pedophiles than any other profession.

[glockmail]

Nice little factoid there. Too bad I've given too much rep out in 24 hours.

[Hagbard Celine]

Or your local gay teacher, since teachers are far more likely to be pedophiles than any other profession.

Besides priests. :dance:

My question is why do self-defined "conservatives" feel the need to block these people from getting what they want? If gays get married, what do you care? If it doesn't affect you why would you make a big deal out of it? The answer is that they want to apply their own personal moral views onto everyone else. The idea that it's a "societal" issue or that (insert current moral outrage here) is going to be the downfall of civilization is the everlasting scam that has been perpetuated by conservative institutions throughout the ages.

[glockmail]

Besides priests. :dance::link:

[Hagbard Celine]

:link:

Do we really need one? Google "priest altar boy" if you need proof. I don't have time to prove to you that the sky is blue.

[Microcosmos]

If gays get married, what do you care?

I think we'd be just fine if Civil Unions were accepted legally. Gay marriage just doesn't sit well for some folks (oddly enough, these are mostly the same folks who claim they don't want the government meddling in people's lives).

[Lee~*]

Or your local gay teacher, since teachers are far more likely to be pedophiles than any other profession.

I guess it just goes to show you that it doesn't matter what position you hold in society, you can still be considered socially deviant. But, I think that you hear more about people in positions of public trust than just your run of the mill deviant due to the attentions of the media. It makes better news ... but, bottom line is they are out there. But, I do not think of homosexuals as being socially deviant as a rule. They choose to practice a different lifestyle than some, but this does not make them bad. Freedom of choice is one of the premises that this great country was founded on, who they choose to sleep with is none of our business. On the other hand, getting back to the op, I also do not think that just because they choose to be different makes them worthy of any special treatment. Once again, I just think everyoone needs to tend to their own business and keep their noses out of their neighbors! Lee~*

[Hagbard Celine]

I think we'd be just fine if Civil Unions were accepted legally. Gay marriage just doesn't sit well for some folks (oddly enough, these are mostly the same folks who claim they don't want the government meddling in people's lives).

That's what doesn't make sense. The word "marriage" should be taken out of the equation altogether. "Marriage" is a religious term and since we have freedom of religion in this country as mandated by the First Amendment, any goofball church that wants to "marry" gays and penguins and anything else can do so. What gays want is to have their marriages recognized by the state, hence the term "civil union." Straight couples can get "married" by a judge and obtain a "civil union" or "marriage" license. My question is, why can't gays get that too? It has zero effect on anyone other than the gays who are getting married. It's a moral control issue. Period.

[Hobbit]

Do we really need one? Google "priest altar boy" if you need proof. I don't have time to prove to you that the sky is blue.

Try the teacher molests student one and you'll get blown away. The difference is that EVERY priest/child molestation gets national press while the teacher/student thing typically stops at the state level unless there's something unique about it.

As far as standing in the way of things, it has to do with government subsidization. Granting a marriage license bestows certain perks and legal shortcuts on the couple. This is an incentive provided by the government because heterosexual marriage is a stabilizing force in society that increases productivity, not to mention stable, productive members of society in the form of offspring.

The coupling of gays, on the other hand, has never been shown to provide any kind of benefit for society as a whole and is physically incapable of providing new citizenry, not to mention the fact that many studies have shown that children raised by gays aren't all that stable. Gay couples are often hotbeds of domestic violence and other negative effects on society. Therefore, providing an incentive for this to occur is inadvisable for any government.

As far as hospital visits and the breakup of the estate, gay couples can take care of that if they'd bother to write up a will and a power of attorney document, rather than spending all day griping about marriage.

[glockmail]

Do we really need one? Google "priest altar boy" if you need proof. I don't have time to prove to you that the sky is blue.
If you won't stand behind your assertions then that says a lot about you. :pee:

[theHawk]

Nice little factoid there. Too bad I've given too much rep out in 24 hours.



http://www.cpiu.us/statistics.php



The Statistics of Teacher sexual abuse to Students

• The best estimate is that 15% of students will be sexually abused by a member of the school staff during their school career.
• Though, when the American Association of University Women Foundation surveyed more than 1,600 students in eighth through 11th grade, 25 percent of the girls and 10 percent of the boys who said they had been harassed or abused said the harasser was a school employee.
• The number of K-12 public and private school students in 1996 who have been or will be sexually abused by a member of the school staff is nearly 7 million of 51,331,000.
• Between 1% and 5% of teachers sexually abuse or harass students.
• At least a quarter of all school districts in the United States have dealt with a case of staff sexual abuse in the past ten years.
• Most cases of sexual abuse of students by teachers are never reported.
• In nearly half of the cases, suspects were accused of abusing more than one student.
• Only two cases were cases of false accusations; less than 1 percent of the cases studied.
• No type of school was immune to abuse: public or private, religious or secular, rich or poor, urban or rural.

Responses to Allegations of Sexual Abuse of Students by Staff

• 38.7% of the teachers resigned, left the district, or retired
• 17.5% were spoken to informally
• 15% were terminated or not re-hired
• 11.3% received a formal verbal or written reprimand
• 8.1% were suspended and then resumed teaching
• 7.5% were cases where the superintendent determined that the teacher hadn’t meant to sexually abuse
• Of the nearly 54% of abusers who resigned, weren’t rehired, retired, or were terminated, superintendents reported that 16% were teaching in other schools and that they didn’t know what had happened to the other 84%. All but 1% of these teachers retained their teaching license.

Teacher Student Sex Legalities
• In 20 states, it is not a crime for school employees—including teachers, administrators, and coaches—to have sex with students aged 16 and over.
• In 23 states, it is not a crime for school employees to have sex with students aged 17 and over.
• In 45 states, it is not a crime for school employees to have sex with students aged 18 and over.
• In 16 states, it is a crime for adults in a position of trust and authority—teachers, administrators, and coaches among them—to have sex with students under the age of 18.

[Hagbard Celine]

Try the teacher molests student one and you'll get blown away. The difference is that EVERY priest/child molestation gets national press while the teacher/student thing typically stops at the state level unless there's something unique about it.

As far as standing in the way of things, it has to do with government subsidization. Granting a marriage license bestows certain perks and legal shortcuts on the couple. This is an incentive provided by the government because heterosexual marriage is a stabilizing force in society that increases productivity, not to mention stable, productive members of society in the form of offspring.

The coupling of gays, on the other hand, has never been shown to provide any kind of benefit for society as a whole and is physically incapable of providing new citizenry, not to mention the fact that many studies have shown that children raised by gays aren't all that stable. Gay couples are often hotbeds of domestic violence and other negative effects on society. Therefore, providing an incentive for this to occur is inadvisable for any government.

As far as hospital visits and the breakup of the estate, gay couples can take care of that if they'd bother to write up a will and a power of attorney document, rather than spending all day griping about marriage.

All I'm getting out of this conversation is that teachers and priests aren't to be trusted.

[glockmail]

All I'm getting out of this conversation is that teachers and priests aren't to be trusted. Teachers are to be trusted the least. I'm not sure that Priests are any more distrustful than average folk, but it is typical of libs (like you) to demonize them without knowing the facts.

[Hobbit]

All I'm getting out of this conversation is that teachers and priests aren't to be trusted.

Priests are typically more trustworthy than the average person. The real story is how the Catholic church moved them around and covered up instead of dealing with them.

[Hagbard Celine]

Teachers are to be trusted the least. I'm not sure that Priests are any more distrustful than average folk, but it is typical of libs (like you) to demonize them without knowing the facts.

It's typical of pubs like you to assume that clergy is to be trusted.

http://www.americancatholic.org/news/clergysexabuse/johnjaycns.asp

According to AmericanCatholic.org: (fairly reputable source I'd say)

WASHINGTON (CNS) -- About 4 percent of U.S. priests ministering from 1950 to 2002 were accused of sex abuse with a minor, according to the first comprehensive national study of the issue.

The study said that 4,392 clergymen—almost all priests—were accused of abusing 10,667 people, with 75 percent of the incidents taking place between 1960 and 1984.


FOUR PERCENT OF ALL PRIESTS FROM 1950 TO 2002! If you didn't read, that's "4,392-ALMOST ALL PRIESTS-were accused of abusing 10,667 people" between 1950 and 2002.

Wow, you really put your foot in your mouth didn't you? Imbecile.

[Said1]

Tell that to your local gay priest...

Well, well, well. If it isn't Ms. Hypocrite. Next stop, Stepford. :clap:

[Microcosmos]

What about the Scandinavians? Seems like the whole gay marriage thing is just not a big deal, in fact it seems to encourage hetero marriages!

http://www.slate.com/id/2100884/

[glockmail]

It's typical of pubs like you to assume that clergy is to be trusted.

….."4,392-ALMOST ALL PRIESTS-were accused of abusing 10,667 people" between 1950 and 2002.

Wow, you really put your foot in your mouth didn't you? Imbecile.

From post 24:

“The number of K-12 public and private school students in 1996 who have been or will be sexually abused by a member of the school staff is nearly 7 million of 51,331,000.”

Now let’s do the math:

7,000,000 / 10,667 = 656.

Direct conclusion: A child is 656 times more likely to be sexually abused by the member of a school staff then to be allegedly sexually abused by a clergyman.

Other mitigating factors:
1. The clergyman offense is merely alleged, while the school staff abuse appears to be confirmed. Therefore the number of confirmed clergyman abusers is likely to be less. In other words, the 656 multiplier may be much higher.
2. The reporting period for the school staff is 12 years, while for the clergymen is 52 years. Therefore the number of clergyman abusers over a similar 12 year period is likely to be closer to 12 / 52 x 10,667 = 2462. This would make the 656 multiplier 2844.

SUMMARY CONCLUSION: A child is more than 2844 times more likely to be sexually abused by the member of a school staff then to be sexually abused by a clergyman.

Wow, so who put his foot in his mouth? It is typical of libs (like you) to insult Republicans and demonize priests without knowing the facts.

[Hobbit]

From post 24:

“The number of K-12 public and private school students in 1996 who have been or will be sexually abused by a member of the school staff is nearly 7 million of 51,331,000.”

Now let’s do the math:

7,000,000 / 10,667 = 656.

Direct conclusion: A child is 656 times more likely to be sexually abused by the member of a school staff then to be allegedly sexually abused by a clergyman.

Other mitigating factors:
1. The clergyman offense is merely alleged, while the school staff abuse appears to be confirmed. Therefore the number of confirmed clergyman abusers is likely to be less. In other words, the 656 multiplier may be much higher.
2. The reporting period for the school staff is 12 years, while for the clergymen is 52 years. Therefore the number of clergyman abusers over a similar 12 year period is likely to be closer to 12 / 52 x 10,667 = 2462. This would make the 656 multiplier 2844.

SUMMARY CONCLUSION: A child is more than 2844 times more likely to be sexually abused by the member of a school staff then to be sexually abused by a clergyman.

Wow, so who put his foot in his mouth? It is typical of libs (like you) to insult Republicans and demonize priests without knowing the facts.

Now, let's be fair. Everybody goes to school. These studies appear to be about Catholics only, and only about 25% of all Americans are Catholic, so if you're Catholic, your child is only about 711 times more likely to be molested by a teacher than by a priest.

[glockmail]

Now, let's be fair. Everybody goes to school. These studies appear to be about Catholics only, and only about 25% of all Americans are Catholic, so if you're Catholic, your child is only about 711 times more likely to be molested by a teacher than by a priest.

I stand corrected. That is a legitimate factor to consider. But then again, I'm open-minded.

[Kathianne]

That's it. From now on I will NOT greet my kids 'good morning' or say, "have a nice weekend." I will not tell them 'great job' or 'great answer.' I will not put my hand on their shoulder when looking at their work. I will not meet a student alone, doors opened or not. Damn it, when they try to hug me, I'll snarl and say, "Don't touch me!"

That is what is happening here. For most of 'our' kids, they aren't into 'touchy feely' regarding teachers, they get what they need at home. However some are more like that by nature and most of those that need it are from homes that are so chaotic that we can't understand it. They need that 'touch', but I'll admit to being much more concerned about it as the years have gone by.

[Said1]

It's typical of pubs like you to assume that clergy is to be trusted.

http://www.americancatholic.org/news/clergysexabuse/johnjaycns.asp

According to AmericanCatholic.org: (fairly reputable source I'd say)


FOUR PERCENT OF ALL PRIESTS FROM 1950 TO 2002! If you didn't read, that's "4,392-ALMOST ALL PRIESTS-were accused of abusing 10,667 people" between 1950 and 2002.

Wow, you really put your foot in your mouth didn't you? Imbecile.

I thought this assessment of the John Jay Report was better, given that it was much more detailed. The numbers are a little different.


The John Jay study is a quantitative analysis of the sexual abuse of minors by Catholic clergy from 1950 to 2002. The Archdiocese of Portland participated in this study, as did 98% of all dioceses in the U.S. The study was requested by the Bishops'
Conference to help the Church do a better job of protecting children and young people. This in-depth study has no counterpart in any other organization or profession.

The results of the John Jay study showed that 4,392 priests were named in allegations of sexual abuse in the 52 years covered by the research. Nationally there were 109,694 priests who served in ecclesiastical ministry in that time frame. The study reported, "the total cost paid by the church exceeds $500 million" in compensation to
victims.

The Archdiocese of Portland reported that, from 1950 through 2003, 37 priests (diocesan, religious order and extern) were accused of sexual misconduct with a minor, while working in an Archdiocesan ministry assignment. There were 1150 priests and 44 deacons who served in Archdiocesan ministries in that 53-year period. One hundred and eighty-one persons made allegations against 37 priests. Forty of those allegations were against religious order and extern priests, leaving 141 allegations against diocesan priests. The Archdiocese has resolved 111 claims of the 141 allegations against diocesan priests. The Archdiocese reported the total cost of settlements thus far was $53 million. Of this amount, almost $48 million was paid on the 111 allegations against diocesan clergy, and $5 million was paid to settle allegations against religious order or extern priests with an Archdiocesan ministry assignment.

The National Review Board study is a qualitative report based on interviews with 60 individuals, including bishops. The purpose of the Report was "to share the Review Board's findings and recommendations based upon its evaluation of the current crisis.
The recommendations include "enhanced screening, formation and oversight of candidates for the priesthood; for increased sensitivity in responding to allegations of abuse; for greater accountability of bishops and Church leaders; for improved interaction with civil authorities; and for greater participation by the laity in the life of the
Church."

Continued here: www.archdpdx.org/cpo/john-jay-reports.html


Not that I'm condoning that behavior or anything.

[theHawk]

Besides priests. :dance:

My question is why do self-defined "conservatives" feel the need to block these people from getting what they want? If gays get married, what do you care? If it doesn't affect you why would you make a big deal out of it? The answer is that they want to apply their own personal moral views onto everyone else. The idea that it's a "societal" issue or that (insert current moral outrage here) is going to be the downfall of civilization is the everlasting scam that has been perpetuated by conservative institutions throughout the ages.

Gays can get married, no one is stopping them, nor do I care to. A marriage is a religious ceremony and the government cannot do anything to "ban" them. I don't know how many times I have to say this about this issue, but it is not about the private ceremony between two people. Its about the fact that gays, and liberals who want to promote the gay agenda, want to force the rest of society into recognizing, and ultimately condoning gay marriage. There is absolutely nothing that a "gay couple" can't do that normal married couples can. If they want power of attorney, they can get that done on their own.

For liberals to go around saying that gays don't have the same rights as everyone else is a flat out lie. Gays have chosen to make outcasts of themselves from the rest of society. We all have a right to be discusted by, and condemn homosexuality. Homosexuality is an action that people choose to do, they are not a "minority" like blacks. People can't choose what race or gender they are when they are born, but they sure as hell should be held responsible for their actions during their adult life. Although I realize that responsiblity for one's own actions is a foreign concept for liberals.

The bottom line is homosexuals are proven to be perverts that are much more likely than anyone else to become child molesters. I've never met a fag that didn't appear to have some sort of mental issues going on. Homos are never the types you see on TV who are perfectly normal except they just like the same sex. We've gone over this before is several threads, most gays admit that at sometime during their youth they were "recruited" by an older fag.

Now, if you liberals want to look past the facts and "accept" them then by all means, go right on ahead. Have them babysit your kids.
The rest of us on the other hand, don't have to accept their behavior, thats our Constitutional right. And we don't need the thought police to brainwash us or our kids into changing our minds.

[actsnoblemartin]

Exactly, I could not have said it any better myself.


Good question Martin! Just exactly what is the big deal! Maybe we should organize a hetero rights parade! Straight people unite ... Geez, I can see it now!
What really needs to happen is that they need to just get the the hell over it and go on about their lives ... I understand this may be hard to do though, for I'm fairly sure that most of them are not only GAY ... they are also LIBERALS! <egads> :laugh2: :laugh2: "Wah ... wah ... we want our cake and to eat it too ... wahhh .... wahhh ....

Ya know, I really don't give a tinkers damn who you sleep with, or what God you choose to worship, just mind your own business and keep yer fat nose outta mine! :slap: So there! :poke::poke: Lee~*

[actsnoblemartin]

ive answered this question, but will be happy to do so again


Besides priests. :dance:

My question is why do self-defined "conservatives" feel the need to block these people from getting what they want? If gays get married, what do you care?

ME: Homosexuality is a perverse deviant behavior that islam, judaism and christianity condemn, but liberals dont have the balls to criticize islam or judaism.

If it doesn't affect you why would you make a big deal out of it?

ME: it does affect us, look at every country with gay marriage, and youll see a decline of traditional marriage, gay marriage will change the definition of marriage, and you dont need to be married just cause your (not you) gay. Gays just want to ruin heterosexual marriage.

The answer is that they want to apply their own personal moral views onto everyone else.

ME: no, these our not our own personal views, they are gods views in islam, judaism, and christianity, you want to change the definition of traditional marriage, and impose your will on us, when gays dont need marriage to have a relationship, and they cant sustain our society, procreation why.

ME: You just dont agree, so you have to demonize us conservatives.
Thats your problem not mine, im not letting you weaken marriage, change its definition and impose your will on people, and make them accept homosexuality of homosexual marriage, by calling us names, or trying to make us agree with you.

ME: if you cant handle disagreement, then you shouldnt be here

The idea that it's a "societal" issue or that (insert current moral outrage here) is going to be the downfall of civilization is the everlasting scam that has been perpetuated by conservative institutions throughout the ages.

[hjmick]

I think the bigger question is, why are we politically correct about anything? Christ on a popsicle stick, when did everyone get so damn sensitive? In my day, suffering the slings and arrows of our peers was looked upon as character building. Now everyone needs to be coddled. Makes me sick. Would people's feelings get hurt? Probably. But that shit heals, don't hang out with the moron who offended you. Or, accept that some people are just idiots and move on, no need for a lawsuit.

[actsnoblemartin]

you look to attack christians, but your another liberal pussy.

You wont condemn the actions muslims take against their women or gays, or what judaism says about gays.

only 1% of priests molested, that doesnt make the whole religion bad.


Do we really need one? Google "priest altar boy" if you need proof. I don't have time to prove to you that the sky is blue.

[actsnoblemartin]

Civil unions are just a politically correct way of saying gay marriage.

Gay relationships have never sustained our civilization and never will, because god never meant for gays to exist, nor did he mean for them to marry


I think we'd be just fine if Civil Unions were accepted legally. Gay marriage just doesn't sit well for some folks (oddly enough, these are mostly the same folks who claim they don't want the government meddling in people's lives).

[actsnoblemartin]

Marriage is recognized by government so that our civilization can thrive.

The break down is caused when the nuclear family is threatened by gay marriage, and militant homosexuals, who cant bear anyone disagreeing er, not accepting their behavior. Gay sex, is still a behavior

Without marriage over the last 5 thousand years, you wouldnt have nuclear familes, with one man one woman, a mom and a dad, and the death of our society is pre marital sex, lack of marriage, and now gays saying gay marriage is just another kind of marriage, and government should recognize it, nope it should remain neutral and only endorse what kept our civilization alive and thriving for 5 thousand years.

You just love to attack religion, but what youre really saying is christianity, common you pussy, i wanna hear you have the balls to criticize islam and judaism, or do you have a vagina between your legs?


That's what doesn't make sense. The word "marriage" should be taken out of the equation altogether. "Marriage" is a religious term and since we have freedom of religion in this country as mandated by the First Amendment, any goofball church that wants to "marry" gays and penguins and anything else can do so. What gays want is to have their marriages recognized by the state, hence the term "civil union." Straight couples can get "married" by a judge and obtain a "civil union" or "marriage" license. My question is, why can't gays get that too? It has zero effect on anyone other than the gays who are getting married. It's a moral control issue. Period.

[actsnoblemartin]

when a male teacher has sex, he gets more jail time then a female teacher, because she is a victim of males.


Try the teacher molests student one and you'll get blown away. The difference is that EVERY priest/child molestation gets national press while the teacher/student thing typically stops at the state level unless there's something unique about it.

As far as standing in the way of things, it has to do with government subsidization. Granting a marriage license bestows certain perks and legal shortcuts on the couple. This is an incentive provided by the government because heterosexual marriage is a stabilizing force in society that increases productivity, not to mention stable, productive members of society in the form of offspring.

The coupling of gays, on the other hand, has never been shown to provide any kind of benefit for society as a whole and is physically incapable of providing new citizenry, not to mention the fact that many studies have shown that children raised by gays aren't all that stable. Gay couples are often hotbeds of domestic violence and other negative effects on society. Therefore, providing an incentive for this to occur is inadvisable for any government.

As far as hospital visits and the breakup of the estate, gay couples can take care of that if they'd bother to write up a will and a power of attorney document, rather than spending all day griping about marriage.

[actsnoblemartin]

lets just trust no one :laugh2:


All I'm getting out of this conversation is that teachers and priests aren't to be trusted.

[actsnoblemartin]

4%, im shaking in my boos, that means 96% didnt, but you liberal self loves to attack christianity but cowers like a scared little kitten when it comes to islam and judaism


It's typical of pubs like you to assume that clergy is to be trusted.

http://www.americancatholic.org/news/clergysexabuse/johnjaycns.asp

According to AmericanCatholic.org: (fairly reputable source I'd say)


FOUR PERCENT OF ALL PRIESTS FROM 1950 TO 2002! If you didn't read, that's "4,392-ALMOST ALL PRIESTS-were accused of abusing 10,667 people" between 1950 and 2002.

Wow, you really put your foot in your mouth didn't you? Imbecile.

[actsnoblemartin]

Thats a bunch of bullshit, look at canada, the netherlands, and other places, gay marriages really make me hard for straight marriage :dance:


What about the Scandinavians? Seems like the whole gay marriage thing is just not a big deal, in fact it seems to encourage hetero marriages!

http://www.slate.com/id/2100884/

[actsnoblemartin]

Marriage first, is a government recognized benefit, and important ceremony that is essential to the continuation of man kind

You can have a religious ceremony, but it has nothing to do with the fact that without the man and woman getting together, to fulfill god's will, and in most cases procrate, that has been the best in the past for children and families yesterday, today and in the future.

Its not neccesary to have a religious ceremony, that is a secondary and side issue. as if god wont recognize youre love, because you didnt have a religious ceremony for the wedding, god knows whats in your heart


Gays can get married, no one is stopping them, nor do I care to. A marriage is a religious ceremony and the government cannot do anything to "ban" them. I don't know how many times I have to say this about this issue, but it is not about the private ceremony between two people. Its about the fact that gays, and liberals who want to promote the gay agenda, want to force the rest of society into recognizing, and ultimately condoning gay marriage. There is absolutely nothing that a "gay couple" can't do that normal married couples can. If they want power of attorney, they can get that done on their own.

For liberals to go around saying that gays don't have the same rights as everyone else is a flat out lie. Gays have chosen to make outcasts of themselves from the rest of society. We all have a right to be discusted by, and condemn homosexuality. Homosexuality is an action that people choose to do, they are not a "minority" like blacks. People can't choose what race or gender they are when they are born, but they sure as hell should be held responsible for their actions during their adult life. Although I realize that responsiblity for one's own actions is a foreign concept for liberals.

The bottom line is homosexuals are proven to be perverts that are much more likely than anyone else to become child molesters. I've never met a fag that didn't appear to have some sort of mental issues going on. Homos are never the types you see on TV who are perfectly normal except they just like the same sex. We've gone over this before is several threads, most gays admit that at sometime during their youth they were "recruited" by an older fag.

Now, if you liberals want to look past the facts and "accept" them then by all means, go right on ahead. Have them babysit your kids.
The rest of us on the other hand, don't have to accept their behavior, thats our Constitutional right. And we don't need the thought police to brainwash us or our kids into changing our minds.

[Yurt]

Marriage first, is a government recognized benefit, and important ceremony that is essential to the continuation of man kind

You can have a religious ceremony, but it has nothing to do with the fact that without the man and woman getting together, to fulfill god's will, and in most cases procrate, that has been the best in the past for children and families yesterday, today and in the future.

Its not neccesary to have a religious ceremony, that is a secondary and side issue. as if god wont recognize youre love, because you didnt have a religious ceremony for the wedding, god knows whats in your heart

Pretty good martin. The fact that marriage is the only recognized way by the government to get certain benefits is the primary reason gays want "marriage." the majority of gays are not religious and the term "marriage" is meaningless, except that marriage grants you civil rights they don't have, at least those that care to enter a monogamous relationship.

i agree with your last. what is a marriage ceremony today is not how it has always been. in the beginning, man and woman left their parents and become one. there is no indication of what "ritual" they undertook to gain this "marriage." it is only later that we learn of certain jewish customs and now we have christian customs.

[Said1]

Thats a bunch of bullshit, look at canada, the netherlands, and other places, gay marriages really make me hard for straight marriage :dance:

WHy?