Gay Marriage

[CedarCreek]

You will notice that no where in your post have you asked me to "stop being sarcastic". You are not a victim, calm down. Let me break this down for you and then I am done. Promise.

What about bestiality? If the animal is all willing to engage in a sexual relationship with a person? 2 sides would be consenting, right?

This is a ridiculous question and you know it. It was not asked out of curiosity, it was asked to try to prove a point of what I am still not sure other than something about sinning.

If that is your thought process then do you also believe children being molested are consenting parties? Many.have no idea that what's happening is wrong so don't.know to say no, fight back or tell.


I don't see why is ridiculous, I can think of a situation where it could happen w/out the animal being forced to do it, that is consenting and I don't want to be graphic but it could happen. Then a mute person cannot show a way of consenting because consenting only is approved if words are used? A child an animal are 2 different things.


And littlemissmuffet makes an awesome point. Why Christians feel they have the right to dictate something they had no part in creating is just beyond me.....

At least here I don't think no one is telling people what to do ( dictate), now we do have the right to say it out loud, we don't agree with it, we think is wrong and we believe it should stay between a man a woman.

You actually contradict yourself here. You try to draw some sort of connection from gay marriage rights to bestiality and then you say it yourself, "a child an animal are 2 different things". There you go, its ANOTHER SPECIES. Completely irrelevant to this argument about HUMAN RIGHTS.

Oh good grief

Really? Really? You take a perfectly MATURE discussion about a very REAL topic and turn into this?

Example of someone else who thinks this argument is silly.

Stop what exactly?
It has a connection with sin. I honestly don't know why you get so upset about an issue that does happen today. Just because you don't want to talk about ti it won't make it disappear. Just because I mentioned it does not make me the person that you're are implying that I am. I have not insulted you, I have not attacked you in a personal manner so I ask from you only the same. As far as I know, the smileys are here so we can use them, in another Thread not so long ago, someone said that it was a good Idea to use them so people could understand better where we are coming from, and that is how I use them. I know this is a heated topic and I use them to show I am not coming in an aggressive way. I also know, because I have done this for a while now, that when people get upset they start to attack the person instead of idea. And my ludicrous views on bestiality are exactly what? Do I approve it? Do I think is right? But wait, it's not ludicrous to marry a sister or brother? That is a perfect example of choosing by convenience. You don't like it, skip it and don't mention it again.

Oh and "no offense"? I mean, really?

I get heated when people spew nonsense and then try to hide behind it with this Sorry I have a low tolerance for BS.

I really don't see the point of what you are doing or the need for it. What is your objective?

No where in these posts have you asked me to stop being sarcastic. I did ask you to stop trying to make this weak argument though.

Because so many other things were included, we ended up talking about religion, incest, adultery and other things that are not accepted by society. I did not mean to hurt you or anyone else with it, just asked about it like any other behavior that is not accepted. I do understand that you are still being sarcastic with me and I've asked you kindly to stop, and I'll ask again, please stop. The way you are handling the situation confirms my comments about intolerance.

Is it the right thing to do? Is that what we are supposed to do? Don't agree with something or don't like what someone says so just bash against them? Focus on the theme, the questions being asked and the idea, leave the person on the side. Thanks

I agree with you that you have a right to not agree with gay marriage rights. You even have a right to express that.

However, if you are going to insult the gay community by implying that giving them their rights will make way for interspecies sexual encounters, expect someone to disagree with you.

Done.

[jen]

This was posted on my facebook wall today, so I thought I would share. I know that a lot (most, I hope) of people who support gay marriage don't think this way, but it shows the dangerous place this can topic can and is leading to.

Unfortunately, I do believe there is a slippery slope associated with legalizing gay marriage, and it's already starting.

Scary stuff.

http://www.rethinksociety.com/govern...under-ca-bill/

Super important to consider your source...In this case, rethinksociety.com is pretty biased. So...I went and read the legislation. I thought it was really odd that if such wording was present that the author didn't quote it. Anyway, no such wording regarding pedophilia is present in the bill.

The bill is only aimed at protecting minors from anti-gay conversion therapy.

Here is the link to the bill...

http://speier.house.gov/images/shok-speier%20resolution.pdf

[CedarCreek]

This was posted on my facebook wall today, so I thought I would share. I know that a lot (most, I hope) of people who support gay marriage don't think this way, but it shows the dangerous place this can topic can and is leading to.

Unfortunately, I do believe there is a slippery slope associated with legalizing gay marriage, and it's already starting.

Scary stuff.

http://www.rethinksociety.com/govern...under-ca-bill/

It's a slippery slope?? Give me a break.

Surely you are able to process that being a homosexual and being a pedophile are WORLDS apart, correct?

[Blackcat31]

Again, I think a couple posters really need to take a step back and STOP!

This was a very interesting, educational and civil discussion.

But obviously two of you have gotten under each other's skin and I think it is time to stop and just walk away.

Please......

Let's not HAVE to close every single thread that is controversial. Doesn't say much for our ability to be adult-like does it?

[CedarCreek]

Aaaaaaand here we are coming full circle

Extremists ruined that for you, extremist in your face breastfeeders ruined it for me.


I get that on some level, but would ask you to consider the current divorce rate and how many heterosexual parents have screwed up their children and were completely preoccupied with sex.....does that mean those jilted heterosexuals should be able to prevent us ALL from marrying someone?

Took the words right out of my mouth!

[mom2many]

I say, if gay people want to be united for life, let it be a civil union

Yep, that is all I have to say.....

[jokalima]

You will notice that no where in your post have you asked me to "stop being sarcastic". You are not a victim, calm down. Let me break this down for you and then I am done. Promise.



This is a ridiculous question and you know it. It was not asked out of curiosity, it was asked to try to prove a point of what I am still not sure other than something about sinning.



You actually contradict yourself here. You try to draw some sort of connection from gay marriage rights to bestiality and then you say it yourself, "a child an animal are 2 different things". There you go, its ANOTHER SPECIES. Completely irrelevant to this argument about HUMAN RIGHTS.



Example of someone else who thinks this argument is silly.



I get heated when people spew nonsense and then try to hide behind it with this Sorry I have a low tolerance for BS.



No where in these posts have you asked me to stop being sarcastic. I did ask you to stop trying to make this weak argument though.




I agree with you that you have a right to not agree with gay marriage rights. You even have a right to express that.

However, if you are going to insult the gay community by implying that giving them their rights will make way for interspecies sexual encounters, expect someone to disagree with you.

Done.

And I think you are capable of respectfully disagreeing, all I am asking. I do believe the acceptance of gay marriage will open many doors, don't agree with me? Fine, you can be polite about it. And if is so silly, then don't waste your time on it.

[bluemoose_mom]

I don't have the time to read the bill, I will tonight some time. I did want to respond to whether or not I think there is a difference between gay marriage and pedophilia (reading the bill will perhaps change the facts behind my opinion, but won't change my opinion).

Yes, *I* do think that there is a difference. A huge difference. That doesn't mean that other people think there isn't a difference, or state legislature doesn't think differently or that pedophiles also think their rights aren't being infringed on.

I will read the bill later, however and perhaps should have before I posted.

[CedarCreek]

Now I understand.

Sorry if mine came across harsh, Bluemoose. I'm hungry and irritated.

[mom2many]

Super important to consider your source...In this case, rethinksociety.com is pretty biased. So...I went and read the legislation. I thought it was really odd that if such wording was present that the author didn't quote it. Anyway, no such wording regarding pedophilia is present in the bill.

The bill is only aimed at protecting minors from anti-gay conversion therapy.

Here is the link to the bill...

http://speier.house.gov/images/shok-...resolution.pdf

Yes, I'm assuming rethinksociety.com must be conservative... HOWEVER, I def don't agree with it being any more biased though than CNN or some other news media & it's merely giving the public information that they might not otherwise hear in the general news, which instead tends to be more liberal based.

The following is a quote from that article:
Republicans attempted to add an amendment specifying that, “pedophilia is not covered as an orientation.” However, the Democrats defeated the amendment. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) stated that all alternative sexual lifestyles should be protected under the law, and accordingly decided that pedophilia is a sexual orientation that should be equally as embraced as homosexuality.

“This language is so broad and vague, it arguably could include all forms of sexual orientation, including pedophilia,” said Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute. “It’s not just the orientation that is protected—the conduct associated with the orientation is protected as well.”

By not allowing this bill to clearly stipulate the "exclusion" of pedophilia being equally embraced, it opens up the door to lawyers finding "grey" areas to twist the law to fit and justify their own means...AND this is VERY SCARY indeed....AND A SLIPPERY SLOPE!

[jen]

I don't have the time to read the bill, I will tonight some time. I did want to respond to whether or not I think there is a difference between gay marriage and pedophilia (reading the bill will perhaps change the facts behind my opinion, but won't change my opinion).

Yes, *I* do think that there is a difference. A huge difference. That doesn't mean that other people think there isn't a difference, or state legislature doesn't think differently or that pedophiles also think their rights aren't being infringed on.

I will read the bill later, however and perhaps should have before I posted.

It's not long...about 7 pages, but the wording is quite specific. ONLY gender and homosexuality is discussed.

[CedarCreek]

Yes, I'm assuming rethinksociety.com must be conservative... HOWEVER, I def don't agree with it being any more biased though than CNN or some other news media & it's merely giving the public information that they might not otherwise hear in the general news, which instead tends to be more liberal based.

The following is a quote from that article:
Republicans attempted to add an amendment specifying that, “pedophilia is not covered as an orientation.” However, the Democrats defeated the amendment. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) stated that all alternative sexual lifestyles should be protected under the law, and accordingly decided that pedophilia is a sexual orientation that should be equally as embraced as homosexuality.

“This language is so broad and vague, it arguably could include all forms of sexual orientation, including pedophilia,” said Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute. “It’s not just the orientation that is protected—the conduct associated with the orientation is protected as well.”

By not allowing this bill to clearly stipulate the "exclusion" of pedophilia being equally embraced, it opens up the door to lawyers finding "grey" areas to twist the law to fit and justify their own means...AND this is VERY SCARY indeed....AND A SLIPPERY SLOPE!

All of that could have been taken out of context and skewed to match their agenda. I'm not saying this is the case, but it happens a lot.

[mom2many]

All of that could have been taken out of context and skewed to match their agenda. I'm not saying this is the case, but it happens a lot.

YES, this certainly can happen BOTH ways!

However, I am still alarmed with individuals fighting and insisting that this law NOT be completely clear cut to rule out any arbitration.

[jen]

Yes, I'm assuming rethinksociety.com must be conservative... HOWEVER, I def don't agree with it being any more biased though than CNN or some other news media & it's merely giving the public information that they might not otherwise hear in the general news, which instead tends to be more liberal based.

The following is a quote from that article:
Republicans attempted to add an amendment specifying that, “pedophilia is not covered as an orientation.” However, the Democrats defeated the amendment. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) stated that all alternative sexual lifestyles should be protected under the law, and accordingly decided that pedophilia is a sexual orientation that should be equally as embraced as homosexuality.

“This language is so broad and vague, it arguably could include all forms of sexual orientation, including pedophilia,” said Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute. “It’s not just the orientation that is protected—the conduct associated with the orientation is protected as well.”

By not allowing this bill to clearly stipulate the "exclusion" of pedophilia being equally embraced, it opens up the door to lawyers finding "grey" areas to twist the law to fit and justify their own means...AND this is VERY SCARY indeed....AND A SLIPPERY SLOPE!

Please, please read the bill before you post. The reason that the "exclusion" was denied is because the Bill has nothing to do with pedophilia. The bill has nothing to do with Adults! The Bill is only designed to protect minors.

Why do you think major new agencies aren't covering this "story"?
Why do you think that there are not quotes from the Bill itself?
Why do you think that there is not a link to the Bill where people can see for themselves the very scary, slippery slope????

This is a very clear case of Republicans attempting to link homosexuality with pedophilia, which is sadly common...you only need to read this thread to see that.

From the Bill:

"Expressing the sense of Congress efforts by Mental Health practitioners to change an individuals sexual orientation and gender identity or expression are dangerous and harmful and should be prohibited from being practiced on minors.

Whereas being lesbian, gay, bisexual or gender non-conforming is not a disorder, disease, illness, deficiency, or shortcoming."

Can you truly not see how bringing pedophilia in to this is prejudicial to gay people? Not to mention, pedophilia is listed as a mental disorder in the American Psychological Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders...

We have to stop letting ignorance and fear be used to denigrate people we don't understand.

[CedarCreek]

Please, please read the bill before you post. The reason that the "exclusion" was denied is because the Bill has nothing to do with pedophilia. The bill has nothing to do with Adults! The Bill is only designed to protect minors.

Why do you think major new agencies aren't covering this "story"?
Why do you think that there are not quotes from the Bill itself?
Why do you think that there is not a link to the Bill where people can see for themselves the very scary, slippery slope????

This is a very clear case of Republicans attempting to link homosexuality with pedophilia, which is sadly common...you only need to read this thread to see that.

lovethis