CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I'm just a freedom loving patriot.. I'm not black, but I CARE if black people are free... I'm not a woman, but I CARE if women are free.. I'm not gay, but I CARE if gay people are free..
This is the land of the FREE and I'm just trying to keep that promise.
According to the FRAUD all people are free to marry and it didn't even bring up the 14th Amendment ! Is that because you are just trying to keep the PROMISE ?
"I'm just a freedom loving patriot.. I'm not black, but I CARE if black people are free... I'm not a woman, but I CARE if women are free.. I'm not gay, but I CARE if gay people are free..
This is the land of the FREE and I'm just trying to keep that promise"
Free to marry? So, can a child marry another child or an adult marry a 12 year old child? How about if a man gets 21 women pregnant and has 21 children, can he marry them all and give each child a married mom and dad?
As a patriot it is liberty you seek. Freedom is the first Amendment made on the patriot’s liberty granted to them by an Axiom of GOD under United State found by Constitution. Point blank any person of color and breath does not ever want to be free. Give us liberty in any way, shape, or form, not freedom. The liberty of speech, representation by common defense.
Free has no self-value to which as people, as men, as woman, humans hold independence dear. It is a presumption by interpretation that self-value can be added to the word free, as any free state in truth holds no self-value. The word Free hides one and only one cost, free means the loss or right of self-value. Only an object such as what is owned can be free.
Many black Americans are in fact not free, and a republic will riotously argue never shall be just free, by their service to the republic in time of war they have been granted liberty. Even when they themselves do not understand when, why, and how. This is the nation of Liberty and Justice for all, the bitterness is that any impartial justice does not have as sweet sound like freedom, or insight precedent of fortune, and does not look like a sunny open plain. Liberty has been paid in blood, sweat, pain, and loss, its cost knot hidden.
It ks true and trying to comlare gay behaving people with blacks who were brought his with a price is just sick. That price is too high. Many have asked how come the blacks did not go back to Africa when they were freed. Where in Africa? That is like telling an Italian to go to Yugolslavia, but the Italian does not know he is Italian and what the language is. There are 53 countries in Africa and 53 different people and 1100 languages spoken on that continent.
You are jhhst biased in your own mind. You just put blacks and women in the same class as a behavior. Do you care if pedophiles are free? How about incest couples and polygamist? Or, the zoophile who is attracted to his pet? No, you are just a liberal and you have no clue.
I care because I am a firm believer in civil rights and in the principle you should let other people live their own lives. Marriage has legal and financial implications which can really help gay couples. And there really is NO downside. Heterosexuals can still marry whom THEY want. Heterosexuals can go adopt kids if they're so concerned about gays doing it. Heterosexuals can leave or look the other way if they don't want to look at a gay couple holding hands. And religious people can still look forward to their eternal reward and leave it to God to give a gay couple whatever they deserve. No harm to the religious person then either. No harm to anyone, really. The only harm, right now, is gay couples building lives together don't have all the same rights and privileges as their straight counterparts. That needs to be rectified.
It amazing to me that most of the people against gay marriage are the ones who want the government to stay out of THEIR lives. The ones who want NO regulations. The ones who want the freedom to do as THEY please. .....Can you say: "hypocrisy"????
TO be fair, and I'm just putting this out there. Marriage is typically a religious institution. The government does give benefits and rights to those who are married which is why I fight for same sex marriage. I think if that was taken out and Union were allowed by the government to get those same rights and churches were able to decide if they wanted same sex to marry in the eyes of God, maybe that wouldn't be so bad. There are a good amount of churches who are forward in their thinking and allow same sex marriage, and more are changing their stagnant ways to allow it as well.
I said marriage is typically a religious institution. Perhaps it would be more apt to say the celebration of marriage is typically religious in nature. Would that clear it up for you?
Marriage is typically preformed with a religious leader such as a pastor, be it in a church, synagogues or outside. Or do you have evidence that the larger percentage of marriage is done in a court house?
JP is Justice of the Peace. As I didn't need to clarify that I ignored it.
That response was to your comment:
Why does marriage need to be typically religious in nature ?
Which is why I gave the comment:
Marriage is typically preformed with a religious leader such as a pastor, be it in a church, synagogues or outside. Or do you have evidence that the larger percentage of marriage is done in a court house?
So again, if I'm wrong and more people get married at a court house, then please provide the evidence so I can know.
I know your not to bright but if a man and a woman you know knock boots and the woman becomes pregnant and a child is put on the ground then that union has been made without a JP or a Church and i dare to challenge me on it !
You're just so.....boring about it. You've dodged every question so far and used your usual rhetoric. It's not really a challenge, it's just boring, so I figured I'd just putz around and fix some of your grammar.
Marriage is typically preformed with a religious leader such as a pastor, be it in a church, synagogues or outside. Or do you have evidence that the larger percentage of marriage is done in a court house?
Marriage is typically a religious ceremony as you might view it but typically does not cover the entire scope of what is viewed as marriage.
Ok. Thank you for making a response that wasn't personal. I would like to know what scope I am missing. Perhaps you are thinking of something specifically that I have not. I am more than willing to listen if you are willing to actually discuss.
What scope you are missing is you don't understand the law and you are not trying to.
The Jewel said marriage is typically a religious ceremony and that is your view of marriage but in no way is it factual when it comes to the reality of what is marriage. Forget the church. Government and laws come into play when a man and a woman get together. I have lived it i know. See it how you want to call me a troll if you want i don't care but you just can't touch the knowledge i have when a man and woman come too odds and the government and the law get involved
Ugh SO close to actually being able to have a conversation with you. Dangit I got my hopes up again.
marriage is typically a religious ceremony
Again yes, show me proof that most marriages don't occur in church or with a church official. If you show me I will correct myself.
Forget the church
Ok. Taking out the church there are Civil Unions. Again though, stating that marriage is a religious ceremony isn't negating completely the fact that some people go to a courthouse and get a Civil Union there.
Government and laws come into play when a man and a woman get together.
Get together as in sex? No. Just having sex with someone doesn't give them the rights to my medical and dental health insurance. Just being with someone as bf/gf doesn't give them the legal ability to make decisions on my health in the event I am unable to.
Marriage is a legal status usually recognized by every state and nation around the world. Civil Unions gives many of the same protections, not always all, but are only available at a state level. Here is some information:
Who is to say most marriages occur in a church not me.
Okay again so called civil unions don't have to go through a church.
Now you get into water you are unfamiliar with one gets involved with a split tail and say they move in together regardless of children or not when that union ends the woman is by law able to receive half of what the man earned while they were together. Just a fact.
Civil Unions don't require a church or a JP but are still governed by state laws and government.
So the Jewel thinks people are typically married in a religious institution really ? Ever heard of a JP ? You people live in a World of Total Confusion and it consumes you as you have just shown !
Marriage is a legal and religious institution if it had been just religious the plagiarism would have never manifested to felony criminal acts placed as burden upon witness of an official state document. As with all witnessing to official document the witness need only give a State of the Union. This means two men what type does not matter as it is that separation which creates discrimination, or entrapment. A state of the union is two men, two woman, ,man and woman, nothing else. BiniVir, UnosMulier, marriage, Civil Union.
Gays have always been able to marry otger gays, but just not the same sex. Actually, it is the gays and you who want the government to stay out of their bedrooms, but they want the government to change marriage and regular air to include them. You gays are the hypocrites. You want special rights and you want laws changed
You fought for the Matthew Shepard hate crime, but Matthew was beaten up by his bisexual lover, over drugs and money. He was a actually left alive and was alive in the hospital for days. He did not die until after a few gay activist groups met with him. Irony, they needed him dead as a martyr.
Crazy AL you are so wrong ! Your to confused to understand !
Democrats: Stay Out Of Our Bedrooms…Now Let US In, And Drop Your Shorts
The ever rational and pragmatic Senator from California, Kamala Harris, took action recently where she was expressing concern over the upcoming census. (“Upcoming” meaning 2020, mind you.) (“Expressing” in the form of “demanding answers”, mind you.)
Of particular focus to the Democrats – the group frequently lecturing that government needs to stop obsessing over genitals, and has no business being in our bedrooms — was that the new census may not be including questions about what we do with our genitals in our bedrooms.
It is the Democrats that want government out of their bedroom AL ! Pay attention if you can !
I MUST be going crazy....right wing style...I don't understand a Fk*ng thing you are talking about! Never did learn to speak conservative! It makes no REAL sense ... I must be crazy!
Know what? I wouldn't have it any other way .... at least the "right" way! (I have too much pride)!
Yeah, you are correct, I want the government OUT of our bedrooms, and, I DON'T believe YOU want them in YOURS! (I wouldn't want to be), mind you.
I personally don't care. I think the people that care do so because marriage was historically only a religious phenomenon, whereas nowadays there are also secular marriages.
Yeah I totally agree with you, what I believe is that it's not your life so you can do whatever you want. I don't understand why people can't deal with this.
Marriage was historically a financial transaction, primarily. The centrality of religion came somewhat later. But long enough ago to explain the current religious fanaticism around controlling it, which was your broader point.
Personally, I believe that people should choose who they marry. I'm not talking about a man having multiple wives or a person trying to marry a thirteen year old. This is not a gate way to have man kind getting married to dogs. This is letting a man, or woman, choose to marry whomever they choose. As long as they are consenting adults.
We are asked to be a witness on an officially documented that becomes public record, refusal is the separation made clear by objection. If we do not object we are incriminated into a crime by agreement. That is not described to us by the people who are publicly plagiarizing the term marriage. This crime becomes part of public record.
In all fairness a witness should be given a common defense to Constitutional separation. Two additional titles for likelihood to substitute the title marriage, BiniVir and Unosmulier they are impartial separations based on basic principle and legal precedent.
I personally don't care, I'd just like to let them live in joy and love, and accept them as a part of our society. It's not that they want us to be gay, it's just that some people likes to apply their personal beliefs on others.
I don't care. The benefits are needed so unless they want to take those government benefits out of marriage and just make it a union then marriage should be between two consenting adults.
Those who aren't for it are usually projecting their own issues into someone else's business.
They're consenting adults, anyway. I don't see why even state should have the right and authority to prevent them from getting married, and on this website we have people who believe that church should have that power.
Marriage (even if you are doing it for religious reasons) is essentially choosing to be with one person for the rest of your life, and receiving a government approved document that states this fact.
If two gay people want to be together for the rest of their lives, they will be, whether marriage is legal or not. So if that's the case, why should gay people not have the same opportunity as straight people?
Additionally, how does the concept of two people of the same gender getting married, in ANY way, hurt you personally?
Difference in opinion should never impede on law or equality.
The only people who have any reason to care are the people involved, provided the only people involved are consenting adults.
I have a very conservative view. I think I am typical in this. Most conservatives I have ever heard talk about it (except the religious crazies) also don't care.
I don't particularly care about anyone's individual choice unless:
-It is happening on my property.
-I have to pay for it.
-It creates an involuntary obligation on anyone's part.
-It impacts the physical space of anyone against his/her will.
Do you think you have the right to keep men from having 30 wives?
Are you starting to grasp the slippery slope? If you force every State to allow Gay marriage, then you must allow every other unnatural group to do the same. Where will it end?
The obvious normal and best marriage is between one man and one woman. It has been the best common sense way to raise our children.
"Do you think you have the right to keep men from having 30 wives?"
- No. In fact, polygamy is illegal in the US. But like EVERYTHING else that eventually becomes illegal, people find a loophole to do it anyway (as the "Sister Wives" show). This day and age, it is next to impossible to completely rid the country of a social aspect by making it illegal.
"Are you starting to grasp the slippery slope? If you force every State to allow Gay marriage, then you must allow every other unnatural group to do the same. Where will it end?"
- This is starting to sound way too much like a conspiracy theory. How does allowing one social group a privilege they were denied before, connect to letting others do the same? Plus, what exactly is marriage? It's you, basically vowing to be in a relationship with the same person until you're dead, and declaring that with a government document. If two gay people want to be together for the rest of their lives, they're GOING to be together for the rest of their lives. And without having to give up 50% of their money to the other person. If they're going to be together anyway, what purpose does inequality of marriage serve?
"The obvious normal and best marriage is between one man and one woman."
- This is an opinion. There is no social situation where you can say something is the "best" of something, and have it be purely factual. So if this is your opinion, fine. Opinions aren't chosen. So here's what you do... Don't marry another man.
"It has been the best common sense way to raise our children."
- I know several gay couples who have adopted kids, and are excellent parents. The kids are well taken care of, learning moral values, and being prepared for life, like any other family. Additionally, is your argument ACTUALLY out of concern for children being brought up in the world? What if two gay people want to get married and choose to never involve having a kid? Then is it okay with you? Or are you taking the marginal case and using it as an excuse to try and justify your argument as a whole?
People like you always know some one in a million committed Gay relationship. Most of is see the sex swapping gay parties and the spread of HIV, etc.
It matters not either of us say, it comes down to biolgy and what is natural and normal. This is what we should be teaching our children, and after they grow up they can decide for themselves.
We should never teach our kids to experiment with unnatural things. We should raise them up in the norms of society. Controversial issues should not be sanctioned as normal and nattural no matter how much Gays want to pretend it is.
Why do you care if a man has 30 wives? Seriously, what's it to you what other people choose to do with their own lives? When and how did your God confer this active moral authority upon you in particular?
Those were questions, not statements. So I can't have been lying.
Same sex marriage does not lead to polygamy or incest marriage. I just happen not to be opposed to either, as well as not being opposed to SSM. Plenty of people who support SSM are opposed to polygamy and incest, generally either for religious reasons or because they believe polygamy is sexist and incest abusive or medically unsound.
I'm not being proscriptive. In the very act of supposing that people should be able to do what they want with their lives, I'm being anti-proscriptive. I'm certainly not feigning moral authority... you know, being an amoralist and all. Oh, and I don't believe in the devil Satan.
Jace is a sodomite who believes he unexists in death so he thinks nothing really matters and he'll just do and say in the name of Hell whatever he feels like.
Are you worried that if a man has the right to have 30 wives legally then it will free you to having more than one as well and that's a temptation for you? No? Then why do you care if there are two consenting adults who love each other and want to get married, and they are the same sex?
This has NOTHING to do with me. I know where my values lie and I would not choose to do things that are unnatural just because an activist Government makes it legal.
If they legalized killing one year old babies, would you be ok with that? Would you kill your one year old baby if you got tired of her and it was now legal?
I have the brains to see what is happening to our families since this fixation on LGBTQXYZABCDEFG groups. I care for our children and hate it when Government teaches them that anything goes and that any type of sexual orientation is naturral and normal.
This has NOTHING to do with me. And two men or two women who choose to marry each other out of love has NOTHING to do with you. But you certainly want your opinion to dictate their lives.
Just as you want your opinions dictating what other people do such as a man having 30 wives. You just don't see your hypocrisy do you. The Left only cares for the rights of people in their piolitical correct groups.
The rights of parents to keep boys out of their daughter's bathrooms in EVERY public school means nothing to you.
The right's of the people in each state to decide their own marriage laws means nothing to you.
Your so called equal rights are always conditional.
I'm of the opinion that two people who are consenting adults should have the same rights as everyone else, regardless of their gender. You are under the assumption that your opinion of their lives should dictate what they can and can't do based on your own feeling on the subject.
You aren't invited in their marriage any more than they are yours.
I forget what you said about the equal rights for a man to have 30 wives. When you give marriage rights to one unnatural sexual orientation, you must open the flood gates to every other group of people wanting so called equal rights.
So, what horrible things exactly are you doing to/with your kids now that there is this fixation on LGBTQXYZABCDEFG groups?
I bet you are still living the way you want to, still caring for your children as you see fit. I bet how you raise your children has not changed at all.
I would be very surprised to find that laws about which adults marry each other have EVER affected how anyone raises their children.
I as a parent have a right to expect that my children, and your children, deserve to go to school and not be conditioned by the Left to the politically correct way of thinking, or conditioned by the Right to things you might dissagree with.
What I teach my children should not be undermined in forced schooling. Schools should be places where our children learn the basics, not divisive controversial issues.
I was a teacher for years, and I agree that schools have expanded the scope of what they teach to include subjects that are not (or should not be) in the curriculum. It is inexcusable, often invasive, and totally inefficient. When 10th graders have 4th grade reading levels, and 11th graders need a calculator to add 7+5 (true stories from my career) then we have no time to add anything to the curriculum.
Part of the problem is that at even 1 hour/weekday for 9 months, (187 hours) I had many students who spent more time with me than with their parents. From 1st to 12th grade, kids spend somewhere between 20-26% of their waking hours at school. Despite the fact that the parents are responsible for the other 74-80% of the time, too many do not think that means they should be teaching their own kids three quarters of what they learn about the world.
Honestly, the fact that so many parents abdicate so much of their responsibilities is what creates the vulnerability to indoctrination, and supplies the opportunity for schools to indoctrinate. When kids show up with little or no value system, or no constantly accessible role models, teachers fill the void, whether they are trying to or not.
By contrast, when kids show up to school having learned about that other 80% of life from their parents, grandparents, religious leaders, work, etc., then they have context that enables them to discriminate sensibly in their thinking and learning. If you spend enough real time with your kids (not just watching TV) doing things that model your values and grow them into people who know and understand your beliefs, then your kids will be resistant/impervious to the effects of school scope creep and propaganda.
Don't worry. As long as you are doing your job as a parent, the schooling cannot possibly undermine what you teach your kids. That only happens when parents do not fulfill their obligation to do the hard work of raising their kids.
I constantly address the problem of broken homes in this nation, and as you say, these broken homes creates many problems for teachers.
I do not accept your assumption that children can not be indoctrinated to political correct thinking if their parents teach them values.
We see many kids following the world's anything goes lifestyles even though they were raised with values opposite to these lifestyles.
Peer pressure, Hollywood, late night tv, sitcoms, Liberal Profressors, etc. etc. all have influence on our children's minds. It is very difficult raising children today with traditional moral values.
I agree, good parents can help keep their children from all the negative effects of this no fault anything goes culture, but it is not as easy as decades ago when society lifted up the same moral values as parents.
If you want them to develop good BS sensors, you have to SHOW them, and have them DO things, and make them THINK. (It is super time intensive.) This goes far beyond religion and morals, and becomes developing common sense and a bank of experience that illustrates how that common sense works. To be able to stave off indoctrination, they need thinking skills.
By far, the most important things to teach are logic and skepticism, and the habit of asking for evidence. Propaganda depends on people accepting what SOUNDS good without asking the hard questions that require proponents to demonstrate truth.
Critical thinking takes a lot of practice. This means you have to get them to practice by questioning whether what YOU are saying makes sense, and you will NEED to be able to explain and support what you think. (For anyone who wants to instill a religion into their kids, this is scary, and has a fair chance of resulting in them questioning that, too.) If your kids do not learn to think well, they will fall for any stupid crap that they hear from TV or their friends or professors.
You are showing your lack of religious parenting knowledge by saying Parents who teach their children about faith have a choice, and should be wary of doing so.
You act as if parents have a choice about trying to make sure their children end up living good lives and spending eternity in heaven.
Christians believe in a heaven and a hell. You tell me what loving parent who truly believe's their faith, would not teach their children in the ways of Christianity so that they might spend eternity in heaven.
The only parents who would not do so are parents who don't really believe their faith even though they say they identify as Christian.
Are you worried that by a man not being allowed to marry another man, then you will be denied your true love. You think that you can judge marriages by what you determine, like consenting adult. There are no federal mandates for consenting adults. A 15 year old child in California, who can not have sex until 18, can have an avldtion without parental or adult consent.
You liberals make laws designed to abuse and violate children.
A 15 year old child is not an adult, therefore they would not fulfill the requirements towards consenting adult.
You think that you can judge marriages by what you determine
We all think we can judge marriage by what we determine, even you.
Are you worried that by a man not being allowed to marry another man, then you will be denied your true love.
LOL. Yes, yes I'm worried I can't be married to the man I love....oh wait, I am. Of course it helps that I'm a female so yeah. It worked out for me, it doesn't work out for others.
You liberals make laws designed to abuse and violate children.
I'm not liberal and the fact that you don't quite get the term "consenting adult" doesn't mean you can deny the rights of others to marry when they are in love....and again...consenting adults.
We are w asking them to hear reason and logic. They claim there is no slippery slope, but we see it now with pedophiles. Why not allow loopholes to get married, so that their lets can inherit everything and have spousal health insurance. It is discrimination, because they love whomthry love.
You do not sound like an actual American conservative.
In fact, you sound like some Democrat or far left crazy because, as Democrats so often do, you did not actually answer the question (Why do YOU care if same sex marriage is legal?) but instead referred you to why you think it is a bad idea if every state legalizes it.
Face it, lots of bad ideas are legal. For example it is legal to dance on your roof in your underwear while covered head to toe in ranch dressing. (Do you grasp the slippery slope? if we allow that, we must allow people covered in every other unnatural condiment to do the same. Where will it end?)
The fact that it is dangerous, foolish, and some people think it is icky has never justified illegalizing it. As a result, even the Democrats have never suggested allowing the government to start regulating condiment dancing. Hell, they have not even mandated that the taxpayers subsidize catsup and mustard appreciation programs in order to limit the ranch dressing dancing. (Too many have Ranch privilege.)
The question is what is YOUR MOTIVATION to be against it. What stake do YOU have in what these other people do?
Are you purposely being deceptive or are you that ignorant to the written word?
I made it VERY CLEAR that my opposition to sanctioning LGBT issues as normal to our children (which is exactly what Gay marriage does), is that our children deserve to be taught the normal biological functions of our bodies between a man and woman.
THIS IS WHY I CARE IF GAY MARRIAGE IS LEGALIZED!
These unnatural abnormal controversial sexual orientations should not be lifted up to our children as normal!
LGBT people should also not be bullied or ridiculed for their lifestyles to our chidren.
These subjects are not things to be spoken about in schools, and should not be sanctioned as normal by forcing every state to change their marriage laws.
To your other lame example, I also do not want society sanctioning people dancing on rooftops covered with ranch dressing (which is the only dressing I enjoy), as being a naturral normal thing.
Can you grasp this simple concept. We should stay clear of indoctrinating our children with unnatural controversial subjects. They will grow up and decide for themselves.
If my daughter grows up and dances on a roof top covered in Blue cheese dressing, I will be very saddend :)
1 - Actually, I was trying to use a humorous metaphor to point out how ridiculous it has always been for there to be laws regulating people's private lives, and private choices.
2 -I was also taking a swipe at Leftists and Democrats for pretending they are in favor of Americans actually being free, when the evidence shows they are against freedom. The left routinely implements policies that impede our freedom to live our lives unhampered by unnecessary government policies, intervention, support, and the attendant taxes through which we are forced to pay for the choices of others.
3 - I see no reason for (adult) gay marriage to stay illegal. What I want is as few laws as absolutely necessary to keep the peace and protect individual freedoms. What I am in favor of is NOT ADDING a law/control, but rather of REMOVING one. (Personally, I think it is a problem, or at least unnecessary, that the government is involved in marriage at all.) We (adult Americans) do not need the government to play mommy to tell us to get off the roof and go take a bath (metaphorically speaking).
4 - I do not see how you actually answered the question. You conflated gay marriage no longer being illegal with a propaganda campaign in favor of it. The question was about the former, but you answered in response to the latter.
Would your view change if the propaganda were not part of the deal?
I think the whole propaganda campaign about what is morally good, normal, etc. that happens in our public schools (and other venues) is a bad idea and inexcusably invasive. Health/Biology classes should stick to the reproductive biology, & leave the values alone, regardless of the viewpoint.
In California, I taught life science, including sex ed, without ever referring to morals, social norms, etc.. I just explained organ & cell function, DNA, gestation stages, and diseases.
Gametes & Zygotes (meiosis) are hard enough to get kids to understand without adding extra crap about morals, etc. to distract them. Moreover, it does not matter which value set a curriculum/teacher inserts; some kid's parents are going to have a fit. It is insanity for public school programs ever to touch on people's private lives. That road leads only to pain and lawyers.
I also think having an LGBTXYZ pride month is ridiculous and unnecessary. We have laws against violence, theft, and harassment (for any reason), and so long as those are properly enforced, the free market will take care of the rest.
5 - Unfortunately the word "sanction" is its own antonym. It means both "officially/publically approve", and "impose a penalty" so I am not sure of your position on condiment dancing.
First of all, they have already had Gay awareness days in schools, Disney World, etc. etc. etc.
Our children are bombarded with Gay awareness propaganda.
That is the stuff that bothers me and millions of other Americans. The Left is bent on programming our children's minds, from kindergarten on up, to political correctness.
What you described as biology class is just as it should be but the Left with every decade are pushing the envelope, especially when the teacher's union leans to the Left.
I conflated Gay marriage with a propaganda campaign because I have followed politics for many years. For 40 years our nation has been brow beaten by the Left. Doctors who once declared homosexuality a mental issue, now are threatened with law suits if they dare say such things.
Even if Gays are born that way, which is not even close to being a proven fact, does not mean it's not a mental disorder of some type.
The only reason every state was forced to change their marriage laws (against the will of the people in many states), was because the activist Left pushed it through after decades of law suits.
Our laws should never be forced to change under threat of law suits by a vocal minority of Gay activists, Liberal media, Liberal politicians along with their appointed Liberal Judges.
Important change in our State laws should be a majority decision by people in those States, not done by a few activist Judges.
If you can't see thew slippery slope of Poitical correctness, then wow! Do you understand it is now onto Pedophile right's? Pedophiles want the right to be teachers even though they admit having attractions to children.
Where will it end? Most great nations fall fromwithin, heance my name :)
1 - Teacher union LEADERSHIP (none of whom are teachers) leans left. Most teachers are centrists, and scatter to both sides. The many tens of thousands of retired military who become teachers are predictably conservative. Believe it or not, the unions do not at all represent most teachers' beliefs & views. That is REALLY screwed up, and why I hated being in a union.
NEVER believe a political ad that says some number of union members support or oppose something. The add is a lie.
2 - We obviously agree on the propaganda problem.
3 - Regarding your slippery slope you keep mentioning, you don't seem to know where we actually are on that hill. The slope started by instituting laws you approve of. Those laws are what led to what you now disapprove.
The slope started at the top of the hill that involved letting government into people's personal lives. This included approving heterosexual marriage and making gay marriage illegal.
It sounds like most of your problems with gay marriage are really problems with the government being involved in any social relationships, including all marriage.
The idea that the government's job was to intervene in social relationships, arbitrate what are and are not valid reasons for people to decide with whom to associate continued further down the slope with Jim Crow laws passed entirely by Democrats in the 1800's (meant to segregate people), and continued further down the hill with de-segregation/integration laws, passed mostly by Democrats from the 1950's to the 1970's.
We are at least halfway down the hill by now, and fascism is at the bottom. The Democrats and leftists keep pushing us further down the slope. The Republicans (who are not particularly conservative) keep saying things were better just a little further up the slope, but they don't want to go back to the top.
NOBODY needs the government to help them decide who to like, or with whom to be friends or engage in commerce, or what types of marriage are okay.
I agree with many of the thngs you say, but I disagree with what you say concerning Government creation of marriage.
Since the beginning of time, we have had marriages between men and women because that is the natural normal way we are designed.
Have you noticed how the animal kingdom works? There are no Gay animals unless you swallow the lies and false examples the Left speaks to.
There should be Gay dogs, cats, horses, etc. etc. etc., but we see none. There are no animals who refuse to have sex with the opposite sex, and only have Gay sex!
Yes, we have some animals that would have sex with anything that moves, such as a dog havng sex with your leg, but this is not homosexuality.
For all the people who say we are just another animal, and have evolved, Homosexuality goes against everything we see in nature and the natural order of life.
Evolution teaches that animals evolve traits that continues their species, not end it as Homosexuality would. Either we say it like it is, which would make Homosexuality an unatural disorder, or we say evolution could be a lie.
With regards to what you keep saying about keeping Government out of our lives, I agree. But we do need basic laws to keep society functioning together and not living in anarchy with the anything goes mentality of the Left.
I'm not talking about making moral laws, but society does need to lift up the natural normal order to life, and not lifting up unnatural abnormal things as being normal. Our children deserve better.
We are watching our families fall apart form this promiscuous no fault anything goes culture. There are record numbers of children with no fathers at home. This is the reason society needs to keep some semblance of law and order, responsibility, accountability, etc.
Society does need to lift up those moral values that create secure homes for our children. Family is the bed rock of society. Government is terrible at raising our children as we have seen. Children should have both a mother and father to grow up and become well adjusted adults. I believe Government should not force laws on every state that would weaken the foundation of marriage between a man and woman.
Years ago, men who had attractions to other men still got married to women and raised families. The world did not come to an end. We don't all have to act on our attractions, especially if it is not a natural thing.
Some men are attracted to having 30 wives but for society's sake, we say no.
We have laws preventing pedophiles from acting on their attractions to children. We can not have a functioning culture without laws that lift up the natural, the normal, and the best of mankind.
No one is talking about outlawing homosexuality. People should be free to do as they choose as long as they are not hurting others. But this does not mean Government should be sanctioning it.
I'm glad to know you do not like unions. That pretty much ends any chance of you maybe someday dancing on a roof top covered with Creamy Balsamic Dressing.
I totally see the slope of political correctness, but I think that is the same slope as the slope of government prohibiting/regulating/interfering in adult relationships like marriage.
It is not, nor has it ever been the US Government's rightful place to:
- Be involved in adult personal relationships
- Decide who we like
- Dictate what constitutes an acceptable/valid reason for liking/disliking someone
- Decide with whom we may/may not associate
- Judge or prohibit any of our reasons for how we decide with whom we do/don't associate
It is a totally different situation when kids are involved in the relationships, especially when law mandates participation (as in our public schools).
Couple things... The KEY is consenting adults.. That's NOT a difficult concept. Children aren't adults.. Sheep can't consent. What else do you need to know??
If 31 consenting adults wanna get married, WHY is that any of my business?
And, I DID miss something.. HOW does marriage cost taxpayers????
If one man and 30 women can find an insurance policy to BUY, why shouldn't HE be allowed to BUY it??? Aren't you a capitalist?
Why would you think somebody who can afford 30 wives will get FREE health insurance???
My foundational political philosophy is that there is no reason to believe that a bunch of strangers, none of whom know anything about me or my circumstances, (many of whom died before I was born) are better able than me to make decisions about how I should order my voluntary social and economic relationships.
So, no, I don't have a problem with some other guy having 30 (or however many) wives.
That does not mean I think it is a smart decision. I think it is a sure path to an early death, and moreover, being grateful to be dying. There are days when I think one wife is more than I really want to have to deal with, so I have no sympathy for the damned fool who thought more than one was a good plan.
Bad decisions have a way of punishing those who make them. We do not need the government to make our decisions for us.
I would agree with you 100% except you are living on some other planet.
There is no insurance plan that would ever pay for 30 wives. If it did, it would cost far too much for any normal person to afford.
Here is the reality to what would happen. Fool Democrats who want to give every low income familiy a free ride when it comes to healthcare, housing subsidies, etc. etc. would force tax payers to support those thirty wives.
When you vote for the Democrat Party, you are the one allowing Big Leftwing Government to make decisions on how we must all subsidise those who are lower income.
You might have no sympathy for fools who constantly make irresponsible decisions in life, but Democrats will force you to support these fools.
That's the main difference between the Right and the Left.
The Right expects people to take responsibility for their irresponsible choices in life, while the Left believes in the no fault anything goes amoral philosophy whereby it's no one fault and they will force tax payers to support the irresponsible dead beats using our system.
Yep, on this planet, regardless of how many wives anyone has, our government's steady march toward socialism dooms everyone with a work ethic to have to live in poverty and enslavement for the benefit of people who refuse to pay their own ways.
You bring up the cogent point that government support brings with it government interference.
You are also right about some of the difference between conservatives and liberals.
Frankly, I do not care if people are old, disabled, unhealthy, addicted, foolish, or lazy. People need to pay ALL OF THIER OWN PERSONAL EXPENSES, or find some individual or private organization who likes them enough to be willing to do it for them.
No social security, no welfare, no Medicare, no Medicaid, no HUD housing, no federal grants, no corporate bailouts, no income tax refunds that exceed the taxes you paid.
Will that happen? Nope. The liberals (both citizens and in our government) are actually in favor of slavery, and do not mind enslaving those who work in support of those who do not. I do not just mean Democrats; a lot of Republicans have become liberal wussies, intent on continuing Medicaid expansion and meddling in our lives.
I do however support an emergency safety net for people who are dissabled or can not help themselves. I support food banks (not food stamps) and shelters (not subsidised housing) for those who truly need it. I support emergency medical care for people who can not pay.
But as you say, I support people getting help from Churches, family, or other charitable organizations.... NOT GOVERNMENT.
Are you starting to grasp the slippery slope? If you force every State to allow Gay marriage, then you must allow every other unnatural group to do the same. Where will it end?
If the only argument against anything else is "you cant do that because its unnatural" then yes, absolutely. However things that have other arguments against them, such as bigamy, need not be allowed.
The obvious normal and best marriage is between one man and one woman.
So you think by making homosexual marriage illegal you will cause gay men to get married and have children? Newsflash: the word is overpopulated!! A few people NOT getting married and having kids is better for everyone.
Dude obviously we as a whole are not keeping women from men if it is legal or not they will still be gay. I don't fully agree with it either but why should we have the right to tell a human what to do. Do you believe in America when we say we are free. We are the best country and when we say we are free in America why do you have to tell people why they should or shouldn't get married. Do we really want more rampages if we take their rights away us Americans would be hypocrites because it is a free country.
Dude, stop being such a hypocrite with double standards.
The Left and the Democrat Party are the biggest control fanatics of our lifetime.
They say we no longer have a right to conceiled handguns.
We no longer have a right to freely choose to have a nativity scene on our public land.
People no longer have a right to freely smoke in some Parks.
We no longer have a right to not pay to kill unborn babies.
Our daughters no longer have a right to privacy from so called Transgender boys in their own public school bathrooms.
We no longer have a voice in our own States to vote and decide on issues such as how our marriage laws work. One Left wing Judge can over ride an entire State's freedom to create their own marriage laws.
Do you want to now take away the freedom of States to not allow men having 30 wives? Why would you tell people they can not have 30 wives?
Businesses are constantly told how they can run their own company do to petty regulations from the Left.
The worst one of all is when the Left took away a baby's right to life. Why are you not screaming about that fact? You are a hypocrite to cherry pick which rights you care about.
Don't talk to me about which side takes away more freedoms. The Right want's the freedom of the people to decide their own State laws, not one activist Liberal judge.
Besides being an abomination, dirty, perversion, allowing legal establishment of same sex couples and saying they are married gives them legal and financial rights which cost money from employers and taxpayers, forcing people to violate their conscience and support sin.
Homosexuals do not need any legal marriage, they can draw up their own personal contracts for life or distribution of their estates or whatever........but to give them the same tax and employment benefit status as holy matrimony is forcing others to support their sin.
Marriage has it's privileges, and it should, as the family is the foundation of society. The foundation is cracking, America has lost it's mind to allow same sex perverts to call themselves married and enjoy the benefits provided for the foundation of society which is the family.
Homosexuals did not engage in the battle for marriage rights because of romantic ideals, it was for the money and they are forcing me, by taxes and increased cost of goods as companies extend benefits to spouses, to support their sin........adding to the coming judgement of God on America as His anger builds against a country increasingly turned away from and against Him.
I agree. It is simply a behavior but we have been forced to use the labor like it is a group. Should same sex couipkes have the legal right to procreate and have children? Why not? Opposite sex couples have that right? Should a lesbian have the legal right to impregnate another lesbian with her egg and procreate a child? A man can impregnate a woman and get her pregnant.
How about a man who has 21 children by 21 women, shouldn't he have the right to marry all 21 and give each child a normal home?
THANK YOU! I appreciate that you are using material realities to support your argument instead of just leaning on arguments based on religious/moral tenets.
I still do not care about other people's marriages, but I can totally see how your opinion is actually based in your objective self- interest and verifiable realities. It actually makes sense that you would care about same sex marriage, regardless of your religious beliefs.
I have a different solution:
1 - Simplify and revise the tax code to make the number of dependents immaterial
2 - Eliminate the social welfare programs (including those that relate to marriage, like social security)
3 - Eliminate Government civilian employee pensions in favor of 401k style retirement systems. Most of the private sector has already done that, so marriage status is irrelevant for employer cost.
4 - Limit the employer obligation to whatever the employer & employee voluntarily agree upon as incentive/compensation. That is between the employer and the employee. If both parties agree-fine. If the prospective employee does not like the parameters of the compensation package, he/she is free to find a different job where the employer has a different compensation/benefits offering. Employers will continue to use things like benefits packages to compete with each other for the employees they want/need.
Personally, I don't buy into the judgment and religious fervor, and I certainly do not think who marries whom is the main crack in the American societal foundation.
The flaw that is undermining our society's social health and future prosperity is unmarried/uncommitted parents. 40% of American kids are born out of wedlock, (50% of Hispanic kids & 80% of black kids). Most of these kids are raised in single parent households most without fathers being more than nominally involved. A whopping 70-80% of inner city kids are being raised in single parent homes. (https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/three-simple-rules-poor-teens-should-follow-to-join-the-middle-class/) A large percentage of these are on government assistance.
Related to the unmarried parent issue, over 21% of the US population is on Government assistance (https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-97.html). Most of these programs are primarily or exclusively for children and parents.
By contrast, homosexuals/bisexuals are only 2-3% of the US population, and an even smaller percentage are in a same-sex marriage. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/07/15/what-percentage-of-the-u-s-population-is-gay-lesbian-or-bisexual/?utm_term=.2eb323eae18f)
Gay marriage accounts for a much smaller financial impact to our society than do single parents accessing the public welfare programs. The direct social impact is also smaller, or would be were it not for the propaganda campaigns.
Kids growing up without dad's is a much greater problem to society.
All law is based on religious/moral tenets and can be wrong or right, just or unjust. People are faulty and when they establish laws not in accord with objective truth, those laws will be unjust and immoral. If you claim your idea of law is secular, then it is your own mind which is being placed on a pedestal as your god and you are being religious thinking you are justified by your own existence to be exonerated in death and exempt from the fire of Hell.
It is your solution, by your own words, which is based on self-interest and not on objective truth. There is no such thing as "objective self-interest"; you are using an oxymoron which gives no credibility to your ideas as your personal self-interest may by and for yourself be considered objective while in direct conflict with my self-interest. Self-interest which is not subjective to truth is evil no matter how it may appear to be benevolent.
All of your political ideas are changeable without objective truth. Whether you buy into "judgement and religious fervor" or not, in reality you are being religious trying to justify yourself to roam outside of the fire of Hell, and in reality you are failing.
Sodomy, including all homosexuality, is a great evil which ruins lives and costs society a lot more money than what you are accounting for as it is spread primarily through molestation of children. Why you want to sweep garbage under the rug and promote your own ideas of righteousness is a mystery except for the natural tendency of sinners to exalt themselves thinking they have the right to exist outside of Hell.
I'm sure whatever statistics you are presenting are homosexual propaganda in accordance with your "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" ideas about the evils of homosexuality, so I wont' bother investigating them. Your stats reek of sodomites who do all they can to hide the evil of their perversion.
"If you claim your idea of law is secular, then it is your own mind which is being placed on a pedestal as your god and you are being religious thinking you are justified by your own existence to be exonerated in death and exempt from the fire of Hell."
At this point, I think we disagree about what the essence of law is. In fact, I think you will probably concede you overstated your case.
You obviously think of Law as coming ultimately from whatever version of god you believe in. That is fine, and for some laws, it is moot whether or not that is accurate. For example,laws against murder, theft, dishonesty, and various levels of unkindness (hitting, slander/libel, harassing, etc.) would likely fall into that category.
However, the VAST majority of our laws are not at all like those sorts. They are simply tools to help define boundaries and deal with purely practical (not moral/ethical) problems. There is no moral basis for what a particular road's speed limit is, nor is there a religious tenet that defines the zoning particulars that differentiate a commercial enterprise from an industrial one. They are just tools, with no more moral relevance than a hammer or a screwdriver.
I think you are trying too hard to split hairs when you say "There is no such thing as "objective self-interest"". I will clarify, if you like: objective(LY OBSERVABLE) self-interest.
What I was referring to are reasons other than superstition, religion, conspiracy theories, emotions, morals, and anything else that there is no direct physical evidence to enable everyone to agree on the basic facts. (e.g., when you say 'god' an atheist thinks 'superstition', a Christian thinks Jesus, a Hindu may think Vishnu, a Norse Pagan may think Odin, etc..) People from all these different religions, regardless of moral assumptions, independently can do the math and reach the conclusion that gays getting Social Security survivor benefits means less money in the system for you when you retire. That is objective(ly observable) self-interest.
Objective observations indicate very clearly that the society is changing, that our problems are changing. Our population is 330 million (double what it was in 1986), and we have external enemies (like ISIS) changing their tactics, and some old policies yielded objectively observable results that are counter to what we wanted the policies to accomplish. That means that new political ideas are required to solve the problems. We need new tools.
Regarding the rest of what you just wrote, you are kind of ranting. Did you even read the article about how to avoid poverty?
I let other people run their lives, and I run mine. I do not want anyone making my personal relationship decisions for me, so I extend that same courtesy to everyone else (assuming everyone involved is a consenting adult). I don't particularly care about anyone's individual choice unless:
-It is happening on my property.
-I have to pay for it.
-It creates an involuntary obligation on anyone's part.
-It impacts the physical space of anyone against his/her will.
I don't have any business casting any first stones, and I certainly do not go around pretending I know the mind or preferences of god. Try it.
Your words...."I let other people run their lives, and I run mine. I do not want anyone making my personal relationship decisions for me, so I extend that same courtesy to everyone else (assuming everyone involved is a consenting adult.I don't particularly care about anyone's individual choice unless:"
Okay, I get it now, you are some kind of pervert. No wonder you reject God, you don't want God telling you that you should not be perverted. You don't tell others that they should not be perverts because you don't want others telling you that you should not be a pervert.
Just admit it, you are a pervert and that is why you think it's good not to say other people who are perverts are being perverts.
I don't know what god you reject, apparently the god of your own mind is the one you worship...as for other gods, I don't know if you reject them are not. I do know you reject God and in doing so you cast yourself in death and your pride is taking you to Hell. You will be there soon if you don't get saved; your politics won't help.
I think you pretty well admitted you are a pervert.....exactly what perversion you engage in, I don't know but you made it clear you want to protect the perversion of others because you want your perversion to be protected.
When you say to an atheist, God is there, they know exactly who you are talking about and will immediately throw out straw men to argue against by saying "which god". A god is not God, atheists know this, their arguments are against straw men, they do not argue against God. Even when the pedophilia condoning Dickie Dawkins says "I go one god further", he is still not trying to change God The Creator Of All Things into a created thing which he calls a god.
Atheism is dumb, it's nothing but self-deception and fools actually insist they are smarty pants when they play the game of atheist. All an atheist can honestly say in stating their beliefs is "there is no God". When they say more than that they are being deceptive, fooling themselves into thinking they are better, smarter, and stronger than God.
When people like you rant with your pompous phony intellectualism acting like you know everything, it's good for you to hear that you are a sinner in need of salvation and God the Savior is the only hope you have of not ending up in the fire of Hell frying like an eternal sausage. I've seen a few like you realize they need to be saved and only God can save them and they understand what He did for them when He died i their place and rose from the dead offering forgiveness to all who believe on Him.....very few. Most like you are on such an ego high they will plunge right off the edge into the fire of Hell, proud of and loving their sin like a moth flying into the fire.
If you wake up in the fire of Hell, you sure can't say you never heard about how you could have been saved from it.
If the only way I could avoid being broiled like a sausage was to say ANYTHING God commanded me to, I would.. But, that's not a God.. That's a dictator.
There is only one thing God will force you to say; you will say to His glory that Jesus Christ is Lord. God created you for His own pleasure and purpose, and you will give Him the pleasure He created you for if you like it or not; your tongue will speak His honor in the fire of Hell if that is the only way He will get it out of you. He deserves it, He will have it, and you can't deny it. Try denying it and all you will find is yourself in the fire of Hell bowing at the sound of His name and saying Jesus Christ is Lord. You will say it. I say it and I like it. You will say it willingly or against your will, and the way you are talking now you won't like anything about your existence when you say Jesus Christ is Lord.
It won't get you out of the fire of Hell. You can't talk your way out of it. The only way you can be exempt from the fire of Hell is to be saved by God the Savior. You can be saved, but will you? I doubt it, you think you are too good to deserve to die and burn in Hell and you will go into eternity accusing God of being a dictator.......and you think He's going to let you off the hook? It is you who is trying to dictate God out of existence, and like a fool you hope to go out of existence yourself or be in limbo like a ghost; any silly futile hope you can dream up as long as you can keep yourself thinking you have the right to exist outside of Hell and are exonerated in death.
I know we disagree about objective truth, your political aspirations bore me as I know you base your idea of righteousness on whatever you feel or think is best while you reject objective truth.
I overstated nothing; I understated most of what I said. It cannot be said loudly and clearly enough that you will give account of yourself for everything you said, thought, or did in every moment of your time being judged by God according to His word. His word is the law and it is good, it will be evil to all who oppose Him like yourself. You are making a grave error proclaiming your own righteousness.
It is you who is ranting about your own idolized mind. Who told you that you run your life? You are under the Law of God and that Law says the soul that sinneth shall surely die.
You don't know the mind of God because you don't want to renounce your pride, you don't want to take sides with God against your sin and say His law is good. If you contract AIDS by any means you deserve it since you are excusing the perverts who spread it around the world.
Your pompous "I'm better than you because I don't get bothered by what people do behind closed doors" is just a charade, you are only fooling yourself. Again, you deserve any and every STD on the planet when you are making excuses for perverted sexuality.
Our conversation would improve if you were to chill out, slow down, and take the time to read what I actually wrote.
My whole point is nothing more than the government should not be telling anyone how to live, or forcing anyone to pay to support how anyone else lives, regardless of whether people are gay or straight.
I never approved nor excused anyone's sexual activities with other adults. It is none of my business.
I neither wrote nor implied that I think I am better than anyone. I wrote nothing about being righteous at all. I even referred to my own imperfections when I alluded to the "he without sin throw the first stone" by writing that I am not qualified to throw the first stone.
The fact that you keep referring to god and making proclamations about what god will and won't do, what will and won't happen to me, what I do and do not think (without taking into account what I actually wrote) is what constitutes the ranting.
The things you write make it look like people who believe in god are hateful and hyperemotional wing nuts. Your judgmental statements and pretension to know the mind and preferences of god are what give religion such a bad name.
If you want to serve god, stop the hateful ranting, because YOU MAKE GOD LOOK REALLY REALLY BAD.
My first post to you started with "THANK YOU!" and went on to say that you actually answered the question based on something objectively demonstrable. How was that being a jerk?
Not interested. You think you know more than God, you are wrong. You ranted about a lot of jerky opinions you hold, and I've lost interest in reading your stuff.
You insult my intelligence, the first jerky thing you said was something like "your objective self-interest". You put yourself up there and give a long lecture using statistics which are designed to obscure the truth, laced with soft-pedaled insults against anybody who upholds objective morality or disagrees with your position and opinion, promoting yourself for not caring about sexual perversion between consenting adults...and then you pretend to be innocent and say "how was I being a jerk?"
The sad thing is that people who don't have a lot of common sense but do have enough intelligence to understand what you are saying will admire you for your eloquent style of putting down dissenting opinions and they will pick on on key points like "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" and think it is virtuous to turn a blind eye to perversion.
You are full of yourself, you pretty much do nothing but insult me and promote your personal self-righteousness. I could agree with you on some political things, but that is not the focus of my life as it seems to be yours....your focus seems to be "deny God and establish my own righteousness, in insult anybody who says God rules".
I'm not looking for nice conversation, I am speaking the truth and you don't like it so you won't like talking with me. You hate God and you love death and you think you are too good to deserve to be dying in the fire of Hell forever and you are wrong.
You feel like the things I am saying are hateful because I'm telling you that you are judged by God according to His law, you are guilty and worthy of the fire of Hell. You are trying to protect your sin, and that is why you feel the things I am saying are hateful. If I told you less than the truth, it would be apathetic which is hateful. I'm telling you the truth because I don't want you to burn in Hell, but you insist on defying God so I have to believe you will wake up in Hell and there is nothing I can do about it. Holding your hand and having a nice conversation with you is not going to do you any good while you have one foot in the grave and the other on thin ice melting over the fire of Hell.