Gay Group Protest Palin Pick

[BloodEclipse]

Sarge, you made the point about "forcing elementary age schoolchildren to learn about it". If they weren't going to learn about it anyway, I'd agree completely.

Government needs to stay out of it. I don't think having "Johnny has two Daddies" forced upon grades schools is what we have government for. Has anyone ever wrote a book "Johnny has a Mom and a Dad".

How does sexual orientation make for a minority or protected group? All this group politics crap is just a way to divide us as a nation. It does nothing except to point out the fact that if you belong to this group you are different and if you support the group, they think it is because they are special.

The slippery slope then becomes, if you can marry someone from the same sex, why not be allowed to marry your dog? If those in that community see it work for the LGBT's and they follow the same path, can they not achieve the same result?

One of the biggest supporters of these types of laws is NAMBL (North American Man Boy Love Association) because it is just a foot in the door and we all know where they want to go next.

So is it possible that we could one day protect pedophiles as a group because after all we are making laws supporting a freedom of sexual orientation.

 

[4sarge]

Government needs to stay out of it. I don't think having "Johnny has two Daddies" forced upon grades schools is what we have government for. Has anyone ever wrote a book "Johnny has a Mom and a Dad".

How does sexual orientation make for a minority or protected group? All this group politics crap is just a way to divide us as a nation. It does nothing except to point out the fact that if you belong to this group you are different and if you support the group, they think it is because they are special.

The slippery slope then becomes, if you can marry someone from the same sex, why not be allowed to marry your dog? If those in that community see it work for the LGBT's and they follow the same path, can they not achieve the same result?

One of the biggest supporters of these types of laws is NAMBL (North American Man Boy Love Association) because it is just a foot in the door and we all know where they want to go next.

So is it possible that we could one day protect pedophiles as a group because after all we are making laws supporting a freedom of sexual orientation.

Great Post +1

 

[Episcopus]

Yes, I know people can marry in a courthouse,
there are some churches on the west coast that have
performed these ceremonies and some
on the east coast are contemplating it.

My point is two-fold:

1) I want to know which churches are marrying same-sex couples,
so that I can stay clear of that denomination.

2) I predict a backlash when the fundamental churches refuse to marry a same-sex couple when/if it becomes legal everywhere?
Will it be a hate crime?

1) Fair enough

2) There may be a backlash, but I doubt it will ever be a crime to refuse to marry someone. It is a free speech/freedom of association issue. A lot of churches already refuse to marry non-members or divorcees. That wouldn't change. The church ceremony is just a ceremonial commitment in the eyes of God. The ceremony in a church isn't what gets you the benefits that the GLBT community is after. The marriage license and sanctioning by a government gets those things.

 

[Episcopus]

Government needs to stay out of it. I don't think having "Johnny has two Daddies" forced upon grades schools is what we have government for. Has anyone ever wrote a book "Johnny has a Mom and a Dad".

How does sexual orientation make for a minority or protected group? All this group politics crap is just a way to divide us as a nation. It does nothing except to point out the fact that if you belong to this group you are different and if you support the group, they think it is because they are special.

The slippery slope then becomes, if you can marry someone from the same sex, why not be allowed to marry your dog? If those in that community see it work for the LGBT's and they follow the same path, can they not achieve the same result?

One of the biggest supporters of these types of laws is NAMBL (North American Man Boy Love Association) because it is just a foot in the door and we all know where they want to go next.

So is it possible that we could one day protect pedophiles as a group because after all we are making laws supporting a freedom of sexual orientation.

I agree on the government point.

I disagree on the slippery slope point. No one will be able to marry their dog. Dog's are not human and have no ability to enter into a contract. A governmentally recognized marriage is a contract. Minors can already be married in plenty of places, all it takes is parental consent. Why should that be different if an adult and minor of the same sex want to marry? Pedophilia is already a crime, and would still be a crime, with an exception for legally married couples just like now.

As far as protection as a minorty or protected group goes, it depends on whether you feel sexual orientation is a choice or a hardwired biological process. If it is a choice, no protection. If it is biological, it should probably be protected. You can't choose to be black, asian, native american or any other race. You can't choose whether you are born a woman. That's the point of protection for those groups. If you can't choose to be gay/not gay, then there is basis for protection of gays.

 

[Justus]

2) There may be a backlash, but I doubt it will ever be a crime to refuse to marry someone.

Only time will tell.....I hope it never comes to that.

 

[4sarge]

As far as protection as a minority or protected group goes, it depends on whether you feel sexual orientation is a choice or a hardwired biological process. If it is a choice, no protection. If it is biological, it should probably be protected. You can't choose to be black, asian, native american or any other race. You can't choose whether you are born a woman. That's the point of protection for those groups. If you can't choose to be gay/not gay, then there is basis for protection of gays.

I could not disagree with you more. The law should provide Equal Protection for All, Not Special Protection for Government Legislated Select Groups. Battery is Battery, Murder is Murder, prosecute for the crime actually committed and apply the same criteria to all.

 

[Coach]

If Schafley is happy and the gay groups are not I need no further confirmation that Palin was a great choice.

 

[Episcopus]

Battery is Battery

Except when it is committed against an LEO, an employee of a penal facility or juvenile detention center, a firefighter. Or when it causes injury to an LEO, an employee of a penal facility or juvenile detention center, a firefighter, a person under 14 if committed by one over 18, a mentally or physically disabled person if done by someone with care of that person, an employee of a school corp, or a health care provider. Special classes exist to protect people who are more at risk or who need more protection.

In theory, I agree with you. Everyone should be the same. In practice, not everyone is the same and different groups of people sometimes need different or extra protections.

 

[CarmelHP]

This is a diversion. The president doesn't write state marriage laws. Palin and McCain said nothing about gay marriage in this race. These are Obama troopers sent out to weep and moan and cause confusion.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I agree on the government point.

I disagree on the slippery slope point. No one will be able to marry their dog. Dog's are not human and have no ability to enter into a contract. A governmentally recognized marriage is a contract. Minors can already be married in plenty of places, all it takes is parental consent. Why should that be different if an adult and minor of the same sex want to marry? Pedophilia is already a crime, and would still be a crime, with an exception for legally married couples just like now.

As far as protection as a minorty or protected group goes, it depends on whether you feel sexual orientation is a choice or a hardwired biological process. If it is a choice, no protection. If it is biological, it should probably be protected. You can't choose to be black, asian, native american or any other race. You can't choose whether you are born a woman. That's the point of protection for those groups. If you can't choose to be gay/not gay, then there is basis for protection of gays.

I could not disagree with you more. The law should provide Equal Protection for All, Not Special Protection for Government Legislated Select Groups. Battery is Battery, Murder is Murder, prosecute for the crime actually committed and apply the same criteria to all.

While, as does Episcopus, I agree with Sarge that law should provide equal protection for all equally, we aren't so much talking about protection from criminal acts as we are protection from discriminatory acts. There are Constitutional Amendments that provide that it is unlawful to prevent someone from voting (for example) on basis of color (and/or previous condition of servitude), gender, and age greater than 18. I don't think these are "special protections" but rather laws written to address discriminatory acts already happening. A law or a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as solely between one male and one female and excluding other groups could be seen as a special protection for heterosexual couples, entitling them exclusively to certain benefits unavailable to other members of society. What it comes down to is that if we are talking about consenting adult humans, (for dogs cannot give consent, nor can children, legally), there should be no restriction upon who can marry whom. Yes, that includes incestuous relationships, BUT along with that freedom goes the responsibility to provide for any child of that relationship, including one with special needs, because while it is your freedom, it is also emphatically NOT society's responsibility to care for your offspring who still needs to be spoon-fed at the age of 12.

I don't expect government to meet my needs. I don't agree with being taxed BY government to meet the wants (not needs) of others who choose to milk the system for all it's worth. That government which governs least, governs best, IMHO, and there are damn few laws on the books that are truly needed for a free society whose members are truly and personally responsible.

CarmelHP, you're correct, the GOP candidates have not, to date, addressed the issues of the gay community. Be that as it may, if the Obama troops are trying to sow discontent, let them. We may disagree within our community, but at the end of the day, we still respect each other and a difference of opinion such as this will not make me any less willing to share a foxhole with someone like Sarge or Episcopus-or any of several others on this BB.



Blessings,
B

 

[Episcopus]

share a foxhole with someone like Sarge or Episcopus-or any of several others on this BB.



Blessings,
B

Are you hitting on me?

 

[Cwood]

Are you hitting on me?

I dont wanna know! I DONT WANNA KNOW!!!!!!

 

[Bill of Rights]

Are you hitting on me?

Unless you're female, you're not my type.

Blessings,
B

 

[4sarge]

Except when it is committed against an LEO, an employee of a penal facility or juvenile detention center, a firefighter. Or when it causes injury to an LEO, an employee of a penal facility or juvenile detention center, a firefighter, a person under 14 if committed by one over 18, a mentally or physically disabled person if done by someone with care of that person, an employee of a school corp, or a health care provider. Special classes exist to protect people who are more at risk or who need more protection.

In theory, I agree with you. Everyone should be the same. In practice, not everyone is the same and different groups of people sometimes need different or extra protections.

The groups that you first listed are public service "Job Related" NOT Lifestyle or sexual preference related - Big Difference in my book. Should alcoholics or drug users be a "Protected Class"? Where do we draw the line?

 

[Episcopus]

Where do we draw the line?

Exactly. I don't know either. I truly think it depends on whether you think sexual preference is a choice or a biological function. I don't know the answer to that, either. It will take far better scientists than me to determine it.

 

[rjwin1967]

I don't believe the gay groups have anything to worry about. She can't deny gay marriages by herself and there's certainly not enough support in the legislature to do anything. This country has much more important issues anyway. If gays want to marry, who cares? If that entitles their partners to employee health insurance, so what? I don't deny them their rights and I expect them to leave mine alone as well. They can do what they want as long as they refrain from preaching to chldren that their lifestyle is normal. It is not normal. 2 mommys or 2 daddys is not normal.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Exactly. I don't know either. I truly think it depends on whether you think sexual preference is a choice or a biological function. I don't know the answer to that, either. It will take far better scientists than me to determine it.

Speaking strictly anecdotally, I can no more look at some guy's hairy ass and think it attractive than I can not find these NSFW pictures attractive.

So yeah, I think it's genetic.

Blessings,
B

 

[techres]

Speaking strictly anecdotally, I can no more look at some guy's hairy ass and think it attractive than I can not find these NSFW pictures attractive.

So yeah, I think it's genetic.

Blessings,
B

And I will fight for your rights to have access to those pics. I will even support you by looking myself whenever my wife is not around. Happy to take one for the bill of rights!

 

[Bill of Rights]

And I will fight for your rights to have access to those pics. I will even support you by looking myself whenever my wife is not around. Happy to take one for the bill of rights!

Your patriotism is noteworthy, sir, and I salute you!

Blessings,
B

 

[Episcopus]

And I will fight for your rights to have access to those pics. I will even support you by looking myself whenever my wife is not around. Happy to take one for the bill of rights!

NSFW means not safe for wife, right?