close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

First gay marriage, now polygamy; what next?

Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by Sam Spade, Sep 25, 2012.

  1. RC-RAMIE

    RC-RAMIE

    2,700
    1
    Mar 8, 2010
    Do I understand your argument correctly?

    Fl stand your ground laws has increased homicides in FL?

    Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
     
  2. Gunnut 45/454

    Gunnut 45/454

    12,129
    9
    Jun 20, 2002
    OctoberRust
    Again you turned back to Government control- and no you don't have a Civil right to marry! Marriage has been as will always be a Religious right! It was created in the Church. You can have the Government controled Civil Union but it's not a marriage! Can't have it both ways people one or the other! Why must the gay's have it called marriage? I'll tell you why cause society has given those truely married certian beneifits to being married! Married couples enjoin in shared property rights, monitary rights, equal descisions on raising children and certain tax, medical benifits! This is why the gays want the same treatment they want what normal people enjoy- theses are not civil rights! Cause there lifestyle is a choice - they choose to be the way they are. A chioce that deny's them the same lifestyle as straight married people .:whistling:
     


  3. jlavallee

    jlavallee

    788
    1
    Jul 15, 2006
    Reno, NV
    You hit the nail on the head with your "Not hype, but there is reason to fear." line. That is all it is, fear.

    You're talking about two different things and enacting the typical "endanger society" propaganda people use when they have no argument. In a civilized society we don't punish someone for something they've not done. We punish the crime (there has to be a victim) and not a contributing factor.

    If a person robs you for money to buy booze, that is not the fault of the booze, it is the fault of that person for that act. Do we ban sneakers because kids have killed others for their new Air Jordans?

    Balance is another way of you saying that you want to ban the freedoms that YOU don't like. Typical hard left / hard right logic or lack of it.
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2012
  4. Beware Owner

    Beware Owner NOT a victim.

    8,555
    0
    Oct 16, 2007
    Agreed.

    I don't think that "allowing" them to live a different lifestyle is an endorsement of it. Naming them a "protected class", hiring them in the name of "diversity", calling everyone who disagrees with them "hateful, bigoted, homophobes", criminalizing free speech in disagreement with the chosen lifestyle, telling kids in elementary and middle schools to experiment sexually with children of their own sex in their mandatory literature, having "gay recognition" day in schools, etc., THOSE are all endorsements of the lifestyle. They're gay, they live that way, nobody is not allowing them to be gay.

    Now, do you have any proof that anyone is born gay and that it ISN'T a choice? Nothing I've seen so far, including work done by gay scientists, proves that there ISN'T a choice involved. Not one scientific study shows with absolute certainty that it's something they can't help to do.

    Now, tell me, how are they not tolerated now? Don't confuse tolerance with acceptance, endorsement, or celebration.

    Did you know that homosexuality was on the DSM of the APA until it was strongarmed into taking their disorder off in 1972 by Barbara Gittings and her hooligans? She and others admit that the decision was NOT a medical one, but a political one. They basically intimidated the APA into saying they don't have problems (there are still psychiatrists who disagree with the decision, obviously) and then the domino effect took place with other medical associations, only in following of the APA, not because they had personally done any studies before changing their minds. There were no studies made to prove what doctors knew all along, they were basically told to forget what they knew in the name of politics and keep it moving. This was, and is, an insult to the procedures used to diagnose and discern disorders in a scientific way. Politics made their way into our mental health institutions, they can't be trusted to do the right thing anymore.

    Now gay pedophiles are using the same tactic to push forward what they now call "minor attraction" so they can legally have sex with our kids. Chicken hawks, anyone? Gays have a penchant with kids, ask the Catholic church, honest present day gays, and football players in Pennsylvania. I'm sure you won't have a problem with that "alternative lifestyle" when men can legally sodomize your 12 year old. Scare tactic? Call it what you want, it's in the works. B4U-Act, look it up.

    Now, this is the thing, homosexuality isn't a disorder that comes by itself, it brings others. Here and abroad, homosexuals have a much higher rate of drug abuse, emotional/physical/verbal abuse, antisocial personality disorders, STD's, suicidal/depressive tendencies, etc., than their straight counterparts. Their domestic violence rate is incredible, they call it the closet within the closet. No, stigma has nothing to do with it, they're just like this in the most gay friendly countries of the world. To say homosexuality is ok is to say that schizophrenia and manic depression is ok, nothing wrong with it. Hey, we should all praise schizophrenia and have schizophrenic parades around town. Let's celebrate it. Let's take them off of their meds and hire them in the name of diversity. Let's teach our kids that it's "normal" and an "alternative lifestyle". I mean, this IS America, after all. This is what we're doing with homosexuality, celebrating a disorder. That's how low we've come. We now call good bad and bad good.

    Now, if anyone cares for their country, or children, or simply in their right mind, say that people with this disorder (or any, for that matter) SHOULD be raising kids because it's better than a foster home? Are you serious? The homosexual lie has been repeated enough that many people believe it.
     
  5. jlavallee

    jlavallee

    788
    1
    Jul 15, 2006
    Reno, NV
    Yes, left handed people can choose to write with their right hand (as was forced in the middle ages) but that doesn't mean they're not disposed to a certian behavior.

    If you doubt this, answer me this. Did anyone have to teach you to be straight? I mean if all of society said you were supposed to be with a man, would you go along or are you wired to like women?

    If I went to prison and had to choose between a life of men or hanging myself, I'd be swinging. What society deems acceptable has zero to do with it.
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2012
  6. jlavallee

    jlavallee

    788
    1
    Jul 15, 2006
    Reno, NV
    You do understand that there is a BIG difference between consenting adults and children right?

    This is nothing more than bigoted fear mongering. Gays are all pedophiles... :faint:
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2012
  7. Beware Owner

    Beware Owner NOT a victim.

    8,555
    0
    Oct 16, 2007
    Well, homicides have increased since the law was passed, the law itself didn't become an entity and got into people's heads, making people kill others, if that's where you're going. :upeyes:

    I'd wonder why you carry a gun if you don't fear the moment your life would be put in danger by someone else. Those who carry do have that fear, and they have reason to fear. Yes, it is fear, but it is justified. What's your point? That we shouldn't do anything out of fear?

    IMHO, you don't seem to care about society. I may be wrong.

    Oh, I have an argument, there's plenty of proof that the homosexual lifestyle is nothing but a detriment to society.

    Anywhoo, why do we punish speeders if their isn't a victim? Why DO we jail someone for a joint if there is no victim? We treat drug "offenders" worse than murderers, I don't get it. Why do we punish drunk drivers when they haven't hurt anybody or caused some sort of property damage? Yes, we do punish victimless crimes all over the place. Don't even go there.

    Irrelevant.
     
  8. frank4570

    frank4570

    15,508
    7
    Jun 25, 2004
    I'm guessing he will say the only reason he didn't get frisky with men is the church told him it is wrong.
    The rest of us were born straight.
     
  9. Beware Owner

    Beware Owner NOT a victim.

    8,555
    0
    Oct 16, 2007
    It's not about doubt, it's that there is NO scientific proof that it's NOT a choice. There is NO proof that people are born gay, as they are born left handed, white, brown, black, man, woman, etc. Your body is wired, as a man, for women, and vice versa. If you don't know this, then your problems are bigger than anyone on this forum can help you with.

    Twin Studies--the strongest evidence
    http://www.mygenes.co.nz/PDFs/Ch10.pdf


    A little bit on their pathology:

    Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders
    Findings From the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study (NEMESIS)

    http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/58/1/85

    And you know to deal with the consecquences of your decision, would you not?

    I do understand the difference between two consenting adults and an adult and a non consenting child (if that's what you meant), but gays seem to like "consenting" children more than straights do. No, they're not ALL pedophiles, but there is a higher tendency within their population.... Why are homosexual child molestation rates disproportionately higher than heterosexual child molestation rates? Why would NAMBLA (a gay pedophilic organization) be pushing for B4U-Act? Why would schoolbooks such as Teacher: 1 in 10, Rainbow Boys, and Growing Up Gay/Growing Up Lesbian, ALL depict graphic sexual encounters between minors and adults? What are they trying to make our next generation believe? What fetish is it that they have with children?

    Bigoted. You guys make me laugh, no originality. It's like you're all taught to say the same things, as redundant and ill informed as it may be. :yawn:

    I wish this was studied more in depth, and I mean in a scientifically honest fashion. Have a little read:

    The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles among sex offenders against children: an exploratory study.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556756
     
  10. jlavallee

    jlavallee

    788
    1
    Jul 15, 2006
    Reno, NV
    My bible tells me how I can make others live their lives. Really, I'm not doing it for me, I'm doing it for society...:rofl:

    When you pull your head from your behind and realize that individual rights only give that individual the right to make decisions about themselves, we can start. :shocked:
     
  11. Beware Owner

    Beware Owner NOT a victim.

    8,555
    0
    Oct 16, 2007
    I don't care what you do with your Bible, really.

    When did I say anything to the contrary?

    Individuals can decide to do anything, nothing can stop that. You can choose to jump off of a bridge, band your head against a wall, put your eye out with a pencil. Go ahead, show me how you use your individual right to do as you please. Go on.

    However, it'd be ridiculous to say that what individuals that live in society with other individuals do doesn't affect others. Now, if you were a hermit in the woods, whatever you do really doesn't affect anyone else. As long as we live with other people, we will affect them in one way or another.
     
  12. jlavallee

    jlavallee

    788
    1
    Jul 15, 2006
    Reno, NV
    Are you saying that society has greater rights than an individual?

    The entire world down to the smallest form of life has an impact on it's environment. Your argument means nothing unless you're suggesting that group rights trump individual ones. Lets start there.
     
  13. OctoberRust

    OctoberRust Anti-Federalist

    5,668
    0
    Jun 15, 2011
    Texas

    With freedoms, comes dangers and responsibilities. Can you handle it?

    I'll take freedom over a nanny state any day of the week, even when it's for liberties like this that I do not participate in.

    It's not a matter of "balance", it's a matter of being a hypocrite and not truly standing for freedom. Which one are you?


    ETA - You seem so concerned with society and the protection of, let's ban guns right? I mean imagine how many lives we could save if we banned those evil guns..... I mean sure people will get stabbed but it'll be harder. We can always ban knives with sharp edges, most cooks say they just need knives for slicing. I mean that'd keep a murderer from murdering right?
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2012
  14. OctoberRust

    OctoberRust Anti-Federalist

    5,668
    0
    Jun 15, 2011
    Texas

    Gunnut, you misread my post buddy.

    I said keep the government out of ALL aspects of marriage.

    If Church A wants to marry gay couples, great!
    If Church B does NOT want to marry gay couples, great!

    it's simply not a government issue. Keep your nose out of their life, and in your own church (assuming you belong to a church).

    As far as married couples getting tax breaks and benefits, is a whole other discussion. just because you're married and I'm "single" does not mean you should get special privileged. No one is forcing you to get married. That's just as silly as affirmative action, and to be honest, it's government trying to model the behavior of the citizen through taxation.

    You're either for conservatism, and keeping the gov't out of people's business, and keeping taxes fair and low. Or you're not. As simple as that, even though neo-conservatives and RINOs don't want to hear it.
     
  15. Angry Fist

    Angry Fist The Original® Lifetime Member

    37,817
    5,386
    Dec 30, 2009
    Hellbilly Hill
    If it weren't for all them damn minority groups, the world would be a simpler place! :whistling:
     
  16. Beware Owner

    Beware Owner NOT a victim.

    8,555
    0
    Oct 16, 2007
    That's a broad brush you're painting the whole issue with. I'm saying that if you don't want to deal with society, remove yourself from it. There is a dynamic going on and, no, your "rights" are not unlimited.

    Why don't you start by responding to my whole post and not nit picking what you think is an exit, stage left?

    Once you have done that, my question to you is, do you believe that individuals have the right to do things that negatively affect society? Meaning, should we endorse and promote behaviors that are detrimental to whoever chooses to practice them? Should we now discard all the knowledge we have about how alcohol negatively affects heavy drinkers and now begin to promote binging? I mean, it's your individual right, let's celebrate your right to destroy yourself. As a matter of fact, let's have alcoholic parades just to see how many people OD in celebration. Yes, that's the american way. :upeyes:

    Any day of the week.

    If you wanted to be truly free, you'd be against driving licenses, taxes, police, the armed forces, the president, parental responsibility, in the end, you'd be an anarchist or part of the sovereign citizen group, are you?

    You're going off topic and, honestly, apples to oranges.
     
  17. OctoberRust

    OctoberRust Anti-Federalist

    5,668
    0
    Jun 15, 2011
    Texas

    Anarchy does not equate to freedom, it seems you're comparing apples to oranges now. There needs to be laws written (IE the BOR) to preserving individual's rights. How can you be free in an anarchy without someone dedicated to enforcing the law?

    I'm not even sure how you walked this topic over to the topic of anarchism vs a constitutional republic. You're making this more complicated than it really is. I'll give you a simple rule of thumb to follow, if you're truly for freedom.

    Government = protecting the individual's liberties, and bringing justice to those who harm others.

    Some actions that harm - Rape, Murder, Theft, Fraud, all carry a victim.

    Gay sex between two or more consenting adults does not carry a victim, it may offend someone, but being offended is a given in a free society, and one must have thicker skin, or move to a nanny state.

    Another action that does not carry a victim is owning a gun. Whatever gun that may be, from a fully automatic AK-47 to a musket, does NOT carry a victim. In fact this one is written in the constitution itself since it can serve as a check and balance to the gov't. This does not carry a victim, therefor in a free society, it should not be regulated.

    Another action that does not carry a victim would be using alcohol or drugs. You can argue one using alcohol that gets abusive or doesn't feed their children because of their habbits carries a victim, but as we know, that's child abuse/neglect, and there's already a law against that. Enforce that law that protects victims, instead of a law that just chips away at our freedoms!


    Bewareowner, the list could go on. I'm not sure if you're just being obtuse at this point, or what. If you're not for a gov't that protects the individual's rights, you can just come out and say it, instead of comparing liberty to anarchism, which again is apples to oranges. You certainly wouldn't be the first person on GT that is bothered by people having the right to do whatever, as long as their actions do not carry a victim.


    Feel good laws that supposedly "prevent" crime from happening such as gun laws, drug laws, or laws against homosexuality/poly marriage has no place in a truly free society.


    PS - wouldn't you think your avatar (the gadsden flag) represents the very thing I, and others are saying? It's a simple message usually presented to the gov't saying "DON'T TREAD ON ME". That should also apply with you toward other individuals. If homosexuals are doing their thing and aren't molesting/touching you/your loved ones/ANYONE, you shouldn't have an issue with it. Once they TREAD on you, then you,I, everyone should have a problem, and that's when the rattler strikes.
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2012
  18. jlavallee

    jlavallee

    788
    1
    Jul 15, 2006
    Reno, NV
    No, it's not a broad brush. Society is made up of individuals and if you want to live a certian way then YOU are free to form a group on private land and live as you choose. Otherwise, mind your business. My right and that of others to be left alone as long as I'm not doing harm to others is basic and I will defend it from ignorant bigots like you.

    You are free to hate who you want as is anyone else but don't push your narrow minded views on anyone else. Spew your hate all you want but if you act on it to limit someone else's freedom, they have every right to defend themselves.

    You are no better than a liberal. You want it your way and nobody else's freedoms matter.
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2012
  19. QNman

    QNman resU deretsigeR Silver Member

    9,964
    418
    Oct 5, 2005
    St. Louis, MO
    This.... Well stated, sir. I am married and I take advantage of the perks afforded me; but it is stupid that the fed.gov is still in the marriage business.

    Short form contract between two (or more) consenting adults should be all that is required, just as it is in any other business transaction.
     
  20. OctoberRust

    OctoberRust Anti-Federalist

    5,668
    0
    Jun 15, 2011
    Texas

    Thanks, and exactly.....

    Sometimes, I feel like I'm repeating myself over and over, and have to type the same thing to these guys over.

    I'm not sure if they're being obtuse, or what. I'm giving them the benifit of the doubt though, and still think they can learn from this. It's scary to think how people accept just a "little more" gov't into their lives, or the lives of others each day.

    As they say, you give the government an inch, and they'll take a mile. I'd think that all these supposed "conservatives" on here would know the dangers of too much gov't, and to keep it contrained with the chains of the constitution.