alright! niceOldbear83 said:What scientists sometimes call the Bimbosity.J.R. said:don't forget lady-lady friends.LIB,MR BEARS said:J.R. said:hold on mr. So, you are conflating gay marriage to "child grooming". WTH? I know a lot of married gay folk who have normal lives and children just like most of us. However, to conflate those two are just wrong. Many gay couples I know (men and women) have a hell of a lot better relationship than many "happy families doing the lords work are". Don't buy the hype. I'm sure grooming happens in some remote attempts, but that is an entirely different animal than being married to the same sex. We call that effing perversion where I come from. My gay friends don't deal in any of that.ATL Bear said:Freedoms weren't denied. Access to a subsidy, which was established for very specific purposes of binding families together, specifically parents and children, and to promote a nuclear family structure, is what was "denied". That was gradually eaten away not by gay marriage, but by easy divorce. Gay marriage was just the coup de gras or throwing in the towel on the subsidy. Once anti sodomy laws and related private behavior restrictions were done away with (rightly so), the freedom of homosexuality and the homosexual lifestyle were protected.Porteroso said:ATL Bear said:It's the same slope. When you legitimized homosexual behavior as a normal part of social and cultural mores, this is the progression that occurs. We didn't establish gay marriage for the same reasons we established traditional marriage.. And that break in the social contract delegitimized the reason for government subsidized marriage.Porteroso said:ATL Bear said:Because a slope has a directional progression.Porteroso said:
A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?
These are 2 separate slopes though. Rights for adults, versus society grooming children.
What we champion in culture will influence and push the boundaries of the acceptable at every turn. Sometimes that's a force for good and sometimes it has unintended consequences. So if you can't see how embracing the homosexual lifestyle could lead to this, as well as the current insane perspectives on transgenderism, I'm not sure what to tell you. We don't get to here without having crossed the gay marriage threshold then,
Wait who established traditional marriage? Can you explain your view of that? How government gradually recognized it is a sort of establishment, but the government did not begin the institution of marriage for any given purpose.
Not that its worth arguing. I'm not embracing the homosexual lifestyle, because I'm not gay. I am however embracing the American lifestyle, because I love me some freedom. In the end all you want is to deny others freedom because you think you're right on the social issues. You even might be! But the government's job is not to be right on social issues.
You know how ridiculous your post is, I can tell. You are grasping hard to equate child groomers with homosexuals.
What you're conflating to freedom is simply ideas and expressions of opposing thought. As I've said many times, the challenge of free societies is to have the freedom to do something but the restraint to contain harm. That crosses all types of freedoms, economic, social, behavioral, etc. There's nothing ridiculous about the negative social impact of familial decline and the fracturing of social relationships. You know there's a relationship to the normalization of homosexual behavior and where we are today with the movement. The same organizations that pushed for same sex marriage are the same ones defending the trans movement and activities like drag queen story hour.
Gay marriage (subsidized, because it wasn't illegal even before) was the most legitimizing action taken by government which didn't change any behavioral freedom, only the amount of government money committed to it. It is literally a statement of we want to promote this behavior. Because the government promotes all sorts of behaviors it views as supporting impact on societal issues. Not sure how you don't realize that. From subsidies for electric cars and solar panels, to charitable contribution deductions, to marital tax benefits.
And grooming started long before we got to this point. When something moves from a more cultural taboo to accepted you will see a social shift. It's happened with things like premarital sex, divorce, pornography, etc. with real negative impacts. This is just one more along the away, and proving human nature struggles with restraint in free societies.
I am against the restriction of private behavior. I am also against what we are prioritizing as culturally important, especially as we move toward protected classes of those behaviors, which ironically creates government restriction on other private behavior.
I started the thread. The "agenda" has certainly been in the direction of anything goes perversion.
It started with "we just want to marry who we want" which required redefining marriage. It has moved to encouragement of trans for kids. No pun intended but the feelers are already out for pedo normalization.
In a few years, you'll be able to talk about how your man-boy friends a such good people.
They said "Let us marry who we want"
22,827 Views |
227 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by whitetrash
No it does not "legitimatize the progression." For liberals and conservatives we all adhere to a moral code about power within relationships. No one with moral comp condones power that has the ability of one person to exert control and influence within a relationshipATL Bear said:It's a progression not a next step. We are not here today if we didn't cross the bridge then. That doesn't make all homosexuals groomers, it simply legitimizes the progression to extreme behaviors.J.R. said:hold on mr. So, you are conflating gay marriage to "child grooming". WTH? I know a lot of married gay folk who have normal lives and children just like most of us. However, to conflate those two are just wrong. Many gay couples I know (men and women) have a hell of a lot better relationship than many "happy families doing the lords work are". Don't buy the hype. I'm sure grooming happens in some remote attempts, but that is an entirely different animal than being married to the same sex. We call that effing perversion where I come from. My gay friends don't deal in any of that.ATL Bear said:Freedoms weren't denied. Access to a subsidy, which was established for very specific purposes of binding families together, specifically parents and children, and to promote a nuclear family structure, is what was "denied". That was gradually eaten away not by gay marriage, but by easy divorce. Gay marriage was just the coup de gras or throwing in the towel on the subsidy. Once anti sodomy laws and related private behavior restrictions were done away with (rightly so), the freedom of homosexuality and the homosexual lifestyle were protected.Porteroso said:ATL Bear said:It's the same slope. When you legitimized homosexual behavior as a normal part of social and cultural mores, this is the progression that occurs. We didn't establish gay marriage for the same reasons we established traditional marriage.. And that break in the social contract delegitimized the reason for government subsidized marriage.Porteroso said:ATL Bear said:Because a slope has a directional progression.Porteroso said:
A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?
These are 2 separate slopes though. Rights for adults, versus society grooming children.
What we champion in culture will influence and push the boundaries of the acceptable at every turn. Sometimes that's a force for good and sometimes it has unintended consequences. So if you can't see how embracing the homosexual lifestyle could lead to this, as well as the current insane perspectives on transgenderism, I'm not sure what to tell you. We don't get to here without having crossed the gay marriage threshold then,
Wait who established traditional marriage? Can you explain your view of that? How government gradually recognized it is a sort of establishment, but the government did not begin the institution of marriage for any given purpose.
Not that its worth arguing. I'm not embracing the homosexual lifestyle, because I'm not gay. I am however embracing the American lifestyle, because I love me some freedom. In the end all you want is to deny others freedom because you think you're right on the social issues. You even might be! But the government's job is not to be right on social issues.
You know how ridiculous your post is, I can tell. You are grasping hard to equate child groomers with homosexuals.
What you're conflating to freedom is simply ideas and expressions of opposing thought. As I've said many times, the challenge of free societies is to have the freedom to do something but the restraint to contain harm. That crosses all types of freedoms, economic, social, behavioral, etc. There's nothing ridiculous about the negative social impact of familial decline and the fracturing of social relationships. You know there's a relationship to the normalization of homosexual behavior and where we are today with the movement. The same organizations that pushed for same sex marriage are the same ones defending the trans movement and activities like drag queen story hour.
Gay marriage (subsidized, because it wasn't illegal even before) was the most legitimizing action taken by government which didn't change any behavioral freedom, only the amount of government money committed to it. It is literally a statement of we want to promote this behavior. Because the government promotes all sorts of behaviors it views as supporting impact on societal issues. Not sure how you don't realize that. From subsidies for electric cars and solar panels, to charitable contribution deductions, to marital tax benefits.
And grooming started long before we got to this point. When something moves from a more cultural taboo to accepted you will see a social shift. It's happened with things like premarital sex, divorce, pornography, etc. with real negative impacts. This is just one more along the away, and proving human nature struggles with restraint in free societies.
I am against the restriction of private behavior. I am also against what we are prioritizing as culturally important, especially as we move toward protected classes of those behaviors, which ironically creates government restriction on other private behavior.
Waco1947 ,la
So you do not think a doctor or teacher should control or influence a child to believe that they're transexual?Waco1947 said:No it does not "legitimatize the progression." For liberals and conservatives we all adhere to a moral code about power within relationships. No one with moral comp condones power that has the ability of one person to exert control and influence within a relationshipATL Bear said:It's a progression not a next step. We are not here today if we didn't cross the bridge then. That doesn't make all homosexuals groomers, it simply legitimizes the progression to extreme behaviors.J.R. said:hold on mr. So, you are conflating gay marriage to "child grooming". WTH? I know a lot of married gay folk who have normal lives and children just like most of us. However, to conflate those two are just wrong. Many gay couples I know (men and women) have a hell of a lot better relationship than many "happy families doing the lords work are". Don't buy the hype. I'm sure grooming happens in some remote attempts, but that is an entirely different animal than being married to the same sex. We call that effing perversion where I come from. My gay friends don't deal in any of that.ATL Bear said:Freedoms weren't denied. Access to a subsidy, which was established for very specific purposes of binding families together, specifically parents and children, and to promote a nuclear family structure, is what was "denied". That was gradually eaten away not by gay marriage, but by easy divorce. Gay marriage was just the coup de gras or throwing in the towel on the subsidy. Once anti sodomy laws and related private behavior restrictions were done away with (rightly so), the freedom of homosexuality and the homosexual lifestyle were protected.Porteroso said:ATL Bear said:It's the same slope. When you legitimized homosexual behavior as a normal part of social and cultural mores, this is the progression that occurs. We didn't establish gay marriage for the same reasons we established traditional marriage.. And that break in the social contract delegitimized the reason for government subsidized marriage.Porteroso said:ATL Bear said:Because a slope has a directional progression.Porteroso said:
A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?
These are 2 separate slopes though. Rights for adults, versus society grooming children.
What we champion in culture will influence and push the boundaries of the acceptable at every turn. Sometimes that's a force for good and sometimes it has unintended consequences. So if you can't see how embracing the homosexual lifestyle could lead to this, as well as the current insane perspectives on transgenderism, I'm not sure what to tell you. We don't get to here without having crossed the gay marriage threshold then,
Wait who established traditional marriage? Can you explain your view of that? How government gradually recognized it is a sort of establishment, but the government did not begin the institution of marriage for any given purpose.
Not that its worth arguing. I'm not embracing the homosexual lifestyle, because I'm not gay. I am however embracing the American lifestyle, because I love me some freedom. In the end all you want is to deny others freedom because you think you're right on the social issues. You even might be! But the government's job is not to be right on social issues.
You know how ridiculous your post is, I can tell. You are grasping hard to equate child groomers with homosexuals.
What you're conflating to freedom is simply ideas and expressions of opposing thought. As I've said many times, the challenge of free societies is to have the freedom to do something but the restraint to contain harm. That crosses all types of freedoms, economic, social, behavioral, etc. There's nothing ridiculous about the negative social impact of familial decline and the fracturing of social relationships. You know there's a relationship to the normalization of homosexual behavior and where we are today with the movement. The same organizations that pushed for same sex marriage are the same ones defending the trans movement and activities like drag queen story hour.
Gay marriage (subsidized, because it wasn't illegal even before) was the most legitimizing action taken by government which didn't change any behavioral freedom, only the amount of government money committed to it. It is literally a statement of we want to promote this behavior. Because the government promotes all sorts of behaviors it views as supporting impact on societal issues. Not sure how you don't realize that. From subsidies for electric cars and solar panels, to charitable contribution deductions, to marital tax benefits.
And grooming started long before we got to this point. When something moves from a more cultural taboo to accepted you will see a social shift. It's happened with things like premarital sex, divorce, pornography, etc. with real negative impacts. This is just one more along the away, and proving human nature struggles with restraint in free societies.
I am against the restriction of private behavior. I am also against what we are prioritizing as culturally important, especially as we move toward protected classes of those behaviors, which ironically creates government restriction on other private behavior.
Harrison Bergeron said:So you do not think a doctor or teacher should control or influence a child to believe that they're transexual?Waco1947 said:No it does not "legitimatize the progression." For liberals and conservatives we all adhere to a moral code about power within relationships. No one with moral comp condones power that has the ability of one person to exert control and influence within a relationshipATL Bear said:It's a progression not a next step. We are not here today if we didn't cross the bridge then. That doesn't make all homosexuals groomers, it simply legitimizes the progression to extreme behaviors.J.R. said:hold on mr. So, you are conflating gay marriage to "child grooming". WTH? I know a lot of married gay folk who have normal lives and children just like most of us. However, to conflate those two are just wrong. Many gay couples I know (men and women) have a hell of a lot better relationship than many "happy families doing the lords work are". Don't buy the hype. I'm sure grooming happens in some remote attempts, but that is an entirely different animal than being married to the same sex. We call that effing perversion where I come from. My gay friends don't deal in any of that.ATL Bear said:Freedoms weren't denied. Access to a subsidy, which was established for very specific purposes of binding families together, specifically parents and children, and to promote a nuclear family structure, is what was "denied". That was gradually eaten away not by gay marriage, but by easy divorce. Gay marriage was just the coup de gras or throwing in the towel on the subsidy. Once anti sodomy laws and related private behavior restrictions were done away with (rightly so), the freedom of homosexuality and the homosexual lifestyle were protected.Porteroso said:ATL Bear said:It's the same slope. When you legitimized homosexual behavior as a normal part of social and cultural mores, this is the progression that occurs. We didn't establish gay marriage for the same reasons we established traditional marriage.. And that break in the social contract delegitimized the reason for government subsidized marriage.Porteroso said:ATL Bear said:Because a slope has a directional progression.Porteroso said:
A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?
These are 2 separate slopes though. Rights for adults, versus society grooming children.
What we champion in culture will influence and push the boundaries of the acceptable at every turn. Sometimes that's a force for good and sometimes it has unintended consequences. So if you can't see how embracing the homosexual lifestyle could lead to this, as well as the current insane perspectives on transgenderism, I'm not sure what to tell you. We don't get to here without having crossed the gay marriage threshold then,
Wait who established traditional marriage? Can you explain your view of that? How government gradually recognized it is a sort of establishment, but the government did not begin the institution of marriage for any given purpose.
Not that its worth arguing. I'm not embracing the homosexual lifestyle, because I'm not gay. I am however embracing the American lifestyle, because I love me some freedom. In the end all you want is to deny others freedom because you think you're right on the social issues. You even might be! But the government's job is not to be right on social issues.
You know how ridiculous your post is, I can tell. You are grasping hard to equate child groomers with homosexuals.
What you're conflating to freedom is simply ideas and expressions of opposing thought. As I've said many times, the challenge of free societies is to have the freedom to do something but the restraint to contain harm. That crosses all types of freedoms, economic, social, behavioral, etc. There's nothing ridiculous about the negative social impact of familial decline and the fracturing of social relationships. You know there's a relationship to the normalization of homosexual behavior and where we are today with the movement. The same organizations that pushed for same sex marriage are the same ones defending the trans movement and activities like drag queen story hour.
Gay marriage (subsidized, because it wasn't illegal even before) was the most legitimizing action taken by government which didn't change any behavioral freedom, only the amount of government money committed to it. It is literally a statement of we want to promote this behavior. Because the government promotes all sorts of behaviors it views as supporting impact on societal issues. Not sure how you don't realize that. From subsidies for electric cars and solar panels, to charitable contribution deductions, to marital tax benefits.
And grooming started long before we got to this point. When something moves from a more cultural taboo to accepted you will see a social shift. It's happened with things like premarital sex, divorce, pornography, etc. with real negative impacts. This is just one more along the away, and proving human nature struggles with restraint in free societies.
I am against the restriction of private behavior. I am also against what we are prioritizing as culturally important, especially as we move toward protected classes of those behaviors, which ironically creates government restriction on other private behavior.
Exactly. You're going to give a kid the right to cut his balls off because he wants to be a girl but not decide whom to love?
just letting you know that there are "extreme behaviors" in all walks of life...gay or straight. And if you don't think strait folk (more than you would think) engage in serious deviant behavior , then I don't know what to tell ya. I just stay in my own lane.ATL Bear said:It's a progression not a next step. We are not here today if we didn't cross the bridge then. That doesn't make all homosexuals groomers, it simply legitimizes the progression to extreme behaviors.J.R. said:hold on mr. So, you are conflating gay marriage to "child grooming". WTH? I know a lot of married gay folk who have normal lives and children just like most of us. However, to conflate those two are just wrong. Many gay couples I know (men and women) have a hell of a lot better relationship than many "happy families doing the lords work are". Don't buy the hype. I'm sure grooming happens in some remote attempts, but that is an entirely different animal than being married to the same sex. We call that effing perversion where I come from. My gay friends don't deal in any of that.ATL Bear said:Freedoms weren't denied. Access to a subsidy, which was established for very specific purposes of binding families together, specifically parents and children, and to promote a nuclear family structure, is what was "denied". That was gradually eaten away not by gay marriage, but by easy divorce. Gay marriage was just the coup de gras or throwing in the towel on the subsidy. Once anti sodomy laws and related private behavior restrictions were done away with (rightly so), the freedom of homosexuality and the homosexual lifestyle were protected.Porteroso said:ATL Bear said:It's the same slope. When you legitimized homosexual behavior as a normal part of social and cultural mores, this is the progression that occurs. We didn't establish gay marriage for the same reasons we established traditional marriage.. And that break in the social contract delegitimized the reason for government subsidized marriage.Porteroso said:ATL Bear said:Because a slope has a directional progression.Porteroso said:
A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?
These are 2 separate slopes though. Rights for adults, versus society grooming children.
What we champion in culture will influence and push the boundaries of the acceptable at every turn. Sometimes that's a force for good and sometimes it has unintended consequences. So if you can't see how embracing the homosexual lifestyle could lead to this, as well as the current insane perspectives on transgenderism, I'm not sure what to tell you. We don't get to here without having crossed the gay marriage threshold then,
Wait who established traditional marriage? Can you explain your view of that? How government gradually recognized it is a sort of establishment, but the government did not begin the institution of marriage for any given purpose.
Not that its worth arguing. I'm not embracing the homosexual lifestyle, because I'm not gay. I am however embracing the American lifestyle, because I love me some freedom. In the end all you want is to deny others freedom because you think you're right on the social issues. You even might be! But the government's job is not to be right on social issues.
You know how ridiculous your post is, I can tell. You are grasping hard to equate child groomers with homosexuals.
What you're conflating to freedom is simply ideas and expressions of opposing thought. As I've said many times, the challenge of free societies is to have the freedom to do something but the restraint to contain harm. That crosses all types of freedoms, economic, social, behavioral, etc. There's nothing ridiculous about the negative social impact of familial decline and the fracturing of social relationships. You know there's a relationship to the normalization of homosexual behavior and where we are today with the movement. The same organizations that pushed for same sex marriage are the same ones defending the trans movement and activities like drag queen story hour.
Gay marriage (subsidized, because it wasn't illegal even before) was the most legitimizing action taken by government which didn't change any behavioral freedom, only the amount of government money committed to it. It is literally a statement of we want to promote this behavior. Because the government promotes all sorts of behaviors it views as supporting impact on societal issues. Not sure how you don't realize that. From subsidies for electric cars and solar panels, to charitable contribution deductions, to marital tax benefits.
And grooming started long before we got to this point. When something moves from a more cultural taboo to accepted you will see a social shift. It's happened with things like premarital sex, divorce, pornography, etc. with real negative impacts. This is just one more along the away, and proving human nature struggles with restraint in free societies.
I am against the restriction of private behavior. I am also against what we are prioritizing as culturally important, especially as we move toward protected classes of those behaviors, which ironically creates government restriction on other private behavior.
Harrison Bergeron said:I think you've really missed the point. We moved at lightening speed from "stay out of our bedroom" to you must kneel before Zod and let your children get lap dances from trainies.Porteroso said:GrowlTowel said:Porteroso said:Harrison Bergeron said:Porteroso said:Harrison Bergeron said:Government's - in theory - should be utilitarian not psychologists. Governments have a cultural interest in incentivizing stable, child-producing marriages. Hence, that is why it got in the recognition of marriage business. Personally, I would get government out of it as marriage is a religious institution, but I respect the legal necessity for things like property rights, inheritance.Porteroso said:ATL Bear said:It's the same slope. When you legitimized homosexual behavior as a normal part of social and cultural mores, this is the progression that occurs. We didn't establish gay marriage for the same reasons we established traditional marriage.. And that break in the social contract delegitimized the reason for government subsidized marriage.Porteroso said:ATL Bear said:Because a slope has a directional progression.Porteroso said:
A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?
These are 2 separate slopes though. Rights for adults, versus society grooming children.
What we champion in culture will influence and push the boundaries of the acceptable at every turn. Sometimes that's a force for good and sometimes it has unintended consequences. So if you can't see how embracing the homosexual lifestyle could lead to this, as well as the current insane perspectives on transgenderism, I'm not sure what to tell you. We don't get to here without having crossed the gay marriage threshold then,
Wait who established traditional marriage? Can you explain your view of that? How government gradually recognized it is a sort of establishment, but the government did not begin the institution of marriage for any given purpose.
Not that its worth arguing. I'm not embracing the homosexual lifestyle, because I'm not gay. I am however embracing the American lifestyle, because I love me some freedom. In the end all you want is to deny others freedom because you think you're right on the social issues. You even might be! But the government's job is not to be right on social issues.
You know how ridiculous your post is, I can tell. You are grasping hard to equate child groomers with homosexuals.
Freedom has never been absolute. And I know you do not really "love you some freedom" as much as you love the freedom you love and don't love all freedom. Now, I apologize if that's personal but just an educated guess. Just like when others post "they don't want government in healthcare" really want government in healthcare just they want post-birth abortion.
I'm glad you apologized! You were right to do so, after such a wrong statement. One of my core political beliefs is that Americans spend far too much time trying to deny others the freedoms they themselves don't value.
I make a point to try to value anyone's perceived values even if I disagree. The fact that at first you were so terribly wrong just tells me you have this image of people built up in your mind, maybe call it a stereotype, and you expect me to fit neatly into it. But apology accepted, and no harm done.
Merry Christmas!
I honestly have no idea what you're trying to communicate.
Did you try reading? I can break it down for you if necessary.
You support butt sex. Pretty simple.
Part of not governing the bedroom, aka Murica and freedom, is explicitly not having strong opinions about others' bedroom activities. All it takes to want to tear down freedoms is a sincere belief that your way is the only right way. Your narrow mind is certainly simple.
You missed what I replied to. What consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms isn't comparable to what horrors adults put their kids through.
Porteroso said:Harrison Bergeron said:I think you've really missed the point. We moved at lightening speed from "stay out of our bedroom" to you must kneel before Zod and let your children get lap dances from trainies.Porteroso said:GrowlTowel said:Porteroso said:Harrison Bergeron said:Porteroso said:Harrison Bergeron said:Government's - in theory - should be utilitarian not psychologists. Governments have a cultural interest in incentivizing stable, child-producing marriages. Hence, that is why it got in the recognition of marriage business. Personally, I would get government out of it as marriage is a religious institution, but I respect the legal necessity for things like property rights, inheritance.Porteroso said:ATL Bear said:It's the same slope. When you legitimized homosexual behavior as a normal part of social and cultural mores, this is the progression that occurs. We didn't establish gay marriage for the same reasons we established traditional marriage.. And that break in the social contract delegitimized the reason for government subsidized marriage.Porteroso said:ATL Bear said:Because a slope has a directional progression.Porteroso said:
A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?
These are 2 separate slopes though. Rights for adults, versus society grooming children.
What we champion in culture will influence and push the boundaries of the acceptable at every turn. Sometimes that's a force for good and sometimes it has unintended consequences. So if you can't see how embracing the homosexual lifestyle could lead to this, as well as the current insane perspectives on transgenderism, I'm not sure what to tell you. We don't get to here without having crossed the gay marriage threshold then,
Wait who established traditional marriage? Can you explain your view of that? How government gradually recognized it is a sort of establishment, but the government did not begin the institution of marriage for any given purpose.
Not that its worth arguing. I'm not embracing the homosexual lifestyle, because I'm not gay. I am however embracing the American lifestyle, because I love me some freedom. In the end all you want is to deny others freedom because you think you're right on the social issues. You even might be! But the government's job is not to be right on social issues.
You know how ridiculous your post is, I can tell. You are grasping hard to equate child groomers with homosexuals.
Freedom has never been absolute. And I know you do not really "love you some freedom" as much as you love the freedom you love and don't love all freedom. Now, I apologize if that's personal but just an educated guess. Just like when others post "they don't want government in healthcare" really want government in healthcare just they want post-birth abortion.
I'm glad you apologized! You were right to do so, after such a wrong statement. One of my core political beliefs is that Americans spend far too much time trying to deny others the freedoms they themselves don't value.
I make a point to try to value anyone's perceived values even if I disagree. The fact that at first you were so terribly wrong just tells me you have this image of people built up in your mind, maybe call it a stereotype, and you expect me to fit neatly into it. But apology accepted, and no harm done.
Merry Christmas!
I honestly have no idea what you're trying to communicate.
Did you try reading? I can break it down for you if necessary.
You support butt sex. Pretty simple.
Part of not governing the bedroom, aka Murica and freedom, is explicitly not having strong opinions about others' bedroom activities. All it takes to want to tear down freedoms is a sincere belief that your way is the only right way. Your narrow mind is certainly simple.
You missed what I replied to. What consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms isn't comparable to what horrors adults put their kids through.
Well, you and I may call it "horrors," but who are you and I to say?
D. C. Bear said:Porteroso said:Harrison Bergeron said:I think you've really missed the point. We moved at lightening speed from "stay out of our bedroom" to you must kneel before Zod and let your children get lap dances from trainies.Porteroso said:GrowlTowel said:Porteroso said:Harrison Bergeron said:Porteroso said:Harrison Bergeron said:Government's - in theory - should be utilitarian not psychologists. Governments have a cultural interest in incentivizing stable, child-producing marriages. Hence, that is why it got in the recognition of marriage business. Personally, I would get government out of it as marriage is a religious institution, but I respect the legal necessity for things like property rights, inheritance.Porteroso said:ATL Bear said:It's the same slope. When you legitimized homosexual behavior as a normal part of social and cultural mores, this is the progression that occurs. We didn't establish gay marriage for the same reasons we established traditional marriage.. And that break in the social contract delegitimized the reason for government subsidized marriage.Porteroso said:ATL Bear said:Because a slope has a directional progression.Porteroso said:
A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?
These are 2 separate slopes though. Rights for adults, versus society grooming children.
What we champion in culture will influence and push the boundaries of the acceptable at every turn. Sometimes that's a force for good and sometimes it has unintended consequences. So if you can't see how embracing the homosexual lifestyle could lead to this, as well as the current insane perspectives on transgenderism, I'm not sure what to tell you. We don't get to here without having crossed the gay marriage threshold then,
Wait who established traditional marriage? Can you explain your view of that? How government gradually recognized it is a sort of establishment, but the government did not begin the institution of marriage for any given purpose.
Not that its worth arguing. I'm not embracing the homosexual lifestyle, because I'm not gay. I am however embracing the American lifestyle, because I love me some freedom. In the end all you want is to deny others freedom because you think you're right on the social issues. You even might be! But the government's job is not to be right on social issues.
You know how ridiculous your post is, I can tell. You are grasping hard to equate child groomers with homosexuals.
Freedom has never been absolute. And I know you do not really "love you some freedom" as much as you love the freedom you love and don't love all freedom. Now, I apologize if that's personal but just an educated guess. Just like when others post "they don't want government in healthcare" really want government in healthcare just they want post-birth abortion.
I'm glad you apologized! You were right to do so, after such a wrong statement. One of my core political beliefs is that Americans spend far too much time trying to deny others the freedoms they themselves don't value.
I make a point to try to value anyone's perceived values even if I disagree. The fact that at first you were so terribly wrong just tells me you have this image of people built up in your mind, maybe call it a stereotype, and you expect me to fit neatly into it. But apology accepted, and no harm done.
Merry Christmas!
I honestly have no idea what you're trying to communicate.
Did you try reading? I can break it down for you if necessary.
You support butt sex. Pretty simple.
Part of not governing the bedroom, aka Murica and freedom, is explicitly not having strong opinions about others' bedroom activities. All it takes to want to tear down freedoms is a sincere belief that your way is the only right way. Your narrow mind is certainly simple.
You missed what I replied to. What consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms isn't comparable to what horrors adults put their kids through.
Well, you and I may call it "horrors," but who are you and I to say?
True, I think they're horrible and someone else thinks lovely. But objectively they are explicitly sexual in a way that one needs to be mature enough to discern/digest for themselves. Aka not appropriate for all ages. Maybe we need a scientific study on that.
You're absolutely right about those extreme behaviors being both heterosexual and homosexual. In fact, it is my contention that the heterosexual community is the culprit that led the way to the "anything goes" acceptance of a wide range of destructive and deviant behaviors which have resulted in so many broken families, relationships, wedlock children, sexual crimes, and torn at the social fabric of society.J.R. said:just letting you know that there are "extreme behaviors" in all walks of life...gay or straight. And if you don't think strait folk (more than you would think) engage in serious deviant behavior , then I don't know what to tell ya. I just stay in my own lane.ATL Bear said:It's a progression not a next step. We are not here today if we didn't cross the bridge then. That doesn't make all homosexuals groomers, it simply legitimizes the progression to extreme behaviors.J.R. said:hold on mr. So, you are conflating gay marriage to "child grooming". WTH? I know a lot of married gay folk who have normal lives and children just like most of us. However, to conflate those two are just wrong. Many gay couples I know (men and women) have a hell of a lot better relationship than many "happy families doing the lords work are". Don't buy the hype. I'm sure grooming happens in some remote attempts, but that is an entirely different animal than being married to the same sex. We call that effing perversion where I come from. My gay friends don't deal in any of that.ATL Bear said:Freedoms weren't denied. Access to a subsidy, which was established for very specific purposes of binding families together, specifically parents and children, and to promote a nuclear family structure, is what was "denied". That was gradually eaten away not by gay marriage, but by easy divorce. Gay marriage was just the coup de gras or throwing in the towel on the subsidy. Once anti sodomy laws and related private behavior restrictions were done away with (rightly so), the freedom of homosexuality and the homosexual lifestyle were protected.Porteroso said:ATL Bear said:It's the same slope. When you legitimized homosexual behavior as a normal part of social and cultural mores, this is the progression that occurs. We didn't establish gay marriage for the same reasons we established traditional marriage.. And that break in the social contract delegitimized the reason for government subsidized marriage.Porteroso said:ATL Bear said:Because a slope has a directional progression.Porteroso said:
A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?
These are 2 separate slopes though. Rights for adults, versus society grooming children.
What we champion in culture will influence and push the boundaries of the acceptable at every turn. Sometimes that's a force for good and sometimes it has unintended consequences. So if you can't see how embracing the homosexual lifestyle could lead to this, as well as the current insane perspectives on transgenderism, I'm not sure what to tell you. We don't get to here without having crossed the gay marriage threshold then,
Wait who established traditional marriage? Can you explain your view of that? How government gradually recognized it is a sort of establishment, but the government did not begin the institution of marriage for any given purpose.
Not that its worth arguing. I'm not embracing the homosexual lifestyle, because I'm not gay. I am however embracing the American lifestyle, because I love me some freedom. In the end all you want is to deny others freedom because you think you're right on the social issues. You even might be! But the government's job is not to be right on social issues.
You know how ridiculous your post is, I can tell. You are grasping hard to equate child groomers with homosexuals.
What you're conflating to freedom is simply ideas and expressions of opposing thought. As I've said many times, the challenge of free societies is to have the freedom to do something but the restraint to contain harm. That crosses all types of freedoms, economic, social, behavioral, etc. There's nothing ridiculous about the negative social impact of familial decline and the fracturing of social relationships. You know there's a relationship to the normalization of homosexual behavior and where we are today with the movement. The same organizations that pushed for same sex marriage are the same ones defending the trans movement and activities like drag queen story hour.
Gay marriage (subsidized, because it wasn't illegal even before) was the most legitimizing action taken by government which didn't change any behavioral freedom, only the amount of government money committed to it. It is literally a statement of we want to promote this behavior. Because the government promotes all sorts of behaviors it views as supporting impact on societal issues. Not sure how you don't realize that. From subsidies for electric cars and solar panels, to charitable contribution deductions, to marital tax benefits.
And grooming started long before we got to this point. When something moves from a more cultural taboo to accepted you will see a social shift. It's happened with things like premarital sex, divorce, pornography, etc. with real negative impacts. This is just one more along the away, and proving human nature struggles with restraint in free societies.
I am against the restriction of private behavior. I am also against what we are prioritizing as culturally important, especially as we move toward protected classes of those behaviors, which ironically creates government restriction on other private behavior.
So parents can't exert control in the relationship with their children? Honestly, I don't think you understand the actual progression.Waco1947 said:No it does not "legitimatize the progression." For liberals and conservatives we all adhere to a moral code about power within relationships. No one with moral comp condones power that has the ability of one person to exert control and influence within a relationshipATL Bear said:It's a progression not a next step. We are not here today if we didn't cross the bridge then. That doesn't make all homosexuals groomers, it simply legitimizes the progression to extreme behaviors.J.R. said:hold on mr. So, you are conflating gay marriage to "child grooming". WTH? I know a lot of married gay folk who have normal lives and children just like most of us. However, to conflate those two are just wrong. Many gay couples I know (men and women) have a hell of a lot better relationship than many "happy families doing the lords work are". Don't buy the hype. I'm sure grooming happens in some remote attempts, but that is an entirely different animal than being married to the same sex. We call that effing perversion where I come from. My gay friends don't deal in any of that.ATL Bear said:Freedoms weren't denied. Access to a subsidy, which was established for very specific purposes of binding families together, specifically parents and children, and to promote a nuclear family structure, is what was "denied". That was gradually eaten away not by gay marriage, but by easy divorce. Gay marriage was just the coup de gras or throwing in the towel on the subsidy. Once anti sodomy laws and related private behavior restrictions were done away with (rightly so), the freedom of homosexuality and the homosexual lifestyle were protected.Porteroso said:ATL Bear said:It's the same slope. When you legitimized homosexual behavior as a normal part of social and cultural mores, this is the progression that occurs. We didn't establish gay marriage for the same reasons we established traditional marriage.. And that break in the social contract delegitimized the reason for government subsidized marriage.Porteroso said:ATL Bear said:Because a slope has a directional progression.Porteroso said:
A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?
These are 2 separate slopes though. Rights for adults, versus society grooming children.
What we champion in culture will influence and push the boundaries of the acceptable at every turn. Sometimes that's a force for good and sometimes it has unintended consequences. So if you can't see how embracing the homosexual lifestyle could lead to this, as well as the current insane perspectives on transgenderism, I'm not sure what to tell you. We don't get to here without having crossed the gay marriage threshold then,
Wait who established traditional marriage? Can you explain your view of that? How government gradually recognized it is a sort of establishment, but the government did not begin the institution of marriage for any given purpose.
Not that its worth arguing. I'm not embracing the homosexual lifestyle, because I'm not gay. I am however embracing the American lifestyle, because I love me some freedom. In the end all you want is to deny others freedom because you think you're right on the social issues. You even might be! But the government's job is not to be right on social issues.
You know how ridiculous your post is, I can tell. You are grasping hard to equate child groomers with homosexuals.
What you're conflating to freedom is simply ideas and expressions of opposing thought. As I've said many times, the challenge of free societies is to have the freedom to do something but the restraint to contain harm. That crosses all types of freedoms, economic, social, behavioral, etc. There's nothing ridiculous about the negative social impact of familial decline and the fracturing of social relationships. You know there's a relationship to the normalization of homosexual behavior and where we are today with the movement. The same organizations that pushed for same sex marriage are the same ones defending the trans movement and activities like drag queen story hour.
Gay marriage (subsidized, because it wasn't illegal even before) was the most legitimizing action taken by government which didn't change any behavioral freedom, only the amount of government money committed to it. It is literally a statement of we want to promote this behavior. Because the government promotes all sorts of behaviors it views as supporting impact on societal issues. Not sure how you don't realize that. From subsidies for electric cars and solar panels, to charitable contribution deductions, to marital tax benefits.
And grooming started long before we got to this point. When something moves from a more cultural taboo to accepted you will see a social shift. It's happened with things like premarital sex, divorce, pornography, etc. with real negative impacts. This is just one more along the away, and proving human nature struggles with restraint in free societies.
I am against the restriction of private behavior. I am also against what we are prioritizing as culturally important, especially as we move toward protected classes of those behaviors, which ironically creates government restriction on other private behavior.
I agree, but again that is not enough. We have blown past "consenting adults" to kids must be given dildos and strip shows.Porteroso said:Harrison Bergeron said:I think you've really missed the point. We moved at lightening speed from "stay out of our bedroom" to you must kneel before Zod and let your children get lap dances from trainies.Porteroso said:GrowlTowel said:Porteroso said:Harrison Bergeron said:Porteroso said:Harrison Bergeron said:Government's - in theory - should be utilitarian not psychologists. Governments have a cultural interest in incentivizing stable, child-producing marriages. Hence, that is why it got in the recognition of marriage business. Personally, I would get government out of it as marriage is a religious institution, but I respect the legal necessity for things like property rights, inheritance.Porteroso said:ATL Bear said:It's the same slope. When you legitimized homosexual behavior as a normal part of social and cultural mores, this is the progression that occurs. We didn't establish gay marriage for the same reasons we established traditional marriage.. And that break in the social contract delegitimized the reason for government subsidized marriage.Porteroso said:ATL Bear said:Because a slope has a directional progression.Porteroso said:
A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?
These are 2 separate slopes though. Rights for adults, versus society grooming children.
What we champion in culture will influence and push the boundaries of the acceptable at every turn. Sometimes that's a force for good and sometimes it has unintended consequences. So if you can't see how embracing the homosexual lifestyle could lead to this, as well as the current insane perspectives on transgenderism, I'm not sure what to tell you. We don't get to here without having crossed the gay marriage threshold then,
Wait who established traditional marriage? Can you explain your view of that? How government gradually recognized it is a sort of establishment, but the government did not begin the institution of marriage for any given purpose.
Not that its worth arguing. I'm not embracing the homosexual lifestyle, because I'm not gay. I am however embracing the American lifestyle, because I love me some freedom. In the end all you want is to deny others freedom because you think you're right on the social issues. You even might be! But the government's job is not to be right on social issues.
You know how ridiculous your post is, I can tell. You are grasping hard to equate child groomers with homosexuals.
Freedom has never been absolute. And I know you do not really "love you some freedom" as much as you love the freedom you love and don't love all freedom. Now, I apologize if that's personal but just an educated guess. Just like when others post "they don't want government in healthcare" really want government in healthcare just they want post-birth abortion.
I'm glad you apologized! You were right to do so, after such a wrong statement. One of my core political beliefs is that Americans spend far too much time trying to deny others the freedoms they themselves don't value.
I make a point to try to value anyone's perceived values even if I disagree. The fact that at first you were so terribly wrong just tells me you have this image of people built up in your mind, maybe call it a stereotype, and you expect me to fit neatly into it. But apology accepted, and no harm done.
Merry Christmas!
I honestly have no idea what you're trying to communicate.
Did you try reading? I can break it down for you if necessary.
You support butt sex. Pretty simple.
Part of not governing the bedroom, aka Murica and freedom, is explicitly not having strong opinions about others' bedroom activities. All it takes to want to tear down freedoms is a sincere belief that your way is the only right way. Your narrow mind is certainly simple.
You missed what I replied to. What consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms isn't comparable to what horrors adults put their kids through.
Harrison Bergeron said:I agree, but again that is not enough. We have blown past "consenting adults" to kids must be given dildos and strip shows.Porteroso said:Harrison Bergeron said:I think you've really missed the point. We moved at lightening speed from "stay out of our bedroom" to you must kneel before Zod and let your children get lap dances from trainies.Porteroso said:GrowlTowel said:Porteroso said:Harrison Bergeron said:Porteroso said:Harrison Bergeron said:Government's - in theory - should be utilitarian not psychologists. Governments have a cultural interest in incentivizing stable, child-producing marriages. Hence, that is why it got in the recognition of marriage business. Personally, I would get government out of it as marriage is a religious institution, but I respect the legal necessity for things like property rights, inheritance.Porteroso said:ATL Bear said:It's the same slope. When you legitimized homosexual behavior as a normal part of social and cultural mores, this is the progression that occurs. We didn't establish gay marriage for the same reasons we established traditional marriage.. And that break in the social contract delegitimized the reason for government subsidized marriage.Porteroso said:ATL Bear said:Because a slope has a directional progression.Porteroso said:
A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?
These are 2 separate slopes though. Rights for adults, versus society grooming children.
What we champion in culture will influence and push the boundaries of the acceptable at every turn. Sometimes that's a force for good and sometimes it has unintended consequences. So if you can't see how embracing the homosexual lifestyle could lead to this, as well as the current insane perspectives on transgenderism, I'm not sure what to tell you. We don't get to here without having crossed the gay marriage threshold then,
Wait who established traditional marriage? Can you explain your view of that? How government gradually recognized it is a sort of establishment, but the government did not begin the institution of marriage for any given purpose.
Not that its worth arguing. I'm not embracing the homosexual lifestyle, because I'm not gay. I am however embracing the American lifestyle, because I love me some freedom. In the end all you want is to deny others freedom because you think you're right on the social issues. You even might be! But the government's job is not to be right on social issues.
You know how ridiculous your post is, I can tell. You are grasping hard to equate child groomers with homosexuals.
Freedom has never been absolute. And I know you do not really "love you some freedom" as much as you love the freedom you love and don't love all freedom. Now, I apologize if that's personal but just an educated guess. Just like when others post "they don't want government in healthcare" really want government in healthcare just they want post-birth abortion.
I'm glad you apologized! You were right to do so, after such a wrong statement. One of my core political beliefs is that Americans spend far too much time trying to deny others the freedoms they themselves don't value.
I make a point to try to value anyone's perceived values even if I disagree. The fact that at first you were so terribly wrong just tells me you have this image of people built up in your mind, maybe call it a stereotype, and you expect me to fit neatly into it. But apology accepted, and no harm done.
Merry Christmas!
I honestly have no idea what you're trying to communicate.
Did you try reading? I can break it down for you if necessary.
You support butt sex. Pretty simple.
Part of not governing the bedroom, aka Murica and freedom, is explicitly not having strong opinions about others' bedroom activities. All it takes to want to tear down freedoms is a sincere belief that your way is the only right way. Your narrow mind is certainly simple.
You missed what I replied to. What consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms isn't comparable to what horrors adults put their kids through.
I've seen that in headlines but never in practice. I don't care if the shows exist, it's the parents who get the blame here. And I bet more parents are beating their kids than taking them to overly sexual ****** shows. It's a very small minority of kids being exposed to this, though certainly an issue to address.
where are these huge debates you are talking about?Waco1947 said:Yeah I know about it. You did not prove me wrong.whiterock said:Waco1947 said:It's Islamic mosque and yes, there is a huge debate within Islam as to their doctrines and like Christian doctrines there is a debate over interpretation of sacred texts.muddybrazos said:I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that no Islamic church doctrines will ever be questioned.ATL Bear said:There is no true freedom of speech in the UK. It's why things like this occur, and certain churches or church doctrines could be (or already are) criminalized.Redbrickbear said:The absolute state of the UK - required to attend a voluntary interview because you criticized rainbow ideology. pic.twitter.com/cgfG4I7B9T
— Patrick Basedman🌲🦉🌲 (@patrickbasedmn) January 7, 2023
You don't know much about islam, buddy
Lesson plan for second graders on gender identity in new state curriculum in New Jersey:
— Wesley Yang (@wesyang) January 14, 2023
"You might feel like you’re a boy even if you have body parts that some people might tell you are ‘girl’ parts" https://t.co/YKNJOvYv4R pic.twitter.com/xy5rFDqbeE
If I feel blek can I get automatic A's without having to study and automatic scholarships to college and grad school?Redbrickbear said:Lesson plan for second graders on gender identity in new state curriculum in New Jersey:
— Wesley Yang (@wesyang) January 14, 2023
"You might feel like you’re a boy even if you have body parts that some people might tell you are ‘girl’ parts" https://t.co/YKNJOvYv4R pic.twitter.com/xy5rFDqbeE
The whole LGBTQ sexual orientation is first on spectrum like say autism. The historical, cultural, physical, psychological and social contexts is the milieu of how LGBQ+ people develop their sexual identity.Harrison Bergeron said:So you do not think a doctor or teacher should control or influence a child to believe that they're transexual?Waco1947 said:No it does not "legitimatize the progression." For liberals and conservatives we all adhere to a moral code about power within relationships. No one with moral comp condones power that has the ability of one person to exert control and influence within a relationshipATL Bear said:It's a progression not a next step. We are not here today if we didn't cross the bridge then. That doesn't make all homosexuals groomers, it simply legitimizes the progression to extreme behaviors.J.R. said:hold on mr. So, you are conflating gay marriage to "child grooming". WTH? I know a lot of married gay folk who have normal lives and children just like most of us. However, to conflate those two are just wrong. Many gay couples I know (men and women) have a hell of a lot better relationship than many "happy families doing the lords work are". Don't buy the hype. I'm sure grooming happens in some remote attempts, but that is an entirely different animal than being married to the same sex. We call that effing perversion where I come from. My gay friends don't deal in any of that.ATL Bear said:Freedoms weren't denied. Access to a subsidy, which was established for very specific purposes of binding families together, specifically parents and children, and to promote a nuclear family structure, is what was "denied". That was gradually eaten away not by gay marriage, but by easy divorce. Gay marriage was just the coup de gras or throwing in the towel on the subsidy. Once anti sodomy laws and related private behavior restrictions were done away with (rightly so), the freedom of homosexuality and the homosexual lifestyle were protected.Porteroso said:ATL Bear said:It's the same slope. When you legitimized homosexual behavior as a normal part of social and cultural mores, this is the progression that occurs. We didn't establish gay marriage for the same reasons we established traditional marriage.. And that break in the social contract delegitimized the reason for government subsidized marriage.Porteroso said:ATL Bear said:Because a slope has a directional progression.Porteroso said:
A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?
These are 2 separate slopes though. Rights for adults, versus society grooming children.
What we champion in culture will influence and push the boundaries of the acceptable at every turn. Sometimes that's a force for good and sometimes it has unintended consequences. So if you can't see how embracing the homosexual lifestyle could lead to this, as well as the current insane perspectives on transgenderism, I'm not sure what to tell you. We don't get to here without having crossed the gay marriage threshold then,
Wait who established traditional marriage? Can you explain your view of that? How government gradually recognized it is a sort of establishment, but the government did not begin the institution of marriage for any given purpose.
Not that its worth arguing. I'm not embracing the homosexual lifestyle, because I'm not gay. I am however embracing the American lifestyle, because I love me some freedom. In the end all you want is to deny others freedom because you think you're right on the social issues. You even might be! But the government's job is not to be right on social issues.
You know how ridiculous your post is, I can tell. You are grasping hard to equate child groomers with homosexuals.
What you're conflating to freedom is simply ideas and expressions of opposing thought. As I've said many times, the challenge of free societies is to have the freedom to do something but the restraint to contain harm. That crosses all types of freedoms, economic, social, behavioral, etc. There's nothing ridiculous about the negative social impact of familial decline and the fracturing of social relationships. You know there's a relationship to the normalization of homosexual behavior and where we are today with the movement. The same organizations that pushed for same sex marriage are the same ones defending the trans movement and activities like drag queen story hour.
Gay marriage (subsidized, because it wasn't illegal even before) was the most legitimizing action taken by government which didn't change any behavioral freedom, only the amount of government money committed to it. It is literally a statement of we want to promote this behavior. Because the government promotes all sorts of behaviors it views as supporting impact on societal issues. Not sure how you don't realize that. From subsidies for electric cars and solar panels, to charitable contribution deductions, to marital tax benefits.
And grooming started long before we got to this point. When something moves from a more cultural taboo to accepted you will see a social shift. It's happened with things like premarital sex, divorce, pornography, etc. with real negative impacts. This is just one more along the away, and proving human nature struggles with restraint in free societies.
I am against the restriction of private behavior. I am also against what we are prioritizing as culturally important, especially as we move toward protected classes of those behaviors, which ironically creates government restriction on other private behavior.
Waco1947 ,la
Unfortunately on the battlefield (however there is civilized in theological centers) debates in Mosques Muslim vs Muslim - What are the 4 divisions of Islam?whiterock said:where are these huge debates you are talking about?Waco1947 said:Yeah I know about it. You did not prove me wrong.whiterock said:Waco1947 said:It's Islamic mosque and yes, there is a huge debate within Islam as to their doctrines and like Christian doctrines there is a debate over interpretation of sacred texts.muddybrazos said:I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that no Islamic church doctrines will ever be questioned.ATL Bear said:There is no true freedom of speech in the UK. It's why things like this occur, and certain churches or church doctrines could be (or already are) criminalized.Redbrickbear said:The absolute state of the UK - required to attend a voluntary interview because you criticized rainbow ideology. pic.twitter.com/cgfG4I7B9T
— Patrick Basedman🌲🦉🌲 (@patrickbasedmn) January 7, 2023
You don't know much about islam, buddy
Four schools comprise Sunni jurisprudence: Hanafi, Shafii, Maliki, and Hanbali, the latter spawning the Wahhabi and Salafi movements in Saudi Arabia. Sunnism, a broad umbrella term for non-Shia Islam, is united on the importance of the Quran and practice of Mohammed but allows for differences in legal opinion.
basic reading on Islam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_schools_and_branches
Waco1947 ,la
Waco1947 said:Unfortunately on the battlefield (however there is civilized in theological centers) debates in Mosques Muslim vs Muslim - What are the 4 divisions of Islam?whiterock said:where are these huge debates you are talking about?Waco1947 said:Yeah I know about it. You did not prove me wrong.whiterock said:Waco1947 said:It's Islamic mosque and yes, there is a huge debate within Islam as to their doctrines and like Christian doctrines there is a debate over interpretation of sacred texts.muddybrazos said:I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that no Islamic church doctrines will ever be questioned.ATL Bear said:There is no true freedom of speech in the UK. It's why things like this occur, and certain churches or church doctrines could be (or already are) criminalized.Redbrickbear said:The absolute state of the UK - required to attend a voluntary interview because you criticized rainbow ideology. pic.twitter.com/cgfG4I7B9T
— Patrick Basedman🌲🦉🌲 (@patrickbasedmn) January 7, 2023
You don't know much about islam, buddy
Four schools comprise Sunni jurisprudence: Hanafi, Shafii, Maliki, and Hanbali, the latter spawning the Wahhabi and Salafi movements in Saudi Arabia. Sunnism, a broad umbrella term for non-Shia Islam, is united on the importance of the Quran and practice of Mohammed but allows for differences in legal opinion.
basic reading on Islam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_schools_and_branches
The four schools agree on almost every aspect 9f Sharia. It is not really much of debate except on ancillary matters.
Sunnis and shiites disagree with you. Prove to that your conclusion is right.He Hate Me said:Waco1947 said:Unfortunately on the battlefield (however there is civilized in theological centers) debates in Mosques Muslim vs Muslim - What are the 4 divisions of Islam?whiterock said:where are these huge debates you are talking about?Waco1947 said:Yeah I know about it. You did not prove me wrong.whiterock said:Waco1947 said:It's Islamic mosque and yes, there is a huge debate within Islam as to their doctrines and like Christian doctrines there is a debate over interpretation of sacred texts.muddybrazos said:I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that no Islamic church doctrines will ever be questioned.ATL Bear said:There is no true freedom of speech in the UK. It's why things like this occur, and certain churches or church doctrines could be (or already are) criminalized.Redbrickbear said:The absolute state of the UK - required to attend a voluntary interview because you criticized rainbow ideology. pic.twitter.com/cgfG4I7B9T
— Patrick Basedman🌲🦉🌲 (@patrickbasedmn) January 7, 2023
You don't know much about islam, buddy
Four schools comprise Sunni jurisprudence: Hanafi, Shafii, Maliki, and Hanbali, the latter spawning the Wahhabi and Salafi movements in Saudi Arabia. Sunnism, a broad umbrella term for non-Shia Islam, is united on the importance of the Quran and practice of Mohammed but allows for differences in legal opinion.
basic reading on Islam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_schools_and_branches
The four schools agree on almost every aspect 9f Sharia. It is not really much of debate except on ancillary matters.
Waco1947 ,la
Waco1947 said:Sunnis and shiites disagree with you. Prove to that your conclusion is right.He Hate Me said:Waco1947 said:Unfortunately on the battlefield (however there is civilized in theological centers) debates in Mosques Muslim vs Muslim - What are the 4 divisions of Islam?whiterock said:where are these huge debates you are talking about?Waco1947 said:Yeah I know about it. You did not prove me wrong.whiterock said:Waco1947 said:It's Islamic mosque and yes, there is a huge debate within Islam as to their doctrines and like Christian doctrines there is a debate over interpretation of sacred texts.muddybrazos said:I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that no Islamic church doctrines will ever be questioned.ATL Bear said:There is no true freedom of speech in the UK. It's why things like this occur, and certain churches or church doctrines could be (or already are) criminalized.Redbrickbear said:The absolute state of the UK - required to attend a voluntary interview because you criticized rainbow ideology. pic.twitter.com/cgfG4I7B9T
— Patrick Basedman🌲🦉🌲 (@patrickbasedmn) January 7, 2023
You don't know much about islam, buddy
Four schools comprise Sunni jurisprudence: Hanafi, Shafii, Maliki, and Hanbali, the latter spawning the Wahhabi and Salafi movements in Saudi Arabia. Sunnism, a broad umbrella term for non-Shia Islam, is united on the importance of the Quran and practice of Mohammed but allows for differences in legal opinion.
basic reading on Islam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_schools_and_branches
The four schools agree on almost every aspect 9f Sharia. It is not really much of debate except on ancillary matters.
You are a moron. Sectarian strife doesn't mean there is a lack of near unanimous agreement on matters of the faith. The SBC proves that every year.
So you do not think a doctor or teacher should control or influence a child to believe that they're transexual?Waco1947 said:The whole LGBTQ sexual orientation is first on spectrum like say autism. The historical, cultural, physical, psychological and social contexts is the milieu of how LGBQ+ people develop their sexual identity.Harrison Bergeron said:So you do not think a doctor or teacher should control or influence a child to believe that they're transexual?Waco1947 said:No it does not "legitimatize the progression." For liberals and conservatives we all adhere to a moral code about power within relationships. No one with moral comp condones power that has the ability of one person to exert control and influence within a relationshipATL Bear said:It's a progression not a next step. We are not here today if we didn't cross the bridge then. That doesn't make all homosexuals groomers, it simply legitimizes the progression to extreme behaviors.J.R. said:hold on mr. So, you are conflating gay marriage to "child grooming". WTH? I know a lot of married gay folk who have normal lives and children just like most of us. However, to conflate those two are just wrong. Many gay couples I know (men and women) have a hell of a lot better relationship than many "happy families doing the lords work are". Don't buy the hype. I'm sure grooming happens in some remote attempts, but that is an entirely different animal than being married to the same sex. We call that effing perversion where I come from. My gay friends don't deal in any of that.ATL Bear said:Freedoms weren't denied. Access to a subsidy, which was established for very specific purposes of binding families together, specifically parents and children, and to promote a nuclear family structure, is what was "denied". That was gradually eaten away not by gay marriage, but by easy divorce. Gay marriage was just the coup de gras or throwing in the towel on the subsidy. Once anti sodomy laws and related private behavior restrictions were done away with (rightly so), the freedom of homosexuality and the homosexual lifestyle were protected.Porteroso said:ATL Bear said:It's the same slope. When you legitimized homosexual behavior as a normal part of social and cultural mores, this is the progression that occurs. We didn't establish gay marriage for the same reasons we established traditional marriage.. And that break in the social contract delegitimized the reason for government subsidized marriage.Porteroso said:ATL Bear said:Because a slope has a directional progression.Porteroso said:
A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?
These are 2 separate slopes though. Rights for adults, versus society grooming children.
What we champion in culture will influence and push the boundaries of the acceptable at every turn. Sometimes that's a force for good and sometimes it has unintended consequences. So if you can't see how embracing the homosexual lifestyle could lead to this, as well as the current insane perspectives on transgenderism, I'm not sure what to tell you. We don't get to here without having crossed the gay marriage threshold then,
Wait who established traditional marriage? Can you explain your view of that? How government gradually recognized it is a sort of establishment, but the government did not begin the institution of marriage for any given purpose.
Not that its worth arguing. I'm not embracing the homosexual lifestyle, because I'm not gay. I am however embracing the American lifestyle, because I love me some freedom. In the end all you want is to deny others freedom because you think you're right on the social issues. You even might be! But the government's job is not to be right on social issues.
You know how ridiculous your post is, I can tell. You are grasping hard to equate child groomers with homosexuals.
What you're conflating to freedom is simply ideas and expressions of opposing thought. As I've said many times, the challenge of free societies is to have the freedom to do something but the restraint to contain harm. That crosses all types of freedoms, economic, social, behavioral, etc. There's nothing ridiculous about the negative social impact of familial decline and the fracturing of social relationships. You know there's a relationship to the normalization of homosexual behavior and where we are today with the movement. The same organizations that pushed for same sex marriage are the same ones defending the trans movement and activities like drag queen story hour.
Gay marriage (subsidized, because it wasn't illegal even before) was the most legitimizing action taken by government which didn't change any behavioral freedom, only the amount of government money committed to it. It is literally a statement of we want to promote this behavior. Because the government promotes all sorts of behaviors it views as supporting impact on societal issues. Not sure how you don't realize that. From subsidies for electric cars and solar panels, to charitable contribution deductions, to marital tax benefits.
And grooming started long before we got to this point. When something moves from a more cultural taboo to accepted you will see a social shift. It's happened with things like premarital sex, divorce, pornography, etc. with real negative impacts. This is just one more along the away, and proving human nature struggles with restraint in free societies.
I am against the restriction of private behavior. I am also against what we are prioritizing as culturally important, especially as we move toward protected classes of those behaviors, which ironically creates government restriction on other private behavior.
Pretty sure comparing the SBC to the Mad Mullahs of Mohammed (pigs be unto him) is a hard miss.He Hate Me said:Waco1947 said:Sunnis and shiites disagree with you. Prove to that your conclusion is right.He Hate Me said:Waco1947 said:Unfortunately on the battlefield (however there is civilized in theological centers) debates in Mosques Muslim vs Muslim - What are the 4 divisions of Islam?whiterock said:where are these huge debates you are talking about?Waco1947 said:Yeah I know about it. You did not prove me wrong.whiterock said:Waco1947 said:It's Islamic mosque and yes, there is a huge debate within Islam as to their doctrines and like Christian doctrines there is a debate over interpretation of sacred texts.muddybrazos said:I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that no Islamic church doctrines will ever be questioned.ATL Bear said:There is no true freedom of speech in the UK. It's why things like this occur, and certain churches or church doctrines could be (or already are) criminalized.Redbrickbear said:The absolute state of the UK - required to attend a voluntary interview because you criticized rainbow ideology. pic.twitter.com/cgfG4I7B9T
— Patrick Basedman🌲🦉🌲 (@patrickbasedmn) January 7, 2023
You don't know much about islam, buddy
Four schools comprise Sunni jurisprudence: Hanafi, Shafii, Maliki, and Hanbali, the latter spawning the Wahhabi and Salafi movements in Saudi Arabia. Sunnism, a broad umbrella term for non-Shia Islam, is united on the importance of the Quran and practice of Mohammed but allows for differences in legal opinion.
basic reading on Islam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_schools_and_branches
The four schools agree on almost every aspect 9f Sharia. It is not really much of debate except on ancillary matters.
You are a moron. Sectarian strife doesn't mean there is a lack of near unanimous agreement on matters of the faith. The SBC proves that every year.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Oldbear83 said:Pretty sure comparing the SBC to the Mad Mullahs of Mohammed (pigs be unto him) is a hard miss.He Hate Me said:Waco1947 said:Sunnis and shiites disagree with you. Prove to that your conclusion is right.He Hate Me said:Waco1947 said:Unfortunately on the battlefield (however there is civilized in theological centers) debates in Mosques Muslim vs Muslim - What are the 4 divisions of Islam?whiterock said:where are these huge debates you are talking about?Waco1947 said:Yeah I know about it. You did not prove me wrong.whiterock said:Waco1947 said:It's Islamic mosque and yes, there is a huge debate within Islam as to their doctrines and like Christian doctrines there is a debate over interpretation of sacred texts.muddybrazos said:I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that no Islamic church doctrines will ever be questioned.ATL Bear said:There is no true freedom of speech in the UK. It's why things like this occur, and certain churches or church doctrines could be (or already are) criminalized.Redbrickbear said:The absolute state of the UK - required to attend a voluntary interview because you criticized rainbow ideology. pic.twitter.com/cgfG4I7B9T
— Patrick Basedman🌲🦉🌲 (@patrickbasedmn) January 7, 2023
You don't know much about islam, buddy
Four schools comprise Sunni jurisprudence: Hanafi, Shafii, Maliki, and Hanbali, the latter spawning the Wahhabi and Salafi movements in Saudi Arabia. Sunnism, a broad umbrella term for non-Shia Islam, is united on the importance of the Quran and practice of Mohammed but allows for differences in legal opinion.
basic reading on Islam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_schools_and_branches
The four schools agree on almost every aspect 9f Sharia. It is not really much of debate except on ancillary matters.
You are a moron. Sectarian strife doesn't mean there is a lack of near unanimous agreement on matters of the faith. The SBC proves that every year.
Not really. The SBC churches agree on the central tenets of the faith and they find something to fight about every year. Agreement on central things does not preclude disagreement on minor things. The way those disagreements are manifest is obviously different than the Sunni vs. Shia wars.
"The way those disagreements are manifest is obviously different than the Sunni vs. Shia wars."
Kinda what I meant. SBC never had 'honor killings'.
Kinda what I meant. SBC never had 'honor killings'.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Oldbear83 said:
"The way those disagreements are manifest is obviously different than the Sunni vs. Shia wars."
Kinda what I meant. SBC never had 'honor killings'.
That is not an article of faith in any Christian church. I am not saying that Christian churches have agreement with Islam in any respect. I am saying that among Sunni and Shia and among the various Islamic schools of jurisprudence there is agreement about the overwhelming majority of Sharia.
"That is not an article of faith in any Christian church. "
But it is an accepted part of Sharia, and happens more and more in Western countries.
But it is an accepted part of Sharia, and happens more and more in Western countries.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Oldbear83 said:
"That is not an article of faith in any Christian church. "
But it is an accepted part of Sharia, and happens more and more in Western countries.
Not sure we have a disagreement on anything.
A 17 year old girl was just shamed for complaining about a naked man in her locker room at the Cameron Family YMCA in San Diego County. @KDansky @KnownHeretic pic.twitter.com/7P57Ne3ZGx
— Large Marge🏂 (@largemarge777) January 13, 2023
Your insecurity in the locker room just isn't that important.Redbrickbear said:A 17 year old girl was just shamed for complaining about a naked man in her locker room at the Cameron Family YMCA in San Diego County. @KDansky @KnownHeretic pic.twitter.com/7P57Ne3ZGx
— Large Marge🏂 (@largemarge777) January 13, 2023
Pictures from outside the All Ages Drag Show being hosted at BuzzBrews in Dallas, TX. pic.twitter.com/SsdZIFOJWT
— Tayler Hansen (@TaylerUSA) January 14, 2023
The left has always been misogynistic and racist from its days founding the Klan to today. Not shocking it cares more about mentally ill men than women.
Being against children putting money in half-dressed adults' underwear is now "hate"
Armed ANTIFA and others who showed up to “protect” an All Ages Drag Show chant “follow your leader, BANG BANG BANG”.
— Tayler Hansen (@TaylerUSA) January 14, 2023
They call those who protest the show “Nazi’s”, the chant is in reference to Adolf Hitler killing himself.
BuzzBrews, Dallas, TX.📍 pic.twitter.com/j1LfRXOQq1
Jack Bauer said:
Being against children putting money in half-dressed adults' underwear is now "hate"Armed ANTIFA and others who showed up to “protect” an All Ages Drag Show chant “follow your leader, BANG BANG BANG”.
— Tayler Hansen (@TaylerUSA) January 14, 2023
They call those who protest the show “Nazi’s”, the chant is in reference to Adolf Hitler killing himself.
BuzzBrews, Dallas, TX.📍 pic.twitter.com/j1LfRXOQq1
My Grandfather was literally at D-Day.
Landed D-2 and commanded (Captain rank) a Tiger tank destroyer (M18 Hellcat) through Normandy.
He literally fought Nazis.
He was also a southern Baptist, small business owner, and east Texas conservative.
He being anti-Nazi would not have stopped him from wanting to shoot these leftist pedophile enablers.
The fascists are obsessed with grooming kids.