We'll show you!

[Sideways_8]

You might want to wake up from your delusional state.

You are getting neither SoCon or FisCon, all that has been offered up is Democrat light almost since I've been voting.

The so called "fiscal conservative social liberal" is a unicorn. They always end up being statists. the presuppositions that lead them to reject traditional morality nearly always cause them to buckle on fiscal issues.

Social liberals aren't about freedom but about replacing traditional morality with their moral system. The social liberal moral system demands government interference in everything and that costs money, tax money. It is also very authoritarian and they will not hesitate to use government force to impose their morality.

Then you are ignorant. Using government force to impose will, shall we take a look at southern laws on sex before the 2000s? That was all So-Con. Sodomy laws. Aimed at homosexuals. Guess what, they *expletive deleted*ed everybody. It's perfectly fine to legislate morals. Sooner or later your morals will be the ones legislated against.

[Ron]

Then you are ignorant. Using government force to impose will, shall we take a look at southern laws on sex before the 2000s? That was all So-Con. Sodomy laws. Aimed at homosexuals. Guess what, they *expletive deleted*ed everybody. It's perfectly fine to legislate morals. Sooner or later your morals will be the ones legislated against.

Not ignorant, eyes wide open and able to see things in historical perspective.

Thank you for being honest enough to admit you want to use the government threat of force to legislate the LTGB agenda. Of course this isn't just forcing folks to be tolerant but forcing folks by law to violate their conscience. You will interact, you will approve and you will promote their agenda, or else.

The post modernists politicritters have succeeded in balkanizing our country into grievance groups all feeding at the government trough. Radical egalitarianism has destroyed the American culture and brought us to an all time low of "social trust'. Blacks against whites, hell, all minorities against whites, unfettered immigration, the imposed normalization of sexual deviancy, women against men, irreligious against the religious, Christian vs Muslim, those who believe western civilization was the best thing humanity ever did against those who want to burn it all down, Democrats against Republicans, progressives against conservatives and on and on.

There have always been divisions but there were strong cultural institutions holding things together; like the family, the church and civic groups. All of those foundational institutions have been attacked or subverted and now pretty much lay in ruins. Without social trust civilizations collapse.  

In our Orwellian age this cultural decay is called progress.

[grampster]

What Ron said.

[Firethorn]

Thank you for being honest enough to admit you want to use the government threat of force to legislate the LTGB agenda. Of course this isn't just forcing folks to be tolerant but forcing folks by law to violate their conscience. You will interact, you will approve and you will promote their agenda, or else.

If the LTGBWTFBBQ agenda is to keep the government and other busybodies out of our bedrooms, I'm all for them.

Blacks against whites, hell, all minorities against whites, unfettered immigration, the imposed normalization of sexual deviancy, women against men, irreligious against the religious, Christian vs Muslim, those who believe western civilization was the best thing humanity ever did against those who want to burn it all down, Democrats against Republicans, progressives against conservatives and on and on.

And I have a bridge you might be interested in if you think this is in any way new.

[Ron]

If the LTGBWTFBBQ agenda is to keep the government and other busybodies out of our bedrooms, I'm all for them.

"Keeping the government out of the bedroom" is just a propaganda talking point to influence those incapable of having an original thought. It was the talking point primarily used to push gay "marriage". 

Inviting the government into gay relationships through faux marriage is keeping the government out of their bedrooms how? If anything gay "marriage" is giving government not only more say in their private relationship but the final say in many matters.

 

[Sideways_8]

Thank you for being honest enough to admit you want to use the government threat of force to legislate the LTGB agenda. Of course this isn't just forcing folks to be tolerant but forcing folks by law to violate their conscience. You will interact, you will approve and you will promote their agenda, or else.

And you completely missed the point I was trying to make. Laws against homosexuality have in the past restricted everyone's rights. I'm not sure where your conscience or its violation comes into play. Don't like same sex marriage? Too bad. Government should have never gotten into marriage business in the first place. Then this would be a non-issue, but they did. Don't even bother bringing up what marriage means or meant for thousands of years. Someone screwed the pooch when they government got involved.

[Firethorn]

"Keeping the government out of the bedroom" is just a propaganda talking point to influence those incapable of having an original thought. It was the talking point primarily used to push gay "marriage".

You certainly have a different view on how that went on than I did.  Because 'the bedroom' doesn't even make my top 5 list for that.

Are you sure that you're not just parroting anti-gay marriage propaganda points?

Inviting the government into gay relationships through faux marriage is keeping the government out of their bedrooms how? If anything gay "marriage" is giving government not only more say in their private relationship but the final say in many matters.

"faux marriage"?  Your biases certainly isn't showing here. (Sarcasm).

Okay, I'll give you a quick rundown on how I view it.
1.  Like it or not, since the government is involved, a government marriage, as shown by getting a marriage license or permit from a government agency, getting it filled out and filed the proper way, normally paying a nominal fee to the government for said privilege, is a contract, as opposed to what I'll call a 'religious marriage'.  You can call it a 'faux marriage' all you like, but as long as the government recognizes it, it's a valid contract. 
2.  The privacy of the bedroom had very little to do with gay marriage.  It was an outright grab for rights and benefits.
3.  Keeping in mind that laws vary between states and such, marriage grants a number of rights.  Gays have had problems in the past with being able to have their selected partner do the things that a spouse can do.  This includes inheritance, acting as the primary caretaker for a disabled partner(parents have overruled the gay partner in the past), visitation rights in the hospital(you're legally only the friend, without a spouse the patient's guardians are his parents, and they've said you can't see him), adoption, etc...
4.  Benefits:  Taxes, healthcare, etc...  A gay couple has to file either dual single&1 or maybe 'head of household' if a minor is in the picture somehow(remember, lesbians exist, and a fair number of dudes figure out they're 'gay' after having a kid or two).  There's also survivor benefits to consider, etc...

Now, some have argued that you can get much of the above through contracts, but I remember reading somewhere that it would cost over $5k in lawyer's fees to do all the wills, power of attorneys, and other paperwork to come even close to a $50 marriage license.  That's without considering that a number of hospitals ended up in court for disregarding the medical power of attorney in favor of the parents.

But what would I know?  My last commander was only openly gay and married.  Bit of a shock to me, I only found out at the change of command ceremony when he introduced his husband.  I was like "wait, did I hear that right? ... I did, I did hear that right!"

[Ron]

You certainly have a different view on how that went on than I did.  Because 'the bedroom' doesn't even make my top 5 list for that.

Are you sure that you're not just parroting anti-gay marriage propaganda points?

"faux marriage"?  Your biases certainly isn't showing here. (Sarcasm).

In the heyday of the gay protests the signs bearing  "keep out of our bedrooms" were ubiquitous. Hitching the movement to the civil rights movement was also a main tactic.

The egalitarian impulse requires us to dumb down and debase every institution to the lowest common element. There is no "what is best, what is the ideal" anymore. Just empty caricatures of once meaningful institutions.

1.  Like it or not, since the government is involved, a government marriage, as shown by getting a marriage license or permit from a government agency, getting it filled out and filed the proper way, normally paying a nominal fee to the government for said privilege, is a contract, as opposed to what I'll call a 'religious marriage'.  You can call it a 'faux marriage' all you like, but as long as the government recognizes it, it's a valid contract.
2.  The privacy of the bedroom had very little to do with gay marriage.  It was an outright grab for rights and benefits.
3.  Keeping in mind that laws vary between states and such, marriage grants a number of rights.  Gays have had problems in the past with being able to have their selected partner do the things that a spouse can do.  This includes inheritance, acting as the primary caretaker for a disabled partner(parents have overruled the gay partner in the past), visitation rights in the hospital(you're legally only the friend, without a spouse the patient's guardians are his parents, and they've said you can't see him), adoption, etc...
4.  Benefits:  Taxes, healthcare, etc...  A gay couple has to file either dual single&1 or maybe 'head of household' if a minor is in the picture somehow(remember, lesbians exist, and a fair number of dudes figure out they're 'gay' after having a kid or two).  There's also survivor benefits to consider, etc...

Now, some have argued that you can get much of the above through contracts, but I remember reading somewhere that it would cost over $5k in lawyer's fees to do all the wills, power of attorneys, and other paperwork to come even close to a $50 marriage license.  That's without considering that a number of hospitals ended up in court for disregarding the medical power of attorney in favor of the parents.

I agree, they invited the government into their relationships as a third party, giving up some freedom for government benefits. I also agree with your earlier comment that government should have been forced out of the marriage business long ago. The homosexual lobby never wanted government to leave them alone. They wanted government to enforce not only acceptance of their lifestyle but they wanted government to promote their lifestyle. Obviously that means we have to redefine and pervert the oldest institution in human history (the family) and force everyone to accommodate a small percentage of the population. This will not stop here. This isn't just about accommodating gay preferences but undermining and replacing traditional institutions, family and morality with new institutions ruled by their moral code.

But what would I know?  My last commander was only openly gay and married.  Bit of a shock to me, I only found out at the change of command ceremony when he introduced his husband.  I was like "wait, did I hear that right? ... I did, I did hear that right!"

Appeals to emotion and anecdotes. That doesn't change the biology of reproduction, male and female nor the purpose behind family, raising children and caring for the elderly.

We can agree to disagree at this point.  

    

[Firethorn]

In the heyday of the gay protests the signs bearing  "keep out of our bedrooms" were ubiquitous. Hitching the movement to the civil rights movement was also a main tactic.

Well yes, but during the 'heyday' they weren't bringing up marriage yet.  You said it was the principle way that gay marriage was pushed.  I disagreed.  First thing they wanted was stuff like not being busted for the stuff they wanted to do in their bedrooms.  Then it expanded.

I agree, they invited the government into their relationships as a third party, giving up some freedom for government benefits. I also agree with your earlier comment that government should have been forced out of the marriage business long ago.

While I've said stuff like that before, where I've said that the state should do 'civil unions' and that you should find a priest or other religious official if you wanted to be married, I think you might be mixing me up with Sideways.

The homosexual lobby never wanted government to leave them alone. They wanted government to enforce not only acceptance of their lifestyle but they wanted government to promote their lifestyle.

You mean in the exact same ways as straight couples do? 

Obviously that means we have to redefine and pervert the oldest institution in human history (the family) and force everyone to accommodate a small percentage of the population.

Actually, I'd argue that government recognition of marriage did that all on it's own.  Things were a bit more fluid back in the day.  I argue that the 'nuclear family' is something of a perversion itself, and back in the day a gay uncle and his paramour was a handy thing to have around.

This will not stop here. This isn't just about accommodating gay preferences but undermining and replacing traditional institutions, family and morality with new institutions ruled by their moral code. Appeals to emotion and anecdotes. That doesn't change the biology of reproduction, male and female nor the purpose behind family, raising children and caring for the elderly.

And what is that moral code?  I think that you fail to realize that 'gay' is a faction only because of the opposition to it.  Without that pressure you'll have gay conservatives, gay liberals, gay statists, and gay libertarians. 

Really, the gays aren't running around with a 'gayroller' or 'gay beams' that turn people gay.  They want to be able to 'enjoy' the same benefits with their loved ones as straight people do.

[roo_ster]

I dunno, I think it boils down to not indulging the mentally ill their destructive delusions.  When some nutter claims he is winged Napoleon, a reasonable and moral man does not indulge him and lead him to the nearest cliff, but rather helps them get treatment.

It seems many have forsaken reason for its opposite.

[Ron]

First thing they wanted was stuff like not being busted for the stuff they wanted to do in their bedrooms.  Then it expanded.

something of a straw man. Nobody was being being "busted" for being gay. Yes there were old laws not being enforced that were still on the books. The meme is a lie, when you use it you become a liar or show you are susceptible to propaganda (believing a lie).

You mean in the exact same ways as straight couples do?

 Nice dodge by trying to relativise gay couples and the normal male/female bonding that produces offspring (usually) and furthers our species.

And what is that moral code?  I think that you fail to realize that 'gay' is a faction only because of the opposition to it.  Without that pressure you'll have gay conservatives, gay liberals, gay statists, and gay libertarians.

Really, the gays aren't running around with a 'gayroller' or 'gay beams' that turn people gay.  They want to be able to 'enjoy' the same benefits with their loved ones as straight people do.

The moral code is post modern egalitarianism and nihilism. You demonstrate it right here in your posts, it's all relative to you. It's not the sex that is the problem, it's the twisted rationalizations being used to promote it as normal. It's the presuppositions and philosophy that is being promulgated as a replacement for the world view that bore the fruit of what we call western civilization. Gay faux marriage and all the other oddities being pushed are symptoms of the underlying problem, not the problem itself. Philosophical and moral collapse predates the eventual civil collapse as a general rule.

I'm not playing along with the charade. You hold up four fingers and I will say four fingers, no matter if everyone else says five.

  

[Firethorn]

something of a straw man. Nobody was being being "busted" for being gay. Yes there were old laws not being enforced that were still on the books. The meme is a lie, when you use it you become a liar or show you are susceptible to propaganda (believing a lie).

Oh, really?  I might as well just call you a liar as well then, just to speed things up, shouldn't I?

The thing about 'old laws not being enforced' is that you turn around and they're being enforced again.  We're using a law from the 18th century to try to force companies to put back doors into their own encryption, to unlock cell phones and provide decrypted data from cloud computing.

It wasn't that long ago that Texas police attempted to enforce the law against sodomy after busting into a couple dudes going at it in a no knock warrant for drugs(that they didn't find, thus the sodomy charge, so they had 'some' justification for the raid).  Sure, it was eventually dismissed, but it took a while.

Nice dodge by trying to relativise gay couples and the normal male/female bonding that produces offspring (usually) and furthers our species.

To use debates from elsewhere, does this mean that we should forbid sterile people from marrying?  Women past menopause?  Men who've had a vasectomy? 

It's not the sex that is the problem, it's the twisted rationalizations being used to promote it as normal. It's the presuppositions and philosophy that is being promulgated as a replacement for the world view that bore the fruit of what we call western civilization. Gay faux marriage and all the other oddities being pushed are symptoms of the underlying problem, not the problem itself. Philosophical and moral collapse predates the eventual civil collapse as a general rule.

Really.  Is your marriage somehow destroyed by gay marriage?  Why are you so invested in what happens in somebody else's house?

I'm not playing along with the charade. You hold up four fingers and I will say four fingers, no matter if everyone else says five.

Actually, to me you're going off and screaming at me like I flipped you the bird. 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

It wasn't that long ago that Texas police attempted to enforce the law against sodomy after busting into a couple dudes going at it in a no knock warrant for drugs(that they didn't find, thus the sodomy charge, so they had 'some' justification for the raid).  Sure, it was eventually dismissed, but it took a while



Your understanding of that case differs from mine
Assuming we are using same case

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[Firethorn]

Your understanding of that case differs from mine
Assuming we are using same case

The reason for the police to be there is different, yes.  I don't remember mine reaching the supreme court either.

Or maybe I am misremembering.

It's happened fairly recently in other states:
http://www.dallasvoice.com/men-arrested-baton-rouge-unconstitutional-sodomy-law-10153800.html

[Ron]

Firethorn, you guys won, take a chill pill.

You cannot watch a TV program or movie without a noble heroic homosexual character.

Homosexuality is promoted in the workplace, schools and every niche and cranny of the media. The levers of government now threaten ruin and violence on anyone who dares choose not to interact or participate in the debauchery.

For all practical purposes it might as well be illegal to have bad think about homosexuals. While not illegal it is a fast track to losing your job and social ostracization if you dare speak the opinion that it is a perversion of the natural and ideal order. I may even get asked to take a time out here on APS for expressing that opinion.

Truth be told I was much more live and let live about the whole subject even back when I was active in evangelical circles. My own sin allowed me to understand the frailty and weakness of the human will. Homosexuality to me was no different than my own sleeping around and casual hook-ups in my pre Christian days. Now the more I see the LGBT agenda being codified into law the less empathetic I am becoming toward the community. The more I look into it the more I realize that it is nothing more than an arm of cultural Marxism or egalitarianism. That at its core its philosophically opposed to pretty much everything this country, or western civilization is built upon.

The sexually deviant are never happy with tolerance, they always insist on enshrining their deviancy as a superior moral model. As a matter of fact tolerance is rejected, you must support and advocate. Tolerance of dissenting opinions is not allowed. There will be laws and public shaming for those who dare resist. It is moral inversion writ large.

  

[Firethorn]

You cannot watch a TV program or movie without a noble heroic homosexual character.

Deadpool?  Did they turn somebody gay in X-Men when I wasn't looking?  Wolverine?  Haven't seen any gay people in the recent TV shows I've been watching.  Well, 1 lesbian.

Homosexuality is promoted in the workplace, schools and every niche and cranny of the media. The levers of government now threaten ruin and violence on anyone who dares choose not to interact or participate in the debauchery.

Wow...  Promoted.  That's a strong phrase.  I'd tend to say that homosexuality isn't being 'promoted', it's merely no longer being suppressed. 

For all practical purposes it might as well be illegal to have bad think about homosexuals. While not illegal it is a fast track to losing your job and social ostracization if you dare speak the opinion that it is a perversion of the natural and ideal order. I may even get asked to take a time out here on APS for expressing that opinion.

Well, substitute 'black' for 'homosexual', or even 'cross-race relation' and yeah, it pretty much would.  You're badmouthing people for things that have nothing to do with you, and you're sitting there saying that allowing them to do with their loved ones that you do with yours will lead to the downfall of society.

Like it or not, sexual orientation is not optional for most people.  I find homosexual relations to be extremely squicky.  I hold no desire to have sexual relations with another male.  What I don't believe is that that gives me the right to deny them the rights I have, to interfere with their private relationships, etc...

Truth be told I was much more live and let live about the whole subject even back when I was active in evangelical circles. My own sin allowed me to understand the frailty and weakness of the human will. Homosexuality to me was no different than my own sleeping around and casual hook-ups in my pre Christian days.

This might actually be part of the problem.  You're rating even a serious homosexual relationship the same as a one-night stand, apparently. 

Now the more I see the LGBT agenda being codified into law the less empathetic I am becoming toward the community.

Let me ask you this.  What rights have been taken away from you in the Agenda?  Are any of them rights that weren't taken away 40 some odd years ago if you substitute a black or interrace couple for the gay couple?

The sexually deviant are never happy with tolerance, they always insist on enshrining their deviancy as a superior moral model. As a matter of fact tolerance is rejected, you must support and advocate. Tolerance of dissenting opinions is not allowed. There will be laws and public shaming for those who dare resist. It is moral inversion writ large.

Ah?  I take it you've seen materials where they're looking to get superior benefits?  Child tax deductions without the child?  Preferences for adoptions? 

Or are you simply demanding to be able to discriminate against them for that which they cannot chose(being gay), and the choices they make in order to be happy with that? 

Do you realize that I can find near exactly the same thing said when it comes to blacks, interrace couples, etc...?

[White Horseradish]

More enforcement.

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/videos/cops-pull-a-girl-out-of-a-bathroom-for-not-looking-like-a-woman/85011163/

"Show me your papers" in all it's glory.

[dogmush]

More enforcement.

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/videos/cops-pull-a-girl-out-of-a-bathroom-for-not-looking-like-a-woman/85011163/

"Show me your papers" in all it's glory.

Sigh.  This is why we can't have nice things.

Libertarians:  You called the Feds!
LBGT: What!  I got pinched!
Libertarians:  Which is what happens when you call the Feds.

Thread Drift:  I'd bet money that the screaming woman in that vid considers herself a feminist, but she sure as *expletive deleted*it went to the "Don't put your hands on her because she's a girl!" well for her first drink.  Equality!!!!

[RoadKingLarry]

  I hold no desire to have sexual relations with another male. 

Burn the heretic homophobic bigot!

[makattak]

More enforcement.

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/videos/cops-pull-a-girl-out-of-a-bathroom-for-not-looking-like-a-woman/85011163/

"Show me your papers" in all it's glory.

I kind of wondered why this isn't on major news sites. The DAILYKOS explains that it's from December...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/4/28/1521139/-Woman-kicked-out-of-bathroom-because-she-looks-like-man-and-doesn-t-have-ID

They also note they don't have the full story as to what's going on.

Congratulations! You got taken in by a story even the dailykos says they ought to wait for more information...

[Ron]

Keep the government out of our bathrooms! I mean in our bathrooms!

We need mens bathrooms and unisex bathrooms. Women overwhelmingly vote for this silliness so they can sort it out themselves.

[Jamisjockey]

Keep the government out of our bathrooms! I mean in our bathrooms!

We need mens bathrooms and unisex bathrooms. Women overwhelmingly vote for this silliness so they can sort it out themselves.

Really what we need is private property owners to be given the right to dictate how and when their private property is used.

The civil rights act was a huge blow against private property. 

[Ben]

Really what we need is private property owners to be given the right to dictate how and when their private property is used.

The civil rights act was a huge blow against private property.  

This certainly seems like an issue where the market could decide for the private sector (govt buildings would be a whole 'nother thing). I'm thinking the Target board of directors is now wishing they hadn't brought it up, or else would have done something that would be less expensive to them in the long run, like having men's, women's, and retrofitting a third "unisex whoever" Ally McBeal bathroom* in their stores. Let their customers decide.

It would be an interesting social experiment as well, because I'm betting 95% of the people that are sympathetic to the transgender cause but are not trans-anything themselves would end up using the traditional bathrooms if given a choice.

*Actually as I was typing this, I had Fox Business on in the background and heard that Target stores do indeed already have single stall bathrooms, separate from men's and women's, but their current PR statement says that people uncomfortable with their "trans" policy have the option of using those single stall bathrooms. Seems a little backwards given the numbers.


I'm going to start demanding that every damn thing is built or altered to accommodate my left-handedness without extra cost to me. Every 1911 manufacturer must make lefty pistols for me, and same for the semi-auto rifles that pop me in the head with ejected brass. Also, I'm offended by restaurants that constantly put the silverware on my right, and when the server brings my drink, they always put it on my right, and when a cashier gives me change, they always aim for my right hand.

[KD5NRH]

I'm going to start demanding that every damn thing is built or altered to accommodate my transhandedness without extra cost to me.

FIFY

[cordex]

Really what we need is private property owners to be given the right to dictate how and when their private property is used.

The civil rights act was a huge blow against private property. 

I agree completely.