August 1st is Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day

[Ted]

 

[Justin Case]

I'm done.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

And before divorce became prevelant, it wasn't taboo for a husband to beat his wife. I'd much rather see a couple get divorced than to use violence to solve marital problems.

I'm married to my first wife and my 15 year anniversary is coming in February. That's what I believe but I'm not going to legislate my morals on others.

You are certainly free to refuse to "legislate" your morals on others, but that doesn't give you any sort of moral high ground. While it wasn't taboo for a husband to beat his wife, it WAS frowned upon by the rest of the community. A good many of our current societal problems can be traced back to a societal falling away from the Judeo-Christian ethic (NOT Christianity or Judaism) upon which our nation was founded and governed for almost 200 years. The Founders said that their Republic would not work unless such a society was maintained and they are being proved correct, not only in this nation, but worldwide.

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

Name a modern society where homosexual marriage has been legal for more than 20 years.

Now list the civilizations that have not considered marriage to be between a man and a woman from the beginning of recorded history forward.

The purpose of marriage - the purpose of mating - is to bond the family; the father to be the protector of the mother and children; the mother to bear and rear the children. This is a species survival trait which has been formalized into the institution of marriage.

While homosexuals have been tolerated - at some level - in many societies, they have seldom been "mainstream" and never in the context of "family". While they may or may not know it, their drive for "equal rights" is just another part of the subliminal attack on the institution of the nuclear family in this country which has been ongoing since Margaret Sanger and friends decided to form an organization aimed at the stealth culling of "inferior races" under the guise of helping women. It started to hit its stride in the 60s when the federal government targeted inner city black families for "assistance" that literally disintegrated the most cohesive family group in America at that time. The rot is spreading under the guise of "alternate lifestyles", "career feminism", and political correctness.

So basically you think women belong pregnant and in the kitchen and gays should not have the same rights as you. Good to know.

The other laughable excuse you hear is the "sanctity of marriage", what are people afraid gays may lower the divorce stats.

 

[hornadylnl]

You are certainly free to refuse to "legislate" your morals on others, but that doesn't give you any sort of moral high ground. While it wasn't taboo for a husband to beat his wife, it WAS frowned upon by the rest of the community. A good many of our current societal problems can be traced back to a societal falling away from the Judeo-Christian ethic (NOT Christianity or Judaism) upon which our nation was founded and governed for almost 200 years. The Founders said that their Republic would not work unless such a society was maintained and they are being proved correct, not only in this nation, but worldwide.

I don't disagree that we're a modern day Sodom and Gemorrah in the least. But you don't change hearts and minds through legislation. Banning gay marriage doesn't stop gay sex. Doing or not doing something only because of the law doesn't make you moral. If we try to legislate Christian morality on others, how are we different from sharia law?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

So basically you think women belong pregnant and in the kitchen and gays should not have the same rights as you. Good to know.

The other laughable excuse you hear is the "sanctity of marriage", what are people afraid gays may lower the divorce stats.

Sorry, we weren't discussing the many ways in which humans fail to live up to the ideals they aspire to, we were discussing the history (or lack thereof) of "gay marriage" relative to the thousands of years of history of "marriage" being between a man and a woman.

We can continue to discuss "rights", but let's not confuse the notion of "gay rights" with the notion that it's okay to redefine "marriage" so that a tiny percentage of the world population won't have their feelings hurt at the expense of the rest of us having to change our beliefs, convictions, and habits of thought.

You may believe it's righteous to deny the rest of us our beliefs based on religious convictions or other rationales, but your idea that people don't want "gay marriage" because they're afraid it lower the divorce rate is just silly. The folks who don't want traditional marriage made equivalent to the "gay marriage" don't generally favor divorce, either.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I don't disagree that we're a modern day Sodom and Gemorrah in the least. But you don't change hearts and minds through legislation. Banning gay marriage doesn't stop gay sex. Doing or not doing something only because of the law doesn't make you moral. If we try to legislate Christian morality on others, how are we different from sharia law?

Then what good will it do to legalize homosexual marriage?

 

[Denny347]

Devotion of one's life to another does not define marriage. Marriage is defined by the society one lives in based upon the values of said society. Marriage has been defined by civilizations for thousands of years. If the USA wants to redefine marriage, fine. But, until then, people need to follow the law and not make up law their own laws.

People who don't agree with the law can work to change the law, but still need to abide by the law until it is changed. Furthermore, those in government should not put themselves above the law by bullying a person that is expressing his opinion. The CEO of Chick-fil-A has every right to express his opinion and his opinion happens to agree with the law. Threatening to take away his ability to do business in certain cities because he exercised his freedom under the Constitution is wrong and should not be tolerated.

Um, yeah...it kinda does. We are making this WAAYYY too complicated. I see the law changing in the near future...it's actually inevitable. I agree that government entities should stay out of the way of the business' ability to flourish

 

[Denny347]

Then what good will it do to legalize homosexual marriage?

What harm will it do?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I don't disagree that we're a modern day Sodom and Gemorrah in the least. But you don't change hearts and minds through legislation. Banning gay marriage doesn't stop gay sex. Doing or not doing something only because of the law doesn't make you moral. If we try to legislate Christian morality on others, how are we different from sharia law?

What we have done is deny legitimate "community standards" to give unequal protections to a special interest group which has managed, through the connivance of governments at all levels, to equate themselves with the plight of black Americans prior to the Civil Rights Movement of the 60s.

This group and their allies have largely succeeded in their aim of changing our societal perception of them through their increasing influence in media, liberal politics, higher education (which trickles down to the local level), and their tapping into the "political correctness" movement which shouts down opposition so they won't have to argue with them.

Whether this trend will continue or whether our societal "pendulum" will swing back toward conservative family values, I really can't say, but I will continue to advocate for the nuclear family, not only because of my personal convictions, but because I don't believe any nation can survive without a strong societal underpinning and ours is eroding from under us.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

What harm will it do?

I say if we're going to do it, why not legalize all other forms of deviancy. If I am no longer allowed to judge the sin (not the person) of homosexuality, then how can I stand in judgement of any other?

 

[Denny347]

Sorry, we weren't discussing the many ways in which humans fail to live up to the ideals they aspire to, we were discussing the history (or lack thereof) of "gay marriage" relative to the thousands of years of history of "marriage" being between a man and a woman.

We can continue to discuss "rights", but let's not confuse the notion of "gay rights" with the notion that it's okay to redefine "marriage" so that a tiny percentage of the world population won't have their feelings hurt at the expense of the rest of us having to change our beliefs, convictions, and habits of thought.

You may believe it's righteous to deny the rest of us our beliefs based on religious convictions or other rationales, but your idea that people don't want "gay marriage" because they're afraid it lower the divorce rate is just silly. The folks who don't want traditional marriage made equivalent to the "gay marriage" don't generally favor divorce, either.

A tiny percentage? Well if true, how does that hurt you? How does that affect your marriage? You do not have to change ANYTHING. You can still have your convictions, beliefs, etc. I just cannot see how 2 people you do not know get married (same sex) makes a spit of difference in your life or can harm you other than "you don't believe in it." The lower divorce rate argument is indeed silly. There is no reason to believe they are any less likely to screw up marriages than the rest of us.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

A tiny percentage? Well if true, how does that hurt you? How does that affect your marriage? You do not have to change ANYTHING. You can still have your convictions, beliefs, etc. I just cannot see how 2 people you do not know get married (same sex) makes a spit of difference in your life or can harm you other than "you don't believe in it." The lower divorce rate argument is indeed silly. There is no reason to believe they are any less likely to screw up marriages than the rest of us.

By this logic: how does somebody murdering a person you don't know, on the other side of the state affect you? How does Jerry Sandusky buggering children @ Penn State affect you and the rearing of your children?

These and other such crimes are deemed to not only violate the people they're perpatrated (sp?) upon, but also the general society in which they occurred. Many such as myself, may disagree with what you do in the privacy of your own home and find it disgusting, but it's none of my business. But when you set out to change the society I must live in by re-defining basic tenets upon which it was built, you'll have to come up with better justification.

 

[Denny347]

I say if we're going to do it, why not legalize all other forms of deviancy. If I am no longer allowed to judge the sin (not the person) of homosexuality, then how can I stand in judgement of any other?

Now you get it. "Sin" is a fictional concept anyway.

 

[CarmelHP]

Now you get it. "Sin" is a fictional concept anyway.

No more so than law. Both are social and moral constructs. Do you still enforce laws, officer, or is it live and let live?

 

[Bunnykid68]

By this logic: how does somebody murdering a person you don't know, on the other side of the state affect you? How does Jerry Sandusky buggering children @ Penn State affect you and the rearing of your children?

Maybe because there is an injured party in your examples of murder and buggery. 2 gays marrying has no injured party, no ones rights violated.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Now you get it. "Sin" is a fictional concept anyway.

Then how can any person sit in judgment on any other behavior--whether it violates any law, sin, regulation, etc?

 

[Denny347]

No more so than law. Both are social and moral constructs. Do you still enforce laws, officer, or is it live and let live?

Yes, the laws created by man. I don't follow the fairy tales.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Maybe because there is an injured party in your examples of murder and buggery. 2 gays marrying has no injured party, no ones rights violated.

I guess that's the crux of the issue: Society determining the injured parties of any action or behavior.

 

[CarmelHP]

Yes, the laws created by man. I don't follow the fairy tales.

If they are "fairy tales" then both are created by men. If you believe that, then why should one have any more sway than the other?