Help stop homosexual agenda

[Denny347]

I do not think there is any conspiracy by homosexuals to control the country. I have close family whom I love dearly that are gay. I grew up knowing what it was and never had a problem with it. I just what them to be happy, like the rest of my family. I will NEVER exclude them nor wish them ill. I have fellow officers that are openly gay that fight the good fight right along side with me. I will NEVER wish them ill. They bleed with me. I have little to fear with schools, my children have been introduced to it long before the school could "indoctrinate" them. My kids when to a private school where they had friends from many different countries, different religions, and different sexual orientations. Parents from Saudi Arabia, Dubai, China, Vietnam, Africa. Friends with from single parents. Friends with 2 moms and kids with 2 dads.

 

[dross]

I thought that most of those benefits had nothing to do with religion (atheists get the same benefits as Christians, Muslims, Jews, Wiccans, etc) but with an attempt to support "the family" (I know you said religiously defined, but it is more than religiously defined. It has been culturally defined that way in Western Civilization for millenniums as well. Can you point to any civilization that has ever defined marriage as a union of same sex couples?). The family unit was considered a desirable thing at one time. It was a place where procreation would occur. A place where the next generation would receive training on becoming a good citizen and a valued member of society. Most of the studies I have seen still indicate that best occurs in a household containing a married husband and wife. Are there exceptions, certainly. Two Christians living together outside marriage do not get the benefits either. Don't forget there is a marriage penalty also built in to the tax code unless it has been changed recently.

If you bring culture into it, you play right into the hands of those with whom you disagree. Western civilization actively participated in slavery for "milleniums" too. When the culture changed, so did what was acceptable. By bringing culture into it, you cloud your own waters. Let's stay where it's clear and easy to see - principle. The overriding principle is freedom. I should be able to bind myself to another person legally if I want to. That shouldn't bind you to rent me a house or provide me with spousal benefits if that's not how you roll.

In this way, no one is forced.

 

[melensdad]

Melensdad " don't be so open minded that your brains fall out." "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" only goes so far.
I have no problem with gay folks that support the second amendment. (I think they are in a destructive lifestyle that, in the end they will wish they never became involved in)I do however have a problem with them if they think its necessary to tell my kids in a public school that guys kissing each other is a natural and accepted action. And that they should have their own laws to make their behavior valid.
The forum say "politics laws and the 2nd amendment"
If my post is excluded from all of those categories I would hope the moderators would delete it. It is a political post after all.

I'm sorry but you are simply wrong to imply (you don't say it but you imply it) that all gays are radical and pushing this agenda. You are also wrong to infer things into my posts that do not exist and I resent you for doing that. You claim to be Christian but certainly are not acting in that manner with some of your comments and inferences.

This is a gun forum. You are making statements that are reasonably broad based and if we have any gay members here, especially those who are NOT pushing the gay agenda, it is threads like these that will chase them away.

What I take from threads like this is if you are not WHITE, STRAIGHT, CHRISTIAN, REPUBLICAN and GUN OWNING then you are simply not welcome here on the INGO forum. You and the others may not be saying exactly that, and certainly are not saying it in blunt terms, but that is the message you are conveying. I think it is short sighted, narrow minded and divisive.

Threads like this have no place on a gun forum where we should be sharing gun talk, gun ideas, gun stories and gun experiences.

I too have a problem with the radical gay agenda. I don't believe that INGO is the place to discuss it. I don't suggest it should not be discussed, and in fact think it should be. JUST NOT HERE ON THIS FORUM.

 

[dross]

I'm sorry but you are simply wrong to imply (you don't say it but you imply it) that all gays are radical and pushing this agenda. You are also wrong to infer things into my posts that do not exist and I resent you for doing that. You claim to be Christian but certainly are not acting in that manner with some of your comments and inferences.

This is a gun forum. You are making statements that are reasonably broad based and if we have any gay members here, especially those who are NOT pushing the gay agenda, it is threads like these that will chase them away.

What I take from threads like this is if you are not WHITE, STRAIGHT, CHRISTIAN, REPUBLICAN and GUN OWNING then you are simply not welcome here on the INGO forum. You and the others may not be saying exactly that, and certainly are not saying it in blunt terms, but that is the message you are conveying. I think it is short sighted, narrow minded and divisive.

Threads like this have no place on a gun forum where we should be sharing gun talk, gun ideas, gun stories and gun experiences.

I too have a problem with the radical gay agenda. I don't believe that INGO is the place to discuss it. I don't suggest it should not be discussed, and in fact think it should be. JUST NOT HERE ON THIS FORUM.

I agree pretty much with your position, but I truly thought that anything political was fair game in this section of the forum. Have I misunderstood?

 

[melensdad]

I agree pretty much with your position, but I truly thought that anything political was fair game in this section of the forum. Have I misunderstood?

Well is this actually political or is it social?

 

[esrice]

What I take from threads like this is if you are not WHITE, STRAIGHT, CHRISTIAN, REPUBLICAN and GUN OWNING then you are simply not welcome here on the INGO forum.

I don't get that from the tone of this thread, and I CERTAINLY don't get that from the overall tone here on INGO.

As long as topics are discussed and debated in a civil manner (and people here have for the most part), we are all good.

 

[96harley]

No to homo....it is sick.
Next thing you know we'll be expected to accept the conduct of child molesters as just another diverse lifestyle. With ya Caveman.

As for discussing it here. I think it's right in line. I have had to vacate other forums because such issues were hushed. Those forums had been infiltrated and over taken by the radicals. When that happens one more notch is carved onto the PC crowd's ability to silence anything they disagree with or blot out anything that is contrary to their agenda.

 

[melensdad]

No to homo....it is sick.
Next thing you know we'll be expected to accept the conduct of child molesters as just another diverse lifestyle. With ya Caveman.

I don't get that from the tone of this thread, and I CERTAINLY don't get that from the overall tone here on INGO.

Well we will have to agree to disagree about BOTH points.

This thread is anti-gay. And INGO, while generally friendly and generally very civil, seems to take the occasional swerve into intolerance.

Roughly 1 in 2 are gun owners. Roughly 1 in 12 are gay. Stands to reason that some members here may be gay and gun owners. Of the gays I know, none participate in the radical 'gay agenda' and most want to be left alone, just like most straight people I know.

Its odd though how so many Christians here seem to be passing all sorts of judgments by using such broad brush comments, then claiming they are not judging Maybe I'm just a little to old to participate in some of these forums, maybe I've just seen too much. I am very INTOLERANT of many things, but I sure don't come to INGO to see people bash whole groups of people.

 

[Cpt Caveman]

The thread started as help stop the homosexual agenda in our schools and government. If you don't see any reason to stop the homosexual agenda in our schools or our gov't then you shouldn't have read the post.
I won't go through your post and disect it as that would turn this into a war and not a debate.
I just wanted to get the word out Ya'll can do with it what you want. That being said , being a straight , christian, gun owning republican ( I'm not a racist) is the only cool way to be don't ya know?

 

[Scutter01]

The politics forum was always intended to be used to discuss gun-related issues. That said, we've taken a very lax approach towards political topics in here, allowing virtually anything political to be discussed. So far it has worked well. As long as this thread STAYS CIVIL, I see no reason to close it.

That said, remember that we have a reputation button.

 

[esrice]

There is a line between "disagreeing with" and "bashing". And, for the most part, people have been on the side of "disagreement". Only a few posts here have bordered on "bashing".

We also see a lot of talk of "liberals" here on INGO. Even some downright liberal-bashing. With the numbers of liberals in Indiana, it stands to reason that there are some gun-toting liberals on this forum. They are a large group that people make broad generalizations about. But people don't seem to be bothered by that?

Keep in mind that INGO is a community made up of people. Some people think one way, others think another way. That doesn't make INGO as a whole "anti-gay" or "intolerant".

 

[printcraft]

I don't get that from the tone of this thread, and I CERTAINLY don't get that from the overall tone here on INGO.

As long as topics are discussed and debated in a civil manner (and people here have for the most part), we are all good.

Well we will have to agree to disagree about BOTH points.

This thread is anti-gay. And INGO, while generally friendly and generally very civil, seems to take the occasional swerve into intolerance.
............

Both side have been expressed in this thread. To say the entire tone is
anti gay is only looking at it via your perspective.

I'm with esrice on this concerning the "overall tone on ingo" an occasional
serve into intolerance is not a hallmark of the entire site. A small minority
of intolerant views in someone elses opinion does not wash away the overwhelming civility expressed here.

 

[NateIU10]

And I am man enough to let consenting adults do what is their business and freedom to do. This is one of those funny places where social conservatives and libertarians can break apart. Why? Because someone else's being gay is none of my business.

Now, if you have a problem with it being in the schools, fine, then take all social engineering out of the school and don't beg to put prayer back in. Otherwise all we are arguing is which social engineering is being done. Personally, I think discretion is the better part of valor and school should be for math.

At the same time, school should not be a place where kids get beat on for being different mainly because kids should not be getting beat on. That is part of where this stuff originates. Perhaps if we focus on math and safety then we would be fine.

I am not gay, but I know gays. I have yet to meet one who is interested in world domination. Sorry, has not happened yet. Mostly they don't want to get the crap kicked out of them and want to be able to have a semblance of the freedoms that others have (yeah popcorn time with that comment). Are some pushy and obsessed with making the world their version of "fair", yep. Just like most of the people here are.

Look, stick with the basics. If you want the gov't to be involved with social engineering then expect fights over it's direction. That means marriage. That means schooling. That means census data. That means tax filings. That means power of attorney. That means all sorts of junk.

Perhaps none of these are really the gov't's business. And perhaps it is not mine either...

Yup

When a group tries to impose its agenda on others by force - and it's usually through the government - freedom-loving people should stand against that. Freedom-loving homosexuals should stand against a government-enforced gay agenda, and freedom-loving Christians should stand against a government-enforced social agenda. The principle of freedom requires that you stand against forcing values on others, even if you might happen to agree with the values themselves.

Yup

Well we will have to agree to disagree about BOTH points.

This thread is anti-gay. And INGO, while generally friendly and generally very civil, seems to take the occasional swerve into intolerance.

Roughly 1 in 2 are gun owners. Roughly 1 in 12 are gay. Stands to reason that some members here may be gay and gun owners. Of the gays I know, none participate in the radical 'gay agenda' and most want to be left alone, just like most straight people I know.

Its odd though how so many Christians here seem to be passing all sorts of judgments by using such broad brush comments, then claiming they are not judging Maybe I'm just a little to old to participate in some of these forums, maybe I've just seen too much. I am very INTOLERANT of many things, but I sure don't come to INGO to see people bash whole groups of people.

I don't think this thread Is all bashing

I just don't understand how some people feel it is completely justifiable to force their morals on others, but if some other religion were to do that, it would be revolution time

 

[melensdad]

I just don't understand how some people feel it is completely justifiable to force their morals on others, but if some other religion were to do that, it would be revolution time

Yup

Oh heaven forbid we get any Muslim gun owners (they are all radical, violent, terrorists don't 'ya know) joining us, we'd probably have to start whole threads about how we need to . . . oh never mind!

 

[esrice]

Oh heaven forbid we get any Muslim gun owners joining us, we'd probably have to start whole threads about how we need to . . . greet them in the Intro forum!

Couldn't resist!

 

[melensdad]

Both side have been expressed in this thread. To say the entire tone is
anti gay is only looking at it via your perspective.

I'm sorry, if I was a gay, or if you were gay, exactly which posts represent the non-radical quiet, "just leave us alone," gay point of view?

Couldn't resist!

Sure that would happen in a civil way.

 

[Joe Williams]

I agree pretty much with your position, but I truly thought that anything political was fair game in this section of the forum. Have I misunderstood?

Apparently, only political viewpoints he agrees with should be discussed.

 

[Joe Williams]

The thread started as help stop the homosexual agenda in our schools and government. If you don't see any reason to stop the homosexual agenda in our schools or our gov't then you shouldn't have read the post.

Or, perhaps folks could refute the point, instead of just casting aspersions, referring to those with whom one disagrees with slurs, and insisting that people not be allowed to discuss the subject?

When schools teach that homosexuality is a normal, acceptable lifestyle, they are preaching sin. They aren't being paid to do that, they are being paid, with my tax dollars, to teach reading, writing, and 'rithmatic. The liberal agenda being pushed on students today constitutes the government preaching the Humanist religion, and is unacceptable.

But not nearly as unacceptable as their attacks on students who dare speak out in disagreement with their indoctrination. A student who dares speak out will face punishment, and attempt to silence them. Kinda like some folks keep trying to do here, instead of discussing the issue.

 

[HICKMAN]

I just don't understand how some people feel it is completely justifiable to force their morals on others, but if some other religion were to do that, it would be revolution time

IMHO, it goes back to believing what our forefathers believed in.... GOD AND COUNTRY.

 

[jblomenberg16]

Again, you're dead on. Let's use contract law to define our legal relationships with others, and weddings to define the spiritual side of those relationships if we want. States should have to honor contracts, private entities can choose what kind of legal and or spiritual contracts they want to honor.

I think this is somewhat already in effect, right? Marriage does not have to be conducted as a religious ceremony. The judge, justice of the peace, mayor, etc. can legally marry people. Its the same reason many religous wedding ceremonies also include the "By the power vested in me by the state of XYZ..." It is also why you get a marriage license before the wedding, and have to sign the certificate etc. Marriage is a legally binding contract. If it were not, you wouldn't have to have it legally disolved in a divorce suite.

I think you are in fact saying that, and so it is up to the STATES (I beleive this power is not delegated to the FEDS in the Constitution)...to define the terms of a legal marriage, which many have.

I think that in the complete absence of religion of any kind, human anatomy and requirements for sexual reproduction would lead one to conclude that the marriage relationship should be between a man and a women, if in fact that is the reason we have marriage to begin with. Add most any religion to that and you further strengthen that definition.