Story Comments
Posted by: Redneck 1 year ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
25%
Redneck1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Homosexuals have civil rights. They want to make a cultural change. They wish for us to applaud their behavior. If a person wishes to live single they have the same civil rights as any citizen. If they wish to live together (man and a woman) without marriage they still have civil rights. They can create a will, set up legal structures to have the same benefits as others. Homosexuals can do the same. It is not about heterosexual couples who are married having some added civil rights. We have several "classes" of people in our society with special rules for them or for which we have made special allowances. Racial minorities, (blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc), the blind, and the physically handicapped. Handicapped persons have special parking spaces and we aid them in other ways. No one says those without handicaps are being slighted. Nor do they have more "civil rights than others. Marriage (one man and one woman) is a "class" to be advanced because it is the core foundational stone of society.
Reply
People who take on the task of creating the next generation and training them to be contributing citizens need help and should have advantages financially and otherwise. That is not a slap in the face of those who do not, any more than to fine a person who parks in a handicapped zone is. It is just a decision of the majority as to what they wish to promote and approve. We have that responsibility and privilege.
The reason society has set up protections for marriage (one man and one woman) is because it is beneficial to do so. It provides a stability for the society. If this "model" is destroyed then civilized society is in jepodary. Previous societies have self-destructed once that model changed or homosexuality was accepted as a "norm."-
94%
lvrofwolves1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Redneck-How would your so called model be destroyed if Homosexuals were allowed to have the very same rights as Heterosexuals that marry? Just give 1 real example please.
Reply
Have the Homosexuals that have married so far, in the states that allow it, in the countries that allow it, has that changed anyones marriage in any way shape or form,that you know of?
And even IF it did change anyones marriage, that's just too bad, why don't you believe in equal rights for everyone?
Homosexuals should have the very same rights as Heterosexuals, to marry the consenting adult that they love and are attracted to, just like Heterosexuals do.-
-
100%
Tangent0011 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Gay couples are denied civil unions in most states. They are denied input into end-of-life and other medical decisions and have been removed from wills by family members. They cannot file joint tax returns or be covered under the same insurance policy.
Reply
As to your point on 'rights': where is it written that straight couples have the right to marry? Rights not enumerated in the Constitution are assumed unless said activity violates the rights of another. If a legal standing is granted to a particular class of people but not another then that is unequal treatment under the law and is specifically prohibited in the Constitution. -
mntnman444Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned
-
88%
hamy1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Reading really IS fundamental.
Reply
Here is a list of the over 1,000 RIGHTS and responsibilities associated with marriage in the United States.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm
Try that link. See for yourself. And you didn't answer the question. What harm has come from the gay couples already enjoying marriage equality? How has one straight couple's marriage been harmed in any way?
Don't dodge the question simply because you can't answer it. Say "There are none!" and let everyone know that your argument is based solely on your own prejudices. If you are going to have a bias against a minority, at least have the testicular fortitude to wear it on your sleeve.
And the Pope of all people shouldn't be throwing so many stones inside his glass house. Every time he says something ignorant about gay people, someone somewhere should shout 'CHILD MOLESTER' at his face.
-
-
-
85%
Dionys1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The reason society has set up protections for marriage (one man and one woman) is because it is beneficial to do so. It provides a stability for the society. If this "model" is destroyed then civilized society is in jepodary. Previous societies have self-destructed once that model changed or homosexuality was accepted as a "norm.""
Reply
Seriously? Have you seen the kinds of 'models' offered by many "one man and one woman" couples? That's the real danger to the consecrated union of marriage -- not same sex couples who love one another.
Plus there are numerous homosexual couples who adopt children -- thus raising the next generation of people. Why shouldn't committed couples be allowed to marry?
You should at least be honest with your reasons against homosexual marriage (and homosexuality). They're based on dogma from whichever conservative church you follow. Because they're not based on scripture as nowhere in the Bible does it say homosexuality itself is a sin or 'abomination.' It only states that a single, particular homosexual act between two men is an 'abomination.' In a section of the Pentateuch where it also discusses what kind of slavery is a-ok.
So if you want to stick to your dogma, that's fine. Just please don't try to cloak your hatred and bigotry in the clothing of 'saving society.' Dogma and pointed misinterpretation of Scripture has been destroying society for thousands of years. Homosexuality's been around just as long and caused much less damage.-
-
100%
Tangent0011 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, Leviticus says, "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination."
Reply
That refers to an act not an emotion.
The Bible also discusses the love between David and Jonathan, so it seems romantic but chaste love between two men is okay, even to the point of forming a 'covenant'.
1 Samuel:
"And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt."
2 Samuel:
"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother;
you were very dear to me.
Your love for me was wonderful,
more wonderful than that of women."
-
-
-
100%
Tangent0011 year ago
-
25%
Redneck1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have watched the gay agenda over the years. There has been a steady progession. It has not stopped. With each step a different demand has been offered. Now we are to the point they are demanding we teach that homosexual activity is just as valid as heterosexual acts and we should teach children to "explore" homosexuality.
Reply
They did not demand that twenty years ago. They were just "coming out of the closet." They are now demanding we redefine marriage to suit them and their definition. Do not tell me there is no agenda or that they merely want to "just live their lives." There are many in the homosexual community that have expressed condemnation of the "agenda." If they recognize there is one for some then how can you deny there is one?-
91%
Tangent0011 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Now we are to the point they are demanding we teach that homosexual activity is just as valid as heterosexual acts and we should teach children to "explore" homosexuality."
Reply
That's a BS straw man argument. You're trying to paint a picture where third-graders will be taught how to give a good blow job! That simply is not the case. Your rabid hyperbole aside, where is the harm in teaching children diversity? Heck, where is the harm in homosexuality in the first place?
As to the 'progression' of demands, the same thing happened with the women and minority civil rights movements. And the same bogus, bigoted arguments were leveled: "What? They want to vote? Next they'll want to live in our neighborhoods! Next they'll want to marry our daughters!"-
38%
KISA452a1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Your rabid hyperbole aside, where is the harm in teaching children diversity?"
Reply
I've pointed this out before, but this assumes that "you" are right and homosexuality is OK. Others do not agree with that and so having school, a government sponsored required activity, deliberately teach against the parent is a direct harm.
Teaching that diversity exists is fine. "Look folks, there are gays, there are straights, there are blacks, whites, yellows, reds, there are male female" period! When the government starts teaching morals (ie, homosexuality is "OK") why don't people get livid that they are "forcing their morals on impressionable children"? Other than, those people, in this case, agree with the moral...-
100%
Tangent0011 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Personally, I don't find homosexuality to be at all immoral, so I have no problem with my children knowing that there are gays out there. Teaching awareness and tolerance is not teaching acceptance. If you have a huge problem with that particular section of the curriculum, you would have every right as a parent to have your child sit that part out without penalty (as they allow now for elementary 'growth and development' portions that cover human sexuality).
Reply
"I've pointed this out before, but this assumes that "you" are right and homosexuality is OK." Yes, I do make that assumption, since I can find no harm. But than, I'm a Rationalist. The point is: I'm not trying to deny anyone's inherent rights. If one is going to specifically deny a particular class of people access to a legal institution, you'd better have a damned good reason for doing so!-
0%
KISA452a1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I provided evidence of a harm as you requested.
Reply
Additionally, diversity is rarely about tolerance in the "don't hit the gay guy" sort of way. It is now "homosexuality" is "OK". "You should support your gay brothers and sisters". Or it would be as I presented above you "There are gays and straights" without any moralizing. And why should "my child" have to sit out when there is an activity that offends "me" at the school? Or should we have Christian celebrations again? Jews et al can just "opt out"... Prayers are OK, just let the atheists opt out. I thought seperate but equal was inherrently unequal.-
100%
Tangent0011 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I provided evidence of a harm as you requested. " You provided evidence for not bringing up homosexuality in a school setting. I'm still waiting for a reply as to how gay marriage itself in harmful.
Reply
The only harm you brought up as far as teaching diversity was that I was assuming I was correct, unless I misread you. Reporting on a phenomenon is not teaching that something is 'OK'. You can teach a child about Hinduism, but that is not ADVOCATING for Hinduism. You go swiftly from presenting homosexuality as a social/cultural phenomenon right to presenting homosexuality as 'moral'. Ever hear of 'teaching the controversy'? Besides, how does presenting a different point of view harm a child? Does the classroom setting supersede the ability of the parent to help a child interpret?-
Neutral
KISA452a1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"where is the harm in teaching children diversity?" That is the issue I was addressing. The difference is that my experience is that "diversity" and "tolerance" is usually taught as biggotry and condemnation. You don't see it that way so we have different oppinions and expectations.
Reply
"Besides, how does presenting a different point of view harm a child? Does the classroom setting supersede the ability of the parent to help a child interpret?" If it is Christian theology being taught, do you feel the same? Or muslim theology, or Jewish, or Communist, take your pick. I think we have made clear here several times in the past that most do not feel that way.
Yes, every example I have ever been has been trying to convince that someone's personal morals on "diversity" are correct. That whatever the diveristy of the day seems to be, that is "ok". I disagree.
-
-
-
100%
mesodude1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I provided evidence of a harm as you requested."
Reply
--Actually you didn't. You wrote:
"I've pointed this out before, but this assumes that "you" are right and homosexuality is OK. Others do not agree with that and so having school, a government sponsored required activity, deliberately teach against the parent is a direct harm."
--Your "direct harm" premise is based on the assumption that all parents will disagree with the information their children are being taught regarding gay people. You don't speak for all parents. -
100%
david_nwpa1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No you have not demonstrated how being gay is immoral or wrong. It is not the same as being straight, but that is perfectly fine. Who put you in a position to make moral decisions anyway? As for teaching children, they are pretty resilient and are becoming more accepting of gays and lesbians by the day. Your arguments just simply do not hold water, KISA, and they come off as purely bigoted.
Reply
-
-
-
100%
Dionys1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"When the government starts teaching morals (ie, homosexuality is "OK") why don't people get livid that they are "forcing their morals on impressionable children"?"
Reply
When the government then does as you're asking and teaches that homosexuality isn't okay, then why won't you get livid that the government is forcing someone's morals on impressionable children. Or does it only upset you when the morals being enforced don't match up with yours? -
100%
hamy1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You said yourself that teaching the existence of something is OK. Well if you teach children that being different is OK, why isn't it? It sounds like you are teaching a double standard to your kids. And again, saying that it exists isn't promoting it. You seem to think that by teaching kids that their friends who have gay parents aren't any different than they are is somehow endorsing homosexuality.
Reply
Teach your kids to hate people all you want. The rest of us will continue to rebuild our society. -
100%
mesodude1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"When the government starts teaching morals (ie, homosexuality is "OK") why don't people get livid that they are "forcing their morals on impressionable children"?
Reply
--I'm not sure I follow you...If you don't want the government "teaching morals" then it shouldn't be encouraging people to marry at all. The same goes for religion. If we're going to promote religion in government, promote ALL religions. Or don't promote any at all.-
100%
Dionys1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
".If you don't want the government "teaching morals" then it shouldn't be encouraging people to marry at all."
Reply
I don't think the government does encourage people to marry, what with the marriage penalty for taxes. Though all of the legal benefits regarding right of survivorship and medical issues are positive.
You're right about promoting all religions or none, though. That's what the anti-establishment clause says. We agree completely on that issue.-
Neutral
mesodude1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I don't think the government does encourage people to marry, what with the marriage penalty for taxes."
Reply
--Dionysis I often hear people complain about the marriage penalty but married people also benefit from our tax laws in significant ways. Just ask Cindy and John McCain or Bill and Hillary. Ask Madonna's ex-husband or Paul McCartney's ex-wife.
If you're married, you inherit a share of your spouses estate in a way that comes with far fewer strings than it does when unmarried couples are involved. Marriage exempts a surviving spouse from the so called "death tax" and the spouse is automatically first in line if one needs to make financial or medical decisions on the other's behalf. Marrieds get special Social Security, medicare and disability benefits as well as vet and military benefits and benefits for education healthcare and certain types of loans. I'm just getting started...
Also, one could argue that to the extent government supports certain types of commerce (the wedding industry, for instance), it promotes marriage. -
-
-
-
-
-
100%
hamy1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As I have said many times, you are free to hate me all you want. I don't care what you think about what I do or who I am. I know who I am and what I do. I don't require or want your approval or tolerance. But, in the eyes of the LAWS of this country where I reside and pay taxes, I deserve and demand the same rights afforded to straight Americans. And if you are looking for an agenda, that's it. EQUALITY. The reason we didn't fight for it a long time ago was that the laws weren't on our side. Homosexuality was illegal in many states up until just a few years ago. With the overturning of those laws came a new sense of pride. A sense that we didn't have to be beaten in our neighborhoods, burned in the streets, dragged behind cars or shot in the face anymore just because of who we love.
Reply
That is the agenda. Equality. Nothing else. No recruiting. That's ridiculous. If homosexuality could be taught, then heterosexuality could as well. And my parents will tell you that you can't teach a gay person to be straight.
Now. ONE MORE TIME. Show me proof of physical harm to someone's relationship because of the existence of a homosexual relationship. -
100%
mesodude1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I have watched the gay agenda over the years. There has been a steady progession."
Reply
--I'm not familiar with a "gay agenda" but that's usually the way a movement works. No different from women and racial minorities.
"Now we are to the point they are demanding we teach that homosexual activity is just as valid as heterosexual acts and we should teach children to "explore" homosexuality."
--You're distorting, mischaracterizing, exaggerating and lying here. All children are being taught is that same sex couples exist. No one is teaching children about anyone's sexual activity.
"They are now demanding we redefine marriage to suit them and their definition."
--LOL. You're outrageously misinformed or lying. Gay people don't want to re-define anything. As the laws read, they could already marry so they didn't have to do anything. It's you who wants to re-define marriage. This "one man and one woman" crap is something you bigots just recently pulled outta your azzes. Marriage was never meant to exclude gay couples in the first place. That's why the bigot brigade i s running around in a gay panic trying to ram through petitions for Constitutional Amendments. *You're* the ones who are jumping through hoops to nullify rights gay people already have. Get serious. ;-(
-
-
-
100%
mesodude1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"No one says those without handicaps are being slighted."
Reply
--Kinda funny you cherry picked the disabled as an example to elaborate on your point. I guess you knew better than to claim that racial minorities aren't accused of getting special treatment.
"Nor do they have more "civil rights than others. Marriage (one man and one woman) is a "class" to be advanced because it is the core foundational stone of society."
--I guess...But if 50% of marriages fail and people can repeatedly marry and divorce with the speed of fashion models changing clothes between runway turns, isn't this "foundation" pretty much already in ruins? Just wondering... ;-(
"People who take on the task of creating the next generation and training them to be contributing citizens need help and should have advantages financially and otherwise."
--Ok, but the thing is people who are "taking on the task" *are* getting help (financially and otherwise). Gay people pay taxes for a right they are being denied. And consider, for example, all the school teachers (gay or not) who spend more time with our children than we do. Now think about it. Would you want your kids in your face 24/7? Exactly, dude. Gay people are raising our children all the time. They just don't get top billing (parents can be such divas). We owe them BIG TIME. Get outta their way. ;-(
"It provides a stability for the society. If this "model" is destroyed then civilized society is in jepodary. Previous societies have self-destructed once that model changed or homosexuality was accepted as a "norm."
--Again, it ain't all that "stable." Stop over-glamorizing something that people can do and undo with ease.-
Neutral
Redneck1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We taught our own children. And yes i would perfer to have our children and grandchildren with us all the time. That is how many generations before taught and raised their children and some cultures still do. Your comment is revealing.
Reply-
Neutral
mesodude1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"And yes i would perfer to have our children and grandchildren with us all the time. "
Reply
--K...But absent any evidence whatsoever that children are harmed by knowing about or spending time with gay people, why would you even want to try to singlehandedly socialize them? That sounds unhealthy and a bit scary. ;-(
-
-
-
ekklesiawarriorComment removed: Hard Banned
-
loading ...
CactusAnnie
icono1
buckncindykill
Global_Warmer
Ciera-Marie
david_nwpa
jordan11
tchef
ForrestPhelps
hamy
Spadecaller
juvel
Dionys
mesodude
FrauBlucher
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.