darthtang aw
Active Member
Oh, what question have i refused to answer? The gradual decline of morals?
Rush Limbaugh, the original American Idiot.
- Thread starter theclemsonkid
- Start date
aggiealum
Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/396747/rush-limbaugh-the-original-american-idiot/140#post_3536230
Oh, what question have i refused to answer? The gradual decline of morals?
Simple question. Is homosexuality immoral. Yes or no.
Are homosexual relationships immoral. Yes or no.
If the answer is no to either, then how would gay marriages attribute to the moral decline of our society?
The only "gradual decline of morals" is what YOU perceive. My perception of morals can be completely different from yours. So how you perceive them takes precedence over mine? Our society as a whole makes that determination. You can disgree with the interpretations all you want, but the bottom line is your definition of "moral decline" is meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/396747/rush-limbaugh-the-original-american-idiot/140#post_3536230
Oh, what question have i refused to answer? The gradual decline of morals?
Simple question. Is homosexuality immoral. Yes or no.
Are homosexual relationships immoral. Yes or no.
If the answer is no to either, then how would gay marriages attribute to the moral decline of our society?
The only "gradual decline of morals" is what YOU perceive. My perception of morals can be completely different from yours. So how you perceive them takes precedence over mine? Our society as a whole makes that determination. You can disgree with the interpretations all you want, but the bottom line is your definition of "moral decline" is meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
aggiealum
Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/396747/rush-limbaugh-the-original-american-idiot/140#post_3536229
Then this not a right infringed by the federal government is it? This was your original point. Marriage is under state control. Always has been. In so e states a person can marry at 16 with parental consent. In other states they can not. Should the federal government weigh in on this form of segregation as well?
Do you consider a child getting married at 16 an indication of the moral declines in our society? If not, why not? It falls out of the norm you consider "traditional marriage". This country hasn't been as successful as it has by allowing its 50 states to run completely independent of themselves without some overreaching "united" laws that applies to all states as a whole. Marriages were never federally mandated because not until the last couple of decades has there been a reason for them to. Now that more and more alternative lifestyles have come to light does it make this necessary. The Civil Rights Act is a federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin on many levels of our society and lives. Depending on interpretation, this applies to same-sex marriages as well. Why can a state government NOT discriminate against homosexuals when it comes to those individuals dealing in state matters, but they CAN discriminate against them simply by not allowing them to marry?
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/396747/rush-limbaugh-the-original-american-idiot/140#post_3536229
Then this not a right infringed by the federal government is it? This was your original point. Marriage is under state control. Always has been. In so e states a person can marry at 16 with parental consent. In other states they can not. Should the federal government weigh in on this form of segregation as well?
Do you consider a child getting married at 16 an indication of the moral declines in our society? If not, why not? It falls out of the norm you consider "traditional marriage". This country hasn't been as successful as it has by allowing its 50 states to run completely independent of themselves without some overreaching "united" laws that applies to all states as a whole. Marriages were never federally mandated because not until the last couple of decades has there been a reason for them to. Now that more and more alternative lifestyles have come to light does it make this necessary. The Civil Rights Act is a federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin on many levels of our society and lives. Depending on interpretation, this applies to same-sex marriages as well. Why can a state government NOT discriminate against homosexuals when it comes to those individuals dealing in state matters, but they CAN discriminate against them simply by not allowing them to marry?
darthtang aw
Active Member
I will answer your questions when I get home tonight.
In the meantime, I think you need to reread the civil rights act of 1964 and 1968. You are over expanding the law as written.
In the meantime, I think you need to reread the civil rights act of 1964 and 1968. You are over expanding the law as written.
bang guy
Moderator
Sexual preference is not a protected class IIRC, on the other hand nor is eye color a protected class.
There have been statements in this thread that have entered the grey area of insulting to Bionic and visa versa. I would like everyone to consider being polite in the difference of opinions. I understand it's more work to state an opinion without insults but you guys are smart and up to the challenge. I just want to give a heads-up that if I see a comment that's dark grey or crosses the line into darkness then I will issue a ban and close the thread.
There have been statements in this thread that have entered the grey area of insulting to Bionic and visa versa. I would like everyone to consider being polite in the difference of opinions. I understand it's more work to state an opinion without insults but you guys are smart and up to the challenge. I just want to give a heads-up that if I see a comment that's dark grey or crosses the line into darkness then I will issue a ban and close the thread.
2quills
Well-Known Member
I will answer your questions when I get home tonight.
In the meantime, I think you need to reread the civil rights act of 1964 and 1968. You are over expanding the law as written. I think he knows he's over expanding the law but believes that there is good reason now to change that. I don't quite see how same sex marriage relates to our success as a nation or how it would benefit the states. So what reason do we have to force the majority into accepting the alternative life styles of a minority group?
If we had enough anecdotal evidence by looking back through history and pointing to some specific instances where things like homosexuality and other exesses ran rampant through a culture right up to the decline of that society would that be reason enough to say hey maybe this isn't such a good idea? Nature didn't create us this way. How would man kind survive if everyone converted to homosexuality? Where's the proof that its a trait that people are born with?
In the meantime, I think you need to reread the civil rights act of 1964 and 1968. You are over expanding the law as written. I think he knows he's over expanding the law but believes that there is good reason now to change that. I don't quite see how same sex marriage relates to our success as a nation or how it would benefit the states. So what reason do we have to force the majority into accepting the alternative life styles of a minority group?
If we had enough anecdotal evidence by looking back through history and pointing to some specific instances where things like homosexuality and other exesses ran rampant through a culture right up to the decline of that society would that be reason enough to say hey maybe this isn't such a good idea? Nature didn't create us this way. How would man kind survive if everyone converted to homosexuality? Where's the proof that its a trait that people are born with?
bang guy
Moderator
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Quills http:///t/396747/rush-limbaugh-the-original-american-idiot/160#post_3536266
How would man kind survive if everyone converted to homosexuality?
Really? You see that as a possibility?
How is mankind going to survive the next 1000 years if the current population trend continues?
Originally Posted by 2Quills http:///t/396747/rush-limbaugh-the-original-american-idiot/160#post_3536266
How would man kind survive if everyone converted to homosexuality?
Really? You see that as a possibility?
How is mankind going to survive the next 1000 years if the current population trend continues?
2quills
Well-Known Member
Really? You see that as a possibility?
How is mankind going to survive the next 1000 years if the current population trend continues?
I meant that in a rhetorical aspect. I question the idea of homosexuality in general. If it's a genetic trait that only effects x amount of the population then I see no reason not to allow gay people access to the same rights as everyone else. They should have them. But if it's really nothing more than a cultural trend spreading out of control then I see good reason why people would take issue with that. Either way I seek only the truth. If we can't talk about it responsibly then how are those who don't understand it ever going to be able to understand?
The planet is already over populated, IMO. I don't say that because I want to live on a planet with only my own kind. I think that because that's what I believe it is.
aggiealum
Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Quills http:///t/396747/rush-limbaugh-the-original-american-idiot/160#post_3536266
I think he knows he's over expanding the law but believes that there is good reason now to change that. I don't quite see how same sex marriage relates to our success as a nation or how it would benefit the states. So what reason do we have to force the majority into accepting the alternative life styles of a minority group?
If we had enough anecdotal evidence by looking back through history and pointing to some specific instances where things like homosexuality and other exesses ran rampant through a culture right up to the decline of that society would that be reason enough to say hey maybe this isn't such a good idea? Nature didn't create us this way. How would man kind survive if everyone converted to homosexuality? Where's the proof that its a trait that people are born with?
Replace "same sex marriage" with "African Americans" or "Interracial marriages" in your statement, then re-think what you've said.
Then you want to refute scientific evidence in regards to homosexuality. You don't think there weren't homosexuals back in the Stone Age? As it was stated in Jurassic Park, "Nature always finds a way." You can't come up with any logical reasons for same-sex marriages not to exist, so you resort to the typical inane "show me proof homosexuality isn't natural" response.
Again, there is no "decline of our society" in regards to homosexuality when the majority has decided that those relationships are now considered "normal". Show instances in your personal life, the way you live, the things you do, or your opportunities to succeed in life that have been dramatically impacted by allowing same-sex marriages.
Originally Posted by 2Quills http:///t/396747/rush-limbaugh-the-original-american-idiot/160#post_3536266
I think he knows he's over expanding the law but believes that there is good reason now to change that. I don't quite see how same sex marriage relates to our success as a nation or how it would benefit the states. So what reason do we have to force the majority into accepting the alternative life styles of a minority group?
If we had enough anecdotal evidence by looking back through history and pointing to some specific instances where things like homosexuality and other exesses ran rampant through a culture right up to the decline of that society would that be reason enough to say hey maybe this isn't such a good idea? Nature didn't create us this way. How would man kind survive if everyone converted to homosexuality? Where's the proof that its a trait that people are born with?
Replace "same sex marriage" with "African Americans" or "Interracial marriages" in your statement, then re-think what you've said.
Then you want to refute scientific evidence in regards to homosexuality. You don't think there weren't homosexuals back in the Stone Age? As it was stated in Jurassic Park, "Nature always finds a way." You can't come up with any logical reasons for same-sex marriages not to exist, so you resort to the typical inane "show me proof homosexuality isn't natural" response.
Again, there is no "decline of our society" in regards to homosexuality when the majority has decided that those relationships are now considered "normal". Show instances in your personal life, the way you live, the things you do, or your opportunities to succeed in life that have been dramatically impacted by allowing same-sex marriages.
aggiealum
Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/396747/rush-limbaugh-the-original-american-idiot/160#post_3536257
I will answer your questions when I get home tonight.
In the meantime, I think you need to reread the civil rights act of 1964 and 1968. You are over expanding the law as written.
I don't think so. There was a case in San Antonio not too long ago where Christian groups were trying to deny transgenders from using alternative bathroom facilities in their City Hall. Their City Council also passed a law that extends protections against denying someone housing, jobs or public accommodations because of their sexual orientation.
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2013/09/san-antonio-passes-ordinance-extending-protections-to-gays.html/
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/396747/rush-limbaugh-the-original-american-idiot/160#post_3536257
I will answer your questions when I get home tonight.
In the meantime, I think you need to reread the civil rights act of 1964 and 1968. You are over expanding the law as written.
I don't think so. There was a case in San Antonio not too long ago where Christian groups were trying to deny transgenders from using alternative bathroom facilities in their City Hall. Their City Council also passed a law that extends protections against denying someone housing, jobs or public accommodations because of their sexual orientation.
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2013/09/san-antonio-passes-ordinance-extending-protections-to-gays.html/
2quills
Well-Known Member
Replace "same sex marriage" with "African Americans" or "Interracial marriages" in your statement, then re-think what you've said.
Then you want to refute scientific evidence in regards to homosexuality. You don't think there weren't homosexuals back in the Stone Age? As it was stated in Jurassic Park, "Nature always finds a way." You can't come up with any logical reasons for same-sex marriages not to exist, so you resort to the typical inane "show me proof homosexuality isn't natural" response.
Again, there is no "decline of our society" in regards to homosexuality when the majority has decided that those relationships are now considered "normal". Show instances in your personal life, the way you live, the things you do, or your opportunities to succeed in life that have been dramatically impacted by allowing same-sex marriages.
I wasn't refuting any evidence. I just haven't seen any. Then again this isn't really a topic that I follow very closely ergo, my ignorance. I don't have any good reason not to allow it. I haven't seen anything conclusive there either. Hey if people pay their taxes I don't care who you bring in here.
Then you want to refute scientific evidence in regards to homosexuality. You don't think there weren't homosexuals back in the Stone Age? As it was stated in Jurassic Park, "Nature always finds a way." You can't come up with any logical reasons for same-sex marriages not to exist, so you resort to the typical inane "show me proof homosexuality isn't natural" response.
Again, there is no "decline of our society" in regards to homosexuality when the majority has decided that those relationships are now considered "normal". Show instances in your personal life, the way you live, the things you do, or your opportunities to succeed in life that have been dramatically impacted by allowing same-sex marriages.
I wasn't refuting any evidence. I just haven't seen any. Then again this isn't really a topic that I follow very closely ergo, my ignorance. I don't have any good reason not to allow it. I haven't seen anything conclusive there either. Hey if people pay their taxes I don't care who you bring in here.
bang guy
Moderator
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Quills http:///t/396747/rush-limbaugh-the-original-american-idiot/160#post_3536297
Hey if people pay their taxes I don't care who you bring in here.
Originally Posted by 2Quills http:///t/396747/rush-limbaugh-the-original-american-idiot/160#post_3536297
Hey if people pay their taxes I don't care who you bring in here.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Simple question. Is homosexuality immoral. Yes or no.
Are homosexual relationships immoral. Yes or no.
If the answer is no to either, then how would gay marriages attribute to the moral decline of our society?
The only "gradual decline of morals" is what YOU perceive. My perception of morals can be completely different from yours. So how you perceive them takes precedence over mine? Our society as a whole makes that determination. You can disgree with the interpretations all you want, but the bottom line is your definition of "moral decline" is meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
1. In my personal opinion no to both.
When I speak of morals I speak of concepts such as loyalty, love, determination..respect...etc. These aspects of our society are what is in decline. A person is willing to set aside their personal beliefs for the ease of "comfort". An example, There is a specific dog food my store does not carry. I disagree with their manufacturing processes, their quality control, and a slew of other things. Since I morally disagree with it, I do not carry or offer it. It is a "popular" brand and do get comments such as "well I guess I wont be shopping here since you wont order it". Most people would compromise their moral beliefs for the dollar. This is what I am talking about. The church is in a moral decline...rather than stand up for what they have honestly believed for centuries, they change and evolve to encompass and retain followers, thus keeping their coffers full. This is what I mean by moral decline.
Would you step over a human body that was shot laying in the doorway of a convenience store and continue about your business? This is exactly what 12 people did before someone finally called 911 in this country. This is moral decline I speak of.
Divorce in this country continues to only increase year after year. This is the decline I speak of. Infidelity accounts for over 60% of these divorces.
Do you consider a child getting married at 16 an indication of the moral declines in our society? If not, why not? It falls out of the norm you consider "traditional marriage". This country hasn't been as successful as it has by allowing its 50 states to run completely independent of themselves without some overreaching "united" laws that applies to all states as a whole. Marriages were never federally mandated because not until the last couple of decades has there been a reason for them to. Now that more and more alternative lifestyles have come to light does it make this necessary. The Civil Rights Act is a federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin on many levels of our society and lives. Depending on interpretation, this applies to same-sex marriages as well. Why can a state government NOT discriminate against homosexuals when it comes to those individuals dealing in state matters, but they CAN discriminate against them simply by not allowing them to marry?
It does not account for sex. Also, should a religous institution be forced to marry a homosexual couple if it conflicts with their religious freedom that this bill strictly protects? Pedophilia and homosexuality are both hardwired in a person. just as straight preference is. Just like prefering the color blue over the color yellow....
Do we need national laws protecting all of this?
There, I answered your questions. Now answer mine.
Are homosexual relationships immoral. Yes or no.
If the answer is no to either, then how would gay marriages attribute to the moral decline of our society?
The only "gradual decline of morals" is what YOU perceive. My perception of morals can be completely different from yours. So how you perceive them takes precedence over mine? Our society as a whole makes that determination. You can disgree with the interpretations all you want, but the bottom line is your definition of "moral decline" is meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
1. In my personal opinion no to both.
When I speak of morals I speak of concepts such as loyalty, love, determination..respect...etc. These aspects of our society are what is in decline. A person is willing to set aside their personal beliefs for the ease of "comfort". An example, There is a specific dog food my store does not carry. I disagree with their manufacturing processes, their quality control, and a slew of other things. Since I morally disagree with it, I do not carry or offer it. It is a "popular" brand and do get comments such as "well I guess I wont be shopping here since you wont order it". Most people would compromise their moral beliefs for the dollar. This is what I am talking about. The church is in a moral decline...rather than stand up for what they have honestly believed for centuries, they change and evolve to encompass and retain followers, thus keeping their coffers full. This is what I mean by moral decline.
Would you step over a human body that was shot laying in the doorway of a convenience store and continue about your business? This is exactly what 12 people did before someone finally called 911 in this country. This is moral decline I speak of.
Divorce in this country continues to only increase year after year. This is the decline I speak of. Infidelity accounts for over 60% of these divorces.
Do you consider a child getting married at 16 an indication of the moral declines in our society? If not, why not? It falls out of the norm you consider "traditional marriage". This country hasn't been as successful as it has by allowing its 50 states to run completely independent of themselves without some overreaching "united" laws that applies to all states as a whole. Marriages were never federally mandated because not until the last couple of decades has there been a reason for them to. Now that more and more alternative lifestyles have come to light does it make this necessary. The Civil Rights Act is a federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin on many levels of our society and lives. Depending on interpretation, this applies to same-sex marriages as well. Why can a state government NOT discriminate against homosexuals when it comes to those individuals dealing in state matters, but they CAN discriminate against them simply by not allowing them to marry?
It does not account for sex. Also, should a religous institution be forced to marry a homosexual couple if it conflicts with their religious freedom that this bill strictly protects? Pedophilia and homosexuality are both hardwired in a person. just as straight preference is. Just like prefering the color blue over the color yellow....
Do we need national laws protecting all of this?
There, I answered your questions. Now answer mine.
darthtang aw
Active Member
I don't think so. There was a case in San Antonio not too long ago where Christian groups were trying to deny transgenders from using alternative bathroom facilities in their City Hall. Their City Council also passed a law that extends protections against denying someone housing, jobs or public accommodations because of their sexual orientation.
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2013/09/san-antonio-passes-ordinance-extending-protections-to-gays.html/
This is a public place, thus covered by the civil rights act. The civil rights act and the additional legislation a few years later specifically addressed housing as well. There is a difference between a religious facility and a government facility.
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2013/09/san-antonio-passes-ordinance-extending-protections-to-gays.html/
This is a public place, thus covered by the civil rights act. The civil rights act and the additional legislation a few years later specifically addressed housing as well. There is a difference between a religious facility and a government facility.
aggiealum
Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/396747/rush-limbaugh-the-original-american-idiot/160#post_3536300
1. In my personal opinion no to both.
When I speak of morals I speak of concepts such as loyalty, love, determination..respect...etc. These aspects of our society are what is in decline. A person is willing to set aside their personal beliefs for the ease of "comfort". An example, There is a specific dog food my store does not carry. I disagree with their manufacturing processes, their quality control, and a slew of other things. Since I morally disagree with it, I do not carry or offer it. It is a "popular" brand and do get comments such as "well I guess I wont be shopping here since you wont order it". Most people would compromise their moral beliefs for the dollar. This is what I am talking about. The church is in a moral decline...rather than stand up for what they have honestly believed for centuries, they change and evolve to encompass and retain followers, thus keeping their coffers full. This is what I mean by moral decline.
Those aspects have been in "decline" for decades. However, many of those are reactionary to how our society has advanced technologically. I find it interesting that you apparently follow Libertarian/Conservative philosophies, which espouse on the theories of "greed is good". The dollar is more important to them than their values. They'd let welfare recipients and homeless people starve to death if it meant taking more of their precious dollars to support them for whatever reasons they have to be in their personal financial situations. I don't quite understand your dog food analogy. You as a business owner are more than welcome to sell whatever products you deem necessary. If your "morals" drive you not to sell a certain brand, that's your option. But you can't chastise customers simply because they don't have the same beliefs as you in regards to those products. You say it's because it's all about money, which is somewhat true, but it also has to do with the individual pet's gastrointestinal habits. I've gone to various pet stores to purchase dry food for my cats, and I see these "retro" or "gourmet" brands that claim they have no fillers and what not, and they sell them for 30% more than the name-brand foods like Purina and Meow Mix. I tried one of them once because they claimed my cats would eat less and it would reduce their hair balls because of the quality of ingredients over the cheaper brands. All three of my cats got a bad case of diarrhea from the stuff. So in their case, their intestinal systems were accustomed to the cheaper brands, and they are content eating them. Considering their ages (all three are over 10), the cheap brands don't appear to cause them any health issues. So why should I pay more for the expensive brands simply because you refuse to to sell the cheaper one's?
Would you step over a human body that was shot laying in the doorway of a convenience store and continue about your business? This is exactly what 12 people did before someone finally called 911 in this country. This is moral decline I speak of.
Yes, you see news stories about this all the time. Then you see the other stories where people have gone out of their way to help their fellow man. Look at all these "Secret Santa's" this last Christmas holiday that paid people's layaways at Walmart, left $1,000 tips to unsuspecting waitresses, and even paid several people's hotel bills who were waiting out a storm. Look at the support people gave the Sandy Hook, Sandy hurricane, and Boston Marathon bombings victims. Sorry, we don't live in this perfect euphoric world you think we should subsist in. It's called Human Nature.
Divorce in this country continues to only increase year after year. This is the decline I speak of. Infidelity accounts for over 60% of these divorces.
It does not account for sex. Also, should a religous institution be forced to marry a homosexual couple if it conflicts with their religious freedom that this bill strictly protects? Pedophilia and homosexuality are both hardwired in a person. just as straight preference is. Just like prefering the color blue over the color yellow....
I find it ironic that those statistics you speak are 10 times more to occur within heterosexual relationships that homosexual ones. Religious institutions should be allowed to deny whoever they want from getting married in their church. There was an article in the Houston paper not too long ago about a couple who were devout Catholics, but the bride refused to go to Confession prior to the ceremony, which the priest required her to do. So he ended up refusing to marry them in the church. They wanted to sue the church for breach of contract. Most same-sex couples could care less whether they get married in a church or not. They want the LEGAL institution of marriage, not the religious one.
Do we need national laws protecting all of this?
There, I answered your questions. Now answer mine.
Sorry. As convoluted as this argument has become, I don't even recall what the questions were.
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/396747/rush-limbaugh-the-original-american-idiot/160#post_3536300
1. In my personal opinion no to both.
When I speak of morals I speak of concepts such as loyalty, love, determination..respect...etc. These aspects of our society are what is in decline. A person is willing to set aside their personal beliefs for the ease of "comfort". An example, There is a specific dog food my store does not carry. I disagree with their manufacturing processes, their quality control, and a slew of other things. Since I morally disagree with it, I do not carry or offer it. It is a "popular" brand and do get comments such as "well I guess I wont be shopping here since you wont order it". Most people would compromise their moral beliefs for the dollar. This is what I am talking about. The church is in a moral decline...rather than stand up for what they have honestly believed for centuries, they change and evolve to encompass and retain followers, thus keeping their coffers full. This is what I mean by moral decline.
Those aspects have been in "decline" for decades. However, many of those are reactionary to how our society has advanced technologically. I find it interesting that you apparently follow Libertarian/Conservative philosophies, which espouse on the theories of "greed is good". The dollar is more important to them than their values. They'd let welfare recipients and homeless people starve to death if it meant taking more of their precious dollars to support them for whatever reasons they have to be in their personal financial situations. I don't quite understand your dog food analogy. You as a business owner are more than welcome to sell whatever products you deem necessary. If your "morals" drive you not to sell a certain brand, that's your option. But you can't chastise customers simply because they don't have the same beliefs as you in regards to those products. You say it's because it's all about money, which is somewhat true, but it also has to do with the individual pet's gastrointestinal habits. I've gone to various pet stores to purchase dry food for my cats, and I see these "retro" or "gourmet" brands that claim they have no fillers and what not, and they sell them for 30% more than the name-brand foods like Purina and Meow Mix. I tried one of them once because they claimed my cats would eat less and it would reduce their hair balls because of the quality of ingredients over the cheaper brands. All three of my cats got a bad case of diarrhea from the stuff. So in their case, their intestinal systems were accustomed to the cheaper brands, and they are content eating them. Considering their ages (all three are over 10), the cheap brands don't appear to cause them any health issues. So why should I pay more for the expensive brands simply because you refuse to to sell the cheaper one's?
Would you step over a human body that was shot laying in the doorway of a convenience store and continue about your business? This is exactly what 12 people did before someone finally called 911 in this country. This is moral decline I speak of.
Yes, you see news stories about this all the time. Then you see the other stories where people have gone out of their way to help their fellow man. Look at all these "Secret Santa's" this last Christmas holiday that paid people's layaways at Walmart, left $1,000 tips to unsuspecting waitresses, and even paid several people's hotel bills who were waiting out a storm. Look at the support people gave the Sandy Hook, Sandy hurricane, and Boston Marathon bombings victims. Sorry, we don't live in this perfect euphoric world you think we should subsist in. It's called Human Nature.
Divorce in this country continues to only increase year after year. This is the decline I speak of. Infidelity accounts for over 60% of these divorces.
It does not account for sex. Also, should a religous institution be forced to marry a homosexual couple if it conflicts with their religious freedom that this bill strictly protects? Pedophilia and homosexuality are both hardwired in a person. just as straight preference is. Just like prefering the color blue over the color yellow....
I find it ironic that those statistics you speak are 10 times more to occur within heterosexual relationships that homosexual ones. Religious institutions should be allowed to deny whoever they want from getting married in their church. There was an article in the Houston paper not too long ago about a couple who were devout Catholics, but the bride refused to go to Confession prior to the ceremony, which the priest required her to do. So he ended up refusing to marry them in the church. They wanted to sue the church for breach of contract. Most same-sex couples could care less whether they get married in a church or not. They want the LEGAL institution of marriage, not the religious one.
Do we need national laws protecting all of this?
There, I answered your questions. Now answer mine.
Sorry. As convoluted as this argument has become, I don't even recall what the questions were.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Several people stepping over a dying man in an uncaring fashion in this modern society is "human nature"?
Actually, the infidelity rate among homosexuals compared to heterosexuals is pretty much even as a percentage of the demographic. Here in New Mexico, we had a Photographer that was sued and lost, because she turned down a photography job with a homosexual couple wanting to get married. She cited religious beliefs for her reason....the courts ruled in favor of the homosexual couple. Had she cited schedule conflict, nothing probably would have come of it, but she chose to be honest and was sued and lost.
aggiealum
Member
Texas had the opportunity to receive millions in Federal benefits in Medicare payments for destitute children and their families, yet Rick Perry refused them. If Conservatives cared, "they'd accept the benefits for the good of the citizenry. Trust me, I deal with Conservatives every day, friends and clients, and they're some of the stingiest people I know. Their mentality is "What's in it for me". Your perception of "tax garnishment" is a little skewed. Federal subsidies for the less fortunate in this country amounts to every taxpayer's taxes to go up maybe $100/year. Half of those are written off and returned based on our current tax laws. Conservatives make it sound as if they'll have to move under a bridge if we have to keep supporting these people.
I've tried several variations of those "premium" cat foods, and my cats either got sick or turned their noses up at them. Me thinks your morals and ethics would be a little less affected if more of your customers just bought the expensive stuff in the first place. Can you guarantee that these brands you do sell actually do as they say when it comes to producing them? Have you visited their manufacturing facilities to verify their production processes and validated the ingredients they put in it?
http://www.dogfoodadvisor.com/choosing-dog-food/premium-natural-gourmet-dog-food/
http://www.isohealthy.org/StopFeedingUsRubbish/API_Report.php
You call it "money over ethics" because your customers want the cheap stuff, when in reality, most pet owners could care less what's in the food they serve their animals. So do you not eat veal because of the inhumane treatment to calves in order to get that cut of meat? Do you sell dogs from puppy mills?
As far as the photographer spat?
In September we told you the story of a New Mexico photography studio who refused to photograph the commitment ceremony of a lesbian couple, claiming that doing so would be a violation of their religious beliefs.
The New Mexico Supreme Court originally ruled that Elane Photography was violating the anti-discrimination provisions of the New Mexico Human Rights Act, but Elaine Huguenin and her husband John Huguenin, the couple who owns Elane Photography, have filed a new petitionhttp://www.scotusblog.com/2013/11/photos-as-messages-a-new-constitutional-case/ with the argument that the original ruling "will interfere with the expressive activity of photojournalists in general, who engage in the same kind of expression."
Further, the couple claims that not being allowed to turn away a gay couple and having to pose, edit, and present a story through photographs of a homosexual couple that wished to pay for their services would be a form of compelled speech which would be in violation of the First Amendment guarantee of free speech.
Now it's not a matter of religious convictions, but one of free speech? Riiight. Sounds more like a couple of homophobes that just didn't want to have to take pictures of two homosexuals kissing one another, and tried using the religious beliefs act as an easy way out. Ooops, that one didn't work, so let our lawyers find another creative way out.
I've tried several variations of those "premium" cat foods, and my cats either got sick or turned their noses up at them. Me thinks your morals and ethics would be a little less affected if more of your customers just bought the expensive stuff in the first place. Can you guarantee that these brands you do sell actually do as they say when it comes to producing them? Have you visited their manufacturing facilities to verify their production processes and validated the ingredients they put in it?
http://www.dogfoodadvisor.com/choosing-dog-food/premium-natural-gourmet-dog-food/
http://www.isohealthy.org/StopFeedingUsRubbish/API_Report.php
You call it "money over ethics" because your customers want the cheap stuff, when in reality, most pet owners could care less what's in the food they serve their animals. So do you not eat veal because of the inhumane treatment to calves in order to get that cut of meat? Do you sell dogs from puppy mills?
As far as the photographer spat?
In September we told you the story of a New Mexico photography studio who refused to photograph the commitment ceremony of a lesbian couple, claiming that doing so would be a violation of their religious beliefs.
Further, the couple claims that not being allowed to turn away a gay couple and having to pose, edit, and present a story through photographs of a homosexual couple that wished to pay for their services would be a form of compelled speech which would be in violation of the First Amendment guarantee of free speech.
Now it's not a matter of religious convictions, but one of free speech? Riiight. Sounds more like a couple of homophobes that just didn't want to have to take pictures of two homosexuals kissing one another, and tried using the religious beliefs act as an easy way out. Ooops, that one didn't work, so let our lawyers find another creative way out.
