Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

GMC Forum _ CHILL OUT _ U.s. Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage In Every State

Posted by: Chris S. Jun 27 2015, 02:44 AM

Better late than never but a big win:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gay-marriage-and-other-major-rulings-at-the-supreme-court/2015/06/25/ef75a120-1b6d-11e5-bd7f-4611a60dd8e5_story.html

One of my best friends is gay - and up until now our state prohibited gay marriage - so I am glad that she and her partner can finally have that right now.

We're all one people. There is no black or white, male or female, gay or straight.

We all belong to the same race : humans - and we all deserve equal.

Posted by: fkalich Jun 27 2015, 03:44 AM

It is not about Billy and Tony doing the ceremony. It is a money grab for entitlements, public and private. And America bought it hook line and sinker.

If children were involved I would not object to that so much. But for the most part they won't be. Homosexual couples now will be getting financial benefits both public and private who in now way really merit these, where there is no real justification for it. Marriage benefits have always been rooted in supporting children, not for the couple itself. Yes many married couple have had no children and still reaped financial benefits, but that does not mean it is a great thing to now extend the pool of undeserving who are now on the payout list.

Bottom line, in both the public and private sector, single people are going to be the ones subsidizing the entitlements. Money does not grow on trees. Everybody has to pay their share for these things, in the form of higher taxes and lower wages. But single people will have to pay for them, and they will get nothing back in return. If you are single and you are happy with this, you are more pleased with handing your money out to the undeserving than I am.

Posted by: Huargo Jun 27 2015, 08:32 AM

Great news!!!! Congrats United States!!

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Jun 27 2015, 09:33 AM

Well this sounds like a great step in the right direction.

With all the antagonism gay people have to live with, I can imagine this must be a relief.

Posted by: Mertay Jun 27 2015, 11:36 AM

Congrats, I hope many other country's follow this big step.


QUOTE (fkalich @ Jun 27 2015, 02:44 AM) *
It is not about Billy and Tony doing the ceremony. It is a money grab for entitlements, public and private. And America bought it hook line and sinker.

If children were involved I would not object to that so much. But for the most part they won't be. Homosexual couples now will be getting financial benefits both public and private who in now way really merit these, where there is no real justification for it. Marriage benefits have always been rooted in supporting children, not for the couple itself. Yes many married couple have had no children and still reaped financial benefits, but that does not mean it is a great thing to now extend the pool of undeserving who are now on the payout list.

Bottom line, in both the public and private sector, single people are going to be the ones subsidizing the entitlements. Money does not grow on trees. Everybody has to pay their share for these things, in the form of higher taxes and lower wages. But single people will have to pay for them, and they will get nothing back in return. If you are single and you are happy with this, you are more pleased with handing your money out to the undeserving than I am.


I think I understand your objective point of view, although I'm not aware of marital benefits in USA system as probably there are many differences to where I live.

The way I see it as an outsider (besides the social upgrade of culture), its similar the laws that try to prevent racism as some of them also require money from tax payers but have been going on for many years.

If you have concerns on fake marriages, I'm sure they'll find ways to prevent it. Here in Turkey we have compulsory military service and naturally some try to play the fake gay card to try and escape this service. But the tests work, from what I heard there is nothing nice about these tests (even humiliating in some ways) but again somehow the system works.

Of course this is a giant but only the first step, I hope everything works fine along the way.

Posted by: jstcrsn Jun 27 2015, 01:23 PM

I don,t have a problem with this at all,not even soo much as having the federal government overstep states sovereignty issue , which has been a big part of the fight . The problem I see is, if it is now a constitutional right, who can deny someone there right ?, right . Unfortunately I believe many religious as well as private organizations will be forced to give up there right to refuse service (on any grounds), is this still a free country?. if you think someone is bigoted or not, I don,t care, they should choose who they want to serve or not. .we have already seen retailers across America being forced to serve . what happens now when tax exempt organizations are forced to loose tax exemptions or serve someone they don,t want to. Like it or not the most efficient (around the globe ) to natural disasters -are religious groups . way faster, better organized , way more effective than any Government. I believe over time ,these organizations will soon disappear , and then our wonderful big brother can step in and manage everything . So I am going to have to agree , in a round about way with Fkalich. Another bait and switch for the American people

Posted by: klasaine Jun 27 2015, 02:41 PM


Posted by: Mertay Jun 27 2015, 04:01 PM

Seems a lot happened today, saw this on a friends facebook;

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xta1/v/t1.0-9/10407627_874249292668126_482028019440722208_n.jpg?oh=ec549fea25ab4a27bfafae0c15dab635&oe=56267C38&__gda__=1444759302_264781e2dd6055e063c0fd75fcc3d219

Posted by: Todd Simpson Jun 27 2015, 11:41 PM

It's about time eh? smile.gif Some folks are still complaining that they are somehow injured by fairness. sad.gif I was glad to see it got voted 6 to 3 on the supreme court but sad to see 3 supreme court justices voting for prejudicial intent.

QUOTE (Chris S. @ Jun 26 2015, 09:44 PM) *
Better late than never but a big win:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gay-marriage-and-other-major-rulings-at-the-supreme-court/2015/06/25/ef75a120-1b6d-11e5-bd7f-4611a60dd8e5_story.html

One of my best friends is gay - and up until now our state prohibited gay marriage - so I am glad that she and her partner can finally have that right now.

We're all one people. There is no black or white, male or female, gay or straight.

We all belong to the same race : humans - and we all deserve equal.



Well said smile.gif I"m ashamed it's taken this long and ashamed that some folks feel non straight couples should be discriminated against. Being a "Proud Southerner", I take a good bit of heat for believing in the concept of equality. Somehow folks seem to have gotten things twisted.

QUOTE (Kristofer Dahl @ Jun 27 2015, 04:33 AM) *
Well this sounds like a great step in the right direction.

With all the antagonism gay people have to live with, I can imagine this must be a relief.


Posted by: Mudbone Jun 28 2015, 01:24 AM

Hopefully now we'll get divorce equality.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Jun 28 2015, 01:48 AM

Hopefully! smile.gif Here is Stephen Colbert with the Conservative viewpoint!




QUOTE (Mudbone @ Jun 27 2015, 08:24 PM) *
Hopefully now we'll get divorce equality.


Posted by: AK Rich Jun 28 2015, 04:01 PM

QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Jun 27 2015, 02:41 PM) *
It's about time eh? smile.gif Some folks are still complaining that they are somehow injured by fairness. sad.gif I was glad to see it got voted 6 to 3 on the supreme court but sad to see 3 supreme court justices voting for prejudicial intent.


It was a 5 to 4 decision. ACA decision was 6-3


While I support the union of 2 people of the same sex being able to receive the same benefits as a married couple. This is in no way, shape or form, marriage. And I believe the court overstepped it's bounds on something that should clearly be left up to the states.

Posted by: Mertay Jun 28 2015, 05:48 PM

The police didn't let them celebrate at İstanbul Taksim...cause of ramadan ohmy.gif mad.gif

Posted by: Ben Higgins Jun 29 2015, 10:25 AM

QUOTE (klasaine @ Jun 27 2015, 01:41 PM) *


Got the horn

Posted by: jstcrsn Jun 29 2015, 01:15 PM

Lets here your answers people. What happnes when 3 people want to get merried, 3 men, 3 women, 2 men and a girl. Isn't this the logical conclusion , and if so, should their right of "fairness" be trampled on.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Jun 29 2015, 01:23 PM

I'd vote for any legislator who supports legislation to let people marry and love whomever they choose whether it's by the couple or by the threesome smile.gif It's not the govt's job to tell us who to love or how many.


QUOTE (jstcrsn @ Jun 29 2015, 08:15 AM) *
Lets here your answers people. What happnes when 3 people want to get merried, 3 men, 3 women, 2 men and a girl. Isn't this the logical conclusion , and if so, should their right of "fairness" be trampled on.

Posted by: klasaine Jun 29 2015, 03:58 PM

There'd probably be fewer breakups over infidelity - ?

We're the 18th country in the world to adopt same sex marriage (marriage equality).
I can not find statics on how many 3 (or more) party marriages have taken place in those countries.

Most likely be some Mormon challenges. Though I don't really think there's gonna be droves of 'party of 5 looking to get a marriage license'.

Posted by: AK Rich Jun 29 2015, 09:06 PM

QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Jun 29 2015, 04:23 AM) *
I'd vote for any legislator who supports legislation to let people marry and love whomever they choose whether it's by the couple or by the threesome smile.gif It's not the govt's job to tell us who to love or how many.


Wait, what? It's not the Gov's job but you would support a legislator who would seek to do just that?
If Gov should stay out of the matter , they should do so altogether shouldn't they?
If it is not the job of Gov to tell us who we can't marry , then how is it the job of Gov to tell us who we can?

For me this is all irrelevant. The institution of Marriage is already defined and no Gov, or panel of unelected and lifetime appointed judges should be able to change that.

As I have stated before. I have no problem at all with the union of two people of the same sex receiving the same benefits as a married couple, but that kind of union is not marriage. And no Gov or Court will dictate to me an altered definition of Marriage.

Folks can do as they want but they should have no expectation that everyone will willingly, or be forced by law to accept it. The morals that we choose to live by are not subject to Gov approval in this matter. If they want acceptance, then let them convince us as they have many people, but do not try to force us to accept it.



Posted by: Todd Simpson Jun 29 2015, 10:17 PM

No. smile.gif I'd support a legislator who would recognize that it's NOT the govs job to decide for us who to love or how many. Legislators make legislation. I'd vote for one who'd make legislation that got them out of the bedroom. smile.gif

It's not the govts job to tell us who we can or can't marry. Also (IMHO) not their job to tell us how many we can marry if we so choose. Thus, I do not support the laws that say multiple marriage partners are forbidden. Hope that clears things up smile.gif

The "Institution" of Marriage as a spiritual construct can mean anything to anybody. In terms of the law, the Institution should be open to all adults no matter what their preference of partner or number thereof, IMHO smile.gif

If you don't want to recognize same sex marriage as marriage, that is your right smile.gif I'd vote to defend it. We have every right to recognize, or not recognize what other people think is or is not "Marriage". But beyond personal recognition......not so much.

Gay folks aren't trying to force anyone to do anything. They don't want to force anyone to marry same sex if they don't want to smile.gif So there's no "force" in the decision. Just a recognition of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness as requisite whether one happens to be gay or straight. One more of the last vestiges of bigotry finally downed smile.gif


QUOTE (AK Rich @ Jun 29 2015, 04:06 PM) *
Wait, what? It's not the Gov's job but you would support a legislator who would seek to do just that?
If Gov should stay out of the matter , they should do so altogether shouldn't they?
If it is not the job of Gov to tell us who we can't marry , then how is it the job of Gov to tell us who we can?

For me this is all irrelevant. The institution of Marriage is already defined and no Gov, or panel of unelected and lifetime appointed judges should be able to change that.

As I have stated before. I have no problem at all with the union of two people of the same sex receiving the same benefits as a married couple, but that kind of union is not marriage. And no Gov or Court will dictate to me an altered definition of Marriage.

Folks can do as they want but they should have no expectation that everyone will willingly, or be forced by law to accept it. The morals that we choose to live by are not subject to Gov approval in this matter. If they want acceptance, then let them convince us as they have many people, but do not try to force us to accept it.

Posted by: klasaine Jun 29 2015, 11:09 PM

As a freelance musician ... this can only mean more gigs!

Posted by: Chris S. Jun 29 2015, 11:27 PM

QUOTE (klasaine @ Jun 29 2015, 10:09 PM) *
As a freelance musician ... this can only mean more gigs!

Gonna need a thicker agenda! tongue.gif

Posted by: AK Rich Jul 3 2015, 05:24 PM

QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Jun 29 2015, 01:17 PM) *
Gay folks aren't trying to force anyone to do anything. They don't want to force anyone to marry same sex if they don't want to smile.gif So there's no "force" in the decision. Just a recognition of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness as requisite whether one happens to be gay or straight. One more of the last vestiges of bigotry finally downed smile.gif


I guess you don't remember the lawsuit against the bakers for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple because of moral and religious reasons. Is this not forcing acceptance? And now there is a gag order against them to stop them from speaking out about gay marriage.
I am sure you won't like the source but this is the latest news never the less.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/oregon-issues-gag-order-bakers-who-refused-make-gay-wedding-cake_983506.html

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/03/hate-wins-oregon-state-issues-gag-order-against-opposing-gay-marriage/

There is no question that there is a fascist element to the gay movement which is now pushing for an end to tax exempt status for churches based on their religious objections to gay marriage. This portion of the gay movement would seek to deny anyone from speaking out against gay marriage, forcing the acceptance and recognition of everyone no matter their religious and moral objections.


Posted by: Todd Simpson Jul 3 2015, 06:43 PM

I remember smile.gif Folks have every right to bring lawsuits for anything and everything. But, refusing to serve people because they are Gay is the same things as not serving them for any other arbitrary reason, in legal terms anyway. Just as you can't refuse service because someone is black, or worships Satan, or is agnostic, you can't legally refuse them service just because they are gay.

This is "forcing" a measure of equality. Not acceptance. As a vendor, you don't have to accept any lifestyle/religion choice on the part of your customers. But you can't have a "no gays served" sign in your store.

In the case you mention, the Baker was held liable. Vendors don't have the right to be discriminatory. sad.gif

Egad! Pulling the weekly standard in smile.gif I might have to post something from Mother jones smile.gif

I don't think we have much to worry about from the "Fascist Gays" smile.gif Unless you mean their keen fashion sense.

Anyone can speak out against or for anything smile.gif That's the beauty of it. Folks can speak out against gay marriage all they want smile.gif Then again, we have no laws against spoken bigotry here unless it crosses in to hate speech. But after hearing THE DONALD go off all racist/xenophobic against Mexicans, it seems pretty clear that bigotry is widely available and supported by many in the GOP as he is second only to heir Bush in the poles. Sad.

QUOTE (AK Rich @ Jul 3 2015, 12:24 PM) *
I guess you don't remember the lawsuit against the bakers for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple because of moral and religious reasons. Is this not forcing acceptance? And now there is a gag order against them to stop them from speaking out about gay marriage.
I am sure you won't like the source but this is the latest news never the less.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/oregon-issues-gag-order-bakers-who-refused-make-gay-wedding-cake_983506.html

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/03/hate-wins-oregon-state-issues-gag-order-against-opposing-gay-marriage/

There is no question that there is a fascist element to the gay movement which is now pushing for an end to tax exempt status for churches based on their religious objections to gay marriage. This portion of the gay movement would seek to deny anyone from speaking out against gay marriage, forcing the acceptance and recognition of everyone no matter their religious and moral objections.


Posted by: jstcrsn Jul 4 2015, 12:50 PM

QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Jul 3 2015, 06:43 PM) *
I remember smile.gif Just as you can't refuse service because someone is black, or worships Satan, or is agnostic, you can't legally refuse them service just because they are gay.

so in this "free" country ", when are you allowed to refuse service?. Being nude?. Isn't that the same as being black- your born like that !A private company should have the Right to refuse service to anyone whom they choose. Black , gay , male , female it should not matter. I personally have done work for all of the above and as a business man, think its a bad decision to refuse work,but, will fight tooth and nail for the government not to step in and force this issue. Especially when their are myriads of others will to do the service.

And I like your liberal twisting . Rich says a fascist element to the gay agenda and you try to nullify his post twisting it to the 'Fascist gays".
But when you say their not forcing , and rich brings up a few examples of people being forced , it tends to make your argument look foolish

Posted by: AK Rich Jul 4 2015, 05:36 PM

QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Jul 3 2015, 09:43 AM) *
Anyone can speak out against or for anything smile.gif That's the beauty of it. Folks can speak out against gay marriage all they want smile.gif Then again, we have no laws against spoken bigotry here unless it crosses in to hate speech. But after hearing THE DONALD go off all racist/xenophobic against Mexicans, it seems pretty clear that bigotry is widely available and supported by many in the GOP as he is second only to heir Bush in the poles. Sad.


Heavy sigh. Bigotry, right. I guess that ends any meaningful and rational debate about the serious problems that we have on our southern border. Typical childish response from the left when there is something that they don't want to talk about rationally. Heaven forbid someones feelings may get hurt.
Happy Independence day bro. I am out.


Posted by: Ben Higgins Jul 4 2015, 07:55 PM

I personally believe everyone has the right to like or dislike whatever they want providing they have the understanding that what they choose to express publicly may lead to repercussions.

Whether the repercussions are justified or not is another matter but choosing to express an opinion that one knows is not going to be popular doesn't come with automatic immunity from any backlash that occurs. What I mean by that is when people say stuff that they know is going to offend.. for example

"I hate fat chicks!"

Then loads of people negatively respond in kind

"Hey, freedom of speech, man... "

If you're going to be offensive, take responsibility and know that there may be many who don't like your views.

I don't think the company with the cake needed to be sued, though. That was overkill. Just call them tossers and move on and find another shop.

But ISIS though, now those guys truly are wrong... that's something to get angry about.

Posted by: jstcrsn Jul 5 2015, 11:59 AM

QUOTE (Ben Higgins @ Jul 4 2015, 07:55 PM) *
I personally believe everyone has the right to like or dislike whatever they want providing they have the understanding that what they choose to express publicly may lead to repercussions.

Whether the repercussions are justified or not is another matter but choosing to express an opinion that one knows is not going to be popular doesn't come with automatic immunity from any backlash that occurs. What I mean by that is when people say stuff that they know is going to offend.. for example

"I hate fat chicks!"

Then loads of people negatively respond in kind

"Hey, freedom of speech, man... "

If you're going to be offensive, take responsibility and know that there may be many who don't like your views.

I don't think the company with the cake needed to be sued, though. That was overkill. Just call them tossers and move on and find another shop.

But ISIS though, now those guys truly are wrong... that's something to get angry about.

have you ever thought, maybe, the fat ch,um, pleasantly plump girls , hate you
I hear they don't like uncontrollable urination

Posted by: Todd Simpson Jul 5 2015, 09:34 PM

I"m QUOTING Crsn here. "....Being Nude? Isn't that the same as being black?..."

NO. Those are not the same smile.gif

Of course, you have every right to feel ever how you want on denial of service smile.gif However, the supreme court has come down on the other side of the issue so it's settled in terms of the law. But still, folks can feel how they like smile.gif

I'll continue to be on the lookout for fascist gays though and nude black people. smile.gif

QUOTE (jstcrsn @ Jul 4 2015, 07:50 AM) *
so in this "free" country ", when are you allowed to refuse service?. Being nude?. Isn't that the same as being black- your born like that !A private company should have the Right to refuse service to anyone whom they choose. Black , gay , male , female it should not matter. I personally have done work for all of the above and as a business man, think its a bad decision to refuse work,but, will fight tooth and nail for the government not to step in and force this issue. Especially when their are myriads of others will to do the service.

And I like your liberal twisting . Rich says a fascist element to the gay agenda and you try to nullify his post twisting it to the 'Fascist gays".
But when you say their not forcing , and rich brings up a few examples of people being forced , it tends to make your argument look foolish



Trump's remarks were quite simply bigotry. No other way to put it. Nothing to do with feelings. Just him making racist comments is all smile.gif He has every right to be a racist, every right to be a bigot and claim that Mexicans are all "rapists". But we have every right to call him on it smile.gif Here is Donald defending it.



QUOTE (AK Rich @ Jul 4 2015, 12:36 PM) *
Heavy sigh. Bigotry, right. I guess that ends any meaningful and rational debate about the serious problems that we have on our southern border. Typical childish response from the left when there is something that they don't want to talk about rationally. Heaven forbid someones feelings may get hurt.
Happy Independence day bro. I am out.


Well said!! smile.gif Donald can say "we are a dumping ground for Mexican rapists" but he should expect to be called out on it and anyone supporting him should expect the same.

I agree with you on ISIS smile.gif Those folks are just beyond crazy and pure evil. They really don't deserve anything other than being on the biz end of a Chally tank.

QUOTE (Ben Higgins @ Jul 4 2015, 02:55 PM) *
I personally believe everyone has the right to like or dislike whatever they want providing they have the understanding that what they choose to express publicly may lead to repercussions.

Whether the repercussions are justified or not is another matter but choosing to express an opinion that one knows is not going to be popular doesn't come with automatic immunity from any backlash that occurs. What I mean by that is when people say stuff that they know is going to offend.. for example

"I hate fat chicks!"

Then loads of people negatively respond in kind

"Hey, freedom of speech, man... "

If you're going to be offensive, take responsibility and know that there may be many who don't like your views.

I don't think the company with the cake needed to be sued, though. That was overkill. Just call them tossers and move on and find another shop.

But ISIS though, now those guys truly are wrong... that's something to get angry about.


Posted by: jstcrsn Jul 5 2015, 11:09 PM

QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Jul 5 2015, 09:34 PM) *
I"m QUOTING Crsn here. "....Being Nude? Isn't that the same as being black?..."

NO. Those are not the same smile.gif

Once again . Liberal twisting to try to nullify the question rather than rational thought and answering

"so in this "free" country ", when are you allowed to refuse service?. Being nude?. Isn't that the same as being black- your born like that"

Three questions , each with their period. Asking when is it allowable to refuse service.Should I as business man be able to refuse service to someone nude. Being born nude and being born black are the same thing , and the question was legitimate, instead of trying to be civil and just answer the question , you thought it would be fun to just mock . being born black is why blacks were finally given their civil rights ( as they should have been ). Side note it was the republicans that marched with the blacks and the democrats that tried to block giving them their rights. But I digress .And that is why blacks should not be discriminated against . I guess I wonder why you just can't answer a simple question without mocking me

Posted by: Marek Rojewski Jul 6 2015, 08:06 AM

Jstcrsn - your falling into a trap. Of course being nude and being black is different. The social norms are what makes them different. It is obvious in Western World that being nude in public is wrong (excluding the aggressive breast feeding movement of the last decade) and being Jew or Black isn't (and we both can accept that as good right?).

The problem is that social norms are degrading, and so more and more healthy things are mutated into something worse, or bad things are elevated to proper ones.

Since I was a little child and heard for the first time, that a salesman must serve everyone I was surprised and disgusted. What on earth? I open my shop, it is my shop, my space, my kingdom. I can put Mao Se Dong portrait on the wall, or even a butchered decomposing cow. Maybe it is a good idea to put some kind of information on the doors, that some people may not like what they find inside, but the idea that because someone can force me to change my place because he thinks something should be made different is ridiculous.

It is the owners choice who he will serve. The Supreme Court in USA decided otherwise, showcasing that even people at the highest level of Jurisprudence can have big problems with logic and general brain usage. They are infected with the virus of political correctness, the sole greatest threat to Western civilisation.

ISIS would not be a threat, if the Western World would still cultivate it values. Islam was always in a state of war with the Western World, but we always won, and we still would win and just overcome this obstacle.
Now ISIS is a threat because we abandoned our values, the comfort and easy life made people weak and stupid. People watch ISIS cutting heads on Youtube and are like "oooo man how terrible, these dudes are really out of their minds YOLO UH OH" or "someone should tell them we can all be gay and friendly!". This will never work, and if not reversed will result in all of our heads or the heads of our children being chopped off.
The right reaction to Islam is simple - abandon it or get out of our lands. --> Respect our culture or get out of it. --> You are still here trying not to listen? --> Because we are of much higher culture than you, we offer you one last chance, of leaving --> Unfortunately now you die fool.

I don't think Crusades are necessary, in fact some cultures just need an excuse to slaughter each other indefinitely. This is not our problem and not our duty to change that. In fact it is the opposite - we have no right to interfere in their lands in the way they live, that would make us no better barbarians than them.


Having written all this, because I am tired of all this politically correct nonsense, I think that this discussion shouldn't continue. Agreement upon those topics is another utopian lie that only the politically correct can believe in.

Posted by: Ben Higgins Jul 6 2015, 10:32 AM

QUOTE (jstcrsn @ Jul 5 2015, 10:59 AM) *
have you ever thought, maybe, the fat ch,um, pleasantly plump girls , hate you
I hear they don't like uncontrollable urination


The "I hate fat chicks" was supposed to hypothetically represent somebody else, just to clarify with everyone - I don't hold that view, ok? biggrin.gif

But to answer you - yes, they may do, and they have that right although they're totally wrong - I'm amazing smile.gif

Re: urination, there might be a market in some corners of Europe for that sort of thing????

QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Jul 5 2015, 08:34 PM) *
They really don't deserve anything other than being on the biz end of a Chally tank.


High five, brother!

QUOTE (Marek Rojewski @ Jul 6 2015, 07:06 AM) *
ISIS would not be a threat, if the Western World would still cultivate it values. Islam was always in a state of war with the Western World, but we always won, and we still would win and just overcome this obstacle.

Although I'm not religious I can see how people follow a religion and only use it as a cause for good.. look at what great art, music and creations people have given to the world in the name of their faith. What would the Renaissance be without Catholicism? I can't imagine what Italy would look like if it were not for Christianity. Or Ancient Greece without the pantheon of Greek deities?

Of course, others use it for the exact opposite which tells us is this; The world doesn't have a religion problem, it has a people problem. All problems that manifest amongst the human population are people problems. Incorrect gun usage is a people problem. Denial of the reality of incorrect gun usage is a people problem. Racial issues aren't a race problem, they're a people problem.

The thing about the Middle East is that it has always been a tribal area with tribal boundaries and ties that run deep. When any outsider tries to put in a one size fits all government, it doesn't take into account the tribal nature of their culture. The Western forces that went there probably ended up learning more about how those areas work than anybody else. As you said, there has always been war in that area but it's always been that way... before Islam, before any Western countries went there. It's a people issue again.

Terrorists like CystISIS want us to see it as us vs Islam. They want chaos. They are the big, fat angry kid who pees in the swimming pool and ruins it for everyone just because they can. They're a melting pot for every sad, pathetic, anti social sociopath who wants an excuse, any excuse, to hurt others. CystISIS is an excuse for people to carry out their psychopathy.

Man, Marek you should post more often - you make my brain start working again. smile.gif

QUOTE (Marek Rojewski @ Jul 6 2015, 07:06 AM) *
Agreement upon those topics is another utopian lie that only the politically correct can believe in.


I agree that it's not possible to have this. Why? We only have to look at the concept of a personality disorder like psychopathy. I know it seems I'm obsessed by this word but bear with me. Have any of you watched tv shows about serial killers where they talk about the 'normal guy next door' the lack of empathy, the amazing capability to lie and manipulate?

Cutting to the chase, the end point is that these phenomenons cannot be cured. So you can imagine that using things like fairness and reason would be absolutely useless against someone of that mind.

If Ted Bundy was coming at you with that look in his eye would you try to reason with him? How do we think that would go?

Now let's apply that idea of battling psychopathy with reason to an entire group of people. No matter how much you conceded, play fair or give them what they want they are always looking for the next angle, the next moment to strike. There is no fair when dealing with certain people. Sadly this will never change.

I see a lot of the liberal minded, young student types railing against any sort of mindset which acknowledges that fact but they're living in a dream. They're young, naive, reading all about human rights and think they can change the world with words, reason, intelligent debate etc. The only time that can work is with others that work by your rules and fair standards. As always, go back to the scenario with the psycho coming at you with an axe. Is he playing by your rules and social norms? If you can't change him with reason how can you tackle an entire organisation?

In other news http://metro.co.uk/2015/07/05/anders-breivik-is-suing-norway-for-violating-his-human-rights-seriously-5281287/?ito=facebook


Posted by: jstcrsn Jul 6 2015, 10:43 AM

QUOTE (Ben Higgins @ Jul 6 2015, 10:32 AM) *
The "I hate fat chicks" was supposed to hypothetically represent somebody else, just to clarify with everyone - I don't hold that view, ok? biggrin.gif

But to answer you - yes, they may do, and they have that right although they're totally wrong - I'm amazing smile.gif

Re: urination, there might be a market in some corners of Europe for that sort of thing????

I knew it was hypothetical , just ribbing you ,i forget that i should add emoticons wink.gif to clarify ohmy.gif biggrin.gif rolleyes.gif mad.gif smile.gif cool.gif tongue.gif huh.gif mellow.gif wink.gif laugh.gif dry.gif

Posted by: Ben Higgins Jul 6 2015, 11:47 AM

QUOTE (jstcrsn @ Jul 6 2015, 09:43 AM) *
I knew it was hypothetical , just ribbing you ,i forget that i should add emoticons wink.gif to clarify ohmy.gif biggrin.gif rolleyes.gif mad.gif smile.gif cool.gif tongue.gif huh.gif mellow.gif wink.gif laugh.gif dry.gif


I knew you were jesting.. the disclaimer was just for anybody who wasn't sure biggrin.gif

Emoticon overkill!!!! cool.gif

Posted by: AK Rich Jul 6 2015, 06:27 PM

QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Jul 5 2015, 12:34 PM) *
Trump's remarks were quite simply bigotry. No other way to put it. Nothing to do with feelings. Just him making racist comments is all smile.gif He has every right to be a racist, every right to be a bigot and claim that Mexicans are all "rapists". But we have every right to call him on it smile.gif Here is Donald defending it.





Here is the complete video of Donald Trumps speech that folks, including you are condemning as racist. I challenge you to highlight just one quote that claimed the entire Mexican race are rapists, murderers or whatever. You can't find that quote because it doesn't exist.
He was talking about those that blend in with the folks that come north to seek a better life and to escape the massive corruption and lawlessness that exists in Mexico and his quotes are 100% correct and easily verified even in Gov statistics, FBI reports, stories in the media etc, unless you watch CNN I guess. wink.gif Lo and behold the headlines today and you will see exactly the kind of people he was talking about.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3149706/Family-Californian-woman-shot-dead-random-illegal-Mexican-immigrant-deported-FIVE-TIMES-condemn-officials-let-stay.html

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/06/two-previously-deported-illegal-immigrants-allegedly-murder-two-women-in-two-states-in-24-hours/



Some folks have serious problems with their comprehension skills. Or maybe they are just geared to hear racism, bigotry and hate in anything that would be said.
Substantial numbers of murderers and rapists and drug smugglers (Many of which have been deported numerous times or released back into the US even though they have records of multiple and serious criminal offenses) and even Islamic terrorists are coming over the southern border in the virtual free for all that has been created by our current Presidential Admin unilaterally, and again, these facts and reality are easily verified and indisputable.
All of this outrage we have been seeing about Trumps speech is nothing more than Political Correctness run amok and you, my guitar shredding friend, are buying right into it. But it's all good man. I love you anyway. smile.gif Even if you think I am racist as well.

Posted by: Ben Higgins Jul 6 2015, 07:09 PM

QUOTE (AK Rich @ Jul 6 2015, 05:27 PM) *
Even if you think I am racist as well.


I think you're ALL racist for not wanting to be part of the English motherland any more... Independance Day? Pah, how dare you?!


wink.gif



We could have all been sipping tea together but oh no... you want your own government, you want burgers, rodeos, Hemi V8's, country music....

we could have been so good together sad.gif

Posted by: Chris S. Jul 6 2015, 07:24 PM

QUOTE (Ben Higgins @ Jul 6 2015, 06:09 PM) *
I think you're ALL racist for not wanting to be part of the English motherland any more... Independance Day? Pah, how dare you?!


wink.gif



We could have all been sipping tea together but oh no... you want your own government, you want burgers, rodeos, Hemi V8's, country music....

we could have been so good together sad.gif

I love you wub.gif laugh.gif

but everyone knows watered down beer that's "as cold as the Rockies" > tea.*

'Merica!!!!



*These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.These products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

Posted by: Ben Higgins Jul 6 2015, 08:44 PM

QUOTE (Chris S. @ Jul 6 2015, 06:24 PM) *
but everyone knows watered down beer that's "as cold as the Rockies" > tea.*


It may depend on the time of day but mostly I would actually agree with you and I even like tea wink.gif

But beer............... mmmmmm

QUOTE (Chris S. @ Jul 6 2015, 06:24 PM) *
*These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.These products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.


To be fair, the same could probably be said for any food in the US!




ph34r.gif




I'll get my coat

Posted by: AK Rich Jul 6 2015, 09:14 PM

QUOTE (Ben Higgins @ Jul 6 2015, 10:09 AM) *
I think you're ALL racist for not wanting to be part of the English motherland any more... Independance Day? Pah, how dare you?!


wink.gif



We could have all been sipping tea together but oh no... you want your own government, you want burgers, rodeos, Hemi V8's, country music....

we could have been so good together sad.gif


laugh.gif Nice! Someday we must meet for burgers and brew, or tea and crumpets. Either one works for me. smile.gif

Posted by: Chris S. Jul 6 2015, 10:51 PM

QUOTE (Ben Higgins @ Jul 6 2015, 07:44 PM) *
It may depend on the time of day but mostly I would actually agree with you and I even like tea wink.gif

But beer............... mmmmmm



To be fair, the same could probably be said for any food in the US!




ph34r.gif




I'll get my coat

Side effects include nausea, heartburn, explosive diaharea, eyebrow combustion, excessive back hair, death, death, more death and or death.

death ph34r.gif

Posted by: Mudbone Jul 8 2015, 04:10 AM

How the hell did we go from gay marriage to Mexicans, blacks, ISIS, and gay cakes?

Personally, I don't really care if gay people can get married. I never really cared when straight people got married either. In fact, I find all the marriage posts on Facebook irritating, and will probably find the gay ones just as annoying. They're 50% likely to end in failure, so why should I be emotionally invested in an institution doomed to failure?

Those who support businesses who choose to discriminate based on race, gender, religion etc probably don't know much about Jim Crow laws. I suggest you speak to a black person who has lived through that time period. There are plenty of them around, as that era wasn't too long ago. In fact, that oldest woman in the world, a black woman from Inkster, MI, who just recently passed away, personally knew former slaves. We're not that far removed from our past.

As far as ISIS, they're not nearly the menace to western society that the media makes them out to be. But they're certainly a threat to Arab Middle Eastern countries.

There is a big misunderstanding among western people about ISIS and Islam in general. Some westerners say they're representative of all muslims, and many muslims say that members of ISIS aren't even muslim. Both groups are wrong. ISIS represents a particular strand of Islam, and yes they are muslims. In order to understand ISIS, it's important to understand two things: the origins of their interpretation of Islam, and the political environment of the Middle East.

Their particular strand of Islam is Salafism, or more commonly known as Wahabism in western media. It was started back in the 1700's by a religious figure named Abdulwahab in what is now known as Saudi Arabia. He believed that people around him were deviating from what he thought was the pure form of Islam. Abdulwahab advocated using violence to force people to submit to his version of Islam. While he had a few followers, he got chased away by many tribes. Around the same time, the Al-Saud family was conquering territory and trying to establish a kingdom. They allied with Abdulwahabs followers, who were known as the Ikhwan (not the same ikhwan as in modern day Egypt) for two reasons - The Al-Sauds wanted religious legitimacy, and the ikhwan were pretty good fighters.

Of course, this would be all fine and dandy, if it wasn't for the fact that the Arabian Peninsula was part of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans didn't like the idea of the Al-Saud tribe having their own kingdom, and swiftly crushed the uprising. There were numerous attempts by the Al-Sauds to start a kingdom, and they finally succeeded in the early 20th century, mainly due to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire during WWI. The current regime in Saudi the the Third Saudi State.

So, back to Salafism. The current Al-Sauds aligned with the Ikhwan/Salafists so they could defeat all the other tribes in the area. the Salafists made a demand that the newly minted Saudi Arabia live by their moral code. The Saudi royal family agreed, and now the country is run by two families - the royal family, the Al-Sauds - and the religious authority family, the As-Sheikhs.

However, there is one problem with this arrangement. In Salafist ideology, there is no such thing as a King. Monarchs do not exist in their world view. The leader should be a Caliph. This contradiction eventually caused a massive problem back in the 1970s. Young men who studied Salafist ideology wanted to overthrow the King. They went so far as to take over the grand mosque in Mekkah, which is the muslim equivalent of the Vatican. This happened in 1979. Once the royal family suppressed this uprising, they knew the problem on their hands had just become very serious. This event is massively significant, and I'm really surprised that it is never mentioned in any discussion about the Middle East.

The royal family now had a problem of young men wanting to start Jihad in Saudi Arabia. So what did they do? Instead of pushing the Salafists further away, they brought them closer. They pretty much told the Salafists, "You want to start Jihad? Fine. Just don't do it here. We'll pay for you to do it elsewhere." Soon after this the Saudis and Salafists started building schools all over the muslim world, teaching their strict interpretation of Islam.

Soon after, in the early 80s, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Now all these jihadis in Saudi could go fight in jihad. The Al-Sauds were glad that they could go do jihad somewhere else and not in Saudi. This arrangement worked out well for the Al-Sauds. But this strategy backfired on them when the Soviets left Afghanistan in the late 80s. Now all these battle hardened jihadis wanted to come home! And bring jihad with them! Since the 90s the Al-Sauds have been cracking down on the extremists.

I'm sure there's a lot I'm missing out on Saudi history, but hopefully I covered the important topics that never seem to get mentioned.

Now, we have to talk about Western involvement in the region. I'll try to keep this as brief as possible lol

- In the early 20th century, the Ottoman empire collapses, and the Europeans divide up the Middle East, without any regard to geography or cultural or religious lines.

- In Syria, the minority Alawi were put in control. In Iraq, the minority Sunni were put in control. The Kurds, who aren't even Arab, weren't even given a country.

- Western countries supported brutal dictators. This severely damaged the psychology of the people, and was part of the reason for the rise of Islamic militant groups.

- And of course, the creation of Israel, and Israels brutal policy towards Palestinians and Lebanon created massive problems in the Middle East.

Ok.. this post is getting way too long... there's no way to explain the Middle East in a single post. Or a single book even...


Posted by: klasaine Jul 8 2015, 09:53 AM

Great post Mudbone.
Sadly most folks get their history from network news and abridged Internet 'history' sites ... bad idea.

Posted by: Marek Rojewski Jul 8 2015, 11:28 AM

I generally agree with Mudbone, but lets not forget that Islam was super aggressive when it was born, so it is not true that the "extreme" version was born 300 years ago, it was born at the very beginning, muslims conquered much of Asia and Africa, and it is more less "proved thing" that they killed over 100 million people in the process.

There are good muslims, but there are also good satanists. Both "religions" can without much regret be condemned as evil, filthy and just generally bad. We can just appreciate, that some muslims are "so bad in their religion" that actually they are good people.

Posted by: Ben Higgins Jul 8 2015, 03:56 PM

QUOTE (Mudbone @ Jul 8 2015, 03:10 AM) *
and gay cakes?

Let's be honest, they're gonna have the best designs! smile.gif

QUOTE (Mudbone @ Jul 8 2015, 03:10 AM) *
There is a big misunderstanding among western people about ISIS and Islam in general. Some westerners say they're representative of all muslims, and many muslims say that members of ISIS aren't even muslim. Both groups are wrong. ISIS represents a particular strand of Islam, and yes they are muslims. In order to understand ISIS, it's important to understand two things: the origins of their interpretation of Islam, and the political environment of the Middle East.

Their particular strand of Islam is Salafism, or more commonly known as Wahabism in western media. It was started back in the 1700's by a religious figure named Abdulwahab in what is now known as Saudi Arabia. He believed that people around him were deviating from what he thought was the pure form of Islam. Abdulwahab advocated using violence to force people to submit to his version of Islam.


Great post dude, you clearly know way more about this most of us do. Tbh, I didn't even intend to post any views at all about Islam, IS and gay cakes but I didn't wanna see this thread quickly go down the route of West vs Islam because we know better than that, hence my attempt to separate the role of religion and people.

Even as you say here, religion is involved sure but still it's a direct link between what an individual wants to get out of it, what they want to use it for. In this case Abdulwahab wants to use violence as his method to get what he wants. He would have done this regardless of the cause because fundamentally this violence is part of who he is. Even if it were Shinto or Bhuddism one can still make a violent cause out of it because it's the person who can make it happen.

Of course, it might take external source material such as religious text or teachings to inspire one to want to to fight but it's only other people who do that, surely? Or is it true what people say and that Islamic text is inherently more violent than any other religion? That's a serious question btw, I genuinely haven't read any of them. I would have thought that most people in the modern age know not to take the scriptures literally and to ignore blatantly ridiculous and unrealistic text, such as certain outdated punishments and whatnot.

To me, the responsibility of behaviours starts and ends with the person. Am I too harsh? Should I let people blame books?

Posted by: Chris S. Jul 8 2015, 08:25 PM

QUOTE (klasaine @ Jul 8 2015, 08:53 AM) *
Great post Mudbone.
Sadly most folks get their history from network news and abridged Internet 'history' sites ... bad idea.

I agree - that's why I only watch Fox News and read Wikipedia - I'm all about the facts wink.gif tongue.gif

Posted by: Phil66 Jul 8 2015, 10:56 PM

Personally I don't care about where a bloke wants to stick his willy or where a woman wants to place her chuffer. As long as they are nice, helpful, considerate people that's all I need to know. smile.gif

Posted by: Mertay Jul 8 2015, 11:49 PM

QUOTE (Mudbone @ Jul 8 2015, 03:10 AM) *
How the hell did we go from gay marriage to Mexicans, blacks, ISIS, and gay cakes?


+1 biggrin.gif

QUOTE (Mudbone @ Jul 8 2015, 03:10 AM) *
As far as ISIS...


Great post, I live in a muslim country and didn't know any of that smile.gif

Before commenting on islam further, every religion has blood in its history some way or another. Budism seems to be the most peaceful (from tv etc.) but they are killing muslims Burma, Myanmar...

Islam in Turkey might be helpful for members to gain perspective on what it is. Struggles aside, there is democracy here and as with relations its one of the first members of NATO...also check out how Iran was in the 70's with a google search and research how it become what it is today;

https://www.google.com.tr/search?q=iran+in+the+70%27s&newwindow=1&safe=off&biw=1536&bih=728&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=HKadVY2kC-S9ygPS5424Cg&ved=0CBoQsAQ

As for Isis, the violence they do is beyond my understanding and hated here. Isis to some here is more of a conspiracy, the north of ıraq was a complicated place (kurd's, turkmens, yezidi's...) before isis and now only Kurd's are left there. This leads some to believe this war between them is helping to form a kurdish country.

Also 75% of the Turkish army is settled on north boarder of Syria, we're are worried of being involved in such war sad.gif


Posted by: SirJamsalot Jul 9 2015, 12:05 AM

I don't think anyone (except a small percentage of fringe cases) cares whether gays are married or not. Did anyone read Scalia's dissent, or just listen to MSNBC et.al. mock his tone and misrepresent what actually happened?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Prior to this ruling, we were a representative government ; meaning social issues not covered by the Constitution needed to be voted on by the population - debating issues in the civil realm is how we the people learn. The process is supposed to be a LONG process, to prevent mob-mentality judgments. Instead, 9 jurors representing perhaps 1% of the population, decided to take the case and actually change the meaning of a word that for over 200 years in America, and thousands of years worldwide, meant - thereby imposing that meaning via dictate. That is NOT how a Republic is supposed to work. The threat here is that now an un-elected group of robes have done the job of the Judicial and Legislative branches of government, bypassing the reason for their existence in the first place - separation of powers! Keeping the King in check! That is the *only* issue in this debate. Anyone importing hate of gays is just trolling or naive.

Ben: 9 judges became the King of America! - watch out England -> we're on way back to the motherland for that cup of tea! smile.gif

Love you all!
smile.gif

QUOTE (Mudbone @ Jul 7 2015, 07:10 PM) *
*snip*

Personally, I don't really care if gay people can get married.

*snip*

Posted by: jstcrsn Jul 9 2015, 12:18 AM

QUOTE (Mudbone @ Jul 8 2015, 04:10 AM) *
- And of course, the creation of Israel, and Israels brutal policy towards Palestinians and Lebanon created massive problems in the Middle East.

Ok.. this post is getting way too long... there's no way to explain the Middle East in a single post. Or a single book even...

they may or may have not done violence , I am not sure, but aren't the Palestinians Arab, and one of the reasons they are in Israel is because Jordan kicked them out and Israel let them settle, hence thats why they are called settlements

QUOTE (Chris S. @ Jul 8 2015, 08:25 PM) *
I agree - that's why I only watch Fox News and read Wikipedia - I'm all about the facts wink.gif tongue.gif

I beat you never thought this would happen with this thread

Posted by: Chris S. Jul 9 2015, 12:49 AM

QUOTE (jstcrsn @ Jul 8 2015, 11:18 PM) *
they may or may have not done violence , I am not sure, but aren't the Palestinians Arab, and one of the reasons they are in Israel is because Jordan kicked them out and Israel let them settle, hence thats why they are called settlements


I beat you never thought this would happen with this thread

I didn't - I don't know if I should have any regrets or start making popcorn ph34r.gif

And Phil:

"Chuffer"

I look forward to your posts because I am always learning new words from you tongue.gif

Posted by: Phil66 Jul 9 2015, 09:08 AM

QUOTE (Chris S. @ Jul 9 2015, 12:49 AM) *
And Phil:

"Chuffer"

I look forward to your posts because I am always learning new words from you tongue.gif


In other areas of this land it is just "chuff", as in ; "I couldn't give a monkey's chuff" wink.gif

Posted by: Marek Rojewski Jul 9 2015, 09:47 AM

You are aware that Turkey is a very bad representation of the muslim world? In order to change Ottoman Empire into a "western style" country, there was death penalty even for using traditional clothes. Turkey is nice, because it left as much Islam as possible behind. It couldn't be left behind completely, because how strongly religion is intertwined with culture.

And even before that Ottoman Empire was very unorthodox in compare too other muslim states.

Also there is no such thing as "killing muslims" in Burma or Myanmar. There is a civil war there, and even if I don't know for sure I will blame muslims. Buddhists have no difficulty to coexists with others, so it is easy to assume which group "started" the war.

Ben: I think that it isn't as simple. Of course every person should be responsible for his actions, but if we raise someone in a culture that states killing infidels is good? There can be no dialog and no understanding, because we won't agree on the fundamental things. We won't agree what means good, bad, black, white, right, wrong.

Hypothetically you can meet one of the immigrants, have a small chat with him, agree that both of you shall make the right thing, and than you will extend your hand for a handshake and he will chop your head off with a machete. Then he will be responsible - he will be rightfully honored and will expect to have a retinue of virgins at his disposal after gloriously passing away (preferably with a BOOM).

That is why the book is the enemy. Of course I am operating on a political, global level, not personal, individual one...

Posted by: jstcrsn Jul 9 2015, 11:25 AM

QUOTE (Chris S. @ Jul 9 2015, 12:49 AM) *
I didn't - I don't know if I should have any regrets or start making popcorn ph34r.gif

And Phil:

"Chuffer"

I look forward to your posts because I am always learning new words from you tongue.gif

Popcorn

Posted by: Todd Simpson Jul 9 2015, 11:57 AM

Sadly, no. to quote crsn again (all in good fun and with no malice intended)

.."Being born nude and being born black are the same thing"....

I feel I must point out here that being born black and being born nude are not in fact the same
thing. smile.gif No liberal twisting intended.

just quoting you. For example, if you replace "black" with "white" then your sentence becomes "Being nude? isn't that the same as being white? Your born like that!" So then business folks have the right to refuse anyone who has ever been born? Black or White? Nude or not? Sadly, the supreme court disagrees and rightly so. smile.gif There's that sorted then, simple answer, no mockery intended. Your choice of words was just funny is all smile.gif

QUOTE (jstcrsn @ Jul 5 2015, 06:09 PM) *
Once again . Liberal twisting to try to nullify the question rather than rational thought and answering

"so in this "free" country ", when are you allowed to refuse service?. Being nude?. Isn't that the same as being black- your born like that"

Three questions , each with their period. Asking when is it allowable to refuse service.Should I as business man be able to refuse service to someone nude. Being born nude and being born black are the same thing , and the question was legitimate, instead of trying to be civil and just answer the question , you thought it would be fun to just mock . being born black is why blacks were finally given their civil rights ( as they should have been ). Side note it was the republicans that marched with the blacks and the democrats that tried to block giving them their rights. But I digress .And that is why blacks should not be discriminated against . I guess I wonder why you just can't answer a simple question without mocking me


+2 great post by mudbone smile.gif And yeah, you gotta be careful watching too much FOX NEW (faux news). They will have you thinking ISIS is taking over Mexico and heading into Texas by next week smile.gif

QUOTE (Chris S. @ Jul 8 2015, 03:25 PM) *
I agree - that's why I only watch Fox News and read Wikipedia - I'm all about the facts wink.gif tongue.gif


EGAD. The entire state of ISRAEL was created in something called the BALFOUR DECLARATION where the Brits basically just "Declared" that Palestine was now the "jewish homeland" and the Palestine folks had to all go away and be held in a small settlements. Here is the exact text.

His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.


Despite language to the contrary, the palestinian folks were "resettled" in to their current ghettos and walled in for "security reasons" which is why they still call it and "occupation". It's been a shooting war ever since.

in 1948 it turned in to full on hot war when every Arab country surrounding Israel attacked when they found out Israel had declared itself a country. The good news for Israel is they kicked the crap out of every Arab nation that tried to attack them. The Arabs call the war "The Catastrophe".


QUOTE (jstcrsn @ Jul 8 2015, 07:18 PM) *
they may or may have not done violence , I am not sure, but aren't the Palestinians Arab, and one of the reasons they are in Israel is because Jordan kicked them out and Israel let them settle, hence thats why they are called settlements


I beat you never thought this would happen with this thread

Posted by: Ben Higgins Jul 9 2015, 01:56 PM

QUOTE (Marek Rojewski @ Jul 9 2015, 08:47 AM) *
Ben: I think that it isn't as simple. Of course every person should be responsible for his actions, but if we raise someone in a culture that states killing infidels is good? There can be no dialog and no understanding, because we won't agree on the fundamental things. We won't agree what means good, bad, black, white, right, wrong.


You are quite right, Mr Rojewski.

The environment that one grows up is hugely influential to the thoughts and beliefs of an individual. Thoughts and beliefs largely influence behaviour. But what is culture and environment but the sum collective of people? It still comes back to the common link of people and their influence.

Are we responsible for our upbringing in this world? No, we can't control that. Are we responsible for how we go into the world and conduct ourselves? Yes, without question. The level of how much choice we have to overcome any mental programming done to us is largely down to how intense and powerful said abuse, and it is abuse, was.

Someone with the modern tools and support of therapy and psychology may be able to overcome a damaging upbringing full of indoctrination. But they also have to be willing. Now imagine somebody who has none of those things and no desire at all to change? That's where you have the religious fundamentalists. Do they still have a choice? Yes, absolutely. Is it likely they will ever come to that realisation? No it's not. But they are still responsible.

That's where I maintain that a book or an idea can inspire, sure, but it still takes the man or woman to act on it. It's still a people problem as I see it.

Btw, this reminds me. A wise Polish man once said something along the lines of "Arguing on the internet is pointless. Everyone still goes away with the exact same points of view they entered with anyway." biggrin.gif


Posted by: jstcrsn Jul 9 2015, 03:00 PM

QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Jul 9 2015, 11:57 AM) *
Sadly, no. to quote crsn again (all in good fun and with no malice intended)

.."Being born nude and being born black are the same thing"....

I guess you guys are trying to go to deep with the question .The intent that I meant it was in both circumstances the being can not change how it was "Being born". You can not change being born , being black, being white and since you can not change, in that way, that is how I meant it was the same.
Sorry for the confusion, But for the life of me I can not figure out how else it could be interpreted

But I will clarify where I was going, I don't think Sexual preference is in the same league of needing civil protection as , Race , Color,Sex or Creed (which is in the 64 ruling). And as bigoted as it might be, it is not illegal to put up a sign that says no gays
http://www.everyjoe.com/2015/07/01/news/man-shouldnt-be-forced-take-no-gays-allowed-store-sign/#1 , but as the article says let his busines rise or fall based on this

Posted by: Mertay Jul 9 2015, 09:58 PM

QUOTE (Marek Rojewski @ Jul 9 2015, 08:47 AM) *
You are aware that Turkey is a very bad representation of the muslim world?


Depends on view point, why not more ideal instead of bad? no ones hands are chopped off cause of stealing bread or no woman is stoned to death etc. here...also other muslim countrys though may not approve (I guess), so many visit here (specially İstanbul) for ramadan or vacation. I understand what you mean politically by that sentence but culturally Turkey is not so alien to them either.

QUOTE (Marek Rojewski @ Jul 9 2015, 08:47 AM) *
In order to change Ottoman Empire into a "western style" country, there was death penalty even for using traditional clothes. Turkey is nice, because it left as much Islam as possible behind. It couldn't be left behind completely, because how strongly religion is intertwined with culture.

And even before that Ottoman Empire was very unorthodox in compare too other muslim states.


True, changing the laws, entire alphabet and separating politics etc. from religion wasn't easy.

The traditional clothes things is a bit complicated though and still is debated here. Usually in many country's, symbols indicate a persons political or religions beliefs like a cross or nazi symbol. Religious fanatics or any form of terrorists here in the past and today (usually) preferred common things like a certain shape of mustache or traditional cloths...makes it harder to identify who's the enemy inside and who's innocent specially a century ago, so the style had to change completely. Not the best solution, even failed in many ways I'd say but it was very complicated matter back then and still is...

QUOTE (Marek Rojewski @ Jul 9 2015, 08:47 AM) *
Also there is no such thing as "killing muslims" in Burma or Myanmar. There is a civil war there, and even if I don't know for sure I will blame muslims. Buddhists have no difficulty to coexists with others, so it is easy to assume which group "started" the war.


I also didn't remember the details and had to make a web search; http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22356306

Anyway, to me problem of muslims is the Kur'an is extremely specific in life style (%80 of it is actually all about lifestyle). Considering the Arab world almost 1500 years ago, it was a huge improvement but now outdated today of course. I believe as time past its more manipulated than evolved today.

More importantly, something like a French revolution never happened in the muslim world to "balance" things. Or (maybe) closest thing to it is the conversion from Ottoman Empire to Turkey.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Jul 11 2015, 01:09 AM

Yup! smile.gif Believe it or not, In 28 states it's perfectly legal to refuse service based entirely on bigotry. Of course, just like marriage equality and the right for women to vote, it's something that just takes time for everyone to admit that it's just plain wrong smile.gif

--
http://www.dailydot.com/politics/tennessee-no-gays-sign-law/
In Tennessee, just as in 28 other U.S. states, it's perfectly legal to post a "no gays" sign in the window of a store. It's legal to tell an LGBT person to get out of a public park, to refuse to serve them a meal in a restaurant, to deny them care at a doctor's office, or to decline to open a bank account for someone because they are gay or transgender. In those states, it's all 100 percent legal.

Also legal in 28 states: denying housing to LGBT people. A landlord can legally send an eviction notice that says "you have to leave because you're a lesbian." A real estate agent can say, "sorry, but I won't sell this house to a gay couple." A broker can blatantly tell you there's no apartments for rent for transgender folks.

Guess what else is well within the legal rights of residents in 28 U.S. states? Firing an employee because they are LGBT—or simply not hiring them. It's entirely legal to say, "No thanks. You're qualified, but we just don't want your kind working here."

-----

QUOTE (jstcrsn @ Jul 9 2015, 10:00 AM) *
I guess you guys are trying to go to deep with the question .The intent that I meant it was in both circumstances the being can not change how it was "Being born". You can not change being born , being black, being white and since you can not change, in that way, that is how I meant it was the same.
Sorry for the confusion, But for the life of me I can not figure out how else it could be interpreted

But I will clarify where I was going, I don't think Sexual preference is in the same league of needing civil protection as , Race , Color,Sex or Creed (which is in the 64 ruling). And as bigoted as it might be, it is not illegal to put up a sign that says no gays
http://www.everyjoe.com/2015/07/01/news/man-shouldnt-be-forced-take-no-gays-allowed-store-sign/#1 , but as the article says let his busines rise or fall based on this


Posted by: jstcrsn Jul 11 2015, 11:33 AM

QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Jul 11 2015, 01:09 AM) *
Yup! smile.gif Believe it or not, In 28 states it's perfectly legal to refuse service based entirely on bigotry. Of course, just like marriage equality and the right for women to vote, it's something that just takes time for everyone to admit that it's just plain wrong smile.gif

--
http://www.dailydot.com/politics/tennessee-no-gays-sign-law/
In Tennessee, just as in 28 other U.S. states, it's perfectly legal to post a "no gays" sign in the window of a store. It's legal to tell an LGBT person to get out of a public park, to refuse to serve them a meal in a restaurant, to deny them care at a doctor's office, or to decline to open a bank account for someone because they are gay or transgender. In those states, it's all 100 percent legal.

Also legal in 28 states: denying housing to LGBT people. A landlord can legally send an eviction notice that says "you have to leave because you're a lesbian." A real estate agent can say, "sorry, but I won't sell this house to a gay couple." A broker can blatantly tell you there's no apartments for rent for transgender folks.

Guess what else is well within the legal rights of residents in 28 U.S. states? Firing an employee because they are LGBT—or simply not hiring them. It's entirely legal to say, "No thanks. You're qualified, but we just don't want your kind working here."

-----

Bigoted or not, I think we need to tread carefully on giving a "preference " the same civil liberties as race ,creed, sex as these can not change , but preference changes. Like I said if it changes it won't affect me as I did work for a mixed black couple and bid a bathroom remodel for a gay couple, I don't understand why a business would want to loose money.
I would much rather let the states handle a changeable preference issue than the supreme court force .
I will ask you though, should A minister be forced to marry someone whom he does not want to marry?

Posted by: Mertay Jul 11 2015, 01:03 PM

QUOTE (jstcrsn @ Jul 11 2015, 10:33 AM) *
I don't understand why a business would want to loose money.


+1, its extremely rude here to deny service. If I felt I didn't want to (never happened but anyway...) I'd ask x10 price than usual so they could find someone else smile.gif

Posted by: Todd Simpson Jul 12 2015, 07:46 AM

Should a minister be "forced" I'd say no smile.gif No matter what the "law" says, a minister still has the choice to marry or not marry anyone he likes. Civil disobedience is a good thing IMHO. However, ministers that won't marry gay couples honestly need to read a bit deeper on the scriptures IMHO. Jesus didn't people himself with what we would think of as "good people" instead, he hung out with "tax collectors", "harlots", "zealots", "leppers", etc. In his example, his action show that judgement belongs only to the Father above. For us here on this hunk of rock spinning around the sun, all the really matters is acceptance and forgiveness. That's the core of Christian faith that seems to have been lost over the hundreds of years since the Nazarene himself (Jesus) lead by example. smile.gif I consider myself a modern Gnostic in the same spiritual line of the Essene/Nazarene faith as it transitioned from the legalism of Jewish practice to the personal relationship with God that Jesus tried to share with anyone who'd listen.



QUOTE (jstcrsn @ Jul 11 2015, 06:33 AM) *
Bigoted or not, I think we need to tread carefully on giving a "preference " the same civil liberties as race ,creed, sex as these can not change , but preference changes. Like I said if it changes it won't affect me as I did work for a mixed black couple and bid a bathroom remodel for a gay couple, I don't understand why a business would want to loose money.
I would much rather let the states handle a changeable preference issue than the supreme court force .
I will ask you though, should A minister be forced to marry someone whom he does not want to marry?


Posted by: jstcrsn Jul 12 2015, 01:27 PM

QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Jul 12 2015, 07:46 AM) *
Should a minister be "forced" I'd say no smile.gif No matter what the "law" says, a minister still has the choice to marry or not marry anyone he likes. Civil disobedience is a good thing IMHO. However, ministers that won't marry gay couples honestly need to read a bit deeper on the scriptures IMHO. Jesus didn't people himself with what we would think of as "good people" instead, he hung out with "tax collectors", "harlots", "zealots", "leppers", etc. In his example, his action show that judgement belongs only to the Father above. For us here on this hunk of rock spinning around the sun, all the really matters is acceptance and forgiveness. That's the core of Christian faith that seems to have been lost over the hundreds of years since the Nazarene himself (Jesus) lead by example. smile.gif I consider myself a modern Gnostic in the same spiritual line of the Essene/Nazarene faith as it transitioned from the legalism of Jewish practice to the personal relationship with God that Jesus tried to share with anyone who'd listen.

I think you are reading to much into this ruling. A minister is not being civilly disobedient by not marrying a gay couple( not yet any way). There are special freedoms within the construct of the first amendment that allow religions to have guidelines for their faith , otherwise a Jewish Rabi would have to marry Muslims, or a Muslim holy man would have to marry Christians or the Pope marry outside of his faith. In these same guidelines it is nit civilly disobedient to turn a couple down that don't meet that faith's criteria.

As far as an Agnostic cherry picking parts of the Bible to make his point- As a parent many times my kids want to do things I know in the end will hurt them (even though there will be immediate benefits)A loving father says "no" because of the the Love ,even thought some on the outside might think it's mean to deny your kid that.
if you are going to use the Bible for reference( Read it as a whole),He told the crowd "let those without sin to cast the stone", but he also told the women to" go and sin no more"

Posted by: Todd Simpson Jul 12 2015, 10:20 PM

just for reference, I"m not "Agnositic" smile.gif I"m "Gnostic". It comes form a greek work Gnosis that means a sort of Internal Knowing beyond "knowledge". It's now a very small sect as most of them were burned at the stake for being heretics. That's me smile.gif I've read the bible cover to cover more than once so I'm quite well versed in scripture including the Apocrypha. I"m working through the dead sea scrolls now. So I'm pretty up on scripture smile.gif

CRSN: Mistranslation of "Go and Sin No more"
In the original Greek, the scripture actually translates as "Go and be free from Sin". Christ knows it's impossible to live without sin which is why he is here. To provide a path of salvation. The "King James" version of course, has it wrong per usual.

I love how these thread can go from one topic to another and end up on theology smile.gif What other guitar site can say that?

As you guys may know, I"m a bit of a "Metal Head" and a "Proud Southerner". As such, people are often taken aback when my "progressive" neo-libertarianish views come out. Like many people, I can trace it back to how I was raised. My mother is one of the most accepting and open minded people I"ve ever known and she imparted that to her children. To always accept others as they are and not as you wish they were. Now that she has cancer I know that the world will be a darker place without her. But her teachings and thoughts will live on though me and hopefully through as many people as I can manage to teach and impact on my own smile.gif

QUOTE (jstcrsn @ Jul 12 2015, 08:27 AM) *
I think you are reading to much into this ruling. A minister is not being civilly disobedient by not marrying a gay couple( not yet any way). There are special freedoms within the construct of the first amendment that allow religions to have guidelines for their faith , otherwise a Jewish Rabi would have to marry Muslims, or a Muslim holy man would have to marry Christians or the Pope marry outside of his faith. In these same guidelines it is nit civilly disobedient to turn a couple down that don't meet that faith's criteria.

As far as an Agnostic cherry picking parts of the Bible to make his point- As a parent many times my kids want to do things I know in the end will hurt them (even though there will be immediate benefits)A loving father says "no" because of the the Love ,even thought some on the outside might think it's mean to deny your kid that.
if you are going to use the Bible for reference( Read it as a whole),He told the crowd "let those without sin to cast the stone", but he also told the women to" go and sin no more"

Posted by: jstcrsn Jul 12 2015, 10:51 PM

QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Jul 12 2015, 10:20 PM) *
just for reference, I"m not "Agnositic" smile.gif I"m "Gnostic". It comes form a greek work Gnosis that means a sort of Internal Knowing beyond "knowledge

my apologies on the misread,hey , I am human too

Posted by: jstcrsn Jul 13 2015, 12:00 PM

QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Jul 12 2015, 10:20 PM) *
CRSN: Mistranslation of "Go and Sin No more"
In the original Greek, the scripture actually translates as "Go and be free from Sin".

I like that translation equally as well. How can you be free from something you continually "swim" in

Posted by: Todd Simpson Jul 13 2015, 08:24 PM

Great question! smile.gif The only way to be "free" from sin is to follow a path of salvation (according to Gnostic understanding of scripture). We can't stop sinning. We can only hope to forgiven smile.gif


QUOTE (jstcrsn @ Jul 13 2015, 07:00 AM) *
I like that translation equally as well. How can you be free from something you continually "swim" in


No worries smile.gif The Gnostic path is so small and obscure these days that some consider it a Christian Cult sad.gif So the word gnostic is often taken for agnostic just because they are so similar and Gnostic isn't widely used.

QUOTE (jstcrsn @ Jul 12 2015, 05:51 PM) *
my apologies on the misread,hey , I am human too

Posted by: Todd Simpson Jul 18 2015, 05:48 AM

Sorry for the lag, just saw this. Gay couples can have children smile.gif It's a process called "Adoption". Thus making them a "Family" smile.gif Which entitles them to the same "money grab" that straights get to do right? Seems only fair.

If a gay couple adopts a child, how does that put them on the "undeserving list"? Are they undeserving because they are gay? Is that it?

Also, what about straight couples that don't have kids? Are they "undeserving" as well?

Who are you defining as the "deserving"? Just hetero couples with kids?


QUOTE (fkalich @ Jun 26 2015, 10:44 PM) *
It is not about Billy and Tony doing the ceremony. It is a money grab for entitlements, public and private. And America bought it hook line and sinker.

If children were involved I would not object to that so much. But for the most part they won't be. Homosexual couples now will be getting financial benefits both public and private who in now way really merit these, where there is no real justification for it. Marriage benefits have always been rooted in supporting children, not for the couple itself. Yes many married couple have had no children and still reaped financial benefits, but that does not mean it is a great thing to now extend the pool of undeserving who are now on the payout list.

Bottom line, in both the public and private sector, single people are going to be the ones subsidizing the entitlements. Money does not grow on trees. Everybody has to pay their share for these things, in the form of higher taxes and lower wages. But single people will have to pay for them, and they will get nothing back in return. If you are single and you are happy with this, you are more pleased with handing your money out to the undeserving than I am.


I agree smile.gif I must say I've been a bit saddened reading some of the posts here @ GMC which seem to be filled with a pinch of animosity toward folks who just happen to Gay and want to get married. sad.gif I"m proud as punch that the Supreme Court finally said out loud that, yes, just because your gay, doesn't meant you aren't entitled to the same rights as the "Straights". In fact, they are entitled. smile.gif Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. smile.gif There isn't a clause that excludes gay folks. sad.gif


QUOTE (Kristofer Dahl @ Jun 27 2015, 04:33 AM) *
Well this sounds like a great step in the right direction.

With all the antagonism gay people have to live with, I can imagine this must be a relief.

Posted by: Marek Rojewski Jul 18 2015, 01:15 PM

There is enough research (also known as evidence) that children living in "homo-families" have many problems associated with it, and that generally it is a bad idea to allow such adoption. It should be a "last hope" situation, and even than maybe bad idea.

Coming back from fairy land to planet Earth, even considering that having two fathers or two mothers is a good thing for a child, points to some kind of mental disorder. Sometimes it may work, but there are many other things that could work better that are illegal (for example incest).

I don't care about gay pursuit of happiness, leave them kids alone. Their urge to have children is as important as a psycho urge to kill. Both should be ignored, or countered if necessary.

Posted by: Mertay Jul 18 2015, 02:43 PM

QUOTE (Marek Rojewski @ Jul 18 2015, 12:15 PM) *
I don't care about gay pursuit of happiness, leave them kids alone.


The kid's we mention should be noted to be unwanted in the first place, there are worse things for them (most too horrible to be even mention) compared to be raised by a gay couple specially if left alone...

QUOTE (Marek Rojewski @ Jul 18 2015, 12:15 PM) *
Their urge to have children is as important as a psycho urge to kill. Both should be ignored, or countered if necessary.


There are good things in human nature we cherish and bad we try to control/evolve, why do they have to be the same thing? or is this comment only for married gay couples?

Posted by: Todd Simpson Jul 21 2015, 01:01 AM

I have great respect for everyone and their thoughts smile.gif However, maybe you could link us to some of this "Research" that you are using to make your point here? Of course one could say the exact reverse thing, and not include any evidence and it would be equally with/without merit. See my point?

So you are saying incest is preferable to gay couples with kids? Seems a bit extreme? If gay couples want kids, especially unwanted orphans, seems like a good thing to me smile.gif But then again I"m not against gay couple, or gay families. I"m a straight but I don't oppose those folks that were born "un straight" smile.gif After all they do have the same rights that we straights do smile.gif Right?

I am assuming here, of course, that Gay folks do have the same rights as straight folks and that Gay people should be "accepted" the same way straight people are. However, here is a quick graphic to show what one poll (just one poll mind you, not written by God, or in Stone, or any sort of ultimate truth) showed in terms of global "acceptance" of non-straight folks smile.gif








QUOTE (Marek Rojewski @ Jul 18 2015, 08:15 AM) *
There is enough research (also known as evidence) that children living in "homo-families" have many problems associated with it, and that generally it is a bad idea to allow such adoption. It should be a "last hope" situation, and even than maybe bad idea.

Coming back from fairy land to planet Earth, even considering that having two fathers or two mothers is a good thing for a child, points to some kind of mental disorder. Sometimes it may work, but there are many other things that could work better that are illegal (for example incest).

I don't care about gay pursuit of happiness, leave them kids alone. Their urge to have children is as important as a psycho urge to kill. Both should be ignored, or countered if necessary.

Posted by: Marek Rojewski Jul 21 2015, 08:33 AM

As previous, discussion is unfortunately "bit pointless" because in a world where you can order and pay for research, there is always a "research" contradicting another research.

I was interested in that topic some time ago, and from my and my girlfriends knowledge (and she studied how to evaluate the way research was conducted) research suggesting that same sex parenting is inferior proved to be conducted in a more professional way than the quasi research of the LBGT movement.

Here are three links:

http://www.terpconnect.umd.edu/~pnc/allen-ss-grad.pdf

http://www.ionainstitute.eu/pdfs/1-s2.0-S0049089X12000610-main.pdf

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2500537

I am more familiar with my own language articles about this topic, co can't provide more.


What I think about the whole thing:

First of all, I am an evil "libertarian". I think the government should not be interested in private stuff. That means that in general I would not forbid same sex couples to marry or to adopt children, because I deny the government the power to do so. It is a matter between private people, if someone wants to "get rid off" a child, and someone wants to adopt it it is "okay".

BUT - we live in a pathetic world of social government, where people are treated like retards that can't decide for themselves. The government wants to decide in our name, and "take care" of us. In this pathological situation I demand proper "taking care of". And by that I understand better solving of a "unwanted children" problem than giving them to the inferior (for the good of the child) same sex couples. Build "super orphanages" or (now you may take a seat because I will write something very controversial) introduce "child permissions" - if you don't meet certain criteria, don't pass a special exam, are to lazy and stupid to have children, than you are not allowed to have them. If you won't respect the law, you pay big fines, or just straight out go to jail or work camp.

It is a simple choice between freedom and slavery. I want freedom, but if I am to live in a place where decisions are made somewhere else, let those decisions be decisive and wise, not politically correct...


Posted by: Phil66 Jul 21 2015, 09:39 AM

I'd rather a child be loved by a same sex couple than unloved by a non same sex couple. Given the choice of the child being with loving parents of either same sex or non same sex I would first go with the child being with both loving biological parents, after that I have no preference other than a loving supportive home.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Jul 22 2015, 07:25 AM

I'm an Evil Libertarian as well smile.gif I"m glad to read that we are on the same page about folks that want to start families being able to and it not being the govt's business. smile.gif sadly in our country, the Govt has stuck their hand in for quite some time to make folks born 'non-straight" to be a bit "less than" in terms of their civil liberties and basic rights including marriage. It's really quite shameful that it's taken this long for the supreme court to recognize that if folks wanna marry, the govt should give them all the same treatment, gay or straight.

I read some of the research and it did agree with your point that same sex kids have a harder time in general. I have seen this with my own eyes actually with a lesbian couple who had a child. During it's early school years, the child "invented" a father figure since everyone else at school had one. He made up a name, job, hobbies and this fake dad was very real for the kid. TO be sure, raising a child with two moms or two dads presents it own issues. Then again raising children in general presents issues. Back to the govt. I think they should stay out of it in terms of telling people they can't have an adopted child. If a non straight couple wants to adopt, I say go for it. I don't want kids myself, but some folks do, so gay or straight, they should be able to have them or adopt them or whatever works for them smile.gif

In the end i think we are closer on views that I originally thought smile.gif


QUOTE (Marek Rojewski @ Jul 21 2015, 03:33 AM) *
As previous, discussion is unfortunately "bit pointless" because in a world where you can order and pay for research, there is always a "research" contradicting another research.

I was interested in that topic some time ago, and from my and my girlfriends knowledge (and she studied how to evaluate the way research was conducted) research suggesting that same sex parenting is inferior proved to be conducted in a more professional way than the quasi research of the LBGT movement.

Here are three links:

http://www.terpconnect.umd.edu/~pnc/allen-ss-grad.pdf

http://www.ionainstitute.eu/pdfs/1-s2.0-S0049089X12000610-main.pdf

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2500537

I am more familiar with my own language articles about this topic, co can't provide more.


What I think about the whole thing:

First of all, I am an evil "libertarian". I think the government should not be interested in private stuff. That means that in general I would not forbid same sex couples to marry or to adopt children, because I deny the government the power to do so. It is a matter between private people, if someone wants to "get rid off" a child, and someone wants to adopt it it is "okay".

BUT - we live in a pathetic world of social government, where people are treated like retards that can't decide for themselves. The government wants to decide in our name, and "take care" of us. In this pathological situation I demand proper "taking care of". And by that I understand better solving of a "unwanted children" problem than giving them to the inferior (for the good of the child) same sex couples. Build "super orphanages" or (now you may take a seat because I will write something very controversial) introduce "child permissions" - if you don't meet certain criteria, don't pass a special exam, are to lazy and stupid to have children, than you are not allowed to have them. If you won't respect the law, you pay big fines, or just straight out go to jail or work camp.

It is a simple choice between freedom and slavery. I want freedom, but if I am to live in a place where decisions are made somewhere else, let those decisions be decisive and wise, not politically correct...


Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)