The Gay Thread

Quote: AZDuffman

Good for them! What is the problem there? But I doubt they spend much on these issues. I think it is more your imagination than anything. Pro-abortion groups spend to get their view out, they are tax-exempt. Why are you such a bigot about churches getting their message out? "Choose Life" is a better message than the "Tear your unborn baby to shreds" of the other side.




You can guarantee it? How? Obscure churches do not have big budgets.



LDS an "obscure" church? They are huge! And again, you are fine with gays having outsize power but not a church? But a bigot would say this so I see you saying it.




Nope, they want special rights. They wanted marriage redefined for them. They want to be able to force people to take their business and I am not talking public accommodations like a restaurant. I am talking their suing web developers to force them. They want to force their employers to allow them to dress like freaks of how they "identify" vs. acceptable business attire. People who want to be equal do not have hedonistic "pride parades" and such.

You see it for what they claim they want. I see it for their actions.

Why are churches exempt from public book returns (like every other tax exempt organization?) It is because they are doing shady activity (generally not doing as much charity as they claim to do, but often being politically active.)

Yes LDS is an obscure Church, it is almost exclusively American, and even in America it is like 1% of the population. And, they have more power and influence than people realize. It's assets drastically are disproportionate to it's number of members. Again, we do not know for sure because of return exemptions. But, because of some charges against the church, and insider leaks, it is agreed that they have over 100 Billion in assets.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mormon-church-fined-5-million-fine-sec/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/mormon-church-temple-spending-spree-utah-e167977f

The simple answer is churches should have to file public returns like all other nonprofits. They have an absurd level of privilege. (And, I know I keep saying Church, obviously I am referring to all religious organizations.)


How does the definition of marriage effect you? You are not straight married, so you can't even make the (insane) argument that it damages your relationship label status. It literally effects you less than anyone, you can't even argue that it abstractly effects you.

The website case you are speaking of is a State taking action against a business (apparently the person who was wronged according to CO was not even gay so it is a bizarre circumstance). But, I agree with this decision (just like the wedding cake decision, also out of CO in a similar State complaint.) These are isolated cases where in at least one case the State was not even acting on behalf of a gay person (it seems that the "victim" was literally just a random name they chose.)

As for demanding to dress "like freaks" at work. I have no idea what this refers to. Every gay man I know dresses more professionally than most straight people (often by a large margin), generally they like to wear the most elaborate suits that they can at all times even on casual days (this is anecdotal). But, I have never heard of a single case of somebody demanding exemption from a dress code due to sexual orientation.

As for parades, this is a natural reaction to being forced into hiding for centuries. This is no different than civil rights marches in the early 1900s (in fact it is a civil rights march, just for a different class of people who have been wronged.)

We can solve this very easily, should no fault divorces be legal? Or do they dimmish marriage? Also, should divorced people be banned from marriage? If your answer is anything other than yes, you are inconsistent, and just showing a particular disdain for one aspect of marriage. This is another new concept (1960s), prior divorce law was based on the biblical principles of having to demonstrate infidelity.

Quote: AZDuffman

My position is marriage is one man and one woman. I will say the same on my deathbed.

Peace.

Can we get an ETA?

Quote: AZDuffman

That is your position and good for you. I think on a different plane. It is not about "no cost to my happiness." It is about promoting the lifestyle is not a good thing for society. The post-millennial generation is now very sexual preference confused. They are starting to think that if they are not madly in love with someone of the opposite sex at the moment then they must be gay. We have parents staring to think that they can transition their child to get the sex they want. A high homosexuality rate is not a sign of a healthy society. It is dystopian.

But it is probably too late to save American society. We are currently in collapse. But even if I cannot change it does not mean I will support it. My position is marriage is one man and one woman. I will say the same on my deathbed.

Peace.

Again, WHY is, 'Promoting the lifestyle,' a societal negative when we are talking about gay marriage? All you do, day after day after day is make statements that you simply cannot defend. You are incapable of coming up with any reason, that has any basis in logic, as to why gay people being allowed to get married is a negative for society.

What about civil unions? Would you have been fine with civil unions had they done the same thing as marriage on the Federal level? If so, then you're taking the same state of affairs, but saying it makes a substantive difference based on what it is called---which is total nonsense.

Even if you would have been fine with civil unions, then I could ask, "Well, what if the Government just calls everything a civil union and marriage becomes a term exclusive to churches?" Again, if you would be fine with that, then you only care about what things are, or are not, called...even if it doesn't change the pragmatic effect of those things.

My guess is that you wouldn't want gay people to engage in any sort of unifying institution, with one another, that is recognized by the Government as that results in, "Promoting the lifestyle."

Your only possible reason for this position, similar to the official position of many Christian denominations, is because you find lifestyles that are not what you think would be the best, or most righteous, unacceptable to you. Similar to any number of church congregants, you do not wish to be simply left alone, and instead, promote intolerant bigotry in your posts.

Also, would you have it that gay individuals enter into straight marriages wherein they commit infidelity because that's the only way they can be sexually gratified? Naturally, you might respond, "Well, they shouldn't do that." When we live in a society wherein everyone does what they, 'Should,' let me know and then you might have an argument.

Nobody can change society. The one thing that you could maybe try to change is yourself, but you won't. You'd better hope I'm right and you're wrong; the sanctimonious, judgmental and unforgiving shall not enter the gates of Heaven.

Quote: SOOPOO

But over time I came to the simple conclusion that allowing gay couples to marry, as opposed to the ‘civil union’ that I was in favor of, just allows those people to be happier, at NO COST to my happiness.

My theory years ago was that gay marriage will cost me financially. Married people tend to get a tax break that single people don't. Therefore more single people are paying more in taxes and that is a little less tax than I will be expected to contribute.

Quote: Mission146

Again, WHY is, 'Promoting the lifestyle,' a societal negative when we are talking about gay marriage? All you do, day after day after day is make statements that you simply cannot defend. You are incapable of coming up with any reason, that has any basis in logic, as to why gay people being allowed to get married is a negative for society.

What about civil unions? Would you have been fine with civil unions had they done the same thing as marriage on the Federal level? If so, then you're taking the same state of affairs, but saying it makes a substantive difference based on what it is called---which is total nonsense.

Even if you would have been fine with civil unions, then I could ask, "Well, what if the Government just calls everything a civil union and marriage becomes a term exclusive to churches?" Again, if you would be fine with that, then you only care about what things are, or are not, called...even if it doesn't change the pragmatic effect of those things.

My guess is that you wouldn't want gay people to engage in any sort of unifying institution, with one another, that is recognized by the Government as that results in, "Promoting the lifestyle."

Your only possible reason for this position, similar to the official position of many Christian denominations, is because you find lifestyles that are not what you think would be the best, or most righteous, unacceptable to you. Similar to any number of church congregants, you do not wish to be simply left alone, and instead, promote intolerant bigotry in your posts.

Also, would you have it that gay individuals enter into straight marriages wherein they commit infidelity because that's the only way they can be sexually gratified? Naturally, you might respond, "Well, they shouldn't do that." When we live in a society wherein everyone does what they, 'Should,' let me know and then you might have an argument.

Nobody can change society. The one thing that you could maybe try to change is yourself, but you won't. You'd better hope I'm right and you're wrong; the sanctimonious, judgmental and unforgiving shall not enter the gates of Heaven.

He'd have to make the statement, that yes, he wants "two or more consenting adults to be able to do want they want with each other" but ONLY things he approves of. I don't have to be fine with everything consenting adults do with each other as long as they all consent. I'd probably allow consenting adults to agree to fight to the death as long as it's a firm and agreeable contract between all parties. I sure don't care what anyone wants to put in each other orifices, nor do I care to have oversight over the action. Just make sure it's consensual.

In fact, I'm for sure I'd allow consenting adults to fight to the death, before I'd allow all the a-holes that want to carry guns around, because that involves all the rest of non-consenting adults to potentially be on the wrong end of their mistakes, malice or insanity. Which is my major complaint about gun rights.

Quote:

Hamtramck City Council in Michigan has unanimously voted to ban the display of LGBTQ+ flags on public buildings, citing religious freedom as the basis for the decision.

The reason seems dubious, but I'm actually for only flying US or State flags on government buildings. I see all kinds of problems when we start a habit of supporting one group or another even when it starts out with good intentions. If that, why not this? Definitely a slippery slope.

If government is supposed to represent the citizens as diverse as they, then the reps themselves can support individual causes, wearing their own symbols of support, or going off to individual events. But the big government symbols should remain general in nature and not so specific.

Quote: rxwine

The reason seems dubious, but I'm actually for only flying US or State flags on government buildings. I see all kinds of problems when we start a habit of supporting one group or another even when it starts out with good intentions. If that, why not this? Definitely a slippery slope.

If government is supposed to represent the citizens as diverse as they, then the reps themselves can support individual causes, wearing their own symbols of support, or going off to individual events. But the big government symbols should remain general in nature and not so specific.

Agree. They should not have said anything about religion, just that government buildings are not the place for the gay flag. USA flag, State Flag, POW-MIA Flag are the only flags that should be flown. Flying the gay flag is just another part of the special treatment gays demand that I keep pointing out.

Quote: AZDuffman

Agree. They should not have said anything about religion, just that government buildings are not the place for the gay flag. USA flag, State Flag, POW-MIA Flag are the only flags that should be flown. Flying the gay flag is just another part of the special treatment gays demand that I keep pointing out.

Sounds like someone still hasn’t recovered from the anti-Confederate Flag campaign of the past several years.

I have no issue with pride flags being banned from all government buildings. I actually think it is good for only government flags to be flown. But, this has to be enforced consistently (no Confederate flags, no bible flags, no personal flags, no Jesus fags, etc....) You can't make exemptions only to flags that you like.

I would even say I am a fine with a ban of charity flags (maybe with an exception for veteran charities) because this opens the door to too many gray areas (and it is not really the place of a City to be promoting a charity -regardless of how well-intentioned-)

We have free speech in America, if you want to fly a specific flag fly it at your home, your business, or run around the streets with it. We don't need tax funded flag shows (that inevitably cause divides.)

.
re LBGTQ_______

acceptance or lack of acceptance is split very much along the lines of age

the % of older people who are accepting is much less than the % of younger people who are accepting

it' a Brave New World - and many new things and ideas are hard for older people to accept

the same thing happened with the Civil Rights Movement - it took a very long time for African Americans to be accepted as being equal in our society

and there are prolly still a great many who don't accept it

.