# Gays just getting started....



## oddapple (Dec 9, 2013)

I didn't read it all because I don't care. Nature will work all that out too I have great faith.

But the conversation yesterday had been specifically that marriage was just the beginning and they will not stop.

"Second, a top priority for our movement needs to be passing a federal civil rights law that would prohibit discrimination broadly on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. It would cover employment, housing, the right to be be served in public spaces, and more. We need to pass state and local measures providing non-discrimination as well, because they can serve as building blocks to move toward a federal law."

I don't have to serve you if I don't want to?









http://www.cbsnews.com/media/after-supreme-court-win-lgbt-activists-look-beyond-same-sex-marriage/


----------



## GasholeWillie (Jul 4, 2014)

Actually I suspect the direction they will go is, Polygamy, is up next to get recognized as legal and while they are in that fight, removing the tax exempt status from religious groups in an attempt to crush Christianity in the nation, sort of like death by 1000 cuts.


----------



## Salt-N-Pepper (Aug 18, 2014)

GasholeWillie said:


> Actually I suspect the direction they will go is, Polygamy is up next to get recognized as legaland while they are in that fight, removing the tax exempt status from religious groups in an attempt to crush Christianity in the nation, sort of like death by 1000 cuts.


This whole idea is a bit beyond me. I am an anarchy-leaning Libertarian and I honestly to my core cannot figure out why people want goverment telling us who we can and cannot marry. I really do not understand the Conservative's need to have government in control of our personal lives.

Good grief, people complain about the government taking control of more and more of our lives... they complain about the tyranny of government... while at the same time they want to put things like marriage under the direction of the government?

That's NUTTY!

This is not a gay/strait issue, it's a "do you want your government to control every aspect of YOUR life" issue.

What we need it to get the government to leave us the hell alone and let us live our lives the way we want to live them, as long as we do not endanger anybody else's freedom, liberty or property.

Why on earth would you care who I am married to? I don't care who you are married to. Why on earth would you want the government to tell me who I can marry and who I cannot, or who YOU can marry and who you cannot.

"Sin" is a religious concept, not a legal one. We have lots of things that are legal that many consider "sins" and lots of things that are illegal that they don't consider "sins".

The purpose of a law should be to protect our freedom to do whatever we want to do as long as it doesn't interfere with anybody else's inalienable civil rights.

Wanting government to dictate morality is what the SOCIALISTS do. It's crazy.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

I believe this will be a step in destroying the foundation of traditional American culture.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

Camel923 said:


> I believe this will be a step in destroying the foundation of traditional American culture.


Rugged individualism? Ehhh I doubt it. Rebellion or rebellious spirits? Nah doubt that too. Which traditional American culture are you referring to?

Baseball, hotdogs, and apple pie? Or what you have been taught to believe is the perfect citizen with the perfect life?


----------



## Salt-N-Pepper (Aug 18, 2014)

Camel923 said:


> I believe this will be a step in destroying the foundation of traditional American culture.


If the culture that is destroyed is a strong federal government dictating what people can and cannot do in totally private aspects of our lives, I say "I hope it is" and "Good riddance."

I for one have had entirely enough morality dictated to me by my government. Our government has been a leech upon this society, stealing our money, stealing our initiative, our inventiveness, and we need to get them off of our backs, out of our wallets, out of our bedrooms and doing ONLY what they are SUPPOSED to do, which is actually very little of what they are currently doing.

There is something very wrong with this country, and more government mandates, laws, rules and regulations sure as hell isn't the answer to getting it fixed.

Don't you see? Do you REALLY want the government deciding your personal lives? I don't.


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

GasholeWillie said:


> Actually I suspect the direction they will go is, Polygamy is up next to get recognized as legaland while they are in that fight, removing the tax exempt status from religious groups in an attempt to crush Christianity in the nation, sort of like death by 1000 cuts.


You can have a church without tax exempt status. Everything has a price and the price of TES is playing by their rules. If a church wants the government out of their business they can simply give up the perk of tax exempt status.


----------



## Dubyagee (Nov 9, 2012)

Thats a bit backwards.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

No church has to pay taxes on "church" funds. The only ones that the IRS can intimidate are those who file corporate status - 501c3. That authorizes the IRS to look into their books and even audit the books. Without the corporate status the IRS can ask but the church has the right (and duty) to say "no".

My church is not a corporation - it is a religious gathering of folks to pray and speak with their maker. It is by definition tax exempt but I will never file for corporate status.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Salt-N-Pepper said:


> This whole idea is a bit beyond me. I am an anarchy-leaning Libertarian and I honestly to my core cannot figure out why people want goverment telling us who we can and cannot marry. I really do not understand the Conservative's need to have government in control of our personal lives.
> 
> Good grief, people complain about the government taking control of more and more of our lives... they complain about the tyranny of government... while at the same time they want to put things like marriage under the direction of the government?
> 
> ...


That's all well and good until I can't decide who I will and will not serve in my private business.
It isn't the conservatives who started this battle, it was the libs. They demand full acceptance of anything and everything, and if we don't like it for our own reasons(that don't need justification), then they will bring the full force of government down upon us like a club.
Until they give up such pursuits, we can't give up ours to fight back with the same "club".

"Sin" is indeed a religious ideal. However, is it fair to force a religious person to overlook a sin they detest if their actions are passive and affect no injury?
Not baking a cake doesn't hurt anyone. Abstaining from action doesn't cause injury, in most cases.


----------



## Salt-N-Pepper (Aug 18, 2014)

Kauboy said:


> That's all well and good until I can't decide who I will and will not serve in my private business.
> It isn't the conservatives who started this battle, it was the libs. They demand full acceptance of anything and everything, and if we don't like it for our own reasons(that don't need justification), then they will bring the full force of government down upon us like a club.
> Until they give up such pursuits, we can't give up ours to fight back with the same "club".
> 
> ...


No, it's the "conservatives" didn't start the battle because they allowed it to happen on their watch... and are indeed continuing to fight to let government dictate who we can and cannot marry.

Here's the thing, if your private business is "forced" by the government to do something it doesn't want to, AT THAT POINT IN TIME I would stand up and say "No, the government is overreaching!" But that's not what this whole thing is about.

Government forcing people to do things against their will is generally wrong (unless, of course, that person is violating the inalienable rights of other... for example, it is legitimate for the government to enforce that you cannot run a sewer pipe and dump your sewage onto my property... because you are destroying the value of my property).

This is about whether the government has the right to determine who may marry whom. I propose that the government does NOT have the right to do that. I propose that if the conservatives would wake up and smell the coffee, they would say "OK, so why does the government have ANY say in marriages between adults?"

Seriously, why does the government get to "grant permission" for people to marry? Is that in the bible? No, it is not. It's not in any other holy book that I am aware of, and atheists have no reason to oppose it on religious grounds... I am just stumped why any person of faith would think it's appropriate that some nameless bureaucrat in some building downtown can say "You can get married..." and say to somebody else "you cannot."

The conservative argument seems to be "we don't like the morality of Group X, so lets insure that the government punishes them by having all these rules and regulations that stop them from doing something that doesn't affect my personal life, liberty or property just because I don't like "whatever" about them".

It's cracked.

Hate gays, I don't care. Despise them, revile them, that's your business not mine. Just don't empower the government to take away freedom while doing it.

We must protect freedom above all else.

Freedom and liberty, without that, we have nothing.

Nothing.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

A couple issues I would like to address.
Morality is a legal issue. Anything else falls under codes and regulations. This nation's concept of law is based in the Christian faith, like it or not. Not Hinduism, not Islam and not secularlism.

The other issue is that this is not a matter of "gays" just getting started, but an agenda bigger than any homosexual person I know. The ones I know aren't really concerned about all this stuff. Not that they are concerned about cultural degeneration, they just aren't a part of the grand agenda.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

SnP, the reason we Christians are not happy about this is because our government is officially spitting in God's face - again. He is neither dead or asleep. We fear for our nation.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Public school systems are right now working on going even farther with their move to both bring the gay life style into the class room and encouraging it. I have family that are teachers and they are going full bore on this.
This is about a lot more than a word marriage . It is about tearing down society. The attacks on the church will be increased at a steady pace with goal of zero tolerance for people of faith.


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

Tolerance is the operative word, you won't find that word being bandied about much in either party or the political perspectives they represent. I believe we are seeing a full scale retreat from sanity. God help us if either side gets the upper hand.


----------



## Salt-N-Pepper (Aug 18, 2014)

Denton said:


> A couple issues I would like to address.
> Morality is a legal issue. Anything else falls under codes and regulations. This nation's concept of law is based in the Christian faith, like it or not. Not Hinduism, not Islam and not secularlism.
> 
> The other issue is that this is not a matter of "gays" just getting started, but an agenda bigger than any homosexual person I know. The ones I know aren't really concerned about all this stuff. Not that they are concerned about cultural degeneration, they just aren't a part of the grand agenda.


Some people say that the government should be set up to coincide with certain religion's codes of right and wrong. I do not discuss religion on the internet any more, so I make no comment other than I disagree entirely with the concept the federal government is there to protect moral values as set forth by any religion, because I am, at heart, somebody that believes that government is invasive. It's a cancer, and it's malignant.

I get why people want to make the federal government bow to their beliefs, I really do. I just want to make the federal government go away as much as possible, and not be our masters.

I don't want the government agreeing with my morals, or disagreeing with it, I want it largely extinct. I believe we are best served by ourselves, not our "Lords (in the feudal sense) and masters from Washington".

My argument isn't about morality, it's about reducing the power of government. You are talking about an agenda? What's the best way to stop that from happening in Washington? Reduce the power of Washington by dismantling the government's ability to take our money away from us and spend it on crap we don't want them to.

We need (and it's not going to happen, both conservatives and liberals want bigger government) to put this country on political chemotherapy, to see if we can knock the cancer that is government back a bit.

Every law, every decision, I don't look at it from any other perspective but "does this make my country a more free place, does it increase our liberty... or does it not."


----------



## Salt-N-Pepper (Aug 18, 2014)

Smitty901 said:


> Public school systems are right now working on going even farther with their move to both bring the gay life style into the class room and encouraging it. I have family that are teachers and they are going full bore on this.
> This is about a lot more than a word marriage . It is about tearing down society. The attacks on the church will be increased at a steady pace with goal of zero tolerance for people of faith.


My answer to this? End public schools as we know them. They are obsolete anyway, their systems of learning are 50-100 years out of date and they are doing a horrible job.

I certainly would never send any kid of mine to a public school. But that's me.


----------



## GasholeWillie (Jul 4, 2014)

Salt-N-Pepper said:


> This whole idea is a bit beyond me. I am an anarchy-leaning Libertarian and I honestly to my core cannot figure out why people want goverment telling us who we can and cannot marry. I really do not understand the Conservative's need to have government in control of our personal lives.
> 
> Good grief, people complain about the government taking control of more and more of our lives... they complain about the tyranny of government... while at the same time they want to put things like marriage under the direction of the government?
> 
> ...


Well what the SCOTUS did was redefine the meaning of marriage from a man and a woman to 2 people regardless of sex and the ruling crosses state lines so all are bound by the ruling. Actually this has always been a States rights issue, and the States were working it out and I think 16 were left to remedy the situation when SCOTUS got the case, shredded the 10th amendment, and made the power grab. Basically legislating from the bench. If you read the constitution, no where is marriage mentioned. On another forum I asked why does the government issue a license anyway, the only reason I could come up with was that it is a tax and being married has tax advantages in the tax code. My argument of course got twisted and turned around when I declared that this ruling opened the flood gates for anything goes, goat marriages, child brides, pedofiles, you name it. So then it was pointed out that the path of the slippery slope was blocked by the language "consenting adults". So who sets that standard of age? I think the overlying beef is that 1. Big Govt got bigger, 2. Those of the faith that do not approve of same sex marriage and feel big G just crossed into there world and says they must. I think this ruling was an over reach of major concern. A church has a hall and the SS couple wants to rent it and the church says what? Catholic Universities may now have to make accommodations for housing on campus for SS couples. Adoption, Catholic Charities handles that, SS couple comes to them for adoption, now what? Other properties of the other flavors of Christian faith, same deal. I don't think anyone wants big G dictating morality.

On the other forum I said that I wanted the state of PA to get out of the marriage business, get out of the liquor sales biz, and rescind the Johnstown Flood Tax of 1936. Last night the State present a budget bill to the libby efftard Governor getting the state out of the Liquor business. This has been in the works since 1983, 3 of the last 4 Governors said they approved the move. It is now passed by both houses and on the Governors desk and he is waffling, says he will veto the whole budget. The move to not eliminate would cost the state millions of dollars and 4700 State store political patronage jobs would be eliminated if they do get out. However thousands of more jobs would be created as new Liquor stores would open, competition would flourish and the consumer wins.

I no longer want the State in the Marriage license business, I would prefer that all marriages revert to Civil Union contracts that you could get from an on line vendor, complete it and have it notarized and filed with the Clerk of Courts in your County. Done. AL and LA has stopped issuing licenses, OK is looking at it too, TX is leaving it up to the individual Counties if you object don't issue.

On a plus side of this is I am waiting to see who steps forward and uses this ruling to force the States to recognize across state lines all carry permits since the marriage license, issued by the State, MUST be recognized regardless of State.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

This goes against nature, are there any gay animals out there? You wildlife folks show me a pix! What would you expect to happen if a male grizzly tried to hump another male grizzly?


----------



## dwight55 (Nov 9, 2012)

1skrewsloose said:


> This goes against nature, are there any gay animals out there? You wildlife folks show me a pix! What would you expect to happen if a male grizzly tried to hump another male grizzly?


Actually, . . . the act you mention is fairly common in the animal kingdom, . . . it is an act that asserts dominance, . . . although in your example, . . . that one I haven't heard of.

Goats, sheep, cows, . . . even chickens have been known to act in this manner, . . . and it is a full definition of rape, as the receiver in no way wants to be there, . . . they just aren't big enough and bad enough to stop it.

The one the "scientists" and "zoologists" will never show you is where two full grown males get all lovey dovey and lay down beside each other performing oral sex upon the other. That does not happen in the animal kingdom, . . . only in the human animal kingdom, . . .

Challenge them to get you the picture of that one, 1screwloose, . . . and I'll guarantee you if they do, . . . it's a photoshopped brother to obummer's birth certificate.

May God bless,
Dwight


----------



## Salt-N-Pepper (Aug 18, 2014)

1skrewsloose said:


> This goes against nature, are there any gay animals out there? You wildlife folks show me a pix! What would you expect to happen if a male grizzly tried to hump another male grizzly?


Is this a serious question?

MANY animal species exhibit homosexuality. That's not counting the species that can switch sexes or generate fertile offspring asexually (without ever having a sexual partner).

Here's on of thousands of links out there on this subject.

BBC - Earth - Are there any homosexual animals?

EDITED TO ADD: Oh, I guess there's a myth floating around that humans are the only species that has homosexuality. That one's complete BS.


----------



## Salt-N-Pepper (Aug 18, 2014)

GasholeWillie said:


> I don't think anyone wants big G dictating morality.


Why else would somebody argue that the government should issue licenses only between man and woman if it is not a moral question? If not for the moral objection (i.e. asking government to dictate morality) then what's the point of limiting it between men and women?

With me, it has nothing to do with morality, it has to do with "why the hell is the government sticking it's nose into marriage in the first place?"


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Get your children ,grandchildren out of the public school system while you still can.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Salt-N-Pepper said:


> Is this a serious question?
> 
> MANY animal species exhibit homosexuality. That's not counting the species that can switch sexes or generate fertile offspring asexually (without ever having a sexual partner).
> 
> ...


 Yea but on the farm if we get a bull that prefers other bulls it is hamburger time.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

There are many who's religious beliefs with marriage being between a man and a woman has been set by God and it is not man's prerogative to change it. If one compromises away his religion, he will compromise away anything.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

Camel923 said:


> There are many who's religious beliefs with marriage being between a man and a woman has been set by God and it is not man's prerogative to change it. If one compromises away his religion, he will compromise away anything.


There are also many who don't believe in god, never have and never will. There are others that believe in different gods than the people claiming to have the one true god. Who is right? we all have to wait until the end to find out.

No person's religion can be forced upon another person, that is the way our government is set up, that is what governs us. That is what makes this nation different from all the others on the planet.

If your only reason for opposing the legalization of same sex marriage comes from your religion, you are attempting to force limitations based upon your religion on other people. If you only object to the use of word marriage because it is a religious word, then you are behind the times, the government has govened marriage for a long time.

Nobody can force you to accept what your religion states is wrong, but you also cannot force people to see your religious limitation is the only way things are legally supposed to be done.

Tyranny is Tyranny, no matter if it comes from the left or the right.

Religion and Government should never co-mingle. Governments should protect the rights of all citizens and should always remain religion free. Religions should worry about their followers and not try to run other peoples lives.

What we have today is a mess created by people from both sides of the isle trying to force their views upon one another and using religion or government to do it. It is absolute corruption from both sides and the people in the middle are getting screwed over. We are so divided in this country that it will be amazing if we are not taken over by something like ISIS in the near future.


----------



## oddapple (Dec 9, 2013)

All these excuses - it's wrong to have around children you expect to be viable and it's the bottom rungs of human society. God can think what he wants I wouldn't want it anymore than mo slums or any inferior damaged goods thing. Religion and fear I don't need to say "that's a joke" or shoot it either when oby is all done.


----------



## Salt-N-Pepper (Aug 18, 2014)

Smitty901 said:


> Yea but on the farm if we get a bull that prefers other bulls it is hamburger time.


This reminds me of the joke of the young bull and the old bull. I'd tell it, but it's a bit R rated for this forum.

If anybody REALLY wants to hear it, send me a private message.


----------



## Salt-N-Pepper (Aug 18, 2014)

Camel923 said:


> There are many who's religious beliefs with marriage being between a man and a woman has been set by God and it is not man's prerogative to change it. If one compromises away his religion, he will compromise away anything.


I'm not saying people should compromise religions, not at all. Y'all do whatever you like, as long as it doesn't affect my liberty, property or rights, knock yourself out. That's your business, not mine.

My point is that government should have nothing to do with marriages, that way religious folks can do whatever they want without governmental interference.

The problem is when people decide to use the government to control what others are doing. Prohibition is a perfect example of this. Prohibition gave us the FBI, an often jack-booted organization that we are still plagued with today. The FBI does some good things, they are not all bad, but man they have done some really rotten stuff as well, and they are invasive into people's personal lives where they have no earthly need to be in.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Salt-N-Pepper said:


> This reminds me of the joke of the young bull and the old bull. I'd tell it, but it's a bit R rated for this forum.
> 
> If anybody REALLY wants to hear it, send me a private message.


You don't have to ask twice, PM that joke to me ASAP or throw it up in the Bunker!


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Salt-N-Pepper said:


> My point is that government should have nothing to do with marriages, that way religious folks can do whatever they want without governmental interference.


Yes and Yes^^^

(Time to end this thread so that we all can get back to ordering some Gen-U-Wine Slippy-Made Pikes...)


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

Salt-N-Pepper said:


> I'm not saying people should compromise religions, not at all. Y'all do whatever you like, as long as it doesn't affect my liberty, property or rights, knock yourself out. That's your business, not mine.
> 
> My point is that government should have nothing to do with marriages, that way religious folks can do whatever they want without governmental interference.
> 
> The problem is when people decide to use the government to control what others are doing. Prohibition is a perfect example of this. Prohibition gave us the FBI, an often jack-booted organization that we are still plagued with today. The FBI does some good things, they are not all bad, but man they have done some really rotten stuff as well, and they are invasive into people's personal lives where they have no earthly need to be in.


To me it's that simple. Frankly, I don't care about gays one way or the other as long as it's not in my face. you can argue the morality and religious aspects till the end of time. And I get it, it evokes strong emotions on all sides. However, that argument, I believe, should be in the church, community, and home. At the very least the State. My point is it was not in the governments sphere of responsibilities to decide that issue and others like it. ( Religion, Abortion, among others ) The Governments job is to protect our inalienable rights not decide, who and who can not, enjoy those rights. Let's also remember that a Government that grants us rights and freedoms, that is ours at birth I might add, can also take them away just as easily. It's government taking control of our lives pure and simple. It's a steady progression to tyranny.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

The statement that the government should have nothing to do with deciding who can or cannot marry is exactly what this court ruling is about. The government was saying that gays couldn't marry. The court ruling says that any two single people of legal age and of sound mind (a legal term for not retarded) can now marry.

The government no longer determines who can marry.

You already got what you are saying you wanted but you're all upset because it goes against your religious / moral code.


Make up your mind! Do you want the government to control who can marry or not?


----------



## GasholeWillie (Jul 4, 2014)

Well that did not take long.....a polygamist couple from Montana featured on the TLC channel has applied for a marriage license. They want equal rights.

NAMBLA, a group dedicated to removing the age of consent laws has been organized since '78. The have psychologists backing up their cause. They have a innocuous label for what they do, working towards making it mainstream, and make the practice "normal". North American Man Boy Love Association. Fabulous, a twist of words and a vote away from reality.


----------



## oddapple (Dec 9, 2013)

Yeah you knew nambla went nuts the minute obama won


----------



## Auntie (Oct 4, 2014)

GasholeWillie said:


> Well that did not take long.....a polygamist couple from Montana featured on the TLC channel has applied for a marriage license. They want equal rights.
> 
> NAMBLA, a group dedicated to removing the age of consent laws has been organized since '78. The have psychologists backing up their cause. They have a innocuous label for what they do, working towards making it mainstream, and make the practice "normal". North American Man Boy Love Association. Fabulous, a twist of words and a vote away from reality.


That slippery slope is very steep, things are going to start sliding down it faster than we will be able to keep up. *sigh* The hermit comment I made the other day is looking better every hour. I worry about what kind of world my nephews are going to be growing old in. I suppose all I can do is keep teaching them what I know and how to make wise choices.


----------

