I think the lib strategy to combat Trump is failing
- Thread starter WVPATX
- Start date
Correct! By definition it is impossible to 'abort' a live growing little Baby without first killing it.
Not just killing it either. Slaughtering it. In many cases chopping it up like a piece of broiled meat fresh out the oven and selling off the body parts like you sell surplus items at an estate auction.
Let me hear one of the pro death crowd defend that? They don't have the stomach to either watch it, or call it what it is.
"it's just ordinary tissue for research"...'it's for Women's health" "it's humane"...don't you know?
Anything other than what it really is....
Barbarian style butchery. And he asks who the "Heathens are?"
Last edited:
See this is American thought, IMO. I don't care what your spiritual beliefs are, and will defend everyone's right to those beliefs. And your argument against abortion is legit, although I don't agree with it due to my own spiritual beliefs. But because it's not the Christian gold standard that you are shoving down my throat to force me to be pro-life. I personally think it should be a state issue. Gay marriage I just don't get why the term is so important, but I also dont think a church should have to marry a gay couple anyway.
I think Christians are good for community and the country. But it's when the absolutists and self righteousness of the Christian nation assume that this is more their nation, their constitution, and their government than people like me that I get offended.
Yep....bs like this.....the all knowing, self-righteous, Christian warrior. Painting pictures of evil. People believe differently than you
It is everyone's nation boom and your non beliefs are not restricted in it. You however, reject the role Christians insist on having or have had in it.
It is just as much our Nation as yours, but you reject our rightful place both in its foundation and current Governance.
I don't hear you attacking any other Religion, or belief, or philosophy (not even Totalitarian state Socialism which is far more threatening and destructive to Liberty & freedom) the way you go after Christians and Christianity.
You hate them, and it shows every time you post. Christians don't try to reject your thoughts, or insist you not be allowed to participate in a Free society as a non believer.
Knock yourself out.
You however, prefer Christians just step aside, keep their Faith to themselves, don't advocate, don't try to win hearts and minds, don't vote, don't legislate, don't judge, don't restrict anything that doesn't agree with them...ironically all of the rights you insist on having or assume for everyone else you want to take away from Christians.
Then you call them (Christians) intolerant.
How would you describe Partial Birth Abortions boom? Let's hear your sanitized version of "intact dilation and extraction"
People have different beliefs of what death is, of when life begins, of what humane is, of what life is. I'm not sure what "murder is in your words....a big word", but attention o think it's gotten for quite a while now.
Yes true boom. But killing or murder of innocent Humans is a pretty much universally accepted definition, no matter the extenuating circumstances.
THE said:
"The other recent issue was gay marriage, which would be solved by government getting out of the marriage issue altogether, and call the relationship they recognize civil unions across the board."
The problem is that we have had marriage and the government entwined forever and the people that did the entwining were the people that now want them to be not entwined.
In 1817, when gay civil unions or gay marriage wasn't a thing, we could have made marriage a religion thing and civil union a government thing. But we didn't. Same in 1867. Same in 1917. Same in 1967. In all those times, gay stuff (marriage or civil unions) wasn't considered and yet we kept marriage and government entiwned.
So now when gay couples are a thing we hear some say "Marriage ought to be for churches and civil unions out to be for government." Yeah, well where were you the last 200 years on that? Because the last 200 years heterosexuals were controlling everything and they could easily have taken marriage out of government. But they didn't because they didn't want to. But now that gay people want to get married they want to take marriage out of government. Too late.
"The other recent issue was gay marriage, which would be solved by government getting out of the marriage issue altogether, and call the relationship they recognize civil unions across the board."
The problem is that we have had marriage and the government entwined forever and the people that did the entwining were the people that now want them to be not entwined.
In 1817, when gay civil unions or gay marriage wasn't a thing, we could have made marriage a religion thing and civil union a government thing. But we didn't. Same in 1867. Same in 1917. Same in 1967. In all those times, gay stuff (marriage or civil unions) wasn't considered and yet we kept marriage and government entiwned.
So now when gay couples are a thing we hear some say "Marriage ought to be for churches and civil unions out to be for government." Yeah, well where were you the last 200 years on that? Because the last 200 years heterosexuals were controlling everything and they could easily have taken marriage out of government. But they didn't because they didn't want to. But now that gay people want to get married they want to take marriage out of government. Too late.
No one is saying Gay people can't combine in a committed union. It's just not going to be equated with the established, historical, Religious, natural description of what a Marriage is. A union between one Man and one Woman.
If two men, or two Women want to commit their relationship to a monogamous union, fine. Find something else to call that besides a traditional heterosexual Union which is called Marriage.
Last edited:
The government has been calling the pairing of two adults (historically man and woman) a marriage forever and thus they'll continue to call it that. If people wanted the word "marriage" reserved for religious ceremonies and they wanted the government to call the legal version "civil union" then that would have been done long ago.
Personally I don't think it matters much and it's picking nits to some degree but I'm just saying that logically speaking, gay people have a good argument for the government calling gay unions marriage because the government has always called the pairing of two adults marriage.
I don't quarrel with how you describe it's been viewed historically (Unions) but until activists started pushing for a redefinition of that union, traditionally Government and most certainly Churches considered it a union between a Man and a Woman.
Why do we need to change that traditional nomenclature? What was wrong with it?
Should we add a category to include Gay people? I'm not opposed to that (even though I still have my moral reservations) because this is a free society and I'm not for restricting anyone's freedom to be as kinky as they choose to be.
I just don't want to see traditional Marriage redefined, or deviancy promoted as a result of it.
Last edited:
Boom, you quite selective in your outrage about American and killing and BTW, I at least have not read yet how you came up with the fact we have killed 20-30M people. Please, if you have already not done so, let me know where and when we killed this many people.
You point out Nixon in Viet Nam. But a far greater death toll was achieved in WWII in Dresden. We carpet bombed the city to try and end WWII. As many as 135,000 were killed. Frankly, as I have said, even the Catholic Church believes there are just wars. So this has ZERO to do with Christian values. In fact, I would argue that these acts, including the bombings in Japan saved lives.
We should always challenge our leaders. We should always challenge our motives. We can and must get better. But don't believe the lies spewed by radical leftists that America is an evil country. Since you failed to point to any country (at least based on what I have read thus far in this thread) that has done what we have done, has sacrificed what we have sacrificed to bring liberty, democracy, save lives, lift people out of poverty, and provide hope to the people of the world, I must conclude that no one comes close.
The state had "marriage" as the word used to pair up a man and a woman and give them legal rights, etc, as a couple. Then gay couples came along and wanted the same rights granted by the state. But it's the state that was calling it "marriage." If the state had been calling it "civil union" then the gay people would have wanted the rights granted to heterosexual couples by "civil union."
Then I'd agree with you if we just leave it at that (what you've described here) I think it's something all can live with. But Gay people don't want to just leave it at that. They want the institution (Marriage) redefined.
That's where they're getting push back. Go ahead and form a Civil Union, with the same spousal rights, survivorship benefits etc. as Heterosexual couples have.
However it cannot be considered or called what a traditional Marriage is. Nope...then we're doing something else besides just allowing Gay folks to commit themselves into monogamous relationships.
Now we're equating what they do (which I think is deviant) to normalcy and promoting it. Defining deviancy down.
No.
Once it is changed, where does it end? SCOTUS has declared gay marriage legal. What marriages are going to be legalized next? Polygamy? Fathers or mothers marrying children?
You can't claim these marriages are unconstitutional or that the state controls marriages anymore.
I was in favor of civil unions giving gays all the rights afforded married people. But changing that definition especially at the SCOTUS was wrong, just as Roe vs. Wade was wrongly decided. When the SCOTUS oversteps their bounds and creates new law, unrest in the country never stops. How long has the pro life movement been fighting the pro abortion movement? Years and years of discord. If, as Ruth Bader Ginsberg (who agrees that it was wrongly decided) said, the states were moving in that direction and the discord could have been avoided.
Gay people want from the state whatever heterosexual couples get from the state and they want it by the same name. That's reasonable.
If your church doesn't want to marry gay people then nobody is going to force it to do so.
As far as deviancy goes, are you against all deviancy? Being as smart as Einstein is deviant. Throwing yourself on a hand grenade to save your platoon is deviant. How far off from the norm does someone have to be to be called deviant. What if you like music that's a little weird? What if you like music that's a lot weird? What if you want to eat a diet that would be considered non-traditional by most folks?
What if one hetero couple wants to do it missionary style while another hetero couple wants to do it anal. Is the latter couple deviant? What if a hetero couple decides they like being married but just aren't that into sex so they don't do it at all. Are they deviant?
What is the obsession with deviance? So long as someone is paying their taxes and not driving drunk and not stealing and all that stuff, what difference does it make if they're into the same sex rather than the different sex?
If you get to define gay people as deviant then why doesn't someone else get to define you deviant?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/about
One source. A non-profit organization based in Canada. I'm sure too biased for your taste.
Very liberal. But where did they come up with the 20-30M deaths caused by America? Where and when did we kill this many people? Surely you must know since you cited the stat.
And as I mentioned in a much earlier post, I think it would be wise to read some non-liberal/activist history. May give you a far different perspective. These issues are far too complex to leave it to one side to explain.
Sexual deviancy...and only that which degrades objective standards of societal morality. For instance open defecation in public is deviant. Men having sex with Children is deviant. Men having open Sex with other Men is unnatural....some people of Faith also believe it to be deviant (I'm in that camp) but among consenting adults it can be argued to at least be consensual and even legal if not altogether kinky.
Those other definitions in your example I would not support redefining because they can also be considered as a matter of personal choices among consenting adults. Including your kinky sex examples. I'm not for restricting anyone's free choice.
I like Chics for instance with big Bootys, some might think that's kinky too, but I'm an Adult and I like watching Chicks who like to show off their ***ets, if you follow me? Kinky. Sexy too, and definitely not Gay Op2!
As for Gay couples having similar spousal rights as traditional Married heterosexual couples, I've said I don't have a problem with any of that. It's kinky, its weird, but no one is forcing them to be freaks. However I'm not for discriminating against them, or refusing to recognize their monogamous relationships.
They just can't be considered as a Man and a Woman. Primarily because they aren't, and also because that is a special Union that once formed Gay folks can never copy no matter how hard they try or screw each other in their rear partitions.
Procreation.
I know you also reject that, but at some point in the "anything goes" relativistic world of Leftist humanistic thought, there are certain natural and moral absolutes than cannot be altered despite their endless attempts to redefine anything or everything that occurs naturally.
That's one of them, and precisely why we should keep traditional Marriage just as it is, and call Gay people who want to commit to their relationships something else.
Last edited:
"Natural" and "Unnatural" is pointless. Lots of things are natural and bad and lots of other things are unnatural and good. And on top of that I don't see why gay people are necessarily unnatural anyway. Just because people are a minority they're unnatural? Why? Even some animals, who don't sit around thinking about morality like humans do, engage in homosexual behavior.
How about old heterosexual couples that can't procreate. Should they not be allowed to get married? How about young heterosexuals that can't procreate for biological reasons or that won't procreate because they don't want to. Should they not be allowed to get married?
I don't leave it to one side at all. I teach history on the high school level, and I don't use these alternative perspectives in the classroom. I read Zinn yes, but I also read Medved (BTW you would like his book "Hollywood versus America" I bet). I think the influence of the CIA and covert operations are not covered nearly enough by mainstream historians.
As I said Op2, you can be as freaky as you want to be. It's your choice. I'm Black. I cannot choose to be "unBlack" and I quite frankly resent the Hell out of anyone who tries to equate their preferences for kinky sex to my race. It infuriates me.
But to your point, what is considered natural is that which occurs naturally. Breathing is natural. Smoking (inhaling tar & nicotine into your lungs) is unnatural. Sex is natural (A Male's penis into a Female's hot juicy ******) is natural. A Male's penis into the anal part of another Male is unnatural. It's like sticking a Carrot into your ear and calling that Sex.
No thanks
Procreation is not the only reason of course people Marry. I simply pointed out that it's one reason (among others) that Marriage between a Man and a Woman is special and unique by definition. Older folks who can't produce Children are perfectly fine to Marry (Man and a Woman). So can gay people too.
It's just not the same thing as a Man and a Woman, nor should it be.
Nope boom, just kinky...very kinky and a little weird. I just don't understand what a grown *** Man sees attractive in another hairy *** guy compared to this honey:
I'm reminded of a song on U-92 from my WVU days back in the 80s. As I recall the song was by a group named Love and Rockets and the song was titled No New Tale To Tale. Here are the lyrics.
You cannot go against nature
Because when you do
Go against nature
That's a part of nature too
Natural is that which occurs naturally, you say? Does gay sex not occur naturally? Is a male penis into some other part of the female natural? If so then why does it become unnatural if the other person is male instead of female?
Communicating on the internet is unnatural. Wiping your rear end when you're done pooping is unnatural. Having a human lifespan above 30 is unnatural.
The mistake you're making is conflating whether you think other people should be allowed to do something with whether you want to do it yourself. Forget gay people. There are a million different things people can do. You don't like 99% of them. So what? So you don't like things that other people do. What difference does it make? As long as they're not hurting others or hurting you, who cares?
Nope boom, just kinky...very kinky and a little weird. I just don't understand what a grown *** Man sees attractive in another hairy *** guy compared to this honey:
I don't understand why people like opera but it doesn't bother me that they like opera.
And the center of the universe is.....apparently atlNope boom, just kinky...very kinky and a little weird. I just don't understand what a grown *** Man sees attractive in another hairy *** guy compared to this honey:
Nope boom, just kinky...very kinky and a little weird. I just don't understand what a grown *** Man sees attractive in another hairy *** guy compared to this honey:
Hey atl, you say you're black but you're posting pics of juicy white gals. But there was a time not so long ago in this country when such things were considered unnatural and that white guys should stick with white gals and black guys should stick with black gals. That was the natural order and people shouldn't deviate from that. You sound like those folks.
P.S. As juicy white gals go I think you could have done better. Her face is about a 6.
P.P.S. But then, your tastes are your tastes and my tastes are my tastes and it doesn't really matter if they aren't the same, which is kinda the larger point I'm making in this discussion.
No, it's a choice. You find the same sex attractive which is not what normally attracts one sex to the other. The natural attraction is to the opposite Sex. Outside of that, it's just kinky.
Well no, but it is kinda kinky wouldn't you agree? As long as it's a Woman on the other end, I'd hit it.
Because it's a Male doing it to another Male. Why have women if we can't stick it inside them? Who wants only a bunch of hairy *** Dudes to get off on? Chicks make it more interesting, if not more fun.
Some thought is unnatural Op2. Humans flying in Airplanes at 30,000 feet is unnatural. Lots of things fit this definition. What I'm specifically referring to is human sexuality, how we get here, how we function, what is our normal "mo" if you will. Dogs sniff other Dog's behinds...natural. Men get off on looking at hot Chicks, very natural. Other Men?....weird.
Agreed! But do you say the same thing when people do things that are beyond the pale. Bestiality? Necromancy? I mean how far do you want to extend that line of kinkiness Dude?
Since you are a history teacher you might want to reasearch a little deeper about McCarthyism. I think there were valid reasons for what McCarthy was concerned about. I suggest you look at the infestation of Soviet agents and spies within our government in the 1940's. You might start with FDR's cabinet and his advisors.
Well if other consenting adults are involved then even if I personally think it's weird I don't mind them doing it.
But what you posted does remind me of one of my favorite all time lines. It goes like this:
I used to be into sadism, necrophilia and beastiality but then I realized I was just beating a dead horse.
What assertions did I make about McCarthyism? I just think it's funny that people are trivializing the communist threat of the 1950's by referring to liberals today as "leftists"