FYI BoycottFord.com

you just lost all credibility waytogo

 

Hey, I checked in too late to write tonight, sorry, but I'll try to be back tomorrow. I've got a lot to say in reply to your posts.

BTW, just because RJF got a little sarcastic doesn't make him lose all credibility. (hmm, did someone say hypocrite) I seem to remember someone calling names and they still claim credibility, maybe you could afford others the same courtesy afforded to you.

 

A little sarcastic in an informative post is one thing, a 4 word post that does nothing but pad a post count and basically say 'I don't really give a crap about these people's problems' is something else entirely. He woulda been better off not posting at all. My original post in thread was done for 2 reasons. 1. for shock value, it got attention. 2. it pointed out my belief that being bigoted against homosexuals is no different than being bigoted against blacks, or jews, or redheads, etc... You think he woulda posted 'cry me a river' if it woulda been someone complaining about the holocaust (not saying that the hate homosexuals are getting is anywhere near what jews got in germany, not even close. But it could/would be different if we had a dictatorship where ole dubya had complete autonomy). If someone is posting about the plight of a group of people nothing says piss off more clearly than his post.

And I did no name calling. I did not call any individual person here anything. I use sweeping generalizations to include a group of people. WHen I say I would rather see a gay man raising a child than a gun toting hillbilly I was speaking of no one specific, just as I'm sure you folks are speaking of no one specific when you say you do not think homosexuals contribute anything to society. You are making a broad generalization about a lot of people. I'm sure there are a lot of hillbillies out there doing just fine raising children, but I'm also sure there are a whole bunch that aren't (that is from personal real life observations), but no one is trying to keep them from reproducing (and in some cases sterilization would be a good thing). I am also sure there are some homosexuals that are not fit to raise children as well, yet there is this movement to keep ALL of them from doing it. The difference is there is a lot of work involved for a homosexual couple to have children and if they are that comitted then chances are they will be damn fine parents. Whereas for a bad hillbilly to have a kid all he needs to do is forget to pull out (forgive my crudeness there). Then you have a kid with a drunken father that beats his wife and possibly his children.

Are those kids better off with straight parents rather than homosexuals. In most cases no, they are not. Yet homosexual parents are viewed as this horrible cancer, a blight on the earth causing immorality across the country when that is simply not true. Some maybe but not all. And you cannot condemn an entire group for the actions of a few. That's not how this country was based.

 

Times have been changing, There still people, They have there rights just like you do, There are specific commercials out there for every race, religion, and way of life, and you try to raise a stink about something that you dont agree on.. Let it go and live your life the way you want to and stop trying to influance others on your Opinion

 

One question for all of you. Have you looked into what the gay rights agenda is?The rest of the agenda that isn't splattered all over the news and TV? SCARY.

 

As Joe Rogan said, "I don't care what you do. As long as you don't try to [expletive] me, we can be friends."

I am not, in my heart, pro-gay rights. However, I find myself in a moral delimma, as I do have a problem with trying to take away rights from people based on the constitution - the constitution grants rights, it is not supposed to take them away. Pro civil-union, but anti gay-marriage for me. Hell, polygamy should be legal too. I may not like it, but I am not obligated to participate in it, just as I am not obligated to participate in homosexual activity. Simply because I do not opt to participate in these activities does not mean that they should be illegal.

And let's not let this degenerate into the ridiculous arguments equivocating this stance with pedastry or bestiality.

Go states rights. States should govern themselves on issues like this, just as they should on abortion and many other issues.

Marc

 

This is the reason I have no motivation to continue this debate with you. There is a clear difference between being gay and being born black, asian, or a jewish person.

You aren't born gay, a person chooses this life style as a personal choice for themselves.

I will not argue for one second that there aren't conservative homo's out there that keep to themselves and stick to morals etc, but that lifestyle in general is not that way. In general that type of lifestyle consists of far left wing liberal people that jump up and down over gay rights. I don't even need to get into all that stuff, as most people already know.

Earlier you criticized my beliefs of the bible, thats fine, it's your right to do that. What you won't find in a ANY holy book of ANY religion is that homosexuality is perfectly fine and acceptable. Infact, in every religion I am familiar with mentions that homosexuality is forbidden. Now you may not be religious, or an athiest all together. Thats fine with me, once again thats your right. But, I think a world without religion is a world of chaos. Slowly but surely our civilization pushes out religion and tries to make it unnacceptable and that it's way of life is obsolete because these are "modern times." Look at past cultures, the further a culture gets away from the way god wants us to live our lives the closer that culture gets to it's ultimate demise. A perfect example is gay marriage and trying to push god out of the pledge. Our country was formed by god fearing conservative people, and every day our country gets further from those ways.

Will our civilization come to a grinding hault over one gay guy wearing a dress and hi heals? No, but it's just one more step away from the way god wants us to live.
Marriage and love is a holy union between a man and a woman. It is his gift to us to be able to love and cherish one another, and to make a family. That was never intended for two men, or two women, and he makes that clear.

 

See, now this post warrants respect. It has coherant thoughts and beliefs in it.

I was doing some research and found this, it's interesting. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fixe.htm

 

You said it, RJF!

People have to understand that we live in a country with a specified religion that was defined by our founding fathers, and if you don't want to stick to that religion then you can just get out!

Oh wait... Sorry, I was thinking of one of those Muslim countries. You know, the ones with all the intolerance and the "our beleifs are the right ones so we're just going to kill you since you don't beleive them too".

In THIS country religion doesn't (read: shouldn't) enter in to what people are free to do. A dude doin' it with another dude does not affect you unless you're one of the dudes. Pursuit of happiness - look it up. Look up "tolerance" while you're at it, and take a look at what your good buddy Jesus said about loving your fellow man and not telling other people how to live.

Maybe gays did make the choice to be gay, I don't know about that. You make choices that I don't agree with and not only am I not allowed to try to stop you, I wouldn't want to if I could. Live and let live, brother.

Everyone should be free to live as they want, that's the basic idea behind this country and we've strayed WAY to far from it in alot of ways, this is just one of them.

A couple of other things - Our country was formed by people representing a variety of beliefs, not just Christians, and they were most definately not conservative, they were frickin rebelling against the crown, striving to create a secular society. Do you remember your 5th grade history? The reason the pilgrims came to America is to escape religious persecution!

As for the great societies falling when they strayed from god's plan, or whatever. Romans - not christian. Babylonians - not christian. Greeks - not christian. In the new world - Aztecs and Maya - not christian. Ummm, so who were the great christian empires? Mideivel times were dominated by christians I suppose, that was a grand era for most people...

 

We all struggle with things in our private lives which we either are content with or trying to change. What people do in their private lives has a great effect on their public lives and contributions to society. A society is only a sum of it's members. At the very least how each individual of a society behaves and feels directly effects society as a whole. Such is the case for alcholism, drug abuse, gambling, child pornography, or even things like selfishness. Our feelings effect our thoughts, our thoughts effect our actions, our actions effect who we are and our interactions with others. People always have a choice. Everyone one of us are born with or are influenced by our enviroment to have feelings that if fostered by thoughts then actions are not productive to ourselves or society. Alcoholism is a very good example. Some scientists believe that genetics can affect whether a person will likely become an alcoholic. Should anyone who enjoys drinking and has an alcoholic parent just be consigned to the fact he or she has no choice but to be an alcoholic and everyone should accept that fact and accomodate this destructive behavior? Of course not, in fact, as a society it is our responsibility to help each other overcome problems that would be detrimental to individuals and also to society. Should we persecute those who admit they are alcoholics? Of course not. Should we try to help them overcome their destructive behavior? How could we say we care about the individual or society if we did not. No, alcoholism is not exactly like homosexual behavior just as it is not exactly like compulsive gambling, but the same principles apply to all behaviors destructive to self and society.
Now, some would argue that homosexual behavior has no negative effect on an indivudual or society, however there is much evidence to suggest otherwise. In fact, there is much data that proves those that participate in homosexual behavior significantly higher rates of suicide, suicidal thoughts, depression, alcoholism, drug abuse. Some suggest that is due to public persecution, however the same problems are found in societies like the Netherlands where homosexual behavior has been accepted and fostered for decades. This does not even touch on the extremely higher rates of disease that accompany homosexual lifestyles. If we care about each other and about society as a whole how can we promote such detrimental behavior?

 

So you think that people need to be protected from themselves? Sounds scary to me, comrade... While we're at it, we should mechanically limit speed in cars to 50mph, ban tobacco and alcohol and make people get permits to have kids. Because we must protect the people who aren't as qualified as we are to make these kinds of decisions. Actual freedom cuts both ways; if you want it for yourself you can't very well decide who else should have it to and in what ways, unless you're a politician .

 

First, I never said we need to protect people from themselves, I have no idea where that came from, but since you brought it up:


Uhh, we protect people from themselves and others everyday with these things called laws. We have laws for drunk driving, smoking under 18, child porn, drug abuse, wreckless endangerment, speeding, seatbelt laws, helmet laws, base jumping, vagrancy, jay walking; do I need to go on? We make laws to encourage people to behave in ways that are good for society. Freedom is not anarchy, freedom is democracy.

I'm not a proponent of illegalizing homosexual acts and throwing people in jail, I simply don't think we should use government to promote an unhealthy behavior that is detrimental the individual and to society. The government gives marraige licenses to promote marraige because it benefits society.

 

You present the concept of protecting gays from "such detrimental behaivior" as though there are no consequences to heterosexual sex, as though the difference between gay and straight sex/relationships is black and white. That's my problem with your argument. There are lots of consequences to heterosexual sex, not the least of which are these things called "babies", which are way more important to me than a gay (or straight) person with AIDS that contracted it as a direct result of stupidity.

I have serious problems with gay society and their whole "in your face" way of dealing with their issues, but when it comes down to it, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't have every right that straight people have. They can't have kids, so it's not like they can make more little gay people. If they really are born gay, then it's an evolutionary deadend and it will work itself out. If it's society that's doing something to weak minded people and turning them gay, then that fad will die out as all fads do, and once again it will work itself out.

The laws you list have one thing in common - there is a victim or potential victim involved in each one. You didn't list the laws that are in place in some states banning sodomy and oral sex. Do you beleive in those ones? They surely prevent gay acts. Should you be able to ban certain acts between consenting adults that harm no specific person? Is that freedom? Good laws protect people from the government, they don't to protect people from themselves. Look at the Bill of Rights, every one of them is a law protecting the people from the government.

By the way, the government gives out marriage licenses because there is profit in it. The only morality they care about is the brand that is the most likely to get them the most votes in the next election. All the government cares about is money and how to get more of yours and mine. Marriage used to be done in the church, since marriage in the sense that you beleive in it is a contract between two people and their god. Government should have nothing to do with it, but they saw profit, so here we are.

 

First lets get off the protecting from yourself stuff. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand, which is the government promotion of homosexual behavior, aka gay marraige. I already said I don't support throwing people in jail for homosexual acts, I just don't think the government should promote it or force the public to promote it, which would be the result of gay marraige.

The government gives marraige licenses to encourage heterosexual couples to form families and produce children for the good of society. If you think the government somehow overall profits from marraige, please, show me the numbers, or at least where the profits outweigh the costs.

I think we agree about more aspects of the issue than we disagree, but I apprecaite dicussing it with you and hashing it out.

I wish you're theories about homosexual behavior being a fad, or having an evolutionary dead end were true. If we could just close our eyes and make homosexual behavior go away that would be great, but the gay agenda doesn't have that in the plans.

Oh, yeah, we were also talking about Ford.

 

[/quote]



ummm You might want to investigate that remark.All were Christian at their start . When they moved away from God is when they fell or what ever you want to call it.

 

Someone needs to do some investigation, that's for sure...

 

I think we do agree on a lot of the details, the difference may be that I do not wish to impose my morality on other people. Regardless of how the gay lobby promotes their agenda, when it comes down to it people have the right to make bacon with whomever they damn well please. I don't want anyone regulating my bedroom behavior, so I sure as hell am not going to promote regulating anyone else's.