Lesbians gays trans lbqt cornification sex without bounds of marriage prostitution polygamy ect ect...
Can exist but what in humiliation?
OK we can agree they can exist we can agree that should exist without humiliation then it becomes how do we have to go can we facilitate that they should be tolerated?
Even if the life style is disagreeable ?
Sure. Like you said some of that has been around forever. But now the issue is it is being forced on folks to tolerate it that really did not have to before. Of course you want to be kind to folks and not humiliate them either.
Not so much that they are tolerated. That has been done already for a while as well. It is more a fact of making others tolerate the lifestyle and the fact that it is being promoted as a viable lifestyle for their kids.
What freedoms do they not have now that you think they should have? They are even catered to now. Like I mentioned before, we even 'celebrate' them for a month now.
[Quote: Originally Posted by Raiders22]Quote Originally Posted by nature1970: Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: Quote Originally Posted by nature1970: So you agree they can exist, but in what terms exist in humiliation? @Raiders22 What exactly can exist? And what do you mean by humiliation? No, I do not believe you should humiliate anyone. Lesbians gays trans lbqt cornification sex without bounds of marriage prostitution polygamy ect ect... Can exist but what in humiliation? Sure. Like you said some of that has been around forever. But now the issue is it is being Forced on folks to tolerate it that really did not have to before. Of course you want to be kind to folks and not humiliate them either.[/Quote> f
forced is not what I am saying maybe a more subtle position exists persuaded a more correct approach?
Ok should their kids be nicked if they are raising children?
Yes it is subtle for sure --but it is overwhelmingly pushed onto people at the workplace, at the stores, at the movies, at home on tv, etc. -- so, that is why I would say forced, in a sense.
This is subtly more and more pushed until now it is more or less forced on folks -- they have to attend classes at work about it, their kids are being taught about it in school, at a younger and younger age. That to me qualifies more as forced nowadays. It used to be way more subtle.
When you can have a lawsuit against a person for 'mis-pronouning' someone -- that is forced.
I do not understand what you mean by 'nicked'?
No. No one should be ridiculed or mocked. The question can be asked -- just because you have the 'right' to get married, does it necessarily follow, that you have the right to adopt? This has also opened up many other issues.
But no -- I do not think you should mock or ridicule anyone. If anything, you can argue that you should have sympathy for them. That is, if you disagree about the lifestyle and think that is not natural, etc.
By definition, it really is not equal. By slowly eating away at people's definitions we have made them think it is equal, but it is not. They still have to involve a female at some point in their marriage. So, from the very start it is not equal. On down the line it is not equal, you will not have a female helping raise the children, etc. and so on. This does not mean it is taking away from their rights. So, we do not ridicule them. Now we let them adopt. Now we let them set themselves up as if they are equal. It just does not work that way. The same way you cannot mislabel your gender and expect it to be normal. A civil union is not the same as a marriage.
That is a totally different question altogether. Now you are involving a third party. Yes, if that is the only alternative. Of course, a child would be better off in a loving stable environment whether with two guys or a man and a woman --instead of in a worse situation.
But this is forcing into the discussion an unnecessary issue just to try to convince someone to be okay with something that is against their beliefs. Again, that is trying to 'force' tolerance onto someone by using a sympathy technique, by saying, "What about the child? Wouldn't the child be better off?"
That argument only goes so far. A child would be better off there also, instead of an abusive situation or neglectful one -- where the marriage had a man and a woman.
But one has absolutely nothing to do with the other. The ideal situation for a child to be raised in is a kind, loving stable environment with a loving mother and father. That is what should be considered NOT whether the other should adopt just because they want to. Because that is what you are asking people to really 'tolerate' at that point. Now you are trying to 'force' them to 'tolerate' by default through sympathy.
In other words, that someone even has to ask that question and people have to consider it at all should explain something about the question itself.
Where gay marriage is allowed it is termed equal to a traditional marriage union. Civil unions do not exist here.
Yes--it is termed equal and we have 'forced' people to 'tolerate' it as equal. But just terming it that does not make it so. Most people that are honest really see the unions differently.
A person can also call themselves the wrong pronoun, it still does not make it so. But we have moved along to this point. It is still the slippery slope -- where we have convinced ourselves it is okay and it has led to more things like that now.
So how are they not influencing children as the care providers. How can this not be addressed as being an equal marriage within the context of the language of laws.
They very much are influencing them. That is the point a lot of people have issue with. The 'laws' have been set up now for people to 'tolerate' by force that which they normally would not tolerate.
That does not make it correct.
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
