Modern Family...Progressive-Style

Posted in the Columbus Forum

Comments (Page 5)

Showing posts 81 - 100 of815
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82
Feb 12, 2013
 
And I'm asking this separately, Tip

As I said, if you want to decide someone else's standards, you're giving them the OK to decide yours, and I'm almost positive you wouldn't allow that, so why should they?

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83
Feb 12, 2013
 
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
...How well would society survive if we all did the same things, and it turned out one of them was fatally wrong?
Natural law declares what is right and what is wrong.

Homosexual behavior IS fatally wrong, as it leads to a biological dead-end...and is plagued with its very own fatal disease [HIV/AIDS] on the way toward that end.

As you may know, the APA is currently discussing the reclassification of pedophilia from a mental disorder to a distinct sexual orientation -- the very process that "normalized" homosexuality. How well will society survive if pedophilia is "normalized"?

In the absence of an objective moral standard, the slippery slope argument wins the day. And I don't want to live that society.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#84
Feb 12, 2013
 
TonyD2 wrote:
And I'm asking this separately, Tip
As I said, if you want to decide someone else's standards, you're giving them the OK to decide yours, and I'm almost positive you wouldn't allow that, so why should they?
Ask Thomas Jefferson and the 56 signers of the Declaration about "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God." Their signatures confirmed these laws to be supreme in our nation.

In fact, Jefferson, reflecting on the Declaration in 1825, wrote that its essential point was "not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject."

And to deny moral law is to deny common sense.

"If nothing is self-evident, nothing can be proved. Similarly if nothing is obligatory for its own sake, nothing is obligatory at all." -- C.S. Lewis

Relativists argue for a state of chaos where values are provisional and interchangeable.
Such a society cannot exist.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#85
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

6was9 wrote:
<quoted text>
No comment eh skimmer?
Well, actually, I gave you a heart. But then I went on to listen to the President.

Anyway, thank you.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#86
Feb 12, 2013
 
Kemosahbe wrote:
<quoted text>
Explain how an infertile straight couple can procreate - you avoided the issue. Why aren't the solutions for an infertile straight couple any different...or moral...than for a gay couple?
As far as straight couples being the ideal situation, it sure didn't work in your case, look how screwed up you are.
You continue to use circular "reasoning" to justify your hate for those who are not like you. Totally unacceptable.
Every heterosexual marriage reflects the sexual complementarity of men and women, as designed by Nature. That procreation is not always possible is not the equivalent of homosexuals' outright rejection of Nature's laws, where procreation is never possible.

And, blah, blah, blah....with your hate screed.

Never once have I said that I hated homosexuals.
Their behavior is an aberration of Nature, and should not be encouraged, for their sake...and that of society.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#87
Feb 12, 2013
 
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
They dishonor the child by intentionally depriving him/her of both a father and a mother.
Nature's design requires a male and a female to create a child; thus, it follows naturally that a male and a female are required to raise and nurture that child to adulthood.
Just as it is unnatural for homosexuals to practice behaviors leading to an natural [evolutionary] dead-end, it is unnatural for homosexuals to parent children. This second departure from nature's prescription cannot be without unnatural consequences as well.
Nice theory, tip. But it doesn't hold up when researched. That's why your American College of Pediatricians (membership < 200 or so) founded itself in imitation of the American Academy of Pediatrics. AAP formulated a resolution based on research that found no long-term harm (or even difference) from children being raised by people who are gay. The anti-gay members made their own group and go around publishing things like the "fact sheet" that you posted yesterday--believing correctly that most of the public will mistake them for the AAP.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#88
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Natural law declares what is right and what is wrong.
Homosexual behavior IS fatally wrong, as it leads to a biological dead-end...and is plagued with its very own fatal disease [HIV/AIDS] on the way toward that end.
As you may know, the APA is currently discussing the reclassification of pedophilia from a mental disorder to a distinct sexual orientation -- the very process that "normalized" homosexuality. How well will society survive if pedophilia is "normalized"?
In the absence of an objective moral standard, the slippery slope argument wins the day. And I don't want to live that society.
Correction, tip. APA is not discussing anything of the sort. I believe that they were lobbied by a small group wanting them to do so.

But it doesn't work like that.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89
Feb 12, 2013
 
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice theory, tip. But it doesn't hold up when researched. That's why your American College of Pediatricians (membership < 200 or so) founded itself in imitation of the American Academy of Pediatrics. AAP formulated a resolution based on research that found no long-term harm (or even difference) from children being raised by people who are gay. The anti-gay members made their own group and go around publishing things like the "fact sheet" that you posted yesterday--believing correctly that most of the public will mistake them for the AAP.
Where certain results are desired, studies will be skewed to deliver said results. There is nothing natural about being raised by same-sex "parents." And there isn't a person in the world who could rationally support the claim that mothers and fathers are interchangeable.

Same-sex "parents" deliberately deprive a child from a relationship which they, by Nature, are entitled to, and which they have reason to value. In other words, same-sex parents force their children to live a lie in the same way that those same-sex parents are living a lie.

Everyone loses.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#90
Feb 12, 2013
 
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Correction, tip. APA is not discussing anything of the sort. I believe that they were lobbied by a small group wanting them to do so.
But it doesn't work like that.
Wrong. That's exactly how the normalization of homosexual behaviors came about in 1973.

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#91
Feb 12, 2013
 
6was9 wrote:
<quoted text>
OK....
I hate it when I agree with you, and this will get me black listed from the conservative community...
All the gay folks that are my friends knew they were gay from a very young age.......5 or 6 years old.....
I believe it is a wiring issue and so do my gay friends........
Anyone that believes being gay /Bi is a life choice is either gay or does not have a clue what it is like to be ostracized from family or friends.
There I said it, to be clear.... 99% of the time I think you are full of shyte..........
But at least I am willing to be honest.........
You'll never be blacklisted by me.

I happen to think the same.

Those who beetch and moan about Catholics (and mind you, am not practicing, just "get" the theory/philosophy behind this)-- the notion is not that any sexual orientation is wrong. It is the act of premarital sex that is wrong. Does conflict with the church's stance that it refuses to marry gays, but church does not condemn homosexuality per se as I understand it.

Me? I really and utterly and truly could care less what orientation one is, as long as one is honest with others and themselves. Your life, your business, voyeurism into your personal life is well, a sick idea. I think much of the disease argument is based in promiscuity and ignorance. But that's my two cents. Some of the most messed up gay people I have ever met in my life are those who 1) either denied it or 2) were in situations where they felt they needed to beg for acceptance within their families/social circles. That's sad. I've also known those who were well adjusted, everyday folk. Not sure it's anything they ask for or choose, much the same way as I never asked to be hetereo or white or female. It just is.

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#92
Feb 12, 2013
 
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Where certain results are desired, studies will be skewed to deliver said results. There is nothing natural about being raised by same-sex "parents." And there isn't a person in the world who could rationally support the claim that mothers and fathers are interchangeable.
Same-sex "parents" deliberately deprive a child from a relationship which they, by Nature, are entitled to, and which they have reason to value. In other words, same-sex parents force their children to live a lie in the same way that those same-sex parents are living a lie.
Everyone loses.
I can't disagree with that--despite my response to BB.

I do think there is a dearth of real fathers in this world, a lack of real ownership of a man's masculinity in today's society.(Did that really come from this female's mouth? YEP. Try witnessing some of the crap I have as a single female...it's just. there. UGH.)

It's a sticky wicket, just I don't honestly believe someone necessarily chooses to be gay or straight. It's the wiring. How to manage/control the issue of having children, I have no clue....

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#93
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
You'll never be blacklisted by me.
I happen to think the same.
Those who beetch and moan about Catholics (and mind you, am not practicing, just "get" the theory/philosophy behind this)-- the notion is not that any sexual orientation is wrong. It is the act of premarital sex that is wrong. Does conflict with the church's stance that it refuses to marry gays, but church does not condemn homosexuality per se as I understand it.
Me? I really and utterly and truly could care less what orientation one is, as long as one is honest with others and themselves. Your life, your business, voyeurism into your personal life is well, a sick idea. I think much of the disease argument is based in promiscuity and ignorance. But that's my two cents. Some of the most messed up gay people I have ever met in my life are those who 1) either denied it or 2) were in situations where they felt they needed to beg for acceptance within their families/social circles. That's sad. I've also known those who were well adjusted, everyday folk. Not sure it's anything they ask for or choose, much the same way as I never asked to be hetereo or white or female. It just is.
Thanks Keefe....Luv ya......

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94
Feb 12, 2013
 
WDRussell wrote:
Why are hatemongers so interested in how other people live their lives.
That story could not possibly have any effect on your life.
Bad news guy, the world does not revolve around you.
Not interested in them. But there is a child here that may or may not have both parents in their life. And as an uncommitted 'couple', what does that say to that child?

Conduct your life without regard for responsibility?

Accessory, although an ugly word for a child, is descriptive of these situations.

And it is the new normal.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't disagree with that--despite my response to BB.
I do think there is a dearth of real fathers in this world, a lack of real ownership of a man's masculinity in today's society.(Did that really come from this female's mouth? YEP. Try witnessing some of the crap I have as a single female...it's just. there. UGH.)
It's a sticky wicket, just I don't honestly believe someone necessarily chooses to be gay or straight. It's the wiring. How to manage/control the issue of having children, I have no clue....
It is a sticky wicket as you say.

As of father, I believe,(just in my opinion) I was a necessary ingredient, just as my wife was a necessary ingredient.......

How you arrive at that without the combination....I am not sure....

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#96
Feb 12, 2013
 
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Natural law declares what is right and what is wrong.
Homosexual behavior IS fatally wrong, as it leads to a biological dead-end...
adoption and surrogacy have overcome that limitation.
and is plagued with its very own fatal disease [HIV/AIDS] on the way toward that end.
I think heteros who have the disease might argue with that characterization.
As you may know, the APA is currently discussing the reclassification of pedophilia from a mental disorder to a distinct sexual orientation -- the very process that "normalized" homosexuality. How well will society survive if pedophilia is "normalized"?
Unless you're suggesting that EVERYONE will suddenly become one, I don't think it will affect it at all. Children cannot legally consent to sex.
In the absence of an objective moral standard, the slippery slope argument wins the day. And I don't want to live that society.
I'd bet that you'll not find a single person of any persuasion who would want to live in a society where views he considers wrong or that he thinks will harm him are shoved down our throats while the rights we think are good and normal are denied us. So what to do? No single way will be perfect for everyone, but "live and let live" will be more perfect for most people (of the "non-control freak" variety).

God himself didn't deem to control us (he COULD have designed us that way if he'd wanted)... he gave us free will after all... so where does this right to control each other come from?

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#97
Feb 12, 2013
 
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Ask Thomas Jefferson and the 56 signers of the Declaration about "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God." Their signatures confirmed these laws to be supreme in our nation.
In fact, Jefferson, reflecting on the Declaration in 1825, wrote that its essential point was "not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject."
And to deny moral law is to deny common sense.
"If nothing is self-evident, nothing can be proved. Similarly if nothing is obligatory for its own sake, nothing is obligatory at all." -- C.S. Lewis
Relativists argue for a state of chaos where values are provisional and interchangeable.
Such a society cannot exist.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

Only when one person's rights intersects with another's is any law needed, and that law will determine which right is superior.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. That's exactly how the normalization of homosexual behaviors came about in 1973.
According to Paul Cameron et al.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99
Feb 12, 2013
 
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Where certain results are desired, studies will be skewed to deliver said results. There is nothing natural about being raised by same-sex "parents." And there isn't a person in the world who could rationally support the claim that mothers and fathers are interchangeable.
Same-sex "parents" deliberately deprive a child from a relationship which they, by Nature, are entitled to, and which they have reason to value. In other words, same-sex parents force their children to live a lie in the same way that those same-sex parents are living a lie.
Everyone loses.
Except the child who would have no parent at all otherwise. Rigidness can be costly as situations change.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Every heterosexual marriage reflects the sexual complementarity of men and women, as designed by Nature. That procreation is not always possible is not the equivalent of homosexuals' outright rejection of Nature's laws, where procreation is never possible.
And, blah, blah, blah....with your hate screed.
Never once have I said that I hated homosexuals.
Their behavior is an aberration of Nature, and should not be encouraged, for their sake...and that of society.
Are you afraid of being turned to the "dark side"?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101
Feb 12, 2013
 
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
You'll never be blacklisted by me.
I happen to think the same.
Those who beetch and moan about Catholics (and mind you, am not practicing, just "get" the theory/philosophy behind this)-- the notion is not that any sexual orientation is wrong. It is the act of premarital sex that is wrong. Does conflict with the church's stance that it refuses to marry gays, but church does not condemn homosexuality per se as I understand it.
Me? I really and utterly and truly could care less what orientation one is, as long as one is honest with others and themselves. Your life, your business, voyeurism into your personal life is well, a sick idea. I think much of the disease argument is based in promiscuity and ignorance. But that's my two cents. Some of the most messed up gay people I have ever met in my life are those who 1) either denied it or 2) were in situations where they felt they needed to beg for acceptance within their families/social circles. That's sad. I've also known those who were well adjusted, everyday folk. Not sure it's anything they ask for or choose, much the same way as I never asked to be hetereo or white or female. It just is.
I agree with you..., to me, more or less like being born with blue eyes or brown eyes. And I certainly hold with Tip's views also. SO homosexuals have been 'normalized', Will it be pedophiles next? No, I do not like slipperly slopes.

I don't hate homosexuals (well, anybody really) and my God understands what lead them down that path. I don't have to. And, okeefe, I get into arguments about this all the time, and with my mother and my husband. If there is no sex, where is the sin? And being gay has caused so many people so much pain. I don't believe anyone 'chooses' that orientation. And I have gay friends and relatives.

Frankly, it is more the 'convenience' relationships between two hetrosexuals that are not committed to eachother and have children that rankles me more.

I know both a father and mother are very important in any child's life and without one or the other, there is a 'missing link.' What of a widow or widower? When my sister died very young and her children were 8 and 10, I filled in as best I could. And they are wonderful. But they still missed alot and now, they are beginning to have children, and oh, what she is missing and her grandchildren are missing.

Didn't there used to be a custom that the brother married the widow?

I'm late to this thread, so I may be way out of the loop. Morally, I think this country has some big problems and they are being compounded with each generation.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 81 - 100 of815
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

41 Users are viewing the Columbus Forum right now

Search the Columbus Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
why is chelsea clinton so ugly? 6 min ChilliGal 31
Is Nevada rancher a freeloader? 15 min d pantz 182
Pope Francis - Another Obama Failure! 17 min yeah baby 16
Man mowing South Side field finds body 19 min yeah baby 1
Cancer fundraising scam grips family, 2 towns 21 min Tony Orez 7
What kind of God drowns 300 kids? 23 min yeah baby 14
Happy Easter 27 min d pantz 16
Congress Cost FYI 56 min Pope Che Reagan Christ I 100
Bennett Smith gate stories from the victims poi... (May '13) 3 hr pastor of 1 1,983
•••
•••
•••
•••

Columbus Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Columbus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••