M
MoLandOwner
Guest
I thought Art was?
I thought Art was?
McLovin
5 year old buck +
You can still be who you want to be, you're just going to receive a lot of grief for it.
After going through the hell I went through 5 years ago, one thing I learned is that finding one person in this world to love you and accept you is damn near impossible. If you happen to find that person and he or she has the same no-no parts that you do, I really don't care. It has no effect on me or my happiness whatsoever. Wanna get married? go ahead, I can't think of one good reason why you shouldn't have the opportunity to be as miserable as the rest of us. As a bonus, now you also have the right to lose half of your stuff, your income, and your kids.
Seriously, some people are born with ambiguous parts, some are abused so brutally as children that they will never function in society. If those people feel better by identifying as a different gender, how hard is it to call them Ms. instead of Mr? If nothing else consider it simple decency and politeness. I'm sure all of your Mother's taught you that. I have become a much happier and content person now that I don't worry or care about things that don't affect me.
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
I would agree as well, until I am expected to learn another language in order for them to feel like they fit in,o_O and if I don't acclimate to their wishes I could possibly be ostracized by members of my community. :mad:
I would agree with this as well, but in some circumstances it could affect me and that is where I have the issue. It is really no different then these immigrants expecting their children be taught by a special teacher in their native language instead of getting taught by the English speaking teacher with the rest of the students. That affects all taxpayers, and so does much of this PC garbage, all just to give a warm fuzzy feeling to someone.
foggy
5 year old buck +
Live and let live. Just quit advancing your beliefs on society despite my / our objections to your lifestyle. Like don't call gay on gay "Marriage". It's demeaning to those of us that have long held that marriage is between a man and a woman. Call it what you will....but don't demean MY choices by calling yours the same as mine....when they are not.
I am sick of this political correctness at the cost of MY beliefs and values. Find new terms for your behavior.....don't steal and demean mine. They are not the same. Kapish?
OK....rant over. :D
I am sick of this political correctness at the cost of MY beliefs and values. Find new terms for your behavior.....don't steal and demean mine. They are not the same. Kapish?
OK....rant over. :D
McLovin
5 year old buck +
Foggy, not trying to pick a fight, but... The vast majority (not necessarily you) of people with your views are gigantic hypocrites that cheat, lie, and in general are sorry human beings. My experience with Christians is that the most vocal and opinionated are the most likely to put a dollar in the offering while they palm 5 out of it.
We have priests molesting kids and the catholic church (and Penn State) condoning and enabling it. How exactly does a man marrying a man demean your marriage to your wife? Be happy that you are setting an example of a healthy, loving relationship for your children and grandchildren. Be happy that they will treat the person they love with the same respect and adoration that you and your wife have for each other. How on the world does it effect you if that person is a man or a woman? You don't have to like it, you certainly don't have to participate in it. But to jump up on your high horse and claim some kind of moral superiority when 50% of traditional marriages end up in divorce and 90% of those that don't have at least one of the partner's participating in infidelity is ridiculous.
P.S. I hope my hippie views on other people's sexuality (that is none of my business) don't get me banned from another forum. Honestly, I just don't care what other people do as long as it's consensual and doesn't harm innocent people. It's basically the Golden Rule, just gayer.
We have priests molesting kids and the catholic church (and Penn State) condoning and enabling it. How exactly does a man marrying a man demean your marriage to your wife? Be happy that you are setting an example of a healthy, loving relationship for your children and grandchildren. Be happy that they will treat the person they love with the same respect and adoration that you and your wife have for each other. How on the world does it effect you if that person is a man or a woman? You don't have to like it, you certainly don't have to participate in it. But to jump up on your high horse and claim some kind of moral superiority when 50% of traditional marriages end up in divorce and 90% of those that don't have at least one of the partner's participating in infidelity is ridiculous.
P.S. I hope my hippie views on other people's sexuality (that is none of my business) don't get me banned from another forum. Honestly, I just don't care what other people do as long as it's consensual and doesn't harm innocent people. It's basically the Golden Rule, just gayer.
sandbur
5 year old buck +
foggy
5 year old buck +
I think you and I are on a different page on this issue.....and I prefer to not be grouped as a hypocrite. You may call me a sinner.....but don't go there on the "high horse" bullschimt analogy with me sonny (or is it Sally? - what's the difference?.....what's in a term?).
Using your analogy, then lets just group all hunters a bunch of hating killers.....and be done with terminology differences....cause all hunters are killers....and certainly you must hate in order to kill. What's in a word?
Your doing allot of apples and orange comparisons here.....and simply put: your wrong.....IMO. It takes a man and a woman to make natural offspring.....and the union between men and women has been called marriage......for a long, long time. Calling same sex arrangements "marriage" just demeans that "institution" and lifestyle by calling other practices the same thing.....IMO. Make up a new term and call it that....but leave marriage alone (which is too late because our "all-knowing" supreme court has already decided things like this).
Dont leap to another topic (religion) and say your not trying to pick a fight. Because it seems to me you are. Go fish.
Also, I prefer to not have this dialog with you on this site and I will not respond to another post. How about them radishes?
Last edited:
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
This has become another hot topic in the debate over non-traditional marriages. Many of these folks think they should be allowed to marry in a church and put up a huge fuss within their communities if they are denied. That is wrong! I have no cares as to whether these folks have a civilly recognized "union", but when they drag a religion into it they have crossed a line. They become the ones who are saying "believe as I believe or you are repressing me", that's pure BS. You should not expect someone(or a whole group) to change their whole belief doctrine to suit your petty need to be accepted. If you want to get "married" in a church, either find a religion that accepts homosexual relationships as being within their doctrine, and leave the ones who don't have those beliefs alone, or just get married outside of a church setting by an ordained minister. H#!!, this is America, if you don't like the previously established religions, start your own d*mn church with your own doctrine that suits your needs, it happens all the time!
Some have mentioned the "Golden Rule" and this same "doctrine" can be taken from many religions and belief systems throughout the world (but I actually like the Wiccan version the best), "And ye harm none, do what thou wilt." Very similar to the Latin maxim, "primum non nocere" (first do no harm). Therein lies the caveat, "harm" can be construed in many different ways and takes many different forms to different people. Physical, mental, and even financial "harm" can be viewed by those who are affected as all being just as bad as any of the other forms of "harm". Bottom line, karma is a b!tch and it will catch up with you sooner or later so be mindful of the repercussions of your actions.
M
MoLandOwner
Guest
Yep Cost the old lady $35 back in 86 to marry me at the court house.
McLovin
5 year old buck +
Fair enough Foggy, I try to stay out of these topics usually, but if I've had some Crown and Cokes, well...
Instead of getting all worked up and having to take your blood pressure medicine, next time you hear about a gay/lesbian couple getting married think to yourself "Awesome, there's two more girls/guys out there for the sexually ambiguous McLovin." Life is too short to worry about things you can't control.
Instead of getting all worked up and having to take your blood pressure medicine, next time you hear about a gay/lesbian couple getting married think to yourself "Awesome, there's two more girls/guys out there for the sexually ambiguous McLovin." Life is too short to worry about things you can't control.
Bowsnbucks
5 year old buck +
Stu & Whip, posts #7 & 8 - by the comments you guys made, it would seem that " city fellars " are more apt to be gay than " country guys ". I used to think so too.
I know a guy who is a heavy equipment operator - dozers, hoes, etc. - dirty work boots, holes in jeans, stubbly beard. Tough looking, " he-man " kind of guy. Lived out in the hills & farm country. Then one evening, while I was in a restaurant eating, this same guy comes in with another guy and sits down a couple tables away. I recognized him, but something was different ......... satin shirt, " clingy " pants, and he was wearing PINK FUZZY BUNNY SLIPPERS - the kind with the ears that stick up !!!!!!!!!!!! Talk about night and day !!!! :eek:
I know a guy who is a heavy equipment operator - dozers, hoes, etc. - dirty work boots, holes in jeans, stubbly beard. Tough looking, " he-man " kind of guy. Lived out in the hills & farm country. Then one evening, while I was in a restaurant eating, this same guy comes in with another guy and sits down a couple tables away. I recognized him, but something was different ......... satin shirt, " clingy " pants, and he was wearing PINK FUZZY BUNNY SLIPPERS - the kind with the ears that stick up !!!!!!!!!!!! Talk about night and day !!!! :eek:
There's a lot in your post, but a number of things in it prompted my response.
First, most people who aspire to high moral values could be considered hypocrites- nobody ALWAYS does what they think is right. Some people do really suck at it, though, and those are the ones that many people judge the rest by. I am a Christian, and if you knew everything wrong I did/do, I could be considered a hypocrite as well. I have learned, however, to not presume to hold everyone to the values I strive for, simply because many people don't espouse those same values. That would be like flipping out because a Jew didn't eat my delicious pulled pork.
Neither PSU nor the catholic church as entities should be blamed for the actions of perverts that people connect with those institutions. (I realize the celibacy requirement for priests could be argued as a cause, but I digress.) I don't have any real connections to either institution, but stereotyping that broadly is usually the wrong way to go.
My issue with the whole thing is that the government should have absolutely no role in defining marriage in the first place. It is, at its core, a religious undertaking and the government should get its nose out of it. Since that is not the case: I am not a "supporter" of gay marriage, but really don't care if those who disagree with me participate in it. Just, please, quit beating me over the head with it every time I read the news. I don't need to hear about sexual identity every 30 seconds, and I don't want to be told what to think either.
I don't think off-topic conversations like this should be a bannable offense unless people can't remain civil.
Last edited:
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
Oh I didn't really mean it like that either BnB, I was looking at it more like stu. I know that a good number of gay/les/TG folks from the rural areas of western WI pretty much concentrate themselves in either LaCrosse or Eau Claire, I'm sure the same happens everywhere. They just have more acceptance and resources in the urban areas than in small rural communities.
Bowsnbucks
5 year old buck +
Stu - My short anecdote in post #41 wasn't a judgment on what you and Whip said earlier. I really looked at it as - one would more likely FIND gay folks in cities than out in the country. I didn't speak or communicate clearly. Wrong wording on my part.
I agree the tolerance level is probably higher in cities. And I don't care what someone does in the privacy of their home either. I keep busy enough minding my own affairs, and I can't sit in judgment of how they're built. My intent in telling the little story of the guy in bunny slippers was to really laugh at how most of us perceive ( stereotype ? ) gay folks !! I was as guilty as anyone !! It was about 30 yrs. ago and things were a little more under wraps back then. Can't judge a book, I guess. :oops:
I agree the tolerance level is probably higher in cities. And I don't care what someone does in the privacy of their home either. I keep busy enough minding my own affairs, and I can't sit in judgment of how they're built. My intent in telling the little story of the guy in bunny slippers was to really laugh at how most of us perceive ( stereotype ? ) gay folks !! I was as guilty as anyone !! It was about 30 yrs. ago and things were a little more under wraps back then. Can't judge a book, I guess. :oops:
Bowsnbucks
5 year old buck +
Jeff23 - I agree with most of what you said above. I'm Catholic - and not a perfect one - and the celibacy thing doesn't really play into the discussion. If a man or woman is turned on by kids, that - to me - is some kind of mental sickness. Taking a vow of celibacy doesn't " MAKE " someone into a child predator. A number of women around the country recently have made the news for seducing young boys. They didn't take a vow of celibacy - they could have hit on any number of adult men, but were turned on by boys. Men also seduce boys - or girls - and no vow of celibacy restricted them. Man, woman, priest, minister, rabbi, teacher, or any citizen ...... If you're inclined to abuse kids, I believe you're wired that way. Celibacy - or lack of it - is NOT the deciding factor. I've known some EXCELLENT, EXCELLENT priests in my day and they're more pissed off than anybody because they're getting painted with the same brush as the pervs. The guilty will face their own judgment some day. It's on THEM, not the institution they are supposed to work for and represent. It's the same with the PSU scandal. Only a couple people were involved, but the whole institution got condemned. Wrongly.
Good points, BnB. I didn't mean to go off topic on that point, rather that I have heard people argue that requiring celibacy is a cause of what we have seen among the priesthood.
M
MoLandOwner
Guest
The cause is, those priest's are a bunch of Predators, end of story!
Has nothing to do with being celibate.
Bowsnbucks
5 year old buck +
Yep. And the overall % of those predatory priests is small compared to the majority of good ones. Predators can be men OR women ( as seen in news reports from around the country lately ), and come from any walk of life. The ones that catch the public's eye are the teachers, priests or ministers, scout leaders, etc. They are held to a higher standard.
Last edited: