Pregnant man? I don't think so

[Keroseneuser]

No deal. Your guns can affect my life.... literally.

My guns have never affected anyones life.

See thats where you lose all credibility. Folks like you want to tell the rest of us what we can drive, what we can do, what we can say, what words we can use or not use and the list goes on and on. But the second that I tell you that I think your life style is immoral you want to get all in my face about it. You will type out an anti religious rant in a second then turn right around and tell me I need to be tolerant of some guy dancing down the street in a gay pride parade wearing nothing but a g string in front of my young kids.

I work with gays and lesbians everyday, I have never ever had an unkind word or action towards them. I leave them alone and they leave me alone and our opposing views on the subject are never mentioned. We both know the others views and leave it at that.

You on the other hand want to force me to tell my kids that such behavior is "normal" and want no mention of God in the public schools but you want the schools to teach kids about gays and that they should accept them for who they are. You cannot have one and try to oppress the other.

You want to teach my kids about homosexuality....I get to teach your kids about God.

 

[Ms Tree]

My guns have never affected anyones life.

See thats where you lose all credibility. Folks like you want to tell the rest of us what we can drive, what we can do, what we can say, what words we can use or not use and the list goes on and on. But the second that I tell you that I think your life style is immoral you want to get all in my face about it. You will type out an anti religious rant in a second then turn right around and tell me I need to be tolerant of some guy dancing down the street in a gay pride parade wearing nothing but a g string in front of my young kids.

I work with gays and lesbians everyday, I have never ever had an unkind word or action towards them. I leave them alone and they leave me alone and our opposing views on the subject are never mentioned. We both know the others views and leave it at that.

You on the other hand want to force me to tell my kids that such behavior is "normal" and want no mention of God in the public schools but you want the schools to teach kids about gays and that they should accept them for who they are. You cannot have one and try to oppress the other.

You want to teach my kids about homosexuality....I get to teach your kids about God.

And they are not my shemales either so spare me the credibility BS. We were both speaking in generalities and I think we both know that.


I have no interest in legislating any of what you mentioned. You can drive what you want, say what you want and eat what you want. Speaking of "folks like you", you want to tell me when I can buy alcohol (not before noon on Sunday), what shows are moral (Lucy and Ricky could not sleep in thr same bed on TV) and a host of other moral BS. I could care less if you think someones life style is immoral in your POV. The COTUS does not permit you to pass laws based on your POV and I am pretty sure that is not what you are interested in either. One day Christians may become the minority and it wold be a shame (ironic but none the less a shame) if the precedents that are being set now by the conservative right are used to legislate away rights enjoyed by Christians.


You do not need to be tolerant at all. You do not need to like it at all. You just do not have the right to force your morality on me or others via legislation prohibiting me from doing something that does not affect you in the slightest. I have no love for the KKK or Skin heads but I do not support any legislation that would infringe on their rights to do anything with in the law. That is where you and I seem to differ. You seem to have no problem supporting legislation that prevents something you dislike (same sex marriage) where as I would not support any law just because I do not agree with the targeted group. For the record, I supported the rights of the skin heads to march in Skokie IL even though my mother and father are survivors of the holocaust. My personal hatred is not grounds for depriving people of their rights.


That is the part you do not get.


Normal is relative. Sixty years ago it was normal to treat blacks as a second class citizen. In 1925 it was 'normal' to place a man on trial for teaching evolution. Today, being gay is normal or at the very least, not abnormal as you seem to wish it to be.


Which god shall we mention n school? Certainly not Allah since he is not approved by you. How about Zeus or Apollo? Vishnu? Buddha? How about a Native American god? Which gods should we leave out? Is it fair to speak of one and not the others? More importantly why is it you get to tell me that your god is "normal" but I cannot say that someone's orientation is not? Funny how that one works both ways.


No one is trying to oppress Christians. You may practice your faith as you see fit where you see fit. You just cannot do it on my dime unless of course you want to give equal time to all the gods and religions.


No, actually you do not. The COTUS says there is a separation of church and state. Teaching kids about god (still need to establish which one) or ID is a violation of that.

 

[EastUS1]

I could care less if you think someones life style is immoral in your POV. The COTUS does not permit you to pass laws based on your POV and I am pretty sure that is not what you are interested in either.

You just do not have the right to force your morality on me or others via legislation prohibiting me from doing something that does not affect you in the slightest.

" I could care less if you think someones life style is immoral in your POV. The COTUS does not permit you to pass laws based on your POV..."

So then: where's it ANYWHERE agreed, written or codified that such as yourself, by way of government intervention, have the slightest right to even try to impose insane and entirely immoral restraints on that same COTUS's 2nd Amendment?

On a more thread-direct note: Are you, even for a moment, seriously suggesting that the following insanity is at all "reasonable"?...In that all any male needs for qualification for entry into women's rest rooms should be a delusional disorder that has him imagining himself a "woman"?...Seriously? "which will allow not only "transgendered" men, but also any man who thinks he is a woman to use many of the same public restrooms that women and young girls use."

So...if someone wakes up one day fantasizing that they're George Washington....should they then be allowed access to the White House? 🙂 How about if he instead believes himself an airlne pilot?...Direct access to the cockpit, I suppose? We couldn't afford to infringe on any entirely delusional person's "rights", after all....and this is fast becoming not so much the Home of the Brave, but rather the Insane, so I suppose we should all just "embrace their diversity"? 😉

 

[EastUS1]

No deal. Your guns can affect my life.... literally.

Your car could affect mine. Turn it in! 😉

 

[snapthis]

Don't you see, that is my point. A sign is not going to stop it.

Does that mean you can run a stop sign, simply because it's a sign?

Take your chances because your Prius or not-so-Smart Car will be a speed bump for my GMC Yukon.

 

[delldude]

All the Gods and religions mentioned, how many actively promote and support homosexuality?

All the religions mention a supreme deity........not necessarily a separate God.

Church and state is the liberal interpretation perverted from its true intent of the founding fathers who saw no issue with church services in the capital rotunda at the time.

That in itself is being violated here and now, today with Obama bending over backwards to Islam, indoctrinating approved practices into all government aspects.

 

[Keroseneuser]

. The COTUS does not permit you to pass laws based on your POV and I am pretty sure that is not what you are interested in either.

I knew your response would include something like the above statement.

Thank you for pointing out your own hypocracy on the subject better than I ever could. You don't get to pick and choose what parts of the COTUS that you like over other parts anymore than I do.

You want it both ways depending on YOUR POV, while discounting my POV. It does not work that way.

 

[Ms Tree]

Does that mean you can run a stop sign, simply because it's a sign?

Take your chances because your Prius or not-so-Smart Car will be a speed bump for my GMC Yukon.

Im not going to explain it a third time. Go and read the posts again.

 

[Ms Tree]

I knew your response would include something like the above statement.

Thank you for pointing out your own hypocracy on the subject better than I ever could. You don't get to pick and choose what parts of the COTUS that you like over other parts anymore than I do.

You want it both ways depending on YOUR POV, while discounting my POV. It does not work that way.

I am not picking and chosing. I do not support any laws that restrict the rights of just one segment of society. Please explain where I am being hypocritical.

 

[snapthis]

Im not going to explain it a third time. Go and read the posts again.

I'm more than glad to point out your hypocrasy and stupidity...again.

"Keroseneuser, on 02 April 2013 - 11:05 PM, said:

If it has a penis, mens room...If it has a vagina..womens room. If it has both, take your pick. It's not a complex problem to figure out.

Chances are you stood beside somebody carrying a concealed weapon today, perfectly legal if they hold the permit, but doesn't mean you want them waving it around in your's or your daughters face does it?"

Your reply, tree:

Don't you see, that is my point. A sign is not going to stop it. So long as people do not flaunt what ever it is they are doing then no one will really know. So what is the big deal. It is happening and there is not much that can be done about it.

Yes or no. Did you say "A sign is not going to stop it"

I'd sugggest a sign would stop it. If a business has a sign saying guns not allowed, as a gun owner, I honor the request of such owner.

Signs do have a purpose, for those who obey. Maybe not so much in the mind of an anarchist:
a person who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power.

a person like yourself, who thumbs their nose at God. I guess you think you are more important than God. Don't you...tree.

You are sawdust to me.

 

[Keroseneuser]

I am not picking and chosing. I do not support any laws that restrict the rights of just one segment of society. Please explain where I am being hypocritical.

Your POV on the second amendment. Though since you consider it restricting the rights of all segments of society if they were to repeal the 2nd that fits into your twisted views of "rights' since it would not personally affect you. Sorry does not work that way either. You don't get to choose somebody elses rights based on your personal way of living.

 

[delldude]

Marriages in the US fail at a rate of 50%. Hetero couples can screw up a kids life in a heart beat. Many politicians who have professed 'family values' have been busted for the very things they rail against.

Please forgive me if I pass on traditional values. They seem to have done quite enough damage already.

Looks like those you mention have turned their backs on God.......and God has turned his back on them.

You and like minded people have chased God from all aspects of life......and we now reap the rewards of such actions.

 

[Ms Tree]

I'm more than glad to point out your hypocrasy and stupidity...again.

"Keroseneuser, on 02 April 2013 - 11:05 PM, said:

If it has a penis, mens room...If it has a vagina..womens room. If it has both, take your pick. It's not a complex problem to figure out.

Chances are you stood beside somebody carrying a concealed weapon today, perfectly legal if they hold the permit, but doesn't mean you want them waving it around in your's or your daughters face does it?"

Your reply, tree:



Yes or no. Did you say "A sign is not going to stop it"

I'd sugggest a sign would stop it. If a business has a sign saying guns not allowed, as a gun owner, I honor the request of such owner.

Signs do have a purpose, for those who obey. Maybe not so much in the mind of an anarchist:
a person who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power.

a person like yourself, who thumbs their nose at God. I guess you think you are more important than God. Don't you...tree.

You are sawdust to me.

And as gun advocates like to point out, criminals will not abide by signs. If you would have read what Ker said, you would see that he was saying that putting a sign up

Don't worry! They are going to post a "No Perverts allowed" sign on the womens bathroom door. Problem solved since we all know the perverts will be repelled by such a show of force.

Please explain how I can feel I am more important than something I do not believe exists.

And you are pond scum to me.... who cares?

 

[Ms Tree]

Your POV on the second amendment. Though since you consider it restricting the rights of all segments of society if they were to repeal the 2nd that fits into your twisted views of "rights' since it would not personally affect you. Sorry does not work that way either. You don't get to choose somebody elses rights based on your personal way of living.

I have never advocated for the repeal of the 2nd. Guns are a part of our society for better or worse. I do and have advocated regulations for gun ownership. Ever freedom of speech is not limitless. Also, the 2nd applies to all people not just certain people.

 

[snapthis]

And as gun advocates like to point out, criminals will not abide by signs. If you would have read what Ker said, you would see that he was saying that putting a sign up




Please explain how I can feel I am more important than something I do not believe exists.

And you are pond scum to me.... who cares?

I'm glad we share mutual admiration. It's people like me who are politically involved, who donate time and money to candidates who make sure you stay in your box. He's to more Blue Laws and overturning Rowe v Wade.