TOTALLY GEEKED!

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

RE: Law of the Land has changed.

FNW · Guru

That's what we think as well. We are going to be over at my parents on the 4th. I hope their boys come out when we shoot off the fireworks. One is around the boys' age. It would be nice for them to play with him since we know he's a little bit lonely.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Use to have a Muslim couple come in at work.

He wouldn't deal with women at all. I got to where I made what ever guys that were working go on break or just to the back when this guy came in.

And I made a point to touch him when passing money or tray.

This is my country. Don't pull your crap with me.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

lilyofcourse wrote:
Use to have a Muslim couple come in at work.

He wouldn't deal with women at all. I got to where I made what ever guys that were working go on break or just to the back when this guy came in.

And I made a point to touch him when passing money or tray.

This is my country. Don't pull your crap with me.

Why would you do that? That makes you no better than the gays who would force a baker to bake a cake.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Because he would literally throw it at me.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

And I can be petty.

huskerbb · Guru

chillepeppa wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
burns07 wrote:

This is Argumentum ad populum, and the same argument for "awesomeness" can be used for the Biebster and the Kardashians...
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

LOL--a more apropos phrase for this ridiculous comparison would be contra bonos mores
Hence the "" when I said awesomeness. To me, they are all equally ridiculous, so I guess it would depend on your reference frame.
My stance on popularity not making something right or worthy still stand though.
LOL!!! That is patently absurd. Of course gay marriage is now considered "right" because of popularity. Not so many years ago, homosexuality was considered a disease--and the ONLY difference between it and pedophilia is age--and that's a human construct since acceptable age has varied over time and between cultures.
According to the polygamy thread if this had been put to a vote, it would not have passed, so no, it is not right due to popularity at all.

BS. Of course it is. It would have never been a consideration even 20 years ago. Popular doesn't necessarily mean a majority vote.

Lexxy · My dog name is Sasha, too!

I had Pakistani neighbors. He did not like me because I was an American female. He particularly disliked that his wife & oldest daughter wanted to be friends with me & learn American ways. It got very heated over the years. I understand your pettiness Lily. I never did anything but I mentally plotted to get a pet pot belly pig & keep it in the backyard. After a big blow up I daydreamed about smearing his car door handle & his outdoor front door knob with bacon grease.

Mellow Momma · Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

Lawyerlady wrote:
FNW wrote:
My mother has a Muslim family living next door. I cannot remember which country they were from. The sons have been told to reach out to my father if they need help. For instance, their mother was unable to get home in time to meet the bus, so the boys went to my parents' house to wait, and to use the bathroom. But they had to communicate with my father, not my mother. She answered the door, but they did not look up at her, so she understood and called my dad over and only then they would come in. Then they waited on the front step. My mom brought them cookies and milk to eat, and they were very polite and happy, but again, no eye contact.

They have told my parents that their boys have been unable to make friends at school because of what is going on in the world. That is very sad to me. Of course, my mother & I do wonder if they are a sleeper cell. And that, too, is sad, but it is the times.

I remember when the whole Clinton/Lewinsky debacle was taking place. I was dating a guy who had lived in Turkey for 2 years. The Turks thought it was ridiculous we were making a big deal out if, as their politicians were expected to have mistresses. Different culture, different view.
I doubt it. They would be trying to be more mainstream and personable if they were a sleeper cell.

I wonder what those boys did at school where their teacher was probably a woman? Sad.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

lilyofcourse wrote:
And I can be petty.

No way! I am shocked!!!

flan

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
And I can be petty.
No way! I am shocked!!!
flan

And I answer questions when asked.

Tinydancer · Guru

lilyofcourse wrote:
flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
And I can be petty.
No way! I am shocked!!!
flan
And I answer questions when asked.

Ok I laughed so hard water came out my nose...lol

FNW · Guru

Lexxy wrote:
I had Pakistani neighbors. He did not like me because I was an American female. He particularly disliked that his wife & oldest daughter wanted to be friends with me & learn American ways. It got very heated over the years. I understand your pettiness Lily. I never did anything but I mentally plotted to get a pet pot belly pig & keep it in the backyard. After a big blow up I daydreamed about smearing his car door handle & his outdoor front door knob with bacon grease.

I once smeared garlic butter on a car door handle. It gives off a delightful smell.

Sin City Girl · Member

lilyofcourse wrote:
Use to have a Muslim couple come in at work.

He wouldn't deal with women at all. I got to where I made what ever guys that were working go on break or just to the back when this guy came in.

And I made a point to touch him when passing money or tray.

This is my country. Don't pull your crap with me.

Disgusting!

i had hope this would finally be over with the ruling, but I guess not. Not the comment I quoted, but having it everywhere.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

I had a Muslim doctor. He was okay but he annoyed me. Whenever DH was home from work he would go with me to the Muslim asthma/allergist doctor. But he would never address ME. It was always, "How is your wife doing?" "Has your wife had any problems?" I mean I get that this is their culture and all but if you are going to come to America to practice medicine you have to KNOW you're going to have to deal with women. It's kind of a given. Anyway, it's a practice of four doctors. Three are Muslims and the last one is Polish. I switched to the Polish one. He's a hoot. I love him. We talked about how hard it is getting to be a doctor and he said, "Pffft, my wife and I have six kids. They range from one to 13. She left me alone with them for the day to go do things with her sister. I went bald that day. I'll be a doctor any day over that job. It's HARD!"

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

My cardiologist is Muslim. He is a nice man. Always polite. Very good about preserving ones dignity.

I have no problem with him.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Well, besides the whole not actually speaking to ME thing he also liked to load me up on meds. I would tell him, I'm not going to take that. And he'd dump a bunch of samples and free coupons on me. I would tell him again, I'm not having enough problems to warrant taking that. He didn't care.

chillepeppa · Regular

huskerbb wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
burns07 wrote:

This is Argumentum ad populum, and the same argument for "awesomeness" can be used for the Biebster and the Kardashians...
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

LOL--a more apropos phrase for this ridiculous comparison would be contra bonos mores
Hence the "" when I said awesomeness. To me, they are all equally ridiculous, so I guess it would depend on your reference frame.
My stance on popularity not making something right or worthy still stand though.
LOL!!! That is patently absurd. Of course gay marriage is now considered "right" because of popularity. Not so many years ago, homosexuality was considered a disease--and the ONLY difference between it and pedophilia is age--and that's a human construct since acceptable age has varied over time and between cultures.
According to the polygamy thread if this had been put to a vote, it would not have passed, so no, it is not right due to popularity at all.
BS. Of course it is. It would have never been a consideration even 20 years ago. Popular doesn't necessarily mean a majority vote.

Popularity means nothing, and that was my initial point.

huskerbb · Guru

chillepeppa wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
burns07 wrote:

This is Argumentum ad populum, and the same argument for "awesomeness" can be used for the Biebster and the Kardashians...
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

LOL--a more apropos phrase for this ridiculous comparison would be contra bonos mores
Hence the "" when I said awesomeness. To me, they are all equally ridiculous, so I guess it would depend on your reference frame.
My stance on popularity not making something right or worthy still stand though.
LOL!!! That is patently absurd. Of course gay marriage is now considered "right" because of popularity. Not so many years ago, homosexuality was considered a disease--and the ONLY difference between it and pedophilia is age--and that's a human construct since acceptable age has varied over time and between cultures.
According to the polygamy thread if this had been put to a vote, it would not have passed, so no, it is not right due to popularity at all.
BS. Of course it is. It would have never been a consideration even 20 years ago. Popular doesn't necessarily mean a majority vote.
Popularity means nothing, and that was my initial point.

And you are so wrong it's laughable. Were this not the medias pet issue of the day, it never would have happened. Want proof? How about the fact that it didn't happen for well over two hundred years.

chillepeppa · Regular

huskerbb wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
burns07 wrote:

This is Argumentum ad populum, and the same argument for "awesomeness" can be used for the Biebster and the Kardashians...
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

LOL--a more apropos phrase for this ridiculous comparison would be contra bonos mores
Hence the "" when I said awesomeness. To me, they are all equally ridiculous, so I guess it would depend on your reference frame.
My stance on popularity not making something right or worthy still stand though.
LOL!!! That is patently absurd. Of course gay marriage is now considered "right" because of popularity. Not so many years ago, homosexuality was considered a disease--and the ONLY difference between it and pedophilia is age--and that's a human construct since acceptable age has varied over time and between cultures.
According to the polygamy thread if this had been put to a vote, it would not have passed, so no, it is not right due to popularity at all.
BS. Of course it is. It would have never been a consideration even 20 years ago. Popular doesn't necessarily mean a majority vote.
Popularity means nothing, and that was my initial point.
And you are so wrong it's laughable. Were this not the medias pet issue of the day, it never would have happened. Want proof? How about the fact that it didn't happen for well over two hundred years.

Again, does popularity or majority vote make anything right or worthy?

JPT · Senior Member

11707523_10206270955466205_1768636317904071863_n.jpg?oh=3ee14d1e93aec520541430b27d12b9d5&oe=562185E0

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Oh, SNAP!

flan

huskerbb · Guru

chillepeppa wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
burns07 wrote:

This is Argumentum ad populum, and the same argument for "awesomeness" can be used for the Biebster and the Kardashians...
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

LOL--a more apropos phrase for this ridiculous comparison would be contra bonos mores
Hence the "" when I said awesomeness. To me, they are all equally ridiculous, so I guess it would depend on your reference frame.
My stance on popularity not making something right or worthy still stand though.
LOL!!! That is patently absurd. Of course gay marriage is now considered "right" because of popularity. Not so many years ago, homosexuality was considered a disease--and the ONLY difference between it and pedophilia is age--and that's a human construct since acceptable age has varied over time and between cultures.
According to the polygamy thread if this had been put to a vote, it would not have passed, so no, it is not right due to popularity at all.
BS. Of course it is. It would have never been a consideration even 20 years ago. Popular doesn't necessarily mean a majority vote.
Popularity means nothing, and that was my initial point.
And you are so wrong it's laughable. Were this not the medias pet issue of the day, it never would have happened. Want proof? How about the fact that it didn't happen for well over two hundred years.
Again, does popularity or majority vote make anything right or worthy?

Well, gay marriage is not right or worthy,but it is popular, so it happened.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Tuesday 30th of June 2015 12:42:35 PM

huskerbb · Guru

JPT wrote:

Just further proves my point that this wasn't about rights, but about getting rid of freedom of religion.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

JPT wrote:

Confusing religion with being a Christian.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
JPT wrote:
Just further proves my point that this wasn't about rights, but about getting rid of freedom of religion.

Yep. And shows her high horse has broken legs.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

"Getting rid of freedom of religion?"

It's rather frightening that so many educated adults believe this...

flan

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

flan327 wrote:
"Getting rid of freedom of religion?"

It's rather frightening that so many educated adults believe this...

flan

How much proof do you need to see that is exactly what is happening.

JPT · Senior Member

The only freedom they are worried about losing is the one where they get to dictate to the rest of us that they have moral authority over us.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

JPT wrote:
The only freedom they are worried about losing is the one where they get to dictate to the rest of us that they have moral authority over us.

Well, they ARE superior to the rest of us...

flan

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

You are reading and watching the news, right?

Ohfour · Hooker

flan327 wrote:
JPT wrote:
The only freedom they are worried about losing is the one where they get to dictate to the rest of us that they have moral authority over us.
Well, they ARE superior to the rest of us...
flan

We want the freedom to adhere to our beliefs. Libs want to refuse us that basic right..

Ohfour · Hooker

So proud that my county has taken a stand!!!!

huskerbb · Guru

JPT wrote:
The only freedom they are worried about losing is the one where they get to dictate to the rest of us that they have moral authority over us.

Not at all. we aren't the ones who wanted a fundamental shift in society.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
JPT wrote:
The only freedom they are worried about losing is the one where they get to dictate to the rest of us that they have moral authority over us.
Not at all. we aren't the ones who wanted a fundamental shift in society.

Nor are we the ones suing people.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

I never understood that. Seems any one who mentions God is "forcing Him" down people's throats.

But I have yet to see a law suit or protest or forced anything from the Christians.

WYSIWYG · Guru

Not at all. we aren't the ones who wanted a fundamental shift in society.
- huskerbb

Nor are we the ones suing people.
- Lawyerlady (in response)

______________________________

We (well most of us, anyway) were the ones that didn't want to allow them the same civil right to suffer in marriage as we have though.

burns07 · Guru

We (well most of us, anyway) were the ones that didn't want to allow them the same civil right to suffer in marriage as we have though
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

speak for yourself--have never suffered in marriage--rather see it as act of cowardice or apathy (or both ) to allow so revered an institution, with us throughout human history, to be debased and dishonored by comparison to a relationship so blatantly unnatural to our own physiology, our own humanity and our own morality --perhaps you can accede to that sort of denial--i cannot, no matter the reason

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

I, for one, would like to see "happily divorced" as an option on forms and things like it. Just saying.

chillepeppa · Regular

huskerbb wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
burns07 wrote:

This is Argumentum ad populum, and the same argument for "awesomeness" can be used for the Biebster and the Kardashians...
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

LOL--a more apropos phrase for this ridiculous comparison would be contra bonos mores
Hence the "" when I said awesomeness. To me, they are all equally ridiculous, so I guess it would depend on your reference frame.
My stance on popularity not making something right or worthy still stand though.
LOL!!! That is patently absurd. Of course gay marriage is now considered "right" because of popularity. Not so many years ago, homosexuality was considered a disease--and the ONLY difference between it and pedophilia is age--and that's a human construct since acceptable age has varied over time and between cultures.
According to the polygamy thread if this had been put to a vote, it would not have passed, so no, it is not right due to popularity at all.
BS. Of course it is. It would have never been a consideration even 20 years ago. Popular doesn't necessarily mean a majority vote.
Popularity means nothing, and that was my initial point.
And you are so wrong it's laughable. Were this not the medias pet issue of the day, it never would have happened. Want proof? How about the fact that it didn't happen for well over two hundred years.
Again, does popularity or majority vote make anything right or worthy?
Well, gay marriage is not right or worthy,but it is popular, so it happened.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Tuesday 30th of June 2015 12:42:35 PM

Does not answer my question. Does popularity or majority vote make anything right or worthy?

chillepeppa · Regular

burns07 wrote:
We (well most of us, anyway) were the ones that didn't want to allow them the same civil right to suffer in marriage as we have though
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

speak for yourself--have never suffered in marriage--rather see it as act of cowardice or apathy (or both ) to allow so revered an institution, with us throughout human history, to be debased and dishonored by comparison to a relationship so blatantly unnatural to our own physiology, our own humanity and our own morality --perhaps you can accede to that sort of denial--i cannot, no matter the reason

How exactly does allowing this dishonour affect your marriage?

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

chillepeppa wrote:
burns07 wrote:
We (well most of us, anyway) were the ones that didn't want to allow them the same civil right to suffer in marriage as we have though
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

speak for yourself--have never suffered in marriage--rather see it as act of cowardice or apathy (or both ) to allow so revered an institution, with us throughout human history, to be debased and dishonored by comparison to a relationship so blatantly unnatural to our own physiology, our own humanity and our own morality --perhaps you can accede to that sort of denial--i cannot, no matter the reason
How exactly does allowing this dishonour affect your marriage?

I don't think I've ever gotten an answer to this, chille.

flan

FNW · Guru

I believe it was answered- the comparison of such a revered institution to a relationship so blatantly unnatural to our own physiology, humanity, and our own morality.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

FNW wrote:
I believe it was answered- the comparison of such a revered institution to a relationship so blatantly unnatural to our own physiology, humanity, and our own morality.

How has YOUR marriage personally been impacted?

And homosexuals are not human? Not moral beings?

flan

FNW · Guru

They are human beings. Moral? Hmmmm....

Because my marriage, the institution of it, is compared to unnatural relationships.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

FNW wrote:
They are human beings. Moral? Hmmmm....

Because my marriage, the institution of it, is compared to unnatural relationships.

Yeah, that pretty much says it all. How insulting.

flan

FNW · Guru

Why would you be insulted, personally? What stake do you have in this fight?

My beliefs might be insulting to gays, but gays belief that performing unnatural sexual acts is "normal" and "beautiful" is insulting to me. But unlike this movement, I'm not trying to force anyone to accept my beliefs.

chillepeppa · Regular

FNW wrote:
They are human beings. Moral? Hmmmm....

Because my marriage, the institution of it, is compared to unnatural relationships.

Are you on the verge of divorce? That is what the "affect the institution of marriage" means to me.

How about swingers? Do they threaten the institution as well? Wife beaters? Heterosexual married parents who molest their kids? Cheaters?

Only a direct hit, i.e. someone who tries to either engage me or DH directly could affect my marriage, so I'm really struggling to understand this. That is why I asked about all those other issues. I cannot envision my marriage as part of a greater "engagement" considering the divorce rate. My marriage is more than that, because it's MY marriage, not just marriage. Only I get to determine it's worth, it's path and it's value. If same-sex marriage devalues it for some, then I struggle to understand what they had to begin with considering the swingers, cheaters and wife beaters were already in "our" camp.

FNW · Guru

chillepeppa wrote:
FNW wrote:
They are human beings. Moral? Hmmmm....

Because my marriage, the institution of it, is compared to unnatural relationships.
Are you on the verge of divorce? That is what the "affect the institution of marriage" means to me.
How about swingers? Do they threaten the institution as well? Wife beaters? Heterosexual married parents who molest their kids? Cheaters?
Only a direct hit, i.e. someone who tries to either engage me or DH directly could affect my marriage, so I'm really struggling to understand this. That is why I asked about all those other issues. I cannot envision my marriage as part of a greater "engagement" considering the divorce rate. My marriage is more than that, because it's MY marriage, not just marriage. Only I get to determine it's worth, it's path and it's value. If same-sex marriage devalues it for some, then I struggle to understand what they had to begin with considering the swingers, cheaters and wife beaters were already in "our" camp.

Yes. Yes, they do.

No, my marriage is just fine, thank you. My husband & I agree on this issue.

chillepeppa · Regular

FNW wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
FNW wrote:
They are human beings. Moral? Hmmmm....

Because my marriage, the institution of it, is compared to unnatural relationships.
Are you on the verge of divorce? That is what the "affect the institution of marriage" means to me.
How about swingers? Do they threaten the institution as well? Wife beaters? Heterosexual married parents who molest their kids? Cheaters?
Only a direct hit, i.e. someone who tries to either engage me or DH directly could affect my marriage, so I'm really struggling to understand this. That is why I asked about all those other issues. I cannot envision my marriage as part of a greater "engagement" considering the divorce rate. My marriage is more than that, because it's MY marriage, not just marriage. Only I get to determine it's worth, it's path and it's value. If same-sex marriage devalues it for some, then I struggle to understand what they had to begin with considering the swingers, cheaters and wife beaters were already in "our" camp.
Yes. Yes, they do.
No, my marriage is just fine, thank you. My husband & I agree on this issue.

Is there plans to have their "I am married" card revoked any time soon?

And if your marriage is still happily unaffected by all of other people's shenanigans, why bother? What if they turned it around and started telling you how you are doing things wrong according to them? Would you take it on the chin and give in?