Gay marriage support (morals)

[jfegaly]

Discussion topic. MAGA. Is there a correlation between changing morals, the erosion of morals in America, and the systematic erosion of America as we once knew it?

I bring this up as a chicken or egg discussion based on @Mdfgator saying Who GAF about gay marriage. I think most agree America isn’t what it once was. So what came first, erosion/changing of morals then America changing for the worse, or America becoming worse then morals changing?


IMO, we get ourselves right with God, and everything else will take care if itself. So yes, social issues matter.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/393197/same-sex-marriage-support-inches-new-high.asp

Growing Support for Gay Marriage: Changed Minds and Changing Demographics

Overview The rise in support for same-sex marriage over the past decade is among the largest changes in opinion on any policy issue over this time period.

www.pewresearch.org

Yeah, I realize most will be hesitant to give their honest opinion. Discomfort is good. As for me?

 

[grandhavendiddy]

On Gay Marriage - most (if not all) gay couples we know, many of whom are fellow partners in our firm, are law abiding, hard working, care and support their kids (adopted or surrogate) and are good people. If they want to be married - terrific. As Nancy Mace said, there are good and bad marriages.

they believe in strong police, strong borders and accountability from government. They believe we need clean energy, but fossil fuel cannot just “go away”. They are high income earners and pay taxes.

let them enjoy their relationships and, as I think we all agree, the number one issue was the opposite - the erosion of marriage and a stable two person/parent household.

 

[grandhavendiddy]

….and if you go back to the issues in the gay community in the late 70s and 80s, it was their feeling excluded and expressing themselves in sexually subversive ways as we saw in the disco era, HIV crisis, etc. if people are going to be gay (or straight), marriage is a far better arrangement, on average.

this is to me, an evolve/move on, and if your religion says otherwise, than have it be without that realm.

by the way - the most anti-gay segment (as I understand it) is the Muslim community and countries such as Saudi Arabia.

 

[jfegaly]

….and if you go back to the issues in the gay community in the late 70s and 80s, it was their feeling excluded and expressing themselves in sexually subversive ways as we saw in the disco era, HIV crisis, etc. if people are going to be gay (or straight), marriage is a far better arrangement, on average.

this is to me, an evolve/move on, and if your religion says otherwise, than have it be without that realm.

by the way - the most anti-gay segment (as I understand it) is the Muslim community and countries such as Saudi Arabia.

So, you don’t believe in christian foundational beliefs of one man one woman? And you also believe that the changing moral values of America (as is shown in polls) has nothing to do with the increasing problems we have in this country today? Just all a coincidence?

serious question. If the breaking down of the traditional family, and Godly morals have nothing to do with the societal problems we are facing, what would you suggest are key contributors?

 

[greyghost14]

Watch this, from Tucker last night ...... makes sense to me.

 

[grandhavendiddy]

So, you don’t believe in christian foundational beliefs of one man one woman? And you also believe that the changing moral values of America (as is shown in polls) has nothing to do with the increasing problems we have in this country today? Just all a coincidence?

serious question. If the breaking down of the traditional family, and Godly morals have nothing to do with the societal problems we are facing, what would you suggest are key contributors?

Understand.

I do and just crossed 25 years. Never had an extra-marital affair. I am Episcopalian but am part Jewish. Wife is Swedish / Italian. I believe (strongly) in a monogamous relationship.

ben Shapiro said it best - if people make a few clear choices, you are almost guaranteed success:

two parent household
Perform well in school
Go into well paying trade or college
Perform well in either
Have the number of kids that you (not government) can afford and give love and attention to

noticed “man and woman” is not part of it, per se. I have plenty of friends / gay couples. Who do the above as well if not better than the straight ones. If so, and if you are law abiding and pay taxes and don’t force ideology on me (they don’t), then we can get along quite well, which we do. If they want to get married, all good. Your church (versus state) does not want to sanction it - then that is your church’s prerogative.

what has ruined, say, the black community for a generation? Out of wedlock births. Too large families. Nick Cannon has kids from four or five women. I love “wildn” out, but why is this celebrated (joked about on nearly every episode) but god forbid, you talk about a what is the definition of a woman.

writ broadly, the baby boomer “flower generation” drove this. Drugs, out of wedlock sex, etc.

Our other main issue, which I have said ad-nauseum, is illegal immigration. Fentenal is only one dimension.

so for me, if you want to get an abortion - probably better, for the odds of success. If you are gay and you love your partner, go for it. In both cases, not worth my mental or moral energy.

instead, go build a wall. Close the border, fund the police, give people choice is school, marriage and abortion, protect US jobs, support fossil fuel and clean energy, and have an efficient federal and state government.

do that - and you and I may not agree on everything, may not even like each other individually, but we will respect each other and know that we do our parts as citizens.

 

[jfegaly]

Understand.

I do and just crossed 25 years. Never had an extra-marital affair. I am Episcopalian but am part Jewish. Wife is Swedish / Italian. I believe (strongly) in a monogamous relationship.

ben Shapiro said it best - if people make a few clear choices, you are almost guaranteed success:

two parent household
Perform well in school
Go into well paying trade or college
Perform well in either
Have the number of kids that you (not government) can afford and give love and attention to

noticed “man and woman” is not part of it, per se. I have plenty of friends / gay couples. Who do the above as well if not better than the straight ones. If so, and if you are law abiding and pay taxes and don’t force ideology on me (they don’t), then we can get along quite well, which we do. If they want to get married, all good. Your church (versus state) does not want to sanction it - then that is your church’s prerogative.

what has ruined, say, the black community for a generation? Out of wedlock births. Too large families. Nick Cannon has kids from four or five women. I love “wildn” out, but why is this celebrated (joked about on nearly every episode) but god forbid, you talk about a what is the definition of a woman.

writ broadly, the baby boomer “flower generation” drove this. Drugs, out of wedlock sex, etc.

Our other main issue, which I have said ad-nauseum, is illegal immigration. Fentenal is only one dimension.

so for me, if you want to get an abortion - probably better, for the odds of success. If you are gay and you love your partner, go for it. In both cases, not worth my mental or moral energy.

instead, go build a wall. Close the border, fund the police, give people choice is school, marriage and abortion, protect US jobs, support fossil fuel and clean energy, and have an efficient federal and state government.

do that - and you and I may not agree on everything, may not even like each other individually, but we will respect each other and know that we do our parts as citizens.

Not going to get into illegal immigration. That needs it’s own thread. Going to keep this on topic of our own morals.

Two parent household we agree. Where we disagree? Issue of morality of same sex marriage and the impacts. You can find studies to support either case on how children turn out from those households so I am not going to do that. What is pretty solid though are the studies showing the success of children that come from christian homes where the parents are very active in their churches, Churches whose foundations begin in Genesis, where God defines what marriage is. Between a man and a woman.

Now instead of getting into studies I will contend the following, with life experience to back it up. Men and women are created perfectly different. On purpose. My kids run to mom when nurturing is needed. Someone to hug them, and comfort them. When discipline is required, mom will try, but when dad speaks? It’s like EF freaking Hutton…..people listen.

There are many other differences as well, but the bottom line is this….a man and a woman are created differently on purpose, but both roles are needed for parenting. Does that mean kids can’t be ok without those roles being properly fulfilled? No, but my contention is that Gods plan….was and is, for a man and a woman to raise children. And thats really not my contention, but rather, HIS word. We either believe it, and trust that HE knows best, or….WE pridefully believe we know better. And Pride….well, it comes in many forms, and comes before the fall.

 

[Gator Fever]

I was for civil unions that got the same rights as a marriage and was treated the same by the law. I think part of many not accepting that was just an attack on religion.

 

[jfegaly]

I was for civil unions that got the same rights as a marriage and was treated the same by the law. I think part of many not accepting that was just an attack on religion.

I am for no government involvement in marriage at all. No tax benefits, no government payments for permission, snd legal documents covering estate and child custody arrangements. Seems like that would be simple to achieve. I know I have brought that up before, but just addressing it because you did.

😉

 

[grandhavendiddy]

I was for civil unions that got the same rights as a marriage and was treated the same by the law. I think part of many not accepting that was just an attack on religion.

For me, in the context of the state, "civil unions" and "marriage" are synonymous.

In the context of the church, they mean very different things.

Now, do I think that the state should force your church to conduct gay marriages? Not at all. Would progressives say that and then cast your "denial" of it, as a sign of "violence"? Yes. This is an appropriate public policy position - no.

And props for the "EF Hutton" reference. That was top notch.

Again, mine is a more libertarian view. Quit getting into people's lives if they are living well and being law abiding and tax paying.

 

[grandhavendiddy]

Feagly - thank you for having a civil (no pun intended) discussion here.

 

[jfegaly]

Feagly - thank you for having a civil (no pun intended) discussion here.

Good discussion. Hopefully others will givr their two cents even though it can be an emotionally driven topic

 

[jfegaly]

Again, mine is a more libertarian view. Quit getting into people's lives if they are living well and being law abiding and tax paying.

This I agree with, but from a little different perspective. The libertarian in me says….Government got involved in peoples lives the minute they began legislating marriage, instead of leaving marriage where it began. In Genesis.

 

[armbar73]

I started to reply to the original, but haven’t felt the need to do so since @grandhavendiddy has pretty much nailed my point of view.

@jfegaly - this is a great thread and a very interesting topic. Thanks for starting it.

For context, I didn’t grow up in a very religious household, nor is my household very religious today. We are Episcopalian and I consider myself Christian, but I’m not a regular church attendee. I don’t feel that someone needs to be a member of a church to have faith. I see the relationship between someone and their god as a personal one.

You mentioned earlier that studies have shown success of children from Christian households. I don’t doubt that, but I think it probably holds true for children from stable households, with set of basic principles of decency, in general. Maybe that is the correlation?

IMO, one of the biggest factors in the change in society is the proliferation of social media and the internet, especially in children. Their brains aren’t fully developed and they are not equipped to handle the overwhelming amount of information they received on the daily. Not to mention the entire generation of people that determine their self worth by “likes.” This is where the stable household comes in with parents that are involved in the child’s lives.

Finally, the internet world has created a culture where it’s okay to say whatever to anyone with any consequences, most specially the thought of saying something without the scenario of getting punched in the face.

 

[Mdfgator]

Discussion topic. MAGA. Is there a correlation between changing morals, the erosion of morals in America, and the systematic erosion of America as we once knew it?

I bring this up as a chicken or egg discussion based on @Mdfgator saying Who GAF about gay marriage. I think most agree America isn’t what it once was. So what came first, erosion/changing of morals then America changing for the worse, or America becoming worse then morals changing?


IMO, we get ourselves right with God, and everything else will take care if itself. So yes, social issues matter.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/393197/same-sex-marriage-support-inches-new-high.asp

Growing Support for Gay Marriage: Changed Minds and Changing Demographics

Overview The rise in support for same-sex marriage over the past decade is among the largest changes in opinion on any policy issue over this time period.

www.pewresearch.org

Yeah, I realize most will be hesitant to give their honest opinion. Discomfort is good. As for me?

LOL, freedom will unleash things that many are not comfortabel with, freedom in my mind is a good thing even if it does cause some odor...

 

[BayouGator1995]

I'm a stickler for God's design of man and woman being together to extend humanity's existence. It's what He intended it to be. Kind of like what my old 5th grade science teacher once said, "opposite charges attract, like charges repel." A man-on-man relationship is gross. Ditto for lesbos. America is going the way of Sodom and Gomorrah if you ask me. Just my two-cents.

 

[BayouGator1995]

LOL, freedom will unleash things that many are not comfortabel with, freedom in my mind is a good thing even if it does cause some odor...

So you're OK with the ridiculous idea that a man can get pregnant?🤣🤣🤣🤣

 

[Mdfgator]

I am for no government involvement in marriage at all. No tax benefits, no government payments for permission, snd legal documents covering estate and child custody arrangements. Seems like that would be simple to achieve. I know I have brought that up before, but just addressing it because you did.

😉

misogynist!!

 

[Mdfgator]

So you're OK with the ridiculous idea that a man can get pregnant?🤣🤣🤣🤣

i believe that transgender is real, you can word it how you want to, but thats a bit too libby and divisive for me.

 

[BayouGator1995]

i believe that transgender is real, you can word it how you want to, but thats a bit too libby and divisive for me.

Translated: "A man can possibly be impregnated." 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣

 

[Mdfgator]

Translated: "A man can possibly be impregnated." 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣

A TRANS man, yes. like i said i dont do the libby identity divisive crap.

 

[BayouGator1995]

A TRANS man, yes. like i said i dont do the libby identity divisive crap.

 

[Mdfgator]

you can stay in your little corner of the world if it makes you feel more comfortable i dont have any issue with that, just be aware its a biiiiiig world with lots of strange things in it!!!

 

[grandhavendiddy]

I started to reply to the original, but haven’t felt the need to do so since @grandhavendiddy has pretty much nailed my point of view.

@jfegaly - this is a great thread and a very interesting topic. Thanks for starting it.

For context, I didn’t grow up in a very religious household, nor is my household very religious today. We are Episcopalian and I consider myself Christian, but I’m not a regular church attendee. I don’t feel that someone needs to be a member of a church to have faith. I see the relationship between someone and their god as a personal one.

You mentioned earlier that studies have shown success of children from Christian households. I don’t doubt that, but I think it probably holds true for children from stable households, with set of basic principles of decency, in general. Maybe that is the correlation?

IMO, one of the biggest factors in the change in society is the proliferation of social media and the internet, especially in children. Their brains aren’t fully developed and they are not equipped to handle the overwhelming amount of information they received on the daily. Not to mention the entire generation of people that determine their self worth by “likes.” This is where the stable household comes in with parents that are involved in the child’s lives.

Finally, the internet world has created a culture where it’s okay to say whatever to anyone with any consequences, most specially the thought of saying something without the scenario of getting punched in the face.

I agree with much of this. (of course)

If you look at the data, the highest performing cohorts are not Christians, per se, but rather Asian Americans, Jewish individuals, and Nigerian Americans. Common threads:

- Stable two parent families
- Relentless focus on hard work and achievement
- Manageable household size: 2-3 kids
- Law / rule abiding

By the way, my view of gay marriage - as for many, has evolved considerably. I had, for a long time, a 1970s/1980s Studio 54 view of it. Now, I see people just like myself and my wife but there are two men, or two women. It's not common, but it is there. Good people, care for the neighbors and friends and raise their children well. I am relatively practical and empirically based. My range of data says that they are good people, and marriage/civil unions only strengthen their bonds and contributions.

On Transgender, that is a very different discussion. As JF noted in relation to immigration, a different thread.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

you can stay in your little corner of the world if it makes you feel more comfortable i dont have any issue with that, just be aware its a biiiiiig world with lots of strange things in it!!!

You are as mentally ill as they are.

 

[Mdfgator]

You are as mentally ill as they are.

is this my little bisexual buddy? how is that choice you made going for you?

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

is this my little bisexual buddy? how is that choice you made going for you?

Notice how 'it's a big ole world, gotta be respectful of different views' flies out the window for you as soon as you encounter someone with a view you don't like?

We call that hypocrisy.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

So you're OK with the ridiculous idea that a man can get pregnant?🤣🤣🤣🤣

He's ok with whatever his politics tells him to be ok with.

Politics is religion to the left.

 

[Mdfgator]

Notice how 'it's a big ole world, gotta be respectful of different views' flies out the window for you as soon as you encounter someone with a view you don't like?

We call that hypocrisy.

i thought you called me mentally ill, my mistake little buddy i didnt meant ot offend you. i have no issue with bisexual poeple, i just want you to be happy.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

i thought you called me mentally ill, my mistake little buddy i didnt meant ot offend you. i have no issue with bisexual poeple, i just want you to be happy.

You are mentally ill. Anyone of sound mind knows that there is no such thing as 'transgenders'. It's a completely fabricated POLITICAL concept that does not exist.

 

[Mdfgator]

You are mentally ill. Anyone of sound mind knows that there is no such thing as 'transgenders'. It's a completely fabricated POLITICAL concept that does not exist.

LOL, this is comedy gold!!

 

[kalimgoodman]

A TRANS man, yes. like i said i dont do the libby identity divisive crap.

Yeah, no

 

[Mdfgator]

Yeah, no

no what?

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

LOL, this is comedy gold!!

Of course it is. The idea that a biological male can claim he is really a female is something to be mocked and ridiculed. Then if we find out they are serious, we take them to a hospital and get them the help they need.

And up until recently, we all agreed on this point. Even liberal Hollywood mocked the idea of 'transgenders'.

In 1987, the Coen brothers released one of their most underappreciated movies, the comedy masterpiece Raising Arizona. Early on in the movie, the main character is in prison. He is telling the viewer how many mentally ill prisoners there are. Then we see a scene with a prison psychiatrist interviewing a mentally ill prisoner, a huge burly black man:

Prison psychiatrist: So tell me; Why do you call yourself a woman trapped in a man's body?

Mentally ill prisoner (in deeeep voice): Well, sometimes I get the menstrual cramps reeeeeeaaaallll bad!

It was hilarious. Because in 1987, we all understood that the idea of a man claiming to be a woman was comedy gold!

Fast forward to 2022, and to the left, it's no joke. What changed between 1987 and 2022?

BTW, speaking of comedy gold: In another thread this morning, you are claiming that 'the science is settled'. Well in 1987, the science was settled that a biological male couldn't be a female. So much so, that we assumed that if a person made this claim, that they were mentally ill.

But in at some point between 1987 and today, the left decided that the science had changed.....that suddenly it WAS possible for a biological male to believe they were really a female, and it was NOT a sign of mental illness.

What changed? When did it change?

Does it bother you? Exploiting the mentally ill for perceived political gain?

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

So, you don’t believe in christian foundational beliefs of one man one woman? And you also believe that the changing moral values of America (as is shown in polls) has nothing to do with the increasing problems we have in this country today? Just all a coincidence?

serious question. If the breaking down of the traditional family, and Godly morals have nothing to do with the societal problems we are facing, what would you suggest are key contributors?

@grandhavendiddy lives in Colorado. Everything about his politics is heavily influenced by living in one of the bluest states in the nation.

 

[greyghost14]

A TRANS man, yes. like i said i dont do the libby identity divisive crap.

 

[instaGATOR]

I don't see any reason to list all of the things in an INFINITE universe that i disagree with, or would choose for myself. That list is long, and boring, so of course,,, here is a bit of it.... 😉

Push the button and they disappear from my universe list:
Corrupt Politicians
Murders
Pedophiles
Criminal border jumpers
Homosexuals
Spoiled rotten bratty kids
The parents that raise/cause them
Radical Muslims that want to kill infidels
See, the list is just too long to be dealt with..... 🤓

 

[BayouGator1995]

Of course it is. The idea that a biological male can claim he is really a female is something to be mocked and ridiculed. Then if we find out they are serious, we take them to a hospital and get them the help they need.

And up until recently, we all agreed on this point. Even liberal Hollywood mocked the idea of 'transgenders'.

In 1987, the Coen brothers released one of their most underappreciated movies, the comedy masterpiece Raising Arizona. Early on in the movie, the main character is in prison. He is telling the viewer how many mentally ill prisoners there are. Then we see a scene with a prison psychiatrist interviewing a mentally ill prisoner, a huge burly black man:

Prison psychiatrist: So tell me; Why do you call yourself a woman trapped in a man's body?

Mentally ill prisoner (in deeeep voice): Well, sometimes I get the menstrual cramps reeeeeeaaaallll bad!

It was hilarious. Because in 1987, we all understood that the idea of a man claiming to be a woman was comedy gold!

Fast forward to 2022, and to the left, it's no joke. What changed between 1987 and 2022?

BTW, speaking of comedy gold: In another thread this morning, you are claiming that 'the science is settled'. Well in 1987, the science was settled that a biological male couldn't be a female. So much so, that we assumed that if a person made this claim, that they were mentally ill.

But in at some point between 1987 and today, the left decided that the science had changed.....that suddenly it WAS possible for a biological male to believe they were really a female, and it was NOT a sign of mental illness.

What changed? When did it change?

Does it bother you? Exploiting the mentally ill for perceived political gain?

I'll take you back even further to 1982 when the hot comedy series Bosom Buddies was aired on ABC. The show put Tom Hanks permanently on Hollywood's mega-star map. The show was about two guys, Kip and Henry, who's apartment was demolished and had no other choice but to move into another complex that was rent-cheap. However, the complex was women-only. So in order capitalize, the duo dressed in drag and named themselves Buffy and Hildegarde. The strategy worked; however, it cost them a chance at two attractive residents in Sonny and Isabelle. Nonetheless, despite being exploited for their true identities they were accepted by the women-only complex community.

So even way back then, the whole notion of effeminization and the acceptance therein was being tossed around as comedy fodder. Fast forward back to 2022......and you can see why the show's producers at ABC were way ahead of their time. Lots of Buffys and Hildegardes running around these days. Even online too.

 

[Mdfgator]

Of course it is. The idea that a biological male can claim he is really a female is something to be mocked and ridiculed. Then if we find out they are serious, we take them to a hospital and get them the help they need.

And up until recently, we all agreed on this point. Even liberal Hollywood mocked the idea of 'transgenders'.

In 1987, the Coen brothers released one of their most underappreciated movies, the comedy masterpiece Raising Arizona. Early on in the movie, the main character is in prison. He is telling the viewer how many mentally ill prisoners there are. Then we see a scene with a prison psychiatrist interviewing a mentally ill prisoner, a huge burly black man:

Prison psychiatrist: So tell me; Why do you call yourself a woman trapped in a man's body?

Mentally ill prisoner (in deeeep voice): Well, sometimes I get the menstrual cramps reeeeeeaaaallll bad!

It was hilarious. Because in 1987, we all understood that the idea of a man claiming to be a woman was comedy gold!

Fast forward to 2022, and to the left, it's no joke. What changed between 1987 and 2022?

BTW, speaking of comedy gold: In another thread this morning, you are claiming that 'the science is settled'. Well in 1987, the science was settled that a biological male couldn't be a female. So much so, that we assumed that if a person made this claim, that they were mentally ill.

But in at some point between 1987 and today, the left decided that the science had changed.....that suddenly it WAS possible for a biological male to believe they were really a female, and it was NOT a sign of mental illness.

What changed? When did it change?

Does it bother you? Exploiting the mentally ill for perceived political gain?

It’s amazing people like you exist!!! And you vote!!

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

I'll take you back even further to 1982 when the hot comedy series Bosom Buddies was aired on ABC. The show put Tom Hanks permanently on Hollywood's mega-star map. The show was about two guys, Kip and Henry, who's apartment was demolished and had no other choice but to move into another complex that was rent-cheap. However, the complex was women-only. So in order capitalize, the duo dressed in drag and named themselves Buffy and Hildegarde. The strategy worked; however, it cost them a chance at two attractive residents in Sonny and Isabelle. Nonetheless, despite being exploited for their true identities they were accepted by the women-only complex community.

So even way back then, the whole notion of effeminization and the acceptance therein was being tossed around as comedy fodder. Fast forward back to 2022......and you can see why the show's producers at ABC were way ahead of their time. Lots of Buffys and Hildegardes running around these days. Even online too.

View embedded media

Yep, back when dems like @Mdfgator could think for themselves, and didn't get led around by the nose by a political party.

Remember Klinger and MASH? He dressed up in women's clothes trying to get a discharge. Then one day a psychiatrist told him he was going to give him a discharge BUT that he had to admit he was a transvestite and likely gay, and would have it on his military record to follow him for the rest of his life. Klinger was shocked and refused said he just wanted out of the Army, that he was none of those things, I ain't crazy!!!!

See? There was a time when we all agreed that 'transgenders' are people who are mentally ill.

Today, they are heroes to dems like @Mdfgator