The word "discriminate" can also mean to engage in persecution, which is the definition that civil rights activists actually use.

If you want to persuade anyone in a debate, it's probably best to address the ideas and concepts actually being presented, rather than playing word games and trying to confuse the debate with red herrings, which is what you're doing when you insist that a word means something other than what your opponent is using it to mean. Address the ideas, not the words.

Not at all. I simply don't believe that donating money to a hate group and trying strip a minority of equal rights constitutes a defensible moral position.

To say that any and all behaviors should be permitted is not freedom. It is anarchy.

And I am not an anarchist.

Eich was not discriminated against. He was criticized for engaging in discrimination.

re: Plusaf
You are correct in your question about what gays will gain, your question is also the answer.

That is why the only logical conclusion can be that their purpose is to destroy the christian faith for perceived wrongs being done to gays by Christians. they can't grasp the concept of condemning the sin but loving the sinner,

As a religious faith, Islam is the most anti gay religion there is. yet they don't protest against them because they can't get away with it. they would and in fact are persecuted, jailed and in some instances executed. Does anyone believe that if a Muslim in any Muslim country were to murder a gay man, he would be prosecuted. Not likely.

The major problem with the gay activist besides what I already mentioned is that they believe that Christians want to persecute them. Nothing could be further from the truth. we believe in live and let live, but don;t constantly throw it in the face of straight people.

Fred

Re: Plusaf to Fred,

I couldn't disagree with you more as who is trying to destroy whom.
Our society in general is trying to destroy christianity for certain in my humble opinion and I would say underlying that desire of the liberal progressives is the desire to destroy religion in general. Of course at the same time they are afraid to confront some of the fanatical believers in Islam.

My personal concern about Islam is not about their specific beliefs in the Koran, but the interpretation by some that justifies terrorism and killing in the name of Islam. May they and all other religions go in peace as I want them to let Christians go in peace.

Your belief that the gay activists don't want to destroy Christianity is a denial of the truth presented by these activists in their actions almost on a daily basis. The attack on a Catholic church is just one example among hundreds.

I'm not quite sure why you decided to place the burden of writing and passing of new laws that deal with any civil contracts to be entered into by gay couples on me. I have no cause in that department. I only oppose the usage of the word marriage to be used for the union of gay people. I would support and even fight for the rights that are often claimed to be denied to gay people such as visitation rights in hospitals.

Another “right” often claimed is the right to be on their “partners” insurance. I oppose the concept of employer provided health insurance for anyone. If the government would stay out of mandating insurance requirements for certain size businesses, then the insurance coma\panies would create what was needed in a free market.

Marriage in my belief and in the Christian faith is about the desire to create a traditional union of man and woman in order to procreate as dictated in the Bible and to announce their commitment to each other publicly. Christians that oppose gay marriage oppose the word as it has a specific meaning. Of course we live in a time when words mean nothing other than what the speaker or writer wants it to mean. We live in a world where rules mean nothing anymore. The point of a x society is to have like minded people join in a common effort to live peacefully and productively in order to better everyone’s life. This is true, at least in theory.

Your attempt to compare slavery to marriage because anti gay marriage proponents use the term traditional in their argument is absurd. There are many things that were done for thousands of years, but the general agreement now is that slavery is wrong and was therefore abolished by law.

Gay marriage is opposed on traditional grounds because there is strong disagreement among the worlds population. Here in the U.S. We have become so politically correct that many opposing views are shouted down by one side or the other because we now live in a politically correct time where the government is run by liberals and no matter what the voter says the liberal judges will overturn the vote of the people.

I stand for the rights of all people that the Constitution guarantees, no rights that anyone claims to exist that are not enumerated in the Bill of Rights. And before you claim that the constitution also allowed slavery and considered a black man only three fifths of a man, please remember that was a compromise in order to get the Constitution ratified and deal with slavery later. You can find further information on that subject by googling three fifths compromise.

Fred Speckmann









Re: Plusaf to Fred,

I couldn't disagree with you more as who is trying to destroy whom.
Our society in general is trying to destroy christianity for certain in my humble opinion and I would say underlying that desire of the liberal progressives is the desire to destroy religion in general. Of course at the same time they are afraid to confront some of the fanatical believers in Islam.

My personal concern about Islam is not about their specific beliefs in the Koran, but the interpretation by some that justifies terrorism and killing in the name of Islam. May they and all other religions go in peace as I want them to let Christians go in peace.

Your belief that the gay activists don't want to destroy Christianity is a denial of the truth presented by these activists in their actions almost on a daily basis. The attack on a Catholic church is just one example among hundreds.

I'm not quite sure why you decided to place the burden of writing and passing of new laws that deal with any civil contracts to be entered into by gay couples on me. I have no cause in that department. I only oppose the usage of the word marriage to be used for the union of gay people. I would support and even fight for the rights that are often claimed to be denied to gay people such as visitation rights in hospitals.

Another “right” often claimed is the right to be on their “partners” insurance. I oppose the concept of employer provided health insurance for anyone. If the government would stay out of mandating insurance requirements for certain size businesses, then the insurance companies would create what was needed in a free market.

Marriage in my belief and in the Christian faith is about the desire to create a traditional union of man and woman in order to procreate as dictated in the Bible and to announce their commitment to each other publicly. Christians that oppose gay marriage oppose the word as it has a specific meaning. Of course we live in a time when words mean nothing other than what the speaker or writer wants it to mean. We live in a world where rules mean nothing anymore. The point of a x society is to have like minded people join in a common effort to live peacefully and productively in order to better everyone’s life. This is true, at least in theory.

Your attempt to compare slavery to marriage because anti gay marriage proponents use the term traditional in their argument is absurd. There are many things that were done for thousands of years, but the general agreement now is that slavery is wrong and was therefore abolished by law.

Gay marriage is opposed on traditional grounds because there is strong disagreement among the worlds population. Here in the U.S. We have become so politically correct that many opposing views are shouted down by one side or the other because we now live in a politically correct time where the government is run by liberals and no matter what the voter says the liberal judges will overturn the vote of the people.

I stand for the rights of all people that the Constitution guarantees, no rights that anyone claims to exist that are not enumerated in the Bill of Rights. And before you claim that the constitution also allowed slavery and considered a black man only three fifths of a man, please remember that was a compromise in order to get the Constitution ratified and deal with slavery later. You can find further information on that subject by googling three fifths compromise.

Fred Speckmann

Re: Eudaimonia

The fact that gestapo is in common use only shows the ignorance of the users. Gestapo is a specific name of an organization of the German NAZI political party that started WWII. You might remember it, it was in all the papers. Just my use of satire, please forgive me.

The Gestapo, specifically were the Geheime Staats Polizei. In English, Secret police.

It's use to describe political opponents in the U.S. Is a terrible misuse of a terrible name of people who killed thousands directly while cooperating in the extermination of millions throughout europe. Most of their direct victims were fellow German opponents to the NAZI's.

If you consider the use of the word in a bad limerick, then I can't consider you a satirist.

Furthermore, I had no knowledge of your original use of Gestapo since I was responding to Maphesdus' post.“

As to the debate of resignation versus fired, you seem to forget that we live in perilous times of political correctness where many boards of directors have no backbone and are scared of their own shadow. In addition to that, many computer and internet companies are run by liberals and they support the gay agenda. In case you haven't figured out what the extreme gay movements agenda is, it is to simply make the gay lifestyle equal which it already is, but to make it more than equal. They wish to have it recognized as the natural preferred way of life and make it above equal.

Whenever the words, asked to resign appear, it is simply a euphemism for fired.

Fred Speckmann

I respect your position. Regardless if Eich was pressured by the board or not, he still resigned. I assume that he received compensation to do so.

Are folks open to petitioning boards to take such action - yes, and I would support their ability to do so, as I support the ability of those who would oppose these groups to use their voices to do so. Ultimately, it is up to the board and the individual to come to an acceptable accommodation. I assume that they did in this case.

As for marriage in general, yes, it should be a religious issue only. If those that do not practice a religion wish to be joined thusly, then there are contractual forms of doing so. But marriage, as a privileged entity should be abolished.

Perhaps. But in absence of other info, I need to accept it on face value.

Re: Robbie53024,

I would suggest you check your sources regarding Mr. Eich's circumstances of leaving the company. He was forced to resign by the board as a result of pressure coming from the gay rights agenda crowd. It is clearly that group who can't accept other peoples opinions as the vote on the subject clearly indicated. If I remember correctly, it was the California Supreme Court that overturned the election result and one could certainly argue that it was done unconstitutionally.

My personal opinion is that Gay marriage is absurd on the face of it. It is another attempt to destroy Religion of all kinds, all of which agree that marriage has historically been between a man and a woman. If Gay people wish to emulate marriage, they can certainly join in a civil commitment called something other than marriage. WFor example, we use the term adopted father or mother instead of birth father and mother. there are many other examples of things being similar but not exactly the same.

I do agree that government should not be involved in what we call marriage, it should be strictly a concept of religion or for atheist, a civil ceremony.

fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com

The problem comes about in attempting to legislate morality in activities of individuals, and not merely actions of force between individuals.