One Million Moms rally at JcPenny's to fire Ellen Degeneres for being GAY!

reply to post by kaylaluv


It may be a "compromise" as you suggest, if only a temporary one. In the meantime it would be conferring "special status" to a group of people.

I think those mums are just jealous, Coz they got fat and ugly with pregnancy and now aren't getting any from their husbands.

Whilst Ellen stays Slim and Sexy and cant get knocked up by her lover.

To behonest i think they want some Degeneres bed-time play-time, coz seriouisly, one million mums... With homosexual closet issues ;-P

Originally posted by kaylaluv
I am against the Domestic Partners Act. Gays should have the same license that heterosexuals have.

So am I. You and I both understand why.

But - I still remember an interview with a well known black woman on Lincoln. She said: "I'll take the baby steps".

We're moving forward - - at a snails pace - - but we are moving forward.

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

Seems like if 'they' had that kind of stamina, smarts and power - we'd all be yoked to a plow somewhere by now

Has nothing to do with yoking people to a plow. Even Con Agra has access to technology for plowing fields.

It's more about shaping people's mores, and overruling parental autnority at the same time, which is what the State loves to do. They have help from lobbyists.

Op Ed piece from NY Times

www.nytimes.com...

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

This is a conspiracy website. So what are you doing here?

who knows - I saw something shiny, I smelled pizza...?

but here I am :-)

Debunking the possibility that such a wild conspiracy to indoctrinate the masses should exist? Then tell me exactly why it is necessary to use propaganda in the schools to achieve certain goals ?

this is the problem - you see propaganda everywhere. I don't see it that way

Would you care to explain why Heather Has Two Mommies goes home in first graders bookbags as a covert way to influence them?

covert is a pejorative word choice - and it's your opinion that it's covert - not mine

Would you object if The Christmas Sweater went home instead?

I just checked it out - not sure I understand what it's about well enough to give you my opinion

why did you suggest it?

I went to school in the 50s - - raised 2 daughters in the 70/80s - - helped raise a grandson who is now 18 - - and am now raising young and pre-teen children again.

In the 50s - school was very political - - very Pro-American propaganda - - and Christian dominated.

I much prefer the schools today - - and the direction they are going.

Everything evolves. Higher learning and getting that college degree don't have the top priority they once did. They do not guarantee you a high level job for life.

Sociability seems to be very very important today. My kid has worked in Hollywood for 20+ years. It used to be pretty crazy - - but today value is in Please and Thank You.

I fully support how schools are making socializing and understanding of differences important. It can only be positive in developing a better society.

The Christmas Sweater is of a religious nature.

Why would that be used in a public school?

There are books with similar stories that are secular.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


nothing much to say here - except interesting point about Perry Ellis

he was the king of his own empire however - not a spokesperson

the tussle over Ellen is something that seems to be more about the times we live in now than then. I think it's because the shift in thinking has really changed that much. It's symbolic - on both sides

and I love George Harrison - appropriate song choice

all things must pass - and the times do change

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

Has nothing to do with yoking people to a plow. Even Con Agra has access to technology for plowing fields.

forgive me - I see everything through metaphor colored glasses

:-)

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


It's a covert agenda when it gets snuck home in book bags without parental knowledge. It actually happened in one community, Massachusetts I believe. You are either naive about it or you agree with it and won't admit it. Do you understand the meaning of covert? It means it's not obvious.

reply to post by Annee


oh ok, can I take that to mean you prefer schools NOT to be pro-America? Why am I not surprised.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Annee

 

oh ok, can I take that to mean you prefer schools NOT to be pro-America? Why am I not surprised.

I prefer Pro Human.

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


The Christmas Sweater is Glenn Beck's book teaching about the value of things. However I am not surprised that someone here thinks Heather Has Two Mommies is perfectly acceptable but has a problem with a Christian book. You see, one person's propaganda is another person's reality.

Originally posted by Annee
The Christmas Sweater is of a religious nature.

Why would that be used in a public school?

There are books with similar stories that are secular.

edit on 5-2-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)

Riiight, so we can put overtly sexual stuff in school but not a book teaching the value of a good sweater over a bike.

Right Annee, I see your point.

Did you read the Christmas Sweater and feel it's so overtly religious you would protest it? Or do you just hate the idea that Glenn Beck is the author?

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Spiramirabilis

 

The Christmas Sweater is Glenn Beck's book teaching about the value of things. However I am not surprised that someone here thinks Heather Has Two Mommies is perfectly acceptable but has a problem with a Christian book. You see, one person's propaganda is another person's reality.

Oh - I shall remain nameless.

We are a secular government. Public school is government. Not hard to understand.

Religion is a choice.

Many secular books have similar stories to Beck's religious based story of learning value.

Two Mommies is a reality in today's society. And - guess what. Is not religious in nature. Which means it fits a secular curriculum.

Originally posted by Annee
The Christmas Sweater is of a religious nature.

Why would that be used in a public school?

There are books with similar stories that are secular.

edit on 5-2-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)

I'd like to know the same thing as to why we must have gay propaganda in our schools. How about just math and English.

John Dewey described Humanism as our "common faith." Julian Huxley called it "Religion without Revelation." The first Humanist Manifesto spoke openly of Humanism as a religion. Many other Humanists could be cited who have acknowledged that Humanism is a religion. In fact, claiming that Humanism was "the new religion" was trendy for at least 100 years, perhaps beginning in 1875 with the publication of The Religion of Humanity by Octavius Brooks Frothingham (1822-1895), son of the distinguished Unitarian clergyman, Nathaniel Langdon Frothingham (1793-1870), pastor of the First Unitarian Church of Boston, 1815-1850. In the 1950's, Humanists sought and obtained tax-exempt status as religious organizations. Even the Supreme Court of the United States spoke in 1961 of Secular Humanism as a religion. It was a struggle to get atheism accepted as a religion, but it happened. From 1962-1980 this was not a controversial issue.
But then Christians began to challenge the "establishment of religion" which Secular Humanism in public schools represented. They used the same tactic Atheists had used to challenge prayer and Bible reading under the "Establishment Clause" of the First Amendment. Now the ACLU is involved. Now the question is controversial. Now Secular Humanists have completely reversed their strategy, and claim that Humanism is not at all religious, but is "scientific."

vftonline.org...


So there's my answer to your suggestion that secularism doesn't involve religion of some kind.

God damn it.
I honestly cannot fathom this. How ... just plain stupid are some people? Unbelievable.

Only in America...

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Op Ed piece from NY Times

www.nytimes.com...

Here's an article that talks about the impact gay marriage has had on Massachusetts since it was legalized.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

And here's an article discussing the positive economic impact legalizing gay marriage has had for the state of Iowa.

thegazette.com...

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by manna2

 

Thank you for articulating the point about our inalienable rights being granted by our Creator and not by the State.

edit on 5-2-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

Super. So if we can remove the state from having anything to do with marriage and any legal requirements associated, it will only take a license from a church to be considered married. No problem there - there are plenty of churches willing to marry gays in the eyes of God. Church marriage was never the problem.

But until then, the state has ultimate control. So until this glorious time when the government is kicked out of the marriage business, and because the government claims to be a secular institution - gays (as consenting adults and tax-paying citizens) should be able to get a marriage license from the state.

nut the laws are based on commerce in this corporate democracy.
They are in place to create children for the corporation.
You need to fight them, not anyone else.
They have no need to provide special privalages to those that do not produce a commodity for them.
In this case, they act more like parasites on the secular state based on the admiralty laws that govern the courts.Thats why they have birth certs, to register the commodity produced from the marriage contract.

My opinion it's irrelevant for what I percieve the institution of marriage to be. I see it as a covenant between a man and woman and God.
The state does not recognize God.
It's a contract between the 2 producers and the state. If you don't produce something out of it for the state, the state sees no need to give away any special consideration.
The laws you seek to change are laws of commerce.
From the states point of view it would be counter-productive to give privilages in commerce to non producers.
It would be more of an entitlement like welfare.

My only, ONLY gripe is that you want to call it marriage, which is a religious term and in my case, a Christian covenant.
All I ask is that you call it something else for clarity since it now means something else first due to the state and now due to a drive to re-define it.
I am all for civil unions for state sponsored unions.
As for the freebies for a non-producing union, from a commerce perspective, you have to do the work. But if you listen to me you can get it done without religious interferance.
Just pick a different name.
As you said, there are churches that will do the deed for gays, man/boy, polygamy, etc...
Civil unions seems cool to me.
But as I have stated, we do not have common law courts today, they are merchant, or admiralty courts. Everything is about commerce.
In the states eyes it would be like welfare unions as they simply don't produce a product.

And you might have missed my post directed at you.
You accused me of now belonging to a hate group.
That is pathetic of you to say that and you owe me a public apology.
I have said or done nothing at all hateful in this thread and I challenge you to find it.
You are projecting I feel since you are very hateful in this thread to even think you can make such ugly claims just because you disagree with my pointo of view.