TexasCHLforum.com

talltex wrote:

Anygunanywhere wrote:Precisely. We do not achieve greatness emphasizing our differences. We achieve greatness emphasizing what we have in common, and that used to be freedom and free exercise of our God given rights.
Anygunanywhere

I agree with this...my grandparents immigrated from Germany before WWI broke out and my grandfather always said the greatest day of his life was when he became a U.S. Citizen. There is a HUGE difference between those earlier European immigrants and today...they strove to become AMERICANS and assimilate into the AMERICAN culture, norms and social mores as quickly as they could. Today it's almost the exact opposite...each group wants to maintain the ethnic roots and language and social customs of their native country and makes little effort to adapt to the existing culture and language. The U.S. used to be called the "great melting pot"...now the ingredients are not being stirred.

And this is one reason America has seen its best days and why it will be forever on the decline as a country, a society, and as a world leader.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
And the goal of the left is not merely multiculturalism, but multiculturalism while destroying Christianity. Christians are demonized, while all other religions are presented as peace-loving people. What a load of crap!

Chas.

When we get past all the pomp and circumstance, this is the main goal of the New World Order (I am hesitant to say "liberals" because while they are front and center, there are a huge number of Republicans who are on board). Modern elitists want Christianity stomped out and replaced by their version of morality.

So much of the moral fiber of this once great nation has been dissolved in the name of "fairness" and "equality" and what festers in its place is a new standard which is neither fair nor equal. Young people, who have been raised up in a corrupt education system cry tears of joy as the Supreme Court thwarts the will of the voters to allow homosexual marriages to flourish. These same young people shine with pride as a mob disrupts our political system at the Texas Capital so that children can be murdered in the womb by parents who "choose" not to be burdened by their own prior choices. The snowball rolling down hill that was a troublesome pebble twenty years ago has grown into a full-scale avalanche which is poised to bury everything we once held true and dear.

Christians need to stand up and become much more vocal. If we continue to allow ourselves to be shamed into silence, we will be riding in boxcars to FEMA camps in the near future, as the young socialists stand by waving goodbye.

karder wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
And the goal of the left is not merely multiculturalism, but multiculturalism while destroying Christianity. Christians are demonized, while all other religions are presented as peace-loving people. What a load of crap!

Chas.

When we get past all the pomp and circumstance, this is the main goal of the New World Order (I am hesitant to say "liberals" because while they are front and center, there are a huge number of Republicans who are on board). Modern elitists want Christianity stomped out and replaced by their version of morality.

So much of the moral fiber of this once great nation has been dissolved in the name of "fairness" and "equality" and what festers in its place is a new standard which is neither fair nor equal. Young people, who have been raised up in a corrupt education system cry tears of joy as the Supreme Court thwarts the will of the voters to allow homosexual marriages to flourish. These same young people shine with pride as a mob disrupts our political system at the Texas Capital so that children can be murdered in the womb by parents who "choose" not to be burdened by their own prior choices. The snowball rolling down hill that was a troublesome pebble twenty years ago has grown into a full-scale avalanche which is poised to bury everything we once held true and dear.

Christians need to stand up and become much more vocal. If we continue to allow ourselves to be shamed into silence, we will be riding in boxcars to FEMA camps in the near future, as the young socialists stand by waving goodbye.

Really? You think Christians are going to FEMA camps? I guess thats why the Republicans are trying to cut the FEMA budget.

If SCOTUS allowed gay marriage, I would petition for my religious right to marry up to 4 ladies at the same time. Enough of the hypocrisy. I love my hypothetical 2nd to 4th wives too. They should be all treated equally. Where is the justice?!

Beiruty wrote:If SCOTUS allowed gay marriage, I would petition for my religious right to marry up to 4 ladies at the same time. Enough of the hypocrisy. I love my hypothetical 2nd to 4th wives too. They should be all treated equally. Where is the justice?!

Oh dear, I don't know about you, but I can't handle the ONE I have now.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

JALLEN wrote: Why must we live in a multicultural environment? What good is that?

I don't see any advantage to it frankly and lots of conflict, tension, unease, violence and worse.

And therein lies the reason: multiculturalism is a tool of the left to destroy the country.

And the goal of the left is not merely multiculturalism, but multiculturalism while destroying Christianity. Christians are demonized, while all other religions are presented as peace-loving people. What a load of crap!

Chas.

I very seldom get into debates with progressives and this time I didn't even have to , THANK YOU Mr Cotton !!! We think very much alike !

talltex wrote:I've been married to the same woman for 29 years...who someone else wants to marry has no effect on my marriage and I don't have a problem with it.

While I commend you for your 29 year marriage to the same women, I would ask you to rethink your statement that someone else's marriage "has no effect on your marriage."

This is like saying the value of a real dollar in Texas would not be affected by flooding the market with counterfeits in California. Yes, it would be affected because counterfeits degrade the value of all real dollars. Enshrining a false definition of marriage in our laws will inevitably harm all marriages and society. Same-sex marriage does not expand the meaning of marriage, but replaces its historical meaning with a counterfeit.

txglock21 wrote:

Beiruty wrote:If SCOTUS allowed gay marriage, I would petition for my religious right to marry up to 4 ladies at the same time. Enough of the hypocrisy. I love my hypothetical 2nd to 4th wives too. They should be all treated equally. Where is the justice?!

Oh dear, I don't know about you, but I can't handle the ONE I have now.

Indeed, thats just crazy talk. Plus I'd be poor in 17.5777 minutes...

TxA wrote:

talltex wrote:I've been married to the same woman for 29 years...who someone else wants to marry has no effect on my marriage and I don't have a problem with it.

While I commend you for your 29 year marriage to the same women, I would ask you to rethink your statement that someone else's marriage "has no effect on your marriage."

This is like saying the value of a real dollar in Texas would not be affected by flooding the market with counterfeits in California. Yes, it would be affected because counterfeits degrade the value of all real dollars. Enshrining a false definition of marriage in our laws will inevitably harm all marriages and society. Same-sex marriage does not expand the meaning of marriage, but replaces its historical meaning with a counterfeit.

Please define exactly how it would harm his marriage.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

TxA wrote:

talltex wrote:I've been married to the same woman for 29 years...who someone else wants to marry has no effect on my marriage and I don't have a problem with it.

While I commend you for your 29 year marriage to the same women, I would ask you to rethink your statement that someone else's marriage "has no effect on your marriage."

This is like saying the value of a real dollar in Texas would not be affected by flooding the market with counterfeits in California. Yes, it would be affected because counterfeits degrade the value of all real dollars. Enshrining a false definition of marriage in our laws will inevitably harm all marriages and society. Same-sex marriage does not expand the meaning of marriage, but replaces its historical meaning with a counterfeit.

Please define exactly how it would harm his marriage.

That example is ludicrous. Marriage doesn't have a set "value" that can be diluted by having more of them as dollars do...it doesn't degrade the value of mine in any shape, form or fashion, and it doesn't harm me. I'd much rather see a stable, long term same-sex union than a single mother with kids by 5 different men, that you and I are supporting....THERE'S something that has a demonstrable harm to me. I think that is far less "moral" than a same-sex couple wanting to receive the same legal protections and benefits as you or I, since they pay the same taxes. I've only been married to one...thank goodness!

talltex wrote: Can't say that I blame them for wanting that recognition...they pay in the same money, they should receive the same benefits. Recognition of legal status as a civil union would give same-sex couples legal standing regarding health insurance, death benefits, ability to file joint tax returns, Social Security survivor benefits, etc...things which heterosexual couples take for granted. They are NOT recognized by the Federal government in those instances, and it's not just a matter of setting up a partnership to rectify those inequities. I've been married to the same woman for 29 years...who someone else wants to marry has no effect on my marriage and I don't have a problem with it.

Personally, if we could find a way for things to be fair, then I'd support this protection of marriage thing. There is more than one way to make things fair and "protect" the legal definition of marriage. Unfortunately, we've had decades since homosexuals have started to come out of the closet openly and we have chosen as citizens and elected leaders to allow things to be unfair and actively legislate against fairness.

Our attempts at separate but equal have also failed (historically), which also makes subsequent attempts at parallel rights somewhat suspect.

The only thing that really irks me is when people openly indicate that we're not discriminatory now and that homosexuals DO have equality under the law currently. If you think that, you've never really looked into the facts.

And if you accept that homosexuals shouldn't have the same rights as other people and support that view, well, I'll let history judge you in context.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
And the goal of the left is not merely multiculturalism, but multiculturalism while destroying Christianity. Christians are demonized, while all other religions are presented as peace-loving people. What a load of crap!

Chas.

really... try being a jew in the bible belt, much less most other places.
im not saying your completly wrong but the grass isnt green everywere else either

Beiruty wrote:If SCOTUS allowed gay marriage, I would petition for my religious right to marry up to 4 ladies at the same time. Enough of the hypocrisy. I love my hypothetical 2nd to 4th wives too. They should be all treated equally. Where is the justice?!

The court intentionally didn't rule on the legality of gay marriage.. They were pretty careful about that.

On polygamy: Clearly you've never watched Big Love. More wives = exponentially more trouble. Not worth it!

I'm actually serious when I say that I dont understand why homosexuals would want to live in a conservative state when the whole west coast is ready to welcome them with open arms . Each state has a different social environment , Texas is a conservative state so why try to change it . Does not make sense .

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Please define exactly how it would harm his marriage.

If we are to begin discussing exactly how it would harm marriage, first we need to define our terms and what marriage "is" first. Then we could begin to see how it might be harmed. Once we have a definition of what marriage "is" then we might ask, what is the "end" of the marriage act?

talltex wrote:I'd much rather see a stable, long term same-sex union than a single mother with kids by 5 different men, that you and I are supporting

One can compare a unhealthy heterosexual marriage—one featuring drug addiction, for example, or a single mother with 5 kids by different men - to a relatively healthy same-sex relationship, and easily conclude that a child will fare better under the care of a stable homosexual couple than with an unstable heterosexual one. But pitting the worst-case scenario of one against the best-case scenario of the other hardly proves the point. One could also argue that a child is better off with a healthy single mother than with an abusive couple, but we’d still conclude that a two-parent father/mother home is more desirable.