Good ole California supreme courts have said that GAYS can now marry. That news about made me GAG! So what's next for this state? I open the news paper this morning and on the inside page it shows Ellen "DeGenerate" and her new squeeze saying they are going to tie the knot. What is this world coming to?
-
TDR Magazine subscribers receive more than the magazine! You also gain additional forum privileges!
Details here: TDR Privileges
Subscribe to TDR Magazine here: https://www.tdr-online.com/
California GAY marriage approved... What's NEXT????
- Thread starter Motorhead
- Start Date
Attention: TDR Forum Junkies To the point: Click this link and check out the Front Page News story(ies) where we are tracking the introduction of the 2025 Ram HD trucks.
Thanks, TDR Staff
Here is what the Gay Community would like for you to believe.
"It's about human dignity. It's about human rights. It's about time in California," San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, told a roaring crowd at City Hall while pumping his fist in the air. "As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation. It's inevitable. This door's wide open now. It's going to happen, whether you like it or not. "
"It's about human dignity. It's about human rights. It's about time in California," San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, told a roaring crowd at City Hall while pumping his fist in the air. "As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation. It's inevitable. This door's wide open now. It's going to happen, whether you like it or not. "
For me it is the further eroding of what morals this country has left. Pretty soon we are going to go the way of the Greeks and Romans, and we will have no one to blame for it but ourselves.
The majority doesn't want gay marriage. Why can't our legislatures and judges see that? In every state where the amendment has been put on the ballot to make marriage between a man and a woman it has passed overwhelmingly.
Why don't they get it?
What I can't understand is why there are a bunch of prejudice people on this forum. Let people marry who they want to. Who cares? They don't affect you and really, how many gay marriages are there to straight ones, maybe 1000 to 1? The only reason you people are saying this is because your "holy book"(insert the one of your choice) has a few lines about it. Get over it and move on into the 21st century.
AMEN! One of my best friends is gay. He is the truest of all friends I have met. He even introduced me to my girlfriend, whom also happens to be the best one I have ever met (and she has a 2002 CTD!). My friend is also in Iraq fighting for our freedom. When I met him, he was "dating" a girl. When he "came out of the closet", I was the first he talked to about it. I have no problem with him being with, marrying or whatever with the person who makes him happy. If I had been judgmental or prejudiced towards him, I would have never met the sweet lady I love. Everyone deserves happiness. What gays do is their business. It does not negatively affect my life at all.
Gays are not the ones "degrading" marriage at all. The single most degrading of marriage is also from California. It is Hollywood. Marriage is treated as "disposable" by the celbri-slut crowd. "Actors" knock each other up, cheat, marry, divorce, and think nothing about it. That degrades the sanctity of marriage far more than a loving gay couple ever could!
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree. Live and let live.
Morals needn't be definied by what's written in a holy manuscript... and you don't have to be religious to be considered a moral person.
Religions that require evangelizing probably aren't that good in the first place... if they were good - the people would come to them.
Beers,
Matt
This is what I like about this country. You can say what you like even if it's morally wrong. I don't hate the gay person I hate his or her's sin. The good book says no period. If you want to stand before your maker and the times shorter than you think, and say you were one of them or supported them GOD will not help you.
AMEN!!! And it is their using the FORCE OF LAW to CRAM their beliefs down EVERYONE'S throat that makes people despise them more! I can pray, from the peace and comfort of my own home and do not have to listen to anyone bash my friend, complain about me drinking beer or having pre marital sex with my girlfriend! AND I don't have to pay a cover charge to do so!!
I pray, I am a Christian, I try to do right. I sure don't impose my beliefs on others. I also expect the same in return. This country would be a much better place if we worried about our OWN lives instead of trying to regulate everyone else with what we personally believe.
I think it is great if a gay couple wants to be together. It is their choice. Chances are they will be together much longer than the pop culture celebrisluts are!
This is an article written by Dennis Prager, on the subject. Pretty well thought out, I think.
Joe F. (Buffalo)
California Decision Will Radically Change Society.
Americans seem mesmerized by the word "change. " And, by golly, they sure got it last week from the California Supreme Court. It is difficult to imagine a single social change greater than redefining marriage from opposite sex to include members of the same sex.
Nothing imaginable — leftward or rightward — would constitute as radical a change in the way society is structured as this redefining of marriage for the first time in history: Not another Prohibition, not government taking over all health care, not changing all public education to private schools, not America leaving the United Nations, not rescinding the income tax and replacing it with a consumption tax. Nothing.
Unless California voters amend the California Constitution or Congress amends the U. S. Constitution, four justices of the California Supreme Court will have changed American society more than any four individuals since Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Madison.
And what is particularly amazing is that virtually none of those who support this decision — let alone the four compassionate justices — acknowledge this. The mantra of the supporters of this sea change in society is that it's no big deal. Hey, it doesn't affect any heterosexuals' marriage, so what's the problem?
This lack of acknowledgment — or even awareness — of how society-changing is this redefinition of marriage is one reason the decision was made. To the four compassionate ones — and their millions of compassionate supporters — allowing same-sex marriage is nothing more than what courts did to end legal bans on interracial marriage. The justices and their supporters know not what they did. They think that all they did was extend a "right" that had been unfairly denied to gays.
Another reason for this decision is arrogance. First, the arrogance of four individuals to impose their understanding of what is right and wrong on the rest of society. And second is the arrogance of the four compassionate ones in assuming that all thinkers, theologians, philosophers, religions and moral systems in history were wrong, while they and their supporters have seen a moral light never seen before. Not a single religion or moral philosophical system — East or West — since antiquity ever defined marriage as between members of the same sex.
That is one reason the argument that this decision is the same as courts undoing legal bans on marriages between races is false. No major religion — not Judaism, not Christianity, not Islam, not Buddhism — ever banned interracial marriage. Some religions have banned marriages with members of other religions. But since these religions allowed anyone of any race to convert, i. e. , become a member of that religion, the race or ethnicity of individuals never mattered with regard to marriage. American bans on interracial marriages were not supported by any major religious or moral system; those bans were immoral aberrations, no matter how many religious individuals may have supported them. Justices who overthrew bans on interracial marriages, therefore, had virtually every moral and religious value system since ancient times on their side. But justices who overthrow the ban on same-sex marriage have nothing other their hubris and their notions of compassion on their side.
Since the secular age began, the notion that one should look to religion — or to any past wisdom — for one's values has died. Thus, the modern attempts to undo the Judeo-Christian value system as the basis of America's values, and to disparage the Founders as essentially morally flawed individuals (They allowed slavery, didn't they?). The modern secular liberal knows that he is not only morally superior to conservatives; he is morally superior to virtually everyone who ever lived before him.
Which leads to a third reason such a sea change could be so cavalierly imposed by four individuals — the modern supplanting of wisdom with compassion as the supreme guide in forming society's values and laws.
Just as for religious fundamentalists, "the Bible says" ends discussion, for liberal fundamentalists, "compassion says" ends discussion.
If this verdict stands, society as we have known it will change. The California Supreme Court and its millions of supporters are playing with fire. And it will eventually burn future generations in ways we can only begin to imagine.
Outside of the privacy of their homes, young girls will be discouraged from imagining one day marrying their prince charming — to do so would be declared "heterosexist," morally equivalent to racist. Rather, they will be told to imagine a prince or a princess. Schoolbooks will not be allowed to describe marriage in male-female ways alone. Little girls will be asked by other girls and by teachers if they want one day to marry a man or a woman.
The sexual confusion that same-sex marriage will create among young people is not fully measurable. Suffice it to say that, contrary to the sexual know-nothings who believe that sexual orientation is fixed from birth and permanent, the fact is that sexual orientation is more of a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality. Much of humanity — especially females — can enjoy homosexual sex. It is up to society to channel polymorphous human sexuality into an exclusively heterosexual direction — until now, accomplished through marriage. But that of course is "heterosexism," a bigoted preference for man-woman erotic love, and therefore to be extirpated from society.
Any advocacy of man-woman marriage alone will be regarded morally as hate speech, and shortly thereafter it will be deemed so in law.
Companies that advertise engagement rings will have to show a man putting a ring on a man's finger — if they show only women fingers, they will be boycotted just as a company having racist ads would be now.
Films that only show man-woman married couples will be regarded as antisocial and as morally irresponsible as films that show people smoking have become.
Traditional Jews and Christians — i. e. those who believe in a divine scripture — will be marginalized. Already Catholic groups in Massachusetts have abandoned adoption work since they will only allow a child to be adopted by a married couple as the Bible defines it — a man and a woman.
Anyone who advocates marriage between a man and a woman will be morally regarded the same as racist. And soon it will be a hate crime.
Indeed — and this is the ultimate goal of many of the same-sex marriage activists — the terms "male" and "female," "man" and "woman" will gradually lose their significance. They already are. On the intellectual and cultural left, "male" and "female" are deemed social constructs that have little meaning. That is why same-sex marriage advocates argue that children have no need for both a mother and a father — the sexes are interchangeable. Whatever a father can do a second mother can do. Whatever a mother can do, a second father can do. Genitalia are the only real differences between the sexes, and even they can be switched at will.
And what will happen after divorce — which presumably will occur at the same rates as heterosexual divorce? A boy raised by two lesbian mothers who divorce and remarry will then have four mothers and no father.
We have entered something beyond Huxley's "Brave New World. " All thanks to the hubris of four individuals. But such hubris never goes unanswered. Our children and their children will pay the price.
Anticipating reactions to this column — as to all defenses of man-woman marriage — that it or its author are "homophobic," i. e. , bigoted and unworthy of respectful rejoinder, it is important to reaffirm that nothing written here is implicitly, let alone explicitly, anti-gay. I take it as axiomatic that a gay man or woman is created in God's image and as precious as any other human being. And I readily acknowledge that it is unfair when an adult is not allowed to marry the love of his or her choice. But social policy cannot be made solely on the basis of eradicating all of life's unfairness. Thus, we must love the gay person — and his and or her partner as well. But we must never change the definition of marriage. The price to society and succeeding generations will be too great.
That is why Californians must amend their state's Constitution.
Dennis Prager hosts a nationally syndicated radio talk show and is a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He is the author of four books, most recently "Happiness Is a Serious Problem" (HarperCollins). His website is Townhall.com.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Get RSS Feed for Dennis Prager Email me Dennis Prager updates Comments
Originally Published on Tuesday May 20, 2008
Joe F. (Buffalo)
California Decision Will Radically Change Society.
Americans seem mesmerized by the word "change. " And, by golly, they sure got it last week from the California Supreme Court. It is difficult to imagine a single social change greater than redefining marriage from opposite sex to include members of the same sex.
Nothing imaginable — leftward or rightward — would constitute as radical a change in the way society is structured as this redefining of marriage for the first time in history: Not another Prohibition, not government taking over all health care, not changing all public education to private schools, not America leaving the United Nations, not rescinding the income tax and replacing it with a consumption tax. Nothing.
Unless California voters amend the California Constitution or Congress amends the U. S. Constitution, four justices of the California Supreme Court will have changed American society more than any four individuals since Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Madison.
And what is particularly amazing is that virtually none of those who support this decision — let alone the four compassionate justices — acknowledge this. The mantra of the supporters of this sea change in society is that it's no big deal. Hey, it doesn't affect any heterosexuals' marriage, so what's the problem?
This lack of acknowledgment — or even awareness — of how society-changing is this redefinition of marriage is one reason the decision was made. To the four compassionate ones — and their millions of compassionate supporters — allowing same-sex marriage is nothing more than what courts did to end legal bans on interracial marriage. The justices and their supporters know not what they did. They think that all they did was extend a "right" that had been unfairly denied to gays.
Another reason for this decision is arrogance. First, the arrogance of four individuals to impose their understanding of what is right and wrong on the rest of society. And second is the arrogance of the four compassionate ones in assuming that all thinkers, theologians, philosophers, religions and moral systems in history were wrong, while they and their supporters have seen a moral light never seen before. Not a single religion or moral philosophical system — East or West — since antiquity ever defined marriage as between members of the same sex.
That is one reason the argument that this decision is the same as courts undoing legal bans on marriages between races is false. No major religion — not Judaism, not Christianity, not Islam, not Buddhism — ever banned interracial marriage. Some religions have banned marriages with members of other religions. But since these religions allowed anyone of any race to convert, i. e. , become a member of that religion, the race or ethnicity of individuals never mattered with regard to marriage. American bans on interracial marriages were not supported by any major religious or moral system; those bans were immoral aberrations, no matter how many religious individuals may have supported them. Justices who overthrew bans on interracial marriages, therefore, had virtually every moral and religious value system since ancient times on their side. But justices who overthrow the ban on same-sex marriage have nothing other their hubris and their notions of compassion on their side.
Since the secular age began, the notion that one should look to religion — or to any past wisdom — for one's values has died. Thus, the modern attempts to undo the Judeo-Christian value system as the basis of America's values, and to disparage the Founders as essentially morally flawed individuals (They allowed slavery, didn't they?). The modern secular liberal knows that he is not only morally superior to conservatives; he is morally superior to virtually everyone who ever lived before him.
Which leads to a third reason such a sea change could be so cavalierly imposed by four individuals — the modern supplanting of wisdom with compassion as the supreme guide in forming society's values and laws.
Just as for religious fundamentalists, "the Bible says" ends discussion, for liberal fundamentalists, "compassion says" ends discussion.
If this verdict stands, society as we have known it will change. The California Supreme Court and its millions of supporters are playing with fire. And it will eventually burn future generations in ways we can only begin to imagine.
Outside of the privacy of their homes, young girls will be discouraged from imagining one day marrying their prince charming — to do so would be declared "heterosexist," morally equivalent to racist. Rather, they will be told to imagine a prince or a princess. Schoolbooks will not be allowed to describe marriage in male-female ways alone. Little girls will be asked by other girls and by teachers if they want one day to marry a man or a woman.
The sexual confusion that same-sex marriage will create among young people is not fully measurable. Suffice it to say that, contrary to the sexual know-nothings who believe that sexual orientation is fixed from birth and permanent, the fact is that sexual orientation is more of a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality. Much of humanity — especially females — can enjoy homosexual sex. It is up to society to channel polymorphous human sexuality into an exclusively heterosexual direction — until now, accomplished through marriage. But that of course is "heterosexism," a bigoted preference for man-woman erotic love, and therefore to be extirpated from society.
Any advocacy of man-woman marriage alone will be regarded morally as hate speech, and shortly thereafter it will be deemed so in law.
Companies that advertise engagement rings will have to show a man putting a ring on a man's finger — if they show only women fingers, they will be boycotted just as a company having racist ads would be now.
Films that only show man-woman married couples will be regarded as antisocial and as morally irresponsible as films that show people smoking have become.
Traditional Jews and Christians — i. e. those who believe in a divine scripture — will be marginalized. Already Catholic groups in Massachusetts have abandoned adoption work since they will only allow a child to be adopted by a married couple as the Bible defines it — a man and a woman.
Anyone who advocates marriage between a man and a woman will be morally regarded the same as racist. And soon it will be a hate crime.
Indeed — and this is the ultimate goal of many of the same-sex marriage activists — the terms "male" and "female," "man" and "woman" will gradually lose their significance. They already are. On the intellectual and cultural left, "male" and "female" are deemed social constructs that have little meaning. That is why same-sex marriage advocates argue that children have no need for both a mother and a father — the sexes are interchangeable. Whatever a father can do a second mother can do. Whatever a mother can do, a second father can do. Genitalia are the only real differences between the sexes, and even they can be switched at will.
And what will happen after divorce — which presumably will occur at the same rates as heterosexual divorce? A boy raised by two lesbian mothers who divorce and remarry will then have four mothers and no father.
We have entered something beyond Huxley's "Brave New World. " All thanks to the hubris of four individuals. But such hubris never goes unanswered. Our children and their children will pay the price.
Anticipating reactions to this column — as to all defenses of man-woman marriage — that it or its author are "homophobic," i. e. , bigoted and unworthy of respectful rejoinder, it is important to reaffirm that nothing written here is implicitly, let alone explicitly, anti-gay. I take it as axiomatic that a gay man or woman is created in God's image and as precious as any other human being. And I readily acknowledge that it is unfair when an adult is not allowed to marry the love of his or her choice. But social policy cannot be made solely on the basis of eradicating all of life's unfairness. Thus, we must love the gay person — and his and or her partner as well. But we must never change the definition of marriage. The price to society and succeeding generations will be too great.
That is why Californians must amend their state's Constitution.
Dennis Prager hosts a nationally syndicated radio talk show and is a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He is the author of four books, most recently "Happiness Is a Serious Problem" (HarperCollins). His website is Townhall.com.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Get RSS Feed for Dennis Prager Email me Dennis Prager updates Comments
Originally Published on Tuesday May 20, 2008
Political forum.....
Come on over to the darkside... ... ... :-{}
Come on over to the darkside... ... ... :-{}
Reading in a newspaper where the Honeymoon Suite providers are gearing up for an Gigantic Increase in Clients, owing to the expected rush following the Courts legalizing of Gay Marriages. Owing to the slump in the economy, business has been bad lately, also many couples are choosing to live together without benefit if marriage, and a rise in Christian Fundamentalism, placing a decline of the fun-filled week ends enjoyed by many studying, and lying down for promotion in many various industries, and offices. The Hospitality Industry is going all out to make all couples welcome. Some are placing female couples in one section and male in another, there is also an area set aside for those unsure of what they are, or want to be. All curtains, bed clothes, towels, in fact all linens in the rooms will be edged with soft Pink Lace, very soothing, because when the lights go out they expect the usual groans,grunts and notably strange murmurings. That was all I read of it, as my wife called me to wash the dishes and forbid me to read any more, said I'd been acting strange lately anyway.
Issue 128 – Digital Version
Digital Magazines
FREE!
TDR Test Drive - Digital Edition
Renew
Subscribe
Gift Subscriptions
Back Issues
Subscription Status
Address Change Form
Buyer's Guides
Ram Diagnostic Trouble Codes
The Perfect Collection
The Perfect Collection Vol. II
TSB Updates
Dodge/Cummins Historical Overview
Cameron Collection
What Makes Us Tick?
Product Showcase
Advertising
Turbo Diesel Register
Issue 128 – Digital Version
Digital Magazines
FREE!
TDR Test Drive - Digital Edition
Renew
Subscribe
Gift Subscriptions
Back Issues
Subscription Status
Address Change Form
Buyer's Guides
Ram Diagnostic Trouble Codes
The Perfect Collection
The Perfect Collection Vol. II
TSB Updates
Dodge/Cummins Historical Overview
Cameron Collection
What Makes Us Tick?
Product Showcase
Advertising
