doublegunshop.com - home Forums Duck Dynasty

I think there is plenty anecdotal evidence, and your own admission with the pm story, that you feel it is logical and correct to advocate for the gay rights position, because you want to. No problem to me, really.

I'll repeat, that I believe, even if subtle you're making the case that your 7% is the equal of the 93%. Apparently, you don't like 'queers', but you cite well founded research that it is normal, see your last sentence quoted above.

I don't think I've been too worried about half assed theories. I believe I generally comment on policy that's being proposed or actually imposed by leftist ideologs in charge or the courts that they manipulate.

What my girlfriend and I experienced is NOT fit for even the misfires forum. You will have to accept that. If you want explicit sex details I would suggest that you go pick up a current issue of Playboy or Penthouse and get your jollies from that.

My luv is equally dispersed between SxS's, AR's....pistols and semi auto shotguns.

I got addicted at 6 or 7 years old after just one shot....

I thought no big deal, but this one bothers me a bit too. I think this might be a semantics play. What does offended mean.

Because it's normal and pc glorified, kindergarten kids in public school are forced to learn about bill and bob dating, and sue and betty marrying. It's not presented as a 7% part of the curriculum, but an overwhelming majority. Gay weddings can be proven to be a recent phenomenon, but there are regulatory and criminal penalties auto inserted in the wedding industry preventing private individuals from declining a job.

Well, I take you at your word. No prurient interest in the details. But clearly, having now described it as you have, it probably crossed the line for public decency laws and would be been offensive regardless of the gender make up of the participants. So had you chosen to, there was likely some legal recourse....like letting the police know.

The atheists feel they are entitled to the right to not be "offended by public displays of Christian religious significance" during the Easter and Christmas Holidays. But how many of the hypocrits still actually don't completely abstain from ANY type of celibration themselves since they claim its really just another day.

And some of the thong wearing socialists that parade around pretending to be Justices seem to defend that stance thus far way too often. I consider even once far too often. Until someone drags them kicking and screaming into church every sunday...they need to keep their yaps shut while we celibrate our holidays.....they can refrain from celibrating themselves if they so wish. If they aren't hypocrits that is.

Craig, you are not listening to me.

I am not advocating for gay rights. I don't think punitive laws designed to force people to interact, hire or do business with others are appropriate. I don't think that the curriculum regarding sex education of any sort to elementary school children is appropriate. I don't think the rights of the 7% should take precedence over the rights of the 93%. Where have I suggested those things. You are putting words into my mouth.

What I have said is homosexuality occurs, in man and in nature with other animals. What I have said is it occurs regularly in a small proportion of most human populations, about 7%, regardless of race, religion or culture. What I have said is that there is no scientific consensus for why it happens in humans or animals but there is some evidence that it occurs in humans as innate behavior rather than learned.....a theory I happen to think makes sense.

To me those are the starting points to a discussion, not an advocacy for something.

Those rules you just described about wedding planners are specifically rules designed to stop someone being offended! Those rules are an abomination to me and run counter to the idea of personal responsibility and consequence.

If my comments about the nature of rights bothers you, have at it. But know that my belief about rights include that they are to be extended universally to the members of the society where those rights exist (obvious exceptions like criminals and minors aside).

There are no many red haired people, relative to the general population. They are born with red hair. Should we still regard them withy suspicion as we onc

Doc as I see it the atheists are objecting to religious displays on public property. Some Jews and some Muslims have probably been offended by Cross displays on courthouse lawns. I don't know that. I am a Christian and I wouldn't be offended by a Menorah display on Jewish holidays on public grounds. The general idea is that the religious displays on public property violate the separation of church and state.

The atheists aren't suing churches for having crosses displayed outside the church and viewable by the public. This is because the cross is on private (church) grounds. There is a giant cross on I40 East of Amarillo. It is on private grounds. No lawsuits although it can be seen for miles.

I'm sure that if the atheists ever get their way the "Christ the Redeemer" statue in Rio will be torn down.
Jim

There is no freedom from religion in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution.

And according to the Federalist papers which document the thoughts and concepts behind the writing of the constitution make it clean the Seperation of Church and state was purely to prevent the establishment of a SINGLE religion....such as with the CHurch of England (which is a specific branch of the Prodestant wing of Chirstianity)during the period of time leading up to our independence.

That is something that hasn't happened here.....Nobody has ever tried for example to establish the United Methodist Church as the official Religion of the USA....and to outlaw any and all others....or to seek out and drang the atheists kicking and screaming to church every sunday until they see the light and convert.

And by that argument.....giving people paid time off to celibreate a specific religious holiday goes far beyond a generic Christmas tree. Perhaps if government workers had to work on the holidays costs would decrease and productivity woudl increase and there would be no appearance of favoring any particular religion.