Mayor Pete Buttigieg: ‘Think of Something Really Gay — That’s How Gay I Am’

[XenaLee]

None of the things I listed are necessarily "bad behavior", but rather the exercise of one's liberty.   I dislike the idea of government serving as morality police.

Quite the contrary.... at least where it concerns public school curricula... government has morphed into the immorality police.  And I'm guessing that is ok with you... since that curricula is teaching that homosexual and transgender lifestyles are "normal".  Coming soon to all schools near you (not just in California), Canada has already "mandated" SOGI.

[bilo]

The question isn't whether homosexuality is "normal" - it clearly is, for certain individuals.     The question is whether homosexual behavior - like heterosexual behavior - is to practiced responsibly and in conformity with good health and social norms.    Here, the issue is promiscuity vs. monogamy.    I support gay marriage precisely because it presents a vehicle by which homosexuals can practice their sexuality in the traditional, responsible manner -  with their monogamous partner with whom they've made a lifetime commitment of mutual care.  Without the institution of marriage,  it is too easy for folks - whether gay or straight - to act like horndogs without responsibility,  leaving victims of their selfish behavior in their wake.   

I couldn't disagree more. Marriage in a Judeo-Christian society is exclusively between a man and a woman. The fact that our society now embraces the idea that two people of the same sex can be married is a clear indicator we are no longer a Judeo-Christian society. Homosexuality is not normal, is not healthy and is of no benefit to a society.

[Smokin Joe]

Heck,  you've already established that you want government mucking about in everyone's bedroom and private life (apparently in service to your religion),  yet you draw the line at the gun cabinet?   I don't get it - other than as an exercise in hypocrisy.   

I don't want it in anyone's bedroom. Now keep it the F**k out of my Church. Marriage isn't a government affair, but a Sacrament.

[Smokin Joe]

The question isn't whether homosexuality is "normal" - it clearly is, for certain individuals.     The question is whether homosexual behavior - like heterosexual behavior - is to practiced responsibly and in conformity with good health and social norms.    Here, the issue is promiscuity vs. monogamy.    I support gay marriage precisely because it presents a vehicle by which homosexuals can practice their sexuality in the traditional, responsible manner -  with their monogamous partner with whom they've made a lifetime commitment of mutual care.   Without the institution of marriage,  it is too easy for folks - whether gay or straight - to act like horndogs without responsibility,  leaving victims of their selfish behavior in their wake.   

I have known heterosexual couples who were faithful to each other despite having no paperwork involved, never officially married.

I have known officially married couples who were notoriously unfaithful.

If they want to be monogamous, they will be, but no piece of paper, no decree, is going to impose that fidelity.
 
Anyone who thinks it will, can add delusion to their insecurity, and I can't think of a more insecure bunch than homosexuals--because most will have sex with just about anyone who strikes their fancy, and some make a point of being predatory and controlling. For a lesbian, "girls night out" takes on a different meaning than it does for the heterosexual, same for 'oh, just over BSing with the guys' for a homo. Everyone is a threat, and no piece of paper will change that. Such relationship difficulties are commonplace for them, and may even contribute to the high suicide rate among homosexuals, who just aren't as 'gay' as they would have you believe. Others are just notoriously promiscuous.

The purpose of imposing "homosexual marriage" on society was to tear at the very fabric of western society, to further destroy the concept of the traditional family, to wage war on the idea from Genesis 2:23-24 that

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Traditional One man/One woman marriage is the foundation of the family and society, and has been for thousands of years.

Homosexuality produces no progeny, the family is not essential to the relationship, not even for the purpose of establishing estates and trusts and leaving those to whomever they please--which they can do anyway. Medical power of attorney on file would give their partner the same rights as a spouse. The means existed to do legally what they would without trying to shred the fabric of the society which tolerates them.
It's just a thumb in the eye of the 'breeders', and a sneer at The Almighty, himself.

[bilo]

I don't want it in anyone's bedroom. Now keep it the F**k out of my Church. Marriage isn't a government affair, but a Sacrament.

The govt reflects and protects the underlying values of a society. If we are a Bible believing Christian society the govt will protect the individual, property rights and most importantly our morals. We see on a daily basis that we are no longer a Christian nation.

[Smokin Joe]

The govt reflects and protects the underlying values of a society. If we are a Bible believing Christian society the govt will protect the individual, property rights and most importantly our morals. We see on a daily basis that we are no longer a Christian nation.

I'm not so sure, what I see is that Government no longer represents us. When 60+% of Americans were against the ACA, for instance, yet the Congress imposed it anyway, and the SCOTUS rewrote the law to uphold it (just one example), the people in Government have forgotten that it serves us in order to be legitimate.

Government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed...

Now it usurps power unjustly.

[bilo]

The purpose of imposing "homosexual marriage" on society was to tear at the very fabric of western society, to further destroy the concept of the traditional family, to wage war on the idea from Genesis 2:23-24 that
Traditional One man/One woman marriage is the foundation of the family and society, and has been for thousands of years.

Homosexuality produces no progeny, the family is not essential to the relationship, not even for the purpose of establishing estates and trusts and leaving those to whomever they please--which they can do anyway. Medical power of attorney on file would give their partner the same rights as a spouse. The means existed to do legally what they would without trying to shred the fabric of the society which tolerates them.
It's just a thumb in the eye of the 'breeders', and a sneer at The Almighty, himself.

 

The people we should be celebrating are those young married hetrosexual couples raising families. It's a very hard job. It takes commitment and sacrifice. Our society dies without them.

[bilo]

I'm not so sure, what I see is that Government no longer represents us. When 60+% of Americans were against the ACA, for instance, yet the Congress imposed it anyway, and the SCOTUS rewrote the law to uphold it (just one example), the people in Government have forgotten that it serves us in order to be legitimate.

Now it usurps power unjustly.

I'm not disagreeing with your assessment of our govt. I'm saying these things happened because govt reflects the underlying trend that might makes right and truth is relative to what those with power say it is. We've always had a battle between those who believe in absolute truth and those who believe truth is relative. Right now those who believe truth is relative are a majority and the damage they have done may not be able to be fixed.

[Smokin Joe]

I'm not disagreeing with your assessment of our govt. I'm saying these things happened because govt reflects the underlying trend that might makes right and truth is relative to what those with power say it is. We've always had a battle between those who believe in absolute truth and those who believe truth is relative. Right now those who believe truth is relative are a majority and the damage they have done may not be able to be fixed.

While you are correct, the irony is that their 'relative truth' is no different from the 'relative truth' of those they claim to disagree with. Situation ethics instead of absolutes. As for the damage being fixed, in the end, it will be. I believe that. But the road between here and there will be rough.

[Absalom]

None of the things I listed are necessarily "bad behavior", but rather the exercise of one's liberty.   I dislike the idea of government serving as morality police.

------------------------------
Emphatically reject your implication that freedom/liberty transcends rules!
The Natural Law asserts that the Family Unit has been the bedrock of culture/society and civilization since Eden.
As such, any behaviors that harm the Family, such as homosexuality and abortion are anathema;
to be condemned.
That wisdom of Natural Law was the norm from the Fertile Crescent till he French Enlightenment.
Then, in their revolt against Monarchy and the Catholic Church, crackpots such as Marat, Rousseau, St. Just ; among hundreds, insisted that freedom was the new norm transcending the attitudes, behaviors and norms of the old order. Such thinking ushered in socialism and then Marxism.
The world continues to pay the price for the absurdities these buffoons inflicted, every day!!!!

[jmyrlefuller]

The question isn't whether homosexuality is "normal" - it clearly is, for certain individuals.     The question is whether homosexual behavior - like heterosexual behavior - is to practiced responsibly and in conformity with good health and social norms.    Here, the issue is promiscuity vs. monogamy.    I support gay marriage precisely because it presents a vehicle by which homosexuals can practice their sexuality in the traditional, responsible manner -  with their monogamous partner with whom they've made a lifetime commitment of mutual care.   Without the institution of marriage,  it is too easy for folks - whether gay or straight - to act like horndogs without responsibility,  leaving victims of their selfish behavior in their wake.   

Half of all marriages, heterosexual or otherwise, have some form of infidelity. So the notion that marriages, in and of themselves, can stop a horndog from being a horndog is simply false, especially when we don't enforce the adultery laws we already have on the books.

And that's before we start discussing the "good health" part.

[libertybele]

...hmm.... President 'Butthead' ... gay enough?

[Jazzhead]

Half of all marriages, heterosexual or otherwise, have some form of infidelity. So the notion that marriages, in and of themselves, can stop a horndog from being a horndog is simply false, especially when we don't enforce the adultery laws we already have on the books.

And that's before we start discussing the "good health" part.

That may well be,  but there's a reason traditionalists see value in the institution of marriage.    Sex aside, it's a unique contract of mutual support that ties two individuals together in a way that promotes responsibility.   In the seventies and eighties, a culture of rampant promiscuity doomed many gays to an early grave.  Now,  a gay man can be seen running for President with his spouse at his side.    Stability and normalcy - and the better health that comes with it - are now in the picture for homosexuals.   And that's something the traditionally-minded should cheer. 

[Jazzhead]

The people we should be celebrating are those young married hetrosexual couples raising families. It's a very hard job. It takes commitment and sacrifice. Our society dies without them.

And too many of them are getting divorced.    All the effort that social conservatives waste in decrying homosexuals who choose to marry and remain faithful to each other could be better spent addressing the true immoralities - promiscuity,  irresponsibility,  selfishness and sloth.    Those are the behaviors that threaten the traditional family.   No homosexual couple ever caused the breakup of a heterosexual marriage.   

[Restored]

And too many of them are getting divorced.    All the effort that social conservatives waste in decrying homosexuals who choose to marry and remain faithful to each other could be better spent addressing the true immoralities - promiscuity,  irresponsibility,  selfishness and sloth.    Those are the behaviors that threaten the traditional family.   No homosexual couple ever caused the breakup of a heterosexual marriage.

And someone disagreeing with same-sex marriage never cause the breakup of a same-sex marriage. So why does the government force us to bake the damn cake?

[Jazzhead]

So why does the government force us to bake the damn cake?

It only "forces you to bake the damn cake"  if you so advertise to the general public.  If you give your word, then stick to it.  (It's, of course, more complicated than that, but that's the essence of the moral issue.   If you say you bake wedding cakes,  then do what you say.  If you don't want to bake wedding cakes,  no government can force you to.) 

[bilo]

And someone disagreeing with same-sex marriage never cause the breakup of a same-sex marriage. So why does the government force us to bake the damn cake?

Because if you are going to radically change societal norms from a Christian-Judeo tradition to a new humanist secularism you can't allow any dissent to be voiced. All who publicly place their faith first must be destroyed so others who might follow won't.

The country is being destroyed by the inside out. The process is accelerating and Trump being elected is a strong indicator that a lot of people are still resisting the destruction of this country.

[Jazzhead]

Keeping one's word is not inconsistent with the "societal norms of the Judeo-Christian tradition."    Put another way,  how is arbitrarily refusing to provide an advertised service because you don't like the cut of the customer's jib consistent with the "societal norms of the Judeo-Christian tradition"?

To me, the essence of that tradition is the golden rule - not being a arsehole by turning away a customer out of some ego-driven conceit that I'm God's Own Enforcer.         

[Restored]

"If you say you bake wedding cakes,  then do what you say. "
They didn't refuse service to them for being gay. They refused service because it was a same-sex marriage. They would have done the same thing if they were hetero men.
Why does the government need to force a Palestinian baker to make an Israeli flag cake? Why even be involved in such a thing?

[Jazzhead]

"If you say you bake wedding cakes,  then do what you say. "
They didn't refuse service to them for being gay. They refused service because it was a same-sex marriage. They would have done the same thing if they were hetero men.
Why does the government need to force a Palestinian baker to make an Israeli flag cake? Why even be involved in such a thing?

You misunderstand.   The government can't force a Jewish baker to make a Palestinian flag cake, or vice versa.   A subjectively offensive message can be rejected;  that has nothing to do with arbitrary discrimination.   Locally,  there was a kerfluffle with a cake maker refusing to produce a cake celebrating Adolph Hitler's birthday.   He was within his rights to do so. 

It both amazes and amuses me that this cake stuff is still ground zero in the culture wars.    And my response is still simple and the same - if you promise to provide a service, then do so.   No one forces anyone to offer wedding cakes to the general public.     

[mountaineer]

That makes no sense whatsoever. If a Muslim can refuse to bake a cake celebrating Israel, then a Christian can refuse to bake a cake celebrating a homosexual "marriage." And no, it's not "ground zero in the culture wars" it's just an example of how the government has attempted to force people to violate their beliefs. A baker is not "promising to provide a service" that violates his conscience. If your local baker was within his rights not to bake Hitler's birthday cake, then he equally is within his rights not to bake a "same sex marriage" cake or a cake celebrating pedophilia or anything else that violates his beliefs. You can't have it both ways.

[mountaineer]

Having said that, this thread isn't about cakes. It's about a potential candidate whose policies are antithetical to freedom.

[Restored]

I know something gayer than Mayor Pete

A man wearing a hijab

[Jazzhead]

If your local baker was within his rights not to bake Hitler's birthday cake, then he equally is within his rights not to bake a "same sex marriage" cake or a cake celebrating pedophilia or anything else that violates his beliefs. You can't have it both ways.

I understand we're never going to agree on this.   The distinction I'm trying to draw is between the cake itself, which the baker has advertised to provide, and the message on the cake, which the baker can refuse if he deems it offensive.

For example,  a baker of birthday cakes cannot refuse to bake birthday cakes for black customers,  but can refuse to bake a cake for a black customer that includes the inscription "Eat this, honky!"

Similarly,  a baker of wedding cakes cannot refuse to bake a wedding cake for a same sex wedding (because wedding cakes are what he's advertised to provide),  but can refuse to bake such a cake which includes the inscription "Celebrating our Saphho love". 

Yes, I know you see it differently,   but it's the baker's free choice to bake cakes for wedding.   He can always stop providing that service if he wishes.  What he can't do is selectively bake wedding cakes for white customers but not black customers or, as here, in Colorado at least, for straight customers but not gay ones.       

[QueenCatofAragon]

I understand we're never going to agree on this.   The distinction I'm trying to draw is between the cake itself, which the baker has advertised to provide, and the message on the cake, which the baker can refuse if he deems it offensive.

For example,  a baker of birthday cakes cannot refuse to bake birthday cakes for black customers,  but can refuse to bake a cake for a black customer that includes the inscription "Eat this, honky!"

Similarly,  a baker of wedding cakes cannot refuse to bake a wedding cake for a same sex wedding (because wedding cakes are what he's advertised to provide),  but can refuse to bake such a cake which includes the inscription "Celebrating our Saphho love". 

Yes, I know you see it differently,   but it's the baker's free choice to bake cakes for wedding.   He can always stop providing that service if he wishes.  What he can't do is selectively bake wedding cakes for white customers but not black customers or, as here, in Colorado at least, for straight customers but not gay ones.     

Two men or two women on top of the cake are no less a message than an inscription.