Indiana governor declares Pride month ‘nuclear family month

Say it aint so · Wednesday at 11:04 AM

Dublin.Rules.89 said:
Indiana governor declares Pride month 'nuclear family month' • Indiana Capital Chronicle

Braun declared that "God's design" for the family includes one husband, one wife and any children.

indianacapitalchronicle.com

I do not care about pride month, or black history month...or any month that celebrates a race, gender, or sexual orientation. Even Morgan Freeman a black man thought black history mounth was stupid. But as for Nuclear Family Month...if there can be a Black, Asian, LGBTQ...month...then there can be a White month, hetrosexual month or Nuclear Family Month, and if LGBTQ, or any race or gender has a problem with this, then they are bigots.

What Morgan Freeman means is Black history is American history. The same history people like the Gov of Indiana's party is right now doing everything they can to whitewash if not out and out remove it from history. Wouldn't take a rocket scientistist to understand how Freeman may feel now. So kind of like your post where the family is all encompassing, so is history. Or at least it's suppose to be. I agree with Morgan if only things that are recognized in America like all Americans, specially the marginalized, were not ostracized and recognized as being part of America. Warts and all.

Jerry N. · Wednesday at 11:11 AM

Stopped_lurking said:
So was there a resolution against heterosexual ideology or not?

With few exceptions, heterosexual ideology has been the norm for longer than there has been governments.

Stopped_lurking said:
So does it include extra steps not required of heterosexual couples when they get married or not? Let me ask, do you believe that the state should not recognize any marriage by a religious institution? And thus require the extra steps to be performed by everyone regardless of who gets married? This would be like the french model, it discriminates against no one.

I don't know about where you live, but a marriage license is usually issued by the state. The fact that the Polish government doesn't use the word "marriage" is not important. The sacrament of marriage is reserved for the churches.

Stopped_lurking said:
Whether or not you think LGBTQ people should be discriminated against, I hope you can see why it is seen as important for LGBTQ people that pride is being celebrated as there are forces that happily discriminate against LGBTQ.

I don't think you know what real discrimination is.

Stopped_lurking said:
Your position is not true for all christians and jews, I'm not even certain it true for all conservative christians and jews unless you put it in the definition of conservative.

I know, but anyone who believes that the Torah is the word of God thinks that homosexual relations come under the law against adultery.
I'm finished here, unless somebody else wants a real discussion.

Say it aint so · Wednesday at 11:17 AM

Jerry N. said:
You have every right to disagree with Christian and Jewish conservative beliefs, but we can’t have a proper discussion without common ground.

Interesting. What does one mean here? The fact that "conservative" has to be used as a qualifier kind of realizes there is no common ground today with both faiths.

Jerry N. · Wednesday at 11:22 AM

Say it aint so said:
Interesting. What does one mean here? The fact that "conservative" has to be used as a qualifier kind of realizes there is no common ground today with both faiths.

See #82.

Say it aint so · Wednesday at 11:31 AM

Jerry N. said:
See #82.

Yes. The poster at 80, who you respond to, pretty much said the same thing I said. There is no common ground given homosexuality among those faiths. There is certainly no common ground with Orthodox Judaism today. It's why I asked what you meant.

Stopped_lurking · Wednesday at 11:32 AM

Jerry N. said:
With few exceptions, heterosexual ideology has been the norm for longer than there has been governments.

So what? Was there a resolution against heterosexual ideology or not?

Jerry N. said:
I don't know about where you live, but a marriage license is usually issued by the state. The fact that the Polish government doesn't use the word "marriage" is not important. The sacrament of marriage is reserved for the churches.

Does it require extra steps for same-sex couples to be married in Poland to get the same legal recognition as cross-sex couples or not? Why won't you just answer the question? From what I can read the polish state does not recognize same-sex unions either. Do they offer the same recognitions to same-sex couples with just a marriage from a church that recognizes same-sex marriages within Poland?

Jerry N. said:
I don't think you know what real discrimination is.

What kind of statement is this? Why do you think you know more about discrimination than me? You haven't shown anything to allude to your superior discrimination detection ability.

Jerry N. said:
I know, but anyone who believes that the Torah is the word of God thinks that homosexual relations come under the law against adultery.
I'm finished here, unless somebody else wants a real discussion.

You are the one avoiding discussion. Do you mean to imply that I don't want a real discussion? Because that is one possible interpretation of your statement, just to be clear I want a real discussion.

Jerry N. · Wednesday at 11:36 AM

Say it aint so said:
Yes. The poster at 80, who you respond to, pretty much said the same thing I said. There is no common ground given homosexuality among those faiths. There is certainly no common ground with Orthodox Judaism today. It's why I asked what you meant.

Sex outside of marriage is a sin in both faiths.

Jerry N. · Wednesday at 11:54 AM

Stopped_lurking said:
So what? Was there a resolution against heterosexual ideology or not?

Check for yourself.

Stopped_lurking said:
Does it require extra steps for same-sex couples to be married in Poland to get the same legal recognition as cross-sex couples or not? Why won't you just answer the question? From what I can read the polish state does not recognize same-sex unions either. Do they offer the same recognitions to same-sex couples with just a marriage from a church that recognizes same-sex marriages within Poland?

Actually, it is the normal marriage in the church that requires two steps--the church and the government.

Stopped_lurking said:
What kind of statement is this? Why do you think you know more about discrimination than me? You haven't shown anything to allude to your superior discrimination detection ability.

Sorry, maybe you do know, but your statements indicate that you have a very limited definition of discrimination.

Stopped_lurking said:
You are the one avoiding discussion. Do you mean to imply that I don't want a real discussion? Because that is one possible interpretation of your statement, just to be clear I want a real discussion.

What do we agree on that can be the foundation of a discussion?

Say it aint so · Wednesday at 12:16 PM

Jerry N. said:
Sex outside of marriage is a sin in both faiths.

Does the OT allow for sex outside of marriage?
Yes, in certain respects it does.
Marriage in that era is predicated on culture norms.
Those norms evolve.
Just like they still do.
And why it has evolved in both Judaism and Christianity.

Stopped_lurking · Wednesday at 12:16 PM

Jerry N. said:
Check for yourself.

No there wasn't.

Jerry N. said:
Actually, it is the normal marriage in the church that requires two steps--the church and the government.

So is the second step the same for same-sex couples? In Poland a concordat marriage is extended to marriages in churches making it a one-step process (explicitly the catholic church but by custom also other faiths), is it not? If a church offered to perform same-sex marriages would that be a concordant marriage (from what I can see, no)?

Does it give the same recognitions from government for a same-sex marriage?

Jerry N. said:
Sorry, maybe you do know, but your statements indicate that you have a very limited definition of discrimination.

What? If one group is privileged in relation to another group, without explicit justification that is discrimination. Please give me your view of discrimination.

Jerry N. said:
What do we agree on that can be the foundation of a discussion?

For example, no one should be discriminated against without explicit justification? How about, the state should not be the arbiter of who's marriage is valid or not? Or LGBTQ teens have a right to a sex education that caters to their needs?

Jerry N. · Wednesday at 12:39 PM

Stopped_lurking said:
No there wasn't.

So is the second step the same for same-sex couples? In Poland a concordat marriage is extended to marriages in churches making it a one-step process (explicitly the catholic church but by custom also other faiths), is it not? If a church offered to perform same-sex marriages would that be a concordant marriage (from what I can see, no)?

Does it give the same recognitions from government for a same-sex marriage?

What? If one group is privileged in relation to another group, without explicit justification that is discrimination. Please give me your view of discrimination.

For example, no one should be discriminated against without explicit justification? How about, the state should not be the arbiter of who's marriage is valid or not? Or LGBTQ teens have a right to a sex education that caters to their needs?

First of all, if you have a problem with the Roman Church, take it up with a believing Catholic. The relationship between the Roman Church and Polish government is not something I feel I’m qualified to address beyond the surface. Secondly, it is the homosexual community looking for privilege. They want their lifestyles to be taught to children. In a democracy, the minority should not dominate the majority, nor should the majority oppress the minority, but that doesn’t mean that the majority should give in to all of the demands of the minority. Joke: There was a teacher who was asked to teach sex education, he asked, “What do I teach on the second day?” LGBTQ sex education is indoctrination.

Stopped_lurking · Wednesday at 12:55 PM

Jerry N. said:
First of all, if you have a problem with the Roman Church, take it up with a believing Catholic. The relationship between the Roman Church and Polish government is not something I feel I’m qualified to address beyond the surface. Secondly, it is the homosexual community looking for privilege. They want their lifestyles to be taught to children. In a democracy, the minority should not dominate the majority, nor should the majority oppress the minority, but that doesn’t mean that the majority should give in to all of the demands of the minority. Joke: There was a teacher who was asked to teach sex education, he asked, “What do I teach on the second day?” LGBTQ sex education is indoctrination.

I don't have a problem with the catholic church at all. I only mentioned them since concordat marriage seems to be sprung from agreement between the polish state and the catholic church. To my understanding other faith groups have by custom been treated in a similar vein to the catholic church with regards to marriage of heterosexual couples, that being a one-step process in the eyes of the polish state. So if a same-sex couple gets married in a church, would the process be the same?

I'm completely for that churches decide who they want to wed.

If the marriage process favors heterosexual couples, then it is them that are privileged. Not the other way around.

If sex ed is available for straight teens, it should be available for LGBTQ teens. It doesn't hurt LGBTQ teens to sit through sex ed for straight teens nor does it hurt straight teens to sit through LGBTQ sex ed. So the answer to your joke is more sex ed. Or get a better teacher.

RocksInMyHead · Wednesday at 12:56 PM

Jerry N. said:
Secondly, it is the homosexual community looking for privilege. They want their lifestyles to be taught to children.

If heterosexual "lifestyles" are taught to children, why would teaching the homosexual equivalent be considered "privilege"? Teaching about the existence of something that does, in fact, exist is not indoctrination. It's education.

Jerry N. · Wednesday at 1:13 PM

RocksInMyHead said:
If heterosexual "lifestyles" are taught to children, why would teaching the homosexual equivalent be considered "privilege"? Teaching about the existence of something that does, in fact, exist is not indoctrination. It's education.

Personally, I think sex education is a waste of time except biology and the psychological impacts. My father had a farm, so when he asked me if I had questions about “the birds and bees,” I didn’t have much to ask. However, when it comes to love and marriage, I still have questions he could not answer. Sex education is greatly over rated. What value does it really have? Do we really need to be taught diverse sexual practices?

Desk trauma · Wednesday at 1:21 PM

Jerry N. said:
What value does it really have?

Fewer unwanted pregnancies, lower STI rates, children with better understanding of their bodies and sexuality.

Jerry N. said:
Do we really need to be taught diverse sexual practices?

Yes.

Nithavela · Wednesday at 1:32 PM

Jerry N. said:
Personally, I think sex education is a waste of time except biology and the psychological impacts. My father had a farm, so when he asked me if I had questions about “the birds and bees,” I didn’t have much to ask. However, when it comes to love and marriage, I still have questions he could not answer. Sex education is greatly over rated. What value does it really have? Do we really need to be taught diverse sexual practices?

When I was in school, sex ed focused on contraception, healthy sexual expression (including masturbation), the value of being able to say no if you don't give consent, as well as relationships and the nitty gritty of anatomy.

Don't know how it was for you guys.

Stopped_lurking · Wednesday at 1:37 PM

Nithavela said:
When I was in school, sex ed focused on contraception, healthy sexual expression (including masturbation), the value of being able to say no if you don't give consent, as well as relationships and the nitty gritty of anatomy.

Don't know how it was for you guys.

The same, but I would add STIs and pregnancies and just getting a description of the width of human attraction. I'm too old for there to have been much identity discussion, but I would highly appreciated it if it had been given to me (even if it had been put in some other subject).

Nithavela · Wednesday at 1:50 PM

Stopped_lurking said:
The same, but I would add STIs and pregnancies and just getting a description of the width of human attraction. I'm too old for there to have been much identity discussion, but I would highly appreciated it if it had been given to me (even if it had been put in some other subject).

Oh yeah, that too. It definetely was too much to cover in one day.

Jerry N. · Thursday at 1:20 AM

Nithavela said:
When I was in school, sex ed focused on contraception, healthy sexual expression (including masturbation), the value of being able to say no if you don't give consent, as well as relationships and the nitty gritty of anatomy.

Don't know how it was for you guys.

The same, but without masturbation.

DaisyDay · Thursday at 8:58 AM

Nithavela said:
When I was in school, sex ed focused on contraception, healthy sexual expression (including masturbation), the value of being able to say no if you don't give consent, as well as relationships and the nitty gritty of anatomy.

Don't know how it was for you guys.

When I was in school, sex education in elementary school was about, separately for girls, menstruation. I have no idea what the boys were taught. The physical differences between girls and boys were explained by line illustrations of internal parts and cross sections - we were not taught what anything actually looked like. The [ladies' main pleasure button] was never, ever mentioned and, apparently, not to be named here either.

In high school, sex education was mostly what bacteria and viruses caused which diseases with very brief, vague descriptions of what the effects are. Birth control was discussed with failure rates emphasized. Consent was not discussed - whatever happened was your own fault with non-virginity being read as auto-consent and virginity as non-consent (for girls, boys were presumed to be always consenting). Male rape was never discussed as it was just too shameful.

Our Surgeon General, Joyce Elders, was forced to resign for saying that masturbation was a suitable sexual release and a good alternative to sexual intercourse.

This was the 70s.

Indiana governor declares Pride month ‘nuclear family month

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

Well-Known Member

[redacted]

you're in charge you can do it just get louis

Well-Known Member

you're in charge you can do it just get louis

Well-Known Member

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

Similar threads