Jump to content


Advanced Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

152 Excellent

About Cajunluvie

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    I am interested in God's Word.

    History, Literature, Quilting, Culinary interests, Dabble in watercolor art
  1. The gender identity issue has been co-opted into the feminism movement since the mid 1970's. There was a novel "X" back in late 70's if I recall correctly....dealing with just this issue. There are some parents actively doing this with their kids to the point their kids really believe that stuff and can't understand why schools, institutions, stores all have genderized bathrooms (for a good reason we need separate facilities!). Unless we get the complete truth of why boys and girls are "cross" dressing and going to bathrooms reserved for opposite sex at a very young age, you won't hear this part of the story in the news. I took Women's Studies course which had Gender studies included in the course curriculum. I learned a lot even though I disagreed with 1/2 of everything taught in the class. Forunately, my professor was not a strigent feminist. She allowed all of us to retain our religious or moral view in discussions. I think she did get why a lot of students did not jump on the "X" bandwagon when the media started reporting on a couple raising their boys as "girls" with long hair and long dresses. It was intentional on the parents' part and I think that couple also did not have gendered names for the kids. Nearly meaningless names, IMO. This is only the "fulfillment" of what has been in the works since the 60's-70's. Not a new idea.
  2. I saw the video clip. Cahn pulled no punches... even went after the apostate ministers... betcha there were some squirming in their seats. I noticed few got up and walked out in the clip. I'm in the process of reading the book. We need more like Cahn speaking out loudly. How many ministers have spoken up at the "prestigious" Presidential Inauguration Prayer Breakfast.... like he did- exhorting repentance, revival, prayer, obeying God etc... for a minute watching the clip-felt like I was listening to a prophet of old sounding the alarm.
  3. woe to those who call good evil and evil good.... thanking God for destroying babies because the majority doesn't want to bear the consquences of their actions....
  4. Well said. I myself have taken a feminist course that included gay/ lesbian issues when I thought it was only mainly a study regarding women then to find out it encompassed much more. The professor asked me to take it since I was a former student of hers in other courses. It was interesting but I made my view known on some issues only to find out other students also expressed doubt especially on gender identification and abortion issues. It was almost being behind the enemy line and I could see how the trend would go in spite of some people's refusal to see the writing on the wall. It would only be "contained". Not so. As long as humans see the line being moved, they will find a way to push the line further where THEY demand it to be. I noticed that literature and media is usually one of the early tools to introduce a concept before a legislation or ruling becomes reality. Just a side observation I've picked up on.
  5. this last part may be true, but that has no impact on the debate of same sex marriage. Each argument will have to be taken on it's own merit. If you would recall, I never said it had any impact on the debate of same sex marriage in my original post. I am saying the RESULT may LEAD to it regardless of "each argument will have to be taken on its own merit". That is not the POINT whether there is merit to it or not. The POINT IS: we will have to recognize the fact that claiming same sex marriages is a special dispensed right will LEAD to other groups CLAIMING they in turn do so regardless of merit or not.
  6. I didnt realize that Ghanian was a race, but I do seem to be getting what you are saying. but it does confuse me at to your point in the post about interacial marriage. I am not sure now what you were getting at. What do you call interracial then? Ghana is a West African country. I said Caucasian because my ancestors from European countries and I dont feel like listing them all. Bascially, she is white and black. My point is the laws were changed regarding miscegnation. People had different definition on what or how equality should be recognized legally.
  7. Fyi, I had to go off the laptop to fix dinner so now I'm only using my phone so I wont be going into detailed, torturous commentary after commentary to deal with each point. I think you are making my case for me in regards to changing the laws. Sorry, there are marriages that are not fully consentual in the U.S. Someone else like family relative does the arranging of future spouse or religious leader does it for you. Yes, there are some laws regarding consent but your point was incomplete in claiming animals and children cant consent therefore that sort of invalidated my comments? No, it didnt. If one demands constitutional right wheras the Constitution is silent on such topic then an argument must be found elsewhere depending on the angle of the legal argument. Gays have the same basic rights. They can marry the other sex because the traditional understanding of recognized marriage institution is between men and women. In order to say they are discriminated, they need to change the principle. Consent is not the point for anything. If they want to change the status quo or anyone in favor for it then sexual preference is very a subjective basis to rest a legal argument for constitional right. We go full circle back to what I said originally if one was able to get the implication is it will become harder to not deny others when their turn comes up.
  8. I I cannot tell from this post if you are for or against Interracial marriage. based on your view of Same-sex marriage it seems you are also against Interracial marriage. is that correct? I havent given my personal view on either topic in this thread but because you asked.... My daughter is biracial...as in Caucasian and Ghanian. That should clear it up for you.
  9. In other words, you didnt or cannot refute anything that I had said that was inaccurate. You admit you didnt like them because they were weak. You brought up the issue of consent. You brought up animals and minors cant consent. Your own rebuttals were weak. I just spun it around to instances that have already occurred because you argued for the sake of consent to show your own objection was rather shortsighted and may I say weak. It doesnt matter where the incident occurred, the fact is marriage doesnt mean a consent is required to recognize it. Basically, you havent proven to me in a compelling manner what I said was inaccurate or why none of what I said couldnt legally be addressed.
  10. no, I got your point, they just were a weak argument. I do not care how people in other countries do things or how they "used" to be here. We are talking about the here and now. The here and now laws require consent. Try and stay focused on the here and now. There is nowhere in the Constitution that speaks of marriage at all, but there is a part that speaks of fair and equal treatment. There is no such thing as "cannot not". That is just silly and not worthy of discussion. As for what unbalanced people have done, that is the same as talking about laws form other counties....basically who cares. yes, different states have different laws, but they all have an age limit... I dont like your points (edited by me) because they dont make sense. Each argument that you listed above has to be taken on their own merit. You cannot say that just because we changed something for one reason we have to change it for others. Each change has to be taken on its own merit and it not tied to other changes. There is no constitutional right to marry at all. But there is a constitutional right to fair and equal treatment and once the government chooses to give benefits to married couples there is a constitutional requirement that if they are going to deny those same benefits to couples they need a compelling reason why
  11. There are some people who scoff at these things as arguments of futility but at one time... Gay marriage was one of them. Unthinkable until some bold people started pushing for it and others infilirated other areas of society to make it more palatable and accepting to the point. Interracial marriage was a no-no at one time and not under legal protection. Both the North and South balked at the thought of miscegnation. Some feminist abolitionists approved of ending slavery but refused to recognize interracial marriages. Separate but equal. Sound familiar? Few supported the mixing of races through marital relationships and families... pushing the racial barrier to its collapse. It only took what how many decades before that issue came up before in court? And we're talking only several decades ago. We are now just coming to grips that it is now becoming the norm.
  12. not really accurate. If the Govt has a compelling reason to deny rights to someone then they can. Felons being allowed to vote or own fire arms is an example. Marriage also requires consent. Neither animals nor minors can give legal consent. the argument against polygamy is much weaker in my opinion and I do think that it will be the next thing to get approval. It is accurate. You miss the point of my two posts. I don't think you understand what I am saying because what I am driving at is using your own argument that there is no constitional argument against homosexual marriage. You keep telling people in this thread that there is no constititional argument against gay marriage. You may or may not have directly stated it in stark terms but that is the gist of what you are striving at. Marriage doesn't necessarily necissate consent. Marriage takes place elsewhere in the world with or without consent of one of the two parties. There is no where in the Constition that states marriage is a right or an institution that requires a consentual decision. It didn't always function that way even in the U.S. a century ago. Society was much more so a patriarchy than it is nowadays. Animals cannot NOT consent to marriage. There have been instances where unbalanced people went abroad to have a "ceremony" done to be "married" to a snake or to a dolphin. We cannot legally prove either way animals can or cannot consent to marriage so that argument underwhelms me. Minors.. heh.... sure yes they can be married. Minors are children, the last time I checked. In some states, the legal age of marital consent is 16. Parents can threaten to have the man or boy jailed if the boy is 18 for statutory rape even if the girl is 16 but at the same time she is also at a legal age to consent to run off and get married. I believe some require parental permission for a minor to get married. Yes, children can be married off all it requires is people bold enough to lobby for lowering the age of consent even further. Girls hit puberty earlier and earlier nowadays. You may NOT like the points but they CAN be used down the road in the future as a benchmark to start someone's agenda to see these things a legal reality.
  13. You know what.... I just was thinking on this few minutes ago about some people who had huge issues with the Mormons and plural marriages but they had no problems with gay marriages or don't care either way : That could have been a good comeback during the election: constitutional right of marriage for all regardless of sexual preference, age, gender identification (transgenderism etc), multiple spouses, bestiality, and child marriages. Uhhh... umm... hold on people... let's not get crazy just yet..... (uh huh) If gay marriage is deemed a constitutional right then don't be surprised if this opens a floodgate for other groups to vociferously claim their due right also. Be ready to sign that letter of apology to the Mormons for the prejudicial treatment to certain groups of LDS who practice polgamy still.
  14. Well... there is one other option..... Shotgun weddings... Did that go out of style? I'm surprised the GOP didn't advocate this for the abortion/welfare/single moms- reduce the spending on welfare and food stamps.... (sarc) Before anyone flame me- I'm a single mom, ok. It only took once to learn a lesson. Many don't learn it again and again and again. Just how young are we willing to go far enough to peddle abortifacients to? 10? 12? 8?
  15. Oh please! Give me a break! I've been following this and it insults my intelligence.
  • Create New...