OK, Looks Like it is Time to Boycott Amazon

[Debora123]

But I might get lustful if I see You.

Oh no!

Because it’s totally something that happens accidentally, right?

 

[faithsmind]

Holy tangents, Batman.

I have a few of my own tangent arguments to add, then… What bothers me about the support of gay marriage is that certain people want to redefine the marriage laws for EVERYONE, when they are only thinking in their own terms. The thinking is that the definition is just being “expanded” so they can be included into it. But people don’t understand the ramifications of “expantion”. They aren’t expanding the definition, they are entirely changing it’s concept for everyone involved, therefore infringing on marriages that have already been formed according to the old definition. It affects everyone. Including small children. A legal marriage establishment, purely on a logical level, was for the purpose of safety and protection for the children involved. There are no children involved in a gay relationship. So this is more about wanting this type of relationship to be validated by society, wanting to feel socially accepted by society.

I say, it’s irresponsible and immature to blame everyone else for internal struggles of self-acceptance. It’s like demanding control over the ocean so that your boat won’t sink…

I’m wondering, is a large portion of my amazon purchases going directly to political funding which supports a cause that is an infringement of many people’s legal rights? If so, I do have a problem with that. If not, their statement is laughable.

 

[TracerBullet]

Holy tangents, Batman.

I have a few of my own tangent arguments to add, then… What bothers me about the support of gay marriage is that certain people want to redefine the marriage laws for EVERYONE, when they are only thinking in their own terms. The thinking is that the definition is just being “expanded” so they can be included into it. But people don’t understand the ramifications of “expantion”. They aren’t expanding the definition, they are entirely changing it’s concept for everyone involved, therefore infringing on marriages that have already been formed according to the old definition.

How exactly is my marriage “infringed on” by marriage equality? Can you provide some concrete examples?

It affects everyone. Including small children. A legal marriage establishment, purely on a logical level, was for the purpose of safety and protection for the children involved. There are no children involved in a gay relationship.

Then why do some many same gendered couples have children?

So this is more about wanting this type of relationship to be validated by society, wanting to feel socially accepted by society.

Strange, when you talk to same gendered couples they seem to want the legal protections and rights that marriage grants

I say, it’s irresponsible and immature to blame everyone else for internal struggles of self-acceptance. It’s like demanding control over the ocean so that your boat won’t sink…

I’m wondering, is a large portion of my amazon purchases going directly to political funding which supports a cause that is an infringement of many people’s legal rights? If so, I do have a problem with that. If not, their statement is laughable.

What rights of yours exactly are being infringed on?

 

[faithsmind]

SOmeone could argue that
they agreed the fight for establishment of homosexual marriage is purely about public acceptance of a private commitment. The very fact they are fighting for this public right means that it’s an external, public struggle for acceptance–not an internal struggle for self-acceptance, as was stated. My argument is… why do they feel such motivation simply to have that public validation, then?? I want public validation for being a Catholic every now and again, too. But do I get it? Ha! I don’t care. I LOVE the Eucharist.

So how does the revising of marriage laws infringe on the rights of those that have already contracted their marriage to the old definition?
This is what I say to this question: it’s like adding millions of gallons of salt to the ocean to make the homosexual marriage boat more floatable… fish end up on the shore.

Is it fair for me to expand the rules of a game because I am not physically inclined to all of them, i.e. the NBA is descriminative of 70-year-old women. It needs to change it’s rules so that 70-year-old women will be able to play. If they want to play with the ball and the hoop, they have the option. But people don’t have to if they don’t want to. We will still call it basketball, have it in the same gyms, wear the same uniforms, hire the same refs, have 5 on 5. But the ball is optional. Those teams who want to play without the ball can do so with eachother.

 

[faithsmind]

In response to my statement that a marriage contract was formed for the protection of young children that would be coming from the union,
TracerBullet said:

Then why do some many same gendered couples have children?

Many single mothers and fathers have children as well. Myself included. What’s your point, exactly?

In argument to my belief that same-gendered couples only seek marriage for public approval, TracerBullet argued this:

Strange, when you talk to same gendered couples they seem to want the legal protections and rights that marriage grants

The argument has been raised for a seperate legal contract granting those same rights to be developed, regardless of gender or relationship, but is seperate from the actual marriage contract between a man and a woman. This type of contract would be juuust fine with me. Same gendered couples refuse this type of additional contract. They simply want the wording “between a man and woman” to be changed in the original marriage contract. This tells me that it is not about marriage rights. It’s about social acceptance.

So, why do same-gendered couples feel such motivation simply to have that public validation, then?? I want public validation for being a Catholic every now and again, too. But do I get it? Ha! I don’t care if I have that public validation. I LOVE the Eucharist and will be dedicated to it for the rest of my life. I don’t need a legal piece of paper to verify that love.

So how does the revising of marriage laws infringe on the rights of those that have already contracted their marriage to the old definition?
This is what I say to this question: it’s like adding millions of gallons of salt to the ocean to make the homosexual marriage boat float… fish end up on the shore.

Is it fair for me to expand the rules of a game because I am not physically inclined to all of them, i.e. the NBA is descriminative of 70-year-old women. It needs to change it’s rules so that 70-year-old women will be able to play. If they want to play with the ball and the hoop, they have the option. But people don’t have to if they don’t want to. We will still call it basketball, have it in the same gyms, wear the same uniforms, hire the same refs, have 5 on 5. But the ball is optional. Those teams who want to play without the ball can do so with eachother.

 

[TracerBullet]

In response to my statement that a marriage contract was formed for the protection of young children that would be coming from the union,
TracerBullet said:

Many single mothers and fathers have children as well. Myself included. What’s your point, exactly?

You seem to be misrepresenting yourself. Odd.
What you said was:

It affects everyone. Including small children. A legal marriage establishment, purely on a logical level, was for the purpose of safety and protection for the children involved. There are no children involved in a gay relationship

.

If, as you say, ‘there are no children involved in gay relationships’…then why do so many same gendered couples have children?

In argument to my belief that same-gendered couples only seek marriage for public approval, TracerBullet argued this:

The argument has been raised for a seperate legal contract granting those same rights to be developed, regardless of gender or relationship, but is seperate from the actual marriage contract between a man and a woman. This type of contract would be juuust fine with me. Same gendered couples refuse this type of additional contract. They simply want the wording “between a man and woman” to be changed in the original marriage contract. This tells me that it is not about marriage rights. It’s about social acceptance.

You might want to check out what the Supreme Court had to say about ‘separate but equal’.

So how does the revising of marriage laws infringe on the rights of those that have already contracted their marriage to the old definition?
This is what I say to this question: it’s like adding millions of gallons of salt to the ocean to make the homosexual marriage boat float… fish end up on the shore.

Doesn’t answer the question.

So once again: What rights of yours exactly are being infringed upon?

 

[edwest2]

And at one time 41 of the 50 states had laws prohibiting interracial marriage. Equal protection under the law is not left to a popularity contest and rights and legal protections are not voted on.

On the one hand you have “nothing against gay people” on the other hand you have the marginalization of a minority. You can’t have it both ways.

That’s really a misrepresentation of the facts. The removal of homosexuality from the DSM by the American Psychiatric Association came after years of dialogue and debate. The deciding factor was simply that those trying to claim that homosexuality was a mental illness were unable to support their claim. Homosexuality does not meet even the basic criteria for mental illness.

Is not implying that homosexuality is a mental disorder and was only removed from the diagnostic manual because of a vote “orchestrated by gay activists” bullying?

You do realize that there are thousands of companies that are opposed to discrimination will you hunt them all down and refuse to patronize them all?

Isn’t this another example of bullying?

gay people don’t have families

This is not a civil rights issue:

jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby_gay_marriage.php3

Some gay people don’t believe in the institution of marriage:

nytimes.com/2003/08/31/world/now-free-to-marry-canada-s-gays-say-do-i.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Or monogamy:

nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html

And nobody, absolutely nobody, needs my permission or anybody else’s permission to live how they want. Who’s stopping you? Explain to me why this was even on the ballot anywhere? And right now, gay activists are going door to door to do exactly that - to get permission from total strangers to live how they want because it’s coming up for a vote again in some states.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Personanongrata]

A company’s position on homosexuality is not going to have an affect on wether or not I’m going.to purchase their service or product. If you do that, then you mught as well boycott Mc Donald’s JC Pennys, Nabisco, Wallgreens, Food Lion, Costco, Walmart, Sears, Abercrombie and Fitch, Pepsi, General Mills, GM, Ford, Intel, Google, Cisco, Sprint, Xerox, Yahoo!, Mariot, Mattel, Proctor and Gamble, and even… MICROSOFT!
But if you want… you can go ahead and live without those too!
If you need me, I will be eating a Mc Donalds fish fillet and drinking pepsi at my Intel computer while wearing my favorite Abercrombie and Fitch shirt.

 

[Personanongrata]

Things are getting awfully political around here. Frankly, it’s starting to scare me. Taking the prohomosexual stance makes their company appear compassionate, which bugs.

I’ve switched my coffee to Gevalia since I’m such a saint
We Americans have our boundaries, ha ha.

I think it’s good to stay informed as much as possible and fast for a period from certain companies as a form of prayer against this movement. It’s always good not to get too attached to all our creature comforts. We can wage war back, and turning it into prayer is a much more powerful form of attack than just using our pocket book.

That “Gevalia” guy creeps me out. That’s the only reason why I haven’t tried that coffee!
Off topic…

 

[edwest2]

So, therefore your logic is just to let everyone do what they want.
You might take that logic back after you saw Clinton practicing his right to wear a bikini. Where’s the editing software around here…

Ed! you are a forum master.

I realize it’s a Saturday night. Wow. I didn’t know it would come to this…

Thank you. But I’m not a Jedi yet )

Peace,
Ed

 

[Archedreamer]

The public frame… the mode… is always a problematic frame so it is not a decisive thing for any of the positions…> but Catholicism because of be an universal belief it is not a position. Secular positions are positions… something what lives today and dies tomorrow… that is the siglus.
I am just saying that the Sacred Heart of Christ which is our civitas will not enlight the other people if our heart is not bleeding… it is sad I know but the life of Christ it was very sad too … we must show today’s moralists that we are fairly proud of our idolum.

This is just an opinion - I am not any kind of master

 

[TracerBullet]

This is not a civil rights issue:

Yeah it is. Pretending otherwise does not make it so.

Under the Fourteenth Amendment, the government may not “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Laws against same-sex marriage violate this amendment just as laws prohibiting interracial marriage did. What’s more, these laws are most often explicitly written to “protect the sanctity of marriage.” If the government is in the business of protecting sanctity with this kind of legislation, then in what way is it not making laws respecting an establishment of religion, an activity expressly prohibited under the First Amendment?

Some gay people don’t believe in the institution of marriage:

Or monogamy:

Just like many straight people…again so what?

And nobody, absolutely nobody, needs my permission or anybody else’s permission to live how they want. Who’s stopping you?

Who says I’m being stopped in any way?

Explain to me why this was even on the ballot anywhere? And right now, gay activists are going door to door to do exactly that - to get permission from total strangers to live how they want because it’s coming up for a vote again in some states.

Asking for equality is not the same thing

But why should any minority have to ask for equality?

 

[CopticChristian]

And at one time 41 of the 50 states had laws prohibiting interracial marriage. Equal protection under the law is not left to a popularity contest and rights and legal protections are not voted on.

On the one hand you have “nothing against gay people” on the other hand you have the marginalization of a minority. You can’t have it both ways.

That’s really a misrepresentation of the facts. The removal of homosexuality from the DSM by the American Psychiatric Association came after years of dialogue and debate. The deciding factor was simply that those trying to claim that homosexuality was a mental illness were unable to support their claim. Homosexuality does not meet even the basic criteria for mental illness.
Is not implying that homosexuality is a mental disorder and was only removed from the diagnostic manual because of a vote “orchestrated by gay activists” bullying?

You do realize that there are thousands of companies that are opposed to discrimination will you hunt them all down and refuse to patronize them all?

Isn’t this another example of bullying?

gay people don’t have families

Tracer,

You worry me. I see you touting Homosexuals as a minority, comparing opposition to same sex marriage as tantamount to racial bias and now this. You are again wrong. It is tragic that you are spouting as if you know something when in fact you do not. Learn the reason for the removal of homosexuality of the DSM. Do not tell people that they are misrepresenting the facts when you don’t know the facts.

You strike me as someone not seeking understanding of the Faith, rather redifining an understanding in light of Faith and there is a difference. Study up before you present false information.

Alex Speigel is an NPR correspondant and her grandfather was one of the homosexual Psychiatrists.

thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/204/81-words

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) declared that homosexuality was not a disease simply by changing the 81-word definition of sexual deviance in its own reference manual. It was a change that attracted a lot of attention at the time, but the story of what led up to that change is one that we hear today, from reporter Alix Spiegel. Part one of Alix’s story details the activities of a closeted group of gay psychiatrists within the APA who met in secret and called themselves the GAYPA…and another, even more secret group of gay psychiatrists among the political echelons of the APA. Alix’s own grandfather was among these psychiatrists, and the president-elect of the APA at the time of the change.

 

[edwest2]

Yeah it is. Pretending otherwise does not make it so.

Under the Fourteenth Amendment, the government may not “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Laws against same-sex marriage violate this amendment just as laws prohibiting interracial marriage did. What’s more, these laws are most often explicitly written to “protect the sanctity of marriage.” If the government is in the business of protecting sanctity with this kind of legislation, then in what way is it not making laws respecting an establishment of religion, an activity expressly prohibited under the First Amendment?

Just like many straight people…again so what?

Who says I’m being stopped in any way?

Asking for equality is not the same thing

But why should any minority have to ask for equality?

You didn’t answer my question. Who’s stopping you from living how you want?

Second:

nytimes.com/2012/06/25/us/politics/second-time-around-hope-for-gay-marriage-in-maine.html

What’s the point? Do I need to go door to door to get permission from total strangers to live how I want?

Peace,
Ed

 

[pnewton]

Yeah it is. Pretending otherwise does not make it so.

Under the Fourteenth Amendment, the government may not “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Laws against same-sex marriage violate this amendment just as laws prohibiting interracial marriage did.

No, it does not, at least the Supreme Court has not yet ruled that it does. People who are homosexual have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as any one else. They can not marry the same sex (no one can), children, farm animals, themselves or an inanimate object.

I would rather say this is a Tenth Amendment issue and yet one more area that the federal government should not usurp.

That being said, I will not boycott Amazon. The funds used were not company funds but rather personal funds of the CEO. Even though he is the founder and the highest paid employee, I do not see the moral need to boycot based on this personal donation.

 

[faithsmind]

I will say that I don’t think its fair to change a legal contract after it has been signed by an adult. ANY type of contract. Especially one that is not infringing on the rights of those who have agreed to sign it. To do so would be an infringement of rights.
I understand that this specific marriage contract was formed to establish and ensure the safety and care of the new children that have been formed from this relationship, since this union has the capability to bring children into existence. Because of this natural tendancy, there is exclusivity of contract.

If a man and a man were someday able to develop the power to bring new people into existence, then a new contract would probably be developed for them as well, which would establish the safety and care of the new human being that has been formed from the relationship.

I will continue to use amazon, but will fast today, even from Gevalia. And not simply because the Gevalia guy looks wierd.

I ask others who are reading this thread to do so as well;
Let us pray for the strengthening of all marriages, that all children may feel the loving arms of a father and a mother around them.
I also want to pray for all those who are on the fringes of society… may they come to know and be valued for their equal worth and dignity, since all were created equally in the image of our loving Father.

Amen!

 

[edwest2]

I will say that I don’t think its fair to change a legal contract after it has been signed by an adult. ANY type of contract. Especially one that is not infringing on the rights of those who have agreed to sign it. To do so would be an infringement of rights.
I understand that this specific marriage contract was formed to establish and ensure the safety and care of the new children that have been formed from this relationship, since this union has the capability to bring children into existence. Because of this natural tendancy, there is exclusivity of contract.

If a man and a man were someday able to develop the power to bring new people into existence, then a new contract would probably be developed for them as well, which would establish the safety and care of the new human being that has been formed from the relationship.

I will continue to use amazon, but will fast today, even from Gevalia. And not simply because the Gevalia guy looks wierd.

I ask others who are reading this thread to do so as well;
Let us pray for the strengthening of all marriages, that all children may feel the loving arms of a father and a mother around them.
I also want to pray for all those who are on the fringes of society… may they come to know and be valued for their equal worth and dignity, since all were created equally in the image of our loving Father.

Amen!

I would ask my fellow Catholics to look at Church teaching on this subject.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

We all have equal worth and dignity, but limits are established regarding what we can and cannot do by right reason, secular (by the people) authority and Divine Revelation. To put same-sex marriage to a public vote has never been explained here.

Peace,
Ed

 

[utah_rose]

I am boycotting Amazon, although it may make no difference to them, I intend to take a stand. In a previous thread, I suggested contributing to NOM instead or the Church. I know it will take a lot of sacrifice on my part, but I also make it a point not to shop at J.C. Penneys or Target. Although I don’t care for Wal Mart that much, will go there to do some shopping and also patronize our local stores. It may not mean a thing for Amazon earnings, but if enough people took a stand and let them know it might make a difference.

We are fighting a spiritual battle here-----I am praying for the other brick and mortar stores not to fall in the same direction.

 

[faithsmind]

I would ask my fellow Catholics to look at Church teaching on this subject.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

We all have equal worth and dignity, but limits are established regarding what we can and cannot do by right reason, secular (by the people) authority and Divine Revelation. To put same-sex marriage to a public vote has never been explained here.

OK thank you

 

[TheDoors]

Well…it’s only two, but I guess it’s a start.

ebay.com/itm/Yohana-Island-1223-acres-Chile-/251119620623?pt=Land&hash=item3a77e5520f