• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Gay pride???

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Not sure what the problem is? OCDO is a Google site, and Google ads will appear on the site. Is it the gay pride part that is offensive or that it is a ad using Gay Pride for advertising? Could you clear that up?

BTW most of the ads appear because of cookies of where you have been visiting~~Very interesting...
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
If you don't like the gay ad, just click on it a buncha times so they have to pay.

But that will make more ads like it show up. What people don't get when they complain of these ads they are showing up because of their history in cookies. We do not all see the same ads, except maybe for gun related ads, BECAUSE? We are loging into a gun site when we log into OCDO.

For advertising to be profitable it has to be directed towards those who have shown a interest.
 

arentol

New member
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
383
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
If you are seeing those ads it it's because someone used your PC to look at websites or products that indicated a potential interest in that subject.

That being said, wtf is your problem with gay pride?


Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind

MSG Laigaie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
3,239
Location
Philipsburg, Montana
My local group, Washington Open Carry, Whatcom County Chapter, was invited to set up an info table at this years Gay Pride Festival in B'ham . Talk about a viable audience, they have always been targets.
 

kdt1970

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
122
Location
Grantsville, Utah, USA
I agree it is really sick...I just don't understand why it is ok for that type of crap, but as soon as you see something for traditional marriage or being straight. All of a sudden your a discriminatory racists.
 

SFCRetired

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
1,764
Location
Montgomery, Alabama, USA
I agree it is really sick...I just don't understand why it is ok for that type of crap, but as soon as you see something for traditional marriage or being straight. All of a sudden your a discriminatory racists.

I said this before in another thread, but it bears repeating:

There are two aspects to what we call "marriage";

1. A religious ceremony in which the government has no business interfering and
2. A civil contract between two legal adults in which religion has no business interfering.

None of those who scream about "traditional marriage" care to look at the fact that, for many years, the government did not interfere with the religious ceremony, not even to the extent of requiring a license. If a church, or other religious body chooses not to perform the ceremony for a same-sex couple, that is within their jurisdiction.

On the other side of the coin, the government cannot sanction, by issuing a license, a civil contract for one group of people and, for religious reasons, completely exclude another group.

And, yes, one aspect of what we call marriage is definitely a civil contract. Why do you think it takes a court of law to dissolve that contract?

One other point: We here on OCDO stand in support of the right of all men and women to bear arms in self defense. That is a civil right which some call a "God-given" and others call a "natural" right. It is still a right. It is just as much a right of two legal adults to be issued a license to enter into a legal contract.

Last comment: We may not like homosexuals or homosexuality; our particular religious beliefs may condemn it heartily; and we may choose not to associate with those individuals engaged in such activities. But we may not infringe on their rights, and unless we are hypocrites, we should legally do whatever is necessary to keep our government agencies from infringing on their rights.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
OP: clear your cookies and don't browse gay-related sites any more, & you probably won't see more ads like that. I've never seen anything but gun-related ads. (Well, there is one recurring ad something about a book...)

kdt1970 said:
it is really sick... that type of crap
You're not around here much, so please remember to re-read the forum rules when you drop in, as they do occasionally change. There's a link in the narrow tan banner just above the start of the thread. (Also linked here.)

Rule #6
NO PERSONAL ATTACKS:
While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks or general bashing of groups of people based upon race, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender-identity or choice of occupation (e.g., being a law enforcement officer, in the military, etc). NOTE THAT THIS RULE APPLIES TO PMs AS WELL AS FORUM POSTS!!!
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I said this before in another thread, but it bears repeating:

There are two aspects to what we call "marriage";

1. A religious ceremony in which the government has no business interfering and
2. A civil contract between two legal adults in which religion has no business interfering.

None of those who scream about "traditional marriage" care to look at the fact that, for many years, the government did not interfere with the religious ceremony, not even to the extent of requiring a license. If a church, or other religious body chooses not to perform the ceremony for a same-sex couple, that is within their jurisdiction.

On the other side of the coin, the government cannot sanction, by issuing a license, a civil contract for one group of people and, for religious reasons, completely exclude another group.

And, yes, one aspect of what we call marriage is definitely a civil contract. Why do you think it takes a court of law to dissolve that contract?

One other point: We here on OCDO stand in support of the right of all men and women to bear arms in self defense. That is a civil right which some call a "God-given" and others call a "natural" right. It is still a right. It is just as much a right of two legal adults to be issued a license to enter into a legal contract.

Last comment: We may not like homosexuals or homosexuality; our particular religious beliefs may condemn it heartily; and we may choose not to associate with those individuals engaged in such activities.But we may not infringe on their rights, and unless we are hypocrites, we should legally do whatever is necessary to keep our government agencies from infringing on their rights.

+1

Instead of saying we may not infringe on their rights, I would argue that we should not tolerate or pretend to authorize government to infringe on their rights. Its a pet-peeve of mine. We are not the government and government is not us. Government in this country long ago stopped representing the people.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Marriage has always been (at least until recently) a union between one man and one woman. All unmarried adults have had the right to enter into that union. There never has been discrimination against homosexuals. They have always been free to enter into such a union. Many have.

If some want the state to recognize other unions, they merely need to define those unions and get the state to recognize them, whether they be between two men, two women, three men and a goat, or whatever.

What I find unacceptable is that this is some kind of "rights" issue. The more we cloud real rights issues with these silly privilege issues, the easier we make it for the government to ignore the fact that they are usurping our rights while they make a big show of allowing us more privileges and claiming that they fighting for our rights.
_______________________

On the ads: All I get are gun-related ads. Am I doing something wrong?

Oh, and I would not assume that the OP is getting the "gay rights" crap (and I do mean, "crap") because he is visiting homosexual sites. This site has enough discussions on the "gay rights" crap to cause context-sensitive ads on that subject to come up.
 

kdt1970

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
122
Location
Grantsville, Utah, USA
OP: clear your cookies and don't browse gay-related sites any more, & you probably won't see more ads like that. I've never seen anything but gun-related ads. (Well, there is one recurring ad something about a book...)


You're not around here much, so please remember to re-read the forum rules when you drop in, as they do occasionally change. There's a link in the narrow tan banner just above the start of the thread. (Also linked here.)

Rule #6
NO PERSONAL ATTACKS:
While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks or general bashing of groups of people based upon race, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender-identity or choice of occupation (e.g., being a law enforcement officer, in the military, etc). NOTE THAT THIS RULE APPLIES TO PMs AS WELL AS FORUM POSTS!!!

I don't see them in my internet usage. I was mearly agreeing with the OP.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
Marriage has always been (at least until recently) a union between one man and one woman.

Other than thousands of years of polygamy, you mean?

Marriage isn't even a traditional church matter, except for recent history. The first time marriage became an official church matter was in 1562, with the 24th session of the Council of Trent, where a canon was adopted that said marriage would only be official if performed in the church by an ordained priest.

The reason? To stop the offensive and "sinful" practice of marrying Protestants.

In the Protestant world, the pre-Trent standard continued. In pioneer America, months or years would pass before a marriage was sanctioned in church, if it ever was; there were often several children in attendance. These common-law marriages were just as valid in the eyes of government and church as they were in society.

And then, a new form of offensive marriage cropped up: interracial marriage. Anti-miscegenation laws combined with anti-cohabitation laws to create a ban on even common-law marriages between the races. This legal restriction didn't end until SCOTUS stopped it with Loving v. Virginia in 1967.

Just like gun control, government marriage licenses in America have racist roots.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Other than thousands of years of polygamy, you mean?

Marriage isn't even a traditional church matter, except for recent history. The first time marriage became an official church matter was in 1562, with the 24th session of the Council of Trent, where a canon was adopted that said marriage would only be official if performed in the church by an ordained priest.

The reason? To stop the offensive and "sinful" practice of marrying Protestants.

In the Protestant world, the pre-Trent standard continued. In pioneer America, months or years would pass before a marriage was sanctioned in church, if it ever was; there were often several children in attendance. These common-law marriages were just as valid in the eyes of government and church as they were in society.

And then, a new form of offensive marriage cropped up: interracial marriage. Anti-miscegenation laws combined with anti-cohabitation laws to create a ban on even common-law marriages between the races. This legal restriction didn't end until SCOTUS stopped it with Loving v. Virginia in 1967.

Just like gun control, government marriage licenses in America have racist roots.

This is the kind of post that makes me look forward to reading OCDO each day.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Other than thousands of years of polygamy, you mean?...

If you choose to ignore the context of our current culture and the cultures it immediately sprung from...

I knew someone would pick that particular nit rather than deal with the substance. Thanks for proving my hunch right.

Care to deal with the substance of the post, or just nibble around the edges?
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Welcome to the Internet, where ads appear based on your browsing history.

Maybe if you weren't obsessed with gays and reading stories about them, you wouldn't be seeing such ads.

Yup.

I promise you, those of us who don't give a damn what anybody else gets into (so long as it's not aggressive) don't find ourselves seeing ads for others' lifestyles. Why? Because we're too busy browsing for stuff related to our own lifestyles – the ads I see are gun stuff and electronics. ;) It's ironic, too, because we would be the least offended were we to actually such ads relevant to others.
 
Last edited:

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Other than thousands of years of polygamy, you mean?

Marriage isn't even a traditional church matter, except for recent history. The first time marriage became an official church matter was in 1562, with the 24th session of the Council of Trent, where a canon was adopted that said marriage would only be official if performed in the church by an ordained priest.

The reason? To stop the offensive and "sinful" practice of marrying Protestants.

In the Protestant world, the pre-Trent standard continued. In pioneer America, months or years would pass before a marriage was sanctioned in church, if it ever was; there were often several children in attendance. These common-law marriages were just as valid in the eyes of government and church as they were in society.

And then, a new form of offensive marriage cropped up: interracial marriage. Anti-miscegenation laws combined with anti-cohabitation laws to create a ban on even common-law marriages between the races. This legal restriction didn't end until SCOTUS stopped it with Loving v. Virginia in 1967.

Just like gun control, government marriage licenses in America have racist roots.

This is the kind of post that makes me look forward to reading OCDO each day.

Hell yes.
 
Top