Texas Preparing to Defy Supreme Court on Marriage

[TrueBlue]

Texas Preparing to Defy Supreme Court on Marriage
By Matt Baume

http://www.equalityontrial.com/2015/05/11/texas-preparing-defy-supreme-court-marriage/


"When the Supreme Court rules on marriage this June, everyone in the country will be bound by the decision. Everyone. Even Texas. And yet, this week Texas lawmakers will vote on a bill that would order state employees to defy the anticipated pro-equality ruling from the the Supreme Court."


====================================
Texas, the red Republican state is not only going out of its way to show that they are a Hate State but one that can be readily seen as "Hey Big Spender" for its incorrigible desire to spend hard-earned citizen tax dollars on losing battles. But that they do and with great glee in a continuing effort to be seen as haters of certain citizens who are also most certainly taxpayers.

However, should the SCOTUS rule in favor of same-sex marriage next month it will overrule and overpower whatever law Texas enacts to try to keep prejudice and discrimination in their books. Intolerance would have been shot down in Texas and elsewhere and it's time the Texas legislators knew and understood that well. Thanks to Equality On Trial for this report.

[Peter1469]

Notice: Moved to Gender, Sexuality and Race

[Blackrook]

TrueBlue, every time a man has sex with another man or a woman has sex with another woman, both are desecrating their bodies, which are temples built by God. It's a sin that is as bad as going into a church and desecrating it.

[TrueBlue]

TrueBlue, every time a man has sex with another man or a woman has sex with another woman, both are desecrating their bodies, which are temples built by God. It's a sin that is as bad as going into a church and desecrating it.
Blackrook, And yet Jesus Christ spoke not one word against homosexuality. But I'll tell you what the real desecration is -- ABORTION. And it is unfortunately being done by Heterosexuals, not homosexuals, and that actually takes a life or several.

[Captain Obvious]

TrueBlue, every time a man has sex with another man or a woman has sex with another woman, both are desecrating their bodies, which are temples built by God. It's a sin that is as bad as going into a church and desecrating it.

Is beating off ok?

[del]

Notice: Moved to Gender, Sexuality and Race

rants was booked?

[zelmo1234]

[QUOTE=TrueBlue;1087214]Blackrook, And yet Jesus Christ spoke not one word against homosexuality. But I'll tell you what the real desecration is -- ABORTION. And it is unfortunately being done by Heterosexuals, not homosexuals, and that actually takes a life or several.[/QUOTE

Actually Jesus, said I did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it? And you are correct Abortion is a sin as well.

Sin in the eyes of God is the same.

The faster you accept that your chosen lifestyle like mine is a sin the faster you can start to understand the views of others.

As for Texas defying the Supreme Court on something that is not in the constitution is totally what the states are to do. Look to the Declaration for the proper response to an oppressive government

[Captain Obvious]

rants was booked?

Fire marshal thing

[PattyHill]

Can we give Texas back to Mexico?

[Peter1469]

why

Seems like a silly request.

[TrueBlue]

[QUOTE=TrueBlue;1087214]Blackrook, And yet Jesus Christ spoke not one word against homosexuality. But I'll tell you what the real desecration is -- ABORTION. And it is unfortunately being done by Heterosexuals, not homosexuals, and that actually takes a life or several.[/QUOTE

Actually Jesus, said I did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it? And you are correct Abortion is a sin as well.

Sin in the eyes of God is the same.

The faster you accept that your chosen lifestyle like mine is a sin the faster you can start to understand the views of others.

As for Texas defying the Supreme Court on something that is not in the constitution is totally what the states are to do. Look to the Declaration for the proper response to an oppressive government
Jesus never condemned homosexuality or Gay or Lesbian people. Period. And obviously God did not think it was the grave "sin" that you and others think it may be otherwise He would have written an Eleventh Commandment condemning it only He didn't. The Scriptures that are used by bigots to try to throw at Gay people to condemn them are actually speaking to other things very different than the condemnation of homosexuals. Biblical scholars have brought that out time and time and again and I would be glad to show you what they say about those Scriptures if you are interested.

The "sin" in both Heterosexual AND Homosexual orientations is not that people are Heterosexual or Homosexual in and of itself but that they are promiscuous. That is what God abhors and what Jesus told the woman at the well that she should "go and sin no more" about. He was speaking to her promiscuity. You have to remember that she was not Gay or a Lesbian.

The Constitution was written so that states would not be empowered to overturn or defy U.S. Supreme Court rulings with their own laws. That is clearly understood by law scholars and all others with clear-thinking minds. The SCOTUS ruling becomes the Law of the Land. End of story.

[TrueBlue]

Can we give Texas back to Mexico?
That's a most reasonable request since it truly belongs to them in the first place.

[PattyHill]

why

Seems like a silly request.


I don't like Texas

[Ravens Fan]

TrueBlue, every time a man has sex with another man or a woman has sex with another woman, both are desecrating their bodies, which are temples built by God. It's a sin that is as bad as going into a church and desecrating it.

That all depends on how you interpret certain teachings. But even so, if it truly is a sin, it is no worse than any others. The whole reason for Christ coming to earth was to forgive us of our everyday sins, no?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[domer76]

TrueBlue, every time a man has sex with another man or a woman has sex with another woman, both are desecrating their bodies, which are temples built by God. It's a sin that is as bad as going into a church and desecrating it.

When you put your penis in your girl's mouth and ejaculate, what does your God say about that temple?

[domer76]

Is beating off ok?

I think that's "spilling the seed" and is a big no no.

[Captain Obvious]

When you put your penis in your girl's mouth and ejaculate, what does your God say about that temple?

lol - marry her.

[domer76]

lol - marry her.

That's when the wee wee in the mouth stops!

[domer76]

Texas Preparing to Defy Supreme Court on Marriage
By Matt Baume

http://www.equalityontrial.com/2015/05/11/texas-preparing-defy-supreme-court-marriage/



====================================
Texas, the red Republican state is not only going out of its way to show that they are a Hate State but one that can be readily seen as "Hey Big Spender" for its incorrigible desire to spend hard-earned citizen tax dollars on losing battles. But that they do and with great glee in a continuing effort to be seen as haters of certain citizens who are also most certainly taxpayers.

However, should the SCOTUS rule in favor of same-sex marriage next month it will overrule and overpower whatever law Texas enacts to try to keep prejudice and discrimination in their books. Intolerance would have been shot down in Texas and elsewhere and it's time the Texas legislators knew and understood that well. Thanks to Equality On Trial for this report.

We'll see how they fare on this "states' rights" issue.

[Cthulhu]

Whatever. Go Texas.

SCOTUS could use an ego trimming. Especially on topics the feds have no business in.

Sent from my evil, kitten eating cell phone.

[zelmo1234]

[QUOTE=zelmo1234;1087254]
Jesus never condemned homosexuality or Gay or Lesbian people. Period. And obviously God did not think it was the grave "sin" that you and others think it may be otherwise He would have written an Eleventh Commandment condemning it only He didn't. The Scriptures that are used by bigots to try to throw at Gay people to condemn them are actually speaking to other things very different than the condemnation of homosexuals. Biblical scholars have brought that out time and time and again and I would be glad to show you what they say about those Scriptures if you are interested.

The "sin" in both Heterosexual AND Homosexual orientations is not that people are Heterosexual or Homosexual in and of itself but that they are promiscuous. That is what God abhors and what Jesus told the woman at the well that she should "go and sin no more" about. He was speaking to her promiscuity. You have to remember that she was not Gay or a Lesbian.

The Constitution was written so that states would not be empowered to overturn or defy U.S. Supreme Court rulings with their own laws. That is clearly understood by law scholars and all others with clear-thinking minds. The SCOTUS ruling becomes the Law of the Land. End of story.

So then you are denying that the Bible talks about the sin of a man lying with an man and a women lying with a women?

What other parts of the scripture are not true? You see I believe it all, and thus understand that my second marriage to the red head makes me an adulterer, so I live a chosen lifestyle of sin. You have chosen to live the gay lifestyle and thus have chosen a lifestyle of sin, no better or worse than mine!

What is so hard to understand.

And last the Supreme Court was set up to uphold the constitution, and it that document it says that what powers are not specifically given to the federal government, are reserved to the States. When a court becomes an activist political body that is rewriting the constitution, it becomes the duty of the States to throw off such government and sever those ties.

As outlined in the Declaration.

[zelmo1234]

That all depends on how you interpret certain teachings. But even so, if it truly is a sin, it is no worse than any others. The whole reason for Christ coming to earth was to forgive us of our everyday sins, no?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wonderful and truthful post, as usual! Thanks

[TrueBlue]

So then you are denying that the Bible talks about the sin of a man lying with an man and a women lying with a women?
It talks about it but not in the context that you and others feel that it does. That Scripture is speaking to a heterosexual man and/or woman engaging in homosexual activities which is not the "normal" thing for them to do. It is not addressing those who are already predisposed to being homosexual whose normal inclinations would be to lay with a member of their own sex. Therein lies the difference. But bigots often use that Scripture as well as others to proclaim that Gay and Lesbian people are sinners when in effect that is not true. It is the sin of promiscuity that God abhors, as is exemplified by the woman at the well (who was not a Lesbian) that Jesus told to "go and sin no more." In other words He was telling her to stop her promiscuous heterosexual lifestyle. But it does not speak to homosexuality in and of itself as being sinful which it is not anymore than it is by merely being a heterosexual. Promiscuity in both sexual orientations is what is sinful to God.

Biblical scholars have addressed these Scriptures and their meaning.

How do you interpret Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, man should not lay with man?
http://www.gaychristian101.com/how-do-you-interpret-leviticus-1822-and-2013-man-should-not-lay-with-man.html


What other parts of the scripture are not true? You see I believe it all, and thus understand that my second marriage to the red head makes me an adulterer, so I live a chosen lifestyle of sin. You have chosen to live the gay lifestyle and thus have chosen a lifestyle of sin, no better or worse than mine!

What is so hard to understand.
And what makes you think I live "....the gay lifestyle...."? Have you ever stopped to think that I am a mere supporter of LGBT rights? Just the same as many White people were supporters of Black people's rights during the early Sixties without actually being a part of their race or community.

And you further ask "What is so hard to understand." As to what is so hard to understand, it is when I see people using inappropriate Scriptures to try to justify their hate and intolerance for the Gay community that I find myself asking that very question as well. They should well understand that those inappropriate Scriptures are not speaking of condemning Gays at all.


And last the Supreme Court was set up to uphold the constitution, and it that document it says that what powers are not specifically given to the federal government, are reserved to the States. When a court becomes an activist political body that is rewriting the constitution, it becomes the duty of the States to throw off such government and sever those ties.

As outlined in the Declaration.
The Federal Courts interpret the Constitution, and their rulings take precedence over any state laws and the states must comply with the SCOTUS rulings or face very expensive lawsuits, etc. which in the end would still compel them to obey those rulings. Like it or not a SCOTUS ruling becomes the Law of the Land for both sides. End of story.

[Cthulhu]

Well TrueBlue said Biblical scholars said so.

So it must be true.

:rolleyes:

Sent from my evil, kitten eating cell phone.

[GRUMPY]

TrueBlue, every time a man has sex with another man or a woman has sex with another woman, both are desecrating their bodies, which are temples built by God. It's a sin that is as bad as going into a church and desecrating it.

unless of course the gals are hot and they make a grumpy sandwich.....

[GRUMPY]

Blackrook, And yet Jesus Christ spoke not one word against homosexuality. But I'll tell you what the real desecration is -- ABORTION. And it is unfortunately being done by Heterosexuals, not homosexuals, and that actually takes a life or several.

forget jesus, homosexuality is a mental/personality disorder....

[GRUMPY]

Is beating off ok?

yes, beating off is okay....

[GRUMPY]

Can we give Texas back to Mexico?

you won't have to give it, within two generations a large swath of the sw will move to secede from this union...that will include a big piece of texas....

[GRUMPY]

[QUOTE=zelmo1234;1087254]
Jesus never condemned homosexuality or Gay or Lesbian people. Period. And obviously God did not think it was the grave "sin" that you and others think it may be otherwise He would have written an Eleventh Commandment condemning it only He didn't. The Scriptures that are used by bigots to try to throw at Gay people to condemn them are actually speaking to other things very different than the condemnation of homosexuals. Biblical scholars have brought that out time and time and again and I would be glad to show you what they say about those Scriptures if you are interested.

The "sin" in both Heterosexual AND Homosexual orientations is not that people are Heterosexual or Homosexual in and of itself but that they are promiscuous. That is what God abhors and what Jesus told the woman at the well that she should "go and sin no more" about. He was speaking to her promiscuity. You have to remember that she was not Gay or a Lesbian.

The Constitution was written so that states would not be empowered to overturn or defy U.S. Supreme Court rulings with their own laws. That is clearly understood by law scholars and all others with clear-thinking minds. The SCOTUS ruling becomes the Law of the Land. End of story.

again, leave jesus be for christ's sake....this is a mental illness issue plain and simple....

[GRUMPY]

That's a most reasonable request since it truly belongs to them in the first place.

that has got to take the cake for the stupidest statement of the day....land belongs only to the one able and willing to hold it son...

[GRUMPY]

We'll see how they fare on this "states' rights" issue.

sooner or later some state if not now, later will just in fact say no....and they have an absolute right to do so....

[PattyHill]

We'll see how they fare on this "states' rights" issue.

So getting back on topic (thank you) -

A state defying the supreme court isn't going to get far.

[zelmo1234]

It talks about it but not in the context that you and others feel that it does. That Scripture is speaking to a heterosexual man and/or woman engaging in homosexual activities which is not the "normal" thing for them to do. It is not addressing those who are already predisposed to being homosexual whose normal inclinations would be to lay with a member of their own sex. Therein lies the difference. But bigots often use that Scripture as well as others to proclaim that Gay and Lesbian people are sinners when in effect that is not true. It is the sin of promiscuity that God abhors, as is exemplified by the woman at the well (who was not a Lesbian) that Jesus told to "go and sin no more." In other words He was telling her to stop her promiscuous heterosexual lifestyle. But it does not speak to homosexuality in and of itself as being sinful which it is not anymore than it is by merely being a heterosexual. Promiscuity in both sexual orientations is what is sinful to God.

Biblical scholars have addressed these Scriptures and their meaning.

How do you interpret Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, man should not lay with man?
http://www.gaychristian101.com/how-do-you-interpret-leviticus-1822-and-2013-man-should-not-lay-with-man.html


And what makes you think I live "....the gay lifestyle...."? Have you ever stopped to think that I am a mere supporter of LGBT rights? Just the same as many White people were supporters of Black people's rights during the early Sixties without actually being a part of their race or community.

And you further ask "What is so hard to understand." As to what is so hard to understand, it is when I see people using inappropriate Scriptures to try to justify their hate and intolerance for the Gay community that I find myself asking that very question as well. They should well understand that those inappropriate Scriptures are not speaking of condemning Gays at all.


The Federal Courts interpret the Constitution, and their rulings take precedence over any state laws and the states must comply with the SCOTUS rulings or face very expensive lawsuits, etc. which in the end would still compel them to obey those rulings. Like it or not a SCOTUS ruling becomes the Law of the Land for both sides. End of story.

Well that would have been true with the rulings form the crown in 1775

But there is a line that many and apparently TX are looking at in the declaration?

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations perusing the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such Government and provide new guards for their future security"

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

If the supreme court in this case makes a ruling that limits the 1st amendment's right of freedom of religion, then it is the right and duty of the American people to throw off such tyranny and establish a new and just government

that is the constitutional crisis that we are heading for in the USA

[domer76]

sooner or later some state if not now, later will just in fact say no....and they have an absolute right to do so....

Yeah, sure they do. The Supremacy Clause always wins, jethro

[domer76]

So getting back on topic (thank you) -

A state defying the supreme court isn't going to get far.
Yep. Realists understand that, Patty. For the other idiots, it's just a reason to be chronically pissed off.

[gamewell45]

TrueBlue, every time a man has sex with another man or a woman has sex with another woman, both are desecrating their bodies, which are temples built by God. It's a sin that is as bad as going into a church and desecrating it.

Those who know no god would most likely disagree with you.

[Archer0915]

Texas Preparing to Defy Supreme Court on Marriage
By Matt Baume

http://www.equalityontrial.com/2015/05/11/texas-preparing-defy-supreme-court-marriage/



====================================
Texas, the red Republican state is not only going out of its way to show that they are a Hate State but one that can be readily seen as "Hey Big Spender" for its incorrigible desire to spend hard-earned citizen tax dollars on losing battles. But that they do and with great glee in a continuing effort to be seen as haters of certain citizens who are also most certainly taxpayers.

However, should the SCOTUS rule in favor of same-sex marriage next month it will overrule and overpower whatever law Texas enacts to try to keep prejudice and discrimination in their books. Intolerance would have been shot down in Texas and elsewhere and it's time the Texas legislators knew and understood that well. Thanks to Equality On Trial for this report.

Honestly some of this is backlash. I am sorry that things have come to this but some people are so hung up in their beliefs that they feel it is their duty to force it on others.

Nowhere in the Christian bible does it say to force others to follow what you believe, it is just not in there.

I believe everything I just said and I believe it with all of my heart.

Now in this nation we have freedom of religion and the fact is even if you believe as I do, as I said above, you must also feel that people should have a right to no associate with people they believe are sinners. Not to be forced to go against their faith and not forced to go beyond simple tolerance.

You see if you tell me I must do this or that, I am going to tell you to go to hell.

That is what we have here. The people are hearing all this crap about the GAY mafia (probably just liberal white women with daddy's money) trying to force business owners to go against their beliefs and sacrifice freedom of choice. People read about a CEO that lost his job because of a donation he made, a political donation.

Jus saying. Those people see what the rampant progressivism is bringing and they want nothing of it.

[domer76]

Well that would have been true with the rulings form the crown in 1775

But there is a line that many and apparently TX are looking at in the declaration?

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations perusing the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such Government and provide new guards for their future security"

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

If the supreme court in this case makes a ruling that limits the 1st amendment's right of freedom of religion, then it is the right and duty of the American people to throw off such tyranny and establish a new and just government

that is the constitutional crisis that we are heading for in the USA

Whaddya gonna do? Shoot them all using your Second Amendment as an excuse?

[domer76]

Honestly some of this is backlash. I am sorry that things have come to this but some people are so hung up in their beliefs that they feel it is their duty to force it on others.

Nowhere in the Christian bible does it say to force others to follow what you believe, it is just not in there.

I believe everything I just said and I believe it with all of my heart.

Now in this nation we have freedom of religion and the fact is even if you believe as I do, as I said above, you must also feel that people should have a right to no associate with people they believe are sinners. Not to be forced to go against their faith and not forced to go beyond simple tolerance.

You see if you tell me I must do this or that, I am going to tell you to go to hell.

That is what we have here. The people are hearing all this crap about the GAY mafia (probably just liberal white women with daddy's money) trying to force business owners to go against their beliefs and sacrifice freedom of choice. People read about a CEO that lost his job because of a donation he made, a political donation.

Jus saying. Those people see what the rampant progressivism is bringing and they want nothing of it.

The business world is a secular one with secular rules. If you wish to run a Christian business and call it a church-related or church-run enterprise and take advantages of all the exceptions you are allowed with your right to practice your religion, fine. Do so. But when you choose to enter the secular world, you play by those rules. It's that simple. You know what the rules are when you join those ranks. You can't discriminate against protected groups because of that group's status. We used to identify those groups by religion, gender, color, national origin, etc. Now that definition is expanding to a group you don't like. Tough shit. If you don't like it, get out of the secular world game and run your business through your church. You're safe in your bigotry there.

[Archer0915]

The business world is a secular one with secular rules. If you wish to run a Christian business and call it a church-related or church-run enterprise and take advantages of all the exceptions you are allowed with your right to practice your religion, fine. Do so. But when you choose to enter the secular world, you play by those rules. It's that simple. You know what the rules are when you join those ranks. You can't discriminate against protected groups because of that group's status. We used to identify those groups by religion, gender, color, national origin, etc. Now that definition is expanding to a group you don't like. Tough $#@!. If you don't like it, get out of the secular world game and run your business through your church. You're safe in your bigotry there.

Point 1: Secular business

Is there some constitutional bylaw somewhere saying you can not run your business as you see fit? Even our nation chooses who it will not do business with.

Point 2: Secular rules

You are making up rules as you believe they should be.

Point 3: There is no bigotry.

Your constant plating of the gay card is part of the issue here, a big part. You alienate people and act like your opinion is the only opinion. Here there are no FACTS and that is the only fact.

[PattyHill]

Honestly some of this is backlash. I am sorry that things have come to this but some people are so hung up in their beliefs that they feel it is their duty to force it on others.

Nowhere in the Christian bible does it say to force others to follow what you believe, it is just not in there.



Other Christians seem to disagree with you; but regardless, our government isn't a biblical government, it's secular.

And with our laws, forcing lesbians and gays to live as second class citizens is illegal.

Not saying YOU are forcing them. But not allowing them to get married is just one example of their second class status.

[PolWatch]

I remember the same arguments used to justify Jim Crowe laws in the 60's. According to some, God meant for black citizens to always be servants to the white man....they had the Bible verses to 'prove it' too. They were wrong then and they are wrong now...imo.

[Archer0915]

Other Christians seem to disagree with you; but regardless, our government isn't a biblical government, it's secular.

And with our laws, forcing lesbians and gays to live as second class citizens is illegal.

Not saying YOU are forcing them. But not allowing them to get married is just one example of their second class status.

I disagree about the second class status here. Honestly things are screwed up and there is no point in arguing it. We all get messed over from time to time. The difference is a hetersexual white male is told to deal.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=grants%20for%20lgbt%20businesses

[domer76]

Point 1: Secular business

Is there some constitutional bylaw somewhere saying you can not run your business as you see fit? Even our nation chooses who it will not do business with.

Point 2: Secular rules

You are making up rules as you believe they should be.

Point 3: There is no bigotry.

Your constant plating of the gay card is part of the issue here, a big part. You alienate people and act like your opinion is the only opinion. Here there are no FACTS and that is the only fact.

1-You cannot refuse to serve a Jew, a black, a Mexican, etc because of their membership in that group. that includes gender and, in many places, sexual orientation. But you knew that, didn't you? So no, if you see fit to run your business that way, it's not legal. Why is that so difficult to comprehend for you?

WTF are you talking about re: our country choosing to do business with another?

2- I'm making up no rules. I'm citing law.

3- The fact that you would refuse service to someone or disallow their marriage simply because they are gay is nothing BUT bigotry, pure and simple

[Archer0915]

1-You cannot refuse to serve a Jew, a black, a Mexican, etc because of their membership in that group. that includes gender and, in many places, sexual orientation. But you knew that, didn't you? So no, if you see fit to run your business that way, it's not legal. Why is that so difficult to comprehend for you?

WTF are you talking about re: our country choosing to do business with another?

2- I'm making up no rules. I'm citing law.

3- The fact that you would refuse service to someone or disallow their marriage simply because they are gay is nothing BUT bigotry, pure and simple

I can fire a person legally for their political beliefs... Also I never said anything about serving in a restaurant but I am talking about contractual stuff and the fact is you can not shove you shit on others without backlash.

As far as doing business. Our country will sanction other countries.

[domer76]

I can fire a person legally for their political beliefs... Also I never said anything about serving in a restaurant but I am talking about contractual stuff and the fact is you can not shove you shit on others without backlash.

As far as doing business. Our country will sanction other countries.

OK, diversionary, but we can go there if you wish. You cannot fire someone for simply being a Jew, black, or gay. That's illegal, or certainly will be for gays. Political beliefs are not protected. Do you now understand?

You cannot also deny housing, employment and other contractual stuff for the same reasons. Get it?

The stuff about the US is irrelevant.

Backlash is fine. Are you ready to pay the penalty?

[TrueBlue]

that has got to take the cake for the stupidest statement of the day....land belongs only to the one able and willing to hold it son...
Sorry gramps http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/cherna/Cherna-oldgamer.gif but you're wrong and you're walking around with caca in your pants, as usual. Texas rightfully belongs to Mexico. http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/light_skin/yes.gif

[TrueBlue]

forget jesus, homosexuality is a mental/personality disorder....
Gramps http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/cherna/Cherna-oldgamer.gif it's high time you changed your protective underpants already 'cause you're full of it! http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/light_skin/biggrin.gif

[zelmo1234]

1-You cannot refuse to serve a Jew, a black, a Mexican, etc because of their membership in that group. that includes gender and, in many places, sexual orientation. But you knew that, didn't you? So no, if you see fit to run your business that way, it's not legal. Why is that so difficult to comprehend for you?

WTF are you talking about re: our country choosing to do business with another?

2- I'm making up no rules. I'm citing law.

3- The fact that you would refuse service to someone or disallow their marriage simply because they are gay is nothing BUT bigotry, pure and simple

You are correct you can't refuse service which no person has done in the court cases. but they did refuse on 1st amendment protected rights to not participate in their wedding on religious grounds!

The best possible thing to do is get the government out of the marriage business altogether, because they should have never been involved in the first place.

[zelmo1234]

Sorry gramps http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/cherna/Cherna-oldgamer.gif but you're wrong and you're walking around with caca in your pants, as usual. Texas rightfully belongs to Mexico. http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/light_skin/yes.gif

What did Spain do to deserve Mexico? They conquered the natives first. They lost the War. they should have fought a little harder?

[TrueBlue]

[quote=trueblue;1087308]

again, leave jesus be for christ's sake....this is a mental illness issue plain and simple....
Gramps http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/cherna/Cherna-oldgamer.gif how many times does one have to tell you that you're walking around with soiled and smelly pants? And making squishy-squashy sounds already. http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/taunt.gif

[The Xl]

TrueBlue, every time a man has sex with another man or a woman has sex with another woman, both are desecrating their bodies, which are temples built by God. It's a sin that is as bad as going into a church and desecrating it.

Cool story bro. Bet you don't find anything wrong with wars for profit, but go ahead and lecture us on your pseudo morality, Christianity bullshit

[The Xl]

yes, beating off is okay....

Son, that is the height of inconsistency. You're either all in with the bible, or all out, son

[domer76]

You are correct you can't refuse service which no person has done in the court cases. but they did refuse on 1st amendment protected rights to not participate in their wedding on religious grounds!

The best possible thing to do is get the government out of the marriage business altogether, because they should have never been involved in the first place.
Nobody said anything about forced participation. No problem there.

Funny how so many now want the government out of the marriage business, but only since gays became part of the equation. Not a peep before.

[Peter1469]

OK, diversionary, but we can go there if you wish. You cannot fire someone for simply being a Jew, black, or gay. That's illegal, or certainly will be for gays. Political beliefs are not protected. Do you now understand?

You cannot also deny housing, employment and other contractual stuff for the same reasons. Get it?

The stuff about the US is irrelevant.

Backlash is fine. Are you ready to pay the penalty?

Under current case law the suspect classifications do not include sexual orientation or gender orientation. When a suspect class is at issue, the Court uses strict scrutiny to judge the law. For almost all other classifications, the Court uses rational basis to judge the law. Those are very different legal standards.

A presumptively unconstitutional distinction made between individuals on the basis of race, national origin, alienage, or religious affiliation, in a statute, ordinance, regulation, or policy. (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Suspect+class)

[domer76]

Under current case law the suspect classifications do not include sexual orientation or gender orientation. When a suspect class is at issue, the Court uses strict scrutiny to judge the law. For almost all other classifications, the Court uses rational basis to judge the law. Those are very different legal standards.

A presumptively unconstitutional distinction made between individuals on the basis of race, national origin, alienage, or religious affiliation, in a statute, ordinance, regulation, or policy. (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Suspect+class)

Perhaps not under federal law, but there are plenty of jurisdictions that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

[Peter1469]

Perhaps not under federal law, but there are plenty of jurisdictions that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Agreed. And I would not be surprised if SCOTUS as sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of suspect classifications in the near term. It just isn't there now.

[GRUMPY]

Yeah, sure they do. The Supremacy Clause always wins, jethro

it wins only so long as one respects the law son....when the law is in fact lawless the repect is gone and so is compliance....

[Cthulhu]

Son, that is the height of inconsistency. You're either all in with the bible, or all out, son
Not true. Not all of the Bible is inspired doctrine. Some of it is just a historical record laced with codes and riddles.

For example, the Song of Solomon isn't exactly an inspired book, but rather one dude's part time erotica.

Sent from my evil, kitten eating cell phone.

[zelmo1234]

Nobody said anything about forced participation. No problem there.

Funny how so many now want the government out of the marriage business, but only since gays became part of the equation. Not a peep before.

Nobody was trying to use it to take away constitutional rights before? My guess is that is what brought it up.

Before is was a tax and tax penalty, now it is trying to force people to act against their right to practice their religion

That is the difference. So get them out of the business and give people the right to chose for themselves.

[zelmo1234]

it wins only so long as one respects the law son....when the law is in fact lawless the repect is gone and so is compliance....

This is what the left does not understand and it comes from there acceptance and desire for an all powerful federal government, and for that government to force their views on the people that disagree with them.

But the Declaration specifically tells us that when the Government abuses it's power and infringes on the constitutional rights of the citizens, it is the duty of those that have the power to stand up to and defy that tyrannical government.

[Ivan88]

If Texas wants to dodge the Sodom and Gomorrah "marriage" policy, they should simply get out of the business of issuing marriage licenses.
Then, folks just live with who they want.

[domer76]

This is what the left does not understand and it comes from there acceptance and desire for an all powerful federal government, and for that government to force their views on the people that disagree with them.

But the Declaration specifically tells us that when the Government abuses it's power and infringes on the constitutional rights of the citizens, it is the duty of those that have the power to stand up to and defy that tyrannical government.

You know what's so hysterical and yet frightening about your post? We're talking about expanding some civil rights to a particular group who have been denied those in the past. EXPANDING, not limiting liberies. And you refer to a tyrannical government in that context? WTF is wrong with you people?

[domer76]

Nobody was trying to use it to take away constitutional rights before? My guess is that is what brought it up.

Before is was a tax and tax penalty, now it is trying to force people to act against their right to practice their religion

That is the difference. So get them out of the business and give people the right to chose for themselves.
No, the only difference now is you don't want gays to be able to marry. Period. And that has nothing to do with YOUR Constitutional rights, as marriage, while it should be, is not one.

[PattyHill]

You know what's so hysterical and yet frightening about your post? We're talking about expanding some civil rights to a particular group who have been denied those in the past. EXPANDING, not limiting liberies. And you refer to a tyrannical government in that context? WTF is wrong with you people?

Yeah. It's not like we're telling people they can't choose the type of birth control that works best for them. We aren't telling them they can't have abortions. We aren't telling them they have to have a certain kind of sex in their bedroom. We aren't telling them they can't mention climate change.

Expanding liberties is somehow being tryannical. Sad.

[Archer0915]

OK, diversionary, but we can go there if you wish. You cannot fire someone for simply being a Jew, black, or gay. That's illegal, or certainly will be for gays. Political beliefs are not protected. Do you now understand?

You cannot also deny housing, employment and other contractual stuff for the same reasons. Get it?

The stuff about the US is irrelevant.

Backlash is fine. Are you ready to pay the penalty?

If you are homosexual and flaunt it I can pretty much figure it out. Being homosexual is not the issue. Forcing your beliefs on others while claiming they are doing the same to you is the issue.

[Polecat]

The sexual deviate community wants to be left alone. I am good with that. I see no need to make life any more unpleasant for these folks. But trying to force me into believing their perversion is justified in the eyes of God is a pointless endeavor. It will never happen. The more militant and obnoxious they get the harder it gets for me to maintain compassion.

[Common Sense]

The sexual deviate community wants to be left alone. I am good with that. I see no need to make life any more unpleasant for these folks. But trying to force me into believing their perversion is justified in the eyes of God is a pointless endeavor. It will never happen. The more militant and obnoxious they get the harder it gets for me to maintain compassion.

I don't think they're asking that you accept it.

I also don't think that they accept that you speak for god.

They're only asking for the right to marry the person they love.

I know it sounds horrible and that it will end life on earth as we know it...but it wont.

Oh and I think you mean deviant.

[Polecat]

I don't think they're asking that you accept it.

I also don't think that they accept that you speak for god.

They're only asking for the right to marry the person they love.

I know it sounds horrible and that it will end life on earth as we know it...but it wont.

Oh and I think you mean deviant.

In the case of TrueBlue you are only correct about my improper word usage. The rest of it is spot on.

[Common Sense]

In the case of TrueBlue you are only correct about my improper word usage. The rest of it is spot on.

I disagree.

You don't speak for god or an entire religion.

They should be free to marry.

[domer76]

If you are homosexual and flaunt it I can pretty much figure it out. Being homosexual is not the issue. Forcing your beliefs on others while claiming they are doing the same to you is the issue.
Being homosexual is EXACTLY the issue. If you claim anything different, you are being disingenuous.

[domer76]

The sexual deviate community wants to be left alone. I am good with that. I see no need to make life any more unpleasant for these folks. But trying to force me into believing their perversion is justified in the eyes of God is a pointless endeavor. It will never happen. The more militant and obnoxious they get the harder it gets for me to maintain compassion.
Speaking for your god I see. What gives you the inside track on that?

But, for once, try to not focus on where a gay man places his penis, but on equal treatment under the law. You don't need to change your beliefs to accomodate that.

[Polecat]

I disagree.

You don't speak for god or an entire religion.

They should be free to marry.

I speak for myself and my belief. Yours may vary. And you certainly are entitled to your own beliefs. So how is it I am not entitled to mine? I do not care if they are married. Not in the least. God gave us free will to do as we wish and I resent all interference by well meaning do gooders to "correct" the sinners behavior. It is not one mans right to dictate how another man thinks.

I do care though when a rogue lies about what is written in the Bible. When they bring it to the table I am entitled to make an indignant rebuttal.

[Cigar]

Texas Preparing to Defy Supreme Court on Marriage
By Matt Baume

http://www.equalityontrial.com/2015/05/11/texas-preparing-defy-supreme-court-marriage/



====================================
Texas, the red Republican state is not only going out of its way to show that they are a Hate State but one that can be readily seen as "Hey Big Spender" for its incorrigible desire to spend hard-earned citizen tax dollars on losing battles. But that they do and with great glee in a continuing effort to be seen as haters of certain citizens who are also most certainly taxpayers.

However, should the SCOTUS rule in favor of same-sex marriage next month it will overrule and overpower whatever law Texas enacts to try to keep prejudice and discrimination in their books. Intolerance would have been shot down in Texas and elsewhere and it's time the Texas legislators knew and understood that well. Thanks to Equality On Trial for this report.

More Lawlessness from The GOP Party :laugh:

[Polecat]

Speaking for your god I see. What gives you the inside track on that?

But, for once, try to not focus on where a gay man places his penis, but on equal treatment under the law. You don't need to change your beliefs to accomodate that.
You don't have the capacity to lift your knuckles from the ground when you walk so I won't waste time responding to your grunts with anything but another grunt.

[domer76]

I speak for myself and my belief. Yours may vary. And you certainly are entitled to your own beliefs. So how is it I am not entitled to mine? I do not care if they are married. Not in the least. God gave us free will to do as we wish and I resent all interference by well meaning do gooders to "correct" the sinners behavior. It is not one mans right to dictate how another man thinks.

I do care though when a rogue lies about what is written in the Bible. When they bring it to the table I am entitled to make an indignant rebuttal.

Back the the writings of the Bronze Age goatherders, I see.

[Polecat]

Back the the writings of the Bronze Age goatherders, I see.

grunt grunt grunt

[domer76]

You don't have the capacity to lift your knuckles from the ground when you walk so I won't waste time responding to your grunts with anything but another grunt.

Translation = I have nothing but Leviticus for my defense.

What other tidbits do you have to offer as a spokesman for God?

[domer76]

grunt grunt grunt

WTH? Are you mastubating right now?

[Ravens Fan]

In the case of TrueBlue you are only correct about my improper word usage. The rest of it is spot on.

TrueBlue is not a member of the "Gay Community" and certainly does not speak for all of us.

[Polecat]

TrueBlue is not a member of the "Gay Community" and certainly does not speak for all of us.

I don't find that at all surprising.

[Ravens Fan]

Being homosexual is EXACTLY the issue. If you claim anything different, you are being disingenuous.

I disagree. I think the attitudes and actions of people like you and TrueBlue have taken it to this point. IRL and on here it really seem that you guys are pushing for a special class as opposed to equality. Sorry, but that is how I see it, and unlike the two of you, I have skin in this game.

[Polecat]

I disagree. I think the attitudes and actions of people like you and TrueBlue have taken it to this point. IRL and on here it really seem that you guys are pushing for a special class as opposed to equality. Sorry, but that is how I see it, and unlike the two of you, I have skin in this game.

Had you not told me directly that you are gay I would not have guessed so on my own. Knowing this now does not change my opinion of you any. I still think you are one of the more rational posters on this forum and generally seem like a fellow humane being that I can relate to. I have zero animosity towards you. I would welcome you at my table as a brother.

[Ravens Fan]

Had you not told me directly that you are gay I would not have guessed so on my own. Knowing this now does not change my opinion of you any. I still think you are one of the more rational posters on this forum and generally seem like a fellow humane being that I can relate to. I have zero animosity towards you. I would welcome you at my table as a brother.

I appreciate that, and the feeling is mutual.

[Archer0915]

Being homosexual is EXACTLY the issue. If you claim anything different, you are being disingenuous.

I don't want to hear about peoples sex lives. I do not give a shit, none of my business so do not make it my business. Gay, heterosexual, black, white...

If you came telling me something or asking me to do something that you KNOW I may find offensive, why do it? You want to marry? I do not give a shit politically, I voted such. You want to talk about your love for your same sex partner? Well it is the same as with a traditional partner, I do not give a fuck and I do not want to hear about it.

If we are friends it is another story.

So being homosexual is not the issue, being a loud mouthed prick that is a selfie person is the issue.

Yeah, I have more use for people, homosexual or not, that are not selfie addicts.

So to be clear, homosexuals are not the problem, people like you are the issue causing problem in the homosexual community.

[domer76]

I disagree. I think the attitudes and actions of people like you and TrueBlue have taken it to this point. IRL and on here it really seem that you guys are pushing for a special class as opposed to equality. Sorry, but that is how I see it, and unlike the two of you, I have skin in this game.
Tell me, what special class are you envisioning?

[GRUMPY]

If Texas wants to dodge the Sodom and Gomorrah "marriage" policy, they should simply get out of the business of issuing marriage licenses.
Then, folks just live with who they want.

with regard to marriage, texas should do what the people of texas desire....

[GRUMPY]

More Lawlessness from The GOP Party :laugh:

son this is not an issue of constitutional merit and therefore the lawlessness lies with scotus for even hearing this....

[domer76]

I don't want to hear about peoples sex lives. I do not give a shit, none of my business so do not make it my business. Gay, heterosexual, black, white...

If you came telling me something or asking me to do something that you KNOW I may find offensive, why do it? You want to marry? I do not give a shit politically, I voted such. You want to talk about your love for your same sex partner? Well it is the same as with a traditional partner, I do not give a fuck and I do not want to hear about it.

If we are friends it is another story.

So being homosexual is not the issue, being a loud mouthed prick that is a selfie person is the issue.

Yeah, I have more use for people, homosexual or not, that are not selfie addicts.

So to be clear, homosexuals are not the problem, people like you are the issue causing problem in the homosexual community.
Me? Fuck o dear, pal. I've been married since 1976 to my opposite sex wife. But I sure don't see you bitching about O's BJs on this forum, though. So, it appears you aren't being very "straight" with us.

What I grow weary of are people hiding behind a myriad of bogus excuses to deny gays basic civil rights. Those include public accomodation, marriage, jobs, housing and so on. Those excuses run the gamut from procreation, to Leviticus, to your "icky" factor and everything in between. So, perhaps for you, being gay is not the issue, but for most of the bigots, that's EXACTLY what it boils down to. Provide them equal treatment under the law and be done with it.

Pay attention. Read the posts and you'll see that's true.

[Ravens Fan]

Tell me, what special class are you envisioning?

I am not envisioning any special class. I want equality for all. I also think that can be obtained without being disrespectful to others' faith and/or beliefs.

The approach that you and TrueBlue take, is to ridicule anybody who has even the slightest disagreement. You attack them and draw their defenses, then wonder why they get defensive.

There are a few on this forum now (used be be a lot less, but they flocked here because of our daily flood of gay topics thing we had going on) who aren't going to change their minds, but instead of recognizing it for what it is, you go off on wild tangents that make those of us with skin in the game seem like 12 year-old girls.

[domer76]

I don't want to hear about peoples sex lives. I do not give a shit, none of my business so do not make it my business. Gay, heterosexual, black, white...

If you came telling me something or asking me to do something that you KNOW I may find offensive, why do it? You want to marry? I do not give a shit politically, I voted such. You want to talk about your love for your same sex partner? Well it is the same as with a traditional partner, I do not give a fuck and I do not want to hear about it.

If we are friends it is another story.

So being homosexual is not the issue, being a loud mouthed prick that is a selfie person is the issue.

Yeah, I have more use for people, homosexual or not, that are not selfie addicts.

So to be clear, homosexuals are not the problem, people like you are the issue causing problem in the homosexual community.

You know what just struck me as incredibly funny and ironic about your post? You bitch about hearing about others' sex lives, and yet, here you are, knee deep in the Sexuality Forum.

Priceless! It doesn't get much funnier than that!

[Archer0915]

Me? $#@! o dear, pal. I've been married since 1976 to my opposite sex wife. But I sure don't see you $#@!ing about O's BJs on this forum, though. So, it appears you aren't being very "straight" with us.

What I grow weary of are people hiding behind a myriad of bogus excuses to deny gays basic civil rights. Those include public accomodation, marriage, jobs, housing and so on. Those excuses run the gamut from procreation, to Leviticus, to your "icky" factor and everything in between. So, perhaps for you, being gay is not the issue, but for most of the bigots, that's EXACTLY what it boils down to. Provide them equal treatment under the law and be done with it.

Pay attention. Read the posts and you'll see that's true.

Oh another asshole that claims to speak for others. Well I put you on the level with westboro baptist church, Jackson, Sharpton, RWNJs and LWNJs...

Do not speak for others because your mouth causes them problems.

[Archer0915]

You know what just struck me as incredibly funny and ironic about your post? You $#@! about hearing about others' sex lives, and yet, here you are, knee deep in the Sexuality Forum.

Priceless! It doesn't get much funnier than that!

Yeah, I can do that. It is my choice to enter this forum and I can leave at any time I choose. We all have a choice here but what you are for is limiting a persons right to choose.

Do you think things would be like this if the focus had simply stayed on marriage? Well I think not because you would not have people who could not give less of a shit about it up in arms about forcing people that own a business to go against their beliefs. Backlash.

[domer76]

I am not envisioning any special class. I want equality for all. I also think that can be obtained without being disrespectful to others' faith and/or beliefs.

The approach that you and TrueBlue take, is to ridicule anybody who has even the slightest disagreement. You attack them and draw their defenses, then wonder why they get defensive.

There are a few on this forum now (used be be a lot less, but they flocked here because of our daily flood of gay topics thing we had going on) who aren't going to change their minds, but instead of recognizing it for what it is, you go off on wild tangents that make those of us with skin in the game seem like 12 year-old girls.

I don't expect them to change their minds. I merely want them to quit bitching so much about "special rights" or that, somehow, their liberties are being infringed upon. As well as offering every lame excuse in the world as justification for their bigotry.

[domer76]

Yeah, I can do that. It is my choice to enter this forum and I can leave at any time I choose. We all have a choice here but what you are for is limiting a persons right to choose.

Do you think things would be like this if the focus had simply stayed on marriage? Well I think not because you would not have people who could not give less of a shit about it up in arms about forcing people that own a business to go against their beliefs. Backlash.

I expect people who go into business to obey the law and treat their employees and customers equally and fairly. You don't. It's that simple.

The laws are clear, and becoming clearer. I realize that puts a burr under your saddle, but tough shit. Obey the law or get the fuck out of business and do something else.

[Ravens Fan]

I don't expect them to change their minds. I merely want them to quit bitching so much about "special rights" or that, somehow, their liberties are being infringed upon.

There are times when their concern is warranted. There are those with a specific agenda that do not mind trampling one group's rights in order to promote another's. I think it would be foolish not to want to ensure that everybody gets a fair shake.


As well as offering every lame excuse in the world as justification for their bigotry.

Just because you personally disagree with an idea does not make it lame. And the way you handle any views other than your own is insulting to anyone watching, regardless of their stance.

I just want people who take on a cause that does not really affect them at all, to actually help that cause, rather than alienate people.

[zelmo1234]

You know what's so hysterical and yet frightening about your post? We're talking about expanding some civil rights to a particular group who have been denied those in the past. EXPANDING, not limiting liberies. And you refer to a tyrannical government in that context? WTF is wrong with you people?

according to the verbal arguments, if this is upheld by the Supreme court then a person owning a business that wants to exercise their right to not participate in a Gay wedding will be subject to discrimination suit. And a Church would lose their tax exempt status?

That is not expanding rights, that is tyranny and against the first amendment!

However, leaving the marriage question to the states, or mandating that marriage can't be part of government? That will allow those to do as they please because there is NO need for the government to mandate anything.

This to me would mean that the Gay people can get married by the churches and people that are willing to marry them and those that have a religious issue with this can choose to opt out. In all government and legal contracts they all would be considered the same under the law!

To me that is freedom and it honors the first amendment right of freedom of religion?

Now forcing people to act against there belief? to me that is not freedom that is tyranny

[TrueBlue]

I am not envisioning any special class. I want equality for all. I also think that can be obtained without being disrespectful to others' faith and/or beliefs.

The approach that you and TrueBlue take, is to ridicule anybody who has even the slightest disagreement. You attack them and draw their defenses, then wonder why they get defensive.

There are a few on this forum now (used be be a lot less, but they flocked here because of our daily flood of gay topics thing we had going on) who aren't going to change their minds, but instead of recognizing it for what it is, you go off on wild tangents that make those of us with skin in the game seem like 12 year-old girls.
Ridicule? What the hell are you talking about? When I post or reply it is telling it like it is. If people, including you, perceive that as ridicule then it may well be that they find they are ridiculing themselves in the process of being ridiculous.

[Ravens Fan]

Ridicule? What the hell are you talking about? When I post or reply it is telling it like it is. If people, including you, perceive that as ridicule then it may well be that they find they are ridiculing themselves in the process of being ridiculous.

Lol

[TrueBlue]

according to the verbal arguments, if this is upheld by the Supreme court then a person owning a business that wants to exercise their right to not participate in a Gay wedding will be subject to discrimination suit. And a Church would lose their tax exempt status?
Well first of all, we do not know that is what would happen so don't jump the gun this soon before having all of the final facts.


That is not expanding rights, that is tyranny and against the first amendment!

However, leaving the marriage question to the states, or mandating that marriage can't be part of government? That will allow those to do as they please because there is NO need for the government to mandate anything.
Actually, marriage cannot be left to the states because you know what happened in California and other places when one lets bigoted people in the majority try to dictate what a minority, in this case the LGBT community, can or cannot do. They will surely trample all over Gay and Lesbian citizen rights given to them under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause as many Federal Courts have ruled. So, a majority of people should not be placed in charge of minority people where their human and citizen rights are concerned. That is why Federal Court after Federal Court including the Appellate Courts have ruled bans on Gay marriage to be unconstitutional because they are. People in the states simply cannot be left to decide such an issue when bigotry, prejudice, and discrimination takes front row center in place of good, prudent common sense for their fellow man.


This to me would mean that the Gay people can get married by the churches and people that are willing to marry them and those that have a religious issue with this can choose to opt out. In all government and legal contracts they all would be considered the same under the law!

To me that is freedom and it honors the first amendment right of freedom of religion?

Now forcing people to act against there belief? to me that is not freedom that is tyranny
The issue most Americans have with regard to churches is that if they receive money from the Federal government and refuse to perform some of the things the government says they must do that the government could then pull their tax exempt status which is only right and just under the circumstances. Besides, churches should be fully self-supporting as indeed most are and should not be wanting for the Federal government to subsidize them in any way due to what they preach which would not be in accord with the rights people have which could be trampled by the church's dictates and their activism while receiving money from the government. I can see why so many people would have an issue with that.

[Cthulhu]

Ridicule? What the hell are you talking about? When I post or reply it is telling it like it is. If people, including you, perceive that as ridicule then it may well be that they find they are ridiculing themselves in the process of being ridiculous.
I could easily fill up a thread with your insulting reactions to opposing views.

Fortunately for all, I have better things to do with my life.

Sent from my evil, kitten eating cell phone.

[domer76]

according to the verbal arguments, if this is upheld by the Supreme court then a person owning a business that wants to exercise their right to not participate in a Gay wedding will be subject to discrimination suit. And a Church would lose their tax exempt status?

That is not expanding rights, that is tyranny and against the first amendment!

However, leaving the marriage question to the states, or mandating that marriage can't be part of government? That will allow those to do as they please because there is NO need for the government to mandate anything.

This to me would mean that the Gay people can get married by the churches and people that are willing to marry them and those that have a religious issue with this can choose to opt out. In all government and legal contracts they all would be considered the same under the law!

To me that is freedom and it honors the first amendment right of freedom of religion?

Now forcing people to act against there belief? to me that is not freedom that is tyranny

You are totally missing the point or misrepresenting it. Providing a public accommodation is entirely different than participating in the wedding. And no, it has nothing to do with church status. It's related to business, not church.

Let's get the issue of acting against your beliefs out of the way. You are free to practice all the anti-gay shit you wish within the confines of your church. The same way as if you had anti-Jew, anti-black, or anti-mexican beliefs. But when a Jew or a black or a Mexican walks into your business and wants a donut, it's illegal to refuse service for those reasons. You can physically do so, but there are consequences for that refusal. The question is, are you willing to face those consequences? That is already the case in many jurisdictions and the odds are looking pretty good that it will be so nationally.

But I will reiterate. There was never a peep from anyone about government being in the business of marriage until gays came into the equation. But, I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

[domer76]

I am not envisioning any special class. I want equality for all. I also think that can be obtained without being disrespectful to others' faith and/or beliefs.

The approach that you and TrueBlue take, is to ridicule anybody who has even the slightest disagreement. You attack them and draw their defenses, then wonder why they get defensive.

There are a few on this forum now (used be be a lot less, but they flocked here because of our daily flood of gay topics thing we had going on) who aren't going to change their minds, but instead of recognizing it for what it is, you go off on wild tangents that make those of us with skin in the game seem like 12 year-old girls.

You said I was pushing for a "special class". What special class did you have in mind?

I will ridicule people who hide behind their religion, citing Leviticus, referring to "sodomites", using the absurd procreation excuse, etc. because they DESERVE ridicule. If someone has a legitimate argument for denying basic civil rights to a particular group, in this case gays, I'll give it consideration. So far, that has NEVER been the case. "Because God said so", "because it's not normal", "because they can't make babies" just doesn't cut it.

[zelmo1234]

You are totally missing the point or misrepresenting it. Providing a public accommodation is entirely different than participating in the wedding. And no, it has nothing to do with church status. It's related to business, not church.

Let's get the issue of acting against your beliefs out of the way. You are free to practice all the anti-gay $#@! you wish within the confines of your church. The same way as if you had anti-Jew, anti-black, or anti-mexican beliefs. But when a Jew or a black or a Mexican walks into your business and wants a donut, it's illegal to refuse service for those reasons. You can physically do so, but there are consequences for that refusal. The question is, are you willing to face those consequences? That is already the case in many jurisdictions and the odds are looking pretty good that it will be so nationally.

But I will reiterate. There was never a peep from anyone about government being in the business of marriage until gays came into the equation. But, I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

My religion goes far beyond my Church, and that is my right under the very first amendment that the founding fathers created. So If my belief prevents me from making a cake for a gay wedding then they need to find one of the other businesses that do not have an issue with this.

In the question to the court, church's could be punished if they are not willing to preform a gay wedding.
This to violates the first amendment rights of the people.

As for getting government out of the Marriage business. I answered this once maybe you had forgotten. But up until the LBGT community started trying to force their lifestyle on religious people. The only punishment the government was imposing on married people was the marriage tax penalty, and the cost of the license! So they just sucked it up and paid the taxes to the government .

Now the Government is trying to take away the first amendment rights of the people. So they need to be put back in their place.

[zelmo1234]

What is really easy to see is that many in the LGBT community are not interested in equal rights.

You see if we removed government from the marriage process, they would in fact be able to be married, not in every church and not every baker, photographer, florist ect. would have to participate in your wedding, or any wedding for that matter.

And then all legal processes would be in the form of a contract, or a Will? So they would have everything the same as everyone else.

And as you can see all but one are not happy with being equal. What they really want is for the government to force everyone, including the church, to accept their lifestyle as normal and stop referring to it as a sin!

[domer76]

My religion goes far beyond my Church, and that is my right under the very first amendment that the founding fathers created. So If my belief prevents me from making a cake for a gay wedding then they need to find one of the other businesses that do not have an issue with this.

In the question to the court, church's could be punished if they are not willing to preform a gay wedding.
This to violates the first amendment rights of the people.

As for getting government out of the Marriage business. I answered this once maybe you had forgotten. But up until the LBGT community started trying to force their lifestyle on religious people. The only punishment the government was imposing on married people was the marriage tax penalty, and the cost of the license! So they just sucked it up and paid the taxes to the government .

Now the Government is trying to take away the first amendment rights of the people. So they need to be put back in their place.

You are totally wrong on your perception that a church will be punished for refusing to perform a gay wedding. That's hysterical nonsense. You probably got that from some RW propaganda site.

And you have it exactly wrong on the business thing. When YOU decide to discriminate illegally in your business, it's time for YOU to find something else to do. Because, when you choose to participate in such activities, you will soon have no business to practice that bigotry. There may be a place for that in your church, and that is protected. Go for it. But it has no place in the business world and you have no protection there. That is, unless your business is a church-related business.

I'll ask this. How, exactly, is the government taking away First Amendment rights if it allows Bob and Bill down the street to get married and their marriage recognized in all 50 states?

[Archer0915]

You are totally wrong on your perception that a church will be punished for refusing to perform a gay wedding. That's hysterical nonsense. You probably got that from some RW propaganda site.

Actually people are being sued, churches face suits...


OCEAN GROVE, New Jersey, January 13, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com (http://www.lifesitenews.com/)) - A New Jersey judge ruled against a Christian retreat house that refused to allow a same-sex civil union ceremony to be conducted on its premises, ruling the Constitution allows “some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals.”

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/judge-rules-christian-facility-cannot-ban-same-sex-civil-union-ceremony-on/

And you see why people get pissed off.

They could have gotten married elsewhere but oh hell no! They pushed the damn issue.

Well when you push, sometimes people push back.

[Green Arrow]

Don't live in Texas. Don't care.

[Peter1469]

Actually people are being sued, churches face suits...



https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/judge-rules-christian-facility-cannot-ban-same-sex-civil-union-ceremony-on/

And you see why people get pissed off.

They could have gotten married elsewhere but oh hell no! They pushed the damn issue.

Well when you push, sometimes people push back.

That is a big part of the problem. These suits are not honest controversies. Gay activists deliberately target a business or church for these law suits. That is pitiful.

[Archer0915]

That is a big part of the problem. These suits are not honest controversies. Gay activists deliberately target a business or church for these law suits. That is pitiful.

Yup. Like I have said it builds resentment and created enemies where none existed.

[zelmo1234]

You are totally wrong on your perception that a church will be punished for refusing to perform a gay wedding. That's hysterical nonsense. You probably got that from some RW propaganda site.

And you have it exactly wrong on the business thing. When YOU decide to discriminate illegally in your business, it's time for YOU to find something else to do. Because, when you choose to participate in such activities, you will soon have no business to practice that bigotry. There may be a place for that in your church, and that is protected. Go for it. But it has no place in the business world and you have no protection there. That is, unless your business is a church-related business.

I'll ask this. How, exactly, is the government taking away First Amendment rights if it allows Bob and Bill down the street to get married and their marriage recognized in all 50 states?

I have no issue with Bob and Bill getting married. Good for them. and if Church A wants to marry them, that is fine with me too!

What I have an issue with is Patty the owner of the local Bakery is from Church B and she believes that the LBGT lifestyle is a sin. And while Bob and Bill have been going there for month and purchasing their morning bagels and muffins. Now they want Patty to bake their wedding cake. She respectfully declines to be party of their wedding ceremony, because it is against her religious beliefs. And the law wants to force her to do that!

That takes away her first amendment rights to practice her religion! Does it not. Sure is does. And that is unconstitutional and tyrannical and should be opposed.

[PolWatch]

The more things change, the more they remain the same. I heard the same justifications used to explain an aversion to the children of Ham.

[zelmo1234]

The more things change, the more they remain the same. I heard the same justifications used to explain an aversion to the children of Ham.

Sots of you are saying that the color of your skin is a chosen lifestyle? Or are you saying that there are places in the Bible that say that the color of your skin is an abomination to the lord?

You see you can choose to act on your desires. For example you can choose to be faithful in your marriage. You can choose not to have sex with your sister, or a child and you could choose not to act on your love for the same sex or in the case of some religions choose to not participate in sex all together.

So that is what I mean by chosen lifestyle. So not that a couple has chose to act on their love for each other, that does not allow them to infringe on the 1st amendment rights of others. That is all that I am saying.

By the responses from those supporting the LGBT community, it is clear that they don't just want to be married, they want acceptance by all and punishment for those that refuse to bow to their chosen way of life.

[Mister D]

The more things change, the more they remain the same. I heard the same justifications used to explain an aversion to the children of Ham.

I've heard people justify discrimination in order to combat discrimination. It's a weird world. :wink:

[Captain Obvious]

I've heard people justify discrimination in order to combat discrimination. It's a weird world. :wink:

It's the definition of affirmative action basically, discrimination for "equality".

Weapons for peace.

[zelmo1234]

I've heard people justify discrimination in order to combat discrimination. It's a weird world. :wink:

But that is the good discrimination, did you not get the memo?

[PolWatch]

My statement was mean to remind people that religion was also used as the justification for objecting to integration. Who can object to religious principles?

[Mister D]

My statement was mean to remind people that religion was also used as the justification for objecting to integration. Who can object to religious principles?

And that interpretation ultimately lost out because it wasn't a plausible interpretation.

[Ravens Fan]

You said I was pushing for a "special class". What special class did you have in mind?

I say that because instead of equality, you push for all to be forced into acceptance via the force of the government, no matter who else's rights you trample.


I will ridicule people who hide behind their religion, citing Leviticus, referring to "sodomites", using the absurd procreation excuse, etc. because they DESERVE ridicule. If someone has a legitimate argument for denying basic civil rights to a particular group, in this case gays, I'll give it consideration. So far, that has NEVER been the case. "Because God said so", "because it's not normal", "because they can't make babies" just doesn't cut it.

And by ridiculing one's religion, you accomplish what exactly? It really does say that in the bible, so they are right to think that based on their faith. Personally, I feel there was misinterpretation when the words were translated, but rather than trying to demean a person, I argue about the translation.

Please tell me who on this forum is advocating denying basic civil rights to gays? I have seen those who are against gay marriage, yet are fine with civil unions that grant the same rights as marriage. Their problem is with redefining marriage. I have seen (and am one of those), who are against forcing a business owner to be a part of a ceremony that goes against their religious beliefs, that's not denying rights, it is protecting them. One of the most important things our founder's fought to protect was the freedom of religion. There are a few, like I said who have come out of the woodworks recently, and if you held your straight bashing just for them, I could go along with it. But you attack anyone who does not fall completely inline with your view.

As far as a persons feelings, it's not up to you to decide what is legitimate and not. We don't get to legislate things like that, all we can do is try to win hearts and minds... and the way you handle yourself does the complete opposite. So again I will ask that if you are going to take on a cause that you have no skin in, please do not push people away, or don't bother trying to "help".

[Common Sense]

I'm going to start a religion that says I don't have to pay taxes and that I'm allowed to steal whatever I wish.

That way I can violate other people's rights but not suffer any consequences.


;)

[Mister D]

I'm going to start a religion that says I don't have to pay taxes and that I'm allowed to steal whatever I wish.

That way I can violate other people's rights but not suffer any consequences.


;)

That wouldn't fly. There are requirements for religious exemption wherever religious exemption appears.

[Common Sense]

That wouldn't fly. There are requirements for religious exemption wherever religious exemption appears.

What sort of requirements?

[zelmo1234]

I wish all would read Raven's posts. If his positions would be adopted we as a nations could put this behind us in a week!

It would see a massive movement to get equal rights for the LGBT community and protect the current definition of Marriage and those with religious beliefs.

This is what I am suspicious of the movement, because if this could be had and there are many that reject it? What do they really want!

[zelmo1234]

I'm going to start a religion that says I don't have to pay taxes and that I'm allowed to steal whatever I wish.

That way I can violate other people's rights but not suffer any consequences.


;)

Actually you need to pass a constitutional amendment protecting your right to steal first! Then after you get that done I will join your church. Until then Stealing is against the law.

This is the honest debate that the left always tries to resort too! It is not stealing to say. I am sorry Bill and Bob, but my religion prevents me from being part of your wedding, So you will need to find another Bakery for your wedding cake!

Though if they were refused any service, then I have real issues with that!

[zelmo1234]

What sort of requirements?

they must be non profit.

they can't participate or use funds for political activism.

They must have a charitable outreach which can be but not limited to missionary work.

Just to name a few.

[Polecat]

The more things change, the more they remain the same. I heard the same justifications used to explain an aversion to the children of Ham.

The interesting part is that there is no indication who the children of Ham became. Not from the Bible anyway.

[Mister D]

What sort of requirements?

For example, you can't just suddenly become a Quaker when you receive your draft notice. History, both personal and religious, is a huge factor.

[Archer0915]

I'm going to start a religion that says I don't have to pay taxes and that I'm allowed to steal whatever I wish.

That way I can violate other people's rights but not suffer any consequences.


;)

toooooo late! The religion is called politics.

[Polecat]

I'm going to start a religion that says I don't have to pay taxes and that I'm allowed to steal whatever I wish.

That way I can violate other people's rights but not suffer any consequences.


;)

You needn't go to the trouble. They already exist. A good starting point is Aleister Crowley. Many such religions have branched out from his efforts. There are others too.

[Common Sense]

they must be non profit.

they can't participate or use funds for political activism.

They must have a charitable outreach which can be but not limited to missionary work.

Just to name a few.

No problem...I can do that.

Can I tell you the good news about our lord and savior Common Sense?


;)

[PolWatch]

The last major social change in this nation was civil rights. Religion was used then, by some, to justify their beliefs that blacks were not entitled to equal treatment. Most people today don't try this logic. I think the majority realize that it was an excuse that twisted an interpretation of the Bible to suit their beliefs.

We now have people wanting to decide who to do business with based on their religion. We have people now who can decide what insurance coverage their employees can purchase based on the employer's religion. Wow...so many religious people with so many beliefs.

Amazing when you consider how religion is declining in this nation. The cynical among us might think that some people might be using religion as the hook to hang their political differences on.

'Organized religion is losing ground in the United States. A new report from the Pew Research Center finds that the percentage of people who have no religion has risen from 16.1 percent to 22.8 percent since 2007. At the same time, those who identify with Christianity, the traditional religious affiliation of Americans, has fallen by nearly 8 percent.'

btw: the quote is not from a liberal rag....it's from a professor at BYU for the Deseret News

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865628575/Considering-data-from-recent-Pew-study-what-is-the-future-of-organized-religion.html

[Mister D]

And the cynical among the rest of us might conclude that several members have an animus toward religion that colors their perceptions.

[PolWatch]

and the double cynical of us might suspect the motives of one who has often spoke of declining religion in this nation....but would rather ignore it in this instance....

[Common Sense]

Bill O'Reilly blames the decline of organized religion on....rap music.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/05/13/bill-oreilly-blames-rap-music-for-the-decline-of-organized-religion-that-makes-no-sense/

[Polecat]

The last major social change in this nation was civil rights. Religion was used then, by some, to justify their beliefs that blacks were not entitled to equal treatment. Most people today don't try this logic. I think the majority realize that it was an excuse that twisted an interpretation of the Bible to suit their beliefs.

We now have people wanting to decide who to do business with based on their religion. We have people now who can decide what insurance coverage their employees can purchase based on the employer's religion. Wow...so many religious people with so many beliefs.

Amazing when you consider how religion is declining in this nation. The cynical among us might think that some people might be using religion as the hook to hang their political differences on.

'Organized religion is losing ground in the United States. A new report from the Pew Research Center finds that the percentage of people who have no religion has risen from 16.1 percent to 22.8 percent since 2007. At the same time, those who identify with Christianity, the traditional religious affiliation of Americans, has fallen by nearly 8 percent.'

btw: the quote is not from a liberal rag....it's from a professor at BYU for the Deseret News

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865628575/Considering-data-from-recent-Pew-study-what-is-the-future-of-organized-religion.html

Religious corruption is but one of many tools being used. Somehow the aspect of a completely secular society is not very reassuring that there will be peace.

[Common Sense]

Religious corruption is but one of many tools being used. Somehow the aspect of a completely secular society is not very reassuring that there will be peace.

It certainly doesn't mean there wont be peace.

[PolWatch]

Religious corruption is but one of many tools being used. Somehow the aspect of a completely secular society is not very reassuring that there will be peace.

Only if we assume that religion always brings peace...but I think the Middle East disproves that idea. That reality is one of the things that makes me wonder if perverted religion is more trouble than no religion. Although, what I consider perverted is not going to meet everyone's criteria.

[Polecat]

Only if we assume that religion always brings peace...but I think the Middle East disproves that idea. That reality is one of the things that makes me wonder if perverted religion is more trouble than no religion. Although, what I consider perverted is not going to meet everyone's criteria.

We could ask the people of the former Soviet Union, China, and North Korea how well it is going.

[Common Sense]

We could ask the people of the former Soviet Union, China, and North Korea how well it is going.

That's idiotic. Religion was replaced with autocratic rule.

[Common Sense]

We could ask the people of the former Soviet Union, China, and North Korea how well it is going.

A better place to look would be Sweden, Germany, Switzerland, Spain...

[Polecat]

That's idiotic. Religion was replaced with autocratic rule.

What's the matter? You can usually make a point without calling something idiotic.

[Polecat]

A better place to look would be Sweden, Germany, Switzerland, Spain...

Those places still permit religious expression.

[Common Sense]

What's the matter? You can usually make a point without calling something idiotic.

Sorry, I'm not saying you're an idiot, but that point is idiotic in my opinion.

[Common Sense]

Those places still permit religious expression.

I didn't say they didn't...but to a large extent there is an absence of religion in those countries.

I would never advocate for a ban on religious expression...I don't think anyone is saying that.

Absence of religion is not equal to banning religion. Comparing it to countries that are dictatorships is a bit disingenuous I think.

[domer76]

Actually people are being sued, churches face suits...



https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/judge-rules-christian-facility-cannot-ban-same-sex-civil-union-ceremony-on/

And you see why people get pissed off.

They could have gotten married elsewhere but oh hell no! They pushed the damn issue.

Well when you push, sometimes people push back.
The place was NOT an exempt (church) place. They held a tax status that allowed equal acces. Do you know what "equal access" means?

you should read an article completely before commenting.

[Archer0915]

I didn't say they didn't...but to a large extent there is an absence of religion in those countries.

I would never advocate for a ban on religious expression...I don't think anyone is saying that.

Absence of religion is not equal to banning religion. Comparing it to countries that are dictatorships is a bit disingenuous I think.

Not Islam! Islam is growing and unless the EU dies it will take over.

[Mister D]

A better place to look would be Sweden, Germany, Switzerland, Spain...

I must agree with Common Sense. It is to declining, irrelevant countries that we must look.

[domer76]

I have no issue with Bob and Bill getting married. Good for them. and if Church A wants to marry them, that is fine with me too!

What I have an issue with is Patty the owner of the local Bakery is from Church B and she believes that the LBGT lifestyle is a sin. And while Bob and Bill have been going there for month and purchasing their morning bagels and muffins. Now they want Patty to bake their wedding cake. She respectfully declines to be party of their wedding ceremony, because it is against her religious beliefs. And the law wants to force her to do that!

That takes away her first amendment rights to practice her religion! Does it not. Sure is does. And that is unconstitutional and tyrannical and should be opposed.
We can go down this road 100 times and you and Patty will still be wrong and Patty will be out of business.

When Patty chooses to do business, it's a public accommodation issue. She provides cakes to SOME weddings, she provides cakes to ALL weddings.

[Mister D]

Only if we assume that religion always brings peace...but I think the Middle East disproves that idea. That reality is one of the things that makes me wonder if perverted religion is more trouble than no religion. Although, what I consider perverted is not going to meet everyone's criteria.

A world without religion is like a world without politics. There would no people in it.

[Mister D]

That's idiotic. Religion was replaced with autocratic rule.

In the west, Christianity was replaced by its secular variant: liberalism.

[PolWatch]

In the west, Christianity was replaced by its secular variant: liberalism.

In the west, Christianity was replaced by Republicanism.....:grin:

[Polecat]

I didn't say they didn't...but to a large extent there is an absence of religion in those countries.

I would never advocate for a ban on religious expression...I don't think anyone is saying that.

Absence of religion is not equal to banning religion. Comparing it to countries that are dictatorships is a bit disingenuous I think.

Nature abhors a vacuum. While many people can deny they have a spiritual component nature will insist that something fills this void. The trend is most obviously self worship. Show me an agnostic that does not have a pseudo replacement for the religion they rejected.

[Common Sense]

In the west, Christianity was replaced by its secular variant: liberalism.

Except liberalism isn't a religion....and liberals can be Christians.

[domer76]

Sots of you are saying that the color of your skin is a chosen lifestyle? Or are you saying that there are places in the Bible that say that the color of your skin is an abomination to the lord?

You see you can choose to act on your desires. For example you can choose to be faithful in your marriage. You can choose not to have sex with your sister, or a child and you could choose not to act on your love for the same sex or in the case of some religions choose to not participate in sex all together.

So that is what I mean by chosen lifestyle. So not that a couple has chose to act on their love for each other, that does not allow them to infringe on the 1st amendment rights of others. That is all that I am saying.

By the responses from those supporting the LGBT community, it is clear that they don't just want to be married, they want acceptance by all and punishment for those that refuse to bow to their chosen way of life.
Polwatch could have changed the wording to "Baptists", a very chosen lifestyle.

Cut the "chosen lifestyle" BS. It doesn't fly. What you are saying regarding the "sin" thing is that a public business is now the arbiter of who is worthy of serving and who is not. Do you propose a "sin litmus test" for all patrons?

[domer76]

And that interpretation ultimately lost out because it wasn't a plausible interpretation.
Guess which interpretation is also losing?

[Mister D]

Except liberalism isn't a religion....and liberals can be Christians.

Look up the word secular and then laugh at yourself.

[Common Sense]

Nature abhors a vacuum. While many people can deny they have a spiritual component nature will insist that something fills this void. The trend is most obviously self worship. Show me an agnostic that does not have a pseudo replacement for the religion they rejected.

My spiritual component is present in things like nature and my family.

Religion doesn't need to be replaced by anything.

[Mister D]

Guess which interpretation is also losing?

That the bible is from the Bronze Age. We know that is one is a real loser.

:smiley_ROFLMAO:

[Common Sense]

Look up the word secular and then laugh at yourself.

Try to make some sense. I know this is a touchy subject for you.

[Mister D]

My spiritual component is present in things like nature and my family.

Religion doesn't need to be replaced by anything.

I'd love to hear all about your "spiritual component" some time.

[Mister D]

Try to make some sense. I know this is a touchy subject for you.

OK everyone...step back. We have to create safe zone for Common Sense. he doesn't like to challenged. :grin:

[Polecat]

My spiritual component is present in things like nature and my family.

Religion doesn't need to be replaced by anything.
Yet you admit that you have done so yourself.

[Mister D]

In the west, Christianity was replaced by Republicanism.....:grin:

Well, yeah.

[Common Sense]

OK everyone...step back. We have to create safe zone for Common Sense. he doesn't like to challenged. :grin:

I just don't know what you're getting at. Look up secular then laugh at myself? Be less cryptic. Say what you mean.

I know you get emotional over this subject. I just think you should try to divest yourself of the emotion and try to express yourself more clearly.

[Common Sense]

Yet you admit that you have done so yourself.

But I certainly don't see it as religious. Of course I'm in wonderment of nature...I just don't assign supernatural forces to it. In a sense it's not spirituality.

But I get what you're saying. I just disagree with the self worship bit...but I can only speak for myself.

[Mister D]

I just don't know what you're getting at. Look up secular then laugh at myself? Be less cryptic. Say what you mean.

I know you get emotional over this subject. I just think you should try to divest yourself of the emotion and try to express yourself more clearly.

You said liberalism isn't a religion in response to "Christianity has been replaced by its secularized variant:liberalism."

There is a clear indication in my statement that liberalism is not a religion. That would be the term secularized which is why I told you to look it up.

[domer76]

And the cynical among the rest of us might conclude that several members have an animus toward religion that colors their perceptions.
I only have animus for religion when I see it used for the purposes we are discussing on this thread and others. As a rationalization for bigotry and discrimination. As an arbiter of who is worthy and who is not, based on some ancient concept of morality from (yes) Bronze Age goatherders.

i have equal animus for those who just plain come out and say they hate fa99ots and 9ueers with no mention of religios affiliation. But at least they are clear on their misplaced bigotry. They don't hide behind anything.

My colored perception is this: you choose to be in business in the secular world, you play by those rules. Not too difficult.

[Common Sense]

You said liberalism isn't a religion in response to "Christianity has been replaced by its secularized variant:liberalism."

There is a clear indication in my statement that liberalism is not a religion. That would be the term secularized which is why I told you to look it up.

Ah, my mistake.

[Mister D]

I only have animus for religion when I see it used for the purposes we are discussing on this thread and others. As a rationalization for bigotry and discrimination. As an arbiter of who is worthy and who is not, based on some ancient concept of morality from (yes) Bronze Age goatherders.

i have equal animus for those who just plain come out and say they hate fa99ots and 9ueers with no mention of religios affiliation. But at least they are clear on their misplaced bigotry. They don't hide behind anything.

My colored perception is this: you choose to be in business in the secular world, you play by those rules. Not too difficult.

Domer, I don't take you seriously. Please don't try and explain yourself to me at this point.

[Mister D]

Ah, my mistake.

And I agree that liberalism is a rather weak glue. A pale shadow of Christianity.

[domer76]

That the bible is from the Bronze Age. We know that is one is a real loser.

:smiley_ROFLMAO:
I know, I know. We've beaten that one to death and you continue to try to divert the issue.

Sodom & Gomorrah - Bronza Age morality.

[Mister D]

I know, I know. We've beaten that one to death and you continue to try to divert the issue.

Sodom & Gomorrah - Bronza Age morality.

Star Trek - 23rd Century mentality. :smiley_ROFLMAO:

[domer76]

Domer, I don't take you seriously. Please don't try and explain yourself to me at this point.

You fail to understand so much, it seems a lost cause anyway.

[Common Sense]

Comparing fiction to fiction...

[Mister D]

You fail to understand so much, it seems a lost cause anyway.

You're an open book.

[Polecat]

But I certainly don't see it as religious. Of course I'm in wonderment of nature...I just don't assign supernatural forces to it. In a sense it's not spirituality.

But I get what you're saying. I just disagree with the self worship bit...but I can only speak for myself.

I am not a religious person myself. But I am a believer. I have no proof or evidence. There is no way for me to claim any credit or superiority on any matter. I am just a believer.

[domer76]

Star Trek - 23rd Century mentality. :smiley_ROFLMAO:

I know. You used that idiotic analogy before. How many millions use the equally mythical Star Trek as their moral compass?

But I would point out that Star Trek has a better handle on morality than your Bronze Age sodomite haters

[Mister D]

I know. You used that idiotic analogy before. How many millions use the equally mythical Star Trek as their moral compass?

But I would point out that Star Trek has a better handle on morality than your Bronze Age sodomite haters

It's quite an apt analogy which is why you can't refute it. :smiley_ROFLMAO: Did you know Captain Kirk was born in 2227?

[Mister D]

I am not a religious person myself. But I am a believer. I have no proof or evidence. There is no way for me to claim any credit or superiority on any matter. I am just a believer.

I have no problem with Common sense's non-belief. I do have a problem with his inability to accept the consequences (or even discuss them) of his non-belief.

[Common Sense]

It's quite an apt analogy which is why you can't refute it. :smiley_ROFLMAO: Did you know Captain Kirk was born in 2227?

It is a good analogy. Comparing fiction with fiction. ;)

[Mister D]

Comparing fiction to fiction...

All history is fiction. From the Latin fictio-to shape, to form, to construct

[Common Sense]

I have no problem with Common sense's non-belief. I do have a problem with his inability to accept the consequences (or even discuss them) of his non-belief.

What consequences? For myself personally or as a society?

[Polecat]

What consequences? For myself personally or as a society?

Both. (You asked)

[Mister D]

What consequences? For myself personally or as a society?

For both. Would you like to begin this discussion? First, you have to agree not to get all pissy and defensive. Agreed? If you can do that strat tellign me all about this "spiritual compnent" of yours. :smiley:

[Mister D]

Both. (You asked)

That's obvious to any thinking man but Common Sense thinks we can live on our Christian inheritance forever. Better still, he's hardly aware of it. To him, it's just common sense no pun intended. :wink:

[Polecat]

I have no problem with Common sense's non-belief. I do have a problem with his inability to accept the consequences (or even discuss them) of his non-belief.

That defies logic. If he dose not believe there are any consequences how can he accept them?

[Common Sense]

For both. Would you like to begin this discussion? First, you have to agree not to get all pissy and defensive. Agreed? If you can do that strat tellign me all about this "spiritual compnent" of yours. :smiley:


That's obvious to any thinking man but Common Sense thinks we can live on our Christian inheritance forever. Better still, he's hardly aware of it. To him, it's just common sense no pun intended. :wink:

Great start. I don't think you're capable of not being defensive and insulting. Why would I have that discussion with you?

[Mister D]

That defies logic. If he dose not believe there are any consequences how can he accept them?

Is an alcoholic not an alcoholic because he doesn't believe he's a drunk?

[Mister D]

Great start. I don't think you're capable of not being defensive and insulting. Why would I have that discussion with you?

No worries. I really didn't expect much if only because you're the type of man who likes to ridicule the worldview of others safe in the knowledge you don't have one of your own.

[Polecat]

Is an alcoholic not an alcoholic because he doesn't believe he's a drunk?

An alcoholic that never drinks is still an alcoholic. Might make a better analogy?

[Mister D]

An alcoholic that never drinks is still an alcoholic. Might make a better analogy?

You would want to have an alcoholic accept his alcoholism, right? I'm sure you get my meaning now. We can move on.

[Common Sense]

No worries. I really didn't expect much if only because you're the type of man who likes to ridicule the worldview of others safe in the knowledge you don't have one of your own.

LOL...you're being pretty defensive for someone who has insulted me several times.

Don't worry, I expected it.

If I don't subscribe to your worldview, I don't have one???

For someone I consider fairly intelligent, you say some ridiculous things.

Good luck to you.

[Polecat]

You would want to have an alcoholic accept his alcoholism, right? I'm sure you get my meaning now. We can move on.

No. Mostly I would want him to find peace and feel God's presence in him under his own volition. It is his journey. Not mine.

[domer76]

You're an open book.

It's called being transparent.

[Mister D]

It's called being transparent.

lol no doubt.

[Mister D]

No. Mostly I would want him to find peace and feel God's presence in him under his own volition. It is his journey. Not mine.

Well, with all due respect that's kind of fucked up.

[Mister D]

LOL...you're being pretty defensive for someone who has insulted me several times.

Don't worry, I expected it.

If I don't subscribe to your worldview, I don't have one???

For someone I consider fairly intelligent, you say some ridiculous things.

Good luck to you.

That's great, Common. If you ever feel like sharing your "spiritual component" let me know.

[Polecat]

Well, with all due respect that's kind of fucked up.

What else can I do? Despise him? Force him? Ridicule him? How are any of these measures going to be of use? If God had intended for unanimous worship to be mandatory he would have made it so. He gave us free will for a reason. I don't pretend to know what reason that might be. But I have concluded that it is not my place (or any man's) to go around trying to defeat what God saw right in the first place. My salvation came from Christ. Not the church.

[Mister D]

What else can I do? Despise him? Force him? Ridicule him? How are any of these measures going to be of use? If God had intended for unanimous worship to be mandatory he would have made it so. He gave us free will for a reason. I don't pretend to know what reason that might be. But I have concluded that it is not my place (or any man's) to go around trying to defeat what God saw right in the first place. My salvation came from Christ. Not the church.

Dude, if you have a loved who has an alcohol/drug problem and your attitude is "that's his/her life journey, not mine" it's fucked up. Christ teaches us to love our fellow man not to wish him well on his life journey. Good grief...

[Polecat]

Dude, if you have a loved who has an alcohol/drug problem and your attitude is "that's his/her life journey, not mine" it's fucked up. Christ teaches us to love our fellow man not to wish him well on his life journey. Good grief...

How does one love his brother with a boot on his neck? You can't beat the fear of God into people. Thinking that you can is best left to the Muslims.

[Mister D]

How does one love his brother with a boot on his neck? You can't beat the fear of God into people. Thinking that you can is best left to the Muslims.

Who said anything about a boot on his neck? Is that really how you perceive the love of other human beings in your life? Man, this society is fucked up. So is contemporary Christianity if that is in any way representative of it.

[Polecat]

Who said anything about a boot on his neck? Is that really how you perceive the love of other human beings in your life? Man, this society is fucked up. So is contemporary Christianity if that is in any way representative of it.

My perception of love does not involve force. If yours does then maybe you just don't understand the concept. You offer love. You don't jamb it down someone's throat.

[Mister D]

My perception of love does not involve force. If yours does then maybe you just don't understand the concept. You offer love. You don't jamb it down someone's throat.

Nor does mine but yours appears to involve a very unChristian indifference.

[Polecat]

Nor does mine but yours appears to involve a very unChristian indifference.

It is not indifference. It reflects the instructions Jesus gave his apostles when he sent them out. They were to approach a town with the offer of their message. If turned down they were to depart, shaking the dust from their feet. Now had Jesus told them to lay siege to the city and starve them into accepting the Gospel I don't think I would have missed that in my multiple readings.

[Mister D]

It is not indifference. It reflects the instructions Jesus gave his apostles when he sent them out. They were to approach a town with the offer of their message. If turned down they were to depart, shaking the dust from their feet. Now had Jesus told them to lay siege to the city and starve them into accepting the Gospel I don't think I would have missed that in my multiple readings.

Do as you please was not the message, Polecat. Moreover, I'm sorry, but your attitude toward your loved ones is rather appalling. Take it as you will.

[domer76]

It's quite an apt analogy which is why you can't refute it. :smiley_ROFLMAO: Did you know Captain Kirk was born in 2227?
You fucked up the chronology there, too. WAS born in 2227?

(SMILEY) ROLLING-ON-THE-FLOOR-LAUGHING-MY-ASS-OFF

[Mister D]

You $#@!ed up the chronology there, too. WAS born in 2227?

(SMILEY) ROLLING-ON-THE-FLOOR-LAUGHING-MY-ASS-OFF

Pssst...he's fictional. :smiley_ROFLMAO:

[domer76]

Well, with all due respect that's kind of fucked up.
When one begins with "with all due respect", you can be pretty sure the rest will be a lie.

[domer76]

Pssst...he's fictional. :smiley_ROFLMAO:

Pssst. So is most of the stuff in the Bible you base your morality on.

(SMILEY) ROLLING-ON-THE-FLOOR-LAUGHING-MY-ASS-OFF

[Mister D]

When one begins with "with all due respect", you can be pretty sure the rest will be a lie.

It's OK to be gay, domer.

[Mister D]

Pssst. So is most of the stuff in the Bible you base your morality on.

(SMILEY) ROLLING-ON-THE-FLOOR-LAUGHING-MY-ASS-OFF

Prove it. :smiley_ROFLMAO:

[domer76]

It's OK to be gay, domer.
With all due respect, I appreciate your posts.

[Mister D]

With all due respect, I appreciate your posts.

We all appreciate yours. You've become the butt of jokes at this point.

[domer76]

Prove it. :smiley_ROFLMAO:
It's your book. Tell us all how every animal in the world, times two, all lived in harmony for months on end on one big boat. Or how ol' Noah was able to round up two of them in the first place. How could he tell the difference between a male gnat and a female gnat? He needed both, I think. Explain how two koala bears managed to find their way from Turkey to Australia, alive, only to procreate when they finally arrived there.

This should be interesting.

[Mister D]

It's your book. Tell us all how every animal in the world, times two, all lived in harmony for months on end on one big boat. Or how ol' Noah was able to round up two of them in the first place. How could he tell the difference between a male gnat and a female gnat? He needed both, I think. Explain how two koala bears managed to find their way from Turkey to Australia, alive, only to procreate when they finally arrived there.

This should be interesting.

I don't base my morality on the story of Noah's Ark. Try harder, gomer. :smiley_ROFLMAO:

[domer76]

We all appreciate yours. You've become the butt of jokes at this point.

You toss out Captain Kirk as an analogy to the Bible and you say I'm the butt of jokes???

I have to say one thing D. You may be adrift on most topics, but you do have balls the size of Phoenix!

[Mister D]

You toss out Captain Kirk as an analogy to the Bible and you say I'm the butt of jokes???

I have to say one thing D. You may be adrift on most topics, but you do have balls the size of Phoenix!

The analogy wasn't to the bible, gomer. It was to your silly argument. :laugh:

[domer76]

I don't base my morality on the story of Noah's Ark. Try harder, gomer. :smiley_ROFLMAO:

Deflection. I claimed they were myths and gave you one. Are you going to defend it as an actual event or not?

[Mister D]

Deflection. I claimed they were myths and gave you one. Are you going to defend it as an actual event or not?

Deflection!? :laugh: It is a myth, gomer, but that's immaterial. I don't base my morality on the story of Noah's Ark. Did you have anything else?

[domer76]

The analogy wasn't to the bible, gomer. It was to your silly argument. :laugh:
With all due respect, SURE it was!

[Mister D]

With all due respect, SURE it was!

Right. You're catching on a little faster today! Good job!

[domer76]

Deflection!? :laugh: It is a myth, gomer, but that's immaterial. I don't base my morality on the story of Noah's Ark. Did you have anything else?
So we agree for once. You asked me to "prove it" re: the myths in the Bible, yet you were on board all along.

What a piece of work you are!

How about that equally mythical Leviticus bullshit? Or the Sodom & Gomorrah myth?

Or do you merely cherry pick the myths you agree with?

[Mister D]

Pssst. So is most of the stuff in the Bible you base your morality on.

(SMILEY) ROLLING-ON-THE-FLOOR-LAUGHING-MY-ASS-OFF

I have to tutor this queer in English too. :laugh: Now, gomer, what is it in the bible that I base my morality that is mythical?

[Mister D]

BTW, what's mythical in Leviticus? :laugh:

[Ravens Fan]

This whole conversation between Mister D and Domer is a fine example of my earlier comments. Here you have Mister D, who usually has no problems with gays or the lifestyle per-say, just with the approach. He has stated several times though that it goes against his beleifs. He is not the type to try and discriminate or deny any rights against gays. Domer can't argue the real issue, (which could be argued with scripture), so he tries to belittle everything about the bible and anyone of faith. This helps the gay movement how???

[Mister D]

This whole conversation between Mister D and Domer is a fine example of my earlier comments. Here you have Mister D, who usually has no problems with gays or the lifestyle per-say, just with the approach. He has stated several times though that it goes against his beleifs. He is not the type to try and discriminate or deny any rights against gays. Domer can't argue the real issue, (which could be argued with scripture), so he tries to belittle everything about the bible and anyone of faith. This helps the gay movement how???

And I'm totally being a dick right now. No argument there.

[Common Sense]

I don't base my morality on the story of Noah's Ark. Try harder, gomer. :smiley_ROFLMAO:

Serious question, no disrespect intended...how does one assess which stories in the bible are fictional parables and which really happened. Because the bible and many of it's readers sort of claim it's all factual.

Does the fact that some parts seem to be made up discredit the book in any way?

[Ravens Fan]

And I'm totally being a dick right now. No argument there.

I know you are, and I understand your reasons. I also don't take offence to it because we have talked on the subject enough for me to know where you stand. I am just trying to point it out for Domer, to show him a clear example of his working against the gay movement.

[Polecat]

Do as you please was not the message, Polecat. Moreover, I'm sorry, but your attitude toward your loved ones is rather appalling. Take it as you will.

Do as you please is Crowley's message. I never endorsed that philosophy in any stretch of the imagination. Not sure why you want to put words like that in my mouth. Are you having trouble with making this more about a family member than a stranger on a forum? Because I am on the fellow man wave length here not my family members.

Do you wish to scrap this conversation or refine the parameters and continue?

[Mister D]

Ravens Fan it doesn't really go againt any religious beliefs of mine. It goes against a certain appreciation of tradition.

[Mister D]

Do as you please is Crowley's message. I never endorsed that philosophy in any stretch of the imagination. Not sure why you want to put words like that in my mouth. Are you having trouble with making this more about a family member than a stranger on a forum? Because I am on the fellow man wave length here not my family members.

Do you wish to scrap this conversation or refine the parameters and continue?

You say don't like me putting words in your mouth but you don't mind invokng radical Islam and vioence in your responses. Pardon me if I don't take your objection seriously.

Yes, lets scrap it.

[Ravens Fan]

@Ravens Fan (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=908) it doesn't really go againt any religious beliefs of mine. It goes against a certain appreciation of tradition.

Yeah, I worded it wrong, but I knew what I meant. Lol.

[Mister D]

Serious question, no disrespect intended...how does one assess which stories in the bible are fictional parables and which really happened. Because the bible and many of it's readers sort of claim it's all factual.

Does the fact that some parts seem to be made up discredit the book in any way?

No, "many" of its readers don't. They're actually a small, noisy minority. Anyway, it's not that hard, Common. Since Noah's Ark came up let's address that myth. It's actually a common myth across the ANE as well as around the globe. Moreover, the point of the biblical myth is to teach a theological lesson. You guys don't seem to get that about the Genesis myths. The creation myth in Genesis is meant to teach us something about the human condition and the world we live in. Exactly how man came to be isn't the point. Whether or not Adam and Eve were real people isn't the point. Such details were always beside the point which is that we are created beings in a created universe.

I don't believe that any of the bible is "made up". That's probably because I don't appoach the bible the way fundies and atheists approach it.

[Mister D]

Yeah, I worded it wrong, but I knew what I meant. Lol.

I just wanted to clarify. Gomer might. He seems hungup on the OT.

[Polecat]

Serious question, no disrespect intended...how does one assess which stories in the bible are fictional parables and which really happened. Because the bible and many of it's readers sort of claim it's all factual.

Does the fact that some parts seem to be made up discredit the book in any way?

Serious answer. You are just like anybody else that tries to read the Bible like a text book. I was in the exact same dilemma on the ambiguity that can be found throughout the book as a whole. At one time I was comfortable with the idea of adopting the parts I liked, rejecting the parts I didn't and ignoring the parts that just flat made zero sense. (most of it) God did not reach me through studying the Bible. (it was the mysterious ways thing) But once I was awakened I just understood how to approach it. I begin every reading with a prayer asking that God edify me with this reading per His will that I understand what He wants me to understand and protects me from being deceived. It is a different experience when done this way. The depth of wisdom hidden in there is bottomless and I have no doubt that I will read and reread the same book the rest of my life and never fail to have new things revealed.

[Common Sense]

No, "many" of its readers don't. They're actually a small, noisy minority. Anyway, it's not that hard, Common. Since Noah's Ark came up let's address that myth. It's actually a common myth across the ANE as well as around the globe. Moreover, the point of the biblical myth is to teach a theological lesson. You guys don't seem to get that about the Genesis myths. The creation myth in Genesis is meant to teach us something about the human condition and the world we live in. Exactly how man came to be isn't the point. Whether or not Adam and Eve were real people isn't the point. Such details were always beside the point which is that we are created beings in a created universe.

I don't believe that any of the bible is "made up". That's probably because I don't appoach the bible the way fundies and atheists approach it.

OK. Then why do they go into so much detail about lineage etc.. If these are just parables, why do they treat them as facts?

I do agree that it is a minority that believe in the literal bible. But you do see the inherent confusion when one aspect is to be treated as parable and an other as fact. Is the life of Jesus just a parable?

[Mister D]

OK. Then why do they go into so much detail about lineage etc.. If these are just parables, why do they treat them as facts?

I do agree that it is a minority that believe in the literal bible. But you do see the inherent confusion when one aspect is to be treated as parable and an other as fact. Is the life of Jesus just a parable?

Lineage was very important in the ANE as well as the Greek world. You'd expect it to be part of character development and background.

Common, it's like anything else regarding the bible. It takes some time and thought. People have asked me why I take one passage literally and not another. How do you know, they ask. I always say it's often just like everyday speech. When you tell me it's raining cats and dogs I'm not incredulous. It's a figure of speech. Similarly, when the trees clap their hands and the moon turns to blood in the bible I take it the same way.

[Common Sense]

Lineage was very important in the ANE as well as the Greek world. You'd expect it to be part of character development and background.

Common, it's like anything else regarding the bible. It takes some time and thought. People have asked me why I take one passage literally and not another. How do you know, they ask. I always say it's often just like everyday speech. When you tell me it's raining cats and dogs I'm not incredulous. It's a figure of speech. Similarly, when the trees clap their hands and the moon turns to blood in the bible I take it the same way.

But literally rising into heaven, making water out of wine, walking on water...are these just metaphors or are they literal?

[domer76]

And I'm totally being a dick right now. No argument there.
No doubt. Misrepresenting your position intentionally just to be a prick. Refer back to the posts on transparancy. Try that for once rarher than being an obtuse troll.

I will give you credit for being consistent, however.

[Mister D]

But literally rising into heaven, making water out of wine, walking on water...are these just metaphors or are they literal?

Miracles are another matter. They could be legendary embellishment. They could very well have happened. Not sure how I feel about it but I will say I don't make unnecessary concessions to rationalism and logical positivism. That said, I'd advise anyone to whom the miracles in the Gospels are a stumbling block to put them aside. They don't need to be central to your faith. Likewise, I would tell someone who considers those miracles important to their faith that that's fine.

[PattyHill]

Miracles are another matter. They could be legendary embellishment. They could very well have happened. Not sure how I feel about it but I will say I don't make unnecessary concessions to rationalism and logical positivism. That said, I'd advise anyone to whom the miracles in the Gospels are a stumbling block to put them aside. They don't need to be central to your faith. Likewise, I would tell someone who considers those miracles important to their faith that that's fine.


ROFL. I didn't weigh in on this thread because - bible. Myth. You want to believe it, your choice.

But this - "gee, if there's a part you don't like, just put it aside, because BELIEVE AS I BELIEVE! ignore the man behind the curtain. ignore the inconsistencies. just - believe!" You're just making it up as you go along.

that's fine if you want to think that way. Just know that you aren't convincing too many of us.

[Polecat]

Miracles are another matter. They could be legendary embellishment. They could very well have happened. Not sure how I feel about it but I will say I don't make unnecessary concessions to rationalism and logical positivism. That said, I'd advise anyone to whom the miracles in the Gospels are a stumbling block to put them aside. They don't need to be central to your faith. Likewise, I would tell someone who considers those miracles important to their faith that that's fine.
Wouldn't that be indifference? I only ask because you seem to have a different definition than I do of the word.

[Mister D]

Wouldn't that be indifference? I only ask because you seem to have a different definition than I do of the word.

No, because their faith is the concern not their belief in miracles.

[Mister D]

ROFL. I didn't weigh in on this thread because - bible. Myth. You want to believe it, your choice.

But this - "gee, if there's a part you don't like, just put it aside, because BELIEVE AS I BELIEVE! ignore the man behind the curtain. ignore the inconsistencies. just - believe!" You're just making it up as you go along.

that's fine if you want to think that way. Just know that you aren't convincing too many of us.

lol Thanks for your contribution.

[domer76]

I know you are, and I understand your reasons. I also don't take offence to it because we have talked on the subject enough for me to know where you stand. I am just trying to point it out for Domer, to show him a clear example of his working against the gay movement.

The "gay movement", as you put it, is actually an equality movement. And it's going to get there with or without my comments on a board that only a handful of people read anyway. You give me, and this forum, WAY too much import if you think otherwise.

it will also get there with or without your efforts, or lack thereof. It's inevitable, despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth by the detractors.

[GrassrootsConservative]

There's that "equality" lie again. Ugh.

SSDD.

[domer76]

@Ravens Fan (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=908) it doesn't really go againt any religious beliefs of mine. It goes against a certain appreciation of tradition.
Another fallacy. This one is called Genetic Fallacy. You really parade all of them out, don't you?

[Mister D]

Another fallacy. This one is called Genetic Fallacy. You really parade all of them out, don't you?

lol I'd have to make an argument first, sparky.

[domer76]

lol I'd have to make an argument first, sparky.
You did. You call it "tradition". ELL-OH-ELL

Hey, D, let me ask you on your latest trolling expedition. How often do you lie on this forum in order to be nothing more than a trolling prick? We found you on this thread doing so. I was just wondering about the others.

Confession is good for the soul, ya' know.

[Mister D]

You did. You call it "tradition". ELL-OH-ELL

Hey, D, let me ask you on your latest trolling expedition. How often do you lie on this forum in order to be nothing more than a trolling $#@!? We found you on this thread doing so. I was just wondering about the others.

Confession is good for the soul, ya' know.

That's a statement, gomer. :rollseyes:

Where have I lied on this thread? :huh: