Supreme Court Validates Same-Sex Marriage

[Saratoga_Mike]

Boxcar
P.S. Same sex marriage, incidentally, no more exists than do square circles. :rolleyes:

As a religious matter, I respect your opinion to disagree (vehemently) with the Supreme Court. Personally, I found the King v Burwell decision (ACA subsidies) more disturbing. Six justices can't read plain English, as Scalia noted.

[Show Me the Wire]

Just re-checked the requirements from the First Vatican council and I stand by my claim.

I know you want to make this about Christianity. I was upfront, my objections are based in the societal definition of marriage throughout history, not just Christian history, and the biological facts of natural reproduction.

You may want to research the morality codes enacted by pagan Roman emperor's in pagan Rome about the importance of marriage to reproduce children for the benefit of society.

[Show Me the Wire]

The latest discussion here proves once again that marriage is, and always has been, a religious issue. There are as many different concepts of how and why marriage developed and what it means as there are religions. The government should stay out of it.

As a legal matter, the states should register and enforce civil unions as contracts. Any marriage performed by an established church should be recognized by the state as a civil union. There is nothing in the Constitution giving the federal government any authority here.

None of that is going to happen, because the moonbats are running the asylum, and they assume that people don't know what is good for them and they, the self-appointed elites, do.

I don't see how anybody expected a different result. There is the elephant in the room, the Full Faith and Credit clause and the practical issues of dealing with patchwork laws throughout the nation.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I know you want to make this about Christianity. I was upfront, my objections are based in the societal definition of marriage throughout history, not just Christian history, and the biological facts of natural reproduction.

You may want to research the morality codes enacted by pagan Roman emperor's in pagan Rome about the importance of marriage to reproduce children for the benefit of society.

Why would I want to research Roman moral codes? It has no bearing on this case as a legal matter. Unless a Supreme Court case involves international law, the justices should NEVER rely on/lean on/assert another country's laws when making a decision. Of course Justice Breyer and a few other justices disagree with me, and they're clearly wrong.

[Saratoga_Mike]

The latest discussion here proves once again that marriage is, and always has been, a religious issue. There are as many different concepts of how and why marriage developed and what it means as there are religions. The government should stay out of it.

As a legal matter, the states should register and enforce civil unions as contracts. Any marriage performed by an established church should be recognized by the state as a civil union. There is nothing in the Constitution giving the federal government any authority here.

None of that is going to happen, because the moonbats are running the asylum, and they assume that people don't know what is good for them and they, the self-appointed elites, do.

If the Fourteen Amendment did not exist, your post would be correct.

[Show Me the Wire]

Why would I want to research Roman moral codes? It has no bearing on this case as a legal matter. Unless a Supreme Court case involves international law, the justices should NEVER rely on/lean on/assert another country's laws when making a decision. Of course Justice Breyer and a few other justices disagree with me, and they're clearly wrong.

Why? Proof of the societal definition of marriage throughout the ages. Marriage is historically defined by basically all cultures as the vehicle to reproduce humans. It is not a religious invention, but a societal invention for the purpose of reproduction.

[Clocker]

You may want to research the morality codes enacted by pagan Roman emperor's in pagan Rome about the importance of marriage to reproduce children for the benefit of society.

Amazing how much the development of a society's morality (i.e., religion) flows from pragmatic realism. Like Judaic and Islamic dietary laws.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Why? Proof of the societal definition of marriage throughout the ages. Marriage is historically defined by basically all cultures as the vehicle to reproduce humans. It is not a religious invention, but a societal invention for the purpose of reproduction.

Justice Breyer would agree with your approach to Supreme Court cases. I respectfully disagree with you both.

[Tom]

There is no constitutional right to marriage. Period.
The court got it wrong because the legislature has no ball.

I would be hard pressed to tell which is more useless. the Clown Court of the House of Ill Repute

Both are full of useless people who should be run out of the country.
We were better off here with the Indians than the POS government we created.

[Saratoga_Mike]

There is no constitutional right to marriage. Period.
The court got it wrong because the legislature has no ball.



The Tenth Amendment clearly gives each state the right to grant marriage licenses. Then the question becomes does the 14th Amendment apply to gay people attempting to marry? The Supreme Court says yes. You say no.

[Clocker]

If the Fourteen Amendment did not exist, your post would be correct.

That argument assumes that marriage is a privilege granted by virtue of being a citizen of the United States.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

I'm saying that the government has inserted itself into a personal and/or religious matter where it has no business. But we have always done it that way. :rolleyes:

It isn't going to change, it is only going to get worse. Now that Big Brother has the ultimate control of marriage, can baptism be far behind?

[Saratoga_Mike]

It isn't going to change, it is only going to get worse. Now that Big Brother has the ultimate control of marriage, can baptism be far behind?

The ruling isn't an affirmative obligation to marry. It isn't compelling citizens to act. The ruling is passive.

[Clocker]

The ruling isn't an affirmative obligation to marry. It isn't compelling citizens to act. The ruling is passive.

It isn't going to compel a Catholic or Southern Baptist church to perform a marriage for a couple of guys that demand it?

[Saratoga_Mike]

It isn't going to compel a Catholic or Southern Baptist church to perform a marriage for a couple of guys that demand it?

No, please read Justice Kennedy's opinion (he addressed this point).

[Clocker]

No, please read Justice Kennedy's opinion (he addressed this point).

Kennedy can't make a decision about a case that has not been filed yet, binding on future Justices.

And Kennedy's language there would seem to protect a baker that doesn't want to make a cake for a gay wedding. We already know that isn't happening.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Kennedy can't make a decision about a case that has not been filed yet, binding on future Justices.



My girlfriend and I go into the local Catholic Church. We ask the priest to marry us. He refuses. Do we have legal recourse? Absolutely not. Placing gay marriage on par with heterosexual marriage (legally speaking) doesn't mean giving gay marriage superior protections to heterosexual couples. If a gay couple brings a case against the Catholic Church for refusing to marry them, the Supreme Court will rule 9-0 in favor of the Church. In reality, it would never move beyond the appellate division of the courts. It isn't even a close call.

[classhandicapper]

My bet is the Pope disagrees with you on this matter.* And remember the Pope's opinion on such matters is infallible. Is the Pope's opinion on such matters only infallible when you agree with the Pope?

*I have no proof, but I would bet on it.

The idea that popes are infallible is pretty much asinine. They've disagreed with each other from time to time. In general, I've been very understanding of papal errors in judgment because it's really hard for anyone to see past the ignorance of the time you live in. Plus, a lot of these guys are very old.

However, I wouldn't put any weight on anything this pope says. He's barely qualified to be a Catholic, let alone our leader. When you have a guy like this in charge, who needs the anti-Christ. Satan must be the sub contracting business to the Vatican.

[Saratoga_Mike]

However, I wouldn't put any weight on anything this pope says. He's barely qualified to be a Catholic, let alone our leader. When you have a guy like this in charge, who needs the anti-Christ. Satan must be the sub contracting business to the Vatican.

Yeah, his emphasis on poverty and expelling pedophiles from the ranks of the clergy is obviously the work of Satan.

You really need to get a grip.

[Tom]

The idea that popes are infallible is pretty much asinine.

Popes have been proving that for centuries. Popes are lot like the Inferior Court - they sometime fail to interpret God's laws and substitute their own in Their place.

[classhandicapper]

If a gay couple brings a case against the Catholic Church for refusing to marry them, the Supreme Court will rule 9-0 in favor of the Church. In reality, it would never move beyond the appellate division of the courts. It isn't even a close call.

To me, this is the only thing that matters. I hope you are right, but we are talking about democrats. :lol:

There could be other problems though.

Will churches lose their tax status if they refuse?

What happens if a devout Christian judge refuses to marry a gay couple?

[Saratoga_Mike]

To me, this is the only thing that matters. I hope you are right, but we are talking about democrats. :lol:

There could be other problems though.

Will churches lose their tax status if they refuse?

What happens if a devout Christian judge refuses to marry a gay couple?

Even gay-rights groups have said the ruling won't compel a religious ceremony.

On the tax-status issue, religious groups that extend into commercial activity could be at risk. That is a legitimate concern. I would side with religious freedom in such cases.

[classhandicapper]

Yeah, his emphasis on poverty and expelling pedophiles from the ranks of the clergy is obviously the work of Satan.


The sex with minors issue was a great failing of naive fools and men that were more concerned about treasure and reputations than their communities and God. The weeding out process was well under way before this guy showed up. I can't argue this issue anymore. I've already researched and argued it to death. Most people do not have a full understanding of it. There is way more to do along similar lines that we hear little about.

This pope is an economic illiterate. He's a communist that has already said several things that have contradicted long held basic church doctrine. He's had to back off more than once after there was an uproar. Now he's suppressing opinions on climate change that don't go along with his communist agenda. You are allowed to review the evidence and form an opinion. You cannot suppress contradicting opinions and get my respect.

If I was a very religious person, I'd consider converting, at least until this loser is removed.

[Saratoga_Mike]

The sex with minors issue was a great failing of naive fools and men that were more concerned about treasure and reputations than their communities and God. The weeding out process was well under way before this guy showed up. There is way more to do along similar lines that we hear little about.

This pope is an economic illiterate. He's a communist that has already said several things that have contradicted long held basic church doctrine. He's had to back off more than once after there was an uproar. Now he's suppressing opinions on climate change that don't go along with his communist agenda. You are allowed to review the evidence and form an opinion. You cannot suppress contradicting opinions and get my respect.

If I was a very religious person, I'd consider converting, at least until this loser is removed.

You've gone off the deep end. He's a religious figure, not a politician. He isn't a communist. I hate when that term is thrown around so loosely. As Scalia asked in his King v. Burwell dissent, don't words have meaning anymore? Feel free to call him a socialist if you like. And no pedophilia wasn't taken seriously by prior Popes. Sorry, you're mistaken on that point, too.

[boxcar]

I know you want to make this about Christianity. I was upfront, my objections are based in the societal definition of marriage throughout history, not just Christian history, and the biological facts of natural reproduction.

You may want to research the morality codes enacted by pagan Roman emperor's in pagan Rome about the importance of marriage to reproduce children for the benefit of society. (emphasis mine)

For once you finally hit a circle on the target. Natural Law says that sex has as its end -- as its final cause procreation. And in turn procreation has as its "teleology" marriage, since "mother nature" has ordained that it take many years to raise, nurture and educate those cute, cuddly little rational animals. Because of these facts it takes a long term commitment (a/k/a marriage) on part of the mother and the father to properly raise and care for their children during this extended period. Also, these same facts tell us that having sex with anyone of the same sex is unnatural and a gross perversion of Natural Law. So, once again we have Natural Revelation (this time as expressed in Natural Law) in complete agreement and harmony with Special Revelation (as expressed in Divine Law).

[lamboguy]

just out of curiosity, if someone happens to call themselves bisexual, can they marry a traditional opposite sex and also have a same sex marriage?

i didn't read the supreme court ruling and just wonder if they happened to address this likely possibility.

these are important questions and need immediate responses

[FantasticDan]

A same sex marriage is the same contract as conventional, and is subject to the same applicable laws.

[whodoyoulike]

just out of curiosity, if someone happens to call themselves bisexual, can they marry a traditional opposite sex and also have a same sex marriage?

i didn't read the supreme court ruling and just wonder if they happened to address this likely possibility.

these are important questions and need immediate responses

Wouldn't this be considered bigamy in the U.S.?

[Tom]

Wouldn't this be considered bigamy in the U.S.?

Ask Kennedy. :rolleyes:

[Ocala Mike]

So, I want to know once and for all -

1. If marriage is the sacred union that many suggest, is divorce then immoral? Should it be illegal? Or is just treating it as a sin as the Catholic Church does ok?

2. If marriage between a man and a woman upholds natural law because it serves as a vehicle for procreation and child-rearing, would you say it's unnatural for couples to choose a childless marriage?

[horses4courses]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CIc93wcWEAA6kA2.png:medium

[JustRalph]

The ruling isn't an affirmative obligation to marry. It isn't compelling citizens to act. The ruling is passive.

Passive unless you are the person who is required to perform due to the marriage now being recognized. That's a different matter.

I don't care about gays getting married. But I cannot for the life of me understand why they didn't just make a basic equal protection argument. It seems so basic and has been the argument of other courts. Equal protection is equal protection. Any condition that provides a perceived benefit (such as marriage laws) is protected in that manner. It was a slam dunk.

I don't get all the extra bullshit they invited by writing the decision the way they did. I read one opinion yesterday that said that just being "intimate" with another person will provide you certain rights now. Based on the way the decision was written.

if that's the case....... a whole new can of worms is coming down the pike

[elysiantraveller]

You've gone off the deep end. He's a religious figure, not a politician. He isn't a communist. I hate when that term is thrown around so loosely. As Scalia asked in his King v. Burwell dissent, don't words have meaning anymore? Feel free to call him a socialist.

I would say 85% of people that use that word have no.idea what it really means.

[Clocker]

Some interesting language in one of the three separate dissenting and descending opinions:

The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent.

The Constitution itself says nothing about marriage, and the Framers thereby entrusted the States with “[t]he whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife.”




Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational.

This Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.


Those are the words of Chief Justice Roberts.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/26/here-are-the-11-most-devastating-quotes-from-john-roberts-gay-marriage-dissent/

[elysiantraveller]

(emphasis mine)

For once you finally hit a circle on the target. Natural Law says that sex has as its end -- as its final cause procreation. And in turn procreation has as its "teleology" marriage, since "mother nature" has ordained that it take many years to raise, nurture and educate those cute, cuddly little rational animals. Because of these facts it takes a long term commitment (a/k/a marriage) on part of the mother and the father to properly raise and care for their children during this extended period. Also, these same facts tell us that having sex with anyone of the same sex is unnatural and a gross perversion of Natural Law. So, once again we have Natural Revelation (this time as expressed in Natural Law) in complete agreement and harmony with Special Revelation (as expressed in Divine Law).

The problem with using natural law as an argument is the shoe-horning ioff God into the equation. The other is that Marriage is not a natural construct so it'moot in the discussion. Two homosexuals can marry and as long as they abstain from sex have not upset natural law by any interpretation.

[classhandicapper]

You've gone off the deep end. He's a religious figure, not a politician. He isn't a communist. I hate when that term is thrown around so loosely. As Scalia asked in his King v. Burwell dissent, don't words have meaning anymore? Feel free to call him a socialist if you like. And no pedophilia wasn't taken seriously by prior Popes. Sorry, you're mistaken on that point, too.

If he's not a politician then why is he constantly attacking the market system, business etc.. based on personal experience dealing with one of the most corrupt regimes in the world. He has ZERO understanding of the market system. He literally called free markets a "killer".

If he's not a politician then why is he writing a document on climate change and barring opinions on the subject he does not want to hear (an issue in which is he knows LESS than nothing)

If he's not a politician, then why was he so anxious for the US to do a deal with "communist" Castro to the point of getting involved personally and receiving all kinds of compliments from those very communists for his efforts.

If he's not a politician then why did he just sign a treaty with "the STATE of Palestine" as he called it.

He is supposed to be making comments on his theoretical area of expertise, which is morality, but when he does, he usually puts his foot in mouth and has to backtrack.

On the sex with minor and pedophile issue, Benedict and the church had already started moving on that. This pope has been more aggressive in trying to fix the image of the church, but there other related problems that are not being addressed.

[classhandicapper]

I would say 85% of people that use that word have no.idea what it really means.

I know what the difference is and I am not the only one that has asked whether he is actually a communist. His actions, relationships, and words suggest that could be the case even though he has denied it.

[Tom]

Oh, he is a commie.
Among other things, of which commie is far from the worst.
In fact, commie is probably the best thing you can call him.

[classhandicapper]

The problem with using natural law as an argument is the shoe-horning ioff God into the equation.

This is what I think this all really comes down to.

Most people, whether they believe God created man, God put the evolution of man into motion, or the entire thing was some kind of cosmic accident, agree that there are two sexes in order to diversify the gene pool in procreation. That is the intent of sex either because of God or nature. It doesn't matter which.

So any sexual behavior that falls outside "intent" falls into another category.

Those other behaviors may or may not be accepted as normal depending on that society. For example, in recent decades we have been moving the line further and further away from typical religious standards.

Homosexuals are now trying to move the line further and normalize their behavior (marriage being one part of that) and there is resistance from some to moving the line that far. I think that resistance comes from both the religious and others that simply don't accept that this is "normal" even if they are fully willing to be tolerant and understand that it's usually not a choice etc...

So on and on we go and IMO we will eventually judge all this by the results.

[elysiantraveller]

:bang:

No. He isn't.

He is a liberation theologist.

Check the Manifesto again and apply it to the Pope. Learn what the base-superstructure and historical materialism theory of communism are. Then explain to me how the Pope can be communist.

When you learn from something other than the source you tend to learn poor interpretations.

[classhandicapper]

:bang:

No. He isn't.

He is a liberation theologist.

Check the Manifesto again and apply it to the Pope. Learn what the base-superstructure and historical materialism theory of communism are. Then explain to me how the Pope can be communist.

When you learn from something other than the source you tend to learn poor interpretations.

He and his supporters can claim whatever they want.

If you do deals with communists, hate markets and business, talk in globalist terms, align yourself with the most leftist thinkers on controversial issues, etc.. you are quacking an awful lot like a duck no matter what you claim you are.

[elysiantraveller]

...

But if one doesn't remove "God" or their own predisposed biases they are guilty of contempt prior to investigation.

The argument could be interpreted with consideration to natural law. By taking two individuals who don't have the will or ability to procreate and socially acknowledging that desire aren't we fulfilling natural law? Nature has many controls against individuals procreating that aren't deemed "fit" to pass along their genetics. Couldn't homosexuality be a species specific control?

[elysiantraveller]

He and his supporters can claim whatever they want.

If you do deals with communists, hate markets and business, talk in globalist terms, align yourself with the most leftist thinkers on controversial issues, etc.. you are quacking a awful lot like a duck no matter what you call yourself.

Sigh... No you aren't. There haven't been any communists around for about 75 years now.

[classhandicapper]

But if one doesn't remove "God" or their own predisposed biases they are guilty of contempt prior to investigation.

The argument could be interpreted with consideration to natural law. By taking two individuals who don't have the will or ability to procreate and socially acknowledging that desire aren't we fulfilling natural law? Nature has many controls against individuals procreating that aren't deemed "fit" to pass along their genetics. Couldn't homosexuality be a species specific control?

I am not sure I understand you. This is my view and how I think many other people are thinking about these things.

I don't care or know much about natural law.

I don't care if God is in or out of the equation.

I am simply defining the biological reason for having two sexes. That is, diversification of the gene pool. That's what sex is about.

IMO, procreation does not have to be the end result of the act. If you can't have children it doesn't matter. You are still in the right zip code. ;)

Everything past that humans are going to define. Some will use God. Some will use their own judgement. The line is always moving. Years ago premarital sex was bad, now it's fine. Years ago oral sex was frowned upon or shocking, now it's expected. :lol:

Right now we are arguing about where that line is.

I (as an individual) think we are eventually going to be wise enough to judge that line based on the results. And shockingly or not, imo we are going to move that line back closer towards the standards of God, even if we believe in HIM even less than we do now.

The idea that homosexuality is a population control device is not persuasive to "me" because there are people "born" with what most people would agree are horrific urges that could also use that to defend their actions. It is what it is. It's an act outside the intent of having two sexes just like getting a blowjob from your girlfriend. And we will define which side of the line each falls.

[classhandicapper]

Sigh... No you aren't. There haven't been any communists around for about 75 years now.

OK, if you want to use some definition of the word that is different from the standard modern use of the word then maybe he is not a communist. I consider Castro a communist, Putin a former communist etc..

[Tom]

Oh, he is a commie.
Among other things, of which commie is far from the worst.
In fact, commie is probably the best thing you can call him.

The POPE????

I though you were talking about OBAMA.




Never mind.

[elysiantraveller]

OK, if you want to use some definition of the word that is different from the standard modern use of the word then maybe he is not a communist. I consider Castro a communist, Putin a former communist etc..

I prefer to use the correct terms. Socialist and Communist are so far from one and the same its hilarious but Americans use them interchangeably. Castro is a socialist dictator and Putin a oligarchist. Neither are anywhere close to communist. You would have a better chance finding communists in this:

http://cdn.instructables.com/FVY/V2NW/HEBN9EWK/FVYV2NWHEBN9EWK.MEDIUM.jpg

Than in the governments of Russia or Cuba.

[boxcar]

The problem with using natural law as an argument is the shoe-horning ioff God into the equation. The other is that Marriage is not a natural construct so it'moot in the discussion. Two homosexuals can marry and as long as they abstain from sex have not upset natural law by any interpretation.

First off, God inevitably comes into the discussion or "equation" with the classical Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy of the four causes. (See recent discussions in the Religious thread.)

Marriage is a "natural construct" in the sense that I described -- that it takes a long period of time to raise children and child rearing is a two-person job naturally requiring a long-term commitment between a man and a woman. There is certainly nothing in marriage (long term commitment) that is inconsistent with natural law.

Finally, your last point is laughable since the vast majority of homosexuals and lesbians do not abstain from sex. Again, the chief end or purpose (i.e. final cause) of sex is procreation. This being the case, any sex with the same sex is a violation of natural law.

[boxcar]

So, I want to know once and for all -

1. If marriage is the sacred union that many suggest, is divorce then immoral? Should it be illegal? Or is just treating it as a sin as the Catholic Church does ok?

2. If marriage between a man and a woman upholds natural law because it serves as a vehicle for procreation and child-rearing, would you say it's unnatural for couples to choose a childless marriage?

Divorce is sin except in cases of adultery per Jesus' teaching.

In answer to your second question, yes, I would have to say that choosing a childless marriage is sinful -- from what I understand of natural law and scripture.

[boxcar]

I prefer to use the correct terms. Socialist and Communist are so far from one and the same its hilarious but Americans use them interchangeably. Castro is a socialist dictator and Putin a oligarchist. Neither are anywhere close to communist.

Shirley U. Jest! Socialism is to communism what Miller Lite is to full bodied beer.

[elysiantraveller]

First off, God inevitably comes into the discussion or "equation" with the classical Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy of the four causes. (See recent discussions in the Religious thread.)

First, its hard to answer multiple people with on post.

Second, I would rather stick my hand down the garbage disposal than use it to participate in that circle jerk of thread, no offense.

Third, all one really has to do is reject Aquinas' insertion of theism into natural law, I do, to render the disucssion over as no common ground can be reached.

[elysiantraveller]

Shirley U. Jest! Socialism is to communism what Miller Lite is to full bodied beer.

One uses the existing structures of government while the other requires its destruction. They can't coexist and a true communist despises socialism considering it to be a creation by ruling elite to remain in power.

Its also been awhile since you drank.

[boxcar]

First, its hard to answer multiple people with on post.

Second, I would rather stick my hand down the garbage disposal than use it to participate in that circle jerk of thread, no offense.

Third, all one really has to do is reject Aquinas' insertion of theism into natural law, I do, to render the disucssion over as no common ground can be reached.

Sir, the Realism of Aristotle and Aquinas (the four causes) logically terminates in theism -- whether you like that or not. (I explained how over in the Religious thread.) That being said, one does not need to insert theism into any natural law argument. (In fact, you could be a stone-cold evolutionist because Natural Law, quite frankly, is a self-evident truth.

You might consider thanking your parents one day for your very existence since they evidently obeyed natural law.

[boxcar]

One uses the existing structures of government while the other requires its destruction. They can't coexist and a true communist despises socialism considering it to be a creation by ruling elite to remain in power.

Its also been awhile since you drank.

I didn't say they could co-exist in the same nation at the same time. I said, that one is simply a form of the other.

[Clocker]

No. He isn't.

He is a liberation theologist.

As is the Rev. Jeremiah Wright of Chicago fame.

And his prized acolyte, Barack Obama, learned his lessons well during his many years at the Church of Redistributed Wealth.

[elysiantraveller]

As is the Rev. Jeremiah Wright of Chicago fame.

And his prized acolyte, Barack Obama, learned his lessons well during his many years at the Church of Redistributed Wealth.

Sure to some extent although there is a much more militaristic aspect to his teachings. Liberation theology in Latin America is a much better representation of the movement than a radicalist minister in Chicago.

[elysiantraveller]

I didn't say they could co-exist in the same nation at the same time. I said, that one is simply a form of the other.

Socialism = Top down
Communism = Bottom up

They are diametrically opposed.

[Ocala Mike]

In answer to your second question, yes, I would have to say that choosing a childless marriage is sinful -- from what I understand of natural law and scripture.



Thank you, sir; I used to think you were an irrational kook. You have now removed all doubt.

[fast4522]

yes, I would have to say that choosing a childless marriage is sinful -- from what I understand of natural law and scripture.

Another might respond they were willing, but it did not happen. I do not believe the rigid thought is best.

[fast4522]

Shirley U. Jest! Socialism is to communism what Miller Lite is to full bodied beer.

Your analogy is somewhat flawed, beer goes way back and enjoyed before Jesus. Different types of cockroaches also go way back and were repugnant to normal people then just as socialism and communism to normal people today. Problem is more are Fu~*)% up today.

[hcap]

Conservative "family" values enacted for real.

[boxcar]

Another might respond they were willing, but it did not happen. I do not believe the rigid thought is best.

If they did not willfully frustrate natural law, then how could such a couple be morally culpable?

[boxcar]

Your analogy is somewhat flawed, beer goes way back and enjoyed before Jesus. Different types of cockroaches also go way back and were repugnant to normal people then just as socialism and communism to normal people today. Problem is more are Fu~*)% up today.

And tyranny, oppression and lust for power probably predates beer. So, what is your point, especially since I have never approved of a socialistic or communistic way of life?

[boxcar]

Thank you, sir; I used to think you were an irrational kook. You have now removed all doubt.

Let's test your theory about my rationality, since you evidently think that going childless would be a good thing. What if everyone in the world chose to go childless or had someone make that decision for them (such as a tyrannical government), would that be a good thing for mankind?

[boxcar]

Socialism = Top down
Communism = Bottom up

They are diametrically opposed.

And you forgot one: BOTH seek to restrict individual liberties.

[classhandicapper]

I prefer to use the correct terms. Socialist and Communist are so far from one and the same its hilarious but Americans use them interchangeably. Castro is a socialist dictator and Putin a oligarchist. Neither are anywhere close to communist. You would have a better chance finding communists in this:

http://cdn.instructables.com/FVY/V2NW/HEBN9EWK/FVYV2NWHEBN9EWK.MEDIUM.jpg

Than in the governments of Russia or Cuba.

Putin is a oligarchist now, but as I said he was a member of the "Communist Party".

We are arguing semantics anyway. The use of words change. Those guys may not have been communists by the original definition and your preferred use of the word, but they were communists by the standard use of the word throughout the world in recent decades and out of their own mouths.

[Inner Dirt]

Wonder if anyone is like me, who believes being gay is biological and not a choice but completely grossed out by two men showing affection toward each other? I would even turn my head when gay characters on South Park kissed.
I have no problem with giving gays every legal right a married couple have except the gay wedding concept creeps me out. I think I have stand alone views there. Been this way since a small child, didn't want anything more than a handshake from a male but didn't mind little old ladies hugging me and pinching my cheeks.

[classhandicapper]

Socialism = Top down
Communism = Bottom up

They are diametrically opposed.

Yea, but they both hate free markets, free business, people being rewarded fully for intelligent risk taking using personal savings, the fact that some people's efforts might be rewarded greater than others by markets etc... much like the current Pope who has simply tried to Christianize it all. ;)

[hcap]

They are no more normal than a person with leprosy. You might want to study up on Natural Law.I guess then leprosy is similar to your "evil" gene that carries original sin. So either your point is homosexuality is genetic or a bacteriological disease set in motion by your "god", WHO must have a COLOSSAL SENSE OF HUMOR as far as natural law (and most other things) goes :lol: :lol:

[Robert Goren]

Wonder if anyone is like me, who believes being gay is biological and not a choice but completely grossed out by two men showing affection toward each other? I would even turn my head when gay characters on South Park kissed.
I have no problem with giving gays every legal right a married couple have except the gay wedding concept creeps me out. I think I have stand alone views there. Been this way since a small child, didn't want anything more than a handshake from a male but didn't mind little old ladies hugging me and pinching my cheeks.That says more about you than it does than the two men showing affection toward each other. It is your problem, not theirs.

[Tom]

And you forgot one: BOTH seek to restrict individual liberties.

Bingo.

[DJofSD]

That says more about you than it does than the two men showing affection toward each other. It is your problem, not theirs.
I guess a BJ in the park is OK then?

[johnhannibalsmith]

I admit I feel the same way and I imagine a lot of people feel that way. But consider this. Or even better, just do it. Go into Walmart. Look at the straight couples. Wait for some of these sexy players to bust out in smooch. Imagine them riding one another bareback.

I figure I can be kinda grossed out by gay PDA so long as it is genuinely not discriminatory.

[Robert Goren]

I guess a BJ in the park is OK then?Is it ok for a woman to give a man a BJ in the park? A BJ is a BJ.

[DJofSD]

Is it ok for a woman to give a man a BJ in the park? A BJ is a BJ.
Where did I say what were the genders involved?

[Inner Dirt]

Just cause two dudes kissing grossing me out, it makes me a bad person? It is the way I have been wired since a toddler. I wish them no harm I just don't want to watch. I don't want to see hetero couples making out in public either, but I just consider that classless not gross. I guess I was just born a homophobe or whatever you want to call me. I have no problem other than I do not want to watch or think about two men having sexual contact. They are wired to be gay and I am wired to be grossed out by it.

[Greyfox]

They are wired to be gay and I am wired to be grossed out by it.

Good points and that does not make you a homophobe. :ThmbUp:
(You don't hate them or fear them, it just grosses you out.)

[Ocala Mike]

you evidently think that going childless would be a good thing.




I attributed no value to the choice, good or bad, only that it is a choice that should be available to all couples without any stigma or shame.

Your God and natural law also allow for procreation through rape and incest - I think doing away with that would be a desired fix in Creation 1.1.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren
That says more about you than it does than the two men showing a confederate flag. It is your problem, not theirs.


See what I mean......

[elysiantraveller]

Yea, but they both hate free markets, free business, people being rewarded fully for intelligent risk taking using personal savings, the fact that some people's efforts might be rewarded greater than others by markets etc... much like the current Pope who has simply tried to Christianize it all. ;)

So do anarchists are they the same?

[DJofSD]

See what I mean......
Now, now, Tom, you know that's just not fair.

[Robert Fischer]

I've known, and interacted with, and been friends and family, with tons of LGBT in my lifetime.
Some were gay all there life, some had a traumatic experience, and some simply enjoyed the lifestyle and the novelty more than a heterosexual lifestyle.

My own opinion of the "born gay" movement is that it speaks more of a few different limitations/shortcomings of the human psyche(both from LGBT and from non-LGBT who would need it as justification) than it does of a hardline biological gene expression.

Whether or not a person's 'gayness' was a result of automaton-like DNA expression, or choice, is meaningless as far as I am concerned.

[classhandicapper]

So do anarchists are they the same?

You are obviously a very smart guy. You know where I'm coming from on this. Of course not, but like I said previously, in the Pope's case, if it quacks like a duck..... The major difference being that he's trying to Christianize a similar philosophy on economics without giving us all the details on his alternative.

Incidentally, his view is one that in 9 years of Catholic school, religious instruction, and Mass every Sunday I never heard a single priest or nun promote or agree with. I'm still trying to figure out how this guy could became pope unless the Vatican was infiltrated in some left wing coup.

That why he's on my short list of possible anti-Christ candidates. ;)

[Inner Dirt]

I've known, and interacted with, and been friends and family, with tons of LGBT in my lifetime.
Some were gay all there life, some had a traumatic experience, and some simply enjoyed the lifestyle and the novelty more than a heterosexual lifestyle.

My own opinion of the "born gay" movement is that it speaks more of a few different limitations/shortcomings of the human psyche(both from LGBT and from non-LGBT who would need it as justification) than it does of a hardline biological gene expression.

Whether or not a person's 'gayness' was a result of automaton-like DNA expression, or choice, is meaningless as far as I am concerned.

I had two very close friends who were a lesbian couple which lasted until Tina thought Deb and I spent too much time together and that I was trying to convert her and steal her away. From what they told me and their other gay friends made me think "Gay by choice" is a very small percentage of the population, most are just born that way, just like I was born heterosexual, why else would I be sneaking peeks at my Dad's Playboy magazines and chance I got when I was 7? All the gay people I knew said they wished they were straight, life would have been so much easier.

[Rookies]

Just cause two dudes kissing grossing me out, it makes me a bad person? It is the way I have been wired since a toddler. I wish them no harm I just don't want to watch. I don't want to see hetero couples making out in public either, but I just consider that classless not gross. I guess I was just born a homophobe or whatever you want to call me. I have no problem other than I do not want to watch or think about two men having sexual contact. They are wired to be gay and I am wired to be grossed out by it.

That is an interesting take, but I'm assuming that for you if it's a hetero couple of a different race or mixed race, then that's not an issue? We are wired from birth about many aspects of life and reinforced everywhere- at home, school, church, in the media reinforcing various norms. When I was born in the 50s, North American society was largely monolithic about many aspects and behaviours of life.

Most white, middle class homes had very few interactions, anywhere, at anytime, with any other race and gays were clearly from another planet. One never saw any of these people on TV in ads for at least, a couple of generations. The role of labour and unions was virtually non existent in history books.

But, our societies and life are not static. Things gradually change and today, where I live, it is uncommon to see only one race or culture, let alone not witness, constant interactions, friendships and daily activities among them. Walking to school with a mixed variety of people is no longer odd or taboo- it's the norm.

I happen to live in a "Gay friendly" neighbourhood, where this week, several houses are displaying the Rainbow Flag. One even has a mixed Canadian-
Rainbow flag.Today is the Toronto Pride Day Parade, where there are normally 500k- 1 Mill participants and onlookers- a huge event fur the biz community.

So, while we are wired; most change to adopt the new 'normal', even though the majority of us don't participate in it or are overjoyed by every aspect.

[reckless]

Is it ok for a woman to give a man a BJ in the park? A BJ is a BJ.

Spoken like a true Bill Clinton supporter. :)

[Show Me the Wire]

The problem will be loss of freedom of speech, just like in Canada. People, including religious figures, will be persecuted through legal proceedings for perceived offensive comments about same sex attraction.

Rookies is wrong when he said same sex marriage had no harmful effects in Canada.

[boxcar]

I guess then leprosy is similar to your "evil" gene that carries original sin. So either your point is homosexuality is genetic or a bacteriological disease set in motion by your "god", WHO must have a COLOSSAL SENSE OF HUMOR as far as natural law (and most other things) goes :lol: :lol:

And in either case, SIN is the root cause. If Adam had refrained from sinning, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[boxcar]

Just cause two dudes kissing grossing me out, it makes me a bad person? It is the way I have been wired since a toddler. I wish them no harm I just don't want to watch. I don't want to see hetero couples making out in public either, but I just consider that classless not gross. I guess I was just born a homophobe or whatever you want to call me. I have no problem other than I do not want to watch or think about two men having sexual contact. They are wired to be gay and I am wired to be grossed out by it.

Well, you have to understand something: It's perfectly okay for two homosexuals to be wired as they are, which is why they're kissing each other in the first place. But it's not okay for you to claim to be wired so as to be repulsed or disgusted by such perversion.

[Greyfox]

But it's not okay for you to claim to be wired so as to be repulsed or disgusted by such perversion.

He's repulsed by what they are doing, which you have labeled as a perversion.
He's not rejecting them for who they are.
He believes that he's wired that way.
Why shouldn't he make that claim?

[Robert Fischer]

Well, you have to understand something: It's perfectly okay for two homosexuals to be wired as they are, which is why they're kissing each other in the first place. But it's not okay for you to claim to be wired so as to be repulsed or disgusted by such perversion.

That is a bit of a logical contradiction.

In the end, the people in power, and the people with purchasing power, 'decide' what is politically correct and that is ruled to be "right" and the opposition of those things is ruled to be "wrong".

[Rookies]

The problem will be loss of freedom of speech, just like in Canada. People, including religious figures, will be persecuted through legal proceedings for perceived offensive comments about same sex attraction.

Rookies is wrong when he said same sex marriage had no harmful effects in Canada.

Incorrect or rather inapplicable in another experienced democracy.

Absolute Freedoms are both proscribed by its 1982 Charter, yet abridged by government and adjudicated by the SCC in Canada. It is true that Americans can likely express themselves in far more extreme expressions than Canadians can, but Canadians are combpfortable with the intended result and balance of its Charter. This 'harmful effect' is not presumed so. Here is a legalistic, short summary of the issue.

"Section 2(b) of the Charter protects "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication."
Charter protection of expression covers more than just political speech. Any form of communication that is capable of conveying meaning is considered to be expression.The aim of the Charter is to prevent unjustified government restrictions on expression; however, some restrictions on expression will not involve the government. the Charter is only directly applicable when the government is involved.

Limitations on free speech
It is important to remember that the fundamental freedoms in the Charter are protected but they are not absolute. Section 1 of the Charter allows the government to pass laws that limit free expression so long as the limits are reasonable and can be justified. Because one person's words or actions may negatively affect another, some feel that restrictions on expression are necessary. There are a number of restrictions on expression designed to protect individuals, or society as a whole from harm. Freedom of expression may also be restricted in order to balance the fundamental freedoms of one party against those of another. Hate speech and obscenity are two examples that gain a lot of attention. "

[Tom]

So, while we are wired; most change to adopt the new 'normal', even though the majority of us don't participate in it or are overjoyed by every aspect.

You are saying racism is heredity????
And if we all are "wired" that way, only one group should have to change?

I know what it is, global warming causes homophobia and racism.

[zico20]

I've known, and interacted with, and been friends and family, with tons of LGBT in my lifetime.
Some were gay all there life, some had a traumatic experience, and some simply enjoyed the lifestyle and the novelty more than a heterosexual lifestyle.

My own opinion of the "born gay" movement is that it speaks more of a few different limitations/shortcomings of the human psyche(both from LGBT and from non-LGBT who would need it as justification) than it does of a hardline biological gene expression.

Whether or not a person's 'gayness' was a result of automaton-like DNA expression, or choice, is meaningless as far as I am concerned.

Just think if they found out that being gay was predetermined through genes and science found a way to determine that before birth. Parents would be having abortions left and right. We could basically wipe out the gay lifestyle in a few short years. I bet the gay community would then be up in arms aborting all those babies and since many more gays are liberals and pro choice to begin with we could then have a backlash against abortion rights and overturn Roe v Wade.

Of course if we had a liberal Supreme Court they would vote to outlaw abortions based on sexual orientation even though abortion would be legal at the time.

[Greyfox]

but Canadians are combpfortable with the intended result and balance of its Charter. .....Freedom of expression may also be restricted in order to balance the fundamental freedoms of one party against those of another. Hate speech and obscenity are two examples that gain a lot of attention. "

C'mon Rookies Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn, and Ann Coulter have all been victims of Canada's Hate Laws.
It cost Levant and Steyn big buck legal fees to fight charges against them.
Coulter was warned that she could be charged if she said certain things.
Many Canadians are not comfortable with those laws.
What some sectors define as "Hate Speech" and Human Rights Commissions buy into is ridiculous in Canada.
Americans are miles ahead when it comes to Freedom of Speech.

[zico20]

The problem will be loss of freedom of speech, just like in Canada. People, including religious figures, will be persecuted through legal proceedings for perceived offensive comments about same sex attraction.

Rookies is wrong when he said same sex marriage had no harmful effects in Canada.

You are so very correct. There have been numerous examples of religious people being persecuted by the gays in Canada. It will happen in the USA now also. There is no way any liberal judge is going to side with religion over the 14th amendment and "equality." The next step is to remove tax exemption status from any church who doesn't perform gay marriages. That battle will be next and the gays will stop at nothing to see it through.

http://blog.speakupmovement.org/church/uncategorized/oh-canada-the-homosexual-agenda-steamrolls-religious-freedom/

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/04/14899/

[Rookies]

C'mon Rookies Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn, and Ann Coulter have all been victims of Canada's Hate Laws.
It cost Levant and Steyn big buck legal fees to fight charges against them.
Coulter was warned that she could be charged if she said certain things.
Many Canadians are not comfortable with those laws.
What some sectors define as "Hate Speech" and Human Rights Commissions buy into is ridiculous in Canada.
Americans are miles ahead when it comes to Freedom of Speech.

Americans are " miles ahead" in saying some things that the vast MAJORITY of Canadians, their Government, their Constitution and their SC find are anathema and illegal! And those above, received or would have received the consequences for such abusive commentary. So be it.

[classhandicapper]

Gee, and I always thought the entire point behind free speech laws was specifically to protect the most unpopular speech so a country wouldn't devolve into a politically correct cesspool with no new ideas, no intellectual debates, and little freedom.

Canada sounds even scarier than the cesspool the US is fast becoming.

[Clocker]

And those above, received or would have received the consequences for such abusive commentary.

:D

Off with their heads!!!

[Rookies]

:D

Off with their heads!!!

WRT to that beeatch Coulter... not a bad suggestion.

[Rookies]

Gee, and I always thought the entire point behind free speech laws was specifically to protect the most unpopular speech so a country wouldn't devolve into a politically correct cesspool with no new ideas, no intellectual debates, and little freedom.

Canada sounds even scarier than the cesspool the US is fast becoming.

There are ways to use Freedom of Expression in free and open societies to advance ideas, without those expressions denying the Rights of other members, in illegal manners. Even in the most open and advanced democracies, NOBODY has the untrammelled Right to express anything they desire. (Treason & Sedition and now Terrorism, being obvious choices).

[Clocker]

WRT to that beeatch Coulter... not a bad suggestion.

Freedom of speech in this country includes the ability to change the channel or hit the mute button. :p

[Greyfox]

There are ways to use Freedom of Expression in free and open societies to advance ideas, without those expressions denying the Rights of other members, in illegal manners. Even in the most open and advanced democracies, NOBODY has the untrammelled Right to express anything they desire. (Treason & Sedition and now Terrorism, being obvious choices).

Canadian commentator Ezra Levant published cartoons of Muhammed.
A Muslim group went to a Human Rights Commission and had him charged under a Hate Crimes Law.
It cost Levant tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees to fight the charges.
Ultimately he was acquitted.
But Levant was not reimbursed in any way.
No consideration was given to Levant's rights, or those of other like minded citizens.
Fair eh?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/western-canadian-magazine-publishes-muhammad-cartoons-1.591923

[Tom]

Americans are " miles ahead" in saying some things that the vast MAJORITY of Canadians, their Government, their Constitution and their SC find are anathema and illegal! And those above, received or would have received the consequences for such abusive commentary. So be it.

That's why we have a border.
I'll take the guns over restrictions of free speech any day.
Down here we are not afraid to face differing opinions.

[johnhannibalsmith]

See, when you start to think we are really going to shit when it comes to our protections, just look north.

[Rookies]

That's why we have a border.
I'll take the guns over restrictions of free speech any day.
Down here we are not afraid to face differing opinions.

That's ABSOLUTELY why we have a border!
I'll take a largely peaceful, ordered society with slight restrictions on absolute Freedom of Expression v.s. millions of persons, having any number of guns in their possession, ready to explode and use them, for the slightest fantasy or deeply ingrained prejudice/ provocation, at anytime, anywhere.
Up here, we face multiple differing opinions, (even those of Americans) :rolleyes: ,but we don't murder many, because of them; rather attempt to sort them out, through discussion or legality.

[JustRalph]

That's ABSOLUTELY why we have a border!
I'll take a largely peaceful, ordered society with slight restrictions on absolute Freedom of Expression v.s. millions of persons, having any number of guns in their possession, ready to explode and use them, for the slightest fantasy or deeply ingrained prejudice/ provocation, at anytime, anywhere.
Up here, we face multiple differing opinions, (even those of Americans) :rolleyes: ,but we don't murder many, because of them; rather attempt to sort them out, through discussion or legality.

0.15 percent of lawful gun owners are involved in illegal acts. Normally this involves crimes of passion etc.

almost all guns involved in illegal acts/used to commit a crime are primarily obtained illegally in one manner or another. You blow it way out of proportion. Criminals are criminals. they are going to act no matter the laws.

Seventy-eight percent of all shooting deaths are drug-, gang- or other criminal-related incidents committed with unregistered guns wielded by non-licensed criminals.

Eight percent are shootings by police or security personnel.

Less than 1 percent are shootings by legal gun owners committing a crime.

Six percent are legal gun owners protecting life, limb and property (homeowners, shop owners, etc.).

Eight percent are miscellaneous (suicide, hunting accidents, accidental discharges, etc.).

These numbers have been pretty much a constant over the years.

You can stop acting like the U.S. is the wild wild west. Btw, I mentioned it before. Take out the drug and gang related i.e. minority offenses and it changes the whole picture.

[Rookies]

Canadian commentator Ezra Levant published cartoons of Muhammed.
Fair eh?
]

Sometimes, neither fair, nor perfect.

Just like Citizens United or Heller.

[Tom]

That's ABSOLUTELY why we have a border!
I'll take a largely peaceful, ordered society with slight restrictions on absolute Freedom of Expression v.s. millions of persons, having any number of guns in their possession, ready to explode and use them, for the slightest fantasy or deeply ingrained prejudice/ provocation, at anytime, anywhere.
Up here, we face multiple differing opinions, (even those of Americans) :rolleyes: ,but we don't murder many, because of them; rather attempt to sort them out, through discussion or legality.

Do they still allow books in Canada? :rolleyes:

[Tom]

0.15 percent of lawful gun owners are involved in illegal acts. Normally this involves crimes of passion etc.

But in metric, that is........what, 95%?

[Rookies]

Do they still allow books in Canada? :rolleyes:

Reading 'Modern Ireland, 1600-1972' from the Toronto Library, as I type here. Has pumped me up today! ;) :jump:

Just getting to the good revolutionary part. :lol:

[boxcar]

Canadian commentator Ezra Levant published cartoons of Muhammed.
A Muslim group went to a Human Rights Commission and had him charged under a Hate Crimes Law.
It cost Levant tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees to fight the charges.
Ultimately he was acquitted.
But Levant was not reimbursed in any way.
No consideration was given to Levant's rights, or those of other like minded citizens.
Fair eh?

And not only that but whoever accused a Canadian of being balanced for that matter? :D

[boxcar]

That is a bit of a logical contradiction.

No, it isn't.

In the end, the people in power, and the people with purchasing power, 'decide' what is politically correct and that is ruled to be "right" and the opposition of those things is ruled to be "wrong".

Yup, just "wire" that money to the right offshore account numbers. :rolleyes:

[Rookies]

And not only that but whoever accused a Canadian of being balanced for that matter? :D

Boxie, we're not ALL like me...

to their everlasting loss... :lol:

[thaskalos]

A good friend and one of the smartest people I know posted this today. Thought it deserves to be shared.


I am overwhelmed with emotion today, reflecting on the days leading up to this moment in history. Remembering the terrified little boy who was so afraid of being himself, the young friends in high school who took their own lives rather being subjected to the shame and scorn of their families and community. The beatings that occurred for being different. Losing jobs simply for identifying as something other than acceptable.
We lived in the 'ghetto' to try and ensure safety for ourselves and have a place to belong. We left our families and all we knew to venture into a land unknown that held the faint glimmer of a promise. We were scared. We were tired and beaten down. We were hopeful.
Our created families created communities, and those communities are now desired by most. We held on to our passion for freedom. Our desire to simply live and love without shame or fear. Together, with our friends, we helped a new world emerge.
A world of love and hope.
I am so very grateful to all who have worked so hard to make this a reality. I am humbled by love and support I never felt was possible. I sing in gratitude for all who have made my home a place where I never again have to live in fear. I weep for those we have lost in the struggle.
Love wins. Always...

I have three sisters...and my youngest sister is gay. There was no doubt that her sexual preference was genetic...we suspected it from her adolescent years. She tried concealing this aspect of herself even as she was attending college...and I could see the pain that it was causing her. Even when I tried approaching her about it, she would shield her true feelings from me...because we were raised in a "traditional Greek home"...with "traditional and wholesome Christian values". She told us the "truth" about herself when she was attending medical school...coincidently at the same time when my own wife was battling for her life...stricken with an advanced form of cancer. She also revealed to us that she had met and fallen in love with a classmate at college...and that they would soon be moving in together.

My "Christian" mother was devastated (my father was no longer alive at that time). Why couldn't SHE(my sister) get cancer and die, instead of my wife...my mother screamed, in my sister's face. I can still remember the shock and the disappointment in my sister's face...as she ran crying out the door of my mother's house.

Years passed...my sister became a doctor...she married her girlfriend...and they have adopted a cute little boy. We the siblings have remained close through the years...but my mother never forgave her for her "unpardonable sin". My mother never visited my sister's home...because she didn't want to step foot in a place where the "devil ruled".

And then my mother died not long ago...and the sad cycle came to a close, without a satisfying conclusion. The mother who never made up with her daughter...and the daughter who now has to live with this sad fact.

And, as the years fly by, and I sit back and reflect...it occurs to me that we live for only a short time. Should we spend that time making enemies, by trying to enforce our own version of "morality" on one another...or should we love our families, and respect those around us...so we could live in peace with our surroundings?

What good is "morality" and "logic"...if they hurt feelings and create strife in the world? Wouldn't we rather be "happy" than "right"? I know I would...

[Greyfox]

What good is "morality" and "logic"...if they hurt feelings and create strife in the world? Wouldn't we rather be "happy" than "right"? I know I would...

Your late Mother Thask was Christian.
There was nothing wrong with the Christian morality had she followed it:

Matthew 7:1-3King James Version (KJV)

7 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

[tucker6]

A very sad, but good post Gus. I hope your sister has been able to move on from that confrontation and has forgiven your mother. In many respects, your mother was only doing what she was taught. It can be difficult to unlearn what we have been taught.

I too have a brother that is gay, and we knew it from his early childhood. He denied his true self, even going so far as to get married to a woman. However, she died of a brain aneurysm, and shortly thereafter he was only seen with men. He got married last month to a guy. I am happy for him.

[Robert Fischer]

No, it isn't.
was agreeing w/ your quoted statement in that post

[Rookies]

Thaskalos:

Poignant, sad and fabulous reminisce from your life! Most of us can equate with an analagous story from our own, of Race, Gender or Disability. :ThmbUp: and certainly relate to the hard realities of how different generations have been "wired in" for life.

Thanks for sharing and I trust your sister has moved on.

I recall once in my life, when I declared:

" I have NO family. My friends are my family and more important to my future life." We don't choose our families and I was without a Father and absent a remotely caring Mother at 12.

[Show Me the Wire]

Your late Mother Thask was Christian.
There was nothing wrong with the Christian morality had she followed it:

Matthew 7:1-3King James Version (KJV)

7 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

To judge a man who has gone astray is a sign of pride, and God resists the proud. St. Gennadius of Constantinople

And if you never judge anyone, then God will never judge you. In this way you will even receive salvation. Priest-confessor Sergei Pravdolubov

[Rookies]

To judge a man who has gone astray is a sign of pride, and God resists the proud. St. Gennadius of Constantinople

And if you never judge anyone, then God will never judge you. In this way you will even receive salvation. Priest-confessor Sergei Pravdolubov

We're fecking really good at judging who has gone astray here.

The problem is, we disagree passionately who that might be.

[Greyfox]

We're fecking really good...

Yes. You do have Irish blood influencing your thought. :ThmbUp:

[horses4courses]

I have three sisters...and my youngest sister is gay. There was no doubt that her sexual preference was genetic...we suspected it from her adolescent years. She tried concealing this aspect of herself even as she was attending college...and I could see the pain that it was causing her. Even when I tried approaching her about it, she would shield her true feelings from me...because we were raised in a "traditional Greek home"...with "traditional and wholesome Christian values". She told us the "truth" about herself when she was attending medical school...coincidently at the same time when my own wife was battling for her life...stricken with an advanced form of cancer. She also revealed to us that she had met and fallen in love with a classmate at college...and that they would soon be moving in together.

My "Christian" mother was devastated (my father was no longer alive at that time). Why couldn't SHE(my sister) get cancer and die, instead of my wife...my mother screamed, in my sister's face. I can still remember the shock and the disappointment in my sister's face...as she ran crying out the door of my mother's house.

Years passed...my sister became a doctor...she married her girlfriend...and they have adopted a cute little boy. We the siblings have remained close through the years...but my mother never forgave her for her "unpardonable sin". My mother never visited my sister's home...because she didn't want to step foot in a place where the "devil ruled".

And then my mother died not long ago...and the sad cycle came to a close, without a satisfying conclusion. The mother who never made up with her daughter...and the daughter who now has to live with this sad fact.

And, as the years fly by, and I sit back and reflect...it occurs to me that we live for only a short time. Should we spend that time making enemies, by trying to enforce our own version of "morality" on one another...or should we love our families, and respect those around us...so we could live in peace with our surroundings?

What good is "morality" and "logic"...if they hurt feelings and create strife in the world? Wouldn't we rather be "happy" than "right"? I know I would...

Great post, thaskalos :ThmbUp:

A sad, universal, and tragic family situation that can occur.
Your mother stuck to her beliefs and tradition.
Impervious to her own flesh and blood.

Families have gone through this type of event for far too long.
I wish they were a thing of the past, but that's not the reality.
As you, and your sister, well know - it's a crying shame.

[TJDave]

Great post, thaskalos :ThmbUp:

A sad, universal, and tragic family situation that can occur.
Your mother stuck to her beliefs and tradition.
Impervious to her own flesh and blood.

Families have gone through this type of event for far too long.
I wish they were a thing of the past, but that's not the reality.
As you, and your sister, well know - it's a crying shame.

Yet, you and others challenge that homosexuality is genetic and that such behavior can be unlearned.

THAT...is the crying shame.

[dnlgfnk]

Lots of emotion here.

I'm going with the 10% genetic contribution that equates to just about anything else making up who we are, as well as the other bullet points...

http://www.mygenes.co.nz/PDFs/Ch10.pdf

One may be surprised to learn of some significant detractors to the "Born That Way" narrative, and it's not from "The Onion"...

http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/19/nobody-is-born-that-way-gay-historians-say/

And since some have a personal story here, two members of my wife's extended family are circumstantially homosexual (without a formal statement of such), and the "stereotypes" accurately fit their histories.

In Lawrence vs. Texas, Justice Scalia was prescient:

"One of the benefits of leaving regulation of this matter to the people rather than to the courts is that the people, unlike judges, need not carry things to their logical conclusion. The people may feel that their disapprobation of homosexual conduct is strong enough to disallow homosexual marriage, but not strong enough to criminalize private homosexual acts–and may legislate accordingly. The Court today pretends that it possesses a similar freedom of action, so that that we need not fear judicial imposition of homosexual marriage... At the end of its opinion–after having laid waste the foundations of our rational-basis jurisprudence–the Court says that the present case “does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.” ... Do not believe it. More illuminating than this bald, unreasoned disclaimer is the progression of thought displayed by an earlier passage in the Court’s opinion, which notes the constitutional protections afforded to “personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education,” and then declares that “[p]ersons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”.... Today’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” for purposes of proscribing that conduct, and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), “[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring,” what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution,” ibid.? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case “does not involve” the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court. Many will hope that, as the Court comfortingly assures us, this is so."

There has been a judicial agenda set on this path. Paraphrasing Scalia approvingly, five lawyers decided what all must believe about marriage, against what has been understood by virtually every civilization in human history, most notably the ancient Greeks, who went all in for homosexual acts as socially acceptable, while knowing that homosexuality was contrary to the purpose and ends of "marriage".

As regards the "ninety-year-olds" I noticed when skimming, if it hasn't been mentioned, the difference is in "intent". The octogenarians (and older) are within the bounds of natural law and not intentionally sterile. I'm open to correction by a canon lawyer.

The push for same-sex "marriage" is about winning approval, rather than mere tolerance, of active homosexuality. I view homosexuality as a condition, not a lifestyle. As for me and my family, I'm considering what form of the "Benedict Option"...

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/the-benedict-option-what-does-it-really-mean

...to undertake, as opposed to merely circling the wagons.

[boxcar]

A very sad, but good post Gus. I hope your sister has been able to move on from that confrontation and has forgiven your mother. In many respects, your mother was only doing what she was taught. It can be difficult to unlearn what we have been taught.

I too have a brother that is gay, and we knew it from his early childhood. He denied his true self, even going so far as to get married to a woman. However, she died of a brain aneurysm, and shortly thereafter he was only seen with men. He got married last month to a guy. I am happy for him.

This is precisely why it's so extremely important for any professing Christian to have his/her mind and thoughts molded by truth as revealed in scripture. If Thask's mom had truth "coursing through her veins", chances would have been many that she would not have had the knee-jerk, emotional reaction she manifested toward her daughter. The mother's reaction isolated her from her daughter, making it impossible to draw near to her to minister the gospel in love.

[boxcar]

There has been a judicial agenda set on this path. Paraphrasing Scalia approvingly, five lawyers decided what all must believe about marriage, against what has been understood by virtually every civilization in human history, most notably the ancient Greeks, who went all in for homosexual acts as socially acceptable, while knowing that homosexuality was contrary to the purpose and ends of "marriage".

This is not true -- certainly not among the greatest thinkers in Greece. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were opposed to homosexual practices.

And not to nitpick -- but the purpose or ends of sex is procreation which has as its end marriage for reasons discussed earlier in this thread. Procreation naturally entails child-rearing which takes many years and, therefore, a long-term commitment between mother and father for the welfare of the child.

And just as telling side note, it appears that a large percentage of same sex couples unwittingly endorse and validate Natural Law whenever they adopt children. I think in the very core of their being they know that sexual union has as its chief end procreation which is why so many seek to adopt in an attempt to fulfill "mother nature's" intention. Also, by adopting they're trying to mitigate their guilt over their own selfish, sinful desires which have driven them to act contrary to Natural Law. The one thing none of us can do is run away from ourselves. Since God's law is written on the hearts of each us, most of us need to find ways to deal with that whenever our behavior is contrary to that law.

[boxcar]

Yet, you and others challenge that homosexuality is genetic and that such behavior can be unlearned.

THAT...is the crying shame.

I would proffer instead that the real "crying shame" is that you cannot understand that even if this were the case, it makes not a whit of difference in determining if the conduct is normal or abnormal, good or evil. As stated previously, a person born with a clubfoot is not considered to be normal. Nor is a person born with mental illness, etc.

[horses4courses]

Yet, you and others challenge that homosexuality is genetic and that such behavior can be unlearned.

THAT...is the crying shame.

I'm not sure where your coming from regarding my beliefs.

So, let me ask you this.
You believe that it can be "unlearned", treating it like a disease?

[Robert Fischer]

who cares if it's genetic or not


makes no difference


if you happen to care about other people's sex lives, then you happen to be the one with the problem

[classhandicapper]

Setting aside all the cases of sex workers who engage in homosexual behavior for money, young and other adults that experiment or are confused before realizing they are straight etc...

There is no evidence of a gay gene yet.

There are many cases of identical twins where one is straight and one is gay.

For identical twins that were separated at birth where one is gay, the probability that the second one will also be gay is higher than in the general population.

I'm no scientist, but that screams to me it is NOT genetic (otherwise all identical twins would be the same) but there is probably a biological component (the higher correlation among twins that were separated). I'm no expert on epigenetics either, but it sure sounds like a likely candidate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

[Tom]

It doesn't matter if it is genetic or choice.
What matters is the Inferior Court had no right to make that ruling.
That was clearly the responsibility of the legislature.

It leaves the other freedoms we have at risk depending the mood of one of 9 unelected, unaccountable, often insane, always political, bottom feeding justices.

The court must go.

[elysiantraveller]

It doesn't matter if it is genetic or choice.
What matters is the Inferior Court had no right to make that ruling.
That was clearly the responsibility of the legislature.

It leaves the other freedoms we have at risk depending the mood of one of 9 unelected, unaccountable, often insane, always political, bottom feeding justices.

The court must go.

I think it was mentioned before that it really dpoends on how you interpret the Constitution. If you abide by a strict close minded reading then the dissenting opinion was correct in that the 10th Amendment clearly leaves marriage to the states. However, if you believe in the Founder's intent its very plausible to use the 14th Amendment to encompass it.

I personally don't know which way I would lean as both seem legitimate. I do, however, think the whole thing is moot and if they would have ruled the other way only put off gay marriage becoming universal in this country by a decade at most. Voters were trending that way anyway.

[horses4courses]

Voters were trending that way anyway.

True.
Has me wishing that this was all going down a year from now.
Still, there is no shortage of issues that the mainstream differs
from conservatives. Something else will take it's place in a year.

Saw recently that around 60% of the country favors gay marriage.
Along with that, 67% of Republican voters are against it.
Just another in a long list of issues that hurt conservatives at the polls.

This issue won't be going away in a hurry, either.
States will continue to challenge this ruling.
Texas will probably lead the way there.
No surprise.

[Tom]

The dems had both house and the WH for a while - why did they not have the balls to pass this legislation back then?

[elysiantraveller]

The dems had both house and the WH for a while - why did they not have the balls to pass this legislation back then?

Because that was 8 years ago. Gay marriage wasn't nearly as popular according to the polls back then.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117328/marriage.aspx

This is actually an issue that has transformed "by the people, for the people" just because some disagree with it doesn't make it any less so.

[Clocker]

The dems had both house and the WH for a while - why did they not have the balls to pass this legislation back then?

Obama was in favor of gay marriage before he was against gay marriage before he was favor of gay marriage. He flip-flopped to "opposed" about 10 years ago and back to "in favor" about 3 years ago.

Oops, I forgot. Obama doesn't flip-flop, he recalibrates. You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows.

Hillary's position has also "evolved" over the years, as the issue became more politically advantageous.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/obama-clinton-twisty-paths-gay-marriage-32068534

[classhandicapper]

I think it was mentioned before that it really dpoends on how you interpret the Constitution. If you abide by a strict close minded reading then the dissenting opinion was correct in that the 10th Amendment clearly leaves marriage to the states. However, if you believe in the Founder's intent its very plausible to use the 14th Amendment to encompass it.

I personally don't know which way I would lean as both seem legitimate. I do, however, think the whole thing is moot and if they would have ruled the other way only put off gay marriage becoming universal in this country by a decade at most. Voters were trending that way anyway.

I know less than nothing about law, but I'm pretty sure that at least some of the founders are rolling around in their graves looking at the US right now. They may or may not be opposed to the end result in many of these cases, but I can't imagine they wanted us to get there this way.

[TJDave]

I'm not sure where your coming from regarding my beliefs.

So, let me ask you this.
You believe that it can be "unlearned", treating it like a disease?

No, sorry, I had you confused with SMTW.
My apologies.

[PaceAdvantage]

It's just a matter of time. The younger generations have no problem with gays or gay marriage. Let Bill scream. He'll be dead soon enough.The younger generation as a whole will turn out to be a complete disaster...my opinion of course.

[horses4courses]

This issue won't be going away in a hurry, either.
States will continue to challenge this ruling.
Texas will probably lead the way there.
No surprise.

That didn't take long, now did it?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/texas-attorney-general-says-government-employees-can-refuse-samesex-marriages-10353017.html

[horses4courses]

The younger generation as a whole will turn out to be a complete disaster...my opinion of course.

That's what former generations have been saying since Time began.

[PaceAdvantage]

Who are you to judge what is moral?But you can, right?

[horses4courses]

But you can, right?

That's not what I said.
I'm always intrigued by those who profess to know, though.

[PaceAdvantage]

All these horse players on here crying about morality and God's word.
What does the good book say about gambling?It treats it much kinder than other sins... ;)

[PaceAdvantage]

Bobby "I supported Common Core before I opposed it" Jindal suggested doing away with the Supreme Court after this decision was released. When you're polling at 0% nationally (latest WSJ poll), you'll say just about anything to get attention.He's polling that low because America is racist against people of Indian decent...

[Show Me the Wire]

That's not what I said.
I'm always intrigued by those who profess to know, though.

Really. Okay I have the ability to use my car today to injure, maim and possibly kill people today. Is it moral to use my car in this manner today?

[Tom]

That's what former generations have been saying since Time began.

And look at the one have now.
Dumber than dirt.

[PaceAdvantage]

Amazing post.Not really. Let's be honest for a moment. Do we truly KNOW why anything is the way it is?

Science can't answer the question yet, DEFINITIVELY, as to why someone is gay or straight...why someone thinks they are a woman yet they have a man's body.

So let's not be so quick to bully another's opinion (remember these days, NO BULLYING IS ALLOWED ANYMORE...you must ACCEPT EVERYONE and EVERYTHING) when you yourself don't have all the answers, and neither does science.

[Clocker]

He's polling that low because America is racist against people of Indian decent...

Maybe he should tell everyone that he self-identifies as black, and that there is no evidence that the people claiming to be his parents really are. :rolleyes:

[Tom]

Originally Posted by PhantomOnTour
All these horse players on here crying about morality and God's word.
What does the good book say about gambling?


1. Thous shalt not bet to show
2. As ye bet, so shall ye cash
3. Forget ye not to tithe.
4. 3-5 is the Devil's playground
5. Go,ye, now, and churn
6. It shalt not be considered to be profit until ye spends it elsewhere
7. Bless me Father, for I have tapped.

[PaceAdvantage]

I know a woman who swings from both sides of the plate, so to speak. She was undoubtedly born that way too. Wait...if everyone is BORN that way, this means you are taking away someone's FREE WILL to BECOME that way, are you not?

I have to be BORN THAT WAY now?

What if I wasn't?

Ya'll make no sense. And you have NO CONCRETE answers to this...NONE...you think you do, but you don't.

Has science proven that we are all BORN straight, gay, bi, or whatever? How about those attracted to animals? Dead people? Minors?

If we are ALL born THIS WAY, then none of us should be punished if "our way" happens to fall on the negative side of society's good/bad ledger...of course, today's ledger is much more forgiving, but there are still lines that can't be crossed.

What happens when those people start clamoring for rights? How can you deny the current-day perverts their "rights" if we are indeed all BORN THIS WAY?

I'm sure you'll go to the tried and true "well, today's perverts are HURTING INNOCENTS" with their particular predilection.

But SO WHAT? They were BORN THAT WAY, right brother? They can't help it...how can you punish someone who was BORN THAT WAY? We've been going out of our way lately as a society to make sure individuals don't have to suffer from something they were BORN WITH.

[Show Me the Wire]

Wait...if everyone is BORN that way, this means you are taking away someone's FREE WILL to BECOME that way, are you not?

I have to be BORN THAT WAY now?

What if I wasn't?

Ya'll make no sense. And you have NO CONCRETE answers to this...NONE...you think you do, but you don't.

Has science proven that we are all BORN straight, gay, bi, or whatever? How about those attracted to animals? Dead people? Minors?

If we are ALL born THIS WAY, then none of us should be punished if "our way" happens to fall on the negative side of society's good/bad ledger...of course, today's ledger is much more forgiving, but there are still lines that can't be crossed.

What happens when those people start clamoring for rights? How can you deny the current-day perverts their "rights" if we are indeed all BORN THIS WAY?

I'm sure you'll go to the tried and true "well, today's perverts are HURTING INNOCENTS" with their particular predilection.

But SO WHAT? They were BORN THAT WAY, right brother? They can't help it...how can you punish someone who was BORN THAT WAY? We've been going out of our way lately as a society to make sure individuals don't have to suffer from something they were BORN WITH.

I was born with the inclination to drive across the Canadian border and ram Canadians with my car. I am sure they will be understanding :)

[PaceAdvantage]

I have three sisters...and my youngest sister is gay. There was no doubt that her sexual preference was genetic...we suspected it from her adolescent years. She tried concealing this aspect of herself even as she was attending college...and I could see the pain that it was causing her. Even when I tried approaching her about it, she would shield her true feelings from me...because we were raised in a "traditional Greek home"...with "traditional and wholesome Christian values". She told us the "truth" about herself when she was attending medical school...coincidently at the same time when my own wife was battling for her life...stricken with an advanced form of cancer. She also revealed to us that she had met and fallen in love with a classmate at college...and that they would soon be moving in together.

My "Christian" mother was devastated (my father was no longer alive at that time). Why couldn't SHE(my sister) get cancer and die, instead of my wife...my mother screamed, in my sister's face. I can still remember the shock and the disappointment in my sister's face...as she ran crying out the door of my mother's house.

Years passed...my sister became a doctor...she married her girlfriend...and they have adopted a cute little boy. We the siblings have remained close through the years...but my mother never forgave her for her "unpardonable sin". My mother never visited my sister's home...because she didn't want to step foot in a place where the "devil ruled".

And then my mother died not long ago...and the sad cycle came to a close, without a satisfying conclusion. The mother who never made up with her daughter...and the daughter who now has to live with this sad fact.

And, as the years fly by, and I sit back and reflect...it occurs to me that we live for only a short time. Should we spend that time making enemies, by trying to enforce our own version of "morality" on one another...or should we love our families, and respect those around us...so we could live in peace with our surroundings?

What good is "morality" and "logic"...if they hurt feelings and create strife in the world? Wouldn't we rather be "happy" than "right"? I know I would...Probably the best reply in this thread to date...no surprise it came from you. :ThmbUp:

[Tom]

.

[dnlgfnk]

This is not true -- certainly not among the greatest thinkers in Greece. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were opposed to homosexual practices.

Agreed, e.g., the dialogue between Socrates and Glaucon in the "Republic". And though the ancient Greek elite culture didn't categorize according to sexual preference (my link to the gay academics), they possessed "bisexual", culturally accepted attitudes and behaviors.

And not to nitpick -- but the purpose or ends of sex is procreation which has as its end marriage for reasons discussed earlier in this thread. Procreation naturally entails child-rearing which takes many years and, therefore, a long-term commitment between mother and father for the welfare of the child.

I thought that was implied.

And just as telling side note, it appears that a large percentage of same sex couples unwittingly endorse and validate Natural Law whenever they adopt children...

A child is entitled to a mother and father when at all possible. Anything less treats the child as a commodity.

... I think in the very core of their being they know that sexual union has as its chief end procreation which is why so many seek to adopt in an attempt to fulfill "mother nature's" intention. Also, by adopting they're trying to mitigate their guilt over their own selfish, sinful desires which have driven them to act contrary to Natural Law. The one thing none of us can do is run away from ourselves. Since God's law is written on the hearts of each us, most of us need to find ways to deal with that whenever our behavior is contrary to that law.

[boxcar]

That's what former generations have been saying since Time began.

Maybe the former generations know something you don't about human nature.

[boxcar]

who cares if it's genetic or not


makes no difference


if you happen to care about other people's sex lives, then you happen to be the one with the problem

So, you're okay with incest, pedophilia and the like?

[PaceAdvantage]

So, you're okay with incest, pedophilia and the like?Those are illegal. Big difference. And they are with people who are under the age of consent...why must you bark up this tree?

[horses4courses]

Maybe the former generations know something you don't about human nature.

Probably.
Like how cool it is to walk around in a loincloth carrying a big club, maybe.

[boxcar]

Those are illegal. Big difference. And they are with people who are under the age of consent...why must you bark up this tree?

Why are they illegal?

[boxcar]

Probably.
Like how cool it is to walk around in a loincloth carrying a big club, maybe.

You're not saying that all the generations that have preceded you have lived in caves, are you?

[horses4courses]

You're not saying that all the generations that have preceded you have lived in caves, are you?

No, but many of them have believed similar folklore handed down to them.
Still occurs.

[boxcar]

No, but many of them have believed similar folklore handed down to them.
Still occurs.

I don't suppose it has ever occurred to you that that could be because they're really are universals in this universe -- you know...like the "folklore" of laws of mathematics, laws of logic, propositions, natural law, objective morality, etc.?

[horses4courses]

I don't suppose it has ever occurred to you that that could be because they're really are universals in this universe -- you know...like the "folklore" of laws of mathematics, laws of logic, propositions, natural law, objective morality, etc.?

No.
Never. :rolleyes:

[boxcar]

No.
Never. :rolleyes:

You see what I mean? :)

[RunForTheRoses]

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-33313807

[boxcar]

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-33313807

Yeah, but look at the dark side: I understand college campuses all over the country are all ga-ga over the SC ruling. It's very obvious that most Americans have no clue what lies ahead for this country.

[JustRalph]

http://www.krtv.com/story/29450937/montana-polygamist-family-applies-for-marriage-license

here we go...........

[Clocker]

http://www.krtv.com/story/29450937/montana-polygamist-family-applies-for-marriage-license

here we go...........

Hey, there's nothing in the Constitution prohibiting polygamy. :rolleyes:

[Tall One]

Two counties here in Kentucky, Rowan and Casey, have stopped issuing marriage licenses period.

[Tom]

Yeah, but look at the dark side: I understand college campuses all over the country are all ga-ga over the SC ruling. It's very obvious that most Americans have no clue what lies ahead for this country.
Campuses?
Are you sure it's not just the drugs?

[boxcar]

Campuses?
Are you sure it's not just the drugs?

Would that be before or after sex?

[Greyfox]

http://www.krtv.com/story/29450937/montana-polygamist-family-applies-for-marriage-license

here we go...........

Yup. Here's another one who wants two wives.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/nathan-collier-montana-man-inspired-by-samesex-marriage-ruling-requests-right-to-wed-two-wives-10361612.html

[boxcar]

Yup. Here's another one who wants two wives.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/nathan-collier-montana-man-inspired-by-samesex-marriage-ruling-requests-right-to-wed-two-wives-10361612.html

Why not? Marriage is now whatever anyone wants it to be.

[horses4courses]

Would that be before or after sex?

For a holy man, your mind sure is in the gutter. :eek:

[boxcar]

For a holy man, your mind sure is in the gutter. :eek:

The gutter is where most college kids live sexually. You might want to pull your head out of the quicksand someday.

[horses4courses]

The gutter is where most college kids live sexually

Your privy to such information?
Interesting.

[LottaKash]

Your privy to such information?
Interesting.

Are you intentionally sounding naïve with your goading questions, or are you really clueless of today's sexual mindset of the young ones ?...

Just wondering...

[Tom]

Are you intentionally sounding naïve with your goading questions, or are you really clueless of today's sexual mindset of the young ones ?...

Just wondering...

One of the great MYSTERIES OF LIFE.
So much evidence to support either side.

[horses4courses]

Are you intentionally sounding naïve with your goading questions, or are you really clueless of today's sexual mindset of the young ones ?...

Just wondering...

I was just wondering how we get such
expert opinion on the matter from senior citizens?

You guys sure seem to know a bunch about promiscuity,
and "the sexual mindset of the young ones".

Just sayin'......

[Clocker]

I was just wondering how we get such
expert opinion on the matter from senior citizens?

You guys sure seem to know a bunch about promiscuity,
and "the sexual mindset of the young ones".



We know about it because it is so hard to avoid it on the internet while searching for real content. The "young ones" today seem to live in constant fear of not sharing every tiny detail about their lives with the rest of the world.

[horses4courses]

We know about it because it is so hard to avoid it on the internet while searching for real content. The "young ones" today seem to live in constant fear of not sharing every tiny detail about their lives with the rest of the world.

Oh......gotcha ;)

[boxcar]

Millionaire Gay Couple Is Suing To Force A Church To Hold Their Wedding

http://www.gracecentered.com/millionaire-gay-couple-suing-to-force-church-to-hold-wedding.htm

And to add insult to injury this "Christian" same-sex couple are disobeying Paul's injunction that forbids Christians from suing one another in civil courts. So, what we have here is religious same-sex couple who could care less about submitting themselves to the Law of Christ. They're going to become a law unto themselves and the bible can go take a flying leap. After all, it already has to their sexual preferences, so why stop there?

Truly, these will be exactly the kind of people Jesus talked about in Mat 7:21-23.

[TJDave]

Millionaire Gay Couple Is Suing To Force A Church To Hold Their Wedding


I hope they win their case. Not that I care for them personally but in how upsetting it would be for you and the other neanderthals.

[Clocker]

Not that I care for them personally but in how upsetting it would be for you and the other neanderthals.

It is now a constitutional right not to be upset by anything.

[TJDave]

It is now a constitutional right not to be upset by anything.

Funny. But they don't take it that way...which is funnier.

[Tom]

Well, the Neanderthals didn't kill their babies, like liberals do, so I guess that is a compliment. At least they were civilized.

Maybe now Roe v Wade is no longer needed.
If you don't like kids, same-sex marriage should be mandatory. After all, the government knows best. :rolleyes:

[Clocker]

Well, the Neanderthals didn't kill their babies, like liberals do, so I guess that is a compliment. At least they were civilized.

Maybe now Roe v Wade is no longer needed.
If you don't like kids, same-sex marriage should be mandatory. After all, the government knows best. :rolleyes:

So gay-rights advocates should sue for a waiver from the mandatory birth control coverage in ObamaCare?

[Tom]

So gay-rights advocates should sue for a waiver from the mandatory birth control coverage in ObamaCare?

Good one.
I bet it will come to that.
Liberals only make rules for others, never themselves.

[fast4522]

Well, the Neanderthals didn't kill their babies, like liberals do, so I guess that is a compliment. At least they were civilized.

Maybe now Roe v Wade is no longer needed.
If you don't like kids, same-sex marriage should be mandatory. After all, the government knows best. :rolleyes:

The funky monkey strikes again.

Disregard that last comment, congrats on that 70K posting.

Seriously . . . . . . .
I long for a previous time, maybe others might as well.
Those who we should take care of the most, are the ones getting the short end of the stick. Children, Seniors, and Veterans.

[boxcar]

Funny. But they don't take it that way...which is funnier.

So, being the good liberal you are, you're going to educate the thin skinnies on the virtues of tolerance, right?

[johnhannibalsmith]

So gay-rights advocates should sue for a waiver from the mandatory birth control coverage in ObamaCare?

Oh man would that make for some great alliances.

[Clocker]

Oh man would that make for some great alliances.

Politics makes strange bedfellows. :p

[tucker6]

I was in the USA soccer thread and agreed that Alex Morgan was a real looker. Under new SCOTUS rulings, did I commit a crime by saying something hetero on a public forum?? I would like to visit Oregon again some day, and fear my hetero outburst may disqualify me for entry.

[thaskalos]

I was in the USA soccer thread and agreed that Alex Morgan was a real looker. Under new SCOTUS rulings, did I commit a crime by saying something hetero on a public forum?? I would like to visit Oregon again some day, and fear my hetero outburst may disqualify me for entry.
For what it's worth...I forgive you.

[delayjf]

The purpose of the military is to defend the nation, as people who live in the nation they should be able to participate in its defense. Gays also have the right to all things which are needed for subsistence.

IMO - There is no "Right" to be member of the Military. The Military discriminates for all kinds of reasons - they even discriminate against those who are sick or handicapped. Gays serving openningly in the military will be disruptive and will degrade a units cohesiveness. As we speak, the military is now preparing to implement integration of transgender individuals into the ranks - outstanding. I suppose they will be intitled to free transformation surgery once they are on active duty. Outstanding. :bang:

[LottaKash]

I suppose they will be intitled to free transformation surgery once they are on active duty. Outstanding. :bang:

Is it legal "now" for a soldier to marry his Sgt ?....
Who gets to wear the pants in the family ?...Does the Sgt get to pull rank ?...
Does the Mess Sgt have to make the wedding cake, or else ?... :D

[Robert Goren]

Is it legal "now" for a soldier to marry his Sgt ?....
Who gets to wear the pants in the family ?...Does the Sgt get to pull rank ?...
Does the Mess Sgt have to make the wedding cake, or else ?... :DThere have been cases where both of the spouses have been in the military for many years. Dating back to least WWII.

[Tom]

There have been cases where both of the spouses have been in the military for many years. Dating back to least WWII.

Same barracks?

[FantasticDan]

SC Republican State Senator Lee Bright, telling it like it is, and making liberal pervert heads spin! :jump: :jump:

:blush: :(

7rCgtGgy1Ps

[LottaKash]

There have been cases where both of the spouses have been in the military for many years. Dating back to least WWII.

I agree, but I was referring to the one's that don't want to procreate...

[LottaKash]

Same barracks?


Ooh, La Lah.... :kiss:

That would give new meaning to a GI Blanket Party... :eek:

[hcap]

Another reason why we try to separate Church from state.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/franklin-graham-warns-wrathful-god-could-smite-obama-with-lightning-over-gay-pride-rainbow/

Franklin Graham warns wrathful God could smite Obama with lightning over gay pride rainbow

God might send a lightning storm to Washington, D.C., to smite the White House for displaying rainbow colors after the Supreme Court’s historic same-sex marriage ruling, according to pastor Franklin Graham.

Franklin, the son of the famed evangelicist Billy Graham, wrote Tuesday on Facebook that President Barack Obama had angered God.

"he had the gall to disgrace the White House by lighting it up with the gay pride rainbow colors to celebrate,” Graham explained. “This is arrogantly flaunting sinful behavior in the face of Almighty God. My advice? He might want to have some extra lightning rods installed on the roof of the White House.”

:lol: :lol:

[thaskalos]

"he had the gall to disgrace the White House by lighting it up with the gay pride rainbow colors to celebrate,” Graham explained. “This is arrogantly flaunting sinful behavior in the face of Almighty God. My advice? He might want to have some extra lightning rods installed on the roof of the White House. ”

:lol: :lol:

Doesn't he know that ZEUS was the one throwing the lightning bolts?

[boxcar]

Doesn't he know that ZEUS was the one throwing the lightning bolts?

That Zeus stuff was borrowed from the OT (Ps18:14; 144:6; Jer 10:3, etc., etc., etc.)

[TJDave]

Franklin Graham warns wrathful God could smite Obama with lightning over gay pride rainbow



Barack Obama will live a long and prosperous life. He will have the best heath care, more money than he can spend and constant security to protect him. God's wrath is directed elsewhere. Like the thousands of starving children he allows to die each day.

[Clocker]

That Zeus stuff was borrowed from the OT (Ps18:14; 144:6; Jer 10:3, etc., etc., etc.)

Even though Greek mythology appears to date from several thousand years before the first evidence of the OT?

[Tom]

Like the thousands of starving children he allows to die each day.

Maybe YOU should step up to the plate and do something about it.
GODR allows YOU to have more than YOU need.

[LottaKash]

Even though Greek mythology appears to date from several thousand years before the first evidence of the OT?

Genesis 6:4
"There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God (the Nephillim) came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

[Show Me the Wire]

Maybe YOU should step up to the plate and do something about it.
GODR allows YOU to have more than YOU need.

It seems TJDave does not believe in tikkun olam.

[horses4courses]

It seems TJDave does not believe in tikkun olam.

I think that's on the menu at a local Indian restaurant. :eek:

[classhandicapper]

Another reason why we try to separate Church from state.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/franklin-graham-warns-wrathful-god-could-smite-obama-with-lightning-over-gay-pride-rainbow/

Franklin Graham warns wrathful God could smite Obama with lightning over gay pride rainbow

God might send a lightning storm to Washington, D.C., to smite the White House for displaying rainbow colors after the Supreme Court’s historic same-sex marriage ruling, according to pastor Franklin Graham.

Franklin, the son of the famed evangelicist Billy Graham, wrote Tuesday on Facebook that President Barack Obama had angered God.

"he had the gall to disgrace the White House by lighting it up with the gay pride rainbow colors to celebrate,” Graham explained. “This is arrogantly flaunting sinful behavior in the face of Almighty God. My advice? He might want to have some extra lightning rods installed on the roof of the White House.”

:lol: :lol:

If there is a God, I doubt He would actively punish sin as the Bible suggests He has. He'd create a "living and just" universe. Then he'd tell people the rules, give them free will, and sit back and watch as that living complex universe provided war, famine, disease, extreme weather, and asteroids in response to their sins.

[Show Me the Wire]

I think that's on the menu at a local Indian restaurant. :eek:

It should be on everyone's menu :eek:

[TJDave]

Maybe YOU should step up to the plate and do something about it.
GODR allows YOU to have more than YOU need.

Maybe I do.

[TJDave]

It should be on everyone's menu :eek:

Agreed. Repairing the world should be man's highest calling.

[boxcar]

Agreed. Repairing the world should be man's highest calling.

You only repair things that are broken. What's broken about the world?

[hcap]

If there is a God, I doubt He would actively punish sin as the Bible suggests He has. He'd create a "living and just" universe. Then he'd tell people the rules, give them free will, and sit back and watch as that living complex universe provided war, famine, disease, extreme weather, and asteroids in response to their sins.Makes sense unless you are member of the Franklin Graham /boxcar congregation.

I would point out that it is unlikely "god" pays attention to details and the suffering of his "children". Why do accidents and natural disasters happen? Or hangnails or hemorrhoids? A cosmic joke?

[hcap]

You only repair things that are broken. What's broken about the world?Pompous sanctimonious preachers preaching on gambling web sites are particularly annoying examples.

[boxcar]

Makes sense unless you are member of the Franklin Graham /boxcar congregation.

I would point out that it is unlikely "god" pays attention to details and the suffering of his "children". Why do accidents and natural disasters happen? Or hangnails or hemorrhoids? A cosmic joke?

Even TJ has enough sense to know that the world is "broken" (thanks to Adam's free will, I might add). This is why "accidents and natural disasters happen"...and hangnails and hemorrhoids. No joke.

[boxcar]

Pompous sanctimonious preachers preaching on gambling web sites are particularly annoying examples.

Gee, where would that put me on the priority list of Things to Fix in this broken world: At the top of the totem pole or at the bottom? :rolleyes:

[boxcar]

I recently posted an article either in this thread or in the Oregon thread about how a church in England was being sued by two homosexuals because their church has refused to marry them. As I stated in that post, it wouldn't take long at all for this to become a big issue here on our shores. Sure enough...people here are already bracing for a huge battle.

Christian Colleges' Right to Deny Married Housing for Gay Couples Is 'on the Edge of the Indefensible,' Barry Lynn Asserts

And our "bible expert" Barry Lynn is as clueless as always. Here is his take on scripture:

"I read the same Bible as the Religious Right, yet where they see a manifesto for exclusion and bigotry, I see a command to love and include. Where they see division, I see community. Where they see rejection, I see acceptance," Lynn stated. "With Protect Thy Neighbor, we are putting the Religious Right on notice: Your politics of division, homophobia and exclusion will not stand. We are watching and we are reacting. We will meet you and, I suspect, beat you in Congress, in statehouses and in courtrooms."

http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-colleges-right-to-deny-married-housing-for-gay-couples-is-on-the-edge-of-the-indefensible-barry-lynn-asserts-141265/

Conservative Evangelicals see no manifesto for bigotry, but he did get the "exclusion" part right! Tolerance for evil is not a biblical doctrine, but somehow ol' pastor Barry sees this in scripture. (Shirely, he must be reading out of the Satanic version.)

But I'm all for the church losing its tax exemption if this meant freeing itself from the tentacles of a totally depraved, godless government. But I also predict that it won't end there.

[boxcar]

Christian Law School Forced to Support Homosexuality If It Wants Accreditation, Canadian Court Rules

http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-law-school-forced-to-support-homosexuality-if-it-wants-accreditation-canadian-court-rules-141264/

[TJDave]

But I'm all for the church losing its tax exemption if this meant freeing itself from the tentacles of a totally depraved, godless government. But I also predict that it won't end there.

Let's hope not.

Perhaps it's time for you and your ilk to find a new home. One that's more tolerant of your bigoted behavior.

[boxcar]

Let's hope not.

Perhaps it's time for you and your ilk to find a new home. One that's more tolerant of your bigoted behavior.

We already have a home. Scripture says that Christians' citizenship is in heaven!

But I am really excited about the times in which we're living because it's all coming together just the way the bible predicted. Not only from the perspective of the state which hates Evangelical Christians but also from the perspective of the church which is largely apostate. Only a brain-dead moron would seek help from his enemies. But this is precisely what the whining, corrupt apostate church is already doing with lawmakers. Already the apostate branch of Christ's church is seeking help and assurances from the U.S. government who could care less about her welfare. This is analogous to the chickens seeking the foxes out to guard the hen house! :bang: :bang: This is how hopelessly blind and stupid lost religious people are.

[TJDave]

We already have a home. Scripture says that Christians' citizenship is in heaven!

But I am really excited about the times in which we're living because it's all coming together just the way the bible predicted.

Good. Heaven is the perfect place to go. Leave early.

[boxcar]

Good. Heaven is the perfect place to go. Leave early.

You won't be missed there either. That's the good news. The bad, however, is that you won't like your eternal digs very much.

[classhandicapper]

Christian Law School Forced to Support Homosexuality If It Wants Accreditation, Canadian Court Rules

http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-law-school-forced-to-support-homosexuality-if-it-wants-accreditation-canadian-court-rules-141264/

When did the entire planet become mentally ill?

Seriously, I know I spend a lot of time handicapping and watching basketball. I may have missed a lot. But I missed this whole transition to the point where half the population needs to be institutionalized. If you can't see how wrong THIS is, all your wires are not connected properly.

[classhandicapper]

I recently posted an article either in this thread or in the Oregon thread about how a church in England was being sued by two homosexuals because their church has refused to marry them. As I stated in that post, it wouldn't take long at all for this to become a big issue here on our shores. Sure enough...people here are already bracing for a huge battle.

Christian Colleges' Right to Deny Married Housing for Gay Couples Is 'on the Edge of the Indefensible,' Barry Lynn Asserts

And our "bible expert" Barry Lynn is as clueless as always. Here is his take on scripture:

"I read the same Bible as the Religious Right, yet where they see a manifesto for exclusion and bigotry, I see a command to love and include. Where they see division, I see community. Where they see rejection, I see acceptance," Lynn stated. "With Protect Thy Neighbor, we are putting the Religious Right on notice: Your politics of division, homophobia and exclusion will not stand. We are watching and we are reacting. We will meet you and, I suspect, beat you in Congress, in statehouses and in courtrooms."

http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-colleges-right-to-deny-married-housing-for-gay-couples-is-on-the-edge-of-the-indefensible-barry-lynn-asserts-141265/

Conservative Evangelicals see no manifesto for bigotry, but he did get the "exclusion" part right! Tolerance for evil is not a biblical doctrine, but somehow ol' pastor Barry sees this in scripture. (Shirely, he must be reading out of the Satanic version.)

But I'm all for the church losing its tax exemption if this meant freeing itself from the tentacles of a totally depraved, godless government. But I also predict that it won't end there.

Christ preached that you should love the sinner but hate the sin. He did not preach love the sin and the sinner. That's not very difficult to understand. It's leftist douches that want to label Christian objection to sin as being equivalent to hating the sinner. That way they can attack and destroy Christians/Christianity and sin with impunity in a world where their actions would be considered equal to Judeo/Christian teachings on marriage, sex, family etc... It's done for political gain. It's not enough for them to have freedom. They want to destroy those that disagree. It's obviously hateful and evil behavior on their part.

And to be clear, I say this as a sinner.

I don't think many of my life choices should be promoted as good moral behavior or as the equivalent of Christian ideals. They aren't. If there's a God, I hope he's as forgiving as they say. :lol: All I want is the freedom of choice. I don't need anyone's approval and I don't want to destroy anyone that disagrees with my values and choices. That's apparently too much to ask of the left. They want destruction of all that disagree.

[boxcar]

When did the entire planet become mentally ill?

Seriously, I know I spend a lot of time handicapping and watching basketball. I may have missed a lot. But I missed this whole transition to the point where half the population needs to be institutionalized. If you can't see how wrong THIS is, all your wires are not connected properly.

Who said the entire planet was? From where in the linked article did you get that? However, scripture does teach that men are full of evil and insanity is in their heart (Eccl 9:3).

[classhandicapper]

Who said the entire planet was? From where in the linked article did you get that? However, scripture does teach that men are full of evil and insanity is in their heart (Eccl 9:3).

The current political direction leads me to believe that we are suddenly on the fast track to place I do not want to live. I thought it would be a slower process. I missed something.

[boxcar]

Christ preached that you should love the sinner but hate the sin. He did not preach love the sin and the sinner. That's not very difficult to understand. It's leftist douches that want to label Christian objection to sin as being equivalent to hating the sinner. That way they can attack and destroy Christians/Christianity and sin with impunity in a world where their actions would be considered equal to Judeo/Christian teachings on marriage, sex, family etc... It's done for political gain. It's not enough for them to have freedom. They want to destroy those that disagree. It's obviously hateful and evil behavior on their part.

And to be clear, I say this as a sinner.

I don't think many of my life choices should be promoted as good moral behavior or even as the equivalent of Christian ideals. They aren't. If there's a God, I hope he's as forgiving as they say. :lol: All I want is the freedom of choice. I don't need anyone's approval and I don't want to destroy anyone that disagrees with my values and choices. Too much to ask of the left.

And Christians haven't called for the heads of homosexuals or lesbians either. If they want to live that lifestyle, then they should be free to do so at their own peril. After all, choices have consequences. But it is they who are infringing on Christians' right to practice our faith as we understand it. The message of Evangelicals to those who publicly hang their lifestyles out there for the whole world to see is that we will not help you celebrate your chosen life or give you any kind of tacit approval. We also tell them that, like any other sinner, they will perish if they don't repent of their sins and trust in God's Son for their salvation. There is no partiality with God toward any person or with respect to any person's sin.

[thaskalos]

Christ preached that you should love the sinner but hate the sin. He did not preach love the sin and the sinner. That's not very difficult to understand. It's leftist douches that want to label Christian objection to sin as being equivalent to hating the sinner.


Wait a minute here. "Not hating" the sinner is far, far away from "LOVING the sinner". You say that Christ preached that his followers should "love the sinner but hate the sin". Can you offer us an example of how the Christians are obeying Jesus's command to "LOVE the sinner?" Where is the "Love" that the Christians have shown for the "sinners" of this world?

Are you mistaking "indifference" for "love"?

[Saratoga_Mike]

Where is the "Love" that the Christians have shown for the "sinners" of this world?



Pope John Paul and his would-be assassin

[boxcar]

Wait a minute here. "Not hating" the sinner is far, far away from "LOVING the sinner". You say that Christ preached that his followers should "love the sinner but hate the sin". Can you offer us an example of how the Christians are obeying Jesus's command to "LOVE the sinner?" Where is the "Love" that the Christians have shown for the "sinners" of this world?

Are you mistaking "indifference" for "love"?

The fact that Evangelical Christians share the gospel with sinners is proof-positive that they love sinners. What do you think Christ did for 3-1/2 years during his ministry if not share the gospel with lost sinners? Did he wink at their sin? Or did he tolerate their sins? If Evangelicals were indifferent toward sinners, why would we share the gospel which very often only earns us sinners' scorn and derision for our trouble -- the very thing Christ earned from the religious establishment in his day? Don't you understand that Christ was murdered because of his gospel!? :bang: :bang: :bang:

[thaskalos]

The fact that Evangelical Christians share the gospel with sinners is proof-positive that they love sinners. What do you think Christ did for 3-1/2 years during his ministry if not share the gospel with lost sinners? Did he wink at their sin? Or did he tolerate their sins? If Evangelicals were indifferent toward sinners, why would we share the gospel which very often only earns us sinners' scorn and derision for our trouble -- the very thing Christ earned from the religious establishment in his day? Don't you understand that Christ was murdered because of his gospel!? :bang: :bang: :bang:
Is it LOVE that you think you've been spreading on this board? Is that what you call the attitude that you've exhibited here; LOVE?

You've gotta be kidding me...

[Saratoga_Mike]

Is it LOVE that you think you've been spreading on this board? Is that what you call the attitude that you've exhibited here; LOVE?

You've gotta be kidding me...

More derision! Boxcar...martyr

[TJDave]

Boxcar...martyr

Excellent idea!

[classhandicapper]

Wait a minute here. "Not hating" the sinner is far, far away from "LOVING the sinner". You say that Christ preached that his followers should "love the sinner but hate the sin". Can you offer us an example of how the Christians are obeying Jesus's command to "LOVE the sinner?" Where is the "Love" that the Christians have shown for the "sinners" of this world?

Are you mistaking "indifference" for "love"?

There are Christian institutions all over the world caring for orphans, the sick, the poor, the homeless, the war ravaged etc.. of all races, religions, sexual orientations and anything else you can think of. And there are rich and middle income Christians around the world who are preoccupied with their careers, families etc.. that fund it all.

There are examples of hate everywhere, but in general, Christians are not taught to and do not hate anyone.

A local priest recently pointed out to me that by living with my girlfriend I was sinning. He tried to explain to me why I should be married. If I gave him some of the details he would have told me about a few other sins too. :lol:

There is a huge difference between telling me what I am doing is wrong and hating me.

There is a huge difference between me disregarding what he had to say and trying to destroy him because I want my choice normalized and don't want to be criticized by some guy that believes in God.

He should be free to keep preaching that I am a sinner and I should be free to either listen to or disregard him.

[Tom]

Where is the "Love" that the Christians have shown for the "sinners" of this world?

That church in Charlestown - the surviving family members are forgiving the shooter. To name one.

[boxcar]

Is it LOVE that you think you've been spreading on this board? Is that what you call the attitude that you've exhibited here; LOVE?

You've gotta be kidding me...

Tough love. For beginners, read Jesus' 7 woes to the Pharisees. Lots of "Pharisees" on this forum who think they can see, and I haven't been nearly as tough as Jesus was.

But you did ask how Christians manifest their love, so now you know the primary way. It would not be very loving to if we failed to warn the world what lies ahead. In fact, that would be downright wrong. But scripture says that "love does no wrong" (Rom 13:10).

[boxcar]

More derision! Boxcar...martyr

A disciple is not above his Master. It would be an honor to give my life for Him if it were required of me.

[thaskalos]

A disciple is not above his Master. It would be an honor to give my life for Him if it were required of me.
Plato was once asked what the best way was for a student to honor his teacher. Plato's reply was:

"By surpassing him in significance."

[boxcar]

Plato was once asked what the best way was for a student to honor his teacher. Plato's reply was:

"By surpassing him in significance."

There's no way any mere mortal is going to surpass the Creator of the universe in significance.

[Robert Fischer]

this thread has almost 500 responses.

must be a lot of 'novelty' in the gay stuff...

[LottaKash]

this thread has almost 500 responses.

must be a lot of 'novelty' in the gay stuff...

Yeah I like the parades with a bunch of people running around half naked in the streets....sweet !.... :jump:

[thaskalos]

I agree with Mr. Fischer...500 responses don't lie. Homosexuality arouses a lot of emotion on this board. :)

[Inner Dirt]

I am still looking for someone who thinks like me on this issue. I cannot object on religious grounds as I am an atheist. I find outward homosexuality repulsive, although I believe it to be biological. I have no problem with what people do out of the public eye, but females who dress and groom like males, and effeminate males make me sick. The Neil Patrick Harristypes (Doogie Howser), Rock Hudson, etc I am ok with, but those that flaunt their gayness Liberace, RuPaul, etc I cannot even stand to watch for 5 seconds. Like I have said before I guess I was born a homophobe, even as a small child if a male as much as hugged me I didn't like it, while little old ladies pinching my cheeks I had no problems with.

[Robert Goren]

I am still looking for someone who thinks like me on this issue. I cannot object on religious grounds as I am an atheist. I find outward homosexuality repulsive, although I believe it to be biological. I have no problem with what people do out of the public eye, but females who dress and groom like males, and effeminate males make me sick. The Neil Patrick Harristypes (Doogie Howser), Rock Hudson, etc I am ok with, but those that flaunt their gayness Liberace, RuPaul, etc I cannot even stand to watch for 5 seconds. Like I have said before I guess I was born a homophobe, even as a small child if a male as much as hugged me I didn't like it, while little old ladies pinching my cheeks I had no problems with.No, you were not born to be a homophobe, but you were undoubtedly raised to be one and you have decided not change your attitudes. The good news for homosexuals is that eventually you and others like you will die off. Younger people who have a different upbringing and different attitudes are taking your place, making the world a better place for Gays to live. It is unlikely that the world will ever be completely free of homophobes, but in 50 years there will be a lot fewer of them.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...It is unlikely that the world will ever be completely free of homophobes, but in 50 years there will be a lot fewer of them.

Amazing prognostication from the guy that thinks almost everything is racist, oh, 51 years after the Civil Rights Act passed.

[Robert Goren]

Amazing prognostication from the guy that thinks almost everything is racist, oh, 51 years after the Civil Rights Act passed. I have never said everything is racist today, but I am not dumb enough to think that there is no racism going on today. There is certainly less of it today than in 1964, but a lot of it is still there. When you have 4 of the leading candidates for the GOP nomination for president take money from America's largest openly White Supremacist group, the Council of Conservative Citizens, and none of the other candidates (not even the democratic ones as of yet) make big deal over it, it says a lot about where we are today on the issue of race.