Same Sex Marriage

[CryingForTheHorses]

Whew What a topic!...People from every state are reeling and celebrating Obama's views on this subject.In all honesty this is something that has gone on since the man first walked the earth..I say there is someone for everyone and if its two people that care about each other then Let It be.So what if you yourself dont like it,Thats still not a reason to deny someone some happiness whether they are a same sex couple or not.Nothing wrong with raising children either.Same sex couples are doing the same as a man and wife,Going to work and also fighting our wars and raising their kids.These people should not be banished just because they do this.I think the world would be a better place if everyone had someone to love and care for.Kudos to Obama for trying to free these people.!

[NJ Stinks]

Whew What a topic!...People from every state are reeling and celebrating Obama's views on this subject.In all honesty this is something that has gone on since the man first walked the earth..I say there is someone for everyone and if its two people that care about each other then Let It be.So what if you yourself dont like it,Thats still not a reason to deny someone some happiness whether they are a same sex couple or not.Nothing wrong with raising children either.Same sex couples are doing the same as a man and wife,Going to work and also fighting our wars and raising their kids.These people should not be banished just because they do this.I think the world would be a better place if everyone had someone to love and care for.Kudos to Obama for trying to free these people.!

Well said, Sir! :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[JustRalph]

Obama has sure stirred it up

http://gawker.com/5909002/barack-obamas-bullshit-gay-marriage-announcement#13366064585933

[Greyfox]

Obama says that he supports gay marriages.
He's suddenly drawn that conclusion after listening to his two daughters opinions. :rolleyes:
Whatever he really believes, only he knows.
However, once again Obama is baiting a trap.
He knows that when Republicans spend their energies talking about contraception, abortion, and same sex marriages, they'll spend less time talking about jobs, the economy, gasoline prices, National Defence, the war in Afghanistan and other issues that are more important than the nation's bedroom athletics.
For Romney, and other Republicans to spend any time at all on this latest issue would be foolish.
This latest tactic is merely diversionary in nature.
I hope the Reps don't take the bait.

[boxcar]

Whew What a topic!...People from every state are reeling and celebrating Obama's views on this subject.In all honesty this is something that has gone on since the man first walked the earth..I say there is someone for everyone and if its two people that care about each other then Let It be.So what if you yourself dont like it,Thats still not a reason to deny someone some happiness whether they are a same sex couple or not.Nothing wrong with raising children either.Same sex couples are doing the same as a man and wife,Going to work and also fighting our wars and raising their kids.These people should not be banished just because they do this.I think the world would be a better place if everyone had someone to love and care for.Kudos to Obama for trying to free these people.!

Have I missed something? What's the big news -- really? He has always supported this, but hasn't come straight and said so. Even now when he comes out of his closet (in a manner of speaking), he still supports the states' right to decide if they want this or not. In other words, he has not come out in support of federal laws. Not yet. After the election, maybe -- but not yet. So what, again, is the big news? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Obama says that he supports gay marriages.
He's suddenly drawn that conclusion after listening to his two daughters opinions. :rolleyes:
Whatever he really believes, only he knows.
However, once again Obama is baiting a trap.
He knows that when Republicans spend their energies talking about contraception, abortion, and same sex marriages, they'll spend less time talking about jobs, the economy, gasoline prices, National Defence, the war in Afghanistan and other issues that are more important than the nation's bedroom athletics.
For Romney, and other Republicans to spend any time at all on this latest issue would be foolish.
This latest tactic is merely diversionary in nature.
I hope the Reps don't take the bait.

You're 100% on the mark, Fox. A big-to-do about nothing. He has stopped far short of saying he wants to make this stuff a civil right. He'll do that if he gets reelected.

Boxcar

[ArlJim78]

what changes now? from what I can tell nothing. isn't this just the usual election year pandering?

[johnhannibalsmith]

... isn't this just the usual election year pandering?

Worse than that - it's a rather reactionary evolution that reached fruition amazingly at the same time that Biden's off-script commentary on Sunday put the President's stated beliefs under scrutiny at the wrong time in the cycle.

http://www.hobbylobby.com/assets/images/project_inspiration/summer_style/pinkLG.jpg

Obama/Romney 2012

[Steve 'StatMan']

Worse than that - it's a rather reactionary evolution that reached fruition amazingly at the same time that Biden's off-script commentary on Sunday put the President's stated beliefs under scrutiny at the wrong time in the cycle.

http://www.hobbylobby.com/assets/images/project_inspiration/summer_style/pinkLG.jpg

Obama/Romney 2012

Guess they're wanting us to walk a mile in their pink sandals.

[delayjf]

I say there is someone for everyone and if its two people that care about each other then Let It be.So what if you yourself dont like it,Thats still not a reason to deny someone some happiness whether they are a same sex couple or not.Nothing wrong with raising children either.Same sex couples are doing the same as a man and wife,Going to work and also fighting our wars and raising their kids.These people should not be banished just because they do this.I think the world would be a better place if everyone had someone to love and care for.Kudos to Obama for trying to free these people.!

Disagree - the issue of morality should be decided by the people and in this case they have spoken up on this topic again and again. Twice here in California. NOBODY is intruding on Gays and their relationhips - there is no Gay Gestopo breaking down the doors of gays and hauling them off to jail. This is about moral acceptance. Gays are free to live their lives as they please, but they have no right to impose their lifestyle on a public that finds it offensive.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Guess they're wanting us to walk a mile in their pink sandals.

Flip flops man! Flip flops! :D

The pink was just an added bonus.

[Tom]

However, once again Obama is baiting a trap.

Exactly - Mitt, baby.....this is NOT the issue. Ignore it., Keep hitting on his failed presidency in terms of the economy. Pound, baby, pound.

Flip Flops, John?
Why is it that Romney flip flops, but Obama "evolves? :rolleyes:

btw, what if I and three of my neighbors decide we want a group marriage and all the financial benefits that come with it.......don't we now have that right?

[Tom]

Gays are free to live their lives as they please, but they have no right to impose their lifestyle on a public that finds it offensive.

Exactly, Jeff.
If these lib issues are so popular with the people, why do they always need a paid off judge to get them?

[lsbets]

I

Disagree - the issue of morality should be decided by the people and in this case they have spoken up on this topic again and again. Twice here in California. NOBODY is intruding on Gays and their relationhips - there is no Gay Gestopo breaking down the doors of gays and hauling them off to jail. This is about moral acceptance. Gays are free to live their lives as they please, but they have no right to impose their lifestyle on a public that finds it offensive.

No, they are not free to live their lives as they want. They are unable to commit to spend their lives with a person they love. The state is intruding in gay relationships by not allowing them to enter into them.

At one time in many states it was morally unacceptable for races to mix. That was wrong. In a free society, people should be free to do as they wish as long as they are not harming others. Two gay people getting married harms no one.

Anyone who claims to support individual liberty and opposes same sex marriage either does not understand what individual liberty is, or does not really support liberty. This should be the easiest issue in the world for conservatives in the Goldwater tradition to embrace.

Liberty is not subject to the whims of a ballot initiative. To quote a pretty good document "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". If you will deny one group of people their rights because you find what they do (which doesn't affect you in any way shape or form) icky, then you really do not embrace the principles of liberty that our the cornerstone of our nation.

[thaskalos]

No, they are not free to live their lives as they want. They are unable to commit to spend their lives with a person they love. The state is intruding in gay relationships by not allowing them to enter into them.

At one time in many states it was morally unacceptable for races to mix. That was wrong. In a free society, people should be free to do as they wish as long as they are not harming others. Two gay people getting married harms no one.

Anyone who claims to support individual liberty and opposes same sex marriage either does not understand what individual liberty is, or does not really support liberty. This should be the easiest issue in the world for conservatives in the Goldwater tradition to embrace.

Liberty is not subject to the whims of a ballot initiative. To quote a pretty good document "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". If you will deny one group of people their rights because you find what they do (which doesn't affect you in any way shape or form) icky, then you really do not embrace the principles of liberty that our the cornerstone of our nation.
When the man is right...the man is right! :ThmbUp:

[johnhannibalsmith]

No, they are not free to live their lives as they want. They are unable to commit to spend their lives with a person they love. The state is intruding in gay relationships by not allowing them to enter into them.

...

This is what is so obnoxious about the President's latest "statement". Suddenly, he's a supporter of state's rights and though he has had an epiphany about the rights of gays to marry, he doesn't actually believe that it rises to the level of civil rights on par with other recipients of equal protection.

Pick a side, Prez. You want the federal government involved in everything else and see every dispute as some sort of "War On..." that requires federal intervention - but in this case of what those most intimately affected consider a case of deprivation of civil rights - now you agree with them, but not to the point that you feel empowered to actually do anything (for once). Grow a set man. Get behind them (no pun...) or don't - but this political maneuvering to play both sides of the fence (oops, no pun...) is lllllllame.

[Actor]

...he has not come out in support of federal laws.
Marriage and divorce laws have traditionally been the domain of the states.

[boxcar]

No, they are not free to live their lives as they want. They are unable to commit to spend their lives with a person they love. The state is intruding in gay relationships by not allowing them to enter into them.

What a load of horse manure. The states aren't intruding into anyone's relationships. You have it backwards. The militant homosexuals and lesbians are intruding into what this society has historically determined what it wants for its values and norms. The homosexuals and lesbians want to shove their twisted values down society's throat through the color of law. But no one is prohibiting them from engaging in their perversions in private.

Anyone who claims to support individual liberty and opposes same sex marriage either does not understand what individual liberty is, or does not really support liberty. This should be the easiest issue in the world for conservatives in the Goldwater tradition to embrace.

Liberty is like a train. On a track the train moves freely and orderly but within restraints, as all things must. But unbridled liberty that allows everyone to do what he or she wants train derailed. That's not liberty. Real liberty is freedom from corruption, perversion, sin, etc.

Liberty is not subject to the whims of a ballot initiative. To quote a pretty good document "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness".

What a hypocrite you are! You don't even believe in a creator. And tell me again, LS, just how are all men created equal? Jog my memory, will ya?

If you will deny one group of people their rights because you find what they do (which doesn't affect you in any way shape or form) icky, then you really do not embrace the principles of liberty that our the cornerstone of our nation.

But sexual mores do seriously impact a society as a whole. Therefore, the People's voices should be heard freely in a free society. People should get to decide what is normal and what isn't in their society -- just like any given local community gets to decide if it wants strip clubs, whore houses, porn shops, etc. in their towns. No difference.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Marriage and divorce laws have traditionally been the domain of the states.

If Obama get reelected, you can bank on homosexuals and lesbians becoming a protected class of citizen thereby gaining civil rights status. He has stopped short of this now because of the upcoming election, but afterward it'll be a different story. His views will go through another evolution stage. :rolleyes: All he's done now is give a wink-wink and nod-nod to these two groups to let them know that he's solidly in their corner and sympathetic to their terrible plight; therefore, they should vote for him.

Boxcar

[JustRalph]

Box, all U.S citizens have civil rights and 'equal protection' is guaranteed

Regardless of who you screw

All are protected equally, theoretically anyway

[Light]

However, once again Obama is baiting a trap.

You can criticize what Obama said about Gays all you want.The fact is that it is a landmark declaration by a sitting president whether or not it is politically motivated.

[Greyfox]

You can criticize what Obama said about Gays all you want.The fact is that it is a landmark declaration by a sitting president whether or not it is politically motivated.

Excuse me Light.
I didn't criticize what Obama said about gays.
Whether or not he really cares about gay rights only he would know.

I pointed out that it was a diversionary tactic to get the Republicans to talk about an issue other than jobs, the economy, gas prices, the military deployments, the declining dollar and other subjects which he has done so poorly on.

[rastajenk]

And to raise money from gay sympaticos, from which, it was recently reported, he wasn't doing so well with.

What about Tom's point about polygamous units, or some other kind of collective living arrangement? Aren't their freedoms being curtailed? They aren't hurting anybody. Live and let live.

But I don't suppose polygamists have much of an impact on campaign contributions, so their plight will go on without reform. :(

[hcap]

No, they are not free to live their lives as they want. They are unable to commit to spend their lives with a person they love. The state is intruding in gay relationships by not allowing them to enter into them.
What a load of horse manure. The states aren't intruding into anyone's relationships. You have it backwards. The militant homosexuals and lesbians are intruding into what this society has historically determined what it wants for its values and norms. The homosexuals and lesbians want to shove their twisted values down society's throat through the color of law. But no one is prohibiting them from engaging in their perversions in private.
Anyone who claims to support individual liberty and opposes same sex marriage either does not understand what individual liberty is, or does not really support liberty. This should be the easiest issue in the world for conservatives in the Goldwater tradition to embrace.

Liberty is like a train. On a track the train moves freely and orderly but within restraints, as all things must. But unbridled liberty that allows everyone to do what he or she wants train derailed. That's not liberty. Real liberty is reedom from corruption, perversion, sin, etc.

Liberty is not subject to the whims of a ballot initiative. To quote a pretty good document "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness".


What a hypocrite you are! You don't even believe in a creator. And tell me again, LS, just how are all men created equal? Jog my memory, will ya?
If you will deny one group of people their rights because you find what they do (which doesn't affect you in any way shape or form) icky, then you really do not embrace the principles of liberty that our the cornerstone of our nation.


But sexual mores do seriously impact a society as a whole. Therefore, the People's voices should be heard freely in a free society. People should get to decide what is normal and what isn't in their society -- just like any given local community gets to decide if it wants strip clubs, whore houses, porn shops, etc. in their towns. No difference.

I suppose box you are against same Demonic Spirit Marriage too?

PS: Don't forget to lock your doors with all them maruading bands of miltant homosexuals and lesbians

PSS: it's me hcap

hcap

[hcap]

And to raise money from gay sympaticos, from which, it was recently reported, he wasn't doing so well with.

What about Tom's point about polygamous units, or some other kind of collective living arrangement? Aren't their freedoms being curtailed? They aren't hurting anybody. Live and let live.

But I don't suppose polygamists have much of an impact on campaign contributions, so their plight will go on without reform. :(Polygamy may be popular among the male polygamists, but not so much among the female polygamists

For Tom and the rest of you who are so grievously concerned about various other perversions of God's Laws, (ask box about specific do's and don'ts) don't forget all those lonely guys with inflatables. The EDA should at least step in and provide warnings of latex allergic reactions

[Robert Goren]

If I opposed same sex marriage, I would feel really uncomfortable that the same arguments used to oppose it the same arguments that the bigots used in the 60s to oppose civil rights for blacks including interracial marriage.
There will be time in the not to distant future when gay marriage will be legal every where because of economics. Nebraska, like a lot of states, spends offers millions for companies to relocate here. They recently lost out on a company which would have employed about 1,000 people. The owner stated publicly that it was because of our anti-gay marriage law. They went to Iowa in which gay marriages are legal.

[Tom]

This has nothing to do with gay rights.
It is all about not talking about Obama's failed presidency.
He wants THIS to be the issue.

Hopefully, Mitt will not bite.
The only issue is jobs.

[Steve 'StatMan']

But I don't suppose polygamists have much of an impact on campaign contributions, so their plight will go on without reform. :(

The majority of those who might want to be Polygamists w/a religious background would likely be Mormons, and they tend to vote conservative/Republican. So you can't necessarily count on the liberals/Democrats for support.

Then again, opening up legal Polygamy with same sex marriage, you could concievably end up having same sex polygamist couples. Like the orgy never ends, but somebody has to go to work and pay the bills.

I'm no longer so concerned about a couple being denied being denied some rights as I am this opening up to the non-real-couple-marriage explotation of insurance benefits and any other benefits that companies are expected to provide. Then again ObamaCare will wreck the insurance companies if and when it gets going full bore as it is.

People will sometimes disapprove of anyone's spouse, whether it be a straight couple's obnoxious spouse as they are a same-sex couple's spouse. We may need to agree to respect that they are married, but we don't always have to like that they are married or who they married. And our churches don't have to sanction nor perform those marriages. That's a civil issue only. (Been a rather uncivil civil issue at that!)

Either way, given enough time and over-liberal laws and mandates, insurance is going to get messed up, and then the over-extending government will be all too glad to take over that too (and face the same old problems and cost too much trying to keep every American who fears death alive forever.)

[lsbets]

I suppose box you are against same Demonic Spirit Marriage too?

PS: Don't forget to lock your doors with all them maruading bands of miltant homosexuals and lesbians

PSS: it's me hcap

hcap

The Ass Clown responded to me? What a buffoon. PA hasn't told me of any money being escrowed, so except for when he is quoted, I don't see the coward's postings.

Unsurprisingly he has paranoid delusions about militant homos and makes some Orwellian statement about liberty within the confines of the rules of the sate. I'm not going to respond to his drivel, he is not worth my time.

I do agree with the others who say this is an attempt by Obama to divert attention away from his dismal record and the economy.

But I have two questions for those who vehemently oppose two consenting adults entering into a legal contract of their own free will.

1) Why should same sex marriage be illegal?

2) What harm is done to you if two gay people get married?

[Saratoga_Mike]

what changes now? from what I can tell nothing. isn't this just the usual election year pandering?

I think you're exactly right.

This is good politics for O: it diverts attention from the economy for a week or so and it fires the base up.

There's a ridiculous article on the front pages of the Times, claiming Biden's conversion on gay marrriage last Sunday on MTP forced Obama's hand. HAH. How naive. Even though Biden's a loose cannon, there's no way that wasn't scripted. The Times spun again. Perhaps they should re-hire Judith Miller.

[acorn54]

the best way for anybody to get elected is to address the concerns of the people with a specific, well thought out plan to get the economy going again.
no sound bites, or photo ops, just intelligent , in depth explanation of their economic plan, then the public can decide on who they think is best to implement a workable plan.

[Robert Goren]

I think you're exactly right.

This is good politics for O: it diverts attention from the economy for a week or so and it fires the base up.

There's a ridiculous article on the front pages of the Times, claiming Biden's conversion on gay marrriage last Sunday on MTP forced Obama's hand. HAH. How naive. Even though Biden's a loose cannon, there's no way that wasn't scripted. The Times spun again. Perhaps they should re-hire Judith Miller.She spouting the conservative message on Fox these days. I thought when they hired her, she would be a token liberal, but I was wrong. She tows on the house line like the most of the rest of the commentators on Fox News.

[Steve 'StatMan']

She spouting the conservative message on Fox these days. I thought when they hired her, she would be a token liberal, but I was wrong. She tows on the house line like the most of the rest of the commentators on Fox News.

Maybe she just got a more realistic view of the world and the big picture.

[Greyfox]

This has nothing to do with gay rights.
It is all about not talking about Obama's failed presidency.
He wants THIS to be the issue.

Hopefully, Mitt will not bite.
The only issue is jobs.

Exactly. :ThmbUp:
Obama wants to get Romney off his game plan to talk about social issues.
This social issue is a Trojan Horse.
Republicans should avoid it like the plague and stick to the basics of what Federal Government should be dealing with.

(As a side note, this issue along with contraception and abortion, places the Catholic constituency in an interesting domain. On the one hand they have to decide between a candidate who has spoken up for gays, and on the other hand they have a candidate who is Mormon and doesn't exactly reflect their religious beliefs. The reaction of the Catholic Priests should be interesting. They represent the largest single religious denomination in the United States. The Priests already have had battles with Obama's administration re: funding of contraception as mandated by Obamacare.
We live in interesting times.)

[toetoe]

His Highness' record is unparalleled in advancing LGBT causes. How do I know ? Jay I'm-Not-Gay Carney told me, so it's fact, Jack.

As a potential T and an unwitting B, I will settle for paralleled advancement (with clues from repeated viewings of 'Mrs. Doubtfire'). Now, how about an oldfangled press conference, instead of the lapdog press running to ask the tough questions when summoned, hm-m ?

Oh yeah --- the hope/change paradigm. Workin' for ya, or shall we subvert it ?

[toetoe]

Oh, yeah. When's Robin Roberts coming out as a pre-op T, with the goal of becoming a gay man ? Why the secrecy ? Does she think she's And'son Coopah 180 ?

[boxcar]

Box, all U.S citizens have civil rights and 'equal protection' is guaranteed

Regardless of who you screw

All are protected equally, theoretically anyway

Under the Constitution, JR? If that's the case, why was the Civil Acts bill required? When I talk "civil rights", I'm talking specifically about a class of people that come under special protection, e.g. black people.

Boxcar

[Marshall Bennett]

1) Why should same sex marriage be illegal?

2) What harm is done to you if two gay people get married?

1) Because in most cultures it's not morally acceptable

2) Because in most cultures it's not morally acceptable. The disgusting nature harms me emotionally and I believe I speak for millions.

[lsbets]

1) Because in most cultures it's not morally acceptable

2) Because in most cultures it's not morally acceptable. The disgusting nature harms me emotionally and I believe I speak for millions.


You are harmed emotionally when gay people get married? Really? That was a joke, right? Do you sit around thinking about what married gay people might be doing? Please tell me that wasn't a serious answer.

[tbwinner]

FYI - not sure this has been mentioned here or much elsewhere....on today's Drudge.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/06/01/cheney_comes_out_for_gay_marri.html

[JustRalph]

FYI - not sure this has been mentioned here or much elsewhere....on today's Drudge.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/06/01/cheney_comes_out_for_gay_marri.html

That's old news. But now Obama has actually taken the same position as Cheney did years ago, and now he's a hero. :lol:

[tbwinner]

That's old news. But now Obama has actually taken the same position as Cheney did years ago, and now he's a hero. :lol:

Right, thats what I meant by my post.....Obama is not the first.

[mostpost]

Worse than that - it's a rather reactionary evolution that reached fruition amazingly at the same time that Biden's off-script commentary on Sunday put the President's stated beliefs under scrutiny at the wrong time in the cycle.

http://www.hobbylobby.com/assets/images/project_inspiration/summer_style/pinkLG.jpg

Obama/Romney 2012
Give Boxcar his flip flops back!!!

[FantasticDan]

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s320x320/534865_10150884823884805_376185864804_9563934_1725 879038_n.jpg

:p

[mostpost]

Exactly - Mitt, baby.....this is NOT the issue. Ignore it., Keep hitting on his failed presidency in terms of the economy. Pound, baby, pound.

Flip Flops, John?
Why is it that Romney flip flops, but Obama "evolves? :rolleyes:

btw, what if I and three of my neighbors decide we want a group marriage and all the financial benefits that come with it.......don't we now have that right?

It is not a failure. On the other hand it is not a rousing success. Obama is attempting to summit Everest. He sets up a base camp and the Republicans come along and tear it down. I will be voting for Obama and the Democrats for what they have accomplished but also to prevent a return to the disastrous Republican policies.

[Light]

That's old news. But now Obama has actually taken the same position as Cheney did years ago, and now he's a hero. :lol:

I don't think what a vice president says has nearly the weight of what a President says. Imagine if Bush came out and said what Cheney said. Then you would have had some waves. Cheney only made inconsequential ripples.What Obama said as a sitting President in a re election year is almost seismic to the advancement of the Gay rights movement in this country.

[mostpost]

No, they are not free to live their lives as they want. They are unable to commit to spend their lives with a person they love. The state is intruding in gay relationships by not allowing them to enter into them.

At one time in many states it was morally unacceptable for races to mix. That was wrong. In a free society, people should be free to do as they wish as long as they are not harming others. Two gay people getting married harms no one.

Anyone who claims to support individual liberty and opposes same sex marriage either does not understand what individual liberty is, or does not really support liberty. This should be the easiest issue in the world for conservatives in the Goldwater tradition to embrace.

Liberty is not subject to the whims of a ballot initiative. To quote a pretty good document "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". If you will deny one group of people their rights because you find what they do (which doesn't affect you in any way shape or form) icky, then you really do not embrace the principles of liberty that our the cornerstone of our nation.

We often disagree on issues. On this one we are in agreement. The job of the government is not to deny rights; it is to protect them. This is not a matter for popular vote. It is a matter of doing what is right. I never thought I would be quoting Ayn Rand, but she wrote, "a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority". I guess that proves that even a blind objectivist can find an acorn sometime.

I personally know a few same sex couples who are raising a family and doing an excellent job of it. I am sure there are many more.

[rastajenk]

I'm sure there are, too. So where's the civil rights violation? What's the problem?

[Tom]

So how many people do we allow in a marriage?
2?
3?
7?
57? (oh, 1 for each state!)

[ArlJim78]

there is no intrusion on gay relationships, and the state is not saying who you can love or commit to. why does that even get mentioned? when did it become a requirement to involve the state or get the states permission to love or commit to another person? and no I don't think you can draw the line once you start changing the definition of marriage to placate particular parties who claim to have had their rights denied.

[Greyfox]

I personally know a few same sex couples who are raising a family and doing an excellent job of it. I am sure there are many more.

The proof someday will be in the eating of the pudding.
On the surface, being raised by same sex couples seems likely better that being placed in an orphanage.
Personally, I'm thankful that I was raised by my Mom and Dad, who were a heterosexual couple.

[boxcar]

So how many people do we allow in a marriage?
2?
3?
7?
57? (oh, 1 for each state!)

Exactly. Once a country goes further down the slippery slope of "gross immorality" (Jude 7), then where does it end? Why not polygamy next? Or why not legalize marriage at the age of 14, such as Islam allows?

Boxcar

[Light]

I don't hear Obama or any Gays who are talking about more than 2 people in a marriage. Cheap shot.

If you're so concerned with polygamy,take it up with Romney. His Mormon faith is well known for it.

[Marshall Bennett]

You are harmed emotionally when gay people get married? Really? That was a joke, right? Do you sit around thinking about what married gay people might be doing? Please tell me that wasn't a serious answer.
Watching the moral values of this country sink is emotionally harming to those who retain theirs. No, I don't sit around thinking about it, and the real harm is minimal compared to a lot of more important issues.

[Native Texan III]

Exactly. Once a country goes further down the slippery slope of "gross immorality" (Jude 7), then where does it end? Why not polygamy next? Or why not legalize marriage at the age of 14, such as Islam allows?

Boxcar

Shari-ah law allows marriage at time of puberty which can be 9 years old.
Romney's Mormons had exact same marriage "law" until 2008.
In USA, can marry younger than 16 with Court Order and parental consent.
So it has already "ended" long ago.

[hcap]

So how many people do we allow in a marriage?
2?
3?
7?
57? (oh, 1 for each state!)

Exactly. Once a country goes further down the slippery slope of "gross immorality" (Jude 7), then where does it end? Why not polygamy next? Or why not legalize marriage at the age of 14, such as Islam allows?

Ok, but Polygamy in many cases, infringes upon the civil rights of women

Box, I thought your time was s-o-o-o ... v-a-l-u-a-b-l-e ? Yet here you are blabbing away with the the meter running. Go figure?

Let me see if I can rephrase your latest proclamation.....

"Once a country goes further down the slippery slope of gross immorality (Jude 7), the country slips head first faster and faster, until it hits bottom and busts it's guts all over the national mall"

Ge box, I can see how YOUR BRAND of biblical hermeneutics can also be appalled to any field of critical thinking

[boxcar]

Shari-ah law allows marriage at time of puberty which can be 9 years old.
Romney's Mormons had exact same marriage "law" until 2008.
In USA, can marry younger than 16 with Court Order and parental consent.
So it has already "ended" long ago.

Oh, yeah...in all states? Can you tell us how many under 16's we have that are married? Can they marry under 15? Under 14? And states pushing to get on board with that Shari-ah thingy?

And you're cool with little 9 y.o. little girls, who are sooooo emotionally mature up, and so together an so sexually aware :rolleyes: being taken advantage of by adults? (Oh, wait...I bet you're going to tell me that the mentally sick girls' parents signed off on the wedding, so not to worry, right?)

It's no wonder this country is going down this path. I'd bet you'd be cool with this, too:

We Shall Sodomize Your Sons

We shall sodomize your sons,
emblems of your feeble masculinity,
of your shallow dreams and vulgar lives.
We shall seduce him in your schools,
in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums,
in your locker rooms, sports arenas,
seminiaries, truck stops, male clubs,
and in your Houses of Congress.
Wherever men are with men together,
your sons shall become our minions
and do our bidding.

They will be re-cast in OUR image.
They will come to crave and adore us.
All laws banning homosexuality will be revoked.
If you dare cry "faggot", "fairy", or "queer" at us,
we will stab you in your cowardly hearts.
All churches who condemn us will be closed.
Our only gods are handsome young men.
We shall be victorious because we are
fueled with the ferocious
bitterness of the oppressed.
We too, are capable of firing guns
and manning the barricades
of ultimate revolution.

by Michael Swift, Gay Community News, 2/15/87

Boxcar

[lsbets]

Watching the moral values of this country sink is emotionally harming to those who retain theirs. No, I don't sit around thinking about it, and the real harm is minimal compared to a lot of more important issues.

So you think that homosexuals have bad morals?

Dude, they don't choose to be gay. Its who they are. Join the 21st century.

[ArlJim78]

Gay Marriage Rights Are nonsensical (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=6184)
by Thomas Sowell



Marriage laws have evolved through centuries of experience with couples of opposite sexes — and the children that result from such unions. Society asserts its stake in the decisions made by restricting the couples’ options. Society has no such stake in the outcome of a union between two people of the same sex. Transferring all those laws to same-sex couples would make no more sense than transferring the rules of baseball to football. Why then do gay activists want their options restricted by marriage laws, when they can make their own contracts with their own provisions and hold whatever kinds of ceremony they want to celebrate it? The issue is not individual rights. What the activists are seeking is official social approval of their lifestyle. But this is the antithesis of equal rights. If you have a right to someone else’s approval, then they do not have a right to their own opinions and values.

[boxcar]

So you think that homosexuals have bad morals?

Dude, they don't choose to be gay. Its who they are. Join the 21st century.

I must have missed the earth-shaking news where scientists found that gay gene. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[Mike at A+]

As usual, 0bama is creating yet another distraction to take the focus off this crappy economy he has caused. He can't run on his record so he must keep creating all the boogeymen he can. War on women, war on gays, war on the poor, war on minorities, war on (fill in the blank). The guy is a low life schmuck.

[Tom]

I don't hear Obama or any Gays who are talking about more than 2 people in a marriage. Cheap shot.

If you're so concerned with polygamy,take it up with Romney. His Mormon faith is well known for it.

No it is not.
If they can define marriage how it suits them why con't others?
Why can't three men be in love?
Or two men and a woman?
We already have precedent of multiple partner marriages in some religions.
Once you decide to "free" one group, you have an obligation to others.

[Tom]

Ok, but Polygamy in many cases, infringes upon the civil rights of women

If a woman wants to marry another woman, it is her right, but if she wants to marry two, she is infringing on one of their civil rights? Makes no sense.

[serp]

I find it disturbing that some of you all get married and breed. That doesn't give me the right to prevent you from doing it.

You can have your opinions all you want. But don't use your opinions or your religion to legislate someone's rights away.

[Greyfox]

I find it disturbing that some of you all get married and breed.
.

You should get married too and have kids .
Why should you stay single, debt free, and happy? :D

[bigmack]

Fer the re-chord, dudes can't be Bye. (How do ya spell that?) Ta schwing that hhway ya gotta be gay.

Truth be told, i find male gays to be funny. I know a pile of 'em. I lived with one, fresh outta college. I have reason to believe I hauled more freight in those 8 months than most. Lived in a high rise with a pool in the basAmento. Felt straight out o' Fellini.

Kooky starry. One time a number in the build I get to see around the pool. We get to yappin' and within a period of time she stops and has this MAJOR declaration about her brother and was hemmin' & hawin' so I threw out - What - He was a Moonie? Turns out I was right. Can ya believe that shit? I took the most wild stab but it pooped in my head. Kinda like incontinence of the brain.

The medubla ablaganda. (That's scientific)
----------------

lsbeets is WAY off on this choice thang.

I give you, my mostest favoritest political clip of the last 8 years, Billy R...

Hit it, Billy...

eB8bW4vDaOk

[elysiantraveller]

I must have missed the earth-shaking news where scientists found that gay gene. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

I must have missed the earth-shaking news where you gave a damn what scientists found...

http://www.samrethsingh.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/6a00d83451586c69e200e54f2cca758834-800wi2.jpg

[johnhannibalsmith]

I must have missed the earth-shaking news where you gave a damn what scientists found...



:D

That was perdy good.

[bigmack]

The militant homosexuals and lesbians

Boxcar
Ya ready?

What's the difference 'tween a homosexual & a lesbian?

[johnhannibalsmith]

Ya ready?

What's the difference 'tween a homosexual & a lesbian?

I almost asked that earlier, but figured an extremely convoluted discernment would follow and make me regret the original inquiry.

[hcap]

It's no wonder this country is going down this path. I'd bet you'd be cool with this, too:

We Shall Sodomize Your Sons

We shall sodomize your sons,
emblems of your feeble masculinity,
of your shallow dreams and vulgar lives.
We shall seXuce him in your schools,
in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums,
in your locker rooms, sports arenas,
seminiaries, truck stops, male clubs,
and in your Houses of Congress.
Wherever men are with men together,
your sons shall become our minions
and do our bidding.

They will be re-cast in OUR image.
They will come to crave and adore us.
All laws banning homosexuality will be revoked.
If you dare cry "faggot", "fairy", or "queer" at us,
we will stab you in your cowardly hearts.
All churches who condemn us will be closed.
Our only gods are handsome young men.
We shall be victorious because we are
fueled with the ferocious
bitterness of the oppressed.
We too, are capable of firing guns
and manning the barricades
of ultimate revolution.

by Michael Swift, Gay Community News, 2/15/87

Aha! More proof militant Gays are out to get us.
And what else do you have other than a 1987 satirical essay written in faux outrage.? The full text you so conveniently left out has this at the very beginning.....

"This essay is an outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor"

This is part of your fantasy boogeyman created by the Christian Right trying to scare the feeble-minded into believing Gays and Lesbians are trying to infiltrate and corrupt every facet of traditional American culture, most notably family values.

You are far worse than an idiot.

Oh, btw, how are all them MILITANT ATHEISTS coming with their plans to also subvert our family values? I am sure you have proof that militant Gays and militant atheists are secretly working together, and in cahoots with satan and anti-God scientists to bring about the Apocalypse.

Post some juicy details. inquiring minds want to know.


PS: it's me hcap

hcap

[bigmack]

This is part of your fantasy boogeyman created by the Christian Right trying to scare the feeble-minded into believing Gays and Lesbians are trying to infiltrate and corrupt every facet of traditional American culture, most notably family values.

You are far worse than an idiot.
Take it easy, Weinstein.

As anyone with an IQ over 12 can tell ya...

Anytime you have someone with an INSISTENCE you believe something they buy hook, line & sinker, and become incredulous if you don't... Well let's just say they're in another realm.

Know anyone like that with your man causing the 'globe to warm' crap? :D

[rastajenk]

Rights are not something you can buy and sell; that's what this is all about, campaign contributions. This kind of activity can be called bribery in other similar situations.

Gay marriage is a recent issue. Thirty years ago, when AIDS became some kind of epidemic, nobody ever said, "This would all be easier to control if gays could marry and have monogamous sex with one another, rather than anyone or everyone." Why was that?. Where was the "love" then that infuses the agenda today?

[delayjf]

This is part of your fantasy boogeyman created by the Christian Right trying to scare the feeble-minded into believing Gays and Lesbians are trying to infiltrate and corrupt every facet of traditional American culture, most notably family values.

All those young teen-aged boys molested and raped by gay priests don't think its a fantasy.

[elysiantraveller]

All those young teen-aged boys molested and raped by gay priests don't think its a fantasy.

Yes...

Because sex crimes are never of the heterosexual variety...

:rolleyes:

[cj's dad]

I

Disagree - the issue of morality should be decided by the people and in this case they have spoken up on this topic again and again. Twice here in California. NOBODY is intruding on Gays and their relationhips - there is no Gay Gestopo breaking down the doors of gays and hauling them off to jail. This is about moral acceptance. Gays are free to live their lives as they please, but they have no right to impose their lifestyle on a public that finds it offensive.

In every state that has voted on this issue via referendum all (29 I think) have voted it down. Additionally, the federal government has a law in place which specifically bans the practice of same sex marriage; the lack of federal recognition was codified in 1996 by the Defense of Marriage Act. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act)

The states (9) which allow SSM have done so through legislation, not by popular vote.

[boxcar]

Aha! More proof militant Gays are out to get us.
And what else do you have other than a 1987 satirical essay written in faux outrage.? The full text you so conveniently left out has this at the very beginning.....

Satirical, eh? Is that what they called hate speech back in '87? You're a very sick puppy if you think that was satire. Would you think it was satire if Evangelicals wrote something like that about homosexuals?

How much more would you like to see? I could start from the first recorded militant action by homosexuals in the bible. Ready?

Gen 19:1-14
19 Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening as Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 And he said, "Now behold, my lords, please turn aside into your servant's house, and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise early and go on your way." They said however, "No, but we shall spend the night in the square." 3 Yet he urged them strongly, so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he prepared a feast for them, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. 4 Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; 5 and they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them." 6 But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, 7 and said, "Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. 8 Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof." 9 But they said, "Stand aside." Furthermore, they said, "This one came in as an alien, and already he is acting like a judge; now we will treat you worse than them." So they pressed hard against Lot and came near to break the door. 10 But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. 11 And they struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they wearied themselves trying to find the doorway.

12 Then the men said to Lot, "Whom else have you here? A son-in-law, and your sons, and your daughters, and whomever you have in the city, bring them out of the place; 13 for we are about to destroy this place, because their outcry has become so great before the Lord that the Lord has sent us to destroy it."
NASB

Want more? Don't forget, I already posted about the "angry queers" on the Religious thread.

This is part of your fantasy boogeyman created by the Christian Right trying to scare the feeble-minded into believing Gays and Lesbians are trying to infiltrate and corrupt every facet of traditional American culture, most notably family values.

You are far worse than an idiot.

And you make the stupidest of fools look wise when you continually bury your head in the sand in denial of what is going on in this country. In La La Land where you live, the only sin in the world is a AGW -- that and the existence of Christianity.

Boxcar

[Overlay]

A very revealing sub-headline on the front page of today's New York Times, under the main headline OBAMA CAMPAIGN PUSHES THE ISSUE OF GAY MARRIAGE: "Biden Apologizes for Forcing President's Hand on Issue"

If the administration truly believed that gay marriage was right (in the same sense that religious-based opponents of gay marriage believe that it is wrong), what would there be to apologize for? They would be taking a moral stand based on personal beliefs, and there would be no "right" or "wrong" time to make those beliefs clear. This just shows that the administration's "convictions" on this issue are purely a political ploy (if that had not already been apparent) that is designed to appeal to the party's liberal base. What hypocrisy!

[Steve 'StatMan']

[QUOTE=Overlay]A very revealing sub-headline on the front page of today's New York Times, under the main headline OBAMA CAMPAIGN PUSHES THE ISSUE OF GAY MARRIAGE: "Biden Apologizes for Forcing President's Hand on Issue"

A funnier headline would have been "Biden Apologizes for Forcing President's Hand on Gay Issue"

[Greyfox]

[QUOTE=Overlay]A very revealing sub-headline on the front page of today's New York Times, under the main headline OBAMA CAMPAIGN PUSHES THE ISSUE OF GAY MARRIAGE: "Biden Apologizes for Forcing President's Hand on Issue"

A funnier headline would have been "Biden Apologizes for Forcing President's Hand on Gay Issue"

:lol: Good one.
p.s. I'm not supposed to laugh at jokes like that. I wasn't reared that way.:rolleyes:

[Light]

In Argentina, sex change surgery becomes a right

Adults who want sex-change surgery or hormone therapy in Argentina will be able to get it as part of their public or private health care plans under a gender rights law approved this week.

Treatments related to gender changes will be included in the "Obligatory Medical Plan," meaning that both private and public health care providers will not be able to charge extra for the services.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/11/MN6S1OFVMV.DTL

Argentina is well ahead of our pace in the gay rights department. Much to the relief of boxcar. ;)

[cj's dad]

So, is your passport up to date ?

[Greyfox]

In Argentina, sex change surgery becomes a right

Adults who want sex-change surgery or hormone therapy in Argentina will be able to get it as part of their public or private health care plans under a gender rights law approved this week.

Treatments related to gender changes will be included in the "Obligatory Medical Plan," meaning that both private and public health care providers will not be able to charge extra for the services.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/11/MN6S1OFVMV.DTL

Argentina is well ahead of our pace in the gay rights department. Much to the relief of boxcar. ;)

You see that as being ahead do you?
I don't.
If people want to alter their bodies that's their business, not mine.
I don't object to them doing it, but I still don't see people like Chaz Bono as men. Certainly I don't feel that these sex altered individuals should qualify for select sporting events like the Olympic Games or the L.P.G.A.
They can pay for surgery of that nature on their own dime.
Personally, I don't want any monies of mine going towards it.

[Tom]

The right to have a sex change but not the responsibility to pay for it.
Penalize others who work for a living.

Yes, they are ahead of us.

That is not a right - it is a penalty.

[hcap]

Take it easy, Weinstein.

As anyone with an IQ over 12 can tell ya...

Anytime you have someone with an INSISTENCE you believe something they buy hook, line & sinker, and become incredulous if you don't... Well let's just say they're in another realm.

Know anyone like that with your man causing the 'globe to warm' crap? :DSo Mr Hollywood, any militant Gays (or atheists, or commies) sneaking around your neck of the woods? Who knows? Boxiccar could be the Paul Revere of modern evildoer times. " The Swishist are coming, the Swishist are coming"

[boxcar]

Aha! More proof militant Gays are out to get us.
And what else do you have other than a 1987 satirical essay written in faux outrage.?

Hmm...what else do I have? I believe I have a rebuttal to this stupid remark you made:

]This is part of your fantasy boogeyman created by the Christian Right trying to scare the feeble-minded into believing Gays and Lesbians are trying to infiltrate and corrupt every facet of traditional American culture, most notably family values.

Ready to eat some crow? (But you should be used to this by now!) :rolleyes:

Gay Liberation Front: Manifesto
London, 1971, revised 1978

FAMILY

The oppression of gay people starts in the most basic unit of society, the family. consisting of the man in charge, a slave as his wife, and their children on whom they force themselves as the ideal models. The very form of the family works against homosexuality.

Aw...poor little ol' homosexuals. They're victims of society. What else is new? And they became victims coming right out their mommy's womb. I wonder if any of these victims regret being born and have cursed their mommies for not taking the enlightened path of abortion, instead? :rolleyes:

At some point nearly all gay people have found it difficult to cope with having the restricting images of man or woman pushed on them by their parents. It may have been from very early on, when the pressures to play with the 'right' toys, and thus prove boyishness or girlishness, drove against the child's inclinations. But for all of us this is certainly a problem by the time of adolescence, when we are expected to prove ourselves socially to our parents as members of the right sex (to bring home a boy/girl friend) and to start being a 'real' (oppressive) young man or a 'real' (oppressed) young woman. The tensions can be very destructive.

The fact that gay people notice they are different from other men and women in the family situation, causes them to feel ashamed, guilty and failures. How many of us have really dared by honest with our parents? How many of us have been thrown out of home? How many of us have been pressured into marriage, sent to psychiatrists, frightened into sexual inertia, ostracised, banned, emotionally destroyed-all by our parents?

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/glf-london.asp

Someone should tell these gays that their shame is grounded in genuine guilt.

But just because this "manifesto" was written in London doesn't mean that homosexuals here don't feel the the same way about traditional families and traditional family values. We know they do because there are numerous stories out there about elementary school-aged kids in this country being indoctrinated in public schools with the state's values by having those kids read books on how Adam and Alan or Eve and Eva are such wonderful parenting role models bringing up their kiddies, and how wonderful and glorious these "alternate lifestyles" can be. The schools usurp the parents' roles of teaching moral values to their kids because they know this nonsense would very likely never be taught at home -- not with traditional families and their values.

You are far worse than an idiot.

What, then, does that make people like you who live their entire life in denial of reality?

Boxcar

[hcap]

Aha! More proof militant Gays are out to get us.
And what else do you have other than a 1987 satirical essay written in faux outrage.? The full text you so conveniently left out has this at the very beginning.....
Satirical, eh? Is that what they called hate speech back in '87? You're a very sick puppy if you think that was satire. Would you think it was satire if Evangelicals wrote something like that about homosexuals?

How much more would you like to see? I could start from the first recorded militant action by homosexuals in the bible. Ready?

Gen 19:1-14
19 Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening as Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 And he said, "Now behold, my lords, please turn aside into your servant's house, and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise early and go on your way." They said however, "No, but we shall spend the night in the square." 3 Yet he urged them strongly, so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he prepared a feast for them, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. 4 Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; 5 and they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them." 6 But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, 7 and said, "Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. 8 Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof." 9 But they said, "Stand aside." Furthermore, they said, "This one came in as an alien, and already he is acting like a judge; now we will treat you worse than them." So they pressed hard against Lot and came near to break the door. 10 But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. 11 And they struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they wearied themselves trying to find the doorway.

12 Then the men said to Lot, "Whom else have you here? A son-in-law, and your sons, and your daughters, and whomever you have in the city, bring them out of the place; 13 for we are about to destroy this place, because their outcry has become so great before the Lord that the Lord has sent us to destroy it."
NASB

Want more? Don't forget, I already posted about the "angry queers" on the Religious thread.
This is part of your fantasy boogeyman created by the Christian Right trying to scare the feeble-minded into believing Gays and Lesbians are trying to infiltrate and corrupt every facet of traditional American culture, most notably family values.

You are far worse than an idiot.

And you make the stupidest of fools look wise when you continually bury your head in the sand in denial of what is going on in this country. In La La Land where you live, the only sin in the world is a AGW -- that and the existence of Christianity.

Toxicar

"Hi, everybody, it' me Toxicar,

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f3/Tin_foil_hat_2.jpg

on a mission from God. I usually don't divulge my secret identity, but to save the world from evildoers, I must "out" myself (so to speak heh, heh) and the latest secret "undercover" operation me and some of the other swell guys on God's payroll have used to infiltrate and gather Intel during last years disgusting Gay Pride Parade in San Francisco








Me and the other sweeties in disguise and preparing to go deep undercover. We practiced all night long! :kiss: :kiss:


http://www.dwu.edu/press/2010/images/VillagePeople001.jpg

PS: Isn't my friend and colleague Bruno on the FAR FAR RIGHT just divine!

PPS: God loves all sinners. Me too!









.................................................. .



PPPS: it's me hcap

hcap

[boxcar]

Typical response from you, Clueless Wonder, whenever you don't have a reply and you're proven wrong.

But hey...have you figured out that really tough part of the Judas problem, yet?
Or is that still out of your reach? Beyond your mental capability, is it? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[bigmack]

So Mr Hollywood, any militant Gays (or atheists, or commies) sneaking around your neck of the woods? Who knows? Boxiccar could be the Paul Revere of modern evildoer times. " The Swishist are coming, the Swishist are coming"
I come out of a grocery store, I instantly have 3, clipboard wielding nerds axin' me if I support gay rights. "Who's stoppin' me?" I normally respond. Poinsonally, I don't give a Barney Frank whisper about gayfolk wanting to wed. Live it up.

Howeva, why are they continuing to hound us outside retail establishments to sign more crap? CA & 30+ other states have voted no go. Is this not a democracy? No means no, right?

Now I know you have a tendency to drill things to the ground in repetition, but continuing to bust his balls for saying some gays are militant is tired.

Pictures of people with tinfoil hats is tired.

Get some new material.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I come out of a grocery store, I instantly have 3, clipboard wielding nerds axin' me if I support gay rights. ...

Damn. To think I cop a nasty attitude if they ask if I have a Safeway card and push the issue after I insist that I prefer to pay full price. I'd probably be arrested for a hate crime if I had people bugging me with such inquiries while trying to flee a point of transaction as fast as I can.

[hcap]

Hey box, I was just giving you a friendly warning. The Village People might just be sneaking around disguised as ordinary citizens just waiting for you to drop your guard.

Devious, no doubt, devious.

[hcap]

I come out of a grocery store, I instantly have 3, clipboard wielding nerds axin' me if I support gay rights. "Who's stoppin' me?" I normally respond. Poinsonally, I don't give a Barney Frank whisper about gayfolk wanting to wed. Live it up.

Howeva, why are they continuing to hound us outside retail establishments to sign more crap? CA & 30+ other states have voted no go. Is this not a democracy? No means no, right?

Now I know you have a tendency to drill things to the ground in repetition, but continuing to bust his balls for saying some gays are militant is tired.

Pictures of people with tinfoil hats is tired.

Get some new material.Busting his balls?

Defending papa are we? Or are you now the school monitor here? He deserves everything he gets. And it is not in the same league as damned to eternal hell, ant-God spawn of satan, Jews don't know their own religion and are all damned unless they listen to the sanctimonious schmuck etc, etc.

It could be Karma.

And I am so worried you can't handle a few nerds

I personalty think that photo of box with chateau, is spot on. Just like the few of Ronald McDonald and you.

[boxcar]

Hey box, I was just giving you a friendly warning. The Village People might just be sneaking around disguised as ordinary citizens just waiting for you to drop your guard.

Devious, no doubt, devious.

You're a fraud and an empty suit, 'cap. You have nothing, never did and probably never will. I have, again, proven you wrong. No doubt, though, you think that the Gay Liberation Front's Manifesto was satirical in nature, too, right? Or when public schools indoctrinate very young minds with their brand of peculiar moral values pertaining to "alternate lifestyles", calling good evil and evil good -- that's a real hoot, also, yeah?

Figured out that really, really super sticky Judas problem, yet, Einstein? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[hcap]

You're a fraud and an empty suit, 'cap. You have nothing, never did and probably never will. I have, again, proven you wrong. No doubt, though, you think that the Gay Liberation Front's Manifesto was satirical in nature, too, right? Or when public schools indoctrinate very young minds with their brand of peculiar moral values pertaining to "alternate lifestyles", calling good evil and evil good -- that's a real hoot, also, yeah?

Figured out that really, really super sticky Judas problem, yet, Einstein? :rolleyes:

Box, I never needed anything, never will to show you for the bigoted, mean-spirited sanctimonious schmuck you really are.

And if you really could face us on the Religious thread with your so-called "solution" to the contradictory biblical accounts of Judas' blood money, you would.

PS: Ocam's Weed Wacker has been gassed up and is raring to go.

PPS:How's your sweetie Bruno?

PPPPS: it's me hcap

hcap

[boxcar]

Box, I never needed anything, never will to show you for the bigoted, mean-spirited sanctimonious schmuck you really are.

And if you really could face us on the Religious thread with your so-called "solution" to the contradictory biblical accounts of Judas' blood money, you would.

"Face us"? What do you have a flea-infested sewer rat in your pocket? (Probably the only friend in the world you have.)

And you really want me to show everyone what a lazy-minded, willfully ignorant fool, you really are? The Judas problem is truly no problem at all -- no more than Al's "really difficult" problem in Luke 23 is. Neither is a problem with scripture. But both are products of hyper-active imaginations, possibly induced by use of psychedelic drugs.

PS: Ocam's Weed Wacker has been gassed up and is raring to go.

Too bad you mistook it for your personal hair clippers. You haven't been right since.

I'll see you over on the religious thread and I'll solve this terribly hard riddle for you. Bring your rat "Ocam" with you. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[hcap]

I'll see you over on the religious thread and I'll solve this terribly hard riddle for you. Bring your rat "Ocam" with you.
What about all your valuable time that you ration so so carefully ? Among your ongoing Boxcarian contradictions----you told me because I posted way more than 3 biblical contradictions (11)----- you would not deem it righteous or some other munbo jumbo crapola, to answer anything else from me, since I already "had my chance", and because I broke your pompous rules.

Boy you are easy. Thought it would take more to reel you in than a just a little taunt. Maybe you did not care for me alluding to the rampant sexual hypocrysy of the religiou right with my "Village People post? Does this guy ring a bell?

http://img2-3.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/090128/ted-haggard_l.jpg




PS: it's me hcap

hcap

[boxcar]

Boy you are easy. Thought it would take more to reel you in than a just a little taunt. Maybe you did not care for me alluding to the rampant sexual hypocrysy of the religiou right with my "Village People post? Does this guy ring a bell?

Not nearly as easy as it was to answer the tougher part of the Judas "problem". You are so pathetically simple-minded, you just can't help but make things very easy for me. :lol:

Boxcar

[Lefty]

She spouting the conservative message on Fox these days. I thought when they hired her, she would be a token liberal, but I was wrong. She tows on the house line like the most of the rest of the commentators on Fox News.

Perhaps she has EVOLVED...

[hcap]

I think we need more "informed" citizens like this lady who must read all of Toxicars' proclamations.

Who knows? Tox's sister?. Daughter?

/nMANMIe0ZZI?

[Rookies]

In every state that has voted on this issue via referendum all (29 I think) have voted it down. Additionally, the federal government has a law in place which specifically bans the practice of same sex marriage; the lack of federal recognition was codified in 1996 by the Defense of Marriage Act. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act)

The states (9) which allow SSM have done so through legislation, not by popular vote.

I find that fact somewhat disturbing, D. That is, that all states have voted down SSM. Really ? Not one state, Blue or Red, has seen fit to change the paramaters of marriage for an identifiable minority? Strikes me that homophobia is a likely and probable tipping point in their vote and is a sad replay of aspects of the Civil Rights battle 50 years previous.

Just looked it up for the Great White North. The law was promulgated in 2005, as a direct response to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Even the most conservative Province ( oil rich Alberta), while originally and solitarily opposed, changed their minds. This just in- Armageddon has not arrived. People went back to work, conducted their lives as before the vote, without malice or significant protest.


I live in what is considered, a gay friendly neighbourhood, complete with the odd rainbow flag. Now, I have never batted for the other team (aside from kissing a classmate under the stairs when I was 8 years old:confused: :D ), but I don't see the life and death seriousness that some Cons have attached to this issue. If you are a hard core Christian fundamentalist like Boxie, I'm not about to spit on their religious background and beliefs. But to me, it's a question of an issue whose time has come.

It is simply a non issue here- even with a Federal Conservative Government with an absolute majority!

[Marshall Bennett]

If ever a thread need to be canned...this is it.

[boxcar]

If ever a thread need to be canned...this is it.

Yeah...the whole issue should be swept under the rug and then it can be discussed after the Civil Rights Act is amended and people engaging in specific types of human behavior are declared a protected class of citizen.

Boxcar

[Saratoga_Mike]

Not nearly as easy as it was to answer the tougher part of the Judas "problem". You are so pathetically simple-minded, you just can't help but make things very easy for me. :lol:

Boxcar

Tell me Box - what does Jesus teach about being judgemental? Please provide a serious answer.

[boxcar]

Tell me Box - what does Jesus teach about being judgemental? Please provide a serious answer.

Two questions: What do you think he teaches? And I really want a serious answer from you on this: Specifically, how am I being "judgmental"?

Boxcar

[Saratoga_Mike]

Two questions: What do you think he teaches? And I really want a serious answer from you on this: Specifically, how am I being "judgmental"?

Boxcar

You first. Thank you.

[boxcar]

You first. Thank you.

Oh, no. You asked the question, clearly implying that you know what Jesus taught and that you also know that I"m judgmental. Therefore, my questions are legitimate; for I simply want to know the grounds or rationale behind your question. You answer my two then I'll answer yours. Otherwise, you will get no answer from me; for you will have given me no reason to buy into your implied premises. Kabish?

Boxcar

[Overlay]

Kabish?
I think you meant "Capisce?" :)

[boxcar]

I think you meant "Capisce?" :)

Yeah, I think I did. :eek: Time for more coffee. :)

Boxcar

[Track Collector]

PPS: God loves all sinners. Me too!
hcap

GOD also commands us to flee from sin.
GOD has sanctioned the union (marriage) between one man and one woman.
GOD tells us that Homosexuality IS a sin. (GOD actually uses much stronger language when speaking about the subject.).
Without sanctification, ALL sin will eventually be punished.
HISTORY has shown that societies with strong moral decay will crumble and suffer great humiliation.

Gay Marriage is an effort to push out the emotional guilt folks feel by legalizing within society an immoral behavior. It is crazy and absurd that man thinks he knows better than our creator.

So while GOD loves us while we were yet sinners, I do not think you will find it in his word that when it comes to our sinful behaviors, we are to maintain the status quo.

By the way, others make a very good point about once you legalize gay marriage, where to you draw the line regarding other up till now taboo behaviors regarding marriage?

[boxcar]

Good post, TC, but it will fall upon deaf ears. Besides, how would Hcap know that God loves all sinners since he categorically rejects the idea of divine revelation? He thinks that God, if he/she/it even exists, is unknown or unknowable.

Boxcar

[Greyfox]

Good post, TC, but it will fall upon deaf ears. Besides, how would Hcap know that God loves all sinners since he categorically rejects the idea of divine revelation? He thinks that God, if he/she/it even exists, is unknown or unknowable.

Boxcar

Sorry Boxcar, that's not exactly how I read hcap's posts.
Nevertheless, Christianity puts more emphasis on "original sin" than Judaism and perhaps any other religions.
Implicitly, sex is involved, be it heterosexual or homosexual.
I know that you are a learned individual with respect to Biblical teachings.
With respect to Christianity, and the New Testament, not the old,
"Is having sex a sin?"

[HUSKER55]

JUST a thought, I don't think having the hetrosex is a sin BUT the breaking of the wedding vows and defiling of the mariage commitment is.

[Robert Goren]

The Judeo-Christian tradition does endorse the idea that a marriage is between a man and woman, but not everybody follows the the Judeo-Christian tradition in this country. Nobody has a right to force Judeo-Christian views on people that do not believe in them. Get over it and let people live their lives as they see fit. Even Christians do a lot picking and choosing over which parts of the Bible they live by and they are exceedingly good at coming up with reasons why some verses do not apply them.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Oh, no. You asked the question, clearly implying that you know what Jesus taught and that you also know that I"m judgmental. Therefore, my questions are legitimate; for I simply want to know the grounds or rationale behind your question. You answer my two then I'll answer yours. Otherwise, you will get no answer from me; for you will have given me no reason to buy into your implied premises. Kabish?

Boxcar

I know the game you're trying to play - you've made my point. Thank you Box.

[boxcar]

I know the game you're trying to play - you've made my point. Thank you Box.

No, I knew your game but preferred instead to take the sage advice of Solomon was to "not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you become like him" (Prov 26:4).

Boxcar

[Saratoga_Mike]

No, I knew your game but preferred instead to take the sage advice of Solomon was to "not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you become like him" (Prov 26:4).

Boxcar

Good quote Box. You quote the Bible better than anyone I know. I'm just not sure you understand the meaning, but I could be mistaken.

[Light]

"Is having sex a sin?"


I know that question was for Boxcar but it is a universal question to a lot of people so I'll answer it.

Since God created us,he also created the pleasure we get from sex. If sex was not meant to be pleasure,then it would be as nonchalant as peeing or pooping. Just a biological act without any pleasure associated with it.

The issue with sex outside of marriage or between two men or two women is not something God judges. Remember, God does not judge. If God loves us, he loves us unconditionally.

Therefore,the association of "guilt" with sex is purely man made.It is not handed down from God.God does not hand down "guilt trips".

The confusion of what "God says" and what "man says God says" came about from political roots. Religion has always been a way to "control" man's cultural habits.

Jesus said the "Kingdom of heaven is within you". (And I know that is the real truth). Yet everyone keeps looking towards the sky. You do not need to read the Bible to know what is right or wrong.You just have to look within.

You can believe anything you want. But the truth is within.If it feels wrong,then it is wrong. If it feels right then it is right. Who are we to judge the consensual relationship between two people. That is between them and God. And God does not judge nor does he walk around with a Bible written by man. He created man and is not bound by their words. God's true teaching's are built within each and everyone one of us as Jesus said.

When you are born,you naturally know what is right or wrong. We also do not judge. It is our cultural upbringing that override our "natural" knowledge of what is right and wrong with an "artificial" cultural knowledge of what is right and wrong. One country believes something is right another will kill you for it. There is no truth or reality when it is culturally defined. Since there is only one truth,its the reason why Jesus pointed us back within and why he came here. The real truth, love and peace are within.

[boxcar]

Good quote Box. You quote the Bible better than anyone I know. I'm just not sure you understand the meaning, but I could be mistaken.

You should not doubt my understanding. I understand scripture well enough to know that Prov 26:4 doesn't contradict the next verse.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

With respect to Christianity, and the New Testament, not the old,"Is having sex a sin?"

See the Religious thread for my answer, lest I hear someone complain about thread hijacking from the peanut gallery.

Boxcar

[Greyfox]

See the Religious thread for my answer, lest I hear someone complain about thread hijacking from the peanut gallery.

Boxcar

Yes. Thank you for providing an answer.

[Saratoga_Mike]

You should not doubt my understanding. I understand scripture well enough to know that Prov 26:4 doesn't contradict the next verse.

Boxcar

meaning...and I was speaking in a broader context Box.

[Greyfox]

The issue with sex outside of marriage or between two men or two women is not something God judges. Remember, God does not judge. If God loves us, he loves us unconditionally.

Therefore,the association of "guilt" with sex is purely man made.It is not handed down from God.God does not hand down "guilt trips".

The confusion of what "God says" and what "man says God says" came about from political roots. Religion has always been a way to "control" man's cultural habits.

Jesus said the "Kingdom of heaven is within you". (And I know that is the real truth). Yet everyone keeps looking towards the sky. You do not need to read the Bible to know what is right or wrong.You just have to look within.

You can believe anything you want. But the truth is within.If it feels wrong,then it is wrong. If it feels right then it is right..

Thank you for your response Light.
Let me suggest that this needs to be addressed in the Religious thread and it was my fault for raising the question here.
Somehow I don't think that boxcar is going to buy the idea that
"If it feels wrong,then it is wrong. If it feels right then it is right."
The development of arguments in favor or against that idea are the stuff that is probably beyond the scope of this thread.

[boxcar]

meaning...and I was speaking in a broader context Box.

In any sense in which you would want to speak, a born again Christian has more spiritual understanding in his pinky than the spiritually dead do. I'm not bragging. It comes with the supernatural new birth, and as a Christian matures and grows in Christ over time, his wisdom, knowledge and understanding all grow as well.

Boxcar

[Saratoga_Mike]

In any sense in which you would want to speak, a born again Christian has more spiritual understanding in his pinky than the spiritually dead do. I'm not bragging. It comes with the supernatural new birth, and as a Christian matures and grows in Christ over time, his wisdom, knowledge and understanding all grow as well.

Boxcar

Could have fooled me. Good day Box.

[boxcar]

Could have fooled me. Good day Box.

I am having a good day. Just made nearly $200. a few minutes ago for doing virtually nothing. Life is good. :jump:

Boxcar

[Light]

Let me suggest that this needs to be addressed in the Religious thread and it was my fault for raising the question here.


I don't think the religious implications of being in favor or not in favor of same sex marriage is irrelevant to this topic. I think it is the strongest factor of those against gay marriage. Most who are against same sex marriage (like boxcar) are against it because of their interpretation of their faith.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I am having a good day. Just made nearly $200. a few minutes ago for doing virtually nothing. Life is good. :jump:

Boxcar

Just remember Box, there's no free lunch...unless you're on the dole of course.

[boxcar]

Just remember Box, there's no free lunch...unless you're on the dole of course.

I had some Dole pineapple today, does that count? :p

Boxcar

[thaskalos]

In any sense in which you would want to speak, a born again Christian has more spiritual understanding in his pinky than the spiritually dead do. I'm not bragging. It comes with the supernatural new birth, and as a Christian matures and grows in Christ over time, his wisdom, knowledge and understanding all grow as well.

Boxcar

Many claim to be "born again"...but very few really are.

For the vast majority, it's just another case of pouring new wine into old wineskins...:)

[boxcar]

Many claim to be "born again"...but very few really are.

For the vast majority, it's just another case of pouring new wine into old wineskins...:)

But even so...the number of true believers at the end of the age will number more than the sand of the sea or the stars of the heaven. God knows those who are his.

Boxcar

[Steve 'StatMan']

Just remember Box, there's no free lunch...unless you're on the dole of course.

hmm. talking about not free lunches to a person nicknamed "box" in a thread about same sex marriages and alternative/non-standard sexual behaviors and relationships. :p :lol: --- oh baby, turn your head!

[hcap]

But even so...the number of true believers at the end of the age will number more than the sand of the sea or the stars of the heaven. God knows those who are his.

-ToxicarGod miscounted. Either that or God is speaking metaphorically or is including every planet with intelligent life and each with their own version of Evangelicals.

Yikes! Intergalactic Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons

I hope God learned from some of his mistakes here om earth and at least never invented sanctimony and incessant pompous religious commercials on horse racing off topic forums





PS: it's me hcap

hcap

[Mike at A+]

The new HOT ITEM from the regime - get yours NOW!!

[HUSKER55]

:D

[boxcar]

God miscounted. Either that or God is speaking metaphorically or is including every planet with intelligent life and each with their own version of Evangelicals.

If you're an example of "intelligent" life from another galaxy, then I maintain that the only beings God created in his image are human beings here on earth. You make for a great argument against intelligent life elsewhere.

I hope God learned from some of his mistakes here om earth and at least never invented sanctimony and incessant pompous religious commercials on horse racing off topic forums

Ahh...but I break up the ever-so-boring monotony of the simple-minded rhetoric that necessarily attends to Materialism and Human Secularism -- the Dumb and Dumber Twins. :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

[hcap]

So box, occasionally metaphor does appear in the bible, and not everything is as OTM AL mentioned, reduced to a "washing machine", or as you do often, reduced to pablum

Answer me on the religious thread so your 4 page proclamation ftom on high doesn't put everyone to sleep here.


PS: guess who?

[highnote]

1) Because in most cultures it's not morally acceptable

2) Because in most cultures it's not morally acceptable. The disgusting nature harms me emotionally and I believe I speak for millions.



It's not morally acceptable for women to vote in some countries. It used to be that it was not morally acceptable for Roman Catholic's and Russian Orthodox's to marry -- my grandfather and grandmother had to elope because of this.

WTF. It's 2012 -- not 1912. You are so last century. :D

[JustRalph]

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/ramirez-ssm-lg.jpg

[boxcar]

So box, occasionally metaphor does appear in the bible, and not everything is as OTM AL mentioned, reduced to a "washing machine", or as you do often, reduced to pablum

Answer me on the religious thread so your 4 page proclamation ftom on high doesn't put everyone to sleep here.


PS: guess who?

What are you talking about? Never mind. I don't want to unscramble the junk in your mind anymore than I already have.

Boxcar

[StormChaser]

I know that question was for Boxcar but it is a universal question to a lot of people so I'll answer it.

Since God created us,he also created the pleasure we get from sex. If sex was not meant to be pleasure,then it would be as nonchalant as peeing or pooping. Just a biological act without any pleasure associated with it.

The issue with sex outside of marriage or between two men or two women is not something God judges. Remember, God does not judge. If God loves us, he loves us unconditionally.

Therefore,the association of "guilt" with sex is purely man made.It is not handed down from God.God does not hand down "guilt trips".

The confusion of what "God says" and what "man says God says" came about from political roots. Religion has always been a way to "control" man's cultural habits.

Jesus said the "Kingdom of heaven is within you". (And I know that is the real truth). Yet everyone keeps looking towards the sky. You do not need to read the Bible to know what is right or wrong.You just have to look within.

You can believe anything you want. But the truth is within.If it feels wrong,then it is wrong. If it feels right then it is right. Who are we to judge the consensual relationship between two people. That is between them and God. And God does not judge nor does he walk around with a Bible written by man. He created man and is not bound by their words. God's true teaching's are built within each and everyone one of us as Jesus said.

When you are born,you naturally know what is right or wrong. We also do not judge. It is our cultural upbringing that override our "natural" knowledge of what is right and wrong with an "artificial" cultural knowledge of what is right and wrong. One country believes something is right another will kill you for it. There is no truth or reality when it is culturally defined. Since there is only one truth,its the reason why Jesus pointed us back within and why he came here. The real truth, love and peace are within.

Very true light, I personally love how you worded this!!

My little brother is a homosexual and claims to be born gay. He and I both know that is a lie when he was young he originally liked girls and tried it actrully was in a relationship for quite a long time with one in particular.

I am a very open person whom could care less if you love a man or women reguardless your gender, a person will be their own unique self with or without others permission. Unless a human acting god would like to judge and kill them because they are different (Some socities do that btw)

Anyways later in his life he found out he was more attracted to men and kicked the girl idea and has been happier than ever since. My point is how can one judge so badly on another when it doesn't involve them in anyway? I take marriage very seriously and my brother does too I have 3 year limit he cant have a limit because its not avalible to him unless he goes to navada.. So what if he loves a man?? Its not your or my problem. its simple. let it be.

In earlier post thier was some people ranting about if this is allowed where would the anarky stop?! Group Marriages would be allowed blah blah blah, Im not even going to touch that like seriously how do you figure?

Being my fourth post ill stop here think about it. :jump:

[StormChaser]

Thank you for your response Light.
Let me suggest that this needs to be addressed in the Religious thread and it was my fault for raising the question here.
Somehow I don't think that boxcar is going to buy the idea that
"If it feels wrong,then it is wrong. If it feels right then it is right."
The development of arguments in favor or against that idea are the stuff that is probably beyond the scope of this thread.

Sorry didnt see this post. :eek:

[delayjf]

Originally Posted by Light
I know that question was for Boxcar but it is a universal question to a lot of people so I'll answer it.

Since God created us,he also created the pleasure we get from sex. If sex was not meant to be pleasure,then it would be as nonchalant as peeing or pooping. Just a biological act without any pleasure associated with it.

The issue with sex outside of marriage or between two men or two women is not something God judges. Remember, God does not judge. If God loves us, he loves us unconditionally.

Therefore,the association of "guilt" with sex is purely man made.It is not handed down from God.God does not hand down "guilt trips".

The confusion of what "God says" and what "man says God says" came about from political roots. Religion has always been a way to "control" man's cultural habits.

Jesus said the "Kingdom of heaven is within you". (And I know that is the real truth). Yet everyone keeps looking towards the sky. You do not need to read the Bible to know what is right or wrong.You just have to look within.

You can believe anything you want. But the truth is within.If it feels wrong,then it is wrong. If it feels right then it is right. Who are we to judge the consensual relationship between two people. That is between them and God. And God does not judge nor does he walk around with a Bible written by man. He created man and is not bound by their words. God's true teaching's are built within each and everyone one of us as Jesus said.

When you are born,you naturally know what is right or wrong. We also do not judge. It is our cultural upbringing that override our "natural" knowledge of what is right and wrong with an "artificial" cultural knowledge of what is right and wrong. One country believes something is right another will kill you for it. There is no truth or reality when it is culturally defined. Since there is only one truth,its the reason why Jesus pointed us back within and why he came here. The real truth, love and peace are within.

Boy, so I guess you can have your cake and eat it too. So you inferred all that from Jesus telling us that the Kingdom of Heaven is within??? that God is telling us just to do your own thing as long as you feel its alright inside....REALLY???? So who needs Jesus to absolve our sins....there's no such thing as sin. Ted Bundy's of the world rejoice.

[StormChaser]

Boy, so I guess you can have your cake and eat it too. So you inferred all that from Jesus telling us that the Kingdom of Heaven is within??? that God is telling us just to do your own thing as long as you feel its alright inside....REALLY???? So who needs Jesus to absolve our sins....there's no such thing as sin. Ted Bundy's of the world rejoice.

So what your saying is that jesus will come back (Needs to be in the Religious forum) and save us again?!

This doesnt make since cause it contridicts your statment because if he were to come back and save us again then we could do what we want when we want because are to be saved again. right? :lol:

In this forum to love is not a sin just because a book fobids it when that person dies and is judged at the gate whether to come in to heaven sent hell is between god and that person not you and a book is where i think light was coming from.

[boxcar]

Boy, so I guess you can have your cake and eat it too. So you inferred all that from Jesus telling us that the Kingdom of Heaven is within??? that God is telling us just to do your own thing as long as you feel its alright inside....REALLY???? So who needs Jesus to absolve our sins....there's no such thing as sin. Ted Bundy's of the world rejoice.

Leave him alone. He's hallucinating. What else could possibly explain this thoroughly absurd self-defeating statement?

Jesus said the "Kingdom of heaven is within you". (And I know that is the real truth). Yet everyone keeps looking towards the sky. You do not need to read the Bible to know what is right or wrong.You just have to look within.

An inquiring mind needs to ask: If we don't need to read the bible to find out truth, then how did Light find out that Jesus said that? :rolleyes:

Unbelievable! So many blind lost sheep and so little time left...

Boxcar

[Light]

Boy, so I guess you can have your cake and eat it too. So you inferred all that from Jesus telling us that the Kingdom of Heaven is within??? that God is telling us just to do your own thing as long as you feel its alright inside....REALLY???? So who needs Jesus to absolve our sins....there's no such thing as sin. Ted Bundy's of the world rejoice.


Obviously you have no clue what "Kingdom" Jesus was talking about that is within you. I can assure you,it is not the Kingdom of Ego that you portray.

[Light]

An inquiring mind needs to ask: If we don't need to read the bible to find out truth, then how did Light find out that Jesus said that? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

There are people whose cultures do not teach the teachings of Jesus and the Bible.There are people that have heard of neither.

Do you think a power which created you and this entire multiverse is limited by space,time or not reading the Bible?

[boxcar]

There are people whose cultures do not teach the teachings of Jesus and the Bible.There are people that have heard of neither.

Do you think a power which created you and this entire multiverse is limited by space,time or not reading the Bible?

No, God is not limited by anything, save for the constraints of his holy nature. But be certain of this: Everyone whose name has been written in the Lamb's Book of Life (Rev 21:27) from the foundation of the world will be saved.

Boxcar

[delayjf]

Obviously you have no clue what "Kingdom" Jesus was talking about that is within you. I can assure you,it is not the Kingdom of Ego that you portray.

Is this like a "gay thing"? :eek:

[StormChaser]

Is this like a "gay thing"? :eek:

Honestly I dont think it has anthing to do with Same Sex Marriage... these two are ranting..

[hcap]

/lQ5I98zgcxM?

[Tom]

Too bad we can't put one of those arrows over his real mouth......never hurts to stop BS at the source.

[Rookies]

/lQ5I98zgcxM?

Pretty good one, Mosty! :ThmbUp:

'Liberty' & 'University' used in the same name declaration: Oxy-Moron... heavy on the :lol:

[hcap]

Too bad we can't put one of those arrows over his real mouth......never hurts to stop BS at the source.


LU was founded in 1971 by Jerry Falwell. One of the idiots, Pat Robertson being the other, of the dynamic duo that blamed 911 on gays and other bible sinners here in the US, thus bringing God's wrath and judgment.

And LU pretends to be an educational institution?
Might as well make Cotton Mather dean.

(Or Toxicar)

http://www.powells.com/images/blog/blog_kirsten_perfectdiscovery.jpg

http://reefermadnessmuseum.org/chap02/Catholic/CottonMatherAAA.jpgp


***Cotton Mather, the minister of Boston's Old North church, was a true believer in witchcraft. In 1688, he had investigated the strange behavior of four children of a Boston mason named John Goodwin. The children had been complaining of sudden pains and crying out together in chorus. He concluded that witchcraft, specifically that practiced by an Irish washerwoman named Mary Glover, was responsible for the children's problems. He presented his findings and conclusions in one of the best known of his 382 works, "Memorable Providences." Mather's experience caused him to vow that to "never use but one grain of patience with any man that shall go to impose upon me a Denial of Devils, or of Witches"

[Tom]

hcap, whatever point you thought you were making, it was lost when you chose the mouth of a toilet bowl to spread it. The messenger is a POS of the first order and has absolutely nor credibility.

[boxcar]

hcap, whatever point you thought you were making, it was lost when you chose the mouth of a toilet bowl to spread it. The messenger is a POS of the first order and has absolutely nor credibility.

It's no wonder that Hcap chose Potty Mouth. Stinky, Foul Minds think alike.

Boxcar

[hcap]

So you guys think Falwell and Robertson ARE not assholes, and they are not "potty mouths" for blaming 911 on gays and lesbians and other anti-bible sinners?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=kMkBgA9_oQ4

[boxcar]

So you guys think Falwell and Robertson ARE not assholes, and they are not "potty mouths" for blaming 911 on gays and lesbians and other anti-bible sinners?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=kMkBgA9_oQ4

No, they're not. They're just stupid. On the other hand, Maher is stupid and a foul mouth ignoramus.

Boxcar

[Lefty]

One good thing Falwell did do that I admired him for was his Church took in unwanted babies. How many babies has Maher saved?
He uses foul language as a substitute for wit.

[classhandicapper]

No, they are not free to live their lives as they want. They are unable to commit to spend their lives with a person they love. The state is intruding in gay relationships by not allowing them to enter into them.

At one time in many states it was morally unacceptable for races to mix. That was wrong. In a free society, people should be free to do as they wish as long as they are not harming others. Two gay people getting married harms no one.

Anyone who claims to support individual liberty and opposes same sex marriage either does not understand what individual liberty is, or does not really support liberty. This should be the easiest issue in the world for conservatives in the Goldwater tradition to embrace.

Liberty is not subject to the whims of a ballot initiative. To quote a pretty good document "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". If you will deny one group of people their rights because you find what they do (which doesn't affect you in any way shape or form) icky, then you really do not embrace the principles of liberty that our the cornerstone of our nation.

I consider myself a libertarian but I don't agree with you about liberty.

Setting aside the issue of gay marriage, free societies can and often do have rules that most libertarians are in favor of even when no one is harmed by the behavior. They tend to get implemented when virtually everyone of sound mind agrees on appropriate vs. inappropriate behavior.

If I started running around naked at Belmont, I wouldn't be harming anyone. But I might offend some people, make them uncomfortable etc... So society limits my freedom and says I can't do that. As far as know, most libertarians are on board with that specific limit on my freedom because they don't want to see my private parts swinging in the wind. :eek:

IMO the issue of gay marriage should not even be an issue.

If gay people were really just interested in legal equality, then civil unions that guaranteed legal equality would suffice and pass mustard with a lot of people that currently reject gay marriage on religious grounds.

Many religious people consider marriage to be a religious sacrament with thousands of year of tradition that by definition means joining a "man and woman" period end of story. They believe it's not just a legal contract joining two people. They don't want the definition changed.

Change the word from marriage to civil union and you don't limit freedom, you just eliminate a lot of the resistance.

What makes this a problem is that many gays insist on calling their unions a marriage because they don't just want legal equality. They want to change the culture and definition of something with thousands of years of tradition and religious belief associated with it. They want to attack the influence of religions that find their behavior sinful or offensive or whatever. So naturally there is resistance.

This is a needless fight.

[hcap]

/d2n7vSPwhSU?

[Robert Goren]

The people who are opposed to gay marriage are using pretty much the same arguments that were used 60 years ago to oppose the end of segregation. That should give you pause.

[Greyfox]

Change the word from marriage to civil union and you don't limit freedom, you just eliminate a lot of the resistance.

What makes this a problem is that many gays insist on calling their unions a marriage because they don't just want legal equality. They want to change the culture and definition of something with thousands of years of tradition and religious belief associated with it. They want to attack the influence of religions that find their behavior sinful or offensive or whatever. So naturally there is resistance.

This is a needless fight.

Exactly. :ThmbUp:
The traditional view for centuries has been that the word "marriage" is reserved for a special relationship between a man and a woman.
Expanding that definition to include same sex couples is a major qualitative change in the meaning. Certainly most churches and church goers are going to adamantly oppose any attempts to dilute what they believe to be sanctified by God.
I don't go to church, but I DO NOT want the original intended definiton changed.

If gays want equal legal rights, let that be covered by the term "Civil Union."


I've never met anyone who writes dictionaries.
However, I note that since at least the 1990's, dictionary makers have been including homosexual relationships in their definition of marriage.
I don't like that. But that's the way it is.
Even as I use the term "homosexual" here some eyebrows might be raised.
Seemingly it's more socially acceptable to use the term "gay" than anything else. (Yet when I was a kid it was commonplace to hear "fag," "queer," and "fruit" and no one thought much of it. Heaven forbid you use that type of language in polite company now.)


By the way, let me remark that homosexuals have learned that language can be powerful. Even their choice of the word "gay" is a means of trying to make their behavior more socially acceptable.
At the same time it has robbed us "straights" of a wonderful word in the English language.
When I was young it was great to be "gay" in the sense that one was light hearted and happy. Lots of people used that term in their daily conversations.
Today that term is seldom used in the initial sense that it was intended for.
Indeed, the dictionaries are now giving gay as referring to sexual orientation as the primary definition, with joyful and blithe taking secondary places.
Being robbed of that word, I'm not in favor of letting them rob us of the word "marriage."

[GaryG]

So, if I am opposed to homosexuals marrying each other I am a homophobe, right? I am not afraid of the bastards, I just think marriage is strictly for a man and a woman.

So then, if I oppose a father and daughter who want to get married that must make me an incestophobe. How about a father and a son? If two men can marry there must be no restrictions on whomever is allowed to do so.

So, the child says "I'd like you to meet my mother Steve and my aunt Charlie".... :lol:

[Tom]

At the wedding, there were two grooms,
And soon after, they went to their room,
And argued all night,
over who had the right,
to do what, and with which,
and to whom.

[Marshall Bennett]

So, if I am opposed to homosexuals marrying each other I am a homophobe, right? I am not afraid of the bastards, I just think marriage is strictly for a man and a woman.

So then, if I oppose a father and daughter who want to get married that must make me an incestophobe. How about a father and a son? If two men can marry there must be no restrictions on whomever is allowed to do so.

So, the child says "I'd like you to meet my mother Steve and my aunt Charlie".... :lol:
:ThmbUp:

[Marshall Bennett]

At the wedding, there were two grooms,
And soon after, they went to their room,
And argued all night,
over who had the right,
to do what, and with which,
and to whom.
:ThmbUp::ThmbUp:

[IBCNU]

At the wedding, there were two grooms,
And soon after, they went to their room,
And argued all night,
over who had the right,
to do what, and with which,
and to whom.

Tom....had a rough day at work and was going to go home in a funk ; then I read this.....dude, I'm still laughing. Is this your original?

[IBCNU]

If I opposed same sex marriage, I would feel really uncomfortable that the same arguments used to oppose it the same arguments that the bigots used in the 60s to oppose civil rights for blacks including interracial marriage.
There will be time in the not to distant future when gay marriage will be legal every where because of economics. Nebraska, like a lot of states, spends offers millions for companies to relocate here. They recently lost out on a company which would have employed about 1,000 people. The owner stated publicly that it was because of our anti-gay marriage law. They went to Iowa in which gay marriages are legal.

I don't buy this argument. Are we going to equate the fight for civil rights to what is essentially a sexual fetish? What are homosexuals being denied exactly? Any straight/homosexual person can will thier assets to whomever they please. They can work wherever they please so long as the person hiring them is willing to pay. Who will interfere with them if they raise any children? Marriage is a time honored institution for raising a family and yes, Reproducing. Homosexuals can have thier domestic unions. I wont accept being called a bigot (not saying your doing that) because I choose to resist this radical redefining of marriage.

[StormChaser]

At the wedding, there were two grooms,
And soon after, they went to their room,
And argued all night,
over who had the right,
to do what, and with which,
and to whom.

:) :lol: ;) :D :eek: :rolleyes: :D :faint: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

That was great man

[Tom]

Tom....had a rough day at work and was going to go home in a funk ; then I read this.....dude, I'm still laughing. Is this your original?

Coming clean, no....I'd heard it somewhere before.

[Greyfox]

Coming clean, no....I'd heard it somewhere before.

On your wedding night???:lol:

[HUSKER55]

:lol:

[Tom]

Greyfox.....Bang! Zoom! To the moon!!!!!:D

[horses4courses]

Whew What a topic!...People from every state are reeling and celebrating Obama's views on this subject.In all honesty this is something that has gone on since the man first walked the earth..I say there is someone for everyone and if its two people that care about each other then Let It be.So what if you yourself dont like it,Thats still not a reason to deny someone some happiness whether they are a same sex couple or not.Nothing wrong with raising children either.Same sex couples are doing the same as a man and wife,Going to work and also fighting our wars and raising their kids.These people should not be banished just because they do this.I think the world would be a better place if everyone had someone to love and care for.Kudos to Obama for trying to free these people.!

Thumbs up to the original poster :ThmbUp:

Iowa couple finally marry after 72 years together.

Humanity is coming along on these issues - slowly, but surely.
Seems that western world countries are leading the way.
This is a nice story, regardless of your views on the topic.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/09/alice-dubes-vivian-boyack-iowa-72-years-marriage?CMP=twt_gu

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BxHD79tIgAAiAdN.jpg

[HUSKER55]

Then why assault the church?

[horses4courses]

Then why assault the church?

Who is assaulting the church?
I don't follow you....